Grimmerling's page

I tried to update from 2.0.0 to 2.1.1. This latest iteration is inconceivably large; so large, in fact, that it‘s impossible to install on Forge VTT. I‘ve been wondering at the reasoning behind the bloat and whether there will be a more reasonably sized update in the future.

Here's what immediately comes to mind:

There are plenty of Steps during a Kingdom Turn where a players' consensus is anticipated; for these, one could either assign the final decision to a certain Leadership Role statically, or have the players roll Initiative for each Step (possibly modified by their Role). One could also hold votes in these cases, including everybody holding a Leadership Role.

For Roles occupied by an NPC, one could track that NPC's Attitude towards the different PCs separately to determine in whose interest they decide/vote, use Influence from the DM book, or REQUEST and COERCE to inform their decision.

For Leadership Activities, one could roll initiative to decide the order in which the players take their Activities. That would give them the opportunity to 1) "steal" specific Activities, that are limited for the Turn and 2) decide the effectivity of

DISTRACTED ATTENTION: Focused Attention giving a penalty,
and CREATIVE SABOTAGE: Creative Solution giving a penalty.

The wording of SUPERNATURAL SOLUTION in itself is diambiguous enough to use it for sabotaging another.

Thanks so far for the insights.

Unfortunately, I cannot find any projected release date for Ultimate Cities.

1 month per lot does look like a step in the right direction.

Myself, I've been thinking of basing construction time on the total ammount of Commodities required:

When you Build Structure you pay all the cost in advance and stockpile the commodities on the site. At the end of Civic Activities, for each ongoing construction seperately, you spend stockpiled Commodities in the ammount of the Settlements Consumption rate. When the last Commodity has been spend the building is instantly completed. For simplicity, there's no practical way to interact with the stockpile.

My reasoning:

RP represent abstract funds. An RP cost does not necessarily reflect solely the ammount of manual labour provided, but also its quality; due to higher wages e.g., a highly qualified workeforce may use up more RP in the same time than a less qualified one does.

Commodities are quantifiable material goods that are processed into the building during construction.

Consumption, the food consumed by a Settlement, can be correlated to its available workforce.

There are plenty possibilities for options, providing more flexibility and more bookkeeping: step-by-step Commodity provision; emergency construction stops or pauses, requiring a Check to prevent Unrest/Decay; etc.

What irks me most about the rules so far, apart from the inconsistencies and balance issues, are the structure construction times, i.e. everything is done in a month. Youask for a palace? Give us a wad of cash, a few materials and a cycle of the moon; et voilà votre palais.

This might be conceivable for a Practical Thaumocrat, but other rulerships?

Has anyone taken the effort to cook something up or to adapt the PF1 Ultimate Rulership rules?

Absolutely nothing?!

I‘ve just begun reading the Players Guide and have stumbled over the Feint War Action.

Despite the missing check denomination, which has been mentioned in this forum; who is even going to try this utterly useless option?

You use one action to, if successful, induce a -2 to the opposing AC for your next attack the same round under a -5 MAP because of the actions Attack trait. Essentially Slowing 1 yourself for a -3 to hit. Advanced tactics, my word!

Or am I just not getting it?

In case I actually did get it, I would propose changing the Attack trait to Manoeuvre and checking the same.

Better?! So what? Better is easy. I can do better.

Voilà! Even better. Balanced, no. Broken, yes. But better.

That's AI for you: artifical. Having six fingers might be "better", after all; upgrade, anybody?

Grimmerling wrote:

Unconcious states wrote:

If you're unconscious because you're dying, you can't wake up while you have 0 Hit Points. If you are restored to 1 Hit Point or more via healing, you lose the dying and unconscious conditions and can act normally on your next turn.

Now, the second sentence does imply the one thing having you lose Unconcious is Healing to at least 1 HP. Correct me, but gaining Temp HP is not Healing, is it?

Yes, the gaining of temporary Hit Points seems to be distinct from the healing that recovers current Hit Points, but the Dying condition has this to say about waking up.

Dying wrote:

You lose the dying condition automatically and wake up if you ever have 1 Hit Point or more.

No mention of "healing."

Well spotted! Two different verses in the CRB seem to contradict one another. Why, it is Scripture, after all.

