Brogue The Rogue's page

Interesting. I definitely read it as "Table 12–4 lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level." So the focus of the paragraph is not for placing treasure, but the expected wealth each player should have at level. Which means we're talking wealth by level, not treasure placed per encounter. So to me that says that the value of obtained items is treated as sale value, which is in line with common economic practices.

I can see where you're coming from where it says, "Low-fantasy games might award only half this value..." but I think that's more in reference to how the wealth by level is generated, since the first sentence still determines the the focus of the paragraph, but I think you make a fair point. Either way, I'm definitely not disputing that items should be sold at half value (per the paragraph's decision and for the purposes of this argument). The question then becomes whether this line indicates that the "half value" is considered as such or considered as full when the treasure is placed.

I posit that if a player is selling it, they're only getting the half value. That's what this paragraph says.

By the same token, the paragraph also indicates that some treasure is NOT sold, which would obviously indicate full value. But again, this is all implicit. There's no actual explicit indication of what to do. I suspect that a systematic approach to this probably wasn't considered, probably because treasure hauls always had a looser approach in older editions and a more regimented is relatively newer (not positive on this; I never played second edition).

Anyway, thank you for the insight, everyone. Session starts up soon, so I appreciate the prompt assistance and replies.

Brogue The Rogue wrote:

But what I’m hearing from people is that there’s a lot of “I’ve always thought it was A,” but there’s no actual definitive proof of that?

CRB, p. 400 wrote:

Table 12–4 lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased

Alright, so that does sort of implicitly indicate that I'm correct, but again, that's implicit and not explicit, and that's just common economics. And again, no hard ruling and no explicit determination so far.

You are never required to give a group all the expected treasure per encounter. As long as it gets in the range(they are only expected values after all), you're probably fine. I don't know what adventure you're running where you're having this problem, and I'm not saying all of them are exactly correct but overall I find it more true than not when I take the time to calculate out everything listed as treasure or NPC gear.

Of course. I thought it was fairly clear that I was approaching this on a “per adventure” basis at the very least, though it’s also reasonable to balance this within small pockets within the adventure, though that requires a lot more management.

So no, I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all. If a module is meant to be stand-alone, then there’s an expectation that it will have X experience and the commensurate Y treasure to go along with it, I think.
So, yes, if you have an NPC encounter with three times its normal treasure, you’ll have two monster based encounters afterwards. Obviously.

Brogue The Rogue wrote:

I suppose the logical followup question here is, should I be assuming that published adventures are not "up to code"?

I think the reply is "very variable".

Considering the Pathfinder RPG AP we played:

So, some single module can be under WBL, but on average you get above it. You should remember that the WBL in modules is theoretically for a 4 PCs group. In theory, it considers that some loot will be missed and some encounter will be avoided.

I'm not sure I would consider crafting. Crafting's never been balanced in this game in terms of loot acquisition.

As for number of PCs, that shouldn't imbalance loot acquisition, since it has the same, albeit inversely deleterious effect, on experience accrual.

I have rarely found that to be the case. I find APs to be overly generous over a period of the entire adventure. An individual section or book might be sparse but it is made up by the end.

Alright, I guess that’s my mistake. I just assumed if people were taking the time to be published, then they were taking the time to do things correctly.

Its not like a GM doesn't know when they're dropping a +1 sword that the party will use either. Its still scheduled. No GM is ever surprised by a loot drop. They put it there or let the PC buy or make the item.

See, I don’t necessarily agree with this. I feel like it’s impossible to know exactly what things a given player will suddenly decide to hoard. “Oh yeah, that’s a great item for me to use to have as a backup weapon for killing X type of creature” in the given example. And the weirder and more niche the item, the more likely a player is to hoard it. Or not. I’ve seen valuable things get passed up and unimportant things get kept. The brawler and monk passed up a monk’s robe I was sure one of them would take, recently, because neither liked the aesthetic.

Target a cell (let's call it Cell H3) and type =sum(G:G) and that will give you the total of every number in the G entire column.

Yes, I’m quite familiar with basic excel formulas, thank you. As mentioned previously, I put the information into my spreadsheet to output results.

I keep extremely detailed notes, and although this process might sound convoluted or cumbersome, it's really not, because if they ever ask me anything, I have a record of it, and it SAVES time-- and after years of practice, I'm pretty fast at it. This record also tells me whether their WBL is appropriate, or if I need to hand out more loot, or if I'm giving too much.

It sounds like neither. I do almost precisely the same thing.

No I don't audit my players. If they're cheating, they're only hurting themselves because eventually you become reliant upon this strategy, and you don't get good at playing the game.

This is essentially an audit. A constant and ongoing one, but still an audit of the WBL of the players.

And I have the full record of anything that's ever been handed out, what date you did it on, and how much you've spent/earned, so if you're level 13 and your WBL is 140,000gp and you somehow have a +3 Brilliant Energy Greatsword and a Belt of Physical Perfection +6, that's 98,000gp and 144,000gp, I'm going to start asking questions.

So, basic excel formula lectures aside, what I asked previously was how you handled the quantum aspects of this. How do you handle this without adding or denying treasure later? And it sounds like your solution is simply “not to,” is that correct? All treasure always has to be corrected later because treasure is never accurate with each big haul? Is that correct? If so, this seems like a poor solution to the problem. I think I’d rather just do it right on the first go.

Looks to me like the random treasure generator is following A: Ring of Protection +1 (2000 GP) is 2000 GP worth of the treasure hoard.

This is NOT pulled from the Core rules however so I apologize if this falls outside the scope of your OP. It does anecdotally reinforce the opinion of those however who presume that A is RAI. The final decision it appears will have to reside with you BtR.

A fair observation, but probably it does that because it needs to relate the actual value of those items, not necessarily the sell value. After all, sell values can vary between campaigns, where as actual value is much less variable.

----------------------
But what I’m hearing from people is that there’s a lot of “I’ve always thought it was A,” but there’s no actual definitive proof of that?

Try calculating what is the value of the stuff the PCs have. I have noticed that often the players feel underequipped but what they have is a bit above WBL. Herolab does that calculation automatically.

