Loren Pechtel's page

327 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Dave Justus wrote:

I find that the extra bookkeeping of keeping track of all this sort of valuables and how to convert it into cash is more trouble then it is worth. It also tends to slow down the game dramatically and players ask about if/how literally everything in their environment can be converted to cash.

When I want to add flavor to treasure of an encounter would describe it (a beautiful painting of the Count's grandmother, rumored to have been part fey) but I'd just have the players record it a $500 gp (or whatever) and move on. No bothering with trying to appraise it, or searching for a buyer or anything like that. Insert the flavor when they find it, but after that it is effectively just coins.

Obviously this is just a matter of taste and there isn't necessarily a 'right' way, but I have seen you complain about your party moving 'slowly' before, and I can't imagine that having to figure out if a Minotaur's spleen has any value and where the best market for it might be doesn't contribute to a slower paced game.

I partially agree. Routine items they know the value of. Artwork or the like they know the value of when they get to town (unless they have the skill to figure it out in the field, which I have yet to have happen.) Converting it to money is automatic in town. However, in the meantime it has encumbrance. When it's trade goods or the like they very well might be faced with more loot than they have the ability to haul off.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:

But your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you are running. Thus this number has no relevance.

Then post the physics yourself or walk off.
I fail to see the need for this attitude. I do however believe that the impact speed of the foot with the ground does not necessarily equal forward speed of the body.
Its the discussion equivalence of "Nuh-UHN". "Your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you're running"....Proof or gtfo don't just drop assertions and swan off like you've made a relevant point.

It should be obvious. Your running speed is horizontal. Your feet are coming down vertically. Horizontal velocity is not vertical velocity.

If you want more than that, fast sprinters can exceed 20 mph. Try running into something at 20 mph and you're hurt. Yet sprinters don't break anything when their feet come down.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Pizza Lord wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Wikipedia wrote:
Barefoot skiing is water skiing behind a motorboat without the use of water skis, commonly referred to as "barefooting". Barefooting requires the skier to travel at higher speeds than conventional water skiing (30-45mph/50-70kmh). The necessary speed required to keep the skier upright varies by the weight of the barefooter and can be approximated by the following formula: (W / 10) + 20, where W is the skier's weight in pounds and the result is in miles per hour. It is an act performed in show skiing, and on its own.

Yes, but we can also agree that skiing is not the same as walking/running. It is one thing to just maintain an angle or plane to counteract the downward drag of water, especially when your momentum and propulsion are being supplied externally, than it is to be 'running' where you must constantly be pressing into and against the tension of the water's surface enough to propel yourself but not enough that you just press right into it like postholing through deep snow.

It's like the difference between the speed and effort for a rock to skip across water as opposed to if it rolled into the water and tried to roll across the surface at the same speed.

That's the source of the speed needed? Won't work--that's assuming the feet are in basically constant contact with the water and has nothing to do with surface tension anyway--it's a matter of inertia. A runner has a much shorter contact period with the water and thus needs a lot more speed.

That being said, the Mythbusters successfully had someone run in place on water by lowering their weight. Unfortunately, I can't find anything with Google saying how much they had to lower it.

This is the reference:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Your feet have to hit the water at 67mph

https://www.outsideonline.com/1783941/could-humans-run-water

But your feet don't hit the ground at anything like the speed you are running. Thus this number has no relevance.


Pizza Lord wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Wikipedia wrote:
Barefoot skiing is water skiing behind a motorboat without the use of water skis, commonly referred to as "barefooting". Barefooting requires the skier to travel at higher speeds than conventional water skiing (30-45mph/50-70kmh). The necessary speed required to keep the skier upright varies by the weight of the barefooter and can be approximated by the following formula: (W / 10) + 20, where W is the skier's weight in pounds and the result is in miles per hour. It is an act performed in show skiing, and on its own.

Yes, but we can also agree that skiing is not the same as walking/running. It is one thing to just maintain an angle or plane to counteract the downward drag of water, especially when your momentum and propulsion are being supplied externally, than it is to be 'running' where you must constantly be pressing into and against the tension of the water's surface enough to propel yourself but not enough that you just press right into it like postholing through deep snow.

