Moppy's page

93 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Timeshadow wrote:

Another intresting thing if I am a caster able to cast Fly on my Horse Animal companion then I can fly with it can I not?

If the same caster had a wolf then the wolf could fly but you couldn't ride it.

This puts the ability to have a flying mount at lvl 7 right (the lvl you can cast fly).

I don't see why not. They don't talk about weight limits so I would rule that the creature can fly if it is carrying under its normally permitted carrying capacity.

The problem will be whether or not it would understand that it could fly, and learn to maneuver. I'd rule yes for a companion, and for a random animal you'd need to make some nature rolls or cast some beast speech.


I think we know how ZK reads it because Nidal has healers who are able to heal wounded Nidalese. Nidalers? Allies.


Cool!


Squiggit wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Away and Apart are two completely different words
They're synonyms, at least according to the thesauruses I was looking at.

We should probably keep this to the rulebook definition. If there is one :-(

In English the words away and apart can be very different.

For distance, we are 5 feet away from that tree, and 5 feet apart from each other. You would not say 5 we are feet apart from that tree.

Not in distance, they is very little overlap. I take away my food, and take apart my car.


Teacherman32 wrote:

Hi all,

My players and myself are wondering if player characters are supposed to innately know the level of NPC's or creatures due to how certain spells interact. I couldn't find anything on this, so I thought I'd ask here.
Thanks for your time.

There's no easy way to /con a mob.

You can't even tell what class it is, though you could guess from how it acts.


This sounds like the Warlord class from D&D.


Saedar wrote:
Moppy wrote:
I looked at the 5E warlock and I'm not sure how to balance it for PF2, or if it's even possible.

A quick-and-dirty jumping off point for balance is looking at what existing classes you are trying to balance against.

So, of the existing classes, which most compare to the niche you are wanting the warlock to fill?

In 5E the standard build is a single target ranged magical striker with some limited utility spells; it achieves this by having a broken spammable cantrip.

Conceptually it's a PF2 sorceror, gaining spells and powers from some weird patron.

Game-wise in PF2, it would do the same job as a ranged martial with a spellcaster archetype dedication to provide for limited utility. In my experience it seems to have sigificantly more single target firepower than a sorcerer at the cost of even lower versatility.

I did some quick work to port it over and the problem I have is that the eldritch blast is basically busted which is fine so long as only warlocks can have it, but I'd like to not have to make it work that way if it's possible to avoid it.


I looked at the 5E warlock and I'm not sure how to balance it for PF2, or if it's even possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
It all boils down to a simple question: Why even create rules for something that remains, in practice, far too weak to actually use?

I don’t consider it weak, and if it is, it’s the GM’s job to adjust the adventure for the players so they all have a good time. That doesn’t mean the GM has to accommodate trolls but I fail to see how a hero on a flying mount is a troll concept.

Edit: dispel is less common than ranged attack but it’s one of those surprise spells you don’t know people have, especially if they pull out a wand. Sometimes you cast fly and attack and you’re the surprise pancake. Should a GM do this? Well, see above. It depends on your game and players.

Under RAW I don’t know how to attack an attended flying broom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ZK doesn’t like “providing comfort” but that’s not the same as healing.

If your victim is dying you can save them for more torture but you don’t need to do that in a humane or painless manner. You’re bleeding to death and it hurts too? I’m not going to stop that pain, I’m just going to give you a blood transfusion. Painfully with this large needle. Death averted. More torture tomorrow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

If you do the snipping trick you end up with a blurry low quality mess as it is set to the DPI values of the PDF, not the image embedded in it.

If you use the browser method, it does a horrible job in firefox and I am not sure how you would do it in chrome.

I tried this from chrome and it just prints but I’m on Ubuntu for serious stuff (and a MacBook for the web, or if I just need to talk to a remote Linux box). In any case Linux has no shortage of tools to unlock things.

