Hero Lab being licensed by Paizo is now my go-to software. They have the (majority of a) book ready to go on release day. That is the selling factor for me.
The cost to get into Hero Lab is managable. $30 to start out for Core book and ALL PLAYER MATERIAL FROM ALL ADVENTURE PATHS (that's the part everyone forgets to mention...). From there you just purchase books or packages as needed. If you don't use anything from Obscure Splatbook, don't worry about buying it. If you're a completist that "needs" every book out there, yeah, it can get expensive if you need it the day it becomes available.
At the $80 entry point for the OP, you're probably looking at $30 for the Core, $10 for APG, $10 Ultimate Combat, $10 Ultimate Magic, $10 Advanced Class Guide, $10 Ultimate Equipment or some variation to get Campaign Setting books or Companion books which are $5 for ~3 books a package as a player. As a GM you're looking at (I think) $30 for Bestiary 1-3 bundle, and $15 for Bestiary 4 content in the above mix.
Look at what you NEED first. Budget it. Then look at you want. Budget it. Hero Lab is doable money-wise. If your HL license is the only one in the group and the group will be benefiting from it, don't feel bad to ask the group to help with the cost of the program and packages, especially if their character is the one taking the obscure feat from the brand new Book of Obscure Awesomeness in the $5 package of 3 books of Coolness You Can't Live Without.
If all you're getting from a book is 1 feat or the like, look into the editor. It can be programmed DIY-style and the Hero Lab forums are a friendly place to ask for help on something like 1 feat or Archetype, etc. for entering into the editor. Also there are literally pages of posts and threads that will probably answer your question just by searching the forum without actually needing to ask. Someone else has probably run into the same issue and asked how to solve it.
As for the "buggy" Hero Lab... I've been using HL for about 3 years now and the bugs are fewer now than they were before, and Lone Wolf is very good about squishing them as they crop up. That said there are some that are old and known and acknowledged as being a mountain of work to tackle. Nothing that will break most people's games by any means. But when in doubt, report it so that the developers can know about it and squish it.
If nothing else SERIOUSLY look into Hero Lab as they are the only LICENSED software, and their Ennie Winning pedigree as voted on by the fans.
Don't let cost sway you to lesser software in this regard. It can be done, maybe not in one shot, but it can be done!
Yeah Seoni sort of powers up when she's about to die, because she can keep recharging her spells over and over. Was blasting through all the combat, unfortunately there were encounters causing discards outside of combat that killed her.
Elendur sums it up pretty well... when the larger hand size characters start to dwindle away their deck, they are powering through it with their ability to recharge. Just hope and pray you don't run into the forced discard situation.
Didn't Magic the Gathering originally work that way? As I recall, that quickly changed to a system where cards did not change hands as a result of gameplay.
From my understanding, the cards wouldn't leave the table, but while you are building your character deck and say you're playing the Fighter and in your character deck you drew the dagger while the Rogue character had the greatsword, you could trade the dagger for the greatsword. Which the fighter could use more effectively. That's what I'm gathering anyway.
My only question is, if accepted, can we run more than one session of the playtest during our regular gaming meetings as I know that we won't meet 30 times during a 6 week period, but we can definitely manage to get through 30 1-1.5 hour sessions in that time during our regular game meetings (I hate not saying sessions there but to avoid confusion I used meetings)
Why would you not allow it in PFS play? You even stated the steps it would take and it doesn't break any rules that I can think of...
If it is just a knee jerk reaction to say no to this kind of thinking, wouldn't it be more beneficial to give the PCs the benefit of the doubt and reward them for creative thinking than to just ban it outright. It may not be worthy of Total Cover but at least it should function as a tower shield normally does. If this doesn't work then what are feelings towards an animated tower shield?
Not sure if this is the right forum, but I'll give it a go...
While looking through the Archetype for the Aldori Swordlord fighter found in the Inner Sea Primer a few things caught my attention and are making me think...
1. "The following benefits only apply when a swordlord is using an Aldori dueling sword and carrying nothing in his other hand." Does a buckler count toward carrying something in his other hand since it technically straps to the forearm and is not carried?
