beowulf99, as someone else just said, house rule it if you'd like, but there is no reason to believe that a feat is intended to amplify a magic item. It already has its advantage of giving you a great climb speed, and there is no reason, IMO, to expect it to amplify a magic item in addition to its already nice benefits. But, do as you will...Do you really expect that the rules for the boots of speed would say something like "BTW, if there is another affect that would seem to amplify the effect of this magic item, it only ever does what it says here." Conversely, do you expect the feat to say, "If something else increases the land movement, this feat will not amplify that effect. The climb movement is only ever the same as the land movement."
Craft for ADVENTURERS should not be profitable. This is an adventure game, not a merchandizing game. The actual craftsmen in the world who aren't adventurers clearly make a profit (or at least a living), and they don't observe the same restrictions that part-time crafters like PCs have to observe. That is the RAI, anyway, in my opinion. As to the PFS, well, can't speak to that.... Sounds like a screw-up.
The first line of the flat-footed condition states
This is where common sense needs to come in. Sustaining a spell makes it last until the end of your turn. There is no need to sustain a spell again the same round because it doesn’t need it. They could have worded the action a little more carefully so people wouldn’t be asking this question but good grief there are enough real issues with the rules that we shouldn’t be wasting our time on something like this that should be obvious.
Nor does it make a difference to new GMs. Most new GMs are going to use published material (most old ones do), so what does it matter? Few people launch into RPGs straight-away as a GM, so what value is this kind of recommendation? As has been pointed out, the # drastically depends upon the challenge of the encounters. So, if there were to be one, it would need to be along the lines of X number of easy+Y number of moderate....
Bottom line is that a recommendation is either so trivial as to be useless or so complex as to be a straight-jacket (and therefore also useless). If a GM can't develop their own sense for encounters/day, they should probably not be GMs. Additionally, how would a GM enforce it? If the players decide to take a break (maybe because they believe the big baddie is two rooms over?), what is the GM going to do? "I'm sorry, you can't take a break right now, you still have one encounter left before you reach the recommended number of encounters per day."
I agree having a guideline won't ruin storytelling ... but only if the storyteller ignores the guideline.
Driving is hardly hazardous compared to fighting to the death. I don't see how you can even draw a comparison between those activities. If there were real adventurers, there wouldn't be a GM who ensured that the encounters they will face are balanced. In a real world where people would adventure, they have no guarantee that what is around the next corner isn't a red dragon. So, if people were to live in a world where adventuring occurred, for the most part, they would be very cautious. Those who aren't would be dead quickly.
The GM is at liberty to go into encounter mode at any point he wishes. While the new rules don't provide formal rules for surprise situations, the GM should take into account the circumstances of exploration when transitioning to encounter.
Think about it a second without metagaming. If you are a character your very life is in jeopardy. Without knowing what you may face around the next corner/bend in the river, without other constraints, would you want to face possible death without maximum readiness?
If the GM isn’t pleased with the party’s risk aversion, he can handle it in several ways:
Tower shield seems I’ll conceived. If you actually have it equipped, it would seem it should auto-raise. Just think about it a minute: if you have it equipped how could you not have it raised? If you didn’t it would be dragging the ground. To make them even viable I would probably rule they are always raised when equipped. Then you have to spend an action to gain the additional benefit.
Yes, I see it now. Boy, they could hardly confuse things worse. When you specialize you get an extra spell slot and an extra known spell in your school. This is not to be confused with a school spell, which is just another name for a focus spell, that you cast using your focus point pool. I sure wish they had stayed with the power terminology. This focus spell crap is confusing for those of us who grew up playing RPGs. It will really confuse someone new to RPGs.
Well, if you did it, you would be doing it for short-term gain. Later, as you get all the ability plus-ups, you are better off getting a new trained skill at first level because you get to add an ability modifier that will be higher than +2 later in the character's life. So, I am almost certainly going to house rule that you can take a choice of either making something you are trained in expert for the short-term gain with the proviso that you cannot retrain it later if you make that choice.