Firefox makes me sad. It is a really good browser for privacy but nothing works in it anymore properly - though it might be better in Windows which I’m not using. I use FF as my default browser but almost everyday I have to open some subset of sites in chrome because Firefox fails somehow either a a bug, or the site not supporting it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

If you're going to be a hero on a flying mount, we must discuss the tactic where foes don't target you to kill you, but targets your mount instead.

In other words, any solution where you fall to your death as soon as your mount is killed is a non-viable solution.

First, isn't this the same problem as casting dispel vs the Fly spell? It doesn't seem to have stopped players from using Fly, but may provoke caution vs some opponents.

Second, flying is optional and I'm sure a pegasus or nightmare can walk if it really wants to, in a situation where the foe has a lot of ranged attacks.

Third, if shooting down your flying mount causes an "unfair" death it will be eliminated from Pathfinder 3 just like Coup de Gras was eliminated even though GMs aren't required to use it.


Themetricsystem wrote:

I'm not at all sure what you're talking about here, but then again, I'm not an AP subscriber. As an only moderately adept user of computers and software, I can authoritatively say that I've never once found a PDF that cannot be cannibalized with the right software and permissions.

What products are you talking about specifically? What exactly makes the maps interactive?

The interactive maps are PDFs that have buttons you can click to turn features on and off, such as the grid.

The pdfs are locked to prevent image extraction.

However the lock must be opened by your pdf reader to display it on your screen, so whether or not your PDF reader allows you to extract and save that image depends on whether it respects the lock. Adobe does but Adobe isn't the only PDF tool. It's not something I would normally look into but my web browser allows me to print the one interactive map I got from a group that needed me to GM it for them (I don't know if printing is allowed but if it isn't, web browsers can choose whether they honor the lock, or maybe the lock code is bugged), so I'd just print to file and select a printer driver option that creates a PNG or WEBP (if I needed higher resolution than a screenshot).


I'm not sure what you're asking for now.

If you have print permissions (which I do from the browser) you can just print the page you want to a file - either pdf or bitmap - which should give you the page in a file you have ownership rights of, at full printer resolution selected.


Derblade wrote:
So why are there no rules for training animal companions to be mounts?

Game balance.

it's not mechanically broken but it would amplify the quality gap between the companions.


The lock is implemented by your PDF software. Most PDF readers won't allow you to chop up a PDF, but PDF writers and editors will. The non-techie solution using your existing software is to take a screenshot.


Claxon wrote:
Like he [rovagug] wants to destroy everything, and that's evil, but he doesn't go Hannibal Lector route and make you eat pieces of yourself.

In Golarion as written by Paizo, sure, because Paizo gave it an evil alignment. However, destroying the universe so it can be recreated in the next (maybe improved) cycle is a common enough trope for entities focused on attaining perfection or maintaining balance.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, alignment in Pathfinder really doesn't differentiate between "I lie, cheat, and steal and will betray anyone for money" and "I can't get enough murder and I like to eat people while they're still alive".

Like there should be a difference of between "I'm willing to do things other people wouldn't to get the job done" and "I'm actively invested in doing the most depraved things I can think of" but there really isn't mechanically, which is why I consider the evil end of the spectrum to be deeply uninteresting in Pathfinder & similar games.

Golarion gives the impression that almost everyone has a deity except Rhadoumers and some Druids and in that case the deity’s anathemas and edicts, or The Laws of Mortality, or Green Faith will provide additional guidance.

In the specific case you mentioned, the evil deities are now all different in E&A and it’s no longer the case of all evils being random torture and murder machines. Torture is anathema to Rovagug who wants you to destroy quickly.


In PF2, Paladins are also necromancers. You should get along just fine. The next time they do lay on hands, ask them what school of magic healing effects are. Necromancy covers all life magics. PF2 necromancy is not inherently good or evil and is just a tool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The druid asked the bear and the bear liked it.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean what's the difference between "4 sides show a hit, one side shows a crit, one side with a miss" and "roll a d6, on a 1 you miss, on a 6 you crit"?

