Search Posts
Aside from the other (very minor) nitpicks already mentioned above, the one thing I didn't see was a range for the dweomersense (30 ft, 60 ft, 120 ft?). Otherwise, this is a great monster! I once got off a Dance of Ruin in a homegame, and boy they sure didn't like what happened! Two of these guys and one Vrock is enough for a Dance of Ruin.... however, I did just have a thought... won't the Blootroot Vine try to kill the Vrock during the Dance of Ruin? Anyway, good job Michael!
Another consideration is that poisons, once applied to a weapon, are consumed after the first success hit. This archetype creates "durable" poisons that persist after several hits, which makes the poison use even more powerful and unbalancing, in my opinion.
No problem... after my archer character halfway through Eyes of the Ten was effectively neutralized by strength drain, I discovered that weapon property and purchased immediately for both of his bows. Personally, the flat 1000gp is underpriced in my opinion, but it's canon and I can't really complain.
Well, I admit that it basicaly IS a feat in a can. However, I was thinking of something I wish my Barbarian character had had around level 7, since he died insta-death style twice at that level. Although barbarians tend to have lots of hit points, they also tend to have low AC's so their hit points vanish a lot faster too. At about that level, simply going to negative hit points is an auto-kill for raging barbarians, unless they have Raging Vitality. If they don't have that yet, an item like this would be essential equipment. Given the creativity I've seen here in other's items, I didn't expect to make the top 32, but I don't even know if I made the Cull. I never saw my own item in voting, so I was really wondering. Thank you for the critique.
This is the first I've seen this item, though I saw other's comments first. I personally would NEVER purchase this item, and here's why. There is now in place the "Adaptive" weapon property, which for a flat 1000gp dials your composite bow up or down to match ANY strength rating, effectively. No breakage, no scaling costs (not even +1 effective enhancement cost). The Adaptive weapon property is in the Ultimate Equipment source book. So, definitely not creative OR superstar in my book since there is already something in the game that is both better and cheaper to solve the same problem.
Ok, here's my item. I welcome all comments, positive and negative. Also, if anyone saw this item after the Cull, please let me know. Sash of Girding Vitality
Rod of Many Wands, from Complete Mage. I played in a game where another character had one. We called it his shotgun rod. You loaded up to 3 wands in it, and every activation triggered all 3 wands at once, but always expended 2 charges from each when doing so. Also, something that I think many folks have missed... you can't apply metamagic feats (that I am aware) to spells cast from wands (though the wand may itself store a metamagic version of a spell just long as it's net level is 4 or less). This items effectively allows that. Further, if a wand activation is a command word, this device allows activating that wand under the conditions of a Silence spell, also something you normally cannot do with such a wand. I'm less enchanted with the ability to suppress all visible and audible effects, though. An invisible fireball or lightning bolt would seriously confuse the characters getting hit by it. On the other hand, I'd me more inclined if the charge expenditure was higher for this function (3-5 charges per use for invisible / sound-suppressed spell effect). In any case, congrats Michael!
While I will agree that Pathfinder was modeled on 3.5 rules, there is NOWHERE that states "Use the 3.5 rules as a basis, then apply these updates and changes." The Pathfinder Core rules are the complete rules set, without reference to 3.5 antecedents. Therefore I would argue that "if it was in 3.5, but not addressed in Pathfinder, then that means it's still in Pathfinder" is a totally invalid argument.
Mark, please see my prior post. I'm not trying to speculate, but I do have concerns that venues might die as a means of bringing in new players and keeping existing players, if APs replace standard scenarios at a venue. So, food for thought. If you're interested in my personal experience, I would welcome the discussion.
thanks for the info, id like to run this for my local pfs groups, any idea on when it will be available? or should i just wait until the official announcement? i ask only because our local schedule is hectic, it would be nice to plan something (i assume will be) a long adventure.I would honestly just wait. We have no idea how they are going to work, how much xp, are characters locked while playing an AP and will not be able to play other PFS scenarios in the meantime, etc... I would not want to give my players a wrong impression only to have to change it a few weeks later. Do remember that the APs are designed to take characters from level 1 to 12 / 14 / 20 / etc. depending on the AP. So, how that's going to work in PFS, I don't know, but I'd be inclined to have a single PFS character go all the way through it. After all, an AP is intended to be a complete campaign in and of itself. The fact that it will be encapsulated within the larger PFS campaign shouldn't change that, I wouldn't think. I do have one very serious concern for this concept, however. Recently, we ran through the Eyes of the Ten arc at our gaming store, and frankly it nearly killed Thursday night PFS. Many folks can only play one night a week, and Rise of the Runelords took the group I played it with nearly two years to finish, not just 7 weeks (we role-played a bit, and took 7 slots instead of 5 to play through EotT). I would be very concerned about starting an AP in PFS on a regular venue gaming night and literally killing PFS for that venue for all other Scenarios and Modules for the duration. If it ties up all of the GMs as players for an extended period of time, it's a problem. I would love to hear if anyone else has this concern.
