Ki_Ryn's page

I sell downloadable products through the Paizo store and need to change some prices and fix some errors, but I can't get any response to my emails. Please have someone contact me at 0hr.art.and.tech@gmail.com ASAP.

But by RAW, arrows for different sized bows are NOT interchangable?

Since arrows for a small bow weigh less than those for a large bow, does that mean you need to specifically find (or buy) "small" arrows?

If so, would one assume that magic arrows found on (& used by) small monsters would be sized (only) for small bows?

We've always assumed arrows were one-size-fits-all, but then the difference in weight doesn't make sense.

Are there any combination weapon/instruments in the Paizo material? If I could find something that's not too wacky but could serve as both, then it would let my bard (arcane deulist) avoid being yet another orator/singer in combat.

(posted in the Jade Regent thread too - this could be removed)

I noticed that (only) the Caravan Guard trait doesn't grant a +1 bonus when the relavent NPC is attacked.

Is it meant to be different from all of the other traits, or is it just an oversight?

I'd like to see something that was Law vs Chaos (though Chaos forces thwarting Law might be even more fun), or some other combo rather than Good vs Evil. I know that's the most common but it's really been done so much.

Ok really I'd like to see a Sci-Fi campaign path. I know it won't happen because it would take a whole new setting. But my group doesn't nothing but Paizo paths EXCEPT when we need our Sci-Fi fix; then we have to go to a different game system. Since we don't have time to home brew campaigns, we're forced to leave Paizo for every second or third campaign.

I know there are some 3rd party attempts in the direction of Sci-Fi rules, but I don't think a quick conversion of d20 Modern/Future is enough. We want the real Paizo treatment and support with a path or two.

I would love to help out with something like that and I bet there are many, many more in the community who would be likewise enthusiastic.

~Ryan Wolfe: cartography, starship deckplans, setting design, etc. at ki-ryn.com

(Jim Groves would vouch for me! :)

Is this a change from D&D 3.5 then? I (and my group) were pretty sure that casting a spell meant the performance was interrupted. That's why I was confused when I didn't see anything about it in the book.

In the Jade Regent player's guide, all of the NPC-centric traits except "Caravan Guard" grant a +1 attack bonus when the relavent NPC is under attack.

Is that a mistake, or is it on purpose?

Does casting a spell end a bard's Inspire Courage?

(to OP) If you manage treasure as suggested in the Core Rulebook, over the levels, your equipment (buy value=price), money, etc.. will be worth (grand total) about the same ammount noted in the WBL.

That, empirically, is not the case. We play campaign paths exclusively and by mid levels there are huge discrepencies both between players and between the group as a whole and the WPL chart. Even with equal wealth distribution, using found vs bought items can double one PCs wealth with regards to another. By the time levels are into the double digits, that is making a clear difference in the ability of characters to contribute in encounters.

Then when a new characters wants to join with 50,000 gp worth of crafting materials instead of gear, it is clear that an extra sentence or two is really needed in the rule book.

I'm not trying to fix the system just for the fun of it. I'm trying to come up with something that will prevent a repeat of issues we have already seen (multiple times) in play.

I do appreciate the suggestions and information from those who understand the situation. At least it gives me an idea of the how the general population views the issue (or lack there of).

Given previous the example scenario:

Character A and B adventure for a long time and find 20,000 gp (purchase value, 10k sale value)) in magic items. To be fair, each gets 10,000 gp (purchase value, which would sell for 5k) in items from the loot pile.

Character A is ok using the items he got.
Character B wants all different stuff and so sells his share for 5,000gp worth of custom items.

Character C joins at what net worth?

If we use this formula:
net worth = (purchase price of all bought items) + (sale price of all found and crafted items)

we get:
Character A net worth = 0 (custom items) + 5k (found items) = 5,000 gp
Character B net worth = 5k (custom items) + 0 (found items) = 5,000 gp

Thus character C should join with a net worth of 5,000 gp. This could be 10k (purchase value) of simulated “found” or crafted gear, 5k of custom picked and optimized gear, or a mix. How to simulate “found” gear is another matter entirely (maybe just stuff inherited from the dead guy :).

