Krulton's page

0

Krulton wrote:

Azothath wrote:

Armor Mod: Agilis ...

Isn't this covered by the Nimble armor modification?

...

see Armor Mods ... The Armor Adept feat (see page 11) allows a skilled wearer to ignore penalties imposed by armor-modification drawbacks.

there are differences...

I know about the rules regarding Armor Mods...

The penalty for Nimble is -1 AC... Which makes sense for what it does.
It is elegant in its simplicity.

Yours starts to require math to do what Nimble does already. All to avoid a -1 AC and instead make the armor weaker to sunder attempts.

You don't NEED to take the Armor Adept to wear modded armor. Take the -1 AC...
You even say in your first post:
This involves replacing restrictive plating and stiff parts with more flexible and less protective parts.

Armor Mod: Agilis

Armors can be made agile and allow dexterous movements to reduce encumbrance doing basic physical activities like acrobatics, climbing, dancing, disabling traps, and somatic gestures. This involves replacing restrictive plating and stiff parts with more flexible and less protective parts. It is an excellent upgrade for operatic performances while maintaining unmistakable authenticity.

Benefit: +1 Maximum Dexterity, -2(min 0) Armor Check Acrobatics and Climb skills, -1(min 0) Armor Check for Disable Device, Ride, Stealth, -5%(min 0) arcane spell failure, +10%(to maximum of sz Med:30 or sz Sml:20 ft) land speed (a total ≥5ft is needed to move to a new square), -1 AC vs Bludgeoning only attacks, -1(min 0) critical confirmation check from reinforced(such as reinforced tunic), -2 HPs. These benefits add to masterwork or special materials benefit.

This modification does not change the required armor proficiency.
Broken Condition: armor bonus to AC is halved(round down). Double armor check penalty to skills with a -1 minimum (Acro, Clmb, Dis Dev, Esc Art, Fly, Ride, Slgt Hnd, Stlth, Swim).

Cost: +50%(min 10) base armor cost +10%(min 30) Special material. As this does not add to masterwork cost, many adventurers add this option to their masterwork armor.
Time: This modification requires 1 week plus 1 week per 1000gp of the armor over 500gp.
by Azothath

Isn't this covered by the Nimble armor modification?

Nimble
Price +1,000 gp; Weight +5 lbs.

DESCRIPTION
Nimble armor is designed for flexibility and ease of use, although this compromises its protective qualities. Nimble armor’s maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2, and its armor check penalty is reduced by 1 (minimum 0).

DRAWBACK
Nimble armor’s armor bonus is reduced by 1.

This post has two parts, the first being about Technological Force Fields and the second on a force-field like spell I would like some balance suggestions for.

First:
So... My GM brought this to my attention and we both agree that the wording on the Force Field needs a bit of... Adjustment...

As it stands:
https://aonprd.com/EquipmentTechMiscDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Force+field+(red)
Force fields are powered by a surprisingly light pair of slender, silvery bracelets. When activated as a standard action, dozens of tiny biofeedback needles pierce the wearer’s arms to interface with the nervous system; this process is somewhat painful and the wearer must succeed at a DC 15 Fortitude save to avoid being dazed for 1 round as the force field is activated. Once active, the device generates an invisible and intangible field of force around the target. The force field blocks solids and liquids, but not gases or light (including laser beams). The user of a force field can still breathe, but she cannot eat or drink.

Activating a force field is a standard action that consumes 1 charge, after which point the field consumes 1 additional charge every minute it remains active. While a force field is active, the user gains a number of temporary hit points that varies depending on the force field’s power. All damage dealt to the wearer of a force field is subtracted from the temporary hit points it grants first. As long as the force field is active, the wearer is immune to critical hits (but not precision-based damage, such as sneak attacks). A force field has fast healing that replenishes its temporary hit points at a fixed rate each round, but if the force field’s temporary hit points are ever reduced to 0, the force field shuts down and cannot be reactivated for 24 hours. Force fields are automatically reduced to 0 hp by disintegration effects. A force field can be deactivated as a free action.

With this wording:
1) A force Field doesn't work against any Energy damage. No issue here but it doesn't specifically call it out; it only says it doesn't work on gasses or light.
2) The Temp HP doesn't stack with any other forms of Temp HP that a person could get even though the field is separate from the person.
3) Effects like Bleed or Poison still affect the force field or person struck, which seems a bit off.
4) The Force Field benefits from Armor worn due to an increase in AC? Why would it gain protection from the armors bonus to AC but also possibly protect the armor from Sunder and similar effects.
5) Why should it shut down for a full 24 hours? It already costs a Standard action to activate as well as a charge.

