Firelock's page

Hey, am I reading this item's description wrong?

I think it's the best armor in the game...

"These boots look and act as the minor burglar boots, but grant a +10 competence bonus on Perception checks and to AC and on Reflex saves. Also, once per day on command, these boots grant the wearer the ability to use find traps as the spell."

Does that actually say it gives a +10 Competence bonus to AC?

So... it stacks with armor and shields?

EDIT: Yes, I know it means against traps.

A 7th level Kensai has Iaijutsu which says:

"A kensai may make attacks of opportunity when flat-footed, and may draw his favored weapon as a free action as part of taking an attack of opportunity."

If the Kensai also has the Flamboyant Arcana: Opportune Parry and Riposte, which says:

"At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack."

Does this mean the Kensai can parry attacks during the surprise round with weapon initially sheathed by expending an attack of opportunity?

Sorry, this is in regard to the PRD Bestiary index.

When you go to the index and look at the filter by Type checkboxes, there is no checkbox for dealing with "untyped" creatures. Untyped creatures always therefore show up in all monster searches, which is annoying. By including a checkbox to filter those, monster search results would be improved.

What do you think of the idea of a high level Rajadhiraja being able to grant spells to their followers? The descriptions of Rakshasas seem to support this, since they believe underlings should be worshiping them, not the "real" gods. Are there ramifications I may be missing?

My understanding is that they would correctly interpret normal context cues, but that as soon as it gets into subtext and additional hidden meanings you're a bit at sea without appropriate linguistics checks.

That said, if a GM told me that a language was unhelpfully translatable with Comprehend Languages, I'd be hoping for a fun puzzle to solve to get at the meaning of the alien language.

If you don't have a fun (for the players) follow up to "no, Comprehend Languages doesn't work," then I'd recommend saying yes instead.

This is a nice sentiment, but not practical. Will you create a puzzle for every single thing written in this language? This might make a great idea for a group of 1st level adventurers in a dungeon where they have limited alternatives and are trying to translate an ancient stone tablet, but that's only one use case. In real life the ancient Egyptians are gone, but not necessarily so in a fantasy world. If I have a living culture in my game world that writes everything in heiroglypics, it's not practical to create a puzzle for every sign, poster, book and label this culture writes.

Besides, even in the case of an ancient dead language, if your players are using the CompLang spell instead of role playing to figure it out, they are already trying to skip gameplay and an additional puzzle in their way is not likely to excite them. They could go find someone who speaks the language to translate for them, they could use Linguistics and a library to figure it out, there are lots of alternatives. But instead they pushed the magic win button to skip gameplay and normalize the in-game world into plain English... they already aren't interested in a puzzle.

Besides I'm not sure if I'd want to use my limited GM prep time on mitigating a 1st level spell failing to make the PCs lives easy.

Since CompLang says the caster only gets the literal meaning of a language, what would happen if it was used on heiroglyphics? Egyptian heiroglyphs use pictograms to convey meaning in more than one way. As a made-up example of how actual, real Egyptian heiroglyphs work, sometimes a glyph of a duck means "duck" and sometimes it means the "D" sound, and sometimes it's part of another meaning entirely depending on proximity of other glyphs. Since CompLang only gives you the literal meaning of a language, would it interpret pictograms accurately, or literally? The spell description specifically says it does not decipher codes. Are pictograms not a form of code when used in the way Egyptian heiroglyphs were? They were not an alphabet that could be read like English. Real humans tried unsuccessfully to decipher heiroglyphs for thousands of years due to the many ways each glyph is used and the fact the language can be written and read from right to left, left to right, or even vertically, only succeeding after discovering the Rosetta Stone which decrypted the language accurately for them.

What do you believe the rule is?

What does "Grok" mean?

Irrelevant, you can't make AoO against creatures that you can't see.

No, not true. Creatures with Blindsight that can't see you still get an AOO if you provoke one.

So either you wav a way to see/perceive the caster and you can notice that he is letting his guard down, or you don't have a way to do that and you can't take a AoO.