But do they, now?

When there are two different rules, pertaining to the same subject, one coming with a certain qualification, the other more broadly phrased, does that nullify the qualification?

I do not think it's in the interest of anyone to open that Can of Wyrms.

Grimmerling wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Grimmerling wrote:

Revival is just badly phrased. The qualification „ but no normal Hit Points“ is but completely and utterly unneccesary, if not for tossing a Golden Apple to the mob.

Doesn't matter, because they're still only given Temporary HP. If Temporary HP doesn't count, then the spell does nothing. It has to give a specific exception for it to work, and "temporarily bring them back to life" doesn't work, the same way Temporary HP doesn't work.

But, it does:

Raise Dead wrote:

If the spell is successful, the creature returns to life with 1 Hit Point.

No, it doesn't:

Revival wrote:

The raised creatures have a number of temporary Hit Points equal to the Hit Points you gave living creatures, but no normal Hit Points.

When I, for the sake of an argument, remove a phrase from the description, you cannot throw that phrase back into my face; it is not there anymore.

But, let me elaborate my suggested rephrasing. Here's the spell with the relevant part emboldened and the offending phrase stricken:

Now, what might happen to the deceased.

1. They gain a sizable amount of Temp HP.

2. They gain "temporary life with the same effects and limitations as raise dead".

Let us have a look at that, then:

2.a) So, they've got 1 HP now; they awake.

3. They can't gain any HP or Temp HP until they die again.

Nearly done; bear with me!

We want to compare the two outcomings now.

Revival (Original): a temporarily risen creature with 0 HP and X Temp HP.

Revival (Revised): another temporarily risen creature with 1 HP and X Temp HP.

Does that 1 HP really make that much of a difference.

Grimmerling wrote:

Revival is just badly phrased. The qualification „ but no normal Hit Points“ is but completely and utterly unneccesary, if not for tossing a Golden Apple to the mob.

Doesn't matter, because they're still only given Temporary HP. If Temporary HP doesn't count, then the spell does nothing. It has to give a specific exception for it to work, and "temporarily bring them back to life" doesn't work, the same way Temporary HP doesn't work.

If the spell is successful, the creature returns to life with 1 Hit Point.

Revival is just badly phrased. The qualification „ but no normal Hit Points“ is but completely and utterly unneccesary, if not for tossing a Golden Apple to the mob.

If you're unconscious because you're dying, you can't wake up while you have 0 Hit Points. If you are restored to 1 Hit Point or more via healing, you lose the dying and unconscious conditions and can act normally on your next turn.

Now, the second sentence does imply the one thing having you lose Unconcious is Healing to at least 1 HP. Correct me, but gaining Temp HP is not Healing, is it?

By the way, is there any RAW justification for denying Shield Block against a critical Trip success, as it is an Attack, dealing physical damage? Declaring it „damage by hazardous terrain“ does stand on shaky ground, but is the best I can think of.

southeastern diner waitress though

So, Halfling then.

Some of my players do like the idea of some downtime sports. So, they‘re interested in playing the Basilisk. Unfortunately, the description in the travel guide is not only vague, but also contradictory.

If one looks at the illustration of the Basilisk player, several issues arise:

They are carrying a 12“ ball, called the Basilisk ball and a Scoop, that‘s supposed to „catch and throw a basilisk ball“. But the Basilisk is obviously by far to big to fit in the Scoop. Furthermore, they‘ve got their visor down, indicating they‘re carrying the 8“ Scoring ball, which is nowhere to be seen.

So, either they confused the two balls, and the bigger one is actually the scoring ball, or the illustration is just a complete mess up.

Has anyone tried and implemented the game in their campaign, and if so, how?

Just because your cones are better, doesn‘t mean they‘re correct, I‘m afraid to say.

What I can imagine happened here, is that they did the 15‘ diagonal first, using it as a baseline. Then they chose the 7 sq orthogonal over the 8 sq for area similarity.

If one now looks at them separately and try and double the distance, quadrupling the area does seem to be the right solution: It does work perfectly with the diagonal; so you come up with the 28 sq monstrosity for the orthogonal. It‘s a bit like rounding in to steps from 1.49 to 1.5 to 2.