I have, and do regularly. My method keeps players at the appropriate WBL guideline, which is part of the the cause of my confusion. This coming month I decided to run a module, and put the numbers from the module into my spreadsheet and was shocked to find out that the module gives the players less than half the wealth it gives in relation to experience, indicating they're using the other method (and are still dragging behind a bit). This being a published, well rated module, I was surprised and questioned my own methods. Though this still wouldn't explain why my own methods consistently work and have worked with no issues for so long.

Don't forget the spell components. A 5,000 gp gem or raise dead is 5,000 gp of treasure.

The cost of some spell will mess with that, especially if the cost of restoration and raise dead isn't shared by the party, but the overall party WBL generally is right.

Of course.

Some AP can mess with that, in one AP we found a very good heavy armor and an artifact warhammer. We were level 2 at the time. The only one that could use either item was the fighter.

The armor was worth 11,350 gp, the hammer, even counting only the powers we did know at the time, was a +2 impact weapon, worth at least 32,000 gp.

Of course.

Selling them was out of question, as they were too good.

We ended with a character with more than 43,000 gp of equipment at 3rd level, i.e. the WBL of an 8th level character well on his way to that of a 9th level character.
Most of the other characters ended with the magic weapons and armors my cleric made, while the sorcerer hadn't anything useful for a few levels.

As you see, treasure placement in the printed adventures can be very uneven, and that can be problematic if the players assign the items to those that can use them better, without finding a way to compensate those that need less common equipment.

I suppose the logical followup question here is, should I be assuming that published adventures are not "up to code"?

^---- I do it the same way. I use Donjon's random loot generator, and I give out specific items that I want the party to have as well. Donjon keeps it simple for me because it includes the price with the piece of loot. I have an excel spreadsheet that tracks it all whether they sell or keep the piece of loot (which automatically populates it in Excel with either full price or half price, which then autopopulates a total value) to make the WBL simple, otherwise this would be ridiculously cumbersome.

I can do the entire loot count of a major treasure haul in 10 minutes or less, typically about ~5 mins.

OK, so this is interesting. Do you ever audit players afterward? Do you ever find your players to be over/under the WBL guidelines after doing a "treasure haul"?

However, I really question how you handle the quantum effects of treasure value. If you're designing a treasure haul, how do you account for the fact that all of the items will be in a quantum state? Do you tell all of your players what all of the items will be before they've encountered them? Serious question. How do you handle this without just adding/denying players treasure later? Which honestly just seems super rude to the players.

Personally I thing the fairest and most accurate way to determine treasure value is to use the average between sell and buy value... AKA 75% of buy value

Alright, I'll admit I hadn't thought to just take an average approach, but it has merits. In your experience, does it strike a fair balance between the two methods? Do your players adhere to the WBL guidelines fairly well as they progress through levels?

---------------------------
As for Automatic Bonus Progression, I respect that you two like it, but can we try to stay on topic? I'm not really interested in the optional system, and it doesn't have any value in the discussion of whether to use full price of sell price of items when calculating how much treasure to give out.

Its A. If the party doesn't want an item and they sell it the half value that means they get to apply that gold to an item that is perfectly tailored to their needs, which increases its relative value.

Or something to that effect.

Can you point me to where in the rules it shows me that it's (A)?

You're not wrong when you say that a pure gold treasure situation would be more powerful. This is, in fact, one of the bases of my automatic reasoning behind using the sell value (Option B) this. I mean, that's just economics. That's just how value works. If you create a situation where you're essentially requiring that all loot should be gold coins, any time loot is not pure gold coins, all found magic items are inherently disappointing unless they're custom chosen for the players or lucky finds. Now that does make the rare good item a pretty enjoyable find for players, but in my experience PC loot is such a cut above NPC loot that this almost never happens.

Ultimately this is just going to result in constantly screwing players out of treasure, as far as I can tell. So I would ask again, where does it actually SAY that it's (A), or has everyone just been operating under this assumption for as long as I've been operating under the assumption that it's (B)?

I believe that scenario A is correct; you award treasure based on their value, not sell price. Remember however that on Medium progression, a PC needs 12,000 XP to make it from level 6 to level 7. If a single CR 6 encounter yields 600 XP to each PC in a party of 4, that means it takes 20 encounters to level up.

...snip...

I mean, this is all well and good, but a lot of the rules you're talking about are A) optional and B) character driven. I'm not going to force a player to take up a crafting skill because "you need to take up a crafting skill in order to make more money because the core rulebook's wealth guidelines don't work well." That's silly. Characters should develop based upon who they are as people, not because they players decide they're naturally money hungry.

As for optional rulesets, again, optional. I'm talking about the dictates of the core rule requirement here.

You may not feel it's actionable advice, but it's the truth.

Well, no. Not really. You may feel it’s the truth, and perhaps it even is for your group, but it’s not a universal truth, and it does not apply to my situation.

If the party sells it, then it's only worth the sell price. If the party keeps it, then it's worth the full price.

So...either make sure you drop loot the party wants, or estimate everything at full price, and then drop additional loot later to make up for what they sell....or and hear me out on this...

I feel like this isn't actionable advice. I have no idea in advance what the party is going to want to keep or not. They don't even know what they want. They can't even decide. xD I'm not sure how I'm supposed to read minds that can't even make themselves up. xD

My problem with the "wealth by level reset" method is that it's horribly artificial, even more so than the game already is. It also has the negative side effect of punishing players that don't use many consumables and rewarding players that do. And potentially encouraging players that base their entire wealth strategy around consumables.
Assuming I'm understanding what you mean by "wealth by level reset," as saying that at every level I should zero them out to the "appropriate" amount of wealth for their level. I.e., look at every player's gear values and say, "Oh there was a bank draft in your favor, you gain 14,500 gp today." Or, "You're mugged for 32,000gp because you didn't use that diamond you were saving last adventure." This just seems....horrible.

Can you explain Automatic Bonus Progression? I'm not familiar with this term and it's not immediately clear to me. And what do you mean by "the big six?"

