Giomanach's page

I believe availability of materials would alter the DC and nothing more. A well supplied town/fletcher would have access to blank shafts, fletchings and points as well a plentiful supply of "consumable" materials such as sinew and therefore wouldn't need as much time accumulating the needed materials as a fletcher attempting the same task in a barren wasteland with little access to such materials. Even with that said, the number of arrows that are able to be crafted in a said amount of time does not change much aside from the availability of materials. If you have access to 20 arrows in materials then you can make 20 arrows just as quickly in a town that can supply the materials or in a barren wasteland. Remember that the check is to see if one can succesfully craft such an item, not if he/she can supply the materials to craft it.

Loengrin seems to have the correct formula for the amount of arrows that can be crafted in a given period of time, although I don't see how an increase in DC can increase the number of items crafted concidering the increased DC means an increase in difficulty but that might be a simple flaw in the overall concept of crafting.

Quick draw when it pertains to archers, think Legolas pulling his bow from slung possession. He is quick and draws an arrow at the same time allowing him to fire the first shot without penalty. He would also have quick draw for pulling arrows as well. he draws and fires smoothly.

this may not make sense as I just got home from GMing a game starting at 11am, its now 11pm and Im tired as i woke up at 6am. Ill reread this tomorrow and change it if it doesnt....lol

It makes sense, although I think the "quickdraw" and fast loading may be tied together with Rapid Shot or Rapid Reload rather than Quickdraw... Maybe I'm to tired to be thinking straight, it's past 5am.

Post-it scrolls? Stick it to your opponent and read it off his chest... :)

Not really wanting to highjack the thread but "customers" that need to be taken by the hand and told everything they can do because they can't think for themselves is why microwave ovens have warnings not to put pets in them. And "customers" that demand a company bend over backwards for them are to selfish to understand broader aspects of running a business.

That of course is a personal opinion.

Shifty wrote:

I dont think there is any argument about carrying a Crossbow 'at the ready', but 'at the ready' is in your hands, not slung.

I personally wouldnt be allowing people to roll with loaded crossbows slung over their backs, as the bolts would be dropping out, there is no 'safety' and a range of other problems.

A loaded crossbow in hand ready to brass up the BBEG = no worries.

That is the core of the topic.

Readied in hand is always ok by me.

But items (net/crossbow) in storage or slung can hardly be cobsidered ready (folded/loaded)

It's most likely rule benders that won't agree with you on those points. As Vikking said, there's a penalty for changing weapons (that can be overcome with Quickdraw or dropping the readied weapon) that I would still impose due to common sense laws of needing to load the weapon (you can't "load" a longbow and then sling it over your shoulder). Even if allowed to have a net folded in a pouch or tucked under a belt I think you'd need to further secure it to remain neatly folded (tied together through the netting for example) that would impose a slowdown to have it ready. Quickdraw I see as a feat applying to "simple" melee weapons (swords/daggers/axes/maces/etc) and not ranged or preparation weapons.

I dont think there is any argument about carrying a Crossbow 'at the ready', but 'at the ready' is in your hands, not slung.

I personally wouldnt be allowing people to roll with loaded crossbows slung over their backs, as the bolts would be dropping out, there is no 'safety' and a range of other problems.

A loaded crossbow in hand ready to brass up the BBEG = no worries.

As primary weapons I'd still consider them "ready" even if the character had to put his net on the ground to pull open the huge doors or sling his crossbow over his shoulder to lift the trapdoor moments before the encounter. It's an assumption but I believe one that we can all agree upon that such a character would do whatever is needed to have his weapon at the ready as quickly as possible.

Yes and I gave it. There is a 1 round penalty for switching to another weapon unless "quick draw" is taken as a feat for that weapon.

I didn't want to sound as if you weren't answering the OP, I believe it's not only a changing of weapons during an encounter but also having a weapon at the ready before an encounter that the OP is asking about. I'm an archer myself and find many flaws in the ranged combat rules that either require an official modification or house ruling alteration but see no ruling that would actually prevent readied weapons before an encounter even if they are readied hours in advance.

the reason for crossbows are armor penetration. I actually give negatives to short/longbow users when facing an opponent in full plate unless they specify they are using armor piercing arrows and even them they still get a negative. the crossbow receives no negative and will get an addition to the to hit score for soft armor types, as it should be according to the real life reason and use for crossbows.

