Still haven't been able to locate Scarwall Section C, though I recall finding it on RPGMapShare a year ago when I went looking, so hope remains...
Yea would love angelrobles maps if anyone can reupload :(((( I had used them for books 1-3 and loved them, would like to use them for the rest of the campaign if possible.Try these..... RPGShare RPGMapShare had its gallery engine replaced, which is what caused the links to die, and while some of the maps are available in the linked search, not all of them are there. It seems that the download engine from the old RPGMapShare site is still working, though, so I've managed to piece together the following links to individual content: Edge of Anarchy
Seven Days to the Grave
Escape from Old Korvosa
A History of Ashes
Skeletons of Scarwall
Extras
Still haven't been able to locate Scarwall Section C, though I recall finding it on RPGMapShare a year ago when I went looking, so hope remains... If anyone else knows where to locate any other CotCT mapping content, I'm all ears!
No, my version is the one that let the PCs actions tell the story. In the other version where you bother rolling out Barmaid stats, random chance tells the story.Er, why would I need the barmaid's stats? In that scenario, I'd clearly have some sort of agenda for even running such a scene. If the PCs don't step in, she's going to die (or whatever bad thing I have planned), obviously, and the PCs get to feel horrible for not helping. If they do step in, I want her to either survive to make the PCs feel heroic and awesome, or die regardless to make the PCs feel the brutality of a particular location and drive them to make it better. I don't want to have no idea if she'll live or die and leave it up to chance--that serves no thematic purpose.Some people prefer to not hold their players to a script. Let the dice and the PCs actions tell the story, not whatever the DM wrote down last night. Some people prefer a more open game then that. As much as I respect that perspective, and have implemented it in the past, I feel obliged to point out that in the absence of stats for the barmaid the only thing that is resultant from that absence is a means of resolving any actions involving the barmaid in an equitable manner compared to the manner of resolution for actions not involving the barmaid. That is, if the barmaid has stats, and the PCs attack her assailants, the resolution of their attack rolls will be the same as if the barmaid does not have stats, but if instead the PCs do something that provokes a will save from the barmaid, for example, or fail to identify themselves as her saviors before attempting to Combat Maneuver: Reposition her, then having stats means that the GM has a means to fairly determine how the barmaid reacts, whereas in the absence of stats the barmaids reactions are governed exclusively by GM fiat. In either case, the PCs actions will be resolved with an element of chance, per their mechanics, and if the GM has done their job correctly, the story will be told by a blend of PC actions and chance, as is (in my opinion) appropriate.
In response to the notion that everyone in the world who are not "superhuman" must be at most 5th level, on the basis of certain correlations between the mechanics of the game and observed real-world metrics (as in the Alexandrian write up), I'm afraid that I must respectfully disagree. Some of the arguments presented as supporting the thesis of the Alexandrian article are well-grounded, such as the door-breaking and the encumberance, however these segments have nothing to do with character level. Those segments that do rely on level-based construction are guilty of the error that the earlier segments explicitly avoid: the failure to acknowledge a convention of abstraction for the sake of playability. In one case, the abstraction is the correlation of HP gain and level gain. Recognizing that HP gain as a result of leveling up is an abstraction, just as the entire HP system is, means that the basis presented for the breakdown of a 20th level Einstein is a specious straw man. In the case of the jumping rules, the original 3rd edition rules capped standard jumping for reality based on move speed and height, but these restrictions were axed for 3.5 and remained axed in Pathfinder, on the basis that the realistic rules were too complex for usefulness in play. The article recognizes ease-of-use as a legitimate reason for innaccuracies in encumberance correlation between the game and reality, so there should similarly be no objection to the lack of correlation for jumping. For base stats, the article remains a worthwhile study, but any conclusions about realistic level approximations are, sadly, inappropriate. On the flip side, there are any number of skills that have wholly justifyable applications by NPCs at levels higher than 5th, especially with the alterations to skills introduced in Pathfinder that result in better scalability across 20 levels. Sense motive, diplomacy, many knowledge skills (based on the context of the world at hand), and perform skills all scale very well, as well as Acrobatics and Climb. Aside from that, one difference that the Pathfinder setting includes is the explicit idea that while the PCs are above average, they are not the only ones who are above average adventurers, and that other adventuring companies and individuals are active in the world. Thus, the PCs are not expected to be "once-in-a-generation powerful heroes" but rather just powerful heroes. This being the case, having NPCs in the world that have skill sets capable of dealing from equal or near-equal positions with higher level heroic adventurers, PC or NPC, is not an unreasonable proposition. Pathfinder did and does represent a substantial departure from the previous contexts for D&D Heroes, where the presumption was that the PCs *were* by and large the only Heroic characters active in the game world.