2. Defensive Parry: the swordlord gains the +1 bonus to AC and then it increases every four levels yet it states that it only replaces Armor Training 1 and 4. Does the swordlord gain the increase regardless that there are replacements for Armor Training 2 and 3 that would occur at the same levels? Thus allowing the swordlord to gain the benefits of 2 class features at levels 7 and 11?
3. Disarming Strike: only replaces Weapon Training 1. Does the swordlord then get Weapon Training 1 when he would normally be getting Weapon Training 2? Weapon training then is just shifted one step so that at 17th level the swordlord finishes weapon training having only gained Weapon Training 3?
It should be noted that you're still better off with armor training, in fact if you use my interpretation... you're moving faster than 4x of the "old" speed. as even in the new math 90 is greater than 60, and even grater than 80 which is 4x20. So the end result is pretty much halfway between the old limit and the speed limit for medium armor which would be 120.
No arguments there, either way it works out you are still better off than normal.
The Armor Training, though, breaks away from the norm... how much does it break away from the normal properties of Heavy Armor?
If Armor Training 2 allows me to move 30' while wearing Heavy Armor in 6 seconds as well as accomplish a standard action in that 6 seconds, just as any other "normal" person who doesn't have any armor on or light armor, why then wouldn't I be able to move as far as the normal person who isn't wearing armor if all I did was move?
Nixda wrote:
Well, it just says "more maneuverable" not "no different than going without any armor". So when you really want to sprint and therefore lift your legs higher etc. the armor is still somewhat in the way.
If the armor is "still somewhat in the way" then wouldn't it still be suffering in a regular move action?
What I'm trying to establish is how far does the Armor Training 2 "normal speed" extend?
I'll try to explain my thought process here...
Spoiler:
Normal Speed for a Human is a base of 30' with a sell-out, running speed of 120' in 6 seconds without armor. In Light Armor those speeds are the same. In Medium Armor your base speed drops to 20' to show that the armor hampers your movement by being more cumbersome than Light Armor or no Armor, yet you can still max out your movement at x4 for a running speed of 80' in 6 seconds. Heavy Armor also has a base speed of 20' to show that it is more cumbersome than Light Armor or no armor, then to show that it is more cumbersome than Medium Armor it has the max running speed of only 3x your base for 60'in 6 seconds.
Armor Training 1 throws out the encumberance of the Medium Armor allowing you to move at your "normal speed" thus giving you a movement of 30'/120'. This makes me assume that through training and experience a Fighter attaining this level of expertise with his armor has become more comfortable and used to his equipment and therefore isn't affected by the encumberance of the armor as a person donning the armor for the first time would be. Heavy Armor is still cumbersome and unweildy to this fighter and the base speed and running multiplier reflect this.
Armor Training 2 does the same for Heavy Armor as Armor Training 1 did for Medium Armor. Through training and experience the Fighter now feels as comfortable in Heavy Armor as without any armor and the armor doesn't hamper his movement and can move at his "normal speed". Base of 30' in Heavy Armor? No problem! Running in Heavy Armor? No problem...maybe?
I equate this to an athlete, say a marathon runner, training for the Big Race. When the runner first started training, sure that first mile hurt. Through training, though, the first mile got easier so you add another mile to make it hurt again. The runner repeats this cycle of training until the runner is then able to run 26 miles. Or as another example, you or I may go out and play football on the weekends. We don't play football professionally and if we were to step out onto the NFL playing field we would be demolished by those players that train for their sport. The Fighter begins his career being encumbered by his armor, but through training and experience is no longer encumbered by the Armor.
So the question still remains, does Armor Training 2 go so far as to allow Heavy Armor to run at x4 or does it stop before that and only allow for the base speed to change? It's a matter of "to what degree" does "normal speed" mean.
I agree that running is a multiple of your speed and your example above is how one can find it delineated in the book.
I guess I'm trying to find out if "in the spirit" of being able to move more naturally, "maneuverable" is the phrase from the class feature, and not suffer any reduction in movement for wearing Heavy Armor, why then would you suffer a reduction of multiplier in movement for running in Heavy Armor.
On the one hand it is being presented as being no different than going without any armor, ie the non-reduction in speed/movement. You move the same squares wearing Heavy Armor as you would wearing your Birthday Suit.
