Sometimes (in many ways really) the game doesn't make any sense towards RL limitations.
Take the OP's question of how do you carry it? As I was pointing out in another thread (and as is the case for our group in the Giants AP I'm playing in) a 19 inch tall grippli (which the race description says is still size small) can wield that aforementioned sarissa, making attacks out to 20' away. Being that tiny, the grippli actually has arms about 6" long and to 'actually' hit targets that far away, the sarissa would have to itself be 20' long, which would be the equivalent of a average human wielding a polearm 70' effectively in combat. (Even though it says its 15' and adds that much to normal reach, which the grippli has, by their size.)
Its essentially nonsensical, yet its legal by the rules. Personally I just chalk it up to a mixture of magic and cinematic flair, that larger than life essence that permeates many fantasy novels and films. That is IMO what the rules generally are trying to simulate, not realism.
Personally I'd like to see some race-boon allowance in Core. In regular play there's many different races available - those on boons and the seven from Advanced Race Guide, and no matter what race you play there is no feeling of it being anything unusual. In core play it would be.
You would still want to throttle it, of course. What I think would work would be allowance of one boon for one's core play - 1 only at any given time. (Until the character dies, then one could use another such boon.)
It would let people use boons and have something unusual at a core table, but not open the floodgates. And give players a place (for instance) to use character boons now made superfluous by open creation permission in regular play. (kitsune, nagaji, wayang, ifrit, oread, sylph, undine) Right now I have several of those, from GMing at conventions.
Since non-core races generally don't change how things work - they just have their stat bonuses and other minor race things slightly different from other races, it wouldn't be a confusing thing like allowing an archetype, I feel.
Waldenbooks vanished from my area long ago, which saddened me... it was where I shopped for books back then. I've never heard of Hastings or Books a Million. Its B&N nowadays for me. I have several nooks sitting on my desk (different generations) and buy 3/4 of my books as digital now. But there's a few series I still collect the paperbacks for (Pathfinder Tales, books by Illona Andrews, Kat Richardson, Raymond Feist, Brandon Sanderson, Beth Bernobich and Mercedes Lackey) and only William Gibson's for hardbacks. Mostly, anyway. Everything else these days I buy for nook-reading.
Its been sad seeing most of the bookstores go away though. And the used-bookstores along with them, it seems like.
A few ideas off the top of my head...
I have to agree with the calls for more Azlant content, as well as the Eye of Abendego. Maybe adventuring into the deep dark of the sea would allow recovery of ancient Azlanti secrets or artifacts which would in turn allow a group to penetrate and explore the Eye? Is it just a giant sucking hole in reality? Maybe its just Aroden is laid out having a migraine? Or perhaps a hiding place he created when he discovered is own ability to see the future was actively calling a horrible menace to Golarion. In any case, I could see the mystery of Aroden being woven into an adventure exploring Azlant ruins and the Eye.
I'd also love an exploration of Iobaria... maybe something that starts in the Jutland Wrecks and delves into the Lake of Mists and Veils, then leads onwards to cover Cyclopean secrets/ruins and into the secret depths of Dirrinir?
A module to follow/expand on Iron Gods? With a ship cobbled together (part technological and part magic and bound elementals to fill in the gaps) players could launch forth into the beyond to seek the origins of the starships that fell upon Golarion.
Some kind of scavenger-hunt romp through the planes, perhaps set out of the city of brass and delving into other, deeper extraplanar areas from there while dealing with intrigue and manipulation from different factions of the city's residents.
An afterthought for the shapeshifters.. or at least the foxes.. you might buff their animal form a bit so they don't feel useless in fights that come up before they learn to change. Then when they do, say they sacrifice some of their strength in the process, and revert the animal form to rules-standard. An alternative idea that takes more work, would be to design in some challenges/situations where the animal form gets to shine (sneaking into places only they can get into, getting information from other animals of the same kind, etc.)