It's like the difference between the speed and effort for a rock to skip across water as opposed to if it rolled into the water and tried to roll across the surface at the same speed.

That's the source of the speed needed? Won't work--that's assuming the feet are in basically constant contact with the water and has nothing to do with surface tension anyway--it's a matter of inertia. A runner has a much shorter contact period with the water and thus needs a lot more speed.

That being said, the Mythbusters successfully had someone run in place on water by lowering their weight. Unfortunately, I can't find anything with Google saying how much they had to lower it.


While I wouldn't call water difficult terrain I would say it hampers movement because your feet sink in. Thus I would require the 250' base speed.

Note, also, that that's when you're not carrying anything. I would be inclined to require a speed increase proportionate to your load as a % of body weight.


I disagree on #9. The Paladin can sense the lich and certainly wants to attack but they have free will, they may choose to gather reinforcements, especially if they are close at hand. (I can't imagine a Paladin that is part of an adventuring party attacking alone rather than as part of the group.)

I also disagree on #8. Yes, it's a dangerous thing but skill should matter. I'm not sure how I would do it but I wouldn't make a flat 5% chance of utter failure.

While I do agree that the required sacrifice isn't actually meaningful I think it's appropriate--it makes it clear it's an act of extreme evil.


Diego Rossi wrote:

On the other hand, you can play with semantic to make unanswerable questions.

A classic is: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Unless the target has a wife and, at some time he beat her, any reply isn't "the truth".

"I don't have a wife." is true (if you aren't married), but don't answer directly the question.

If the spell accepts replies that aren't a direct reply to the question a high enough bluff check will defeat it.

"I have never beaten my wife; it is impossible to stop that which has never started."

Truth and a direct answer.

Or, an answer I like to give for fun:

"Yes, we haven't played Mah Jongg since her parents quit visiting."

(Again, it answers the question and it 100% truth. "Beating" can refer to victory in a game as well as to violence.)


The problem here is that harm-inflicting necromancy spells are normally considered evil independent of the situation. Confess is an enchantment, not necromancy.


deuxhero wrote:

As mentioned, non-lethal on a PC under some kind of mind control is acceptable. If a character has (Improved) Evasion and a good Reflex save, including them in an AoE might be acceptable, though if they get unlucky with their save neither of you will ever forget it, so check with them first. Technically summons are party members, and they're totally expendable so including one in an AoE might be fine.

Aside from that, there's at least one module/AP I can think of that has a joust as part of a social event, and it's possible for PCs to "fight" each other there.

I've seen one case where a caster dropped an AoE on the entire party. They were fighting a large number of individually weak monsters, it was obvious they were going to be in trouble. The AoE killed all the monsters and even at it's worst couldn't outright kill any of the party.


A god of sidewalks?

What is a sidewalk??? (I can't picture them existing in a society at that level of development.)


Mysterious Stranger wrote:

In world where spells that can reliable get the truth without torture I would say that torturing someone is an evil act. In a world without magic you can make the argument that torture is sometimes necessary to get the truth when someone is not willing to cooperate. Many of the spells that could be used in place of torture are not high level spells. Zone of truth and detect thoughts are both second level spells. This means they only require a 3rd level caster.

With magic there are so many ways to get at the truth that are not available in the real world. This means that how things are done in a Pathfinder campaign may not be the way they were historically done. Why torture someone to confess to a murder when you can simply use speak with dead and ask the victim who killed them?

Spells that can get reliable truth? Detect thoughts can be resisted, zone of truth can easily be defeated by not speaking.

If you truly need the answer, torture them and use magic to confirm that you're getting the correct answer.

I'll also say that I don't think torture is automatically evil. The fundamental problem with torture is that you don't know if you're getting the right answer or not--but magic changes that. With a means of confirming the truth and someone whose crimes would get the death penalty I will call torture neutral, not evil.


