A little story from an history book :
At the beginning of the eleventh century, the narrator of the Miracles of Saint Foy de Conques, Bernard of Angers, reported that a tradesman of Conques was engaged in a maneuver who was, in the eyes of the saint woman, scandalous. He was buying all the wax available in the city and its neighborhood, thus acquiring a position of monopoly for the sale of wax candles, which allowed him to draw a high price. [b]The saint did not fail to punish him cruelly.[/b}
Acquiring a monopoly and profiting too much from it is very, very dangerous... Some Aristocrat can be pissed off, some clergy can find this behaviour intolerable and label the owner of the monopoly as Evil etc.
On the other hand, having a monopoly and being very generous with it is a smart move, it can gives you some good political influence with Good clergy and with local population and nobles.... ;)
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Please, learn some economics. You're spouting gold-bug gibberish. Even Ron Paul would be embarrassed at this nonsense.
Please learn some Middle-Age economics... ;)
From "On the formation of prices in the economy of the High Middle Ages" by Laurent Feller :
Don't try to compare with nowadays economy...
Orfamay Quest wrote:
That's rreal modern economy... Before that you should take in account this :Monarchy has a lot of monopoly on trade... They can fix price of virtually anything they want...
Religion can ban the trade of any good if they want... Example : for a period the Catholic religion has banned usury, so only Jew can do it, in 1527 Catholic Religion has stated that Native American got a soul so you can't enslave them... etc.
Once again the economly was not like now, it was a bartering system, not a fluctuating value money based on the market system...
arg sorry you should have said so... :/
Yep for PFS no choice, int 13 is only good to take some feat... If you don't plan on taking them then CON 13 is better and losing 1HP, since you're not using the Wounds and Vigor rule, is not a big deal...
Now what's the most plausible scenario : you having to make a swim or climb check and losing a lot of HP or you being KO for 1 point (this could happen, I'm aware) and dying because of -12 instead of -13 (this would never happened, if you're that far under it's too late in any case) ? :p
(grmbl Paizo sometimes made really good optional rules like Background Skill and Action Economy, they should enforce them in PFS too so they can publish PF2 quickly :p)
Frankly, in this case, I would go with 13 CON, 12 INT (You won't go the defensive feat route) and 1 skill point...
Tru to ask you GM to accept to use the Background Skills from Unchained... Since I use those my players are using skills they would never have put a point in before... Like Knowledge Nobility, Liguistics, Appraise, even Perform for non bardic class... ;)
Bards should not be skill taxed to play their role, same for Handle Animal and Ranger/Druid... :p
Frankly they have done a good job separating roleplay skills and utilities skills... :)
It gives you 2 skills point/level you can use on "minor skill" whatever your class... :)
Now the only thing to remember is that there is a Statblock for town and that when on of my player try to sell his +3 sword in a small village of 60 inhabitants his best offer will be 500GP :D
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Yep... But food has always been a special case... Being a necessity it has always been frown upon when you try to make too much a profit of it... ;)No one's benn ever lynched because they tried to sold jewelry four time the prices when jewelry are scarce... The same is not true for food ;)
It's an indispensable job and at the same time a job where your margin can't be as big as other job but when there's abundance you're screwed noetheless since the price goes down and, once again, when food is scarce everybody will expect you from sharing with a low profit for the greater good so you're screwed again...
Producing food has ever been the most indispensable job and the less rewarding... I truly respect peoples in this line of works... :)
Some has quoted the Labour law, that's because if thos guys goes away you starve so they HAD to find a way to make them stay... :p
My players understand that very well so they have hired Druid to help for Crops ;)
I usually use this sheet : Time Sheet to keep track of rounds, time etc.
I use this sheet for init
I use thise site for they wondeful calendar on which I or a player notes what has been done everyday if it's important... ;)
I use blank paper for tracking monster hp... :p
You can ask your players to help... Either by using token for the spells in round or taking track of what is done when in the calendar...
Oh I forgot, it does not come often but sometimes you need a weather table it can help... :p
That and kenders... I really hate kenders...