Using special dice for that sort of thing just seems like an excuse to sell more plastic gewgaws. I have several sets of extremely nice dice, so I would prefer to just use those. "This game uses proprietary dice" sort of signposts "play a different game."

That's exactly what it is. I bet they've sold millions of dollars of custom dice. Limited edition prize dice (issued as prizes by tournaments) are even worse; they're $100+ on e-bay for X-Wing.

However there is a thematic and mechanical benefit.

The thematic benefit is that it changes the feel of the game. You aren't rolling numbers, but hits or misses. So my archer shoots, it rolls 3 attack dice: hit, miss, crit!

The mechanical benefit is that not everyone is smart enough to translate dice symbols all the time. The number of basic errors you see in X-Wing tournaments after 12 hours of matches and you haven't eaten because your last 2 matches went to time.


graystone wrote:
"can't speak any language" and 'can't speak at all' aren't the same thing. Nowhere in the game are 'words of power' identified as a language, as a caster would HAVE to learn such a thing before they could cast: as such, it's not a language. No where is 'magic' listed under language as understood in the game. IMO, Morse code type 'clapping' with limbs fits the bill as long as it's a "strong" noise that's "hard to conceal".

I see contradictions here.

How do you satify the requirement to "vocalize" by clapping in morse code? What does vocalize mean? CRB 304 does say "vocalize".

If you can make specific sounds with your mouth, you could speak a language by for example by eeking or ooking in morse code. Since this intelligent creature cannot speak a language, it is either mute or it can't control its noises. So, no words of power, which are specific sounds in specific combinations. We call specific combinations of specific sounds (words) a language.


So you're saying it's half an Apparatus of Kwalish?


A mech would probably have arms and a melee attack. This looks like a steam wagon with a turret.


graystone wrote:
Moppy wrote:

How does a Quelaunt cast its innate Hideous Laughter?

https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=343

What's the issue? Nothing in the description says it can't make noises [just says it can't speak a language] or move it's limbs.

Core 304

Quote:

Verbal

A verbal component is a vocalization of words of power. You must speak them in a strong voice, so it’s hard to conceal that you’re Casting a Spell. The spell gains the concentrate trait. You must be able to speak to provide this component.

Making noises isn’t enough. You need to speak words of power and words means a language. If you cannot speak a language you cannot do this.

Also how does it vocalise noises with no mouth or nose? Air gets in and out how? Somehow I don’t think you can clap your hands to provide verbal component, or it would be classed as somatic.


How does a Quelaunt cast its innate Hideous Laughter?

https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=343


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Obviously innate spells are innate and castable by animals (lots in bestiary have them) so they don’t need component pouches or special sounds.


Age of Ashes is a bit weird probably because it was written before the 2E rules were finalised. So far, Extinction Curse seems to have returned back to regular AP quality (i.e high). Althoug I am not sure how Plaguestone and Extinction Curse 1 ended up having such a similar plot.


What is the difference in why that Vampire etc can have a bunch of backstabbing monsters for PCs, and the game works, but D&D games can’t?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Unless there's actually a reason you can't do this with a normal die (like the Warhammer scatter die), this seems like poor form. Like if all you're doing is "it's a normal die, but some of the numbers are replaced by sigils" you're just going to make people do extra mental work by having to map "okay, 1 is the skull, 8 is the explosion, etc." when they use the dice they already have.

You wouldn’t use them that way. An example might be a d6 with one blank, 4 sides showing a hit, and one side showing a crit. Your game would need to be designed around such a mechanism. Substituting for numbered dice would be cumbersome as you correctly say.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:


But you've actually tried it?

Fixed numbers have been used in other editions of the role playing game. It doesn’t really make that much difference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
skizzerz wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
skizzerz wrote:
You can publish your own adventures using Golarion and other setting IP by using both the OGL and the Community Use Policy, although unlike DM’s Guild you will be unable to charge for them.
Never seen a 3PP use Golarion, I'm preeeetty sure that's off-limits. All you get with OGL is the engine and some monsters, I think.