Matthew Downie wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
You could make a Goblin with +100 to all stats and use it as a high(ish) level boss.

...but you probably shouldn't.

Player 1: "58 to hit."
GM: "You miss."
Player 2: "That goblin's AC is off the charts! I'll try something else. Hold Person! Give me a Will save."
GM: "Does a 68 pass?"

Not all spells give a save and he doesn't have a lot of hp.


Kayerloth wrote:
In addition to the all the above most of which sum up as "it is already accounted for in their stats", they are all NPC creatures. They exist and do what they need to do for the campaign and its story at the whim of the DM. If you need a Solar with effectively +10 ability scores across the board it just happens without need to worrying about whether they used wish or miracle or an artifact or ... All hail the DM! Explaining how is more of a thought excercise and perhaps a control on getting so far out of line with "RAW" that your Solar is effectively a different DM created creature than a Solar who used a lot of wishes.

+10? Aren't inherent bonuses limited to +5?


zza ni wrote:

as for trying to link the wishes together such as noted above:

blahpers wrote:
"I wish that I was stronger . . . starting right after I cast wish tomorrow morning."

it won't work as the spells must be CAST one after the other, not start working one after the other. all you'll get from this is 2X +1 inherent bonus that won't stack with itself.

a better way would be crafting a spell trigger\completion wish items and using 5 of them one after the other.

To craft it you're going to need wish as a 1/day option, or else take the penalty for not having the spell.


The in immediate succession problem limits them to +1 unless they get friends to help. I would assume anyone on the good side would be able to do this, the evil ones very well might not find those who would cooperate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The sign said "Badwater Road".

My first thought was water elementals.

(Although there was no water, any elementals would have to be salt elementals.)


Some more thoughts on this:

1) The need to identify items pretty much means you can't use the stuff you found until you have downtime to identify it. Whether that is a good or bad thing, though, I'm not sure.

2) Personally, I never use cursed items. I just can't see why anyone would make one and I don't agree with them being due to a failure in making them, either--where did the additional power come from?! Yes, someone could make one as an assassination weapon--but anyone worthy of such effort is going to have a lot of protection and unlikely to go into combat in the first place.

However, I do use flawed items. There is no curse, they are removable, they will identify as what the maker intended, the DC to find the flaw is at least 10 higher. They can be an interesting tradeoff as no longer is it almost always clear which item is superior. (Example: Party has +1s and a couple of +2s. They find this +3 sword, intelligent, special purpose is to slay creatures that can energy drain. Oops--while it is obsessed with them and will force it's use when facing them it's a -3 rather than a +3 when fighting them.


My take on it for fire/acid/holy water effects: damage goes at the square root of the number of flasks or the like used but the duration is likewise extended--but note that normally the victim will step away from the fire and not take ongoing damage. Note, also, that non-magical fire tops out at 10d6 (or 20d6 if completely surrounded), going above that extends the duration, not the damage. (Although if faced with something really, really big I would allow fire over a larger area to do more damage.)

I've never thought about how to handle it with explosives. I don't think you could stack up black powder charges, though--black powder can only detonate if sufficiently confined. When the first charge goes off it's going to shatter the containment of any other charges at the same time as it sets them off--the remainder won't be contained and only make a blast of fire, not a boom. Only if you can confine it all in a single stout container can you actually detonate the rest--and the blast power will be pretty much limited by the strength of that containment. Once it busts that's that, no more power goes boom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, a cautionary tale from more than 30 years ago:

The party had found this ring. There were IIRC 10 gems on it, they could be rotated (around the ring, not on their own axis.) Detect Magic said it was something powerful, Identify fizzled although the user knew something was up as the ring needed a target. After some experimenting they incorrectly concluded that it converted any spell cast on it into a healing spell of some kind. That persisted until they inadvertently cast a reverse gravity in the magic shop.