But then, when you try to run, it is presented as still hampering you enough that you can no longer move as far in the same amount of time. This implies that the armor has in fact affected your "normal speed".
From the above post, I’ve dug into the sheet and figured out where the problem comes from to cover the Armor Training 1 not being applied to my issue with MW Breastplate…
The issue arises from the formula found in Table_Armor on the DataEquipment sheet that is looking for speed reduction. Beginning in I283 the table is looking for whether or not the armor imposes a speed reduction. Beginning with the medium armors though, the formula used is looking for a Fighter of level higher than 3, not level 3 or higher.
Specifically for my case the cell for Breastplate reads as such:
Spoiler:
DataEquipment!I295=IF(Lvl_Ftr>3,"No","Yes")
The cell(s) calculating the Speed Reduction of the Medium and Heavy Armors should have this as the formula so that Armor Training is being applied at the correct level rather level plus one.
Spoiler:
For Medium
=IF(Lvl_Ftr>=3,”No”,”Yes”)
For Heavy
=IF(Lvl_Ftr>=7,”No”,”Yes”)
No... he's still restricted to x3 movement. But it's x3 on a base of 30 instead of 20.
That's what I thought, too.
But the way the text reads under Armor Training states that the fighter may move at his normal speed. But then if you look into the Armor table, and even under Movement in Combat in the Combat chapter it states that you can only run x3 in heavy armor.
Is the "normal speed" for heavy armor for ALL movement or does the running clause still apply as found in the Table 6-6 and Movement in Combat?
I can see it either way, but I'm trying to clear up an argument on semantics I guess.
Since the Armor Training 2 makes the speed reduction go away, thus snubbing that movement mechanic of heavy armor, why then wouldn't it make the other mechanic of heavy armor pertaining to movement go away?
Don't know if this has been covered yet or not but something that I just noticed as I was leveling my fighter...
At level 3 when Armor Training 1 kicks in you are supposed to gain full movement while wearing Medium armor.
My Fighter 3 wearing MW Breastplate is still only showing movement of 20 ft.
I attempted to follow this one, but it's late and didn't want to dig that deep into the sheet to follow what all leads to the movement cell so I brought it here without a solution in hand.
I'll see what I can dig up tomorrow in my free time, but I wanted to post here in case someone had a quick fix before I went digging.
Erian once again wanted to let you know what a great job you've done on this sheet!!
A couple of things...
1.) On a fresh load of version 0.9.4 the landscape AC is not calculating correctly as the formulas used to calculate the totals for AC, Touch, and Flat-Footed are all reporting an incorrect name error. The culprit is "...+AC_Size+..." in the formula. It is missing what sheet it is referencing and should read "...+AC_Size_L+..." The Portrait view has the correct distinction in the formula so no worries there.
2.) The campaign trait "Sword Scion" is causing an erroneous Fort save bonus to ocurr when selected. The problem traces from Landscape Front cell BS49 "Fort Save - Other"; trace the precedent back to "Fort_Other" on DataCharacter tab cell G3. Evaluated the formula there and found where the bonus was coming from "Traits_Bonus_Fort" found in Traits tab cell H3. Slid down the column and found the bonus to be coming from the Sword Scion trait. The formula in cell H130 should just be erased to leave a blank cell and that will solve the problem. The cells above and below both reference the Fort Save, but not the Sword Scion Trait.
3.) The Sword Scion trait is doing the same thing for the Swim Skill. Same fix, just delete the formula in that column/row.
Again, loving what this sheet is doing for me and my group at the game table! Thanks for all the hard work, time and effort put into the sheet!
Favored Enemy is a good idea. For feat-based combat options, my actual goal is to have the list dynamic so that only options actually available show up. Once I get that in place, I could add more feats to the list without it getting too unwieldy. Now, I will say that if you come up with that list of ALL the options and can share it, it'll help me plan things out...Thanks!
Erian...
As I work on this, I'm assuming that all that you would be wanting would be situational modifiers for the list, correct? I've worked on this list a little bit (real life getting in the way of plowing into it) and it is growing as I pour over source material. I'll attempt to break things down into more manageable chunks for you as I go.