Re-read what I said :)

OGL by itself only gives you mechanics and monsters, you’re correct on that part.

OGL+CUP gives you mechanics, monsters, and the entirety of the Golarion setting. However the CUP prevents you from charging anyone to obtain the work.

The reason you don’t see 3pp using it is exactly because of that latter bit—they’d have to find some way to monetize it other than by selling the adventure.

CUP is not available to publishers which is why 3PP can’t use it even if they give it away free. It is explicitly stated in CUP that you must not (in the opinion of Paizo) be a publisher.

“cup“ wrote:
If Paizo believes that you are in the publishing business, you are considered to be a commercial user, and you are not granted any right to use any Paizo Material under this Policy

If you do see a 3pp using it they probably have a special arrangement.


Mythic changes the game into a superhero power fest at high level. Your fighter stops needing to stab giants and can just pick the beast up and throw it. But that’s OK because the mythic giant is immune to damage from being thrown through a castle wall. So it gets up and throws the tower at the fighter, who is shielded by the mage blowing up the castle in mid air.

Lower levels aren’t so extreme, but why is there mythic at lower levels?


I would love for Paizo to make large vinyl mats, like wargames battlemats. Quite a few adventure paths would benefit from it.

Would there be demand?


rainzax wrote:
Let me just "mine" for a few more pythagorean solids?

I think they mean dice with custom symbols instead of numbers. FFG like to use them for their games.

You don't need regular polyhedrons as long whatever shape you used produces a uniform distribution. You can find irregular dice on math geek websites.


I would suggest that linear barriers such as floors, ceilings and walls stop spells like this unless you want to have to GM some wierd situations. They probably do under RAW; I didn't read that closely because we have no intention of having these spells affect the dungeon level above or below or the next corridor over.


Charon Onozuka wrote:
Moppy wrote:
Neither a galley or a 75 footer with 8 crew is a ship either, but I'll let this slide. This game wasn't written for sailors :-)
Now I'm curious to know what you'd use for the definition of a ship in this circumstance.

I'd probably put them under a heading of watercraft.

Boat, ship, sailing vessel, sloop, brig, ketch, etc ... none of the differences really matter for Pathfinder, but the internet is there if you want it.


Claxon wrote:

That's some bad wording. And I'm having trouble coming up with when you would want to use this heightened version.

I mean I can come up with cases. Like you've been to a place in the past, and now there are enemies inside or traps, or a danger, and you want to bypass that to go to a specific location inside....and then your stuck inside and have to manage to get out without the spell.

I mean maybe that's acceptable, but it just seems weird.

Escape to prepared safe spot or go back to dungeon entrance.


If an orc fell on you from a great height, you would need to make a critical success on a DC 15 reflex save to avoid taking damage.

Several larger greenskins could assist a smaller one to get airborne.

Go Go Gobber Lobber?


Charon Onozuka wrote:

consider the entries for a Sailing Ship and a Galley. A galley costs 1,000gp more than a sailing ship, but due to the limited guidance on capacity, "a ship can hold upwards of 1,000 Bulk," they can essentially be assumed to either hold the same bulk or have massive table variation to the point the rule is useless. As for passenger count, the larger and more expensive galley actually holds less passengers than the sailing ship (though they have more crew, which actually seems like a detriment). Other than than, a galley has slightly better combat stats and can turn more easily.

I don't see a problem with the galley vs the ship.

In the combat stats, the galley is better for its maneuvering, strength and higher crew (more soldiers once you ram, and more people to put out fires). The galley is also more expensive and will have a shorter range from no cargo deck and more crew to pay and feed.

I would not give the galley a ship's cargo capacity. Galleys are long, low vessels, the majority of their capacity being filled with rowers. The sailing ship will have a deeper hull with an actual cargo hold.