So, I come to the forums to see if a few house rules would make this a bit better and stay balanced.
While looking into this I came across the Aether Kineticist Force Ward. Which does address some of these problems.

Force Ward
Element(s) aether; Type defense (Su); Level —; Burn 0

You constantly surround yourself with a ward of force. You gain a number of temporary hit points equal to your kineticist level.

You always lose these temporary hit points first, even before other temporary hit points. If an attack deals less damage than you still have as temporary hit points from force ward, it still reduces those temporary hit points but otherwise counts as a miss for the purpose of abilities that trigger on a hit or a miss.
**(Some Burn stuff removed to save space.)

This solves the second and third points, the first and fourth points are not an issue, just an observation.
The 5th is just a complaint...

So, Does this extra wording seem reasonable to use for the Force Field?

Second:
There are no spells that really provide a Force Field like effect so I wanted some balancing advice on a spell I wrote up to address it. It's effects are based off the bonuses the Tech Force Field gains when the color level improves as well as incorporates the Kineticist wording above and my point 4 observation.
As for the Mythic add-on, I added it to apply for our WotR mythic game and I think there aren't enough mythic options on spells.
I picked level 2 because that is when spells like Resist Energy, Mirror Image, and Blur come online.

Modified Mage Armor (Force Field)
School: Conjuration (creation) [force]
Level: 2?

CASTING
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S, F (a piece of cured leather)

EFFECT
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 Minute/Level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance: No

DESCRIPTION
Once cast, the spell generates a form-fitting invisible and intangible field of force around the target. The force field blocks solids and liquids, but not gases or light (including laser beams), so does not provide protection from Energy attacks. This provides a Temp HP pool equal to 3 x Caster Level, but is automatically reduced to 0 hp by disintegration effects.
The Force Field has Fast Healing equal to 1/2 Caster Level per round.

You always lose these temporary hit points first, even before other temporary hit points. If an attack deals less damage than you still have as temporary hit points from this spell, it still reduces those temporary hit points but otherwise counts as a miss for the purpose of abilities that trigger on a hit or a miss, like from Bleed or Poison effects.
This spell doesn't protect the persons equipment from targeted effects (like from Sunder or Disarm attempts) or thievery.

Mythic
The force field gains DR/- equal to your Tier and grants protection from energy attacks, with the same Energy Resistance as the DR.

Augmented (6th): If you expend two uses of mythic power, the force field also gains Epic DR/- equal to your Tier and the same level of Epic Energy Resistance.
In addition, it is not automatically brought to 0 HP by Disintegration effects.

the Organized Play answer is a flat NO.

That's not what I'm saying otherwise I could have said that in my first post. Org Play (aka PFS) is important as it was Paizo's campaign and they had to deal with actual play rather than some theoretical RAW. It was practical implementation play tested by thousands.

This is the Rules Forum. So it's explaining the rules and how they work. As soon as you veer into GM territory or home campaigns then you are in Homebrew or Advice.

In summary, you're just coming to the same conclusion many magic based players did when encountering technology. It's expensive, complicated, and is too costly to upgrade. Technologist feat just means the best answer to most tech/robots is to dump them into Create Pit and not deal with it. 8^P Venting your frustration at me is (mostly) useless.

You think I'm venting my frustrations at the GM's choice on you?

No... I'm venting my frustrations about you being disingenuous about the forums, and your discussions about them in particular, on you.

I asked a question about rules mechanics in the rules forum.
Your original reply said nothing about Organized Play, at least at first.

You then proceed to tell me that my question is either Homebrew or Advice...
I'm not sure where you get homebrew or advice when asking about how two specific game rules interact. That is entirely "rules" and to say otherwise is wrong.

In fact... The very last paragraph in the "Pathfinder Rules Questions Guidelines" specifically state this:
The FAQ System & Organized Play

The Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild utilizes Pathfinder Roleplaying Game FAQ in the campaign. Additionally, the Organized Play team addresses campaign-specific issues in their own FAQ system or the online Campaign Clarifications document. For questions specifically geared towards Organized Play, please post them in the Roleplaying Guild General Discussion subform.

And about organized play... Only a small percentage of people who play pathfinder are in Organized play. I'm not sure how many is a "small percentage" but Paizo themselves are the ones that said it. I would say that a small percentage is less than 30%, with a more accurate number probably being closer to 10% to 15%. They have specific rules for a reason and therefor are handled differently and have additional rules specifically to handle game balance and table cohesion. And, to be fair, I agree with most, if not all, of those rules. Synthesis Summoners should be banned...