Good luck with the game! It sounds like it will be awesome, and I envy your players :)
If an ability has a type listed (Su, Ex) but it grants abilities of a different type, what does it count as?
I'm still confused about fast healing provided by a magic item. The definitions of natural healing and magical healing seem to say natural healing is long periods of rest, and anything else restoring hp damage is magical healing. Fast healing as an ability says it functions like natural healing (aside from some exceptions specific to it) without really explaining the as natural healing part. To me that suggests that the fast healing amount increases when under long term care of a healer or taking a long rest (24 hours+ in bed, resting)... which seems odd, as unless its a very slow fast healing, even a god would be back to full hp from staggered in less than one night's rest. Fast healing is an ex ability, but though it says it works as natural healing, it doesn't fit the definition, which would put it in the magical healing category, except that it's not because its ex. But then there is a magic item that gives fast healing, which would make it magical healing? Its confusing on the whole, like they decided 'ok we're going to give you magical healing, and call it non-magic. Even though its magic, we'll just say its not.' It certainly seems like the duck test applies...
Definitely need your players on board with the setting.
But for ideas:
One is that druids as a class, and kitsune as a race, might start play in animal form. A druid would pick an animal form to be their base form.. and when they gain wild shape they could learn how to take humanoid forms. It works well for the talking fairy animals theme. Same with Kitsune of any class - start out in fox form, and have to take a feat to become humanoid, analogous to taking fox form as a feat for a normal character. Might work for nagaji druids too.
Characters of the above types could also work with a number of fairy tale themes, like transformed princes/princesses, magically cursed folk, etc. For such characters getting their forms unlocked, have something happen in the flow of the story to allow it - then require them to take the associated feat at their level-up.
As far as magic goes... I've never had the impression magic is only evil. Fairy tales are full of fairy godmothers, wizards, good magicians/sorceresses/etc. They're just usually noted in passing or in the background. Much like university professors and scholars in real life: there's lots of them out there, but its generally the ones that do something bad that you hear about (assuming you're outside their scholarly social circles).
In stories the good wizard might be the object of the protagonist's quest, struggling to reach them to fix some problem or lift an enchantment. Or they might be the master/teacher of the hero, while the latter gets into trouble when they're not around or on some errand they were sent to complete. In a fairy tale setting campaign goodly magic workers fit in just fine. They can take commissions from the heroes just like a normal pathfinder campaign, to make them magical things to help them (armor, weapons, potions, etc.). They can also be adventure hooks, sources of lore, frequent quest-givers to send them to collect this mystical plant/animal, that lost relic, explore unknown places, and so on.
Dwarves in fairy tales: I generally think of some sullen or reclusive, inherently magical beings, very tied to the earth (or rarely fire) usually resentful of intrusion or indifferent to the outside world, and very hardworking. Generally not as slaves, forced to work, or working out of loyalty.. but because its simply their nature. And usually steeped in unfathomable knowledge of the crafting of powerful magical things. Though it does depend on what stories you're reading.
With a full night's rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night.
If you undergo complete bed rest for an entire day and night, you recover twice your character level in hit points.
Various abilities and spells can restore hit points.
The above are the only thing I can find about them... which isn't very helpful. However, from the look of it Natural Healing is defined only as the rest you get from 8 or more hours of bed rest, and any other abilities that restore hit points then fall under magical healing. That would make fast healing... magical healing.
As far as it goes, a society VO told me that fast healing counts as magical healing for the fast healer feat. Just being a VO doesn't mean they were right, but I would tend to take their word on it until I see a convincing argument otherwise. Certainly I've already made a character based on the pairing of fast healing and the feat Fast Healer, after their assurance. So if they don't work together I need to know. :)
On this subject, is there anywhere in the rules that natural healing and magical healing are defined?
