Bradley Mickle's page

This is all abstract, to say the least. And it's completely guesstimate. After all, there's significant difference between types of skilled labor/capital in the Downtime system.

But let's say you are a woodcutter chopping trees. Using an axe, how many trees could you cut in a day? 5? 10?

Whenever I see a wagon load of lumber in pictures, it often has somewhere between 5 and 10 logs.

So I would say 1 capital = 1 wagon load. It's also pretty simple that way. You could argue that you should be able to get more, so I would probably be fine as a GM with 2 capital = 1 wagon load. But moving capital inherently should cost some capital.

Okay, thanks guys! I think I was correct with what I was assuming, although I wasn't sure if she continued to accrue the XP and gold if she was above level 7. Better to be sure, since you know what they say about assuming things.

She was applying them to a level 3 character. She's a newer player who isn't really too concerned about her character or gold wealth, more playing because she knows someone else who is. But I still didn't want her to feel frustrated with missing anything.

So I had a player that was in our last session. She played a level 7 pregen. When we started discussing what level to apply, the GM started by making the sheet out for her as a level 5 (the minimum required for the table). I told him, and showed him in the Season 6 guide, that you apply XP to either a level 7 or a level 1. We started discussing this, and she pointed out that she has several sessions at level 7. We counted out her certs and she had more than 4 XP prior to playing this session as a level 7 pregen, and was applying them all to the same character.

How is this handled? Does she apply it and proceed to apply that to level 8? Was I wrong and XP can be applied at the lowest available level? Does she just miss out on it?

Our Venture Captain was out this weekend for con, so we regrettably couldn't ask a higher authority.

I like they way you quickly break down the characters instead of trying to stat them.

One thing with iron man though is stark is just a human with maybe a couple of hit die but extremely high int, i would say that his suit levels up instead of him, and his suit gains spell like abilities and can be swapped out as he upgrades it.

Key abilities on the suit:
Fly, Scorching ray, Magic missile, a lot of different detect spells, IE detect doors, traps, different creature types.

so that would be a lot of home brew work but i think it would be fun.

If that were the idea, I'd go with a Summoner with an Inevitable eidolon. Which would work equally well, considering their ability to meld with their eidolon.

I would use Major Curse, which is a witch 5 spell. Remember, Bestow Curse and Major Curse also state "You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above." Here, you aren't causing a negative status such as negatives to saves or hit. You're causing a changed memory. I'd prefer to see something like Major Curse, as it seems strong thematically. To restore his memory would be a DC 5 + the witch's caster level + ability modifier. Assuming she's minimum level with minimum ability score, that's minimum of DC 22. I personally wouldn't have a 9th level witch without at least a 20 int (16 base, +2 racial, +2 from leveling). That would raise the DC by 3. Makes it a quest lead in to ever remove it.

You could offer glimpses that something isn't right. He could see someone that reminds him of someone he used to know, but can't quite explain how or why he used to know them. Kind of like deja vu. He also could run into someone that knew him from before, but maybe make the person seem crazed, adding strangeness to the whole encounter. I like the RP concept and the ability you as a GM can go with this.

I tend to think of 2 and 4 as default magical blades. 1 and 3 tend to make me think of higher magical settings.

In a low magic setting, 2 and 4 are powerful enough. Think Game of Thrones and the Valyrian Steel swords, or Lord of the Rings with Glamdring and Anduril.

In a higher magic setting, 1 and 3 come to mind. Lightsabers (not quite fantasy, but similar enough) from Star Wars, Power Swords from Warhammer 40k, the Vorpal Sword from Through the Looking Glass, or Charon's Claw from Forgotten Realms.

I'm sooo going to equip the new leg shield! That way I can avoid ending my adventuring career from pesky arrows in the knees.

Intent DOES matter. The designers, such as SRK's post that was linked in the very opening question, discusses the intent of a rule. It is very difficult sometimes to discern it, and often open to interpretation of opinion. I personally will deny shield bonus to anyone using this at any PFS tables I run.

I've FAQed this. But I agree with Aelryinth. I've always felt like a balancing trade-off was intended, you lose AC to get an additional attack. Yes, you can use your legs to kick, or armor spikes to attack, but the RAI, talked about by SKR is not to let you get everything you want. It's meant to balance. He cites the idea of getting claws (or bite) and adding in manufactured weapon attacks. The point of his post, I believe, was that there's a trade-off. As he says, the INTENT was to prevent someone from getting extra attacks by defining them differently. All you're doing here is defining that your using your other 'hand' to use a different weapon attack. I feel you should lose the AC of your shield. Anything else feels too much of munchkinism.