This part is true.

Firelock wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

... Manifestations are just the excuse why you can spellcraft and get AOOs vs spells that have no visible or audible components such as psychic casting. ...

This.

Except that excuse was never necessary. Spells require concentration. It has always been enough to say the lack of focus (on one's own defense) due to casting the spell was enough to trigger the attack of opportunity.

An enemy doesn't need to know your casting to get the AoO, he just has to know you've suddenly let your guard down.

Except this whole topic is about an invisible spellcaster, which you can't see to tell that their guard is down.

I am looking to use both of these feats. So if I'm attacked but missed I have the opportunity to feint as an immediate action from Swordplay Upset. Greater Feint says the target of a successful feint loses its Dex until before my next round in addition to my next attack.

So what benefit do these feats gain from being paired up?

Since feinting only makes the target lose their Dex bonus to YOUR attacks and not anyone else, the only benefit of using Greater Feint in this particular situation instead of just a normal Feint (though as an immediate action) is that if they provoked an AOO from you during their turn, it would qualify for being a sneak attack.

Quote:

Constructed (Ex) Although inevitables are living outsiders, their bodies are constructed of physical components, and in many ways they function as constructs. For the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as a ranger's favored enemy and bane weapons), inevitables count as both outsiders and constructs. They are immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). Inevitables are not subject to nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. They are not at risk of death from massive damage. They have bonus hit points as constructs of their size.

It does mean they are Constructs, as well as being Outsiders.

Thanks for the info. To offer a bit of (semantic?) clarification based on the rules you kindly pointed out, Inevitables are not really both constructs and outsiders. They are just outsiders that "in many ways function as constructs". For instance, they do have a Con score, they have two good saves and they do still need to eat and breathe, all things that are not common to constructs.

Like the title says. There doesn't seem to be any definition of the "constructed" ability in the PRD.

Please be aware that I know the Inevitables are "constructed" out of different materials, what I'm asking is the exact game mechanic effects of the Defensive Ability listed for them called "Constructed".

It is my opinion that this was NOT meant to imply that they are constructs - they don't have all the same traits as constructs ie: they do have a Con score, their Type is not "Construct" etc. So what exactly DOES it mean?

... Manifestations are just the excuse why you can spellcraft and get AOOs vs spells that have no visible or audible components such as psychic casting. ...

This.

Without regard to any ability score increases, based just off of the hit die gained from adding a class level, does the monster's special ability DC go up?

For instance, an Aboleth's Slime ability is Constitution based, and the Aboleth has a 22 Con, and 8 hit dice, giving it the listed DC20 Fort save. If I give the Aboleth 2 levels of Sorcerer, bringing it's hit dice to 10, do those additional hit dice increase it's Slime DC to 21?

The point of contention in my mind here is the difference between Racial hit dice and hit dice from class levels. In 3.5 I think it was pretty solid that only racial hit dice increased a monster's ability DCs, but I can't find anything in Pathfinder that speaks directly to this. Does becoming a Sorcerer make the Aboleth's Slime more potent?

Now that I am at a computer:

Quote:

An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.

It doesn't say that sticking your hand in the hole stops the barrier from blocking line of effect. It just says that the barrier provides it unless the hole is a certain size, and no other exception is given.

So no, putting your hand in the hold per a strict reading of the rules does not allow you to ignore the barrier. If we are really going to go by RAW that is how it works.

Interesting. If I put a 1' wide hole in every room of the dungeon (say, air duct system, or a drain system in the floor), the BBEG can cast spells on the PCs from hundreds of feet away, having full LOE to them in the first room... wow. So the BBEG appears in room 1, using Project Image, hits them with fireballs and lightning bolts. Then vanishes into thin air. Room 2, repeat. Room 3, repeat, ad nauseum. LOL

It seems I've created a monster (again). ;P

Well, I think this one is just because you keep it going RD. I have a lot of respect for you as I've been reading your posts on here for years and years, and I agree with most of what you say when it comes down to it. Though, it seems lately some of your threads are more argumentative than they used to be. Maybe it's the game you're in.