For example, Boots of the Earth (a magic item) grants fast healing when you plant your feet and stand still. Fast healing works like natural healing, but since this is a magic item granting it I would also consider it magical healing, as I would healing granted by any other magic item. Does supernatural healing count as magic? or an Ex healing ability? Or alchemical? It would be helpful if there was a definition covering it.
James Risner wrote:
Its a nice link but it only argues for the RAI side of things. I think nearly everyone agrees with SKR on this, that its how it should work. Its just not how its written in the rules at present.
Actually under melee and ranged weapons (CRB pg.141) you'll see they've defined "Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee."
Below, under the text on thrown weapons it describes how to treat throwing a weapon not designed to be. A thrown 2-handed weapon attack is a full round action, and for any such it has range increment 10, 20/x2 criticals and -4 to hit penalty. If you look on pg. 144, where improvised weapons are defined it is the same penalty and other stats. So yes, there is a phrase defining your thrown greataxe as a ranged weapon (and thus a firing into melee penalty when applicable.
What there isn't is any text stating that its considered an improvised ranged weapon. It has exactly the same combat rules as for an improvised weapon, and most likely an gm will let Throw Anything cover it, but RAW it doesn't seem to be.
In 3.5 there were more than one type of weapon-like spell, and you could weapon-focus the different types. Acid splash is a missile which was one of the types. Paizo tried to clean up the rules some from 3.5 but there are things like this that slip through. I think they ought to re-add weapon-like spell types for our play. I don't find lacking the shooting-into-melee penalty for many spells to be much of a problem personally. Concealment and cover apply to all ranged attacks, and they're what are important at higher levels.
More specifically they cannot use precise shot and pbs for most spells because the feats say 'ranged weapon' Deadly Aim does not, so it will work with any ranged attack that isn't a touch attack (which includes things other than spells). Cover and concealment apply to all ranged attacks. However (and thank you for this thread teaching me) under the rules on shooting into melee, it specifically says 'ranged weapon' again... So spells other than rays that require a to-hit roll do not suffer that penalty. Unless there is a FAQ stating that all ranged spells that require a to-hit roll are considered weapons, then per the rules only rays are considered ranged weapons (possibly there could be specific spells that say there are, but they would be exceptions to the rule.) Rays can benefit from weapon focus, pbs, and precise shot, and do take penalties fired into melee without the feat. This inspires me to glance at kineticists and a certain vigilante archetype, to see how it applies... I'm not as familiar with them.
Bottom line is charge has clear rules how it works. Trying to take words out of context to argue your point is silly... that would be like taking an instruction to go to washington DC one step at a time and first going to the state (washington) and then looking for a DC comics outlet. D&D is played in a grid, so a little simple math ( well, geometry) you can easily do in your head will show what the closest space is that you can charge to, from which to attack the target. Draw a line center-to-center from the starting space to there. Does the line pass through any occupied spaces or other obstacles (like rough terrain)? If no, then you can charge. The start of this discussion was about what the rules are, not what they should be. Af far as it goes I totally agree mounted charges need some errata to make the 'continued movement' portion rules legal in most cases. (It actually does work as written if you're on a flying mount no more (and no less) than 5' above the target's level.) The thing to do really would be to start a petition to Paizo to clarify it in a FAQ or eratta. But for now the rules are what they are, for those of us in PFS. Home game GMs can modify as they please.
Unless Paizo rules on it (and I doubt they will as it seems fairly trivial), its going to come down to your DM's opinion.
My own is that you can dismiss the spell, since the spell's text only says that you can't cast spells with those components. I would presume you're simply not able to make gestures as quickly and precisely as needed to cast a spell while your body is gasseous... but still able to make the needed gesture to dismiss when you have all the time of a standard action to accomplish it.
Chess Pwn wrote:
It's talking about moving so it's the guy making the charge. Where is this guy moving? The closest space he can attack from. Since this isn't referencing a target you shouldn't interject the target as being the focus if the sentence. Because saying the closest to the target is just as supported as saying it must be the closest space to the nearest town or your furthest ally. So again using English, the sentence is only about the charger and thus everything is referenced from the charger
And specifically to the attacker's movement. You know what space they are starting from. Plot lines from there to each space they could attack the target from... only one is going to be the closest space they can move to.