In many cases there are viable solutions, that are able to abstract reality in a better way than the RAW.

You can either stick to the book or houserule.

For 10’ of water to be or not to be a physical barrier: It will stop a bullet.

And, a reasonably sized body of water will disperse an electrical charge quite effectively. This is not the hairdryer in a bathtub scenario.

Now, OP, bear with me for a little thought experiment.

Suppose, on some given night you were to cast a spell with a duration of 1 min at 2:59:30; it should expire at 3:00:30, should it not?

But wait, it‘s the last night of Daylight Saving: At 3:00:00 the clock is set back to 2:00:00. Congratulations, your spell is now going to last for more than another hour.

Oh no, not again.

The whole economy in this game is, for Balance's sake, completely implausible and distorted; it's just utterly ridiculous. The unpaid apprenticeship issue with Crafting is just a minor consequence of this.

I do understand the necessity for this in organised play, at least theoretically; but myself, I rather took the effort to overhaul it and balance character wealth otherwise.

Well, at least one need not invest XP.

For what it's worth, your 15' cone's covering 9 hexes is somewhat overpowered. If you had it begin in only one adjacent hex, it would be better balanced.

You might consider using the Homebrew and House Rules section for this.

What they can do at 0 HP is preventing your increasing your Dying, as long as the amount is at least as high as the damage taken; might come in handy for low persistent.

So, by your rationale, anybody stabilised after having been downed is now impervious to damage until being healed.

Or, What limits the, say, monk from downing their companion at single digit HP with a Non-Lethal blow safely to „stow“ them away for later?

Now, how about following definition instead?: Whenever you take more damage than your current HP your reduced to 0 HP.

Yeah, you can only apply one Fortune effect to a roll. And if it is cancelled by a Misfortune effect, that doesn't mean that they both are removed from the roll. The Fortune and Misfortune effects are still applied, but counteract each other. You still don't get to add another Fortune or Misfortune effect to the roll. It already has one.

You might want to find another term for this, as Counteracting is something very specific in this game, not that much relevant in this case.

Or, in game terms: Common. A specific item should, ipso facto, be rare, from a global standpoint.

Exactly my point; one could put such shenanigans to rest with a single word, „generic“ for example. The necessity to interpret RAI is a sign of bad RAW.

Well, I don‘t see any qualifications for the specificity/genericity of the item: So keys?!, those are quite mundane, are they not?

Documentation?!

The only thing I miss in foundry compared to FGU and even Roll20 is there's no AP ready with maps with everything in place. So you need to import and adjust your own maps and anotations […]

Now, there is PDF to Foundry for those owning APs in pdf; and Narchy‘s maps aren‘t that bad, either.

I agree with breithauptclan. Note however, that in both cases they become immune to treay wounds while being treated, so two people cannot treat the same person at the same time.

Also, be reminded that, by RAW, if one were treated by an inferior healer (1 h cooldown) first, their cooldown would still apply to the superior treatment (10 min cooldown).

Which does not apply to Battle Medicine, by the way, where the immunisation is personal.

1- Cast Invisibility.

2- Stride.

You might want to make that

2- Sneak

to try and become Undetected.

You might want to have a look at the various undead Archetypes and how they compare to the actual "monsters". I can see Drow being an Archetype, Noble it's Advancement, similar to the Hellknight Armiger and the "proper" Hellknight.

One could also have different Rare Backgrounds; they usually provide minor special abilities. Those could be Requirements for the Archetypes.

For Medicine, learn Battle Medicine; there can‘t be too much Battle Medicine in a party.

I optimise so I don't have to fear for my life whenever the encounter XP hit three digits.

Now, Passive Seeking is not a rules term I‘m familiar with, to split some hair. Just saying.

Now, that you have opened this can, how about this hypothesis:

You can Hide and Sneak even from low-light and darkvision in dim light because

„ Creatures and objects in dim light have the concealed condition, unless the SEEKER has darkvision or low-light vision […]“ does imply the Seek action necessary to invalidate Concealment.

Just to make it totally clear: This cavilling of mine was to show the absurdity of the being Concealed is different to having the Concealed Condition or having Concealment, respectively, argument, for what it‘s worth.