EDIT: Ahhh, is it an optional rule that cuts your wealth in half to grant static bonuses in the form of the most commonly purchased items?

EDIT2: OK, I found the Automatic Bonus Progression thing. An...interesting topic, but not really what I'm looking for here. What I really want to know about is the "right" way to handle treasure per the Core RAW. The sort of quantum "It's valued at what the party values it at" idea can't possibly be how the core rulebook expects DMs to consider the treasure when placing it.

When using Table: Treasure Values per Encounter as your rough guideline for how much treasure to give out, do you all treat treasure drops as their sell value or their buy value?

For example, at 6th level in a Medium experience campaign, an encounter should give about 2,000 gp worth of loot.

Would you say that's...

A) One ring of protection +1, valued at 2,000 gp?
B) Two rings of protection +1, valued at 1,000 gp each?

How do the rest of you do this? I've been doing this as B for a long time, but I recently decided to run a module instead of making my own adventure and statted out the treasure the PCs would be getting to make sure they wouldn't be getting gimped, and they're getting EXTREMELY gimped. Two levels from the adventure, but only 80% of a level's worth of treasure, as far as I can tell. So this makes me wonder if maybe I've been doing it wrong the whole time.

Trying to find information on the Sanity System from Horror Adventures. I read, I think, all the info on the PRD, but what I couldn't find was how often I should throw sanity checks or how many sanity checks I should throw at the party daily.

Anyone know where I can find this info, or can anyone point me to where I can find it? Is it just not OGL, and I need to buy the book for that particular tidbit?
Thanks in advance!

I immediately regret not listing all the spells you listed, Firebug. xD I did find all of those, but discarded them for various reasons. For example, Brow Gasher requiring the weapon makes it too difficult to model a direct spell off of (the player wants a target spell, I.e., pick a target, they start bleeding), so this spell makes a poor baseline for that effect.

Blood of the Martyr is just so complicated and has so many other effects that it would be hard to disassemble with accuracy, I think.

Bone Flense has the weird society specific stuff that always messes with spell levels, and I just don't want to mess with that.

I had your same thoughts on Rend Body. The bleeding was so ancillary it didn't seem to matter.

And Litany spells tend to make bad baselines for spell creation.

@avr
I forgot to expand my search to burning. Burning is similar enough that I could model the spell after it. I'll do a search through for burning. Thanks!

Edit: Thanks avr, found a pretty much perfect baseline spell I can use in the example of Spontaneous Immolation. Thanks a ton. :)

One of my players wants to create a spell that causes 1d6 bleeding each round. There don't seem to be many spells that cause this debuff effect. Any advice on how to stat this out?

Here are some of the better spells I've found that relate to concept. Any help you all can give would be appreciated.

Some bleeding spells:

Anyway, again, any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

@GeneticDrift Thanks for the input. Consider me caveat emptored. I know that potentially turning any buff into a day-long affair is a powerful thing; that's why I'm doing research into its potential cost before going off half-cocked and all. Honestly, 7 spell levels and a feat is way more restrictive than permanency, so I don't really get your stance on "this is bonkers, use permanency instead." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@ Loren Pechtel
The concept of breaking down the increase as a flat multiplier is interesting, but I was thinking more in terms of applicability than in terms of pure math.

The increase from rounds to minutes is at best quality of life. It might kick in for really long fights, but won't often be terribly useful for seeing multiple fights. It might see multiple short scenes when roleplaying or when exploring, but that's about it.
(Note, I use a homebrew system that requires resting for a few minutes for hit points after fights, so it's harder for players to charge through multiple fights with minute/level buffs, since that's the only healing)

The increase from minutes to tens of minutes is where a buff starts to last for multiple combats, so this one is going to see the most use.

The increase from tens of minutes to hours is where a buff can potentially last all day at higher levels, and where a buff can be used preemptively - that is, for wilderness encounters, when the player is ambushed, any time there's an unexpected encounter, etc. This one has the most exploitability and has to be watched.

The increase from hours to days starts to allow spell slots to recover, so this might just be too much.

In light of those considerations, I think what I'm going to try out a scaling level cost based upon which step is used, as seen below.
Rounds to minutes: +2 levels
Minutes to tens of minutes: +4 levels
Tens of minutes to hours: +6 levels
Hours to days: +8 levels

The thing I always try to keep in mind is that, yes, balance is important, but everyone having fun is important, too, and if there's one thing players love, it's feeling powerful.
A +4 spell level increase for rounds to minutes will let players cast lower level buff spells for longer periods as a higher level spell without it being an all-day affair (invisibility would be a 6th level spell, as would stat spells; good hope would be a 7th level spell). Making the stronger spells that start at a round per level into ten minute per level spells would cost a cumulative 6 levels, meaning anything that starts at 3rd becomes a 9th level spell (haste), and anything above that isn't feasible (divine power, divine fervor, et cetera).
Making a spell last hours won't be possible unless it's already a tens of minutes per level spell and under fourth level, so stuff like disguise self, which is good, because I can see that being fun, and heroism, which, honestly, I'm fine with as a 9th level spell.

Turning a spell into a days/level spell wouldn't be possible unless it is a 1st level spell or lower and already an hour per level, so at this point, this is just spending spell slots now to save them later, so I don't think I like this one and I think I'll get rid of it.

Anyway, thoughts on the whole?

Yeah, this would definitely completely outclass Extend, so there's no question that it would have to be greater than a +1 spell level.

Great finds so far. Thanks everyone!

Does anyone else know of any other spell chains that use this format?

My players want to research a metamagic feat that will allow them to increase their spells' duration by a step (i.e., from rounds per level to minutes per level). I'm *fairly* certain this metamagic feat doesn't already exist in the Paizo-published rules, so I have a two-part question I'm hoping people can help me with.

1) Does anyone know if this exists as a third party published feat somewhere?
1b) I am familiar with the old 3.5 homebrew Lasting Spell, but it seems to be extremely homebrew and has, well, a rather uncertain provenance.

2) Does anyone know of any spells that do this? For example, a maybe there's a 7th level invisibility spell out there that lasts for 10 minutes per level that implies that it's a 5-level increase move from minutes per level to 10 minutes per level?