I'd like to see Prysm and her Titans (the other H'San Natall hybrids) come back as a team. Guess I'll check this reboot thing out...
Why do you think polymorph effects don't change your type? A spell that changes you into a creature of X type means you are that type. If you're polymorphed or wild shape into a bear then spells like animal growth or speak with animals will work. And a kitsune fox shape acts as beast shape 2, which changes you into a form of animal type. That being said though, it doesn't look good for warlock mystic bolts as a fox. It's pretty clear in the ability description that the mystic bolts are treated as weapons which your paws woulsn't be able to wield. If it was considered spellcasting you could just take natural spell and rock on, but it doesn't. If you could somehow wield them though, as far as I can tell (from the lack of any mention in the text) the damage would be unaffected by size. A pixie or giant warlock would still be doing the same 1d6 bolts.
Because the game is played on a grid, simple geometry will tell you what the closest square is from which you can attack. The other thing I would point out is that unless you have abilities that say otherwise, you're charging to make a single attack. The weapon you're attacking with determines how close you have to be to the enemy at the end of your charging movement. A rogue for instance with a rapier in one hand and a whip in the other would charge to either 15' away or 5' away, dependant on which weapon he or she is making the charge to attack with. A player generally gets to choose what they're doing, what weapon they're attacking with, who they're attacking, what feats they are or aren't using, etc. That particular line in the charge rules basically reads "You must move to the closest space (to the space from which the charge originated) from which you can attack the opponent (with the melee attack you've chosen to make)."
Its much more effective I've found (if you want to be impressive magic-missle guy) to take the trait that lowers metamagic cost, and put the toppling spell metamagic on your missiles. Then each missile has a chance to trip the target, in addition to the damage it does. Costing an opponent actions is almost always better than costing them an extra hp or two. :)
... and suddenly there was three weeks of silence in this thread?
What I would like as a customer is to see new books and APs pushed back a bit and use the manpower to clear up the backlog of sanctioning.
Someone earlier suggested this doesn't generate much revenue for Paizo, but I disagree. For example, "Daughters of Fury" is a deluxe adventure for 3rd-level characters, and takes them up to 6th level... where I play we have a group of new players just reaching 2nd level with their characters. By mid-November they could be starting this, which I would prefer to run over other older low-level games since its new to me. However, I won't ever buy an adventure or module from Paizo until there's a chronicle sheet to go with it. So if it were sanctioned, I would buy it, giving them money and supporting new people just getting into our hobby.
This also supports the selling of more books, or at least it would if Paizo would be sure to put 2-3 items on each chronicle sheet that came from their smaller works, like Classic Treasures Revisited, Dark Markets the Katapesh companion, or Occult Mysteries, to name just a few of the many. Put interesting things on the chronicle sheets that people will want to buy (instead of potions of healing and +1 weapons) and they will get the books that are needed to use them.
Personally I think that producing the chronicle sheet for a work should be part of its production cycle. I don't see any reason it can't be done for everything else the same as it is with scenarios, and part of their release instead of separate.
Dry ice in the players' drinks (and yours) is always a nice touch when working a spooky or mystic atmosphere.
As for players walking away from something, I've heard several references, where a GM described how they had spent a lot of time preparing a whole big story arc for their campaign based on things the players asked for... and then when he was ready to start it they all suddenly decided to go for something different. If it were me, I'd just work the new idea they wanted into the rest of the plans, let them start with the new thing and have it feed into the planned events.
Define "Just because they feel like it." I can think of an individual or two I would not be willing to GM for as they have seriously and intentionally caused harm to those who matter to me, and RL trumps game.
It was expanded on in the first page of responses.