A more interesting example would be Character D who was also given a 10,000 gp (purchase value, which would have a sale value of 5,000 gp) pile of magic items in his group. Suppose he used 4,000gp (purchase value) of the items as is but sold the rest for custom items – getting 3,000 gp (purchase value) of desired gear. His net worth would be:

Character D net worth = 2k (found items) + 3k (custom items) = 5,000 gp total.

It seems to work out – though I haven’t really looked at how crafting would fit in. I think it would be like found items.

I know better than to try and change someone's opinion on the forums, but in case a dev stops by I want to make it clear that factoring in the whole pruchase price for each item definitely will NOT work to calculate an equitable distribution of equipment (for either existing or joining characters).

quick example:

Character A and B adventure for a long time and find 20,000 gp (purchase value, 10k sale value)) in magic items. To be fair, each gets 10,000 gp (purchase value, which would sell for 5k) in items from the loot pile.

Character A is ok using the items he got.
Character B wants different stuff and so sells his share for 5,000gp worth of custom items.

Now Character C joins so the GM calls for a character audit to see where everyone is at with regards to gear value (so the new guy can join in equivalent to everyone else).

Character A has 10k of items (purchase value).
Characgter B has 5k of items (purchase value).
Character C has an unknown amount because the wealth rules are "purposefully vauge".

And if this were an actual game, no one would recall all of the details of what exactly was kept, sold, crafted, and customized so it's very likely that Player B will accuse Player A of taking more than his fair share of loot and the usual arguments will ensue (with the probable result that Character A has to give Character B 2.5k worth of stuff and Character C joins with 7,500gp of custom gear).

If one wanted to determine a PC's wealth at some point, in order to compare it with the chart or an incoming character, then it looks like

net worth equals the sum of purchased items times purchase price, plus found and crafted items times the sale value of each item

where the sale value is typically half purchase price.

Does that seem right?

Thanks, though I'm sorry to see that no consideration has been given to the huge difference that arises when found items and crafting come into play.

When items have such a big impact on character power, such issues should really be clearly adressed in the rules. My group is struggling to reconcile these differences and I was hoping, after all of these years, it had been dealt with. Alas it seems to have gone the way of grappling (that is, still a mess :).

Does the PC wealth by level (p.399) reprent the buy value, or the sell value, or the PC' equipment?

Also, do new PCs coming in mid-campaign use that chart? If so, do they get to choose their gear or is it rolled randomly?

Because items found while adventuring only sell for half value, serious discrepancies arise when that system is used (either to compare PCs in a campaign or to introduce a new character). Someone who uses only found (or crafted) gear ends up with twice the value of equipment as someone who has to sell found gear in order to purchase stuff they can use. Dose the wealth table represent someone using found/crafted gear, or someone using custom gear?

Ok thanks, that helps. I guess I'm just too focused on the infinite use Ray of Frost cantrip giving me an extra sword attack each round. At high level especially, that seems really good (certainly compared to the d3 the ray does on it's own :). I guess with short adventuring days you wouldn't run out of better stuff to do though.

I'm still missing something, because Close Spell still seems like a good deal to me.

If I take the Close Combat arcana, then I can use Ray of Frost to attempt an extra attack with my sword every round. The spell casting requires a concentration check, but the spell no longer provokes for being ranged.

"You're better of making a touch attack" doesn't make sense to me.
"You can use Arcane Mark" is not applicable to my game.

I can see that some of the other Arcana are pretty good too, but I don't see the badness inherent in Close Spell (and if it is there, I want to understand it).

I tried wading through all this but just couldn't make it. Could someone briefly tell me if Close Combat is a good choice for my first arcana if I am NOT going use Arcane Mark to get multiple attacks?