The fireball spell pretty much says you can do what you're trying to do, but the GM shut you down, probably because he doesn't want the player (you in this case) to hurt his precious NPCs. I get it. As a GM I sometimes cringe when an NPC I spent hours carefully crafting with stats, motivations, backstory etc, suddenly gets wiped without even getting a word out first. But it's not really 'your' game as the GM, it's shared between you and the players. There is a reason that roleplaying is called "interactive storytelling", it's the interactive part which requires cooperation. So as the GM you need to be willing to give as much as you take when it comes to control over how the game plays out, or else it's less fun for the players, and there will always be that adversarial overtone to the game which can really kill the fun. If that's a consistent theme in the game you're in now RD, I'd consider leaving that group.

A better way for your GM to react is to allow what you want to do, then think about the consequences of that action. Was the NPC on the other side of that door a minion of a more powerful bad guy? Will that bad guy want revenge? Will some shopkeeper hear about it via rumors and give RD a discount for killing that scumbag who collected the protection money every week? That is the job of a GM, to build story. Not to look for ways to shut down the PCs ideas.

After some searching it doesn't look like this has been conclusively discussed, so here goes.

The PCs search the ocean for a ship. They find the ship eventually, but it's deserted. Could the party ranger, with water as his favored terrain, use Tracking to find the missing crew?

Pulg uses his own beard hairs to weave intricate origami-like hair sculptures when he's bored, or as creepy holiday gifts for children.

GoatToucher got his nickname because he invites goats to listen to him preach sermons at the local church, imploring them to change their evil ways.

It's a wonder anyone can see the moon at all, if you apply distance penalties. But then I guess the moon probably isn't actually trying to hide.

...or is he?

Veil can only make creatures look like other creatures.

Veil wrote:

The subjects look, feel, and smell just like the creatures the spell makes them resemble.

Sorry for late reply, but I'm currently researching illusions and I have a question about Veil related to this.

By the way RD, I've been reading a lot of posts here about illusions spells and seen that you've posted several times about your frustrations with the wording of illusion spells dating all the way back to 2012 I think - just want to say dude that I feel your pain!

Ok here's my question:

The spell description for Veil literally contradicts itself when it says you can make the subjects appear to be "anything you wish" and then "just like the creatures the spell makes them resemble". Notice the wording "anything" not "any creature".

So which is it? Anything I want, or just creatures? The description seems to me to be saying that if you wanted to look like a creature, you can, not that you can ONLY look like another creature, probably because of lower level illusion spells like Alter Self etc. But why couldn't you make yourself look like a chair or a bookshelf if you wanted to? If you don't think it should work this way, is there any other illusion spell that does allow that?

"Necro-ing" a thread this old is somewhat frowned upon, even if not forbidden. And one reason for that might be that...

The posts earlier in this thread refer to stats from D&D 3.5 for the Aboleth and the Large Shark... which are somewhat different from those of the Pathfinder versions you are referring to.

D&D 3.5 Large Shark: 38 hp; AC 15; Bite +7 (1d8+4)
D&D 3.5 Aboleth: 76 hp; AC 16; 4 tentacles +12 (1d6+8 plus slime)

Pathfinder Shark: 22hp; AC 14; Bite +5 (1d8+4)
Pathfinder Aboleth: 84 hp; AC 20; 4 tentacles +10 (1d6+5 plus slime)

Large Sharks were much more of a threat to the Aboleth in 3.5 than they are in Pathfinder. Generally, summoned creatures are expected to be more of a nuisance or distraction than a true threat to the enemy, but in the case of the D&D Aboleth vs a D&D Large Shark, that's not so much the case.

I may never understand why some people hate thread necro so much. As long as you know what you're talking about what's the problem? I freely admit at least some of the time I don't know what I'm talking about, but that's neither here nor there. :) Thanks for taking the time to reply though Urath, you seem like a cool person.