My goal here is to try to gather enough sources of material to reconstruct a likely baseline for what this effect should be so that I can give this to the players and also make it as balanced as possible, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks. :)

the Far Challenge class feature in the archetype does not include a line that says it counts as the Cavalier "Challenge" class feature, just that it replaces it.

Resurrecting this thread instead of starting a new one, as well, because I have the exact same question and some information that wasn't addressed on this topic.

I feel like the above quote wasn't properly addressed, even if it is a bit of a nitpicky reason to prevent it, but a line jumped out at me while I was reading far challenge that made me really reconsider whether far challenge should work with the base order bonus.

If this challenge ends because the target hits the luring cavalier with a melee attack, this challenge changes to the effects of the normal cavalier challenge, and gains any order benefit the luring cavalier has.

Am I crazy, or does this seem to strongly imply that Far Challenge does *not* grant order bonuses? Especially when considered with Saldiven's original statement?

On Archives of Nethys (aonprd), if you go to each deity, it lists the spells specific to that deity.

Awesome. That'll do.

Thanks a ton. :)

TLDR: Does anyone know where I can get a listing of spells that can only be used if you worship a specific deity, and the requirements for them?

I like reading: My players have been using a spell called Mighty Strength that I just found out has some odd requirements that aren't listed at all in the PRD. I'm hoping to track down all such spells so I can get a better understanding of whether or not these deity-specific spells are powerful enough to actually warrant these requirements, or if I can just let the players use the spell as is, or modify them in other ways for the players to use them, etc. etc. Anyone have any info on where I can find a complete listing?

I may have been sleep deprived off my mind, but I once recall reading about an item that allowed a spellcaster to prepare spells of a spell level not normally accessible to them (for example, an 11th level spellcaster preparing 7th level spells). I'm trying to find it again and cannot, for the life of me.

I think I recall the item having very specific limitations, such as losing spells if you left the item's area of effect or duration. I also think it was an incense of some kind, though searching that term doesn't seem to bring up the item I think exists.

Has anyone heard of this item?

Generally agreed, Dave. As mentioned, I don't have a problem creating my own system; I was just hoping there was a good one already in existence so I could save the time. I was really expecting there to be a decent system already made.

I'm not a huge personal fan of a lot of how ultimate campaign does Mass stuff, and after looking through a number of companion books, that does seem to be the method of the moment. Brother Fen, if you reveal anything interesting in that compendium you mentioned, I'd be interested in hearing it, otherwise, I've started just making it myself. More time consuming, but I suppose in the end it'll have all the things I want. I'm honestly just really surprised there isn't already an effective system around.

Thanks, everyone. :)

We're actually using those rules, but in that book plunder points are stated as being given out by the GM essentially when they're needed, rather than a roll-based system that helps determine if the PCs are successful in their pirating attempts.

Unfortunately, the downtime rules are very similar to the profession rules, and, as Brother Fen stated, don't garner the riches necessary to keep a crew of a hundred pirates happy.

On the other vein of thought, me simply ruling that things work out either gives the players no way to improve their fleet (if I rule they make the bare minimum) or gives them no incentive to optimize their pirating franchise (if I give them a lot).

@Adjoint I scanned through the militia rules but didn't see anything about generating funds. If you're familiar enough with the text, can you give me a page number of heading?

Background:

Question:
Does anyone know of any rules for piracy and plunder that allow players to simply make weekly rolls to determine how much plunder they obtain?

Caveats:

Interesting. We've never thought of this. It seems....cheap. But yeah, thanks, this'll work.

Anyone have any idea as to the potential balance issues behind adding the option for the "Attacker," during "Round 3" of a grapple to use a full round action to perform a full attack, per this flowchart?

http://www.tenebraemush.net/images/1/17/Grapple_flow_chart_A.pdf

I'm especially concerned that it would open PCs up to taking too much damage.

Thanks!

I was not aware that Infusion Specialization did not apply to his metmagic stuff. I thought those were considered infusions. We'll make the according adjustments. It looks like his default is going to be an empowered water blast.

The kineticist does not have any stat items. He opted for a different route with some of his gear, purchasing the more expensive items up front in the expectation that it would be easier to get the more common items later (the character just started). I know this lowers the stats a bit, but I was mentally accounting for that, and the character's performance on the previous session isn't entirely explained by a simple loss of +2 to dex and con. It is, however, solved by the huge loss of Elemental Overflow, so I'm pretty happy, now, with where he's at. I'm going to speak with him and see if he's aware of the ability.

Once he has two +2 stat items, is using the elemental overflow for another +2 to dex and con and +3 attack/damage, that's a total of +5 attack and +8 damage, which puts him right in line with where I was expecting him to be. So, yes, apparently the memo of the day is "Use elemental overflow" xD

Thanks for the help, everyone. :)

The party is all level 10. I will admit that the kineticist isn't what most would consider ideally optimized, but it's not abysmal.

So if this is a physical composite blast, it should do physical damage, so at level 9 (it seems based on the number of d6? That or level 10) we're looking at (10d6+16+Con modifier)*1.5. We'll go with 18 Con, which is very likely a significant lowball. The accuracy can't be right for level 10 unless the kineticist has 10 Dexterity, which seems very unlikely, or has 14 Dex (still seems too low) and is using Deadly Aim, which would add 4 more damage. I will grant that the brawler's +14 also seems a little bit low (and the +14/+12 difference can't be from Furious Focus at level 9, since that would be a +3 difference). Accuracy aside, the damage is going to be 83 for the kineticist, whereas the brawler is 18.5 and can't pull that off even with all four hits...however, this seems to be an empowered composite, which is very hard for a level 9 (or 10) kineticist to pull off.

Physical. It's the ice blast.

I was under the impression that Empower had been clarified as of this edition to only affect the values of the spell that are both variable and numeric, not their sum. I recall this being a sticking point before. Is this no longer the case? I just googled the FAQ, and it looks like there's a part that's crossed out. So is *everything* now increased with Empower? If so, this greatly increases his damage output, so that helps. This can't be right, though, can it? It makes maximize terrible. For the number I stated, 10d6+13, the old empower value is 65.5 on average, the new empower value is 72 on average, and the maximize value is 73 on average.