In the spell Compassionate Ally, what does it means by "ally"? Does "ally" mean an friend of the Caster (e,g, a party member/NPC), or a friend of the spell target? On the face of it, the text seems to frame the notion of an ally as an ally of the target creature, with no indication that this spell alters its perception of allegiance. I suppose that the spell could be moderately useful in this context, to occupy a dangerous creature for several rounds or to set up a better enemy positioning for AoE effects, but it seems to entail an intrinsic disadvantage in that if the target of the spell has healing items, those items will be used on an injured creature that most likely opposes the PCs, prolonging the fight and depriving PCs of potential healing resources. On the other hand if the context of "ally" is an ally of the caster, while this interpretation makes the spell rather more useful, it is woefully unclear from the text of the spell alone. That said, with Charm Person being a 1st level spell and having a longer duration and a substantially greater potential impact on the behavior of a target creature, it seems to me that the fact that this spell is a 2nd level spell should entail a slightly more powerful spell. I would expect a spell that compels the target to aid another creature on its side of a fight to be first level, not second, since Charm Person has the same capability to induce a target foe to come to the aid of a caster's injured ally, but requires a shared language (or good pantomime) and an opposed charisma check. It seems appropriate to me that a second level spell should be able to compel a specific action directly out of a failed will save with a substantially reduced duration.
great philosophical stuff fraught with insight and laced with whimsy Everything you mention above is true, but may be misleading. "Science as Science" in the context of our universe is, quite understandably, turned on its head by the Pathfinder universe. This is an expected result, as our Science is derived from our Universe, not the Pathfinder universe. From the standpoint of a denizen of the Pathfinder setting, however, none of the philosophical notions you cite as underpinning the concept we call the "scientific method" are at all troubling or disturbing. The Universe is Objective: the key thing to note is that, omnipotent or not (and most are not in the published campaign setting), the Gods of the Pathfinder Universe are nothing more than exceptionally powerful Agents. As such, for the purposes of determining if the Universe is Objective, their various antics can be ignored equally as well as our scientific method can ignore the fact that, by some method, I am able to effect an alteration in the world that you observe. Thus, the Pathfinder Universe is Objective, as Divine Intervention is the product of Agency. You can learn about the nature of the Universe through your senses: the fact that most adventurers put ranks in Perception would seem to suggest that, in fact, they can learn about the nature of the Universe through their senses. That point aside, the need for magical assistance to perceive certain elements of the nature of the universe is not dissimilar from the need we have of microscopes, telescopes, and other sensory-enhancing tools (indeed, it's a different method to arrive at almost identical ends). Sharing of information happens just as well, if not better (via magic), in the Pathfinder Universe, compared to ours. Having said all that, I don't contest that the *means* to obtain the proper abilities and tools to perceive the Pathfinder Universe properly for the purposes of advancing Scientific Method are going to be different than the methods we use here in the real world. (By the way, I don't know about you but *my* broad, day-to-day experience of existence was pretty well undermined, or at least altered, by the intervention of Congress (I believe that I'm being generous here in defining Congress as a collection of other beings). Note that I don't consider there to be much difference between the intervention of a level 1 commoner and a Greater Deity other than scale - both are still intervention.) Finally, it's clear to me that *one* possible explanation for the disparity in the time it takes different wizards to develop the skills to cast higher-level magic is that Darcon was involved in substantially fewer potentially lethal conflicts than Kelop - much like it takes a great deal of time for nature to form a diamond, but very little time in comparison for one to be made in a lab, Kelop was subjected to substantially greater and more insight-granting stresses than Darcon, and thus mastered his magic faster. Look, it's even repeatable! Grab that commoner and teach him the rigors of magic, then send him out to fight for his life. If he's got any kind of brains, he'll develop faster than Darcon too! I admit, to obtain Spectacles of True Sight one will have to shell out a great deal of gold, but how much did the Large Hadron Collider cost? Thus, while magic-users clearly have an advantage over non-magic-users, the realm of advanced perception is not limited to spellcasters, given a sufficient volume of resources. All this is not to say that any particular character or class *must* be fueled by the Scientific Method, that's an entirely different matter. ^_^ Not trying to argue, just pointing out what seem to be flaws in reasoning.
Bull Rush. <nod> That goes along with Drag and Reposition as movement inducing Combat Maneuvers. Are any modifiers listed that specifically pertain to the target of such a maneuver (any maneuver, really) being mounted?