It may take the Aboleth more recovery time in 3.5, but exactly the same thing would happen.

Even by 3.5 the Aboleth only needs to roll a 3 or better to hit the shark, and does an average of 44 damage each round (average, not maximum), killing one shark per round, which makes the maximum possible damage the sharks can do to the Aboleth (barring any critical hit for both the sharks and the Aboleth) before all 3 are dead a mere 72 damage (this is maximum, not average), meaning the Aboleth's survival is almost guaranteed.

There's also a point in the game when players get access to greater teleport and all the overland travel speeds becomes less important.

It's good to do research, yet it's best not to dig too deep into things when the players might do something that completely bypasses the matter you spent a lot of time researching.

Point taken, but until mid to high levels teleportation isn't really feasible, and it also depends on the party having a wizard or a Sorcerer willing to dump a spell slot for it, or a lot of gold to hire NPC wizards, or a lot of gold on scrolls, etc., etc. so teleportation isn't always the answer in every game.

Plus as a side note, in my game world teleportation doesn't work, so travel speeds, ships, wagons, horses, caravans, etc have all taken on A LOT more importance than they ever have before in my games. I must say, I greatly prefer it this way for many reasons. Among those reasons are that the PCs get more time to interact with one another and various NPCs out of combat. It gives me new plausible ways to introduce new NPCs into the game, who happen to be traveling with the same caravan/ship/etc. It gives the PCs a new source for hirelings and contacts. It allows the players to role play their downtime in more variations by taking part in shipboard/caravan activities. It allows the PCs new ways to put their non-combat skills to good use in ways that feel important. It gives the GM more angles for plot hooks. Virtually every aspect of my game has been improved by nixing teleportation magic. And the best upshot is that my players don't even miss it. They can have fun on the ships and caravans, partying and spreading the word of their epic exploits to new NPCs all the time. And when playing out the travel seems pedantic or would hurt the pacing of the game, we just hand wave it, and it is effectively almost identical to teleportation anyway. I never realized what a game-killer teleportation magic was until I took it away.

Can someone explain how the Orc Witch Doctor can cast 5th level witch spells while having an INT of only 12?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsterCodex/orcs.html#orc-witch-doctor

Is there some rule I'm missing, or is this NPC actually built incorrectly?

In the PRD, in the section about Poisons, under the heading of Multiple Doses of Poison, it says:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/gear/poisons.html#pois ons

(I'm not sure why it won't paste the URL correctly, it puts a space in the final few characters which is not what I paste into this post...)

==begin paste==

"This has two effects, which last until the poisons run their course.

Increased Duration: Increase the duration of the poison by 1/2 the amount listed in its frequency entry.

Increased DC: Increase the poison's duration by +2."

==end paste==

I think that last part is supposed to say it increases the DC by +2, not the duration. For one thing the line immediately before that sets the duration effect, and for another increasing a poison duration by "+2" doesn't really make any sense since poison durations are expressed as "1/rd for 6 rds" etc.

I'm currently running a game that has the PCs on a ship, and I've done a bit of research into this as well.

The rules on ship travel include some abstraction, but I think overall it works much like a PC's travel does.

Rationale
For a ship, like a PC, it's top speed is a lot faster than it's "overland travel" speed. Realistically, with favorable winds and currents and sails and sailors, etc, etc a ship can reach faster speeds than it does on average over long journeys, but the average speed it will have attained includes times when the wind is calm, the current is against you, you must tack against the wind, etc. so the average speed is less. It's similar to how a PC may have a run speed of 120', while a move action is only 30'. And, while a realistic comparison of a walking human might happen to match, remember that the distance traveled in a day of walking is explicitly stated to include taking breaks for meals etc. Plus, what if every single step of that journey is not on perfectly flat, solid ground? Even the rules for walking distance in a day have included some abstraction you see!

