I pulled the maps from the anniversary Edition PDF, but the quality is compressed for the document - the resolution is no where the size of the map folio maps or map products of other APs like Iron Gods for example. :(
Search Posts
Is there an updated map folio? I have the old maps, but they are not all the same as the new maps. Have they released maps for the updated version? I tried to extract them from the PDF, but the quality is quite bad.
I thought for sure if I came back a year later that you'd have this finished. Sad to see it isn't true. :(
The width is fixed at 424px, but the height has to be able to example as a creature could have 5+ traits and 6+ actions. If there is enough desire I could expose the attributes and allow people to edit them to use this for monster creation as well as conversion, but that's a bit of work and I wouldn't really use it myself.
I've been working diligently on creating a monster converter for Pathfinder to 5e: 5e Monster Converter I have based my converter off these conversion rules. The goal of this converter is to give a pretty solid guestimate of all the basic features of creatures and as many advanced features as possible. How it works: Copy a whole stat block from either PFSRD or an adventure path book into the textarea. It will automatically convert. If it does not please open your console (F12) and let me know what error you got. The converter currently does all these basic things:
Some items that I'd love some help on:
AC: I currently use either the armor listed under "gear" or "other gear" or the formula in this google doc. I have tested 161 creatures comparing their pathfinder version to their 5e version and seeing how close my formula got. The formula isn't perfect so please let me know if you have any better ideas. Challenge: I calculate the average HP and compare it to the table on DMG 274 (I find the middle of the range and compare to that). I determine a defensive CR based on that. I then calculate the damage per round from all attacks (including multiattack) and compare that to the same table (I find the middle of the range and compare to that) to get the offensive CR. I then average those two numbers to get an overall CR - just as prescribed. If anyone has any suggestions for how to improve this please let me know. Traits: I currently process some items based on the SQ field from pathfinder. I'll be adding more over time. I'm currently working through Skull & Shackles monsters to see how they compare to the ones I did manually (up to book 3). Please let me know if you know of a common one that should be added and preferably the 5e wording for it. Special Attacks: Same as traits really, just from the special attack(s) field. Resistances & Immunitites: For the most part 5e got rid of 50% of the ones from PF. It will be quite difficult to make this work in a general way. I appreciate any feedback that you give Example Stat block:
I've been working diligently on creating a monster converter for Pathfinder to 5e: 5e Monster Converter I have based my converter off these conversion rules. The goal of this converter is to give a pretty solid guestimate of all the basic features of creatures and as many advanced features as possible. How it works: Copy a whole stat block from either PFSRD or an adventure path book into the textarea. It will automatically convert. If it does not please open your console (F12) and let me know what error you got. The converter currently does all these basic things:
Some items that I'd love some help on:
AC: I currently use either the armor listed under "gear" or "other gear" or the formula in this google doc. I have tested 161 creatures comparing their pathfinder version to their 5e version and seeing how close my formula got. The formula isn't perfect so please let me know if you have any better ideas. Challenge: I calculate the average HP and compare it to the table on DMG 274 (I find the middle of the range and compare to that). I determine a defensive CR based on that. I then calculate the damage per round from all attacks (including multiattack) and compare that to the same table (I find the middle of the range and compare to that) to get the offensive CR. I then average those two numbers to get an overall CR - just as prescribed. If anyone has any suggestions for how to improve this please let me know. Traits: I currently process some items based on the SQ field from pathfinder. I'll be adding more over time. I'm currently working through Skull & Shackles monsters to see how they compare to the ones I did manually (up to book 3). Please let me know if you know of a common one that should be added and preferably the 5e wording for it. Special Attacks: Same as traits really, just from the special attack(s) field. Resistances & Immunitites: For the most part 5e got rid of 50% of the ones from PF. It will be quite difficult to make this work in a general way. I appreciate any feedback that you give Example Stat block:
Bump. Uri Meca, these are fantastic! Did you ever follow up with the other books?
Does anyone have any ethnic information on the crew of the Wormwood? Or any NPCs in general. I prefer to use Varisian, Vudran, etc instead of "Human".
Thanks for bumping this. And Thanks Uri for doing the work on side quests. I'll likely use your stuff for my upcoming 5e version of S&S. :)
I use them on roll20.
FAQ'd. As others have said it's impossible to know which direction the designers were headed: Either removing or adding the Oath slot. I've chosen to interpret it as if it adds a slot due to the reasoning Belafon presented. Especially the sanctify corpse argument.