I've played a Kender... Well 2 kenders in fact... The first one died about 1 hour after the game begun 'cause of a lever that I pulled and I shouldn't have... :pThe second one lasted 2 in game days before my fellow players hung me by the feet to a tree the morning before departure...
Then Kender were banned... :D
But back on topic... You should not punish the players for what they've done, you should give them opportunities to "make it right"... Rez can be done even if by GM fiat with a not RAW spell with not RAW rules about things disapearing from the common setup (did the players get a Perception, Spellcraft or any Knowledge check to assess the situation and to find something has gone bad ? )... It costs a lot but you can make that a part of the plot, a new quest... Players accepts new quests much more than they accept punition for playing... ;)
So, Economy 101 :
Paying with money made in valuable metal is just a gigantic form of troc... Even if the country the money is made from disappear you still have your amount of gold, you can melt the into ingot and sell them in the next country and get more or less as much gold pieces from this country gold pieces than you had in the previous country... ;)
Manfufactured Goods are different...
PF assume 200% price from the fabrication cost as a basis for magic goods... So when you sell your used magic goods you sell them for the same price as if you've made the object yourself...
No, I think that if you sell your manufactured goods at 50% of their market price it's mainly because what you're doing is ths same as going to a pawn shop and sell your item... Quickly getting the cash, maybe haggling a little but no more than that... And usually you're selling them with gore and brain on it... :p
Now if you take your time to polish your goods before selling them, get knowledge on the market and go sell your goods where it can sold well, and are willing to wait for days or weeks before someone buy it you could certainly sell your goods at, at least 100%, and if you play well maybe even more...
John Mechalas wrote:
Another option is a legendary item. This allows you to create powers that are unique to the bearer, which can explain why they aren't ultra powerful from day 1 with a new owner. That bond is unique and must grow and evolve.
Yuo this is quite good too... But you should'nt let the weapon grow for free, it has to cost the same as for the other players buying their stuff, or you have to give everyone in the party a Legendary weapon... :)
Yep, from a strict RAW view I was completely in the "You move you can't 5' step camp", but now from RAW perspective I understand why this need a clarification...
Well, to be frank this doesn't change my games since I use Unchained Revised Action Economy in my games... :p
Same as Cat Whisperer, it's the third time I've run Kingmaker and 2 of my 4 players have played the first book of every two precedent attempt (and If you want to know the first attempt has finished with 2 of the 4 players moving away so we have to stop playing, then the second attempt 1 player was too antagonistic and it end up with so much fight in the group that monsters killed them... :p ).
And for the end of the campaign these books are like heaven to me since it can let me immerge my players who loves circumvoluted plots to freely move "In the First Realm" at their own risks... :p
For Kingmaker Adventure Path those books were much much needed if, as a GM, you wanted your players to develop the "Go in the first World" part and all the Political shenanigans that can arise with killing the BBEG when you're trying to make a Kingdom and fight against real humans at the same time kind of things... :p
The harder the plot the greater the heroes… :D
Mmmh... Nonlethal damage are not untyped damage... If the cold gives you Non-Lethal Damage it's just common sense to think it's Cold Non-Lethal Damage...
Merciful Spell say :
You can alter spells that inflict damage to inflict nonlethal damage instead. Spells that inflict damage of a particular type (such as fire) inflict nonlethal damage of that same type.
So Nonlethal damage can be Fire or Cold Nonlethal damage if the source is Fire or Cold… ;)
First the Negative Plane is not Evil, Negative energy is not Evil :
From the Inner Sphere Book:
And all Undead are not Evil as example an undead who lives on the Negative energy plane :
Frome the Inner Sphere Book:
Why are Skeletons Evil ? It's written in the bestiary entry :
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor.
Same for Zombies :
So for these two the answer is simple : Whoever designed the animate dead and other undead creation spells have done it with evil in mind and that is why there's the Evil descriptor in these spells...
