Kalriostraz's page

Actual pathfinder or 3rd party?

Path of War is 3pp. From what I've seen it's being billed largely as updating of 'Tome of Battle' but I also think it's DSP so.

I could see ruling it either way, but with the 3pp printing the same wordings for Drow gaining additional Mercies for Paladin, I would lean towards it's intended for you to gain additional options for the inflict.

Depends a bit on just what you mean. If you're creating an item using the legendary/artifact rules from Mythic Adventures, or if you're just looking at an item with a higher than normal total possible enhancement bonus. Different advice for each. I'll try to include some assuming the former.

The biggest piece depends on if you are using a weapon a lot, what level you're going to, and how permissive your GM may be. If you're using a weapon a lot, going to high level, and have any kind of GM, Upgradable is a VERY good investment if you get it early upon a weapon. Effectively getting a +10 equivalent total enhancement for 100k is very sweet. Foe-Biting is also very sweet in this scenario.

If you're GM is a bit more permissive and you don't use a weapon a lot, Upgradable upon a headband or another magic item is equally awesome. It would allow you to start adding other abilities to it perhaps. So creating a ring of deflection AND invisibility for half the normal cost of doing such a thing. Allowing lots of versatility. By a more strict reading though, Upgradable would only allow you to increase the numerics of something. So upgrading a +2 cloak of resistance to +3 or better, but not being able to add say the ability of "Wings of Flying" which you normally could using the additional magic effects rules.

Undectable is always good if you can go invisible regularly. Negate visibility from True Sight and similar spells.

Metamagician is nice for casters as well.

Otherwise the rest are pretty flexible and depends on what your looking to do with your character, and are mostly flavorful choices.

We used to use something similar in 3.5, but ours was as follows: If you didn't have precise shot, and missed the targets AC by 4 or less, compare your attack roll to the flat-footed AC of the closest character in melee. If you hit it, roll damage normally on that target. Otherwise the arrow failed to hit anyone.

It was a decent blend of still being able to hit your ally in melee, and the fact that even if you aren't looking to dodge an attack your armor should still help protect you no matter what. Just another variant idea to consider.

That seems really strong to just get, considering the mythic feat for it only gives you your tier as an extra bonus iirc. A few other things too, but that's practically a full free feat.

I see no reason mythic tiers should affect the leadership score by themselves. Plenty of ways to increase it, and with a feat that adds your tier already, doesn't seem like it needs too much.

#1 That is some strange wording. Very ambiguous, so if this is for PFS or something I would expect table variation. Personally, I see no reason why they wouldn't be sickened, AND tripped/repositioned, mostly because of flavor of what's going on. Nothing in the RAW suggests either way to me. It is sadly lacking both "In addition to" or "Instead" or anything similar. I would discuss it with your GM, although I don't see any reason not to allow it to do both. The DC will end up pretty low after all.

#2 I do believe damage has special rules in it for never being less than 1. Thus forming an exception to the rule. So you would have to get to 4 levels of that monk archetype in order to always get at least 1 round of sickened.

That's about the best I can do for you, since I'm not frequent enough on her to know the FAQs. Good luck!

Pardon me if I missed noticing, but have you looked at the 40k RPGs? Seems to me they have almost the exact system you're looking for. Partial armor, armor as DR, hit locations, low "HP"/damage scaling, active defense, and critical wounds by location and damage type. They are D% system(s), but they could make a perfect springboard for you if you aren't a fan of the core system. Dark Heresy is the "original" the other two just have an increased starting power level.

Ah, thanks Dragonflyer. I'll look into it and do some planning. Time to dig into Mythic I guess. XD

Hey, playing an archer for the only the second time, last time was a Zen Archer, this time I'm making a Paladin archer. Instantly noticing the feat difference. So what I'm wondering is what I should be looking at for gear, and especially feats and spells. We're starting at level 1, now are level 2. A few things to note:

Stats are high. We rolled stats, all three of us got to use whichever array we wanted of our rolls.

The other two are running a Butterfly Sting combo in melee. Inquisitor and scythe Oracle.

We will be going into mythic. This is probably the biggest thing I'd love some advice towards as it's brand new for me. Looking at Champion at the moment.

Doing a campaign based on/similar to Wrath of the Righteous. Homebrew, but that's the inspiration.

Here he is at level 2:

Thanks in advance for any advice. I'll do my best to reply to additional questions in a timely manner.

Weapons of Legacy did indeed do it in a very similar way to what you're speaking of. You had to pay XP at certain points, within rituals to 'upgrade/unlock' the weapon. The system wasn't that great, and it was a bit cumbersome. Not to mention the bonuses it suggested/gave were rather lackluster.