Now, that you have opened this can, how about this hypothesis:

You can Hide and Sneak even from low-light and darkvision in dim light because

„ Creatures and objects in dim light have the concealed condition, unless the SEEKER has darkvision or low-light vision […]“ does imply the Seek action necessary to invalidate Concealment.

Dazzled doesn‘t say: „Treat all creatures as though they were concealed from you.“

But: „[…] all creatures and objects ARE CONCEALED from you.“ So they do have Concealment regarding you.

Personally, I allow my players to announce in advance whether they try and jump as far as they can into a prone position in a straight line (Long Jump is an actual Track&Field event, you know), or to a certain square.

Keep in mind: When you're Hidden or Undetected, you can Step to avoid further Stealth checks, as long as you stay Covered or Concealed.

Now, Blur is quite compelling evidence that any concealment has to be qualified for it to not provide an opportunity for Hide and Sneak, is it not?!

There's no qualification for Dazzled.

If the weapon is Unconmon, it‘s technically up to the GM to grant or not to grant access without the feat. You might want to ask them before taking a otherwise useless tax feat.

And for good reason too, breaking the npc weapon is a minor hassle for them, breaking the pc weapon is rendering a high level martial almost obsolete for a whole long time (weapons being often more than half the budget of a character).

And: NPCs normally don‘t care for loot; how about you?

For what it's worth, here's what I would do at my table.

First of all, what's your primary intent? Is it to damage the weapon, or rather to Escape from it's grapple. The latter, I presume.

Now, there might actually be an action to do that. Ah, Escape!

But, you want to do it with a weapon instead of unarmed you say? Fine, use your weapon attack; minor tweak.

And to put some icing on top: I might even allow you to roll basic damage against the offending weapon in the case of a critical success instead of the step, if you so insist.

And, nobody needs to open the Sunder Box, again.

Also, I daresay one might notice a portal opening next to oneself, not being surprised very much by someone stepping through it afterwards.

Now, that I see myself embarrassingly corrected, may I humbly suggest the dueling cape:

You do not need to be proficient in anything,
you will get a little extra perk not totally useless to a rogue,
and it does offer at least a modicum of style.

Take the Cloak, if you cannot have the Dagger.

Look at the trait:

Parry, Core Rulebook pg. 283
"This weapon can be used defensively to block attacks. While wielding this weapon, if your proficiency with it is trained or better, you can spend a single action to position your weapon defensively, gaining a +1 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn."

Thanks, I bow to your superior knowledge.

You could get trained in it so you can use the parry but it wouldn't advance past that.

Do you now? Would you mind citing the rule requiring proficiency to profit from a weapon‘s trait?

First of all: „[…] skipping obvious clues that can be easily noticed without a check or specifically looking for them.“ does read very yellow, rubbery, and waterfowlish to me.

Now, myself as a GM actually would have loved the Investigator’s taking any or all of those feats; but of course, they didn‘t because they believe themselves to be so very smart to see through any plot without the game‘s help, surveiling a totally innocent NPC for a whole session and some after an unfortunate 1 on Sense Motive.

What did they annoyme with instead, you ask? Dubious Knowledge, of course. Which to me is far worse than any Investigator feat, for what it‘s worth.

When they‘ve passed the Turing Test, why not?

I'll also add that alignment cannot be an excuse for bad dinamics at a table. If you sticking to your idea of Lawful good paladin playing police on the party is making everyone else have less fun, maybe instead of shielding yourself on the alignment of your character you should just compromise a bit and adapt to the general dynamic. This is a game first and foremost afterall.

There‘s nothing more obnoxious than a well played paladin.

That‘s why, at our table, paladins and their ilk need the approval of all the other players.

First of all:

[…] if someone's in his way, he's willing to burn down the guy's home and kill his family in front of him.

That course of action is arguably Chaotic and definitely Evil. If that‘s your disposition, so are you.

Now, interpreting someone‘s Alignment from a rules perspective is the GM‘s prerogative.

Interpreting another character‘s actions and behaviour, on the other hand, and reacting according to their own character’s Alignment and values, that‘s called roleplaying and well within a player’s rights.

In the above scenario a suitable reaction for a Good character would have been to banish, try and arrest or ouright kill your character for their crimes, not tell you what you can or cannot do, for what it‘s worth.