Add in Clustered Shots to bypass DR. But that's out of Ultimate Combat.

What materials are you allowed? You mentioned being limited to player's guide. So just Core Rulebook and Advanced Player's Guide?

I liked the Holy Vindicator getting his channel dice to his touch AC. Worked magnificently for my Life Oracle in Wrath of the Righteous.

You might be looking for the Antagonize feat, or some spell like Compel Hostility. Pathfinder doesn't have very many methods to force an opponent to focus on you, particularly long term. Check out this forum chain.

Much of this depends on how your GM plays, and what the party makeup is. If I am the only melee character and the rest are ranged, I take a reach weapon and maybe play a Phalanx Soldier or Polearm Master archetype of fighter. Add in combat reflexes and hopefully I can hit some enemies before they would go to my allies behind me. Sometimes it works. Maybe even specialize in trip to boot.

Long and short, it's not WoW or some other MMO. So I usually tend to focus on hitting hard and heavy to down the enemy quickly. My above comments are based on the premise you are looking to force the opponent to attack you and only you, of course.

Azata getting weapon prof, arms, legs, and resistance electricity. That's 9 evolution points at creation. Demons, for instance, arms, legs, claws, resist fire, resist electricity, and +4 poison resistance (which has no point value). That's 7 plus whatever the poison resistance would be. Considering the extra cost of having to have weapons for your summon, I don't think that's a huge plus in it's favor.

Perhaps later they gain some good benefits, but that still seems to force the player into picking the serpentine version and using primarily tail slap? My point there would be if you play one of the three good aligned summons, you are extremely limited on what you can create.

I just realized you also can't even make a hound archon. Summoner Archons aren't allowed bite attacks.

Then I'd like to say that good aligned summoners got screwed. I was also looking into this chat too.

In my case, I'm building a new summoner. I would like an azata because it fits thematically (my character is chaotic good so azata fits best). I would like a multi-armed eidolon; again it fits with my prankster/jongleur personality. In combat, that would make the most effective way for him to still be worthy would be with multi-weapon fighting.

Getting multiattack would do nothing for a creature that doesn't have natural weapons, as is the case for my exampled eidolon.

I look at what Dafydd said about Eidolons being more akin to monsters than normal creatures and personally agree. But I've never seen a ruling one way or the other. An eidolon would only get the max attacks, which makes perfect sense and wasn't really in question for me. But it would be far more efficient, and for me, kind of neat, to have a multiarmed shiva-style attacker, then using 3 feats to get 6 attacks at later levels (ie two weapon fighting, imp, etc).

Additionally, having blocked out all of the monstrous feats, blocks out things like Hover, Wingover, Improved Natural Armor and Improved Natural Attack (both of which can also be obtained via evolutions). I personally think they should be allowed, but suspect that they aren't. Kinda hoping for a clarification now that we have the Unchained that limits what certain types of Eidolons can do (Bipedal Azata and Angels, for instance, have little combat options as they can't have claws, tails, tentacles, pincers, gore, or bites)

And the wording on Bestiary PFS is "Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source; " Doesn't say anything about Eidolons. So are eidolons not mentioned by accident or on purpose?

This IS with the Unchained Summoner. Limbs (arms) is a 2 point evolution, attainable for a first level character (taking extra evolutions feat). A serpentine Azata has no claws but 2 arms, martial weapon proficiency, and a single feat. Taking the extra limbs gives it 4 arms. This is legal outside of PFS. I'm trying to clarify if it is legal inside of it.

As the title suggests, a Pathfinder Society question.

I was wondering if I make an eidolon with multiple arms (4) wielding weapons, if it was possible to take Multiweapon attack? I know that the Additional Resources specifies that all feats from the Beastiary are not legal for players, familiars, or animal companions, but I was wondering if this covered Eidolons as well? If so, I presume it is a waste to ever take multiple sets of arms, making a shiva style angel/azata impossible in PFS.

Am I correct in assuming this is not legal for Pathfinder Society?

On a side not, it was my area's venture captain running the game. And the guy doing the reposition is apparently an organizer from the surrounding region. I trust them as much as I'd trust anyone short of a Paizo FAQ.

In my PFS case, it was reposition. I can't recall if both were standing. The monk was not in the front of the party (we didn't have a true tank, and had a ranger in front that dropped quick) and had to reposition the squishy second in line. He then used the movement action to step up into threatened space to take over tanking duties. It would have provoked, but did not because an ally will not choose to attack him, and there were no enemies threatening him. I think we were in a 10 foot wide hallway doing a staggered line, with a 5 or 6 man party.