I'm currently actually running a homebrew campaign based on it though. We play a bit higher in power than average, so what I'm doing is having it level with them, and gaining some unique special qualities. I mean, why bother to stick with the +1 Flaming Longsword of the mighty giant Gothor, when you could just go out and buy one you actually like? Especially of getting to that with the Gothor weapon costs XP.

What it boils down to is two options in my experience. You either make a low wealth game, so not having to spend money on a weapon is a real boon in making the money you're getting stretch farther. Or you actually make the weapon unique.

Weapons of Legacy suggest having the weapon tie into the history of your world, turning up and being involved in key turning points that the PCs get to 'see' through visions as they level it up. I've taken it a step further in what they're going to see is also going to be pivotal in figuring out the larger mystery and stopping what is happening in the present day.

Their bonuses also tended to be just +2 to stats, and rather boring things. Since I want them to have a reason to use this, I'm going with the bonuses to be roughly equal in power to class abilities. So the assassin like character might get something like Poison Use early on, and later the blade will increase the DC's of poisons applied to it, or make a poison applied last longer than just one strike. Something unique, and relatively powerful/potent. I've had each of them help me with this by giving me a list of things they like the idea of that they think are roughly in line with that power level. Of course, this only really works if you and your players are experienced with the system and comfortable making changes.

If you're really interested in this I would love to help you out if you wanna shoot me a PM sometime. I'm rather passionate about the rules, and Weapons of Legacy was such a fun looking book I would love to help another group make it into something memorable!

I've found Craft Wondrous, and Forge Ring to be my favorite two. Arms and Armor can be useful in a low magic setting, Craft Wand has it's uses, but I find I used it a lot less than the other two, and Potions are best only if they're your focus, or if you're an Alchemist perhaps. At least in my opinion.

Wondrous just has a huge variety of options, and opens up the largest opportunity to create something custom with a bit of GM help if you need it. So many of the staple magic items fall into wondrous it's a hard one to pass up if you're going to be crafting.

Forge Ring is useful, in that you can create a good number of ring varieties, in a short amount of time. Plenty of good effects at low costs, and thus low time spent.

Rod is another solid one, largely in the savings it can confer, and allowing you to crate some nice rods a fair bit before you could normally. My only issue is how late it comes, so that depends a bit on campaign.

Fixation is, that my mates don't accept other forumer's "opinion" on the subject. They say 6 uses a day is 6/5 of the base price, and so on, so 10 use is double price. They state, that the guide can be read that way, 1 charge is X so 10 is 10X.

Yes the guide can be read that way. Why on earth it would matter I don't know. If your GM is a bit anal or feels like being mean with WBL, he could give you a 10/day charged item, and call it equal to double the normal price of an unlimited use, or 5/day item. If you guys wanna run with that, fine. I see no real reason to do this though, unless for some reason your GM wishes to stick strictly to WBL guidelines, and is specifically looking for ways to screw with you guys. Thus making a command word Magic Missile (for example) item with 10/day uses equal to 3600 GP in wealth. Instead of giving you an unlimited use one for half that. This is of course by strict reading of a table that isn't meant to be read that way at all.

Technically both as I read it. This would be because if you gave the command word item 5/day charges it wouldn't change the cost. Same goes for a use-activated item of course. This just means you decide, either at creation or when it's rolled/dropped, which one it is.

Always remember though, those are guidelines and it is up to the GM to help adjudicate and ensure someone isn't using those rules to create something that's out of line with a similar item in terms of cost.

Ranven wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Ranven wrote:

What happens if monster passed the test? Does the monster know where exactly PC is?

Sorry I missed this.

Yes, if a monster beats the DC he knows exactly what square you are in, but he still has a 50% miss chance due to concealment.

First of all: So much thanks to you for these answers!

But I would like to ask about last thing:

"and you only add your stealth modifier if you are trying to be stealthy aka using the stealth skill"

Do I roll d20 while using stealth skill for invisibility purpose?

Yup. All Invisibility does is give you a bonus to your modifier. You still have to roll your stealth check. Roll a 1? You just kicked the leg of that table. Or perhaps your square got momentarily infested by barking spiders ...

Why? You still rolled a minimum 21 assuming 10 DEX. That is by no means an auto spot for the enemy, and is probably only easy to beat by the party member invested in the skill.

In effect here, you're poking at parts of the rules that were designed around balance, NOT for any sense of realism. Combat trends towards this the most. The game encourages creativity to an extent, but most of it falls under rule zero.

Area spells are by far one of the strangest items. The effects of a fireball wouldn't just completely stop at 30ft for instance. Nor would it likely only cover half that area, just because the center is at the edge of its range. These things are usually best to chalk up to "It's magic." My group realized long ago trying to apply real world physics and science just leads to headaches.