For sentient Undead if most of them are Evil it's for the same reason why most Kobold are Evil... It's in their nature to be so but it's not mandatory... ;)
That's mathematical... 'cause you have to check the condition before the effect take case, if you resolve everythin simultaneously when you check conditions you have to check conditions simultaneously... And when you check the conditon for Cruel Conductive at the same time you check condition of Cruelty then the effect is till not in place... ;)
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
RAW it seems you're right since they only stated that
However, abilities prohibited by its current shape do not function.
RAI I think they wanted to include the material as well as the abilities in this sentence... ;)
Hey don't assume what we're doing in our homegame... I think a lot of GM are willing to bend the rules for fluff sake if it's fun/dramatic/enjoyable/beacause we feel like it... ;)But we are on the Rules Questions Forum... So we talk rules, not homebrew, if you let players get the rules wrong they might decide they can add abilities to every spell in magic object and sooner or later there will be abuse, then the GM will have to take drastic contermeasure against this abuse which is no fun for no one... :p
Sorry but all of the example of Mithril shield given here are "named MAGIC object", not "generic object"... "Force Tower" and not "+1 Mithral Tower Shield", "Equalizer Shield" and not "+1 Mithral Tower Shield"...
When magic is involved in an object creation you can't imply that it is valid for mundane object creation... The magic object creation process is totally different and never related to mundane object creation :p
You can wield your bow with one hand, you only need two hand to fire with it ;)With the Empty Quiver style feat you can use your bow as a heavy mace or without as an improvised weapon and deliver spell with it ;)
Arcanic Drake wrote:
Erf I have looked at the discussion from SK and a little under the one quoted there's that :
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Coupled with this :
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
That settle the issue it seems ;)
Well, considering speaking is a free action, and activating a command-word triggered item is a standard action, there must be something beyond saying the right word that's beyond a simple password. What that is, we don't know, but it's something that prevents you from doing stuff like this.
What is confusing with the rules is the part where your magic object can activate if you speak the command word in normal conversation and this without willing to really activate it. So if the player use a magic word to activate one Magic Missile and the command word is the same for the others Magic Missiles then he cast willingly one magic missile and unwillingly the others by the rules... :p
The Command Word Rule :
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Now what happen when a spell is cast unwillingly ? That's the question... :p
P.S. : Here is what I would do in that case : He can aim one magic missile like normal, for the others since the spells are cast unwillingly I will randomly choose the target of the spell within range :D
Yes, -8 perception for those who depends on torchs or lanterns to see... -4 to those who don't depend on flame to see (light spell is your friend :p )
Sorry I'm going to try to be clearer...
I'm making a Magus, I take the Kapenia Dancer archetype cause I want a Bloodrager Bloodlines Fey... And the faculty to add INT to AC in addition to Dex.
So far I have not dipped in anything, one class Magus (Eldritch Scion and Kapenia dancer archetype). So as I level up I find that the Duelist PrC synergize well with my character and I take levels in it...
Until now NO dipping, just a regular class and a PrC class that let me add Cha and Int to AC...
If I decide that I want to fight a little bit unarmed then I can dip (first dip) a monk level and add Wis to AC...
So that makes me a character with only 1 dip level who can add Dex, Cha, Int and Wis to my AC...
So with that said I can't understand why you find a simple Wis+Wis to AC overpowered... ;)
So if you are a sorcer and cast an Enchantement spell with a DC of 10+Spell level+ Charisma Modifier and an ability gives you "add your Charisma modifier to your Enchantment school spell" this will not work ?
But this will work if you are a Wizard because your DC will be 10+Caster level+ Intelligence modifier ?
Uh ?!?! I don't understand... What is the source of the "+1 bonus Will saves for fear effect" gained by the Fighter at level 1 ? Because I'm pretty sure the source is : "Bravery (Ex)"
SO based on that I was also pretty sure that source for the "all Saving Throws bonus equal to Charisma Bonus" of the level 2 paladin was : "Divine Grace (Su)"
And now the source is not "Divine Grace" but "Charisma" ???