If it's still a bad choice, could you let me know why? It seems like a great choice to me but I'm assuming that channeling a ranged touch spell through your sword no longer counts as making a ranged attack. Is that right?

"Common" in the Core Rulebook is indeed something you can interpret as "Human." In that any ethnicity language in Golarion is something anyone who can learn Common can learn.

So a demihuman can take different Human languages as bonus languages for a high INT (instead of goblin, etc...)?

It's strange that they have multiple human languages in the setting but do not include any of them as potential bonus languages for starting characters with a high INT. If that's not in the setting specific stuff somewhere, I think it would be a good house rule. As an elf I can choose Celestial, Dragonic, and Gnome, but not Varisian or Skald (when I've lived in the region all of my life)?

I'd like to interpret "Common" in the player's guide to really mean "Human" (as in, whatever human language is most common where you are from) and then add "other Human" to everyone's list of potential bonus languages.

I guess my question is "Is this in the setting specific stuff somewhere, or do I need to house rule it?"

Yes. FAQ

Thanks for the pointer! It's nice to see a definitive answer.

When a power affects "all allies" around the caster, does it also affect the caster?

Specificaly, we ran into this with the Paladin "Aura of Justice" ability. While noting that the Bard has an ability that specifically suggests the Bard is an ally, that's not definitve proof either way.

Is it spelled out clearly anywhere?

Aura of Justice (Su)

At 11th level, a paladin can expend two uses of her smite evil ability to grant the ability to smite evil to all allies within 10 feet, using her bonuses. ...

Inspire Courage (Su)

A 1st level bard can use his performance to inspire courage in his allies (including himself), bolstering them against fear and improving their combat abilities.
...

As a free action, the wearer can click her heels together, letting her act as though affected by a haste spell for up to 10 rounds each day. The haste effect's duration need not be consecutive rounds.

Do you spend a free action each round to keep them going?

Right, d20 has this:

Wondrous items that don’t match the affinity for a particular body slot should cost 50% more than wondrous items that match the affinity.

But this was left out of Pathfinder. Why, and what replaces it?

Is it possible to craft a wondrous item for a slot other than the normal? For example, could you make an Amulet of Dexterity +2 instead of a belt?

If so, how does this affect the cost?

I can see where adding Dex +2 to an exiting magic amulet would cost 150% of the dex item, but there is nothing about just changing the slot rather than adding it to an already-filled body slot. Back in 3.5 there was stuff about how certain areas of the body had affinities for certain types of items, but that no longer exists in the Pathfinder rulebook...

The spell could mean to be:
"a +1 competence bonus per five caster levels (minimum +1 bonus, maximum +3 bonus)"

or it could mean to be:
"a +1 competence bonus +1 per five caster levels (maximum +3 bonus)"

I'd assume the former too, but either way it needs errata.

from the PRD.

The target gains a +1 competence bonus per five caster levels (maximum +3 bonus)

What bonus is granted by a Bard who is level 1 to 4?

Umm, no.

A line-shaped spell shoots away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares through which the line passes.

For the 30ft line,

For the 60 ft line, why doesn't the line shown affect all squares through which the line passes?

The letter "C" narrows the origin down to one of four corners. To determine a line we need the specific corner and another point (like the end point) or some way to specify a direction. To determine which squares are affected, we also need to know whether traversing the edge of a square counts as going through the square and whether just hitting a corner does.

My belief is that the authors just cut and paste from the d20 SRD, which lacks the details presented in an image sidebar of the PHB. That text, or something similar, needs to be paraphrased in the Pathfinder rules and the diagrams need to be corrected so that they no longer contradict the written text.

for reference, here's the PHB sidebar:

A line describes some kinds of attacks (usually magical). It affects creatures or characters in a astraight line away form the spell caster's square to any intersection within range. All squares through which the line passes or touches are affected by the attack. The line continues to its full range, usually beyond the target intersection and possibly affecting more characters or creatures.