If you and your GM wish to make some of these thoughts into houserules, go for it of course. Just be aware of the repercussions. Someone posted earlier that each spell only affects a creature once. Imo that's pretty much the golden rule for area spells. Otherwise things start getting weird and the game bogs down.

I don't believe I brought anything up about the move/standard. He was asking if people thought "for the special 3 round observation part, would it be a proper assumption that Paladin's could make great use of Detect Expertise?" which I would take to mean he's asking about the ability to quickly reach the 3 round observation via a move action. If I'm wrong in that, or how I read both texts please tell me.

As for the rest, I still side with RAW you can only get a reading if you actually detect the creature's alignment using the correct spell. Just based on my reading of the rules. Of course, I'm fairly confident on RAI being you should force the will save at the end of the three rounds, regardless of using the correct spell. Otherwise Detect Magic would be quite silly to include in it.

All in all I think it's a rather lackluster feat personally. It can maybe help you, some of the time, when dealing with someone in a social situation. Even then not even close to guaranteed. It's a neat idea, not useful in far too many situations.

By RAW I would go with the special move action effect for the 3rd round viewing, would NOT enable you to use Detect Expertise with it. The Paladin ability is very clear in it's wording. You use a move action. You get to see the strength of the aura as if you had studied them for three rounds. Nothing more.

On the second part, I would lean towards needing to use the correct detect spell because of the first line. This one is much less clear, and depends on whether you want to be strict about what it means to 'detect a creature's alignment or its magic'. By a very strict parse I would rule that you have to use the correct detect spell on it. Very open though imo, and I would tend to lean towards allowing you to use it no matter the creatures alignment.

Did you just say you can 5ft step and then still move? Just want to be sure since you seem to be saying some rather contradictory things whether you mean to or not. Also, I see you have chosen to ignore my posts so far...

Prone to standing is a change of position.

I think this is the heart of the matter. You look at prone and stand up, and look at the English definitions. Then you look only at the stand up action.

But here's the thing. In game terms, 'stand up' is the action you take to stop being prone. Prone is a condition, like blinded or sickened. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/conditions#TOC-Prone In game terms using the move action 'stand up' is just like receiving a spell to remove one of the other conditions. Yes if you think about it you moved. But the game doesn't care because that's not tracked. It knows you had the prone condition, and then used the 'stand up' action, thus removing it all the associated penalties. End script.

You didn't move as far as the game is concerned, because it doesn't register being prone and standing up as two different positions. This you have to look at more like programming language, because that's what the basic mechanics are at their heart. You weren't "Laying down" and the "Went to a standing position." You had the condition 'prone' and the associated penalties, then used: 'command stand up' and removed that condition. Script ends there. Since the 'stand up' action/command doesn't have the rider of stopping you from being able to 5 ft. step, you still can.

Quote:

This is what you appeared to be arguing for when you said there was no distinction in the rules between "any movement" and "a move action"; as-written, your post was asserting that you can't reload a crossbow and take a 5-foot step in the same round

No that's not at all what I asserted, but if you wish to make that leap, by all means go for it, but it's not what I am arguing. It's clear there is a distinction between move actions and movement. That you are not precluded from 5ft stepping because you've performed a move action.

I am not saying reloading a light cross bow is a move action by any stretch. Even my "common sense" allegation would say that that is not the case, but just a type of action you are taking.

My contention is that when you stand, you're moving your whole freaking body. From a horizontal to a standing position. This is movement.

Actions that can be performed as part of another action wouldn't seem to fit this definition (such as drawing a weapon) and actions that keep you stationary while you perform them do not fit.

The contention is, and many of you keep ignoring this.

There's nothing in PATHFINDER that makes this clear one way or the other, it's left up to what you view as movement. Tordek does not exist in pathfinder.

Your 'contention' has been noted. It's just if you view it as movement *according to the rules of Pathfinder as written* you must then view a whole slew of things as movement as well. What you seem to not be getting is that correlation. If you decide that standing up is movement, and precludes you being able to take a 5 ft. step, then a whole slew of other things *have* to count as movement and stop you from taking a 5 ft. step. Because of how the rules are structured.

So what do YOU think is more likely? All those other actions and standing up preclude you from taking a 5 ft. step? Or standing up is an outlier and you should use *common sense* to realize it doesn't preclude you from making a 5 ft. step.

RAW is *notorious* for not making sense or closing every little hole. Just take a small look around this forum for a while. It's quite obvious some of the ridiculous things that we would get if we played by strict RAW. So if you want to go ahead. Or you could join the rest of us in common sense land.