Well, that is why I am saying it was a big mistake to change Powers to Focus Spells. All it did was confuse the terminology. And the only real motive was because they put the blooming powers in the spells chapter in the playtest. What an idiot thing. I am not necessarily opposed to borrowing the spell mechanic for powers, but they really confused things by calling them focus spells. They also limited their design space because it's hard to see a fighter or barbarian archetype ever getting anything called a focus spell.
I suspect we will regret that. Part of the issue in the play test was that powers were in the spell list. Now they aren’t. They don’t take normal spell slots and having at least one of them without having a spellcaster level doesn’t get you anything that requires you to be a spellcaster.
The DM is free to go into encounter mode when (s)he deems appropriate. If there is a situation where the PCs (or bad guys for that matter) are doing something in an effort to guarantee surprise, start the encounter mode early, and then, yes, if the bad guy won initiative, he would simply do nothing until the PCs went. You might narrate it by describing that the guard pauses in his step for a moment but then moves on.
It seems like the consensus is that you should be able to do what the OP wants in terms of the way real-world shields and slings were built, but that the rules leave significant doubt that the RAW would allow it. Well, don't forget rule one:
"The first rule of Pathfinder is that this game is yours. Use
So, if the consensus is that it should be do-able, then make it so! I'm not saying I'm opposed to getting the rules fixed to clarify, but in the interim, no one should be in doubt about doing what seems to be the right thing.
It could be they are letting third party publishers do some of them, witness this from an e-mail I got form Rising Pheonix:
Written by the talented Kim Frandsen, with classical artwork by Bob Greyvenstein, Heaven & Hell: Aasimar & Tiefling Ancestries presents two popular races (or ancestries), fully compatible with the second edition of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
Heaven & Hell
Inside you'll find:
- Everything you need to create an aasimar or tiefling character.
A new adventure has begun, choose your side.
Core Rulebook errors:
Earlier in this thread, someone made the assertion that enemies will simply step away to prevent the Paladin's Retributive Strike. Do I have a gross conceptual error? I thought that reactions were triggered immediately upon the occurrence of the trigger and not on the player's turn. So, if something attacks from a square you threaten against one of your enemies, you could immediately attack that enemy, as the trigger occurred before that enemy had a chance to step out of your reach.
The new Retributive Strike also basically gives your ally/friend an invisible three point hardness (at Paladin first level) shield that prevents the first three points of damage. I think the retributive strike is actually now pretty good.
The Ranged Reprisal class feat, however, confuses me a little bit. For the use of a ranged weapon part of things, I am having trouble imagining when you could use that. When would you be in a fight where an opponent within you reach attacked an ally and you were wielding a ranged weapon? (I am assuming you have to be wielding a ranged weapon to use this aspect since it doesn't give you a free manipulate action to draw a ranged weapon).
As for the step portion of the reaction, it is hard to envision a scenario where you could step without entering the square of another ally or enemy to hit the triggering enemy. I haven't read anything that leads me to believe you are allowed to share squares with an ally or enemy as a medium sized creature. Anyway, I am having trouble seeing a scenario where you could use the step and attack an enemy. What am I missing here?
OK, my player built a Human Fighter and took Versatile Heritage. From there, he took Natural Ambition, which gave him a 1st Level Figher Feat. He chose Double Slice. As a fighter, he gained access to another level 1 Fighter Feat, and he chose Sudden Charge. So, the question becomes if he uses Sudden Charge to stride 2x speed and strike, can the strike be a Double Slice?
A month after your "almost there" post. Can you tell us a little of what you are thinking?
Recently, I had a large order including the revised Crimson setting. It was a very expensive order and also contained all my monthly materials. When it didn't arrive with several days of shipping, I contacted Paizo. They checked and said that the post office showed it 'In Transit,' and I would have to contact them to initiate a case to find the package.
I did so (hard to do since you can only do it during business hours - who does that any more in this day - only the Post office). They opened a case, and an agent called two days later. She basically said that the status was the status, denied they ever received the package, and said I had to contact the shipper.
I did so, and Paizo immediately sent out a replacement.
Now, I've had over 162 orders with Paizo, and this is the first time I can remember having a problem. In this case, since the post office showed it 'in transit,' to me that seems they implicitly acknowledged the package was in their system. I hope Paizo pursues this with those rascals because I don't see how this can be Paizo's fault.
Anyway, Paizo is the best!