The kineticist has 14 dex and 16 con.

Isn't an empowered composite guaranteed for a level 10 character? The kineticist has infusion specialization of 2, so anytime he spends a move action gathering energy, that reduces the total burn by 3 points. Empower is 1 point and the composite blast is 2 points. What am I doing wrong?

Are you hitting normal or touch? Including the bonuses to hit from your burn in overflow?

Ah ha! As mentioned before, I am entirely unfamiliar with this class. I'd never even heard of it before the player asked to use it. The player must have forgotten about this ability. This helps a LOT, and would seem to account for the discrepancy.

Note that a Kinetic Blast (even in it's melee Blade/Whip form) is a Spell Like Ability. As such it penetrates DR as if it were not there, but bounces off of Spell Resistance. Just like a spell.

OK, this is interesting and flies counter what others have been saying. I suppose the line in question is this:

Does this mean "as a magic weapon" or "as a spell or spell like ability"? This seems controversial. Do we have a solid ruling?

The damage reduction section states:

But the FAQ on the same page states:

By this logic, DR would seem to apply to the Kineticist's attack, right?

As for the rest of your examples, they seem to be logically-fueled, rather than RAW-supported. While I generally agree with the idea, it poses problems of its own. It seems that it would be better to simply use the RAW rather than applying an addition filter of spell-based logic. By your logic, a geokineticist is useless on a ship, in the water, in the air, etc. This seems to be a strange requirement for the class. The telekinetic blast goes into great detail about the objects it throws, but earth blast does not. By your logic, should not magically enchanted earth then do bonus damage? Are we stating that it's RAW that earth blast requires nearby earth to use?

You have worse acc than the fighter, but he needs to hit with iteratives. Use the common DPR math to compare your single hit per turn hitting 80% of the time vs him missing with his second hit 80% of the time and his third and fourth even less often, you'll get the idea. On paper kineticist doesn't look impressive, but in a campaign they're easy to build so they have great DPR, multiple control options, insane dpr with melee infusions, and more utility than most non-casters could ever hope for.

I'm not talking on paper, though. Well, technically, I suppose so, since it is a pen and paper game. But I'm talking about our session, where he was performing consistently worse in both damage and accuracy than the other characters (magus and brawler).

I'm looking at the brawler's character sheet right now, and he seems to have +14/+12/+7/+7, 1d8+14, compared to the kineticist's +10, 10d6 * 1.5 +13. I don't have the magus's character sheet offhand, but he's a harder comparison since he's bursty per day.

Why are your theoretical 80%s and such so vastly different from my actual values?

Think so? My kineticist seems remarkably underpowered compared to the rest of the group. He can't compete in damage or accuracy, he has worse defenses, and his utility is on par with a common fighter. Is the player maybe doing something wrong? Are there some must have items or feats out there of which neither he nor I are aware?

Backstory:

Actual Question: Are kineticist blasts [that have both a physical and energy type listed] subject to both damage reduction AND energy resistance?

Opinion Question:

Awesome, thanks, Shiroi. :)

Ahh, I understand, now. Thanks a ton. :)

Anyone know what happens if you fail a concentration check while gathering power and that puts you over your burn maximum?

Obviously no guide specify that because it is pretty obvious:

YES.

You can only apply an infusion to the kinetic blasts listed in the infusion description.

I'm hopeful that the lack of readable tone due to text rather than face means you didn't say this rudely, but, man, it really came off as extremely condescending and rude. :( Regardless, I'll interpret it as simply helpful. Thank you for the information. I appreciate it. I would also disagree and state that it is not, obvious; since there is an "element" section *and* an "associated blast" section, two sections that have a considerable degree of overlap, the exact purpose of either section becomes unclear.

@LeMoineNoir Thanks a ton. That's very helpful!
Would you be willing to answer a followup question? That description of the categories leaves me confused as to how someone would take some of these abilities. Take the Chain infusion, for example:

Chain has an element of air but an associated blast of electric. Does that mean you need to have taken both the air blast and electric blasts (and thus be 7th level or higher), but that this infusion can only be used with the electric blast, and NOT the air blast?

This guide has a lot of information, but, sadly, does not seem to answer my questions. :( Specific answers would be much appreciated!

Does anyone know of a guide or FAQ for the kineticist? I'm having some problems understanding how the infusion's levels factor into the class.

Assuming no guide or FAQ already exists, does anyone know the answer to these questions?

1) When you apply an Infusion Wild Talent to a kinetic blast, can that IWT *only* be applied to the elements listed in the "Element" section? Or only to the "associated blasts" section?
2) What do the "Associated blasts" even indicate in terms of the Infusion Wild Talent that lists them?

Thank you!

@Claxon
The sample NPCs (the ones that jump immediately to mind are the CR 8 First Mate and the CR 11 Captain, though I do recall there being plenty more) indicate a much higher typical level for the jobs they describe.

@ Kaliel Windstorm
The cloud can be cast on the ship in such a way that it travels across its length, not its width. Cast from the prow, abaft, that is. Doing so would cause it to cover most of the ship (multiple decks) or all of the top of the ship if there's a single deck exposed to the air. It would thus kill much of the crew not in the rigging. Open doors or cargo hatches could cause it to float in and do more, as well.

The permanent gust of wind is an interesting idea. If we're of the assumption that the GOW kills the cloudkill, it would be pretty effective, but if it kills the cloudkill, chances are decent it'll mess with your sailing if you're sail-powered, so I dunno how feasible that is.

@GinoA
Yeah, I had considered counterspells and dispelling, and that was about the only thing I could think of that would stop it (assuming gust of wind doesn't work; jury's still out on that one). The possibility of counterspells helps curtail it a lot, but it's still a fairly major threat, since the counterspells aren't guaranteed. If there's a sufficient difference in level, the clouds might linger for quite a while. If nothing else, they'd be capable of creating large no walk zones that would help with tactical control. That's a whole other topic, though...