Bump. The answer does not sufficiently address the question. The stink bomb reads: The effects of the smoke created by an alchemist’s bomb can duplicate the effects of stinking cloud instead of fog cloud It does not ask for a save, it provides an effect to emulate and the DC of that effect is normally: 10+Int+Spell level. From a balance perspective that seems correct. You get the damage and the effect when compared to just the effect for a normal casting of the spell.
@Cyrad: Have you considered increasing the ranges of guns since you've removed touch attacks? My players made an argument that the ranges on guns were so short due to that being the range at which touch attacks happened. Now that touches are gone, have you considered increasing that range? It fits the fluff, but it's pretty bad in comparison to crossbow/bows. I saw this earlier, but maybe you've re-thought it
right now he's searching for some wondrous item that will somehow increase his range, despite me telling him that the distance property is pretty much it. For reference I allow half-dex dmg on crossbows and bows can be half-dex, half-str on dmg. So guns aren't a huge bump in damage, but it's surely nice.
There are no rules for identifying a poison that I know of. I'd suggest put it into Craft (Alchemy), but that is not RAW. Diseases however have this: Diagnose Disease
If there is disease present, you know what disease it is and its effects
He is incorrect. Charging a wand does not require 50 casts of a spell. It requires 1 cast. That rule would apply to scrolls or power stones, not wands. The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires. Fifty of each needed material component are required (one for each charge). Material components are consumed when work begins, but focuses are not. A focus used in creating a wand can be reused. Wording from wondrous Items if it helps for context. The only difference for wands is that the material price must be multiplied by 50. If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require.
I've added a ton of conditions. Most come from pre-existing poisons, but some are just from the conditions page. Blinded, Confusion, Cowering, Dazed, Dazzled, Deafened, Exhausted, Fatigued, Frightened, Lesser Mage Bane, Mage Bane, Nauseated, Panicked, Paralyzed, Petrified, Shaken, Sickened, Staggered, Stunned, Unconscious, Woundweal. I'd love any feedback on how to weight these appropriately. I've ball-parked them, but it's a bit hard to compare them all.
it is assumed that you are changing something or creating something new. Not trying to thread cap, but I decided to use this system to create a homebrew system that is more balanced than RAW poisons. See http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rn1z?Poison-Crafting-Calculator-Create-your-ow n
Hello, I was inspired by this blog post and its accompanying thread. However we all know that RAW poisons have very little balance in comparison to one another. So I've decided to use his system and modify the numbers to create a more balanced system of poisons. Players crafting poisons will only use the new poison system - we're throwing out the old one. The goals of this system: reduce costs, allow increased DCs, and decrease time(see below). The system works by multiplying 8 factors to get a cost. Those 8 factors are:
Reasoning for the weights:
Please feel free to duplicate this sheet and play around with the numbers. I have put in some pre-existing poisons for comparison. Factors to consider: crafting cost follows the norm of 1/3. Crafting time calculated by gold instead of solve (10x faster). Can craft multiple poisons at a time.
I would love any feedback that you provide. Thanks!
I agree with Gaberlunzie on all of his points. Crit failures and successes are bad. Do not do it.
This is great stuff. However the frequency should surely be swapped or at least price the minute one to be .7 or something. From a pure mechanical point of view having it go off every round is significantly better than once a minute. I also think your straight dmg poisons are way off. The modifier should be much higher. Probably around 4 for 2d12. Lower it for lower damage values.
It might be an easier route to simple have dazzle be 10% concealment and then have a medium condition between dazzled and blinded that is 20% (patial concealment). Make blinding flash and flare inflict dazzled, have the Dazzle power inflict the medium condition. Allow scaling from Dazzled to medium condition, but not to blinded. That sounds fairly appropriate to me.
A standard action in order to make the creature miss 20% of the time still isn't that great. It's ok CC, but nothing amazing imo. However I would probably make Flare match the psionic Dazzle. Now when we start talking about Blinding Flash which is a swift action then things start to get a bit more questionable. @Cleanthes: It's actually not specified in the introduction, spells, feats, or skills. I have no idea. I believe it would only be triggered by a scaling up on blinded. It's a question for Kirth himself.
I've been using Athletics, Streetwise, and Warfare skills forever now and can't imagine going back. Ya what I have pulls heavily from you (with some 4e mixed in). I thank you for what you've created - I like nearly all of it. And just so this isn't a pure fanboi post this is what I've semi-finalized with a player of mine for "compensation": All classes with Knowledge (all)
I'm a bit iffy on Monster Lore for classes like Alchemist or Cleric that only receive some knowledges. Probably just give limit the choices to the knowledges that they receive.