It is sort of a cheap way to get someone out of combat, but there's other ways too. Withdraw action, for instance, can be done by one's self. This action only moves a short distance, and requires someone's standard action. I don't look at is too bad, considering it was basically a five foot step that took a standard action. I would consider even an accepting ally having a basic CMD though of perhaps 10. That's where I'd question how far you could move someone. Considering placement, I don't think anyone could move more than 10 feet without moving themselves, and then I wonder how that action would occur (considering most CMB checks are replacements for attacks and the rules for moving and attacking).

I've had this used in PFS games. It's how we've dragged allies out of harm's way.

Awesome Blow is like making a bull rush. The Bull Rushed target does not get to make a ride check or similar. Compare this to the unseat feat. As far as being on a flying mount, yup, he goes Wyle E. Coyote.

For AoO, forced movement never draws attacks of opportunity.

For Paladins, I'd think more marching style classical. Think John Phillips Sousa or 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky. I think of them as spirited and martial.

I like Barbarians being "Let the Bodies hit the floor" by Drowning Pool. With their rage powers, I tend to think of them as fast paced metal. System of a Down and such. Something you could mosh to.

Raise Dead doesn't make much sense. If it can't restore lost bits, then it can't restore the bits of blood, bone, and meat left on the ground and your enemy's blade. Pretty sure you still need that.

If you look at Raise Dead, it specifically states that lost limbs do not regenerate. It depends on whether you consider legs that have been made into a pancake to be considered lost limbs. Personally, I think the whole concept should be that he has severe bleeding damage that won't go away until he's removed from the cause (healing doesn't stop the bleeding until removed). Or like Onyxlion suggested, an ability drain.

Would Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip stack? Or would that be getting multiple attacks from the same instigating action?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Dimension Door. It allows you to escape grapples. It's reasonable that the wizard couldn't cast it himself, what with the obscene Concentration check of being crushed.

The problem is two fold. First, you need to get the wizard out before you can heal him. Stone Shape or Passwall, maybe even Transmute Rock to Mud may work. Other options might be Freedom of Movement. My choice would be Dimension Door. But all of this runs with the idea that only a caster can free him. I don't like that as an encounter design, so you should probably offer a Knowledge (Engineering) or some Profession skill check. After all, surely miners have to deal with cave-ins? It is a similar concept.

The second problem is healing him. He's in serious bleeding out trauma condition, if he isn't already dead. He'll need a regeneration cast on him. Even Raise Dead might not work. After all, Raise Dead doesn't restore lost limbs. Are crushed/shattered/smashed limbs restored? I'd say that's pushing it. Breath of Life is a good option, but it sounds like Regeneration is the solution there. That is likely beyond the capabilities of the party, being level 7-11. The earliest they could get Regenerate is level 13. So you should probably stick with the idea that it doesn't require Regenerate, and some lesser power would work. Have him be at negative and bleeding out, and any healing would work. Even a stabilize check, so long as he's free of the collapsed building.

It's my understanding, also, that you don't provoke attacks of opportunity for being tripped. You only provoke when you stand back up. Vicious Stomp is what grants the ability to get an attack of opportunity for being tripped (and only an unarmed strike at that, so no weapon). And while on the ground, you can still attack standing foes.

Reading the feat, I read it as saying when you critically threat, you then roll a confirmation. If you confirm the critical hit, and the confirmation roll would exceed the opponent's CMD, you may also trip the target (in addition to the damage dealt). The part that confuses me is the line "if you are tripped during your own trip attempt". The line immediately preceding it says that it doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.

I would not grant the improved trip or tandem trip, as you are confirming a critical hit. This would be used during a normal attack action. It might, however, give reason for a trip based fighter to be interested in high threat range weapons.

My understanding with bows and ammunition is that they don't stack, you take the greater. But I would still think it caps at +10.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm

Short answer is the +10 overall is a hard cap and can't be passed by any means.

From the FAQ:

Weapon Bonuses: Can weapon special abilities (such as bane) or class abilities (such as a paladin's divine bond) allow you to exceed the +5 enhancement bonus limit and the +10 bonus-equivalent limitation?

For the enhancement bonus limitation, it depends on the specific effect or ability that's altering the weapon.