(In reality each of the gems could store a spell, but unlike a ring of spell storing you had to cast a new spell in to release the old. You could rotate it to select the slot you wanted. Unfortunately, it didn't work quite right anymore and would randomly turn if removed or if the wearer went to sleep--while the spell storing worked fine when you started out the day you would have no way to know what slot was up. Whoever had last used it--back when it still worked right--had been using CLW spells to call up the powerful stuff in it, there were only a couple of the big ones left. Sheer chance had resulted in the party's experiments calling up a CLW or the one Heal in it.)


There's nothing like magical snowshoes. You need some hefty magic to replace a mundane item. There should be a low level spell that lets you walk normally on snow, ice, sand, scree or the like.


You must do something that should cause a reaction. It's the failure to get this reaction right that exposes it for what it is. (Note that this can be simply something passing through it that should have struck it.)


Magical snowshoes.


Warning, it appears that the site is now attempting to download something malicious.


You eat, you got to the bathroom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ngc7293 wrote:
Anyone who has to go through a giant's turd for treasure Must, Must, MUST be in a low treasure game. And I really hope it's in a really big out house!

Or the PCs are after something valuable the giant was known to have swallowed.


I would figure it would be an instant mummy, except without the wraps.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Professor Farnsworth, Scientist wrote:
...typically weighs 1 lb/2.2 kg...

Take this math back to NASA!

2.2lb = 1kg.

That's what I meant. In my defense, 1) it was in the early morning and I hadn't had my coffee yet, and b) me be a product of Florida skooling.

I was pretty sure you knew the right value and just made what I call a braino. That's why the NASA reference--they perfectly well knew how to do the math but managed to do that unplanned aerobraking maneuver anyway.


Professor Farnsworth, Scientist wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
152. Entire contents of digestive tract turns to solid gold. Big lump of gold comes out 6 hours later doing 1-6 damage.
Worth how much?

I'm not sure.

I was hoping someone would hazard a guess.

The average human's average movement typically weighs 1 lb/2.2 kg, but can reportedly be up to 4 lbs/8.8 kg. Today's (09/20/2018) price for gold is running $1,201.90 per ounce. Assuming the transmutation conserves mass, your typical 1 lb. movement would be worth $19,230.40.

How much today's real world gold is currently worth in Golarion is beyond me.

Take this math back to NASA!

2.2lb = 1kg.


Zhangar wrote:
A dragon wants an enormous pile of shinies. A dragon that converted its hoard into a +6 to all stats item would probably go a little nuts, even if the +6 to all stats item is objectively better than 30 million copper pieces.

1000x this. A dragon converting shinies into items would be a very unusual dragon.

(Now, what I would like to see is something draconic that grants bonuses, perhaps even substantial ones, from the presence of a pile of treasure they are attuned to. Perhaps a variation on item crafting: "Spend" retail cost and normal crafting time of a non-slot item, you are attuned to the treasure pile and get the benefits of the item so long as you are within long range (traced by a string, not by line of effect--it continues to work if you go around the corner) of the treasure pile. No treasure is consumed in the process, though. Should the treasure pile ever drop below what you "spent" the effect will temporarily cease to function, if the pile ever drops to 1/4 of what you "spent" it collapses. Multiple effects may derive from one treasure pile so long as it is big enough to cover the total. If it becomes too small the weakest effects go first.

The effect would be to make dragons much tougher in their lairs and would be very consistent with how a dragon thinks.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Desert survival situation--it will point to where the weather is more friendly.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

One issue with using this spell is that it makes you exceptionally vulnerable to long distance non-line of sight magical attacks.

Quote:
Your body is defenseless and helpless (always failing any saving throw) while your consciousness is filling an image, but you can return to it at any time as an immediate action.

This means that a possession, mindscape, or demand spell would auto succeed if you timed it for when the target has fully entered an image.

I note, however, this line might just be a misunderstanding of the rules. Being helpless (or unconscious or asleep) doesn't ordinarily make you fail saving throws.

Ravingdork wrote:
That's how you get a new royal decree that defacing official currency is a punishable offense.
You'll never catch them doing it behind closed doors. What you need is a decree that defaced official currency is not legal tender. Then you conduct inspections on merchants to seize any defaced coins so they won't accept them even to melt down for specie value.