Another from the message boards, Karui Kage, has a database that he is working on that can be found here that has helped immensely by collecting most if not all feats from all published Pathfinder material. Not only feats but other aspects of the game as well can be found in his archives. I just found the link to this trove earlier today and haven't really had a chance to dig too deeply, but I'm sure that you could find it helpful as well as you begin adding more source material to the sheet.
Anyway, off to work on that list for you now. Thought I would share.
Also found a few "oopsies" as I was playing with the sheet (v 0.8.8) at work today that I'm not have been mentioned:
1. After putting all points from a point buy into the abilities, the remaining points area populates with "Abilites outside 7-18 do not use..." rather than just a zero.
2. Some Items for Fighter 20 integration: L-Front Speed was showing 20 with Heavy Armor when Armor Training should allow for full normal speed while in Heavy Armor at Fighter 7. Also Armor Mastery and Weapon Mastery not showing any effects on L-Front, such as DR from Armor or the increased Crit Multiplier from Weapon Mastery for the chosen weapon.
3. The Weapons Special Properties cell has an error in it's formula that it is looking for "Greater Penetrating Strike" rather than "Penetrating Strike, Greater" as it is found in the feat list.
4. Shield bonus not calculating correctly when Shield Focus and Greater Shield Focus are both selected. The formula isn't getting the +2 from Greater Shield Focus only the +1 from Shield Focus. It has something to do with the logic when checking for both of the feats.
5. Along with the Shield bonus, the Taldorian Duelist feat is getting no love on L-Front. With both a Falcata and Buckler selected and readied the Shield Bonus still only reads as though it were just a Buckler with Shield Focus, +2.
6. Improved Critical not showing with selected weapon and must use Keen option in Weapon block. I seem to remember some discussion on this one, but I feel the sheet should have this integrated much like Weapon Focus. With the Keen option in the weapon block, that would have to be managed so that no stacking occurs.
Under the Weapons in the Combat Options dropdown, could "Favored Enemy" be added to the list?
You have such things as Higher Ground and Expertise and Power Attack, etc. It would take 5 new entries on the list though, whether it was a generic Favored Enemy +2, +4, +6, +8, +10; or if you did like the Weapon Focus [] feats and referenced the individual Favored Enemy [] cells. Seems to me the easier of the two would be the generic option, but it sure would be neat to have that specific reference.
I don't know if a more comprehensive list would be beneficial or not, but maybe referencing all the combat options rather than a select few in that list could be something to strive for in a later version.
Now I'm curious as to what that would entail to list ALL the options...
I know I can fill three slots with a ranger using a bow: Point blank shot, Focused Shot, Favored Enemy. Only Point Blank Shot is even in the Combat Options list as of now.
May not be something to tackle right off, but to bear in mind for a later date since you have your hands full with the magic items stuff.
While "cleaning up" the file to have all blank entries to start with I discovered that if you manually enter in a blank selection on the Favored Class dropdowns and also have not entered a class in the level list that you get a free 20 pts to work with in the hp/sp option of the Favored Class section since you technically have 20 levels of your Favored Class - that being a "Blank" class.
There may be a more elegant way of fixing this, but I got it to work by adding the IF statements below to Getting Started Y14 and AA14 just before the COUNTIF statement:
First off: Thanks for all your hard work on this beast! I had attempted something like this on my own and fell before the might of the data entry to accomplish this, so my hat's off to you on this endeavor.
Secondly, on the most recent sheet 7.18, with just messing around a little while on my lunch break at work I noticed that you can enter in Fighter bonus feats willy-nilly and they are incorporated into the workbook. I checked the Feats_Bonus_Fighter (Getting Started cell X104) cell and the check on that is =if(Lvl_Ftr>0,...) so it will accept anything placed in the bonus feat cells. I don't know if there is an easy fix to do a fighter level check so that it only accepts selections when the appropriate level is achieved or not.
I know it's not a complicated bug or formatting issue, but you've asked for input on this workbook so here's my 2cp.
Thanks again for all your hard work on this!! I know more people are using this than are thanking you so on behalf of all those without voice I thank you once again.