Keep in mind that there are two ways to think of a "Chelaxian Paladin". Your homeland and your chosen faction do NOT have to be the same. I have a recently-minted tiefling Paladin - going for HellKnight - who is FROM Cheliax but has chosen to work with the Silver Crusade. He abhors his own racial heritage and the common practices of Cheliax, and would like to end them. I'm presuming most people here are talking about Cheliax faction Paladins, though.
Karzog (the Runelord of Wrath) had something like 23 ioun stones implanted. Given that Rise of the Runelords was the first Pathfinder Adventure Path, I would presume that you would not be correct. However, I do agree about the clear spindle ioun stone or the ring of sustenance. Is fasting simply not eating and drinking, or is it the actual abstinence from sustenance? One of those "the rules are not clear" scenarios.
I know it's late to comment, but excess damage over that needed to destroy the figurine could be conveyed directly to the familiar within. If you want to limit that a bit, make it half of the remaining damage conveys.
In fact, that is an issue that I have written about because I have seen the UC and the monk weapons do NOT indicate proficiency. Not a peep from the powers that be whether this is as intended or an oversight.
Monks are only proficient in weapons listed in their entry, and that explicitly state that they are proficient (from later sources.) What the monk weapon property does is allow a monk to flurry with it. It doesn't mean the monk is proficient. While this is true, all other instances that I've seen so far of monk weapon offerings outside of the Core book have specified that monk are proficient with them. This is the first source book in Pathfinder that *I* know of that didn't include proficiency for the monk weapons. Even a simple explicit statement that proficiency is not assumed would have clarified things. I guess that currently the RAW leaves out proficiency for these monk weapons. I was just wanting clarification because of the prior established pattern of including proficiency for new monk weapons in the past.
In the APG, the couple of new monk weapons state in their descriptions that all monks are proficient in them (brass knuckles and temple sword).
However, nothing similar has been stated concerning the rather significant number of monk weapons in the new Ultimate Combat sourcebook. Does this mean that most monks do NOT get proficiency in ANY of the martial or exotic monk weapons without taking the Martial Weapon feat (or a dip into Fighter) or taking the Exotic Weapon feat for each exotic monk weapon on the list? Would like an official ruling on this please (and would this official ruling have force within Pathfinder Society organized play)?
Pretty sure there was a Mythbusters episode where they made a "dimpled" car that got better mileage than a regular one, despite the hundreds of pounds of modeling clay they used (to allow for the "dimpling"). I can confirm this, as I saw that episode. The coated the car in 800 lbs of modelling clay, recorded the fuel economy of the car. Then they "dimpled" the car and placed the cutouts IN the car so that the weight would not change. Then the measure the fuel economy again, and it was markedly improved. As the car was not "spinning" this lends credence that dimpling a sling bullet should work.
I'm not sure what "logic" you've responded to. That's certainly how a flight arrow interacts with a bow. The design is specific to a (long)bow. I would say that no comparable type of ammunition exists for a crossbow or sling.A flight arrow is specifically opposed to a sheaf arrow (the standard design for rapid production and damage in mass numbers) so it wouldn't make sense to apply this as a property to other weapons. Increasing the range of a crossbow or sling should involve changes to the launcher rather than the ammunition.Your logic doesn't hold for flight vs. sheaf arrows as applied to crossbow bolts. The "launcher" for the arrows isn't different. The design difference is in the projectiles. The design for a flight arrow might be specific to a longbow / shortbow, but the design difference IS in the arrow, not the bow. Further, it is an engineering fact that golf balls fly farther than smooth balls because of the dimpling pattern. This isn't conjecture, it is fact. So tell me why that wouldn't translate to sling bullets? As for flight bolts, it seems the accuracy (and likely range) of a bolt or arrow are controlled by fletching design. Imparting a higher rotation to the projectile increases accuracy at least, similar to bullet rifling in modern firearms. Note also that imparting said spin in modern firearms IS known to increase range. See OldenBolts.com and CrossbowHunters.com (section entitled "Now to Understand the Arrow").
Yes, Sling Bullets are already blunt. However, they could have the Smoking property, or could be a bullet version of the magical Screaming Bolt, etc. Your logic doesn't hold for flight vs. sheaf arrows as applied to crossbow bolts. The "launcher" for the arrows isn't different. The design difference is in the projectiles. This could even be applied to bullets... after all, golf balls fly farther than smooth balls for a reason. Thus, the design difference between a normal bullet vs. flight bullet would be dimples designed into the flight bullet.