That's a house ruling though and I'm sure your rulings on archery in general are significantly better than what's offered in RAW right now. I believe the OP is looking for a RAW or RAI answer though.

when it comes to switching weapons, there is a 1 round delay in readiness. i do believe its in the 3.5 rule setting and thats how my group has always ran our games. my fighter will use his sword in hand, but if its dropped in favor of using my crossbow I forfeit my next attack round in order to use it. same goes with pulling my shortsword unless i have quick draw as a feat. As for a constant readied cross bow, no, not allowed when I GM. while under constant tension the string stretches (real life effect) and causing the range and damage to be dropped considerably. also the constant tension on the metal of the bow section will cause a permanent warp also contributing in the malfunctioning of the bow(again, real life fact). thats why the 1 round delay for light crossbow, 2 rounds if heavy.

That's why I only pointed out a strung bow, having it drawn at full or even partial pull for a prolonged period can damage it although I think that can readily be "explained" when enchanted with magic as to it being able to withstand the strain. The question still remains though of how the ammunition is being held in place without actually being held in the characters hands?

Not allowing a crossbow user to have his weapon at the ready puts him at an unfair disadvantage just because of real life dynamics. All other weapons can be at the ready to use without incurring quality damage aside from the crossbow but the advantages of the weapon do not give reason for such a heavy penalty, it's already a slow shooter compared to the bow and has a shorter range.

A strung bow isn't a problem until it's been strung over 24 hours, a loaded crossbow on the other hand raises the question "how's the bolt staying in the groove without falling out?" unless carried at the ready. As a primary "archer" I doubt you're going anywhere without your bow/crossbow/sling or whatever range weapon you specialize in at the ready. The character that uses any such weapon as a back up I would penalize alone by having him need to pull the bow over his head and off his shoulder or lay a bolt in the grove or even pull the net from the pouch.

I think this thread should return to what the OP intended it for, namely a discussion if the Infernal Bastard Trait could be broken. Discussion of a particular spell that can be taken with this trait does link it vaguely but to highjack the thread onto a topic suited to a seperate thread I think is a bit immature and selfish.

The general take on ammo as a one use item makes most ranged attackers look like pack animals (i.e. 20 quivers of arrows, 5 bags of bullets, 110 shurikens, even 15 throwing axes or daggers). A much closer look needs to be taken at the rules on ranged combat since it will be a rare adventure where a ranged specialist can survive very long with just 1-2 batch(es) of ammo.
I can see a 50% loss for normal craftmanship and would bring a 75% loss towards masterworked quality for 50x the cost of normal craftmanship (i.e. 50gp for 20 arrows instead of 1gp for 20). The loss percentage would also pertain to both ammo that hits as well as ammo that misses its intended target.
Magical ammo as mentioned is rarely a "Wow" factor among players unless they are low level or in a treasure weak campaign where they already drool over a potion of diguise self. Making the recovery of such items 75-80% would increase the favorability of such items drastically without over balancing the game.

You are right, avoiding flanking can benefit all classes yet the class I see with the biggest benefit is the fighter that's why I continue to harp on that. Sure the spellcaster can get disrupted in his casting but it too takes a concentrated effort on the part of the melee combatant and a stupid spellcaster wanting to match muscles. (Yes I am over exagerating). Also it is feasible to avoid the sneak attack with a concentrated effort. I don't see how the melee combatant wants to stop the spellcaster using sensible range spells without also needing to disrupt his power routine. Or are you saying the rogue needs to also be a ranged specialist so that his sneak attack can't be foiled as easily?

Giomanach wrote:

I'm in an undead heavy campaign and my halfling rogue is having a rough go contributing effectively in combat situations. The simple answer is why do you want to underpower your own party?

Aren't undead vulnerable to sneak attacks now?

It's still a 3.5 campaign. What I was saying is that without the Sneak Attack ability a rogue can still contribute but his/her effectiveness is reduced considerably. What a PC does needs to be considered that the NPC can do as well and handicapping your own party so that a single class can avoid a special ability that can easily be overcome by other means doesn't make much sense to me.

If the person is declaring a readied action, then I would argue they are aware and focused. Perhaps so focused that they take a circumstance penalty to perception checks against anyone other than the readied target.

Readied action is more than just, having your weapon pulled out and loaded. Think of a swat team that just broke down the door, stormed in and has an assault rifle pointed at you with a finger on the trigger. If you think you can pull a gun out, aim it, and pull the trigger before they fill you full of holes your are dreaming. Readied action are about intent. I think it is pretty safe to say that is someone has a loaded crossbow pointed at you, and is just waiting for you to make their day, they can pull the trigger before your weapon even clears its sheath. There are exceptions, but those are just that, characters with abilities that are the exception to the rules.

Now if someone has a loaded crossbow, but no readied action. Then, they are not aware and focused, so normal initiative roll.