Buffing an army with D&D spell isn't really effective, though, not for most of them, since they're X targets per level. Killing low level dudes is probably often better.

@ Murdock Mudeater
I agree. The idea that the PCs are the biggest fish in the pond, but that it's a really big pond, is silly and unrealistic, to me. That lack of realism, to me, filters over to an unrealistic world and an unrealistic game, and the straining disbelief makes fights less tense and less interesting. Personally. For the record, I also think the APL +10 encounter to show your PCs you're really amazing is even more stupid.

@Goth Guru
Fair point. Noted, and thanks. However, Ravingdork has a good point, too.

@TOZ
Ah, clever, but in this case not completely right. You also die regardless of whether or not you fail a fortitude save if you are a low enough level.

@Kaliel Windstorm
There are techniques for making circles, whether on graph paper or no. ;)

@Malignor
I think that's a little bit overly simplistic, because it's akin to saying that cities have armies because other cities have armies, so conquest is a moot point because everyone has armies, but I think the general thinking behind your post has merit.

@ Everyon
Thanks for the help. This has been really helpful. :)

@Snowlilly
You are right; nothing in the spell says that wind must affect the entire area of the spell. Simultaneously, nothing says that the entire area is dispersed if any part of it is exposed to wind. The part you quoted refers to the "fog" being dispersed, not the spell, not the area, and not the effect. That's where the ambiguity comes in. This is, in act, the argument that was used against me, and I do admit it has merit. It's still my belief that the intention was for the whole spell area to be destroyed by wind, but (see arguments).

So nothing under cloudkill makes any exception to the rule regarding wind dispersing the cloud. As it is "similar to a fog cloud" I would say all fog cloud rules apply other than that a cloudkill sinks, and moves 10 ft per round.
[/quote[
Same deal. THe spell (s) don't specifically state that the entire cloud is destroyed by the wind, only that "fog" is. How much fog? Which parts of the cloud?

Quote:

However, as "a strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round", the line of 60mph wind blowing through the couldkill, would disperse it. per the RAW.

Again, my key query here is, "How much?"

Quote:

There is no rule as written that there is a "sheathe".

Actually, the player that brought this up is right, as far as I can tell. I have only a rudimentary understanding of fluid dynamics compared to him, but there would need to be a protective barrier of some kind around the column of wind preventing those nearby from being affected. Otherwise the velocity profile of the gust of wind would taper off rather than ending suddenly, making the gust more like a cone than a line. It's sort of like when a car on the freeway drives past you at 60 mph when you're standing still. It makes your car shake a bit from the wind of its passage.

However, I think you have a fair point when you say that the spell does not say adjacent creatures are *entirely* unaffected. I suppose it's possible they feel some wind, just not enough to have any game effects. However, without those creatures being substantially affected, it means there isn't enough friction between the gust of wind and the surrounding air/cloud molecules for the entire cloud to be dispersed. It *would* only disperse the area immediately hit by the line.

@Claxon
I am actually, literally astonished to hear that it has been officially decreed (I assume?) that Golarion is a world populated as you described. My reading of the stats thrown on the PRD indicate a vastly different world than that. I feel like that's something they *said*, because that's what they want, even if it's not supported by the actual stats they're throwing out, though I will be the first to admit that my reading and understanding of their lore and literature is far from complete (because I hate hate hate HATE Golarion so much, though that's another topic), so I could just be completely wrong.

Regardless, my thoughts on the topic are for a world a little less...PC-Movie-Centric, where the PCs aren't the only special snowflakes moving around and aren't being challenged by the only people capable of challenging them. While I described the homogeneous level saturation, I wasn't saying that's what I'm dealing with, simply that if one were to do that, it would be even crazier than what I had thought Golarion was. Imagine, instead, a world between "Golarion" and Faerún, with a level assortment of...maybe a bell curve centered on 6th level or so. The majority of people would fall in the level 8 or below category, but there would be plenty of people capable of doing more than that worldwide. Also, yes, I realize a bellcurve is not an accurate representation of level statistics worldwide, but I don't know how to describe a more accurate curve with words. :) More up on the left side and down on the right, with some squiggles and shady parts. ;)

However there is nothing that stops it from also following the poison rules, and it is a poison. By the poison rules you make a save as soon as you come into contact with the poison, and you make a save on your turn.

If you walk through the vapor you will be affected, and holding your breath does not protect you.

If you only had to make a save on your turn then you would not have to make a save upon the initial casting of the spell, and yet the spell says nothing about a delayed save for spell, nor a delayed save to counter the normal poison rules.

I hear what you're putting down, but this isn't actually supported by the RAW. I have some very strict, by the book types in my group, and what you're describing is very much a houserule. A logical and intuitive one, yes, and one that logically follows, but not RAW, nonetheless.

So where, if at all, in the text does it say that simply touching the cloud immediately kills you, even for a brief millisecond of contact? Is that how we interpret the "automatic" part of the spell's text?

Was it your turn and were you at any point in the cloud? Moving through the cloud on your turn qualifies, and you're affected by the cloud. Depending on HD it can mean instant death or con damage. The rest is to let you know in happens again if you're still in the cloud.

I'm the dungeon master. It was the party's wizard that used the spell. Killed three encounter's worth of NPCs in one casting, and trivialized an adventure module's boss fight in another. It was glorious, honestly. I was very proud of them. My problem isn't with that particular performance, however, or with any heretofore committed acts, but with how the spell works in general. This is pirate campaign, and I'm struggling with how their next shipboard combat results in anything but mass, instantaneous slaughter of both ships' entire crews in the first round of combat due to this spell. I want to ensure that I have a good handle on how the rules work, how they should work, and how they will work so that the next session runs smoothly with minimal rules lookup. I'm also worried about the campaign coming to a screeching halt due to the group losing their crew after every single fight-worth-mentioning as they pirate the high seas.

Remember, this is a cloud of poison-like stuff. It affects you even if you don't breath it in because it states holding your breath doesn't work but poison immunity does. So it's basically some sort of contact poison. If you come in contact with the cloud of poison, it affects you.