As a final side note for the discussion, if it would help. Am I the only one who recalls a paragraph or sentence somewhere along the lines of "You occupy a 5 ft. square during combat as you 'combat space'. You are always moving around in this area to dodge and avoid attacks." or something? Maybe it was in 3.5 or 4th? Or am I just losing it? It was part of some info on the whole correlation about this simulating real world happenings as best as it could.

Ah, that makes sense, but just feels worded poorly. Thank you for clarifying.

I see what you're both saying, and where you're coming from. But what purpose does the last line serve? The strength rating of the bow becomes your strength rating. According to the first sentence. So how can you have a lower strength rating than that rating? Unless it's modifying the first sentence or the effect as a whole, what's it doing there? Unless it should be on its own line.

Kalriostraz wrote:

My two cents. You could apply adaptive to a +1 composite (+0 STR) but would get no benefit by RAI. It appears intended to allow you to use a high strength bow at a lower strength. Of course RAW it would work as he suggests, but that just makes it your call. Imo.

This is just one use. It also allows a bow to be used at a higher strength while gaining the benefit of that high strength. It means the bow can be used at full strength when buffed, or that the same bow can be used while gaining strength from leveling up. It effectively eliminates the requirement to have backup bows, bows for special circumstances, etc, and still gain the full utility.

How would I know this? I only have access to the srd atm, but the last sentence seems to imply that it's used to allow you to use it at a lower strength score than the bow is built for. Really it would seem like it's extra text if the intent is to allow it to adjust to strength in both directions. Is this clarified anywhere?

My two cents. You could apply adaptive to a +1 composite (+0 STR) but would get no benefit by RAI. It appears intended to allow you to use a high strength bow at a lower strength. Of course RAW it would work as he suggests, but that just makes it your call. Imo.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're looking for a way to look at a character and know what spells they know? Or am I completely missing the idea here? Doesn't sound like something you should be able to do at all. Or are you asking about knowing that character is a cleric, therefore his spell list of possible spells is _________?

If there's plenty room on the table I put it up. More for quick reference than for hiding die rolls. I roll dice pretty much open even if I have the screen up. With rolls that need to be secret I can just as well hide the die behind my hand. (Sense motive and the like.)

On some occasions I do like to hide the die from annoyingly meta-gamey players, though. "That wizard is only sixth level because of the number of die he just rolled, don't waste your turn on him." (This coming from a player who's character does not have spellcraft or such abilities/skills.)

I tend to not use one myself, and my favorite trick with those types of players is as follows: Use two different dice colors in your roll. One is the actual damage, the other is "bluff" damage. They tend to freak a bit when they see you rolling 14+ dice on a fireball or something. XD

Personally, I would treat it as a survival check, DC 15 or 20, depending on party level. If it's important they notice it and they're lower level is the only time I might bring it down to 10 especially if no one is trained. DC 10 is roughly: You're trained in this skill, congrats you pass. At least ime.

The spell actually has a chart to roll on each round in the srd. Best to refer to that.

Ok. The RAW may be ambiguous, but I at least am of the opinion that if you want to follow the RAW rabbit that hard, you need to follow it all the way down it's little hole. What does that mean?

For starters, you still take all the penalties associated from being blind. Your character still has the condition "Blinded", as the spell has not removed it. If we take a look at the condition blinded:

The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

First line is still in effect. You can't see. Now, this is a little weird to handle since you've just been "given" sight. So let's say you just counteracted this line for now. If we look though, none of the rest of the condition is in any way dependent on you not being able to see, by a strict RAW reading. Removing you being unable to see, and you're still left with all of the penalties by RAW.

I'd remind you that you still have the condition "Blinded" because Dark Vision the spell does not remove it. It's even been stated you go back to being unable to see at the end of the spell, implying the condition is still on you since you don't get a new save vs. the effect.

I would note a peculiar side effect of reading it strictly by RAW, is that you appear to get to see colors in total blackness. Not sure usefulness, but it's an interesting peculiarity.

FAQed. Also, bump.

Have you dealt with any of the companies that write their rules that poorly? Paizo does a wonderful job overall, but that doesn't mean something can't slip through.

I see no reason why reading it the way I'm saying is a house rule. It's well within the bounds of the rules as they are written, although most probably not the way they are intended (who knows on this particular issue), from the way I see it.

The issue I see here still boils down to whether or not MC's still provide the reload benefits of AC's. Obviously the second question then becomes when/how you apply it. But if they don't give the reloading benefits the entire question is a non-issue. But if they do, and they are what make it a move, taking RR HAS to make it a free action, otherwise you couldn't make the non-advanced firearms reload as a free action.