Realism
Plus factor in the difference between types of ships. Is the typical sailing ship in your game world a caravel? In reality the average speed of a caravel was about 4 knots, which translates into 90-100 miles per day. On a world map with 30 mile hexes, that's 3 hexes per day, while the game rules say a sailing ship can only travel, as you've stated, 48 miles. A caravel is a very old style of ship that was available in medieval times. If your game world also includes ships typical of the golden age of piracy, like sloops and schooners, those ships could cover well over 300 miles in a day. The game rules say a sailing ship can travel 2mph for 24 hours... that works out to about 1.7 knots... slower than even the slowest sailing ships in history and more in line with such a ship being propelled by rowers with oars.

Conclusion
I think ultimately the realities of sea travel, and the rules in the book should be balanced with the needs of the fantasy campaign. Do you want distances in the campaign to seem vast? Is water travel just a nuisance to be redlined? If you want ships to travel more slowly, go with the standard book speed. If it's just something getting in the way of the adventure, let them travel on a faster ship and get it over with, or just hand-wave the travel all together. But to answer your question, the rules aren't really "inconsistent" so much as "abstracted". A ship might travel 90'/rd in a combat battle map setup but only make 48 miles a day on the campaign map. That's just abstraction and gamey-rules to make the game work and in most cases it's fine. If you wanted to get more realistic though, you might find that there are an awful number of those "inconsistencies" already built-into your campaign world. If your fantasy port includes a Chinese junk sailing alongside a 17th century Spanish galleon and a medieval french cog and an 18th century English brig and a 19th century mediterranean Xebec? These ships all have different cultural roots, sail plans, handling characteristics, construction, speeds, etc. Well, with wizards and dragons in your world already, why not?

*Chuckles* We made our saves or were protected by spells from its opening round of spells, and then the Druid dropped 1d3 Large Sharks on it. We then watched as it swam for its life, unsuccessfully. ;p

Aboleth not so scary when Jaws is eating its face. They aren't to great in melee.

I know this is a bit of a thread necro, but if threads weren't meant to be necro'ed, they'd be closed so we couldn't necro them :) I've been doing some research on Aboleths and found this post kind of amusing.

But it was nice of this GM to go easy on his PCs.

An average Aboleth should have no trouble killing 3 large sharks in melee. With it's 4 attacks/rd it only needs to roll a 4 or better to hit their AC14, and if it rolls no 3's or less each round it is pretty much guaranteed to kill one shark per round with 4d6+20 tentacle damage vs the large shark's 22hp. The Aboleth also has 15' reach which could be an advantage, and 84hp which is more than three large sharks can possibly deal before all three are dead in 3 rounds even if every attack hits (unlikely since the sharks have to roll a 16 or better to hit the Aboleth's AC21) and deals max damage (which is a theoretical max of 72 damage).

Not to mention that the Aboleth's swim speed is exactly the same as the sharks at 60' so if it has room to run, all it needs to do is keep going for a couple minutes until the spell's duration runs out or just hop out of the water in a safe spot with it's 10' land speed and go where the sharks can't touch it. Even if not amphibious, an Aboleth can hold it's breath for almost 4 and a half minutes.

Or maybe he meant "enlarged" sharks or something?

What kind of check would be appropriate for a character to determine if goods being examined in a store are stolen or not? What about being able to determine which goods in a pile are stolen? This is useful for shopkeepers buying goods as well as for PCs buying them from merchants.

As the GM I'm inclined to give the PCs a chance to detect that something is not right, but I'm not sure what kind of check that would be. Appraise? Profession, depending on the kind of items you're looking at? Knowledge?

I noticed that in the rules for underwater combat, in the table called "Table: Combat Adjustments Underwater" it says that if you DON'T have a swim speed, and DON'T have freedom of movement, and DON'T make a swim check and DON'T have firm footing, that your movement is "normal". Is that a typo? It should say "None" there, not normal, right?

I've been making conversions for warhammer Age of Sigmar monsters, particularly the undead, into Pathfinder, and wondered if I'm reinventing the wheel. Does anyone know if this has been done before?