Equal heights are given but one assumes that's the height to the fighting castle on the galley, and the height to the regular weather deck or the cockpit on the sailing vessel.

Neither a galley or a 75 footer with 8 crew is a ship either, but I'll let this slide. This game wasn't written for sailors :-)


Your coins aren't metal either then. Take a look at the old Darksun 2E AD&D setting, in which metal was rare and illegal. The old Darksun books will have plenty of ideas.


graystone wrote:
Moppy wrote:
I read nǔ gōng as heavy crossbow from the translation.
I was called a Zhu Ge Nu in the Ming Dynasty, but in the Qing period it was just called nu gong as it was the only crossbow used in the military at the time. There were minor differences between the periods, but if you want to call it Zhu Ge Nu instead, go for it.

You could be right. I've looked at the Chinese instead of the romanisation, and the gōng is a different character.

It's not one I know, because it's a rather specialised word in this day and age.


graystone wrote:
Moppy wrote:
Translation seems off. Gong nu is probably heavy crossbow not repeating.

No, it's a Chinese repeater. Nǔ gōng, means needlework and in this case it's a weapon that fires a lot of 'needles' so a play on words if you will.

The Lian Fa Nu was expensive, prone to jamming, and weak even by repeating crossbow standard but it had a 20 bolt clip and fired 2 bolts at once so it sprayed a LOT of arrows out and with poison, power doesn't matter as much as volume.

NONE of the PF crossbows seem built off of Chinese versions IMO. They are closer to Korean 'wall' crossbows used on ships and such as attached weapons. Even, the reload action is entirely different, and not really practical. [see ranged tactics toolbox pg#17 for image].

Are you using a font that doesn't show the tonal markings? Your translation has nǚ and nǔ confused. They are different words. It is not Spanish accents.

I read nǔ gōng as heavy crossbow from the translation. Do you have a reliable citation for it being a repeater?

Poison is great, but armor penetration of the bolts would be lower. That would be a problem for an army that needs to fight against soldiers, and less for a village that needs to deter some random bandits.

Wall and ship bows would be siege engines in Pathfinder. Single crew ballista. PF 2 doesn't have the repeater yet and basic crossbows, European or Chinese, look similar.


graystone wrote:

]The Nu Gong was the only repeater uncommonly used in military service. The Lian Fa Nu requires a complex metal trigger mechanism making it too expensive for civilian home defence. Now the Chu-Ko-Nu had a rugged design that does not require any metal parts but it's rugged reliability over pure performance makes it ineffective as battlefield weapon: this is the kind you'd see peasants use. The fletchless bolts didn't do it any favors in accuracy either.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with a "more powerful" repeater though.

Translation seems off. Gong nu is probably heavy crossbow not repeating. nŭ is something like to protrude. nǚ is woman. gōng is work/er. We play metaphor games to get the meaning because that’s how Chinese works, assisted or hard work projector / crossbow with winch or extra arms. Or working woman (traditionally maid in Chinese because ancient atttitudes embedded into the language) because the tonal marks are missing on nu.

Assuming a context of crossbows, #2 is an early example, name means double repeating crossbow, that would be firing 2 bolts at once hence the weaker power (same force double mass) and complex mechanism. I don’t think it was commonly used because #3 was widespread.

relevant because we should not feel we have to limit the power of the repeating crossbow to the historical Chinese weapon (but we can if we want to) because that weapon was deliberately made dumb for peasants to use and build.

Edit: there may be slight errors as my mandarin is rusty.

Edit: #2 is ltierally is 'rapid' continuous not 'double' but that name refers to the double shot weapon. I learnt a new word today.


graystone wrote:
Moppy wrote:
Just because those repeating crossbows were weak, it does not imply that a more powerful one could not be built. They may just have not wanted to, because they wanted a weapon specially for non-combatants. China refused to arm itself with cannon for a long time until the British attacked, a concrete example of doctorine over effectiveness.
They DID make more powerful ones and those where placed on wagons, ships or walls because they where too big for people to carry/fire without being attached to something. So they VERY much would have used a better version if one was possible.