Yes it's a poor way to write the rules/mechanics. But that doesn't make it less true, nor does it require a house rule. I'll admit, "Advanced firearms that have no capacity to deal damage and are utterly useless take a full-round action (for a two-handed firearm) or a standard action (for a one-handed firearm) to reload to full" is exactly what I'm saying. Again, yes a poor way to write rules/mechanics, but it is implicit in the text, if you agree that MCs apply the same reload benefits as ACs.

Kalriostraz wrote:

I think you missed the point of that sentence. I was referring to RR allowing you a free action reload in conjuction with the aforementioned MC's, because the MC are already reducing it to a move, ostensibly "invisibly".

No, I followed you exactly. You're not following me.

I'm only talking about Rapid Reload here. Ignore the fact that alchemical weapons exist for a moment:

A two-handed firearm normally requires a full-round action to reload. Rapid Reload reduces that to a standard action. Rapid Reload will never, under any circumstances, reduce it beyond that.

Why? Because if you read the feat, it does not say, "Rapid Reload reduces the reload speed of a firearm from a standard to a move, or a move to a swift, or a swift to a free." It says that based on the type of firearm - two-handed or one-handed - it reduces the action type to a specific action.

Hypothetical: You have a class feature that reduces the reload speed of a two-handed firearm from full-round to standard. You take Rapid Reload (two-handed firearms). What happens?

The feat tells you to look at the type of gun (two-handed firearm, in this case), and reduce its reload speed based on the type of gun (in this case, a two-handed firearm goes from full-round to move). But it's already at a move. So does the feat do anything? Nope - it does nothing.

But the whole question hinges on the rules for AC. Of course you can't get to a free action, strictly from RR. I GET that. But if MC are already factored into the rules of Advanced firearms, explain to me how you CAN'T use RR to reduce it to a free action. Just because the rule for action reduction is "baked" into the rules for the weapon, does NOT mean you can't extrapolate how it would work WITHOUT using a "sturdier AC". It's all well within the purview of RAW. It may be bad writing, but it's still there.

Kalriostraz wrote:

Ok, so then I use MC ammo and turn my move action reload firearm into a free action reload firearm, as per the rules of AC of which MC are an advanced form of. No need for the feat, we've all been doing it wrong. Or is that not what you're saying?

Again the main question here is:

Do metal cartridges, apply the same action reduction that alchemical cartridges do?

Or do they not? If not, explain why. If so, do I need RR in order to reload my firearm as a free action, or can you NEVER reload a firearm as a free action?

Metal cartridges do the same benefits; they're alchemical.

The real question is, "Do the base reload times given for advanced firearms already include the action reduction from their metal (alchemical) cartridges, since it's the only type of ammo they can use"?

Let's say that you had a sword that requires three hands to wield.

Based on that idea, if you were writing the mechanics for the sword, would you write it from the standpoint of a creature with only two hands?

No, because in that circumstance it would never be a useful weapon. It would be pointless to write it without assuming that it will be wielded in a way to do damage.

Now look at advanced firearms: In order to do damage with an advanced firearm, it must be loaded with a metal cartridge. So does it not make sense that since that is the only way that the weapon can deal damage, they would already write the mechanics as thought it were loaded with a metal cartridge - and thus include the action reduction from the ammunition type?

If we assume that to be true, then the answer to your latter question - can you ever reload an [advanced] firearm for free - would be No, you cannot. The best action economy you could get in that case would be a move action (to reload the gun to full capacity).

And yet, you could still figure out the rules for how a two-armed person would use the sword, from sticking strictly within the rules. That's still a poor example though.

I have two weapons. One takes a full-round to reload the other a move. If I use AC in the full-round one, it becomes a move to reload. But wait, the other one is already using AC in another form. Just because it's the only thing it CAN use, doesn't mean you can't extrapolate from the rules how it would function without them (Full-round reload) and go from there. Thus, advanced firearms reload as a Move action, but you CAN still take RR, and have that be reduced to a free action.

Just because the rules don't explicitly spell out how something functions when you take away something (whether you can technically atm do so or not), doesn't mean it's not there implicitly when you look at it.

I have two versions of a spell, one needing a full-round action to cast, the other a move. The first states that if you use a certain material component to cast it, you cast it one action type faster. The second requires that material component to cast it. If I have a feat that reduces the cast time of all full-round spells to a move action, does this not allow me to cast both spells as free actions?

Kalriostraz wrote:

Those aren't equivalent at all.

I was not talking about the alchemical cartridges here; I was solely referring to Rapid Reload, in response to this:

Kalriostraz wrote:

How do you argue that if alchemical cartridge rules are already part of advanced firearms, that means you can't use Rapid Reload to bring it to a free?

And the answer is: You can't use Rapid Reload to bring it to free, because Rapid Reload (as written) does not allow any type of firearm to be reloaded for free.