I think it's right. You get no saving throw because you're not really there--your body is in effect an object, but targetable as creature.


Another approach:

The PCs have inadvertently been gated to a land that has already been overrun by baddies. The gate only opens intermittently (schedule unknown). The baddies know about the gate, when the PCs come though they swarm the gate--the PCs can't just stay by it to get out when it opens again.

You could even give them warning of what to expect--they intentionally use the gate but at the time they are warned about how to do it correctly, if they do it wrong they are going to end up in the blasted land that only those who could gate out have survived. Somehow they do it wrong.


Sure magic doesn't work in our world?

What if we live in a world where magic is simply hard?

To cast a spell requires a DC25+spell level spellcraft check?


I've DMed with a nearly blind player in the group.

The only problem was with dice--he could slowly read ordinary ones and didn't have any braille ones. (I rather suspect they didn't exist back then anyway.)


Val'bryn2 wrote:

As she was aiding a group that had declared war on my home, yes. She is part of the tribe's leadership, even if she's abdicated most of her responsibility, preferring to just sigh and say "better them than me". I wasn't the one who started the fight, but, by gods, I would finish it.

You keep playing up how she's a good, kind woman, you haven't given anything she's done that was good or kind. She failed Erastil, at 9th level, she was probably one of the strongest of Erastil's clerics, I think her story is of a fallen hero, who failed , rather like the Jedi of Star Wars, by being too close to see the darkness, and being too attached to handle the darkness in one of their own.

Second this. They correctly identified her as a powerful caster.

By her behavior she seems to accept the chieftan's evil. While I wouldn't demand that she oppose his evil (there's no obligation to be suicidal) you don't engage in ongoing association with evil without tainting yourself.


Mathmuse wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:

I would rule it impossible unless the weapon is harder than the target. Equal hardness, the damage is going to show on the smaller object first--the weapon.

I would be inclined to say that slashing weapons are going to be basically ineffective against flat surfaces.

I don't even understand how you can critical a solid surface.

So steel can't break glass because class has a higher hardness.

You might want to rethink that rule.
Hardness in Pathfinder does not mean the Mohs index of hardness, where steel has hardness 4.5 and glass has hardness 5.5. Instead, it means how much the material resists damage. The table Substance Hardness and Hit Points says that glass has hardness 1 and steel and iron have hardness 10.

Yeah, it was the Pathfinder hardness numbers I was thinking of.

Quote:
However, let's face it: in real life a leather-tipped wooden battering ram bound in iron rings to prevent splitting can bash through an iron door. A steel file can have a hardened rasping surface (Mohs index 7.5) that can cut through an ordinary steel bar, but it can be broken by the steel head of a hammer. Pathfinder calls all these tools steel and nothing but steel. The ability to resist damage from other weapons is different from the ability to resist damage from its intended use.

I was thinking of things like using swords against walls--basically improvised tools. You are talking about tools specifically engineered for the job, of course they work, no need to check hardness.

Quote:
And adding damage to weapons from ordinary use opens a gigantic amount of bookkeeping that would grind combat to a halt. If we want iron golems to break unenchanted swords used against them, then add that as an ability of iron golems.

Yeah, weapon damage isn't worth the paperwork unless you're playing some sort of computer-assisted game.


I would rule it impossible unless the weapon is harder than the target. Equal hardness, the damage is going to show on the smaller object first--the weapon.

I would be inclined to say that slashing weapons are going to be basically ineffective against flat surfaces.

I don't even understand how you can critical a solid surface.


VoodistMonk wrote:

The Preserve Organs and Mummification Alchemist discoveries solve this issue entirely.

Also, eating a sandwich would solve this.

Even as an immortal undead, if you want to look fresh, having a meal is a small sacrifice.

If you forget to eat and rot, that's your own fault.

You don't have to worry about dispel or any of that nonsense, and there are even spells that create meals, so not having a meal shouldn't be an issue to someone dedicating their eternity to the study of magic.