I would consider reasons (for not letting someone join a table) like "because he's always a rude ass to the other players/DM" or "the dude must never bathe, he smells like rancid meat" etc. to be decisions 'for cause' not 'just because they felt like it'
I read 'forego the attack at the highest bonus' as meaning its gone for the round, which leaves the +6 as the highest bonus to use for whirlwind.
However, you could argue another interpretation that 'forego' simply means that you aren't allowed to attack with that attack, in which case you still have it (you can't use it to attack among your iteratives in a full attack, but its there). In that case, when you decide to whirlwind instead of making a normal full attack, you follow the rules text for whirlwind: giving up the +6 and +1 and whirlwinding at +11, as you're not making the +11 iterative attack, but following the special feat text.
But since the above would effectively negate the cost of Rapid Attacking, I'm more inclined to agree with Byakko. His reading makes more sense that the other interpretations here (my own included).
Except that the decision to do Rapid Attack happens first, and this takes away the juiciest apple. (It has to be decided on and its price paid first since if you take a full attack and then decide that you're rapid-attacking to be able to move as well.. its too late, you've already spent all your attacks.) So now you only have a +6 and a +1 apple. You can spend them as two attacks in a full attack, or trade one or both of them for other effects in a full attack action. You could fight with a bow and rapid shot, and suddenly have three slightly smaller apples. Or in the case we're discussing, you could whirlwind attack, munching on that +6 apple and discarding the +1 apple.
If you're speaking of PFS play, the quick-runner's shirt isn't useable.
As far as Rapid Attack and Whirlwind, what Diminuendo proposes seems that it works to me. The cost of using Rapid attack at all is that it gives up your highest attack.. you then get to move and do a full attack action in th same turn. Before or after moving, when you choose to perform a whirlwind attack as your full attack action, (with Dim's character example) you give up your +1 attack and perform the whirlwind at +6, which is your highest attack-bonus attack available at that time (because you gave up the +11 to do the Rapid attack in the first place).
It seems very order of operationsish and straightforward to me.
Reasons I have heard for the table limits of 'only 4' or 'no more than 5' that I've seen haven't been about excluding any specific person for cause. Its been things like "more players than that bogs down the game" or "its too confusing having more than 4 players" or "pathfinder's meant for 4 player groups, so I won't run more than that." or "more than 5 players and there's no challenge, and people get bored."
Some of the games I've seen with player limits like this have been online games, with signups. But I've also been turned away from tables a couple of times at major conventions, when the GM didn't want to allow a 6th player at their table. I was certainly asking about games run in public places, not someone's private home.
As far as it goes though, I think online should be considered a public locale as much as a game store or convention, and take whoever wants to play, up to 6. With roll20 and the like, I find online games tend to go even faster than tabletop now. Everyone can see the map easily, and the GM doesn't need to draw out the dungeon... so I don't agree with a 'takes too long' opinion for online play.
Back in the day, when it was the Living City campaign that was the only national campaign, online games would take enormous amounts of time to play.. the games were typed through rather than talked and very slow. One '4 hour' game I played in online took 13 hours RL to play through, and most took around 8 hours. Things are much better now.
Anyway it seems I have my question answered. I had just wanted to know if there was ever a rule or injunction from on high that would-be players had to be accepted up to 6, for public PFS games. Something to go with the information that season 4+ scenarios are designed and balanced for 6 players. But it seems not. I just recently saw the posting for a game where the GM stated that people absolutely couldn't talk them into running for more than 4 people, and it reminded me of the other times I've seen limits being placed.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
I think high initiative helps anyone that wants to go first for whatever reason, martial character or not. My flowing monk loves to toss up a Shield or Mage Armor and run up in the middle of the baddies. My alchemist like to bomb them while they're in a nice group. My sound-striker likes to fling words at them while they're flat-footed. And so forth.
Deighton Thrane... is that Creighton Shane's evil twin?