So far I've converted the Vargulf, Terrorgheist and Crypt Horror and working on the Vargheist.

Thanks for answering promptly Katina!

At this time I would prefer to cancel the entire order. If you could handle that for me please, I would be very grateful.

Thanks!

Order number 3252306

It's for 7 ogres.

In my order history, it says "unavailable" below the item.

If you could tell me please, will my order ship, and if so, when?

Hi,

While generating treasure for my group, I noticed the random weapons table in the Appendix is missing results from 65 - 85. The table goes like this:

64–65 Rapier
85–87 Spear

There's nothing between 65 and 85.

In 3.5, incorporeal creatures were "winked out" when within an antimagic field. But in the PRD, the entry for Antimagic Field says nothing at all about incorporeal creatures. It specifically says undead are only affected if they were summoned. I can't find any reference in Pathfinder that incorporeal creatures of any kind are winked out by Antimagic Field. Am I just missing something or was this intentionally changed in PF?

Most animals have an Int of 2, though some that rely more on instinct than intellect seem to have a 1. I'm sure nobody would argue that a common iguana should be able to fight like a well trained, seasoned veteran fighter, even if it had the disposition to do so. Even a guard dog has a rather limited repetoire of attacks that it uses, if more than just "bite it till it's dead" those must be trained I think.

So, with that in mind, most of these animals have a 2 Int, how would a Fighter be affected by being reduced to a 1 Int?

Would they still be capable of using their fighter feats?
Could they still use a shield properly?
Would they understand how to use flanking against enemies?
Would they even be capable of effectively wielding a weapon?

It can be argued that even a caveman can use clubs and spears, but even a caveman has a higher Int than a Feebleminded Fighter.

I assume the text in Feeblemind that says someone is still capable of recognizing friends and protecting them is just there to prevent GM's from ruling that your Feebleminded friend automatically attacks the party or anything like that, not that it means a Fighter can disregard being Feebleminded. The spell description specifically mentions some skills and abilities, but if you can't even remember how to speak your native language, how can you remember all your martial training?

How would you adjudicate this?

Please explain your answers so I can learn why you think so.

Hi James,

Why is the spear a 2 handed weapon? I've been asked this numerous times throughout my GMing of Pathfinder and also 3rd Edition. I think the spear should be a 2 handed simple weapon, and a 1 handed martial weapon, sort of like a bastard sword (but not exotic). What are your thoughts on this?

Is there a way for a high level caster of any class to transport a few hundred troops without using any spells that touch the planes such as Teleportation (uses the Astral) Gate, etc?

When I use my droid to go to the NPC classes it displays the entire prd menu on the page with the NPC classes at the bottom. Waaaaaaaay down at the bottom.

I've had numerous other issues using the new PRD on my droid tablet and phone, and so have others in my gaming group this past Saturday. We would have liked a way to view the old site until the bugs are worked out of the new one.

I could have sworn I saw a feat in one of the books that adds 2 to your cavalier level for purposes of determining your challenge abilities, but now I can't find it. Anyone know the feat I'm talking about?

I like the explanation that the Worldwound is an extension of Deskari's domain in the Abyss. The other explanations are kinda weak and implausible given the nature of demons.

I'm relatively new to Pathfinder, and wondering why a bunch of equally powerful demon lords including Baphomet would allow Deskari to be "in charge" of an invasion of Golarion? Why would the devils and evil deities, much less the other demon lords, allow him to get all the glory and mortal souls? For example, it kinda seems far fetched that Baphomet would "hasten to comply" with Deskari (The Worldwound Incursion pp7). Is there some lore I'm missing that makes Deskari more potent and able to intimidate Baphomet?

As for red herrings, what about those burned down mills? Who did it? My group is seriously investigating that as possible ties to the murder but there's no help in the module. So who burned down the mills in your games?

Say you have a situation where a given PC is the only one who can act in the suprise round. Instead of acting, can he delay until the start of the first full round and thereby make use of a move and standard action (or a full-attack action)?