Rapid Reload wrote:

Benefit: The time required for you to reload your chosen type of weapon is reduced to a free action (for a hand or light crossbow), a move action (for heavy crossbow or one-handed firearm), or a standard action (two-handed firearm). Reloading a crossbow or firearm still provokes attacks of opportunity. If you have selected this feat for a hand crossbow or light crossbow, you may fire that weapon as many times in a full-attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow.

So the best action economy that Rapid Reload can ever grant you with a firearm is a move action, because the type of action the reload takes is based on the weapon type, not the current reload speed. The only way you could improve it is through the ammo type.

I think you missed the point of that sentence. I was referring to RR allowing you a free action reload in conjuction with the aforementioned MC's, because the MC are already reducing it to a move, ostensibly "invisibly".

Kalriostraz wrote:

If MC carry the same action reduction of AC, but it's simply already inside the rules, then if you could somehow NOT use MC, you would reload it as a Full-round action (Or maybe it's a standard, but I hope you get the idea). Correct?

But that's where the logic falls apart: How do you fire a gun without using the only type of ammunition that it's allowed to use? You can't. So why would you ever write rules for it that way? I wouldn't; maybe the designers did, but it would seem sort of silly.

Ok, so then I use MC ammo and turn my move action reload firearm into a free action reload firearm, as per the rules of AC of which MC are an advanced form of. No need for the feat, we've all been doing it wrong. Or is that not what you're saying?

Again the main question here is:

Do metal cartridges, apply the same action reduction that alchemical cartridges do?

These sturdier versions of alchemical cartridges serve as the ammunition for advanced firearms.

Or do they not? If not, explain why. If so, do I need RR in order to reload my firearm as a free action, or can you NEVER reload a firearm as a free action?

@Kalriostraz: Rapid Reload does not improve action economy based on the current type of action; it bases it on the weapon type. It does not state that if Gun X takes a move action to reload, then Rapid Reload changes it to free; it states that if Gun X is a one-handed firearm, it improves it to a move action.

The same thing is true for crossbows: If you had a class feature that stated you could reload a heavy crossbow as a move action, taking Rapid Reload (Heavy Crossbow) would not reduce it to a free action; it wouldn't do anything.

Since a one-handed advanced firearm is already a move action, then the only source for improvement would be from the ammunition.

Those aren't equivalent at all.

If you have something that says it reduces reload time by one step, and another that says it reduces it to a certain point, I would normally assume you could stack them in whichever way you desired or was most beneficial.

If MC carry the same action reduction of AC, but it's simply already inside the rules, then if you could somehow NOT use MC, you would reload it as a Full-round action (Or maybe it's a standard, but I hope you get the idea). Correct? Thus, RR reduces it from full-round to move, and MC reduce it to free. OR MC/AC apply first, reducing it from a full-round to a move, and RR does nothing.

Alternatively advanced firearms reload as a Move action normally, and MC reduces it to a free as per it's AC rules.

Finally, perhaps MC just doesn't use the same action reduction rules as AC, in which case make a case please.

I disagree. Arguing that the reload speed for advanced guns already includes the cartridges - which it does and must since you can't use them any other way - does not mean that Rapid Reload does anything other than what it says: Change the reload time to a set value: move for pistols. In every other case, it is explicitly spelled out how you get to a free action if you can.

I'd say there are two possibilities: 1) Rapid Reload was written with only early firearms in mind and it not helping advanced firearms was overlooked.
2) It was decided that reloading all chambers as a move was fast enough and there was no need to reduce it to a free action.
Given some of the comments on the intent behind the gun reloading rules in the recent FAQ threads, I suspect it's the latter. No hard evidence, just an impression.

There is still the side put forth earlier, that metal cartridges do NOT grant a reload speed increase. If true, then it would put this whole thing to rest. Rapid Reload would be useless for advanced fireams, meaning at higher levels where it's useful in the first place for iteratives, TWF becomes very strong with advanced weapons, and single weapon users may as well stick with enchanted/enhanced basic, unless they require the extra range.

How do you argue that if alchemical cartridge rules are already part of advanced firearms, that means you can't use Rapid Reload to bring it to a free? That would imply there was an order of operations for RR and AC, that isn't hinted at anywhere else. This should also mean you can't get to free action reload even with the basic firearms.

MC reload speed bonus being "baked" in can be deduced from the rules as they are presented. Granted it's not obvious, but I've seen worse from companies.

Also, any chance of links to where you are getting your impressions from?

Kalriostraz wrote:

Ok, so maybe we're going about this all wrong. Reloading advanced firearms is a move action. Why don't Metal Casings make this a free action?