Getting ready to run this this weekend for the first time... any other quick advice on this module other than what's here? And I mean quick and easy, I've got the big stuff covered, so I'm looking for any random nuances that anyone has found that works well that aren't too obvious.
After running a scenario and gaining partial credit, does a GM gain that chronicle sheet as one of his "previous chronicles" to gain access to items for purchase?
Yes!
It may be a few days late in coming but thanks for the quick reply!
This may have posted already but I'll ask anyway...
After running a scenario and gaining partial credit, does a GM gain that chronicle sheet as one of his "previous chronicles" to gain access to items for purchase?
PFS Guide states that a GM doesn't gain "special" items from the chronicle, but it doesn't mention anything about the other items on the sheet.
In this case, I imagine that PFRPG versions of rules will always supersede 3.5 versions in the same way we use PFRPG power attack and not 3.5. For discrepancies among sources using the same rules set (hopefully that happens rarely) I think we'll have to rely on the table at the back of the GtPFSOP to tell us which is legal and which is/are not.
I agree with your imagining! PFRPG should indeed trump 3.5 versions of any rulings. As for legality, that's what I'm trying to pin down... which source is "more" legal in this case.
A little background on this: I was compiling a list of legal weapons from all sources as found in ch. 13 of the Guide to Society Play. In over 100 entries of weapons from the various tables found in the legal sources there were many repetitious entries. Upon comparing the entries the bladed scarf and elven curve blade were the only ones that had any discrepancy between themselves.
I'm not too worried about the possible typo that could be the cause for the bladed scarf's damage, as found in the Crimson Throne Player's Guide, listed as 1d3 for small and 1d6 for medium versus damage listed as 1d4 and 1d6 respectively in the Core Rulebook. Common sense and comparing the damages against others says that it more than likely is meant to be 1d4 and 1d6.
The elven curve blade, on the other hand, has differences in pricing, damage, crit threat and multiplier, and specials (such as a bonus to disarm attempts) between the two sources. This is a cause for concern for me since the differences are so drastic.
I may be making more of this than is strictly necessary, but when creating a 1st level pc I would rather only pay 24gp for the elven curve blade that is going to do 2d6 and 20/x3 crit with a bonus to disarm instead of an 80gp elven curve blade that will do 1d10 and 18-20/x2 and no bonus to disarm attempts. Much better bang for the buck as it were when only working with 150gp.
So, even though common sense and experience tell me that the newer text trumps old, I think a clear and concise clarification of which source is "MORE" legal in this, or any, case is in order.
Sorry, like I said, I may be making more of this than it needs to be.
After having read through all 9 pages of the thread, and at the risk of proving my ignorance... Do we follow the rule addage that New text trumps previous? I ask because as I was listing all the available/allowed weapons for society play I found a couple of discrepancies between a few weapons. Namely the Elven Curve Sword and Bladed Scarf. Elven Curve differs rather drastically between the Chronicles Campaign Setting and the PFRPG Core Rules, and the Bladed Scarf has some damage differences between the Curse of the Crimson Throne Players Guide and the Core Rules. I would assume that the Core Rules trumps the previous listing, but want to clarify.
Okay, a couple more comments... probably already added by others but here goes.
Again, nice job on the PDF, but it's only really half way there to being perfect.
TOC: How about linking the Table of contents like the index is?
Bookmarks: Please have them collapsed as a default, and at that base level, far fewer of them, like maybe just the chapters? (in fact that would solve my TOC issue) Right now, it's WAY too many to be useful.
Tables: Can you index all the tables as well? Heck, if Wizards can do it, I know you can. I've noticed some tables aren't even listed in the bookmarks. That would be a big help.
Keep up the good work, loose the shoddy parts.
I would have to agree about the pdf needing some work on the bookmarks... it almost seems that they were never updated from the beta!?! Some tables aren't listed and (at least on my copy) some links didn't even take you to the right place. They'll get you close, but...
Just wish I wasn't so strapped for cash that I could out and pick up my own hardcopy because I'm jealous of some of the guys in my group who have gotten theirs and are rubbing it about that "new book" smell...and listening to the binding open for the first time...