Kirthfinder did this. Here are the different levels: Minor: Dazzled. The -1 to attacks and Perception rolls cited in the Core rules is so minor as to be hardly worth tracking; instead, the dazzled condition now applies partial concealment (20% miss chance) to everything the afflicted creature sees. In addition, the penalty to Perception checks is increased to -4.
Hi, I've decided to adapt a 4e approach to some skills. List of those removed/moved:
I've also decided to change the main stat on some knowledges: Dungeoneering, Nature, Religion all go to Wis. Nobility is Cha (Diplomacy) and Local is Cha (Streetwise) - though humanoids can be identified via warfare as well.
You can see the full changes here: http://marklenser.com/pfHouserules/skills
Things I'd like some input on:
For Spellcraft "compensation" I was considering creating traits and giving them automatically to some classes. Likely 1 trait free for each knowledge (all) class. (I give 3 starter traits (plus a campaign trait) and an additional trait at 3,6,9,12,etc.) Some options:
I'm pretty happy with #1 and #2. I don't have the same desire to have a bonus to ALL Spellcraft so it would probably be either #3 or #4. Any input/feedback would be much appreciated.
We don't mind the slight extra complexity. However I do like the suggestion about using the same knowledge roll and giving more info if they get closer. Shouldn't we section this off at the close, medium, and long range of spells, with caster level being ranks in perception? I based my houserule off of the RAW for spellcraft (even made it less punishing by ignoring 30ft of distance). If you have a suggestion on how to handle it with close, medium, and long then please do share. :)
So is the idea that you make it once when you see the creature (say 400 ft) and do poorly because you notice very few details. If they decide to wait a round or two in order to get the default level of bonuses then that's fine imo. Most groups play without any negatives based on distance anyways.
My group and I decided on a houserule: "If you identify a spell being cast you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors." Penalties for distance start after 30 feet. If your Perception bonus is greater than 6 the penalties for distance start after your Perception bonus multiplied by 5 This means a PC with a Perception of 7 would start subtracting 1 from his Spellcraft for every 10 feet beyond 35ft. (5*7=35)
It's slightly rules heavy, but we're ok with that. We'll use the same wording for Monster Lore.
Ah, I finally understood the bit under Spellcraft. Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors. It means you get a penalty to Spellcraft based on the penalties from perception (distance, cover, etc).
This is my own game so I have full control. Just trying to do something that is fair. I came across a very similar thing under Spellcraft: "Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors." Obviously this is left up for DM fiat to decide the final DC, but is there any baseline DC to "clearly see the spell" before adding any penalties?
At what distance can a player see enough details so that they can make a knowledge check against a monster? Is this governed by Perception? Is it a DC 0? DC 5? What if the creature is concealed or in cover? What about dim light? Or do they automatically just see the creature no matter the light levels, cover, distance, etc. Any RAW, RAI, or houserules in this regard is appreciated. Obviously there is some kind of limit, but I don't want to screw over my players.
I would highly recommend making it web based. That is the future of everything. I'm a front-end developer and could help if you were able to hookup all the backend data. We could potentially make something like mythweavers, but dynamic.
so all we need is "it's 50 gp unless one exists and it provides a +2 on the relevant skill checks". Actually this is entirely wrong. Individual GMs may want to allow masterwork tools for other skills at the listed cost. The circumstance bonus for such a tool should never be more than +2. The tool should either have a limited number of uses (such as the disguise and healer's kits) or only apply to certain aspects of the skill (such as the balancing pole's bonus on Acrobatics checks to traverse a narrow surface or the magnifying glass's bonus on Appraise checks for detailed items But this is fully covered in that other thread - we shouldn't continue discussing that here.
Update on MW tools per this thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ql8z?Masterwork-Tools They aren't all a flat +2 and shouldn't be a flat +2. They are however a circumstance bonus instead of a competence bonus. There are many listed here as well: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/goods-and-services/books-paper-wr iting-supplies#TOC-Book I feel weird about the books as well.
what do you do with masterwork tools? They're 50 gold (unless a different one is printed) and give you +2 to a skill Masterwork tools have a set number of skills that they can apply to. I have previously allowed MW tools for those not on the list, but those should probably be magic items from here on out. The bonus is competence so it doesn't stack with magic items - no problems here. Unless everyone has a "superpowered item slot" where all the broken items go, they're not exactly breaking the game by taking things that already exist and putting them together. Skill items don't exist - though arguably should. They have a standardized pricing. Would "gloves of mighty fists" be any more powerful (slot changing)? If done for fluff reasons? No. If done for slot reasons? Yes: Some of the magic items in the standard rules are deliberately assigned to specific magic item slots for balance purposes, so that you have to make hard choices about what items to wear. +1 Shadow Slick Jousting armor is already allowed by the rules, and that's just +skill stacking. It has 2 skills, sure. There are other items with 2 skills. I've never seen higher.