But does it affect you if it touches the nail of your pinky finger? Is there a saturation point that must be reached? A certain amount of surface area of skin that must be covered? I know I'm being overly pedantic, but, again, I DM for three engineers who WILL tell me the amount of time real chlorine gas takes to break down someone's body if I pause for a split second because I don't have immediate rulings ready to go.

I get the message you're putting down. I just want to ensure either that it's supported by the RAW as described in the spell, or that it is a logical interpretation of it. I don't care which it is; I just need to know whether it's fact, opinion, or opinion of fact so I can roll it adroitly when the time comes.

Sometimes rules have weird interactions and RAW is not god and leads to interesting/weird results if you try to run games by RAW.

I agree with this line most of all, however, it can create a fractious table if half of the group disagrees, especially when it's a life or death situation, or they're just serious sticklers about the rules.

Sorry for being so picky and overly pedantic. Again, I just need these ducks in a row so I can shoot them quickly. Nothing slows a session down and raises tension like arguing rules midsession. ><

The gust of wind actually is sustained for one round.

Also, a line is shown in the magic chapter of the core rulebook as being five feet wide, so the line's width is specified.

As for your purview, and your thoughts that the spells don't have a lot of use otherwise, I think that's reasonable. Thank you. :) I'd love to get lots of opinions so I can weigh them all and have a majority decision from many minds. Anyone else have any ideas? :D

Ah, thanks for the clarifications. I had thought it was cast only on a person, not on a space. Knowing that it only has the potential to kill creatures with 6HD or less helps, too. Thanks. :)

If you move through the area of the spell effect it affects you, either killing you or causing you to take con damage.

So this part is a bit less explicit. I'll repeat, "a bit less explicit." I see the lines you're reading between, but I feel that many people could treat that as an interpretation. The con damage part is specifically called out. This uses the word "automatic" which isn't quite so loaded a keyword.

Also, you say that moving through it causes you to take con damage. THe spell seems to explicitly disagree with you, which is why I'm having a hard time adjudicating when this effect kicks in.

"in which case it takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud"

If a ship goes through the cloud, everyone on the ship that is exposed to the cloud (the cloud wouldn't penetrate closed doors or other parts of the ship so were basically just talking about people on the main deck) would die if below the HD threshold or need to make saves against con damage.

This is the crux of my question. You say this because you took the stance I did that any part of you being in the cloud for a minuscule fraction of a second causes the death part, but, again, I'm not positive that's explicitly stated in the text. Or not. I'm not certain either way.

As far as the spell on a regional or world wide level, it's a 5th level spell. That means a 9th level wizard to cast it. 9th level wizards are relatively rare, so not that many people available to cast them.

Ha, not in Golarion. xD Also, realistically, not in a 9th+ level campaign. In order to be challenged, the PCs are going to continually meet people well above this. If one assumes a homogeneous or at least similar saturation of power throughout the world as is concentrated at the PCs' point of existence, well...

I guess this supposes the PCs aren't special snowflakes. I know some people do do that.

The spell also can only affect a relatively limited area. It's a 20ft radius spread that lasts for 1 minute per level. At 20th level it would travel only 2000ft over the course of that 20 minutes. So about .4 of a mile. You could damage a city, and kill a lot of people. But so could a lot of other spells too. It would also be relatively easy to avoid if someone noticed it since you could pretty easily get out of the way.

Yeah, but as you saw, this spell would easily cripple seabound commerce. Cast en masse upon an army that is, well, massed (say at the gates or outside the wall) and it would be pretty destructive, too. So while I agree that the level requirements and slow speed and relatively small volume of effect do limit it, I feel like there are plenty of unaddressed parameters that could still be fairly world-altering, yeah?

Anyone know when you die in a cloudkill? What I mean is, the spell reads "These vapors automatically kill...", but are you subject to these effects immediately upon the spell being cast upon you? What if you move through it? Wave a hand through it? What if you're on a moving ship and the movement of the ship sweeps the cloudkill through the entire crew? Does EVERYONE die? Is there a certain amount of time you must be in for this spell to automatically kill you? Do you only die if you're in the cloud on the caster's turn?

Bonus Round: How do you DMs deal with this spell affecting conflicts on a regional or world-wide scale?

At our recent session we had a bit of a snafu regarding gust of wind and a cloudkill. There was some arguing as to how the various rules interfaced, and I think everyone walked away from the conversation a little miffed with the end result upon which we eventually settled.

My question is thus: how does gust of wind affect fog or mist effects, specifically spell-created effects, such as fog cloud, obscuring mist, and cloudkill?

Some background clutter on things we talked about and considered:

Any insight people can give me on this would be appreciated. I understand that this has the potential to be a gray area of the rules, so I would value both hard facts and opinions, as long as those opinions are couched upon the basis of some measure of logic, rather than "I would do this because I feel like it." :) My goal here is to make a ruling that is both as fair and as logical as possible, while being consistent and supported by the ruleset to as great a degree as is feasible.

Thanks a bunch. :)

Some related questions that can use answering:

That's the thing; I *want* it to be a material substitution. But the proposal of a +1 damage bonus isn't good enough to *ever* take it instead of one of the big three special materials. There's just no reason. You'd be gimping yourself, and that's what I'm struggling with.

I don't honestly like the +1 bonus to attack and damage for any purposes but thematic. I feel that it makes quite a bit of sense for theme, but mechanically, it's too powerful. I suppose the question is whether it's *too* powerful, at least in comparison to the other special materials. Cold iron, silver, and adamantine would still always be better against their respective creatures. This iteration of dragonbone would only be better when not faced with material-based damage reduction.

Pricing it is difficult, but, perhaps it could, again, be compared to the special materials that currently exist. Does anyone have any ideas?

AwesomenessDog: Yes, I'm aware of the core rules for dragonhide. As mentioned in my post, I think it's quite worthless and very lame. Almost never worth having over some other material type.
I like your proposed rules, but they're too powerful, to be honest. That's a huge number and amount of bonuses that makes it hands down better than anything else out there.