I'm still not seeing why you can say for sure that metal cartridges don't confer the same bonuses and penalties as an alchemical cartridge.

Because you can only load advanced firearms with Metal cartridges.

As Xaratherus said:

Quote:

since the only ammunition that advanced firearms can use is metal (alchemical) cartridges that the base reload time for the weapon must already include the reload action reduction.

It doesn't make any sense to give a reload time for advanced firearms that will never actually be used, since you must always use Metal Cartridges which in your interpretation means they'd always be a free action to reload.

That's why I suggested perhaps we've been looking at this from the wrong angle. This all hinges on one thing:

Do metal cartridges provide the same reloading benefit as alchemical cartridges?

If yes, then one of two things must be true.

1) The reload speed increase is "baked" into the gun stats. In which case, rapid reload does the same thing for advanced one-handed firearms, as it does for "basic" ones.

2) The reload speed is NOT "baked" into the listed ones, as such then the move action reload speed is the base speed and the metal cartridges reduce it to a free action without the need for a feat.

The other option is that, despite metal cartridges stating they are advanced alchemical ones, they don't provide the same bonuses. In which case, I'd like to see how to come to that conclusion, with no room for the other left.

Ok, so maybe we're going about this all wrong. Reloading advanced firearms is a move action. Why don't Metal Casings make this a free action?

I'm still not seeing why you can say for sure that metal cartridges don't confer the same bonuses and penalties as an alchemical cartridge.

Applying real world physics/problems isn't going to sway one way or another. The rules already have problems when you apply physics to them, on a pretty regular basis in my experience.

Hold on. Is the answer right in front of us, Paizo is just being a bit obtuse with it? Follow me here quick.

Alchemical cartridges reduce reload speed by 1 step. Metal casings are an advanced form of alchemical cartridges for use in advanced weapons. Thus using the same rules for Alchemical cartridges in a different form. Because advanced firearms can only be reloaded using these special cartridges, Paizo baked their special rules into the guns. Thus, reloading an advanced firearm with a basic cartridge (if it was possible) is actually a Full-round action. Therefore Rapid Reload reduces that to a Move action with one-handed firearms, and it's ammo makes it free, just like the non-advanced pistols.

Is this possible? Or am I grasping at a rather tempting straw from all the time I spent dealing with another company?

By the rules of English I vanquish thee, awkward ability wording!

Ahem, if you follow the paragraph structure, the second sentence is referring to the bonus combat style feats he earns through the ability. Those can be chosen regardless of if he meets the prerequisites. The first sentence sets up the paragraph being about his bonus feats. The second elaborates on them.

If he wishes to select any of these feats as normal feats during his odd levels, he must still meet any prerequisites it may have.

Thanks a lot for the responses. Sad to see my interesting idea of a Fireball repeating Bag of Holding will come to naught. Just shove a bunch of small or tiny creatures in there with rods of Fireball and open it to unleash hell on your enemy. Ah well. XD

I think I've thought of something about why it feels metagamy to just close your eyes. How does your character actually know there's a benefit? For that matter how does anyone in the world know this? I can see how you could get to attempt closing your eyes. But what happens if you still miss? Or miss two attack or more in a row? Now you've not damaged the wizard but also not helped your party.

Remember that last line is strictly rules info, not spell description. So how do people know that in character? That's the real question.

True Rope Trick does have the only reference, but everything about it's reference seems to indicate it's particular extra-dimensional space is unique to all the others. It even calls this out in the description.

The upper end is, in fact, fastened to an extra-dimensional space that is outside the usual multiverse of extra-dimensional spaces.

Which seems to indicate this is a very unique variant of extra-dimensional spaces. Unfortunately the spell Bag of Holding is based on has no reference point for this either, other than that you could mount an expedition to retrieve it if you lose the small duplicate chest.

I mean, the inside of the chest has dimensions in some manner, they are just larger than those of the bag. It opens into an extra-dimensional space that is part of the usual multiverse of them. The only other spell I'm aware of that has an actual gateway/portal that leads to another plane is Gate, and this makes no mention of being unable to cast spells across it. I think it's probably about time for this to be it's own thread, so here it is. link

Basically comes down to: Can a spell effect, or spell pass through the opening of a Bag of Holding?

Rope Trick is the only spell that mentions spells not passing into an extra-dimensional space, BUT it also goes out of it's way to point out this isn't a normal extra-dimensional space.

The upper end is, in fact, fastened to an extra-dimensional space that is outside the usual multiverse of extra-dimensional spaces.

I'm trying to find if there's any RAW reason to believe something like a Symbol of Mirroring wouldn't cast it's area of effect out of the bag. If narrowed down to strictly while open is fine. Is there anything in the RAW that could be used to show this doesn't happen? Or is it more a case of RAI indicates spells don't pass the barrier, and RAW is hard to determine?