The repeating crossbow was a peasant weapon and could be made locally in villages to a traditional (hereditary-passed down) design. There was a time when essentially every household had one. A weapon like that will be simple on purpose. Even if they could build better ones for the army, the peasants would carry on using theirs out of convenience and tradition and their local crafters know the design already. Chinese militia used them as late the the 1900s in the Boxer War. It's a useful weapon for street fighting ranges, and easy for a militia to obtain or build.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I mean, you already run into that issue when you compare Standard Bows versus Composite Bows; there's no reason for someone to not have a Composite Bow even if they don't have a positive strength score (it would be worse for them if they had a negative one, but that's beside the point).

I think in real life, the composite bows had their strength adjusted to match the user. If you weren't as strong maybe you could not draw it, and if you were stronger it would still fire at the lower strength.

graystone wrote:
The hand held version was so weak, it had to have poison on it to be effective plus it had a pitiful range. : "The Zhuge Nu is a handy little weapon that even the Confucian scholar or palace women can use in self-defence... It fires weakly so you have to tip the darts with poison. Once the darts are tipped with "tiger-killing poison", you can shoot it at a horse or a man and as long as you draw blood, your adversary will die immediately. The draw-back to the weapon is its very limited range." Imperial Encyclopaedia year 1725

Just because those repeating crossbows were weak, it does not imply that a more powerful one could not be built. They may just have not wanted to, because they wanted a weapon specially for non-combatants. China refused to arm itself with cannon for a long time until the British attacked, a concrete example of doctorine over effectiveness.


I thought I left this question behind when I stopped playing World of Darkness. :-)


The Rot Grub wrote:
Slyme wrote:

The default storage is on your device, if you pay the $5 to upgrade it has cloud storage.

Even if you don't pay for the upgrade, you can still save your characters as PDFs and store the pdf anywhere you want.

Thanks. Sounds promising and I'll try it out.

My hesitation is that it seems someone is being extremely generous in programming Pathbuilder and that it might not be sustainable in the long run to keep with all new content into the future ad infinitum, without reliable revenue.

It's probably the developer's hobby and not commercial. I see no reason how this app can pay a full time developer's salary which means it's already not sustainable. It will probably last until they get bored of programming or Pathfinder.

It's only $5 even if you paid.

I've seen "always online" cause problems at conventions where the internet isn't too good.


To avoid going insane with working what does what I would suggest a method that is both consistent and compliant with RAW: If a spell says "makes a thing that gives minus something penalty or gives some specific rules condition" then it applies that condition as RAW, and if it just says "make a thing that might be weather" then you ignore it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Watery Soup wrote:

That's the part I'm the most skeptical about.

That state sales tax is linked with a missing avatar page is an extraordinary claim, it certainly requires an extraordinary burden of explanation.

The technical term is "the components of our site are tightly coupled in a way that makes it hard to consider them separate components"

The colloquial term is "spaghetti code".

You can think of it like a rulebook where the rules for doing damage are in 8 separate places, some of which are specific to certain conditions. You update one monster's special rules and suddenly all swords start working differently game-wide.

You shouldn't design a rulebook like that, the same way that you shouldn't write code like that. The programmers know this, but they are under-funded and have to build new features on top of a towering pile that slowly evolved from a forum as Paizo grew.

To make it worse, writing documentation (manuals that explain the design to other programmers) takes as long as writing code. It's rarely up-to-date, and sometimes the people that remember it have left the company.

Given the time and budget they would probably want to burn it all down and start again with a bespoke design that's designed from the start to do all the things modern Paizo needs, but they don't have the time and funding, especially as the bulk of Paizo's effort is devoted to rulebooks and not technology.

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>