If you had opened your first comment with "Organized Play would handle it in this way" I wouldn't have an issue with it. But you didn't do that, you had to edit your post to add it AND you put it all the way at the bottom like you where trying hiding it. And that is what I have a problem with. And my "defense" of my stance is only because you are trying to pass off Organized Play rules as actual game rules, and they are not.

A vast majority of players DON'T play in Organized Play... And, while some may look at them to check for "red flag" issues to look out for, passing them off as "core" rules is entirely disingenuous.

Stop passing off Organized Play rules as gospel or as cannon rules. They are not.

the Organized Play answer is a flat NO.

That's not what I'm saying otherwise I could have said that in my first post. Org Play (aka PFS) is important as it was Paizo's campaign and they had to deal with actual play rather than some theoretical RAW. It was practical implementation play tested by thousands.

This is the Rules Forum. So it's explaining the rules and how they work. As soon as you veer into GM territory or home campaigns then you are in Homebrew or Advice.

But you didn't actually say that in your first post... You had to edit it to add it in. I know since I was writing a reply when I noticed the edit.

You added the last line:
This is a "named item" in Org Play parlance, like Celestial Armor. Those are notoriously difficult to change or treat as standard items.

After you posted your original response. Nothing else in your original post mentions organized play as nothing in my post mentions organized play.

And this is the rules forum, it is not the organized play rules forum though. If this site distinguishes them...

So... Since the rules for organized play are NOT ACTUALLY the baseline rules (those would be what is in the rule books and FAQ) they don't apply. So I will take it that you agree that, by the rulebooks and FAQ, the enchant works the way it says it does and it should work in making the Null Blade a shortsword while keeping its abilities.

And I will leave you with: I agree with you that in Organized Play rules (and my table) it doesn't work.

Why not just get a Golembane scarab $2500 in a MIBS?

Because my character is a dual wielder of shortswords and already has two +1 Adamantine Construct bane shortswords.

We "acquired" a Null Blade that I can't use and I was looking for ways to use it. As it stands, my GM agrees with you so we are just selling it. I can make due without, my character can blender through things well enough already I don't actually need the weapon. And I already agreed to follow the table rules regardless of what was said here... though I will leave off on my final point on this weapon enchantment.

"So I could get a regular whip and use greater transformation to make it a monowhip because there is no tech stuff in the way? It is just a really thin whip after all."

Where do you get this 'Named Item" descriptor?

How is Null Blade any different of a name than Scatterlight Suit or Mindrender rifle? Or a trident? Or Hellknight Plate?

Hellknight plate is actually a good example... It is 'just' a suit of masterwork plate with some fancy bits to for the motif of the hellknights. There is a bit more to it but that specifically requires class features and could be argued to not be included in the actual plate armor.

First... We are not playing in an "organized play" game. So things that are restricted in organized play don't count.

You may not like that but that's what it is...

There are plenty of rules that are "legal" in standard Pathfinder that are disallowed in organized play. I'm not asking for an organized play answer because we are not following those rules to begin with. And one could easily argue that those rules are not rules as written but just rules of organized play.

So, outside of organized play, where is the 'named item' descriptor?

You are right though... There are three components to the weapon.
1) An adamantine-noqual alloy blade
2) A technological emitter of some form in the blade to perform the 'null' function.
3) A +1 Construct bane enchant

However...Somehow... this emiter... Can increase the enchant level of the weapon from a +1 to a +2, therefor intrinsically tying it to the enchantment in some capacity.

Now... How does this line from greater transformative:
The weapon retains all of its enhancement bonuses and weapon special abilities.
Interact with enchantments and special abilities?

We are not talking about a whip that would lose its 'reach' when transformed into a dagger. Or a keen special ability when in the shape of a bludgeoning weapon. A double weapon that loses the double quality cannot use the abilities on one of its ends.

What part of the emitter/blade assembly says it is restricted to bastard swords of medium size? Or Blades in general, why would it lose its function when turned into a hammer?

Null Blade -
A potent fusion of magic, advanced science, and masterful weaponsmithing, null blades were devised by the Technic League as weapons against both magic and machine. Null blades incorporate an adamantine-noqual alloy in their blades, a closely guarded metallurgical secret of the Technic League. The League guards these weapons closely, and when one falls into another’s hands, they spare no expense in their efforts to recover it.