It seems like he should be able to do this based on the wording of Delay in the SRD. Of course, the follow-up question would be: What if the party is setting up an ambush and all PCs (and no enemies) get to act in the suprise round? Can they all delay until the beginning of the first full round?

Forgive the thread necro (strangely some people get unnerved by adding to previous conversations instead of starting the whole thing over again) but here is how I read the rules on this:

The surprise round includes very specific restrictions on what actions can be taken, including, and limited to: Standard, Move and Free actions: (bold italics mine)

The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round. If no one or everyone is surprised, no surprise round occurs.

Nowhere does it say you can delay in the surprise round. Delaying is explicitly stated as "waiting to see what happens" before you act. How can you act first if you're waiting to see what happens before you act?

So if you get to act during the surprise round, the rules do not allow you to delay. The rules say you can take a standard, move or free action, that's all. The rule is worded this way for very specific reasons, in my opinion.

If the PCs are the ambushers, they get to act once before the normal initiative order takes over - in which a particularly quick foe might outmaneuver them otherwise. If the PCs are the ones being ambushed, it allows a PC who notices the ambush to call out to his friends, move to block the enemy attack, or strike at the hidden ambusher first - if the PCs are being ambushed, "waiting to see what happens" should have quite obvious results! The PC simply does nothing during the Surprise round, and then the normal initiative order takes over.

Why a new thread?

Two handed spears never made any sense to me either, either from a historical standpoint or a game mechanics one. Spears have always been 1 handed weapons, since the times of ancient Egyptians 10,000 years ago up until the late 19th century Native Americans. Any spear typically wielded in two hands was more of a pike, not a true spear. Plus there is no 1 handed martial 1d8 piercing x3 critical weapon. Nor is there a simple one. But the battle axe more or less proves it's not a broke combination to have 1d8 damage and x3 critical in a one handed martial weapon. Simple weapons try to stay away from x3 criticals to give martial weapons more damage, which is understandable.

Perhaps the Spear can have a Bastard Sword like Mechanic?

Simple Proficiency:
Spear is Two Handed

Martial Proficiency:
Can use a Spear as a One Handed weapon

So I would take this one step further.

The spear is ALWAYS a 1 handed weapon, additionally:

Simple Proficiency:
Spear is x2 critical

Martial Proficiency:
Spear is x3 critical

I've been wishing this would make it into official rules since the first time I opened a 3.0 PHB.

I have to disagree with this idea that a PC shouldn't be able to make money by creating and selling magic items. Should you allow them to make 40,000gp on it? Of course not, but how about 400gp, or 40? What's the difference between making a skill check to earn cash at a Profession skill (or Bardic performance) and making a Spellcraft check to earn cash by making magic items? You don't have to let them make 50% markup, but neither should you shut them down just because their schtick is making magic items instead of playing a flute.

Also, imagine all the loot items most PCs leave behind anyway. They could be saving every normal mundane sword just to get the 2.5gp for it. All that money is technically slipping through their fingers anyway. Think they can't carry it all? Wait till they get a bag of holding. Or a horse. If you try to actively discourage the PCs from making money in more ways than killing people, you're creating an escalating situation that you as the GM cannot win - because your job is to make the game fun and fair, not stymie the players. Let them earn some money making a "normal" living during their downtime if they want to. Just don't let them abuse it.

As the GM, allow your PC who puts forth a little effort in finding a buyer or making a deal with a consignment shop to earn a little cash during his downtime. Give them a fair, non-game-breaking payoff for their effort. You don't even need a formula - if you arbitrarily pick a payoff that seems fair (like the same amount another PC could make doing other skill checks) the player will likely never even ask how you came to that amount. If they spend a few weeks making a 4th level wand in their spare time, they are at least a 7th level character and earning a few hundred gp on it is not going to break anything.