As an extra question, what happens to a Fireball if you shoot it into the open mouth of a Bag of Holding? I would expect this to be consistent with whatever the ruling is for the Symbol of Mirroring aura.

Quote:

Covering or hiding the rune renders the symbol of death ineffective, unless a creature removes the covering, in which case the symbol of death works normally.

I'm not sure if this sentence applies after the symbol is triggered or not. Is it possible to stop the active effect by covering the symbol?

I would rule it does NOT render it inoperative because:

Throwing a cover over a symbol of death to render it inoperative triggers it if the symbol reacts to touch.

This and the part that speaks of the symbol not working when covered is the same paragraph discussing how it operates prior to being triggered.

For permanency:

Quote:

Symbol of death can be made permanent with a permanency spell. A permanent symbol of death that is disabled or has affected its maximum number of hit points becomes inactive for 10 minutes, but then can be triggered again as normal.

The way I read it: you cast the symbol, then you cast permanency. The symbol is inactive until it is triggered (but effective, unless it is covered). When it is triggered, the symbol becomes active...

Here I see two ways of interpetation.
1) After being triggered, the symbol is permanently active, until something disables it or until it reaches its HP limit - if that occurs it is inactive for 10 minutes and can after that be triggered again;
2) The symbol is normally active for its normal duration and becomes inactive after that for 10 minutes, then it can be triggered again.

I think the first interpretation is closest to the text. But I don't like it, to be honnest. Basically you use a "trap" spell to create a zone effect, and I don't really see how the "trigger" part of the spell could be interesting then.
The second interpretation suggests that the symbol is really used as a trap.
I will have to discuss this with my DM.

The first interpretation is what I would go with, but remembering Symbol of Mirroring ONLY has a duration, and NO HP limit. Thus while Symbol of Death can be reset early by killing off 150 HP worth of creatures, Symbol of Mirroring will always remain active for 10 min before "recharging" for 10 min. Although I still feel a case can be made for it to be on permanently after triggering.

Yeah, the nondimensional vs extradimensional is a bad wording error they need to remove. I do personally feel RAI it wouldn't work, but RAW is too muddled.

Although now that you mention it, what WOULD happen if you shot say, a fireball into a bag of holding? Would it hurt everything inside? Would it come out the top? Hmmm, physics wants to say that wherever you are in the bag you are always at the entrance too, but mixing physics with magic creates strange results.

@Cevah

SoD DOES have a hit point cap, but it also gives special rules if made permanent. Since SoM mimics SoD in many ways, I feel it's safe to use those rules. SoM last for 10 min when triggered, and then takes 10 min to reset afterwards. At least by RAI imo. By RAW I do believe it just lasts forever in "on" mode after being triggered. If you have a different way of reading it feel free to enlighten me.

As far as bag of holding goes, please point me to why it's no longer near anyone. Reading extradimensional spaces, and the bag of holding rules, I don't see why something with an aura wouldn't still project the aura from inside the bag. I point you specifically to the Bag of Holding rules, where it says an object can pierce the bag of holding from the inside. If an object can interact with the bag from the inside, it must still be there essentially. It also specifically calls out that magic items placed inside the bag offer no benefit to the person carrying the bag. Ambiguious in this particular instance.

Obviously if there is a FAQ ruling somewhere I'm unaware of please point me to it, or make a case as to why it cannot work this way, preferably citing your sources.

Ok, my two cents. Symbol of Death does not stop affecting anyone who walks inside after being triggered just because you covered it. Ergo, neither does Symbol of Mirroring. Permanency on it means it never turns off (could rule that it works like SoD too, but by the wording on the SRD, that's my interpretation).

Bag of Holding only says magic items don't work for person carrying it, so the symbol affects everyone who comes within 60ft of the symbol forever. Or for 10 minutes out of every 20 at most. How I'm reading it at any rate. No idea what use this has off-hand.

The longbow bit is because you can't use a normal one while mounted. You still take the penalty for firing from a horse without a feat or class feature that says you don't.

He does indeed seem willing to work with us, and we are adding house rules as we go along. This one and another just caught me off guard as he originally told me we were going straight RAW the first session or two. I'm still mildly concerned on how this might play out, but I think we'll have to discuss it some as a group. Thanks for the input and info everyone!

Just a quick update. Finally got a hold of the GM. Beating AC by 10 doesn't double the dice, it adds one die to the attack for each 10 you beat their AC by. Still slightly concerned about what will happen later (and a bit now) but at least it's not as bad as was originally implied.

Thanks for the info, and idea to ask about more houserules though. Wasn't something I had thought of.