A Small creature with a small polearm who was enlarged would be a Medium creature with an appropriately sized polearm. His reach would be the same as any other Medium creature with an appropriately sized polearm. He would have reach of 10 feet and would not threaten with the polearm at 5 feet. Actually, a small creature under the effects of an Enlarge Person spell is increased to the next size category, so medium. According to the spell, "All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell." Thus, a Small creature wielding an appropriately sized Glaive (a small glaive dealing 1d8 base damage) will perform as a medium creature wielding a medium glaive (for 1d10 base damage). The table provided is only to be used in the case of a medium weapon being made large, which is not relevant to the case of an Enlarged small creature wielding an appropriately sized weapon. Since both Small and Medium weapon damage values are provided by default in the Equipment tables, those values are not reproduced in the spell listing. (Thus, regardless of how well or poorly the spell worked in the past, its function now is both clear and regular.)
Heh. I agree with Doskious Steele.I'll agree with it being the way it should work, unfortunately I can't agree that is what the text literally says. EDIT: Thanks, RD! Actually, that *is* what the text literally says, which is easy to see when rendered into a system of symbolic logic representing the standard uses inherent to common English. The set of symbolic logical rules that must be applied to the passage to obtain the interpretation you insist on is a set that does not include the applicability of common sense (i.e. applying common sense to aid in determining what the rules mean), which is a contradiction of the directive from the Paizo staff that common sense be valued as intrinsic to RAW. As such, I must stipulate that your reasoning, while valid under certain axiomatic sets, is not valid in the context that matters from the frame of reference of this conversation. In clearer (if longer) terms, having been provided with a definition of what constitutes "satisfying (or meeting) the prerequisites" for creating a magical item over the course of the preceding 4 sentences, the final sentence that states "In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites" must be read in light of the existing definitions for satisfying (or meeting) the prerequisites. Since the sentence calls for "you" (the creator) to "meet the spell prerequisites" for spell-trigger and spell-completion items without any modifiers that indicate how the spell prerequisites must be met, it is clear that any of the defined mechanisms in the preceding four sentences are valid ways of satisfying the conditions of the final sentence. Note that the +5 to DC is not a valid means of addressing the requirements of the final sentence because it specifies that the increase to DC is the direct result of prerequisites not being met. However, as that clause is the only clause that fails to designate a fashion in which the prerequisites can be met in a manner that satisfies the requirements in the final sentence, all of the other possible ways of satisfying the prerequisites must be valid, including both casting the spell yourself, and obtaining access through another magic item or spellcaster. If one insists on a truly *literal* reading of the rules, one will find that the rules even in this small snippet are literally contradictory in the juxtaposition of the statements "Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created" and the later statement "The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory." Therefore, and based on the comments from the Paizo staff on that situation, the need for non-literal reading of the rules to understand their intent and meaning is clearly indicated. In a literal reading of the rules, the system as a whole falls apart as a result of the contradictions that a literal reading of the rules introduces. The key to understanding the meaning of the final sentence is understanding that the statement it makes is made as part of a collection of statements regarding how making magical items work, and not as an independent remark. The statement *must* be read in the context of the definitions that precede it, and *cannot* be read as a sentence-construct that stands alone. This is fundamental to the process of understanding the way that the rules work. (Otherwise, I could cite the passage from the combat chapter "A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success" as the reason that my skill check for trying to jump across a 900 foot wide chasm from a standing start while carrying a heavy load with Dex 10 and no ranks in Acrobatics should still succeed, since I rolled a natural 20.)
It's always been my interpretation of the passages regarding the creation of magic items and the creation of spell completion items and spell trigger items, that Spell Trigger and Spell Completion items cannot be created without the use of the spell(s) they are designed to produce. In order for a Wand of Magic Missile to be crafted, the actual spell Magic Missile must be used in the creation of the wand, as opposed to the more abstracted Spellcraft check DC increase that other items are allowed to use to bypass an absence of any spells designated as necessary for crafting. However, if the line "In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites." means what I have said ("Spell Trigger and Spell Completion items cannot be created without the use of the spell(s) they are designed to produce."), this text does not comment on the source of the spells, so therefore "(although access [to spells that must be known by the item's creator] through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed)" is still a valid method for satisfying the creation requirements. From a slightly different analytical perspective: - "In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites." establishes an additional requirement for the crafting character: the spell prerequisites for spell-trigger and spell-completion items must be met in the crafting process.