Plus just imagine all the role playing opportunities you are wasting by not allowing the PCs to make and sell things! The NPC who bought something might come back with another specific order, or he might tell his friends about the PC and then you have instant plot hooks when the NPC asks them to make something exotic that requires hard to acquire components. Or maybe the item is flawed somehow, perhaps by a poor Spellcraft roll and the NPC gets hurt because the item failed in a time of need and their friends are out for payback, or maybe the item was found at the scene of a crime and the PC crafter is now implicated. The possibilities make my mind swim... We spend a lot of time as GMs looking for ways to herd the PCs into doing what we want and making it feel like it's what they want... never pass up a good opportunity to turn something a PC actually DOES want to do into a plot device for your own purposes.

Scott

I guess what I really meant was "did I read this rule correctly or miss something, or does this call for a house rule?"

Apparently I did, but the jury is still out. What is the game rule purpose of it taking so much time? Since gold is clearly meant to be the limiting factor and is 100% within the GM's control, why should it also take days and days of game time, or weeks or even months? Compared to other game mechanics the crafting rules seem like they're borrowed from another game. Why not make it a ritual taking 8 hours like a wizard's bonded object, or something along those lines?

I guess maybe now I am getting into the speculative.

So a PC in a game I'm in is debating Craft Arms and Armor feat. We talked about it and suddenly it dawned on me that this is the kind of feat that a PC will probably never take, because it takes too much time.

At level 5 you could spend 2 days making the fighter's sword +1 without too much hassle. You'd need to be between adventures obviously, but 2 days isn't a problem for most groups. But then things start getting unreasonable. Making a +2 weapon at level 6 takes an entire week, and making a +3 weapon takes closer to 3 weeks. If you plan to make any armor, or enchant more than just a single weapon, be prepared to spend MONTHS doing it. Most campaigns can't wait that long. So it just doesn't seem useful and nobody does it.

So my question to the hive mind is this: how would you house rule this to make a crafty character more useful with minimum impact on game balance?

Firelock wrote:

Chris P. Bacon wrote:

You're close; adding a +1 enchantment to a sword that already has a +1 enchantment on it would cost 6,000 gp.

So, following your example, a +1 longsword would cost 2,315 gp. A +2 longsword would cost 8,315 gp, so the difference is an even 6,000 gp. That would be your base cost.

Actually this is not quite right either. A +1 longsword would cost 1,315gp to make, not 2,315gp. When making magic items you only spend half the base price, plus the cost of the item being enchanted, in this case a masterwork longsword costing 315gp.

Adding a +1 equivalent special ability to a +1 weapon would require spending 3,000gp. Adding a second +1 ability would require spending an additional 5,000gp. For instance: buying a +1 keen, spell storing long sword would cost 18,315gp if you could find one for sale. Making it yourself would cost a total of 9,315gp.

NOte: This post was written assumingf the costs were for crafting the weapon yourself, not buying an enhancement from an NPC to your weapon. And that your PC has the time needed to do the enchanting themself.

And doesn't include all the confusing additional information needed on things like the Spellcraft checks (and modifiers to the target DC thereof) needed to successfully enchant an item.

Ok I understand now. Though it may be nitpicking at this point, paying an NPC to craft something for you should probably cost the price of the enchanting plus the wages of the NPC, including paying any spellcasting they need to do during creation. But I do see that the OP was looking at the magic weapons table as if someone other than himself was doing it. Oops!

Let's say an enterprising young gish-type character uses a spell storing short sword, and he casts true strike into it. Then later, he declares he is scratching himself for 1 hp of damage with the sword to impart the true strike spell upon himself, claiming (plaintively) that doing so is said to be a free action in the core rules. In fact the spell storing ability description does say that casting the spell on the weapon's target is a free action if the target takes damage.

My inclination is to rule one of two ways:

Allow it to work, but decide that the attack deals full damage to himself (no criticals or precision based damage) to reward his ingenuity but deter it's overuse.

Allow it to work but decide it takes a standard action because it takes an actual attack on himself to cut himself.

What would you decide?