May I ask since when the source of a bonus granted by a Class Ability is something else thant the Class Ability ?
You make your Perception check and spot a Morality thread: Is using Charm Person in combat, then slaughtering the chap afterwards evil?
Well, in nuremberg the german soldier guarding the entrance of the camp was not passed on trials... It was the guys that decided to do those horrible thnigs that were judged... ;)
The Vietnamese massacre was not ordered by the unit's hierarchy, and there's a huge difference between killing and raping and torture... :)
Killing in a war is not a crime, raping and torture are... In the army if a general ask you to kill someone you don't ask "why should I kill him ?", you obey... And if this guy you killed was an innocent you're not responsible, the general who gave you the order is...
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
In other words, yes, it's a loophole, but it's not one any sane GM would allow.
Oh, so I think I'm not sane because I will allow it in my game... For me, at level 5, a cleric willing to trade a feat that will heal 3 HP is far from an optimal choice, especially since you can have a wand for a mere 750GP... But you know, YMMV so... ;)Guess it depends of the players... Well since mine doesn't even bother to read the rules I think I have nothing to fear from them except if I put their nose on it :p
Well as the DM I would say "yes, if I choose so, so it will be" ;) (But I don't restrain this one though :p )
Even if I don't restrain Glorious Heat to Sarenrae Cleric I will surely restrain it to Golarion Campaign only (and since I have already houseruled dervish dance to "choose a 1H light or finessable weapon when picking this feat, this feat apply to this weapon only, you can take it multiple times" and call it "flourish of blade" - yeah I know not the best name but you can't be at your best all the times heh ;) - then I can said that Dervish dance is already banned even from Quadiran characters... :p
Since it's PFS legal per RAW there's nothing going against this combo... And to be honest I don't think it's so unbalanced... In fight it's really crappy (not enough heal to be significant) and out of combat it only saves you some gold (and not a lot at that) at the expense of a feat... Why not ? I don't see this as really over powered and I can't see this breaking the balance of the game... But I could be wrong, I don't play PFS...
Louis IX wrote:
Er... No it isn't cost cover : Pay 1/3 of the item’s price for the raw material cost.For an arrow the raw material is not a duck but duck's feathers that fit for making an arrow... Same with wood...
How many arrows :
By rhe rules you need 10 SP for 20 arrows, maening you have to spend 4SP for 20 arrows crafted and you can make :
- For 8 days of works D20+skills*DC (12 in this case) in SP.
Example : The DC for arrows is 12 (by raw), you have 5 in fletching skill and you take 10 on the roll :
For 8 days : 10+5*12=180SP -> 18*20 -> 360 arrows for 120SP in raw materials.
You can make more arrows if you upgrade the DC to 12 to 17... About 2 arrows per hour I think... ;)
Wow, really intersting subject...
Well, first of all let's began with the rules :
- In combat situation casting a spell or using a SLA does give your opponent an AoO. The thing you don't have to forget is "in combat situation", that is when your are fencing, attacking the other and defending yourself against his attacks.
- Page 207 of the PF Core Rulebook it is clearly stated that metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered.
- Page 221 of the PF Core Rulebook we can read that Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled (they can be dispelled though).
That stated here is what, for me, are the issues with counterspelling and even, more generally spellcasting perception :
- By rules if you want to counterspell someone you just have to chose your opponent, ready your action and wait for him to cast. It does'nt say you have to see him, hear him or even smell him. What if the chosen opponent stealth himself before casting ? Do I have to see him in order to counter ? And if I can't without seeing him can I do it by sound alone ?(that is if the spell has verbal component).
- What about the penalty on the stealth check when casting a spell with verbal component ? Or with Somatic component ? And with both ?
The problem, for me, beyond the lack of clear rules, is the lack of real spellcasting description in spells. Other than Verbal, Somatic and Material you don't know if when casting Magic Missile you have to shout, whisper, point your target, hop three times etc.
That are rather difficult issue to deal with with just simple rules but if anyone has an idea I'll take it with real pleasure :)