Notice how a target intersection is specified. Also notice how "touching" a square is clearly specified as sufficient to affect it (so passing through an edge or corner counts). If you have a PHB handy, you'll also notice that the picture accompanying the text on page 176 matches what is written and that the caster, origin, and target intersection are all shown.

I play Pathfinder exclusively for my d20-ish fantasy fix. I love it, but it's not perfect (yet).

Suppose a wizard casts a lightning bolt due north (the origin is the upper left corner of his square and the line goes straight up along the grid). What squares does it affect?

If a line running along the edge of a square counts as going through the square, then this bolt should affect a path 10 feet wide and 120 feet long.

If the the edge doesn't count as the square, then the bolt affects an area zero feet wide and 120 feet long (that is, NO squares).

If the caster gets to choose a side, then the rules need to say so.

I realize that there are diagrams in the book, but those lack origin and end points and so are not very useful. They also don't match the words of the text.

SRD.

I was initially thinking "Recon - modern" would be cool (recon being good present-day slang for a pathfinder) but there is a Recon RPG already.

"Modern Path" and "Future Path" wouldn't be bad. Of course the psionic supplement would have to be "Psyco Path". ;)

I love the Pathfinder rules but I like sci-fi more than fantasy so I'm really hoping this effort takes off. I have a setting and some starship rules I can package up eventually, and (time allowing)I'd love to work on a sci-fi adventure path.

Makes turning "Modern Heroes" into "Future Heroes" *so* much easier that way...

I really love all of this except for the name. There are well established (and much better known) prodcut lines called "Fantasy Hero" and "Star Hero" so naming something Modern Hero(es) when it doesn't use the Hero rules system is really confusing.

Granted I'm pretty dense, but I ignored this thread for the longest time because I assumed it was a Pathfinder to HERO conversion or some such. So anyway Doc, if you do extend this to sci-fi, take the chance to break away from the "Hero" naming system and avoid product identity confusion going forward. If this coversion gets popular (and I hope it does), you don't want the weight of poor branding slowing you down.

If you cast Flame Arrow on some bolts and fired them from a Flaming crossbow, would they do +2d6 fire damage?

Flaming weapon
Aura Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.

DescriptionUpon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.

Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition.

Flame Arrow
This spell allows you to turn ammunition (such as arrows, crossbow bolts, shuriken, and sling stones) into fiery projectiles. Each piece of ammunition deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage to any target it hits. A flaming projectile can easily ignite a flammable object or structure, but it won't ignite a creature it strikes.

I absolutely love Paizo's campaign paths. They are what makes it possible for my group to game together every week (as we don't have time to homebrew but demand a cohesive story arc).

The downside is that we are therefore stuck in a fantasy setting. I like Golarion and all but I like to change up the genres every once in a while. So what I would really like to see (from any company) is a Pathfinder compatible non-fantasy setting plus a solid campaign path to support it.

My personal favorite would include starships and blasters, but post-apoc or just about any sci-fi would be great.

I'd also be glad to work on such a project if someone needs a game author / cartographer :)

The green slime quote does seems to make it clear that oozes don't ignore the hardness of metal. So a grey ooze might affect a weapon with wood 1 time in 6 (inflicting trivial damage) and has no chance of harming a metal weapon. That makes the ability not worth the ink it's printed with and it will thus be ignored (or changed) in my future games.

Thanks for the help all.

If you hit a grey ooze with a sword and fail the save, the weapon takes 1d6 acid damage. A longsword +1 has a hardness of 7. Is it effectively immune to this acid effect, or are weapons supposed to be considered "vulnerable" to grey ooze acid (or all acid?) and so not get their hardness subtracted from the damage?

I'm trying to come up with a melee build that makes use of the various combat manoeuvres. Aside from all of those feats under Combat Expertise, what else

Are there feats/traits/items that specifically raise CMB or help with the AoO's and such provoked?

I'm looking for stuff in the 4th to 9th level range cost-wise. Aside from a fighter with high STR and lots of those Combat Expertise feats, I got nuthin...