And there are magic items that remove the need to eat.


Rather than casting it every 20 days (and the risk of a dispel), while he's still living enchant his body (as per creating a wondrous item) to have a gentle repose effect always active. Now it would take a disjunction to remove it.


I have long disliked the item creation feats--they're obviously basically a tax on item creation and I really can't justify having a bunch of them. Either you can craft or you can't.

Something I have been thinking of along these lines: Up the DC of everything by 10. Item creation grants you a -5 on the DC. Improved item creation another -5. Anyone can craft, the feats allow you to do it better.


Meirril wrote:
Third: even if your GM is going to allow that, there is no way the bat can carry a bunch of troops by itself. Even with a bit of scaffolding it just won't work. Try picking up 50 lbs of empty cardboard boxes (no putting the boxes inside of each other or flattening them) and running with it across a street. You seriously can't do that. The weight isn't the problem.

Disagree.

Take those 50# of cardboard boxes, tie ropes to them and drag them across the street.

Doesn't work too well because the boxes are scraping, but the bat is flying so that problem goes away.

You don't want scaffolding on the bat, you want ropes and the cargo hanging underneath. That should work fine for as much weight as the bat can carry.


Kayerloth wrote:
See Invisibility and Glitterdust would be my first choice to try and counter Invisible attackers as a wizard/arcane caster (indoors in particular). Then every one can see them not just me.

For a castle defense I would be inclined towards something like some steam-powered flour cannons. Useless against the fireballs but it would make life hard on raiders.

Quote:
A baggage train or caravan is a bit trickier but again LOS is the best answer, just keep the supplies within a covered wagon or other transport and if possible inside a container (chest, trunks, barrels) under the cover of the covered wagon.

Fireball can light the wagons on fire.


I object to the initial plan: You definitely want to give him an extra lyre. It's going to cost less than paying him to sit there waiting on the first one. A third will speed things up but not save you money. (This, of course, assuming the bard has to rest.)


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

The key words for Tremorsense are "on the ground."

Tremorsense wrote:
automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water.

Oops, I guess "in the water," too!

So, Undead? sure, unless the Undead are Incorporeal, then maybe not. Construct, yes, until they fly, possibly no, until they move: the GM might well rule that you can tell the difference between a sculpture and a Stone Golem until it starts moving.

It can detect a Rogue hiding no matter how sneaky, unless that Rogue is Climbing, then no dice. It wouldn't detect a Levitating Rogue, either.

Also, even if Tremorsence lets you pinpoint the position of an Invisible creature or a Rogue in his spiderhole, that doesn't negate any Concealment. You still don't get your Dex Mod to AC, and you are still potentially vulnerable to Sneak Attack Damage from an Invisible Rogue.

But whatever that rogue is climbing is in contact with the ground. I would reduce the accuracy of what they sense but they still would be detected.

Only incorporeal/flying/levitating creatures are undetectable.


maouse33 wrote:
Meirril wrote:
Dispatch a Tarrasque suppression force of 2 Annilliator, 8 Myrmidon, and 16 Gearsmen robots
Hmmmm.. Tarrasque KO'd AC is still 37,

What difference does AC make? It's down, you can auto-hit a non-resisting creature (think of a coup de grace attack--if you can do that you can likewise hit without rolling simply to do damage.)

Furthermore, so long as you have an appropriate weapon I don't think it would even require conscious action--something like waterwheel could keep hitting it.

As for those who feel it's cruel to exploit the downed tarrasque--such tactics are based on keeping it down. I don't see how any action you take against him at that point can be cruel. There is no suffering and no lasting harm (as he'll regenerate anything you do.)


Mythbusters (the new version, a pale shadow of the original) recently came pretty close to addressing this. They were trying to reproduce a scene from an ad--shooting a car with a flaming crossbow bolt to make it explode.

They found doing it directly was impossible. Everything they shot would simply be extinguished even when it went into the gas tank. (Note that this matches up with the original version finding tracer rounds were likewise not up to exploding a gas tank.)