Nein. I would disagree with that since in general (at least in the US, in which said movie was produced and published) you cannot copywrite or trademark common words. Though it is in German, I would argue that "Nein" (translation "No") is most definitely a common word. You can't copywrite "No" in English, why would you be able to in any other language?
There is an inconsistency in how projectiles are handled between the Enlarge Person spell and the Reduce Person spell. First, these spells cancel each other out because they are in fact opposites of each other. Second, Enlarge Person states that projectiles immediately return to normal size (ie, smaller) upon being fired, and so only do their normal damage upon impact. Third, Reduce Person states that projectiles REMAIN REDUCED in size after being fired until after they impact, thus only doing the reduce damage from being smaller. Why? If the projectile reverts to normal size from one spell, shouldn't the same occur for the other as well? Conversely, if the projectile remains changed during flight to its target for one spell, shouldn't it remain so for the other? Currently as written, projectiles are *always* at their weakest for either spell. Enlarge Person specifically allows for increased weapon damage for all but thrown weapons and projectiles. Why? If it allows for increased weapon damage for some weapons it should do so for ALL weapons, just as Reduced Person does. Any particular rulings or comments in this?
Can you provide a specific reference to that please?
Ok, this question basically applies to all Potions, Scrolls, and Wands. While the Core Rulebook (and other sources) list values for these items at minimum possible caster level, I see no restriction on being able to purchase higher caster-level versions of these items in the PFS Organized Play Guide. In other words, purchasing a Potion of Cure Light Wounds (CL5) for 250gp (which would heal 1d8+5), or a Wand of Fireballs (CL10) for increased cost as well. This includes the application of Metamagic feats, the use of which increases the minimum caster leve, but the SPELL LEVEL (which is important for Potions and Wands) does not increase (with the exception of Heighten). The only real limitation I see here is the TPA purchasing level limit. Would this be a correct interpretation?
Ok, so the APG has Blunt Arrows, Flight Arrows, and Smoke Arrows. The Core Rulebook has Screaming Bolts and Arrows of Slaying. Here's my question... can these properties be equally applied (with similar increases in costs) to all basic ammunition types, namely Arrows, Bolts, and Bullets? This makes sense to me, but cannot seem to find anything that confirms nor excludes this possibility. Thanks. Also, would this extend to other bolt / arrow / bullet varieties?
Ok, I have a significant question here... are we sure that the total value of the item is what is limited, vs. the magical component of the item.Yes we are sure. Mark has commented on this elsewhere (too lazy to look up the thread). Regardless of if it "makes sense", you always factor the total price when determining if you have the requisite PA to buy something. *Sigh*. Thanks. I've been searching for an official response to that issue, but have yet to run across it. I think it kind of penalizes open access to special materials though. At least in Living Greyhawk, those materials required special access. If that were the case here, I wouldn't have even asked the question.
You can upgrade those items and only need to pay the difference. However the total cost of the item must always be below your maximum gold value determined by your earned PAthis was the exact answer I was looking for. Ok, I have a significant question here... are we sure that the total value of the item is what is limited, vs. the magical component of the item. For example, +1 Full Plate and +1 Mithral Full Plate are both always available (assuming you're in a city with a large enough GP limit). However, going from +1 to +2 for EITHER item is a differential increase of 3000gp, for a magical component total market value of 4000gp. Yet, if we include the physical component (the armor itself), the total values are now 5650gp and 13500gp respectively. This makes a rather large difference, especially considering the base item WAS NOT ACQUIRED by the Pathfinder Faction. (Pathfinder Society Organized Play v3.0.2, pg. 26, "Purchasing items in this way represents your faction’s willingness and ability to find and sell you new and better equipment, weapons, and magic items." If I'm merely upgrading equipment I already own, then the faction is only providing a spellcasting crafter to provide the upgrade, which is EXACTLY the same for either piece of armor in my example. If I were purchasing +2 items new, then that would make sense (including the material costs in total value).
I know I'm late to the discussion, but I would like to address the base physical item upgrades previously discussed. For normal weapons, you cannot "upgrade" them to masterwork (Core, pg. 149, "You can’t add the masterwork quality to a weapon after
For normal weapons, armor, and shields, you may apply alchemical silver to the weapon as long as it is made of metal and is NOT made of adamantine, cold iron, or mithral (Core, pg. 155, "The alchemical silvering process can’t be applied to nonmetal items, and it doesn’t work on rare metals such as adamantine, cold iron, and mithral.").
For the strength bows, I was ready to say you cannot upgrade the pull to a higher strength. However, I cannot find anything in the RAW preventing it, so I suppose it is allowed. I do know that 3.5 prevented it, but this isn't really 3.5, is it? :) |
