FelisNoctu's page

A little bit of a necro, stumbled across this while looking around to see if the tool had been updated. Guess not. :(

I've been saving useful little design/DM tools on my Google Drive, so in case something ever happens to the Wayback Machine, here's a mirror.

Google Drive

I tend to design a lot of races (I'm the resident content creator for our table since we like making crap up, and I'm hoping to start building content books anyway) and this lightweight little thing really speeds up the process. I may end up updating this in the future with newer content. Suppose I'll post an upddate here if I do! :P

Stumbled across this old thread through a series of strange google searches distantly related to each other, and I'm sure the specific cases have long since passed, but I figured I'd raise this thing from the dead with some attempted green-GMing logic for future peoples.

-----

The Broken condition itself states that an item is considered broken when it has taken damage in excess of half its total hit points. That would lead me, at first, to the assumption that Broken NORMALLY requires an item to have (1/2 - 1) of its HP in order to qualify.

Using Omikapsi's example, Fortified Armor Training states that an item becomes Broken when utilizing the feat's effects. It does not claim that the item takes damage, just that it receives the condition. That leads to two assumptions: either it simply gains the condition, or (given the previous information) it is considered to be automatically dealt enough damage to have gained the condition.

Foce gave a difference example.

-----

Using Sacrificial Shield as a clarification, I would assume that the description given under the Broken condition is considered the normal means of achieving the condition, but not the requirement. The Broken condition may be applied independently of damage to the item, applying all of its effects.

This would lead me to the conclusion that:
1.) An item, through various means, may be given the Broken condition even if it has not taken enough damage to fall below half of its total hitpoints.
2.) If an item DOES fall below half its total hitpoints later, it continues to be broken, as it now qualifies for the Broken condition by normal means.
3.) Mending states that "if the object has the broken condition, this condition is removed if the object is restored to at least half its original hit points", which would still be true. If cast upon an item with the Broken condition, even if the item has no hitpoint damage taken, the Broken condition would be removed.
And,
4.) In the case of Fortified Armor Training, while this has no factual backup and is just in my opinion, using the feat's effects a second time while wearing Broken armor would destroy the item completely. As FAT does not state that the item is being dealt damage, I would go with the conclusion that further breaking an item that's already broken would not be a good thing. The armor is taking critical damage (literally), doing so twice is bad for it.
5.) The case of Sacrificial Shield is a little trickier, as it's stating both that the item takes damage, and that it gains the broken condition. In this case I would personally rule that since it's described as dealing damage to the shield equal to that of the attack's damage minus the shield's hardness, I would treat it as a sunder with the exception that it immediately gains the Broken condition and its penalties regardless of total hitpoints.

-----

Obviously an official word or FAQ would be nice, but that's how I would work through it!

TL;DR SUMMARY AT THE BOTTOM

So after someone in my online group linked a chart that organizes the new Unchained action economy into sections for easier understanding, questions started popping up. First off, Full-Attack actions no longer exist. I scoured for any information on this, and came to the conclusion that since everyone can now make 3 attacks starting from level 1, it's only the late game martial classes that are affected.

And yet, that's when things got complicated and confusing. I tried finding clarification on this by searching around, but didn't have any luck in finding corrections.

Unchained Monks came up.

At 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When making a flurry of blows, the monk can make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus. This additional attack stacks with the bonus attacks from haste and other similar effects. When using this ability, the monk can make these attacks with any combination of his unarmed strikes and weapons that have the monk special weapon quality. He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what's already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects).

At 11th level, a monk can make an additional attack at his highest base attack bonus whenever he makes a flurry of blows. This stacks with the first attack from this ability and additional attacks from haste and similar effects.

Alright. There's no full-attack action anymore. Which brought up two variations in our discussions. Either:

When you fight with a second weapon in your off hand or with a double weapon, you can make two attacks with the first attack simple action you take during your turn: one with your primary hand and another with your off hand.

~snip~
If you have the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can make two attack rolls on both the first and second attack simple actions taken during your turn; both of the attacks made on the second attack action are made at a –5 penalty.
~snip~
If you have the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can make two attacks on each of your attack simple actions on your turn, though you take all the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting, as well as the cumulative –5 penalty per attack simple action (all attacks made as part of the same attack action have the same penalty).
~snip~
The flurry of blows class feature works in a similar way. At 1st level, you can make an additional attack with a –2 penalty on your first attack simple action during a turn. At 8th level, you can make an additional attack on both your first and second attack simple actions during your turn. At 15th level, you can make an additional attack on each of your attack simple actions during your turn. You must, of course, take all the penalties associated with those attacks.

...meaning that if use flurry on one attack act, you get two rolls, and if you use flurry on two attack acts (after level 11), you get 4 rolls.