In this example with the OP I'd then rule since the readied action was to fire if a weapon was drawn, the crossbow would be surprised and flat-footed if the opponent decided to charge instead or attempt an unarmed trip or any other action that didn't trigger the crossbow. Speak if the readied action was NOT triggered the crossbow automatically loses initiative.

Giomanach wrote:

So the rogue needs to be a team player but the fighter is allowed to be a one man juggernaut? I don't see any balance here.

Well he needs to be a team player of he wants to flank :p

Otherwise there's a range of other options to set up an opportunity for a quick knifing. Some of them not real nice!

The conotation I have been getting from what I've read is that any nerf to the Rogue, who is in no way overpowered, robs them of their primary (or some say only) combat effectivness. I don't see it is nearly that bad of a problem, as there are other ways for the rogue to Sneak Attack, (more than have been mentioned). The difference is that they require the rogue to actively do something rather than be standing in the right square. PF has also included a multitude of ways for non-casters to inflict status affects like say, blindness, which means Sneak Attack. It is fairly consistent, and requires the Rogue to be more a team player rather than waiting for the team to play for them, so to speak.

which I see as saying that a rogue has to be a team player but by all accounts so far the fighter is allowed to stand alone against all odds and somehow overcome each other classes combat abilities. I don't see this as being balanced in ANY sense of the word.

It is fairly consistent, and requires the Rogue to be more a team player rather than waiting for the team to play for them, so to speak.

Not what I'm suggesting at all. But they can make them lose the spell, can duck behind a tower shield, 5ft step behind a wall, or a lot of things that may negate the spell completely.

So the rogue needs to be a team player but the fighter is allowed to be a one man juggernaut? I don't see any balance here.

Quote:

I do think that someone that wants to focus on not getting sneak attack by a cheezy rogue should have some chance to, though, at a cost.

Wow, so a Rogue using a flanking position to gain Sneak Attack, as set forth in the Core Rules of 3.5 and now PF, is "cheesy."

I'm sure the next thing will be to allow this non-flankable fighter to be allowed to avoid those spells with an evasion-like ability because he was watching that spellcaster casting it.

That can be a tough place for a Rogue :(

Backstab the Vampires with Wooden Stakes?

At least he has a good Dex for throwing vials of Holy Water I guess!

I'm not useless, actually my rogue is the only one with a ghost-touched weapon so she gets to face all the incorporeals. What I'm saying with that example is yes a rogue can contribute without sneak attacks but again, why limit your own party?

They OP needs to be seen in reverse, if a PC can do this then a NPC can too. I'm in an undead heavy campaign and my halfling rogue is having a rough go contributing effectively in combat situations. The simple answer is why do you want to underpower your own party?

[I'm not seeing your point? I know Small Short Swords do less damage than Medium Longswords and Hammers? I think you left something out here, or maybe I am missing something?

The point isn't that a rogue needs to be able to stand toe to toe with a melee combatant like a fighter, the point is that taking away his most effective means to contribute to the battle is nerfing him. Sure allow him to use sniper attacks at range, still a very limited effectiveness. Or all the wizard to buff him with invisibilty, again limited success. Every class has something that they can contribute in a battle with, why lower the rogues ability to contribute?

I'm not trying to be argumentive or a jerk here. But a rogue shouldn't be focusing on being almost equal to the full BAB melee character. That isn't their role. I also don't believe (as in my opinion, not I haven't seen it in action to know), that the rogue would be that bad off not being able to Sneak Attack each and every single round, multiple times. I am not saying that Rogues shouldn't be allowed to Sneak attack, or even much. I do think that someone that wants to focus on not getting sneak attack by a cheezy rogue should have some chance to, though, at a cost.

Take a fairly common party of a human fighter and a halfling rogue, say 7th level. That vicious 1d4 short sword once a round isn't going to even come close to the 1d8 twice a round from the weak long sword of the fighter. Even the dwarven clerics hammer or the elven wizards staff is going to put a bigger dent in the combat than the rogue.

The conotation I have been getting from what I've read is that any nerf to the Rogue, who is in no way overpowered, robs them of their primary (or some say only) combat effectivness. I don't see it is nearly that bad of a problem, as there are other ways for the rogue to Sneak Attack, (more than have been mentioned). The difference is that they require the rogue to actively do something rather than be standing in the right square. PF has also included a multitude of ways for non-casters to inflict status affects like say, blindness, which means Sneak Attack. It is fairly consistent, and requires the Rogue to be more a team player rather than waiting for the team to play for them, so to speak.

Yes there are still other means to perform a sneak attack and no a rogue is not actually useless without being able to perform this ability but he is reduced in his effectiveness especially when compared to other classes.