Only when they already had a leak and they arranged the shot so the flaming material did not actually enter the gas tank did they get fire, and even then no boom.

The reason a molotov "explodes" is that the container shatters, spilling the highly flammable contents around, and then lighting it from the still-burning rag--and even then there's no blast, just a sudden bunch of fire.

A BLEVE makes a huge boom but they don't come out of nowhere. The precursor to a BLEVE is a big fire around a tank of highly flammable material that can hold pressure. The fire heats the tank until it bursts, then the contents are ignited as they spew everywhere.

While propane cylinders are sometimes used as improvised explosive devices a substantial boom must be used to shatter and disperse them--when explosives are in limited supply and your target is soft it's a way of getting more boom from them, but if you don't have the explosives in the first place you won't get a boom.


1) The shotgun being "lethal" 60-70% of the time doesn't mean your character dies--you forget there is healing magic in the game. So long as it doesn't take you down below the actual death point you should be ok.

2) Suppressors will be an accuracy issue with pistols. The problem is the diameter of the suppressor interferes with the small sights on a handgun.

3) This model completely fails to account for burst fire. I think this could be modeled by a burst fire weapon getting three shots for every attack, I would say with a cumulative -1 per extra shot (applies to subsequent attack rolls also.)


VoodistMonk wrote:
I asked what they wanted to do when they got to a town. If they said they wanted to shop, I asked them for what they wanted. I assigned a price. They paid the price. They got what was on the list. Very few exceptions. Also, very little time spent wandering through a large city they've never seen, looking for items they don't know about in shops they don't know the location of. That is way too boring to even be fun, for anyone involved, no matter how much you enjoy role playing.

Seconded. I figure that all the snooping occurs off stage. It's not worth playing out unless there's something unusual. (Which normally comes from trying to sell an item they don't know exactly what it is. There was this ring..... It had ten gems on it, each of which could store any spell and the spell would emerge when you cast another spell into it. However, you had no way of knowing what spell was stored in a stone and every day the ring would randomly reposition itself--with careful recordkeeping you would know what you had put in what slot during the day but the next day you have no idea of where the ring had rotated to. When they found it it had mostly healing spells in it and they mistakenly concluded it converted anything into a healing spell. When they demonstrated this and a reverse gravity popped out...) (I'm rather fond of making powerful but seriously flawed items--do we want this or not??? I'm not talking cursed, just items where something went wrong and it doesn't work as it's supposed to.)


Dr Styx wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

Is anyone actually claiming that you need to spend an extra 25,000gp on top of the construction requirements?

Just to clarify: the 25,000gp is built into the construction costs of the tome.

Magic Item Creation wrote:
In addition, some items cast or replicate spells with costly material components. For these items, the market price equals the base price plus an extra price for the spell component costs. The cost to create these items is the magic supplies cost plus the costs for the components. Descriptions of these items include an entry that gives the total cost of creating the item.

Yes the Creation Cost includes material component cost in the Total cost of creation.

Matthew Downie wrote:

+1 Tome: 27,500 gp to buy, 26,250 gp to craft.

Normally the crafting cost is 50%, but here it isn't, because the 25,000gp for casting Wish cannot be reduced. The remaining 2,500gp cost is halved if you craft it.

If the 2500gp for casting cannot be reduced, what does this rule mean?

Wondrous Items wrote:
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.

What the rule is saying is that while you must have the spell available every day while crafting you don't actually cast it and pay it's material cost. Instead, you pay the cost once for each copy of the spell in the item.


Gallant Armor wrote:
Omnius wrote:

Never try and apply real world logic to D&D economics.

They are made first and foremost to be game mechanics, not realistic economic models.

That's a good point. Having no difference in price of new and used goods is another good example of this.

By the time we are talking about magic items I don't think new vs used is going to be an issue. It's pretty low level magic to recondition an item to being as good as new. The only reason for new is to get exactly what you want.

1 to 50 of 327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>