I have memories of reading a FAQ and lots of good information about Vital Strike and thinking "when I get that feat I'll need to read all that stuff".

Now I have the feat but cannot, for the life of me, find where the FAQ has gone...

So anyway, where in the rulebook is "attack action" defined?

So moving someone, damaging them, pinning them, and tying them up all count as "grappling"? I guess that makes it easy.

Now the victim can't use those options right? So the attacker will be making grapple checks at +5 to damage the victim while the victim is making attack rolls at -2 to fight back? (assuming the victim is unlikely to out-grapple the attacker).

If the attacker is using the grapple option (at +5) to inflict damage with a weapon, can they employ things like Power Attack - or do they have to use the attack option (at -2) to do that?

1) The person who inititates the grapple gets a +5 to maintain the grapple on subsequent rounds.

Someone with the grappled condition gets a -2 to CMB except to break grapples.

So the person who initiates the grapple has a net of +3 to maintain the grapple on subsequent rounds?

So you become a Neutral animal with a human intelligence and greater than human wisdom?

Back in the old days, a character's alignment explicitly became Evil (for werewolves anyway). That provision seems to be gone. Is that on purpose or just an oversight?

Is there a Pathfinder druid option like the Shapeshift variant in the PHB II? It replaces wild shape and the animal companion with an at-will shape change.

I like the domain option for replacing an animal companion, and I like how wildshape (via Beastshape) just modifies the druid's base scores - but I still miss being able to change form easily and often, even if the overall power level was less.

If there isn't a Shapeshift option already, has someone knowledgeable in the rules made up a homebrew version? With the way wildshape works now, would it be balanced to just say in exchange for no-animal companion (or domain spells) you can wildshape at will as a swift action but cannot cast spells in animal form (regardless of feats)?

Is this bit from the SRD in the actual books anywhere? It's not in the Bestiary in the part about Lycanthropy. If it is in the books, how does it relate to the what IS in the bestiary (which covers a character bitten by a natural lycanthrope).

Werewolf Lycanthropy
Type curse, injury; Save Fortitude DC 15 negates, Will DC 15 to avoid effects

Onset the next full moon; Frequency on the night of every full moon or whenever the target is injured

Effect target transforms into a wolf under the GM's control until the next morning

Can an afflicted character be cured by a remove curse weeks after being afflicted?

I don't see that changing form lowers intelligence or changes alignment so, even while run by the GM, I don't get why a normally good character would become a raving murderer when transformed. Is there something to indicate otherwise this side of D&D?

So the sample creature has no need of, and gets no benefit from, the Multiattack feat.

Melee bite +6 (1d6+3), 2 claws +6 (1d3+3)

Given a full attack, does this creature get:

A) 1 bite AND 2 claws, all at +6
B) 1 bite OR 2 claws, all at +6
C) 1 bite at +6 and 2 claws at +1

More importantly, where the heck are the rules for figuring this out?

If you try to activate a wand and fail, does it use a charge?

One the one hand, the SRD says

You make a Use Magic Device check each time you activate a device such as a wand.

which makes me think it does use a charge (as activating a device uses a charge).

On the other hand, it says

Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class

So if you fail, its as if you DON'T have the spell ability needed and so would not use a charge (like a Fighter without UMD trying to use a wand - he can't waste charges even if he wants too).

Ref Doc:

Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.

I think that the CL for things like Bane is as much a requirement as the "level = 3x bonus" is. I just can't figure out if they are absolute requirements, or if both can be circumvented by raising the Spellcraft DC.

Can a 6th level character craft a bane weapon (CL 8) by increasing the Spellcraft DC by 5 (since he doesn't meet that particular prereq)?

I suppose that will work, though taking a useless feat (ie. Rapid Reload (heavy crossbow)) just to take Crossbow Mastery(heavy repeating crossbow) is a heavy price. And in character, I don't know why I'd be an expert at loading and avoiding AoO's with a heavy crossbow when all I every use is a heavy repeating crossbow.

Still, it's something, and I appreciate the help.