Obviously he isn't going to want to do this for all his gear, but certain ones? Yes Oh you underestimate PCs: Pretty much everything they have is crafted. :P The problem is I gave a lot of straight gold which I shouldn't have.
Mostly what I've found combining items to be used for is to slap something cheap (hello Feather Step Slippers/Boots of the Cat) onto what you actually want/need to keep up. This gives you the flavorful/useful ability you want along with whatever +X item you need to keep up. I absolutely agree, cloak of resistance + some other cloak probably shouldn't increase the cost of either, same with the belts (ultimate equipment did quite a few examples). I agree these are legit cases. My concern is stacking lots of skill bonuses and maybe other low cost things.
I agree on big 6 items like Cloak of Resistance (Added a note on that). I have no problem with combining good items with mundane math items like cloak of res. The Half wealth argument breaks down due to crafting and low cost items. You can effectively have +2 to all skills for VERY minimal extra costs for instance. (400*1.5 = 600/2= 300 each additional +2 skill item)
I've read the combining rules for PF and understand that it's 1.5x the price for combining items and 2x the price for slotless items. It's a bit different from 3.5, but mostly the same. Are there any limits to this at all? Based on the wording on altering existing magic items there is a clear purposeful balance on magic item slots:
Allowing a character to alter or craft an item for one of these underused slots is allowing the character to bypass built-in choices between popular items. Some of the magic items in the standard rules are deliberately assigned to specific magic item slots for balance purposes, so that you have to make hard choices about what items to wear. I find situations like this entirely possible: As long as someone is crafting, you don't have to worry about only having 2 ring slots. You can combine a Ring of Sustenance and Regeneration to be the most awesome survival item ever, and still have a ring slot open. You could make add a Phylactery of Channeling to your mental headband. You could add they tiny rings onto each other (Feather Falling, Counter-Spelling, Protection, skill enchancements, etc), and make an awesome ring of power In a 3.5 game I also had several boots combined (quicksilver, anklet of translocation, etc) which let me move around with little problem. It was a bit OP imo. Now these situations are usually limited by cost and time. Unfortunately time doesn't matter in our case as we're playing Kingmaker where there are basically no time restrictions. The cost factor is lessened significantly as a PC has all the crafting feats due to a homebrew artificer so the feat investment is minimal (as it also has really really good casting). I would be more comfortable allowing combinations to cap at 2 items combined per slot and preventing slotted items to be made slotless except in rare cases. This doesn't please my player. Big 6 items like Cloak of Resistance shouldn't could toward the limit imo(though stat belts/head pieces probably should? *shrug*) How have you handled this? Any rules or suggestions would be appreciated.
Carnival of Tears. It is 3.5, but there is a PF port on pfsrd.
Bump to still express interest. I keep checking for an updated version every few days. :P
None of these scream "Houserules" to me. It's more of a code of conduct. Seems fairly straight forward to me.
I'd suggest throwing Piranha Strike in with power attack and deadly aim.
Longer temp email:
Looking for the newest version:
Yay! Looking forward to any new versions.
If you do make any of those changes cities as well would be nice.
Ahhh, thank you so much! Sorry if I was a bit too critical. I've actually used every single one of your maps so I'm very grateful for any that you upload as they are much better quality than the originals. I can actually use the Kobold caverns as they need to revisit it a few times in book two (which we JUST started).
The mountains around Tors of Levenies have some extra dirt around them that don't really blend in - I assume you forgot to fix that in this version? The roads that you have on the original would also be much appreciated. A matter of taste: The old lakes that have lighter edges and darker middles seem much nicer to me. Sorry if I come off a bit nit-picky. My party and I are very appreciative of what you've created so far.
For the Lonely Barrow compare the dirt at the entrance. Some is bright as it is lit by the outside light and some is dark. The cave itself is as if there is a fog of war. I can't remedy this as the fog cannot be removed - which is why I'm asking you to remove it. :) Your Sootscale Caverns had a similar issue that prevented me from using them (though I used every other map you made).
|