A null blade is a +1 construct-bane bastard sword— using it in this capacity does not consume any charges. The blade’s strange alloy penetrates hardness as if it were made of adamantine. The blade can be activated as a swift action. While it’s active, a shimmering field of green energy wraps around the blade, disrupting magic and technology alike, and the weapon’s enhancement bonus increases to +2. In addition, the first time in a round that an activated null blade strikes a creature or object, it consumes an additional charge and targets the creature or object struck with dispel magic and discharge (see page 9). If a technological item damaged by a null blade is used in the same round it took damage, it glitches as if it were timeworn (see page 55).

Transformative, Greater -
A greater transformative weapon becomes any other weapon the wielder desires when a command word is spoken. The weapon cannot become ammunition, but can freely change between simple, martial, exotic, light, one-handed, twohanded, melee, and ranged. The weapon retains all of its enhancement bonuses and weapon special abilities. However, abilities prohibited by its current shape do not function. For example, a keen greater transformative weapon functions normally in the form of a piercing or slashing weapon, but cannot use the keen special ability when in the shape of a bludgeoning weapon. A double weapon that loses the double quality cannot use the abilities on one of its ends (wielder’s choice), whereas a non-double weapon that gains the double quality applies all its abilities to only one end. When unattended for 1 day, the weapon reverts to its true shape.

One could argue:
The weapon retains all of its enhancement bonuses and weapon special abilities.
AND
However, abilities prohibited by its current shape do not function.

Would allow a Greater Transformative Null Blade to KEEP it's ability to "null" regardless of blade length since it still has a BLADE.

Would you have a Null Blade lose its "Null" ability if the person wielding it was subject to an Enlarge spell? While the blade may still be a bastard sword... The original weapon is a medium sized weapon not a large weapon.
If you choose to have it remain active in it's now larger size why shouldn't it stay active when changed to a shortsword?

Also... We are currently running through Iron Gods... At level 14... The two crafters have the skills needed to pull off the enchants and crafting of a new blade.

The null blade isn't an enchant, it's THE WEAPON, it's like changing a whip to a dagger and asking if you can keep a whip's Reach if it transforms into a dagger.

It's a feature of the base weapon, the Null blade is a specific weapon, and no other weapon shares the ability. It's an abilities tied to the weapon itself. So greater transformative could turn a null blade into a shortsword, but then it's not a null blade, it's a shortsword.

This is our table ruling.

Would the "Null" functionality (dispel magic and discharge tech) carry over from the bastard sword version to a short sword version of a Null Blade with the Transformative Greater enchant?

My table has already ruled on it so it doesn't matter what the consensus here is, I just have one way of viewing it and others have a different way of viewing it.

From what I can see Genesis seems to be from 3.5 not Pathfinder. When I looked up the spell on the d20 PFSRD it shows the source to be the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting with a copyright of September 2008. The Core rule book came out in August 2009. The Create Demi plane line of spells came out in Ultimate Magic which was published in June of 2011.

My recommendation would be that Genesis is not a valid spell and to use the Create Demiplane line of spells. That is what I would do in a campaign I was running.

Ah... I see my error.

I use PFSRD for my searches because it provides better results in Google when looking stuff up. I usually have to type out 'archives of nethys' completely to get pathfinder results out of Google so I go with the faster 'PFSRD' since it comes up as the first response usually.

At the PFSRD site the spell Genesis does not have an XP component only a material one. If it had I would never have asked since it is clearly not valid anymore.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/genesis/

Hello all,
I am seeking an official ruling or general consensus regarding these two spells.

Create Demiplane (Mid-level and greater) has this rule:
This spell functions as create lesser demiplane, except the area is larger and you can add more features to the plane. You can use this spell to expand a demiplane you created with lesser create demiplane (you do not need to create an entirely new plane using this spell), in which case it has a duration of 1 day/level. Alternatively, when cast within your demiplane, you may add (or remove) one of the following features to your demiplane with each casting of the spell, in which case it has an instantaneous duration.

Which has two parts: 1) Expanding the size of the Demiplane 2) Adding features to the Demiplane

The First part (Expanding) has a caveat of it must be the demiplane made by a casting of Create Demiplane. Therefore, you can't use it to expand a demiplane made by Genesis.

The Second part (Adding Features) has no such limiter only that it be cast on a demiplane you own.

The English language is kinda silly when it comes to this stuff so RAW it looks like Create Demiplane can add features to a demiplane created by Genesis.

My question is:

What is the RAI of Create Demiplane in regards to adding features to a demiplane not made by a Create Demiplane spell?