Thanks,alexd1976. That was generally the goal. In the end, I've decided to drop the flat armor bonus so that it's not simply better than other armors, and also to lower the price a bit, otherwise it's exactly the same.

If anyone can help me with the pricing, that would be lovely. :)

Aelryinth, you're aware we're talking about a static bonus when the item is *not* enchanted, right?

I agree with your second line. It makes sense to grant the bonuses if/when the item is enchanted. But that wasn't quiiiiite what we were talking about, heh.

Zavas, I'm not saying there aren't ways you can't make it work, just that there is a disconnect that I don't like. If dragon bones do elemental damage, why don't dragon claws do it?

I definitely don't want to go that route. Thank you for the input, though. :)

Hey, all,

I recently made a post about homebrew dragonbone weapons, and I'm looking to do a similar thing with dragonhide armor, because I feel like Pathfinder's version is just horrendously lame.

Here's the same Backstory and Rules of the other thread.

Backstory:

Rules:

Dragonhide Armor

Yeah, I know he's not trying to be so egregious as to make them +30, but the point is valid: there is no way to evaluate or critique (as the thread requests) items in a campaign where nobody, players or GM, has any interest at all in balancing anything.

You are exactly correct, DM_Blake. This is why I need a worthwhile pricing. I track treasure given out to the PCs and adhere to the treasure per encounter tables (on an aggregate over the adventure, rather than per encounter), and try to keep them within 15% of a prorated value of their WBL guideline (based upon their percentage of the way through their level), so assigning these items a gp value is important. And while the players will *likely* not be able to buy these items at any point, they absolutely can sell them. The reason they wouldn't be able to buy them is because of the high demand and low supply. This would work in their favor if they choose to sell them, and rightly so.

The group is very lax on how they separate treasure, so the other point about divvying up treasure doesn't really concern them, as much, but the rest of your points are on the nose.

This doesn't work very well, I'm afraid.

Yeah, I saw and considered this same problem, but I wasn't sure how to address it because the flat damage boost seemed to be the best and most logical bonus I could come up with.

If the price doesn't scale with the benefit, then whatever price you assign it (say, 10,000gp flat price for example) means it's overpriced at low values (+1 weapons) and underpriced at high values (+3 or +4 weapons).

Agreed. That's the problem I"m having with this iteration of the item. As for the problem with energy weapons, since they're generally a weak enhancement, I had less a problem with just making them better, but, again, I do see your point.

Some ideas might be:
Increase damage die
Decrease effort (handedness)
Increase hardness/HP (you already did this one)
Bypass DR/Hardness
Always confirm a critical hit without rolling (a risky one indeed)
Apply static energy damage even if not enchanted at all
Apply bane effect against creatures of opposite energy type even if not enchanted at all
Reduce the cost of enchanting these weapons

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Some of them might be quite...

These are really good, and very helpful. Pretty much just what I'm looking for. Let's kick these around and address them one by one.

* Increased damage die
I like this one, but I think it runs into the same scaling problems you mentioned before. For smaller weapons, the return is marginal. For larger weapons (especially d8 and higher), the return is much greater. However, if prices for dragonbone weapons are delineated based upon handedness, this might not actually be an issue, and would solve the problem readily. It also has the benefit of reducing the value of high threat weapons (very marginally) compared to high dice weapons.

So how would this work? Flat increase of one size category to the damage die, instead of the +1 attack and damage I originally proposed?

* Decrease handedness
I always worry about playing around with this particular facet, since it messes with things like weapon finesse, power attack, and the like. I feel like damage die increases are neater.

* Increase Hardness
I did already do this, but I only did it from "human" bone to "steel" (roughly). I'm not opposed to establishing that dragonbone is stronger than steel, but I wonder what value that would really have in combat. Players that are paranoid about their weapons being destroyed (which is staggeringly difficult, even when I purposefully change ooze/babau/etc rules about bypassing hardness, can simply have an invulnerable weapon with adamantine. If this is the sole point of interest on the new special material, I can't see it really drawing in interest.

* Bypass Hardness/DR
This is another thing that adamantine already does, or that special materials in general do. What niche could dragonbone do that would be better?
As a side note, I have thought very often about bringing back DR/+X instead of flat DR/magic....but always decide against it because +X weapons are already better than most special abilities and don't need the assistance. If I did port in that change, dragonbone weapons could be treated as a higher enhancement bonus for DR purposes. But then I feel like I'm changing too much just for this one tiny aspect of the game.

* Always confirm crits
I agree that this is risky. I think I would like to shy away from this. I'm not sure how thematic it is...plus I have a magus in the group and that just makes things silly.

* Static Energy damage (even when not enchanted)
I saw this from the Draconomicon and balked at it. As much as it makes sense from a mechanical outlook, I don't see it as making sense thematically. Dragons themselves don't do energy damage on their attacks. Why should their bones? I'm not arguing - I'm genuinely asking. I'd love to be convinced on this point.

* Bane Effect
This is interesting, but very powerful. I like the concept, and it's pretty strong thematically, but I feel like this makes some dragon bones weaker than others. Fire/cold is obvious. But what do green dragon bones bane against? Green dragons are waterairforest dragons with acid breath. Is that earth? So air creatures? Even though green dragons have the air subtype?

* Reduced enchanting cost
I like this a lot.
I feel like this is thematic (dragons being magical creatures, their bones are more easily enchanted than other things-the opposite of cold iron).
I feel like it's desirable at all levels
I feel like it has its own niche.
The main downside is that, depending on implementation, it could well have a much lower potential power level than other special materials (which can bypass DR).

So how would this be implemented?
* 10% reduction to all costs for better scaling benefits? This would give better scaling and allow for competition with DR-bypassing materials, but could well be *too* powerful.

* Flat 2,000gp reduction to the first enchantment (the inverse of cold iron)? This is kind of neat. It means that all dragonbone weapons are effortlessly +1 weapons, making them naturally magical. The ability could even be rewritten so that this is the case - they start out at +1 weapons, rather than having an enchantment reduction.

_________________________

Thoughts on everything so far? Thanks again for the great input so far, everyone.