Bane: This allows the weapon to exceed the +5 limit, but only against the designated creature type. For example, a +5 dragon-bane longsword is normally a +5 weapon, but has a +7 enhancement bonus against dragons and deals +2d6 points of damage against dragons.

Paladin: The divine bond ability says "These [enhancement] bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon bonuses to a maximum of +5." That means if a paladin has a +5 longsword, she can't use her divine bond to increate the enhancement bonus to +6 or higher (but she could use her bonuses to add abilities such as flaming to the weapon).

The +10 bonus-equivalent limitation is a hard cap for all weapons; you can't exceed that even with class abilities or other unusual abilities.

I think it would see thru any obscuring fog or smoke effect. Even so, I suppose one could argue that it might be an issue of level effect (similar to light versus darkness).

I use Hero Lab more frequently than it sounds like you do. It doesn't take me quite that long unless there's been a new book release (such as Pathfinder Unchained) or a major patch update. I don't use the Combat Manager either, just the character creation tools. I also run it on 4 devices, so have to update 4 times.

I don't think the updates are that long, but perhaps I'm running on a faster internet. The 10MB file takes all of about 30 seconds for me. The 130MB file is a chore, but again, it only happens when there's a massive update; frequently a week or two after a major books release.

The only suggestion I'd say is if you don't want the new books added, which it sounds like you do considering the $$$ you put up, don't apply the update until after you are done. But if you want the increased database of character options, then it's a necessary evil with the way Hero Lab is designed. The alternative would be a web-based service. Perhaps Hero Lab will someday make a web-only application that won't require updates (but won't work offline) for you. You might contact them and inquire as to that option.

I would say you can retrain the class bonus spells later, but would say they still have to take the bonus spell slot as if it were from the above chart. This because it talks about retraining to replace spells that are capable of going in the same "slot". It's a little gray, but I'd say that this is all meant to be just like any of the Bonus Spells from any mystery; slotted to specific levels.

Okay. Then you have a bonus spell known from the Ancient Lorekeeper. Elven Arcana is the ability, and it allows you to select one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list at second level but it has to be lower than the highest level spell you know, and casts as a level higher than the Wizard version. So at level 2, you get a 0-level wizard spell known that casts as a 1st level Oracle spell. This pattern continues every even level until 18. This all replaces the bonus spells you'd gain from your Bonus Spells known from the Lore Mystery.

So as follows...

Character Level/Wizard Spell Level/Becomes Oracle Spell Level

2/0/1
4/1/2
6/2/3
8/3/4
10/4/5
12/5/6
14/6/7
16/7/8
18/8/9

So at 18th level, you get an 8th level wizard spell known to you as a 9th level Oracle spell. This 8th level wizard spell would replace Time Stop, the 9th level Lore Oracle bonus spell.

Make sense now? And once it is picked, it is picked. I suppose it may be possible to retrain based on the Ultimate Campaign, I'd have to look that up.

UncleDuck, which is it? Are you asking about the revelation Arcane Archivist or the Ancient Lorekeeper archetype?

Personally, I think the Lore revelations are pretty nice, including Arcane Archivist. It's not as flashy as some other revelations in other mysteries, but it's an extra spell of your choosing out of a spell list that you don't normally have access to.

First off, the Arcane Archivist requires level 11 before you can take it. You shouldn't be able to get that revelation until then. Personally, I think it is a strong revelation, being a very versatile ability.

With the Arcane Archivist, you carry around a spellbook (and there's no reason you can't copy additional spells into it like a wizard) for the purposes of casting a single spell per day off of the Sorcerer/Wizard list that is in the spellbook. When the spell is cast, it is removed from the book (which it says the spell is erased, so clearing the pages for re-copying the spell or another spell). You do not need to study the spell in advance or declare it at the beginning of the day.

The only other instance of Bonus Spells for the Lore Oracle that I see are the spell known you get at even numbered levels, which are picked for you.

You need to send him an email, since it's in Beta. He seemed very open about sending people the download link. I got in before I ever saw anything about not needing additional testers, so perhaps he won't be as open now.

I'll take a crack at this, since no one else has...

Cloak of the Manta Ray is a leather cloak in air or non-salt water. So the second a person would leave, they would then be back to normal.

Assuming the person wanted to maintain that state...

Life bubble would continue a artificial-magical saltwater environment, I think. I would require it to be cast while in the manta ray form, however, as it would maintain their requirement for living at the time of casting. Arguably, it could adapt as they exited the water, but I'm assuming you're looking for justification. After all, I'd assume there's easier ways to be a flying mount Now all of this wouldn't allow them to swim through the air.