I've read in the Guide to Organized Play about how to handle potential 7-player table situations or 3-player tables, but I've also seen something else a few times and wondered about it.
What I've seen is GMs who say "I won't run a 6 player table" or "I won't run for more than 4 people" etc. For one's own home game or whatever naturally its fine, but I was wondering if this is allowed for a PFS game?
I'm sure there's all kinds of opinions on the subject, but I'm not really looking to start a discussion on the relative merits and difficulties of different table sizes. What I want to know is if there's any official rule/FAQ/etc about it like "For a PFS game a GM can't turn anyone away that's interested, except a would-be seventh player" or conversely "There are no rules, the GM can run however they please." Something like that?
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
Certainly the vast size of the world was one of the things I loved in EQ, back at the beginning. Making a journey from one side of a continent to the other or across an ocean was a serious undertaking... when you would sail for 40 minutes of RL time, then run for another hour and a half to get where you were going, it did add a sense of the majestic to the game, of being in a World, not just a game. I'd like to see that again.
They ruined it in EQ by giving too many classes fast-running powers, and adding too many short-cut teleports and portals.
Works for me, given that the "placeholder edition", as you feel the need to denigrate it, is better than any edition of D&D to come out since the '90s ended (or any derivatives of those editions).
That's an opinion, and one I disagree with entirely. D&D next IMO is entirely too simplified. While I personally think 2nd Edition D&D was the best, 3.5 was far better than D&D next as well... it is what Pathfinder is based on after all. While I didn't consider 4th edition to be D&D, I did enjoy playing it at lower levels.
D&D next (aka 5th edition, the current D&D) is better than the "Basic set" D&D, where as I recall Elf and Dwarf were classes rather than races. But otherwise I don't see it as being better than any of the other editions.
What has bothered me most is TSR's treating the players of its games like dirt by cancelling thriving ongoing campaigns when they decided to put out a new edition of the game just as the campaigns were maturing into a rich depth of storyline development. They killed the Living City campaign (2nd ed.) and Greyhawk campaign (3.5 ed.) both times when they put out a new edition of rules (that nobody (or few) wanted at the time) to force us all to change to the new system. They did the same with 4th edition (though from what I hear about high-level play, it was a mercy-killing), and I have no doubt that in a few years (once sales slow down) they will decide 5th edition is too simplified, and will release a new edition that has more character options and depth, and summarily terminate the Adventurer's League.
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
Yet there are characters like that in comics. Jack Power from Power Pack, The Atom, Antman and the Wasp.. they're the ones who come readily to mind, who got stronger when they shrunk down.
They're saying it makes others feel inadequate when an efficiently-designed character struts their stuff.
Its not a totally wrong opinion, but not one I agree with since they're not taking into account that a very focused character is generally only good in one area of play. Any character focused to be good at something is going to "interfere with others enjoyment' in that area, where everyone else doesn't come close. But when you have a group of differently-specialized characters then that's a spotlight that changes from moment to moment.
I usually find that those unhappy-people made their character with no real focus on anything, aiming to be 'well-rounded' or balanced. Those kinds of characters are fine at low levels, but at higher levels the ones who put chains of feats and class abilities together will always outshine them. As that's their own choice, I don't think its right to complain about it when someone else put more thought into their build, and it shows in play.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Be glad she wasn't making climb checks on your legs, like my cats are fond of. :)
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Q: if a human has no natural attacks but can make an unarmed strike, can a creature with natural attacks make an unarmed strike? isn't such a creature never "unarmed" in the sense of the word? or is "unarmed strike" a type of weapon available to ALL creatures regardless of their shape or form. I'm thinking hummingbirds and say a sentient ooze creature or a golem made entirely of sharp blades, for example... some of these don't seem to have the capacity to make an unarmed attack either due to extreme feathery softness or extreme lethal nature...
Remember that unarmed strikes can be done not just with hands and feet, but also knees and elbows. Even beasties with claws/talons/etc. have at least one of those. Usually both.