I don't know this for sure, but I would be not at all surprised to find out that flanking was put into the game specifically to allow Rogues to sneak attack. That's how important it is to the class. WITH flanking, Rogues still deal less damage than a full BAB melee character. With being forced to only make one sneak attack a turn (through a ring of invisibility or Improved Feint), they'd fall so ludicrously behind the curve that their combat utility would be severely damaged.

1E had the simple backstab i.e. BEHIND the victim, I believe flanking is a means to continue this original idea.

Beckett wrote:

becomes nerfed and usless

You're incorrectly conflating the two terms.

"Nerfed" means "reduced in effectiveness". It is impossible to argue that removing flanks doesn't reduce a rogue's effectiveness. It IS a nerf.

No one, not one person in this thread, has claimed that it would make rogues "useless". That is something you added that has no value or place in this discussion.

I did hint towards that (rogues being useless), but even without sticking so rigid with the rogue and his sneak attack I don't see how you can reasonably rule out a flank just by ignoring an attacker. This ruling has to be consistant and would also pertain even if it wasn't as simple a situation as the OP described.

I'm still of the opinion (from the last time this came up) that it does not "nerf" the rogue. All it does "nerf" are players that think Flanking = Rogue. On that last thread, I showed a lot of other ways a rogue could still sneak attack without needing to flank, and in my OPINION, allowing a charcter, PC or NPC to treat a target as Invisible to not be flanked is a very reasonable trade off. Or something along those lines.

But I also admit, Rogue is (can be) a problem class for my groups.

Yes there are other means that a rogue can use sneak attacks but no other means that is consistant and can last an entire battle.

I'd still call that nerfing the class.

Giomanach wrote:

Why is everyone so keen on nerfing the rogue class? Is it really THAT overpowered? Any game allowing me as a PC to negate a NPC's sneak attack that easily has just reduced the rogue class to a door opener.

No worries, this is just debating the merits of various house rules. Paizo didn't nerf them and likely won't.

Let's take the example of a 7th level fighter and the OP dire rat and 7th level rogue, if I can deny the rogue a flanking bonus by ignoring the rat then I can deny two 20th level fighters any flanking bonuses as well even though I'm way out of my league. There were means to reduce flanking chances in 3.5 WITHOUT something as overpowering as saying "I'm going to ignore one of my attackers".

Why is everyone so keen on nerfing the rogue class? Is it really THAT overpowered? Any game allowing me as a PC to negate a NPC's sneak attack that easily has just reduced the rogue class to a door opener.

Perception checks are also used to spot somebody that is attempting to hide so yes the ruling between Perception and ranged attacks do conflict with one another. You also use a Perception check to notice something even if you are not concentrating on that subject or as you said to recognize who is walking 100' away. Alone your recognition example Noir can easily be used as "You can't recognize him so how can you target an arrow to hit him?"

It makes me wonder if one person was working out the Perception rules and another was working on the Ranged Attack rules without either of them talking to each other so they'd be on the same page in the end result. Visual range is only discussed when vision impairment is involved but regular daytime vision is rarely talked about, reading these rules you're blind as a bat before reaching a bows max range, yet on a clear day without obstructions we can see roughly 84000' (16 miles). Sure we can't tell that the guy walking by at that distance is a redhead with mustache and freckles wearing nikes and levi's but why limit us so drastically?

I have always used best judgemen on penalties to Perception durring my game. I grew up in a town on the plains and if it is sunny and bright and flat one can see up to two miles with out problems. A huge creature is roughly the size of a tractor and I have gotten stuck in the country and had to walk for help (days prior to cell phones I know I am setting a date to my age here) and you can see a tractor and not reach it till three hours of constant walking. In a forest though or at night? That is when I set my penalties. This is one rule that can be RAWed but it often does not make alot of sense. All power to the GM house rule.

Agreed that this can easily be houseruled (I'd personally set a 1 point penalty every 60' or 100'), what I don't understand is a fantasy setting should be considering rules for something like archery more seriously instead of an after thought addition.

I noticed this flaw in the original 3.5 rules and see it has been carried over here into the Pathfinder rules. Archery is getting blunt arrows because of a skill check rule that I think is penalized a bit to harshly. Now the rules state a longbow has a standard maximum distance of 1000' and for this range you take a -20 to hit penalty that makes sense but for that very same distance you take a -100 penalty on your Perception check. I would say this too makes sense if we were talking about trees, bushes, low cavern ceilings or such obstructions but this penalty is already enforced for a clear sunny day across a wide open field. I hope a correction to this rule can be found so that Robin Hood can once again become the archer of legendary ranged accuracy and that archery can once again have broadheads instead of blunt arrows.