Which is where you went with sky swim. Yeah, they can now fly using their swim speed. However, it only lasts a minute per level. Not very long.

As far as the now flying manta ray being a mount, I would say virtually anything can be used as a mount, but aren't trained as such. D20pfsrd does talk about a manta ray as a viable aquatic mount, although I can't find it stating that in the books. It is a viable animal companion, so doesn't strike me as unreasonable anyway. In this case, it sounds like you're making a PC a mount. I don't even know what the complications of that is, suffice to say aplenty.

From this point on, I can't really find much in terms of rules. Riding a mount usually involves the rider controlling the mount via ride checks. A player character as a mount has their own mindset and actions. That's no different than a regular mount, but we tend to ignore the mount as a separate entity because the rider controls them.

In play, I'd give the manta ray player the benefit of assuming he's "combat trained". Fighting with a combat-trained mount is a ride DC of 10. But the magus isn't riding a normal mount, and they're riding a flying mount. I seem to remember a +5 from 3.5 for exotic mounts. Can't find that in Pathfinder, so you could waive it. A mount flying doesn't seem unreasonable to raise the checks by +5. This is comparable to making a mount jump anyway, which is DC 15. Might actually even be a +10, but I lean towards +5.

I would make the Magus make a DC 20 Ride check every round he's in combat (as a free action). If he fails, he is unable to act this round. If he fails fantastically, he falls off the mount. Anytime he wants to cast, he has to make a he needs to make a concentration check (vigorous motion being 10+spell level, and frankly, a mount in combat probably becomes violent motion making it 15+spell level). I'd probably make there be an option for an exotic saddle that "straps" the wearer in preventing falling from the mount, but in turn, I'd make it a full round action to mount/dismount.

Extra Channel gives you two additional channel uses per day.

For a paladin, you can use lay on hands four additional times a day, but only to channel positive energy. This is specified in the feat under the "special" section. As a result, you are essentially gaining two channel positive energy/day.

A warpriest works in a very similar way, using fervor. While it isn't expressly specified (because Core versus later additions), it is very reasonable to assume it works in the same way. I would say it grants four extra fervor, but only to channel energy. While it hasn't been FAQed that way to my knowledge, I would strongly back this even in PFS games.

I know I already linked you the daddydm link. But before that, I used an excel document called UCAM I found online. It was surprisingly good. My group was ecstatic when we found the Kingdom Manager by Daddydm though. It opened up a much more interactive and visual effect that the players all could get behind.

You might check out some other threads like this under the Kingmaker forum's past to find other tools.

Now I do want to throw out there that I usually tell my players. But there have been times where I won't, particularly if it was unlikely for the players to know. Fighting a witch in combat and they have to make a save, hey, you just got cursed. Walking down the street, make a save, cool, you're not sure why you just had to make a save. You know something happened, but you aren't sure what; you simply feel a wave of palpable negativity or cold shivers on your spine. Ultimately, you're the GM. And most times, story trumps mechanics.

Now from a strictly rules stand point, I'd say show me where it says you know the effect of a spell or damage without a heal check or spellcraft/knowledge check.

I'm not as certain that the player has to know they took ability damage. They do have to know that they have to make a save, but does that tell them why? Characters often don't know they've been poisoned or take a disease, only that they had to make a save. I generally tell them about poison, because poison is often fast acting. But there are some that aren't. Besides, if it takes a minute to set in, do you know whether it was the drink or the food that caused you to be poisoned?

I might after they lose more than 25%. As far as I know by the rules, I don't think you get any check by default. But to put it in real life terms, does a person instantly think they're sick just because they have an off day? Does a person rush to the doctor because they got the sniffles? It usually takes a significant dip before a person starts trying to diagnose the problem.

If the player has a curse or the like that I don't want them to knkow, I just don't tell them. I try and modify the DC of checks that they are trying to make. Not until it gets significant would I tell the player.

The app doesn't feature any of the rules outside of Ultimate Campaign, but does include all the optional rules, if I'm not mistaken. It does not include Ultimate Rulership, as it is a 3rd party product. I have never used Roll20, so don't know if it would integrate with it in anyway.

I use Hero Lab for character generation. I do know that allows export to Roll20 (or at least it appeared to when I looked into it before). However, Hero Lab is pricey. But I absolutely love it.

I would recommend the following...

https://daddydm.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/kingmaker-the-app/

It is still a work in progress. The creator is active on Paizo's forums. And frankly, even as it is now, is simply amazing.