Ok, so, assuming the second variation is correct when comparing it with that block, and the monk being level 11 or higher:
1 act flurry = 2 full-BAB attack rolls (1 flurry, 1 normal)
2 act flurry = 3 full-BAB attack rolls, 1 BAB-5 attack roll? (2 flurry, 2 normal)
3 act flurry = 3 full-BAB attack rolls, 1 BAB-5 attack roll, 1 BAB-10 attack roll? (2 flurry, 3 normal)
And ignoring the -2 penalty since that also seems to be referencing the old non-Unleashed Monk.

But hold on. Unleashed Monks are now Full BAB. However, if everyone gets three attacks regardless of BAB, that means that the benefit is just a BAB progression of 20-15-10, rather than 15-10-5?

SUMMARY
What we're getting from the new Unchained mechanics and action economy is:

1.) BAB determines attack bonus only, and no longer affects number of attacks in a round.
2.) Unchained Monk Flurry of Blows functions similar to TWF (without off-hand penalties or restrictions) in that it can be split into parts, where post-level 11 if you make one attack act in a round you make 2 full-BAB attack rolls (1 flurry, 1 normal), and if you make two attack acts in a round you get 3 full-BAB attack rolls and 1 BAB-5 attack roll (2 flurry, 2 normal).

Is that correct? I believe the confusion is coming from old mechanics and old wordage being used, and in the case of the "clarification" from the book referencing the old Flurry rather than the new one.

Sorry about the slow response. Saw that earlier, but forgot to respond til now. The Zhentarim Spy I believe had an ability that was close to what I was thinking, but still not quite it. I can't confirm now since the site seems to be temporarily down, however.

I appreciate the help! Still not finding what I was looking for, but I'm keeping it in the back of my mind for another time. It's one of those times where you're 100% sure you saw it, but no matter what you do you can't dig it up again, you know? I'm sure I'll stumble across it again at some point when I'm not thinking about it. Or I'm just insane and imagining things, in which case I might just have to homebrew it for an NPC!

Precise Shot, Combat Expertise, Skill Focus (Whatever), Mobility, and Endurance need to be dragged behind the woodshed and coup de graced, but you and I both know that's never gonna happen.

.....Has anybody ever, in the history of PRPG, ever taken Catch Off Guard or Improvised Weapon Mastery?

I uh... I had a gnoll barbarian focused in that sort of thing specifically. Combined with a few other things and some house rulings, she used full sized doors as shields, threw anything she could find at people, and used grappled enemies themselves as weapons against other enemies. Two-handed goblin hammer, anyone?

Combat Expertise is my annoyance. So many times I've stumbled across an interesting combination and then went "...oh. Nevermind then I guess."

Our group has an odd dynamic. We have two (and soon to be three) different campaign "universes" going at once, currently set up on Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. Each one has different characters, as well as slightly different people. There's a few of us that are around for all three, but there's a lot of switching around based on how friendly life decides to be. So while the group's been together a while and plays a decent amount, individual settings don't often get far.

I don't think we've ever made it past early teens. Usually we end up with too much going on and with two many holes punched in the campaign, we have to let it go. Right now we're running Emerald Spire on our Wednesdays, which seems like it's a fast track to early-mid teens, so we might actually break that roof for once. Fingers crossed! We have Runelords going on for Fridays, and then may be starting up our old Kingmaker campaign again on Saturdays. So I guess we're looking at one fast campaign, one sorta medium, and one long term?

It's a mythic path: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/mythic/mythic-heroes/mythic-paths---paizo-inc/trick ster

That's what I thought too earlier this morning, but I didn't see it there either. The character has No One of Consequence and Improbable Prestidigitation already. You saying that made me paranoid so I went and checked again just now, and maybe it's because I'm frustrated, but I'm still not seeing what I was thinking there either? I'm remembering it so distinctly, just not the name. I remember thinking at the time that it was a cool idea, not I was limited on slots for things to take, and it didn't really fit their personality, so I passed on it. It's driving me insane!

Hoping it's ok to toss this here, I didn't really think it fit under the Rules section. Yesterday at some point while doing a random character build (which happens frequently, totally addicted to random concept builds and sometimes using them as NPCs), I came across a feat or a rogue talent or some class feature or mythic ability or SOMETHING that I can no longer find despite my frenzied digging.

It allowed the character to have, I believe, up to 10 well established identities/personas/aliases that, if someone were to look into them, would show up as actual different people under mild scrutiny.

It wasn't very fitting for the character I was working on at that moment so I passed over it, but it occurred to me later that it fit ANOTHER character that had be semi-abandoned a while back. Of course, despite trying to trace my steps yesterday as well as google search every combination of phrases I can think of, I can't seem to find it.

Anyone out there know what I'm talking about? I'm starting to think I'm just imagining things. It's like this thing has a "No One of Consequence" effect going on and my will's too low <_<

Got beat to the punch, was about to comment on that myself. I was referencing it a couple days ago, and suddenly it's been slapped with a service violation out of nowhere.