Therefore, logically, while the crafting character cannot create a spell-trigger or spell-completion item that produces a spell that the character has no access to, a Wizard with Craft Wand could work with a Cleric (who lacks the feat) to create a Wand of Cure Light Wounds. In reading the rules in the Pathfinder system, it is important to note that the rules are generally written in common English, so that when the rules state "In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites." having recently established the proper mechanisms for "meeting ...spell prerequisites": "(although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed)", the meaning of the rules should not be examined through the lens of a Legal mode, but of common English. If a woodworker was explaining how to make a complicated cabinet and said "In general you have to cut the wood the right way (or get someone else to help you with that)," and then later said "With this kind of wood, you can't make <some kind of wooden object> unless you cut the wood a particular way," I seriously doubt that anyone would take his comments to mean that even though he indicated earlier that someone else could help, that for *this* wood you needed to do it yourself.
It does, however, somewhat offend my sensibilities to have people tell me that a person who is sleeping is not also unconscious. This is a good point that I believe has not been properly developed to the appropriate level of clarity. Zurai spoke before on the instruction from Paizo to treat common-sense concepts as Rules-as-Written (what I will call "The Common-Sense Rule"). There is a common-sense appreciation of what is meant by "conscious" and a common-sense appreciation of what is meant by "unconscious". In general, a conscious person is able to interact with his environment and initiate directed actions of her own accord. In general, an unconscious person is unable to do these things, and further is unresponsive to stimuli in a meaningful or directed way (either firsthand or secondhand stimuli, that is, events happening to him or goings-on around him). Heretofore, this discussion has focused on a binary consideration of the subject of unconsciousness, that is that a person is either unconscious or conscious, with this binary state being described as pertaining to sleep in a manner that either does or does not consider a sleeping person to be "willing" as the concept of "willing" applies to spells designated as "(harmless)" or "requiring a willing target". ZappoHisbane introduced the notion of a non-binary, sliding scale of consciousness, which is also alluded to by the phrasing of several of the dictionary definitions referenced much earlier in the thread by Zurai. I believe that a common-sense perspective on "being asleep" involves a definite absence of conscious behaviour (as I have described above), but still retains the concept of "subconscious" behaviour - behaviour that may be undirected, or imaginary, or meaningless, or potentially unrelated to exterior stimuli, but that nevertheless may be any or all of those things in the absence of awareness or direction. Further, a "subconscious" person, that is a person neither conscious nor unconscious, may exhibit diminished or nonexistent reactions to secondhand stimuli (as in the example given of a person sleeping through a loud party), and may even exhibit diminished response to firsthand stimuli, but retains the potential to react and regain a conscious state. This is clearly a differentiable concept in common-sense reasoning from the unconscious person who is totally unresponsive to any form of stimulus. There may be cases where "sleeping" people also become "unconscious" -- even if this state of affairs does happen to exist as a relatively frequent occurrence, it is insufficient justification for conflating the two conditions, and is also an insufficient basis on which to assert that a sleeping person is always unconscious. Further, the application of The Common-Sense Rule to various definitions of "sleep" or variations thereof in the absence of the recognition under The Common-Sense Rule of the subconscious state is disingenuous. The set of things that are asleep is not a subset of the set of things that are unconscious in the common-sense understanding of the terms. That said, I am saddened by the various arguments advanced heretofore on the subject of the definition of Unconscious provided by the Pathfinder Rules. While the definition provides an indication of certain causes which *can* cause unconsciousness, the definition is not and exclusive one, and therefore those listed causes cannot be assumed to be the only causes of unconsciousness. The only resolution of the original question ("Are sleeping creatures 'willing'?") is dependent on the resolution of the question "Are sleeping creatures 'unconscious'?" which is ultimately a question for each GM to make individually. It is my belief that Paizo intends such decisions to be informed by common-sense reasoning as indicated in The Common-Sense Rule, and as such have provided my thoughts on the subject through the lens of common-sense. (*Edited for specific responses*) In response to the original question, I believe that sleeping creatures, while not conscious, are generally only subconscious and not unconscious, and therefore would not be considered 'willing' targets by definition. On the subject of the question "Does my Wizard know that?":
If sleep is not enough for forced teleportation, the GM should inform the player before the plan is enacted. After all, a genius wizard would know how his own spells work. My response to that line of thought is (1) if you asked me as a GM ahead of time if the plan would work, I would allow your character to make an Intelligence check or a Knowledge (Arcana) check to determine if this aspect of How Magic Works was included in his education and then eitehr tell you that your character thought is was a bad idea for the reason above (if you made the DC) or that your character couldn't see anything wrong with the intended course of action (if you missed the DC), and (2) if you announced your plan of action without asking me, I would make the check in secret assuming a 10 on your roll, and acting accordingly. Naturally, the DC for such a check is not clearly delineated and I would be making it up on the spot. That's the job of a GM. It is not his job to reflexively "look out" for the welfare of the various characters and make blanket statements on the feasibility of any proposed courses of action. |
