Nifty Butterfinger's page

Personally, I'd like to see some examples of the more intricate types of Encounter Mode play given in the blog posts because sometimes the small bulleted ideas do not translate well to others. In those cases an example would provide context and other information that people can use to replicate or extrapolate into additional uses of the Mode.

Probably a difference in writers. Likely one should be corrected to match.

Agreed.

Hope the Paizo peeps look at these and make notes...

I have been digging through some of these vehicle stat blocks in the Gamemastery Guide [begins on pg. 177] and some in the Lost Omens Grand Bazaar [begins on pg. 76] and have noticed that the Immunities listed are different for several of a common type.

For example the Rowboat & Galley from the GMG lists "Critical Hits, Object Immunities, & Precision Damage", but the Cutter from the LOGB lists only "Object Immunities".

Have ships somehow lost the immunities to crits and precision damage at some point while I was not paying attention or is this a typo/error and should be corrected in one book or another?

pretty sure rowboat can fit on sailing ship

vehicle have specific occupy space is pretty useful

I agree, Rowboats should be able to fit on Sailing Ships since they are so much smaller.

Here is what I found in the Skulls & Shackles Player Guide:

This stat block can be used to represent any of a number small open boats propelled by oars, such as dinghies, dories, skiffs, and wherries.

I take by this sentence that numerous small craft can use the same one presented there - and by extension the one in the 2E GMG - for small boats that are used as lifeboats on larger sea-going ships.

The new stat blocks still do not list a carrying capacity that I can find anywhere.

It's GM feat but I think the easy way to determine a vehicle's bulk is it own capacity. So a wagons bulk is same of it's own capacity as bulk at minimum and GM could add some extra bulk based on it's size using Creature Bulk's table but if it has cargo ignore such cargo bulk. But there's no official solution for this it's just my suggestion.

But Vehicles do not have a capacity listed. There is only the blurb in the GMG [pg 174] which states that the amount of Bulk a draft horse can pull is about 100 consistently throughout the day. So unless the pulled vehicle has some other listed capacity, it is based on the number of creatures pulling it. In the case of a horse, it's 100 Bulk if one horse pulls or 200 if two pull.

Waterborne vehicles are even a little more confusing because the are noted to "typically hold upwards of 1,000 Bulk". That means, short of adjudication by the DM differently, a Rowboat can carry the same amount as a Galley.

I have not yet seen a vehicle stat block that lists a capacity, but would be grateful if you could point out where I missed this.

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this - :)

I have been doing some comparisons between PF1E and PF2E since my home game is moving into a phase where the PCs have the option to be travelling by water a bit and I need to expand the number and types of waterborne craft available.

I would suggest that having too few crew or pullers [horses and the like] not completely stop all movement of the vehicles. Many of the ships can move by wind power and their movement speed is such that even a drastic reduction has some benefit.

Maybe if the crew compliment is less than needed but not significantly so, apply a -2 penalty to Piloting checks but the speed is unaffected. a more drastic reduction [say 3/4 or 1/2 of the required crew or pullers] reduces the speed by 1/2 and adds another -2 to the penalty to a total of -4 to the Piloting check.

If the crew are drastically reduced [say down to 1/4 that needed] the Speed drops to 5 feet and the Piloting check is reduced by another -4 for a total of -8.

I know it is not possible to have 1/4 of a required 2 Large Creatures like that for the Wagon, so in those cases once the last horse stops [is killed, teleports away, whatever] then the wagon would be stuck in place unless gravity or some other force was enacted on it.

Please pardon me while I Necro this thread - lol

I am pretty sure it is possible to do so but the only real issue you'll have is estimating the Bulk value of the smaller vehicle.

Say you are planning on having wagons boomed into the hold of a large Galley. The GMG [on page 174] says that a ship can hold upward of 1,000 Bulk but nowhere that I know does it say how much Bulk a vehicle is.

Given that Bulk is not only the weight of an item, but also its size and general awkwardness I feel it might be good to compare the relative size of the wagons compared to the ship [10Lx10Wx7H vs 130Lx20Wx25H - GMG pp. 178-179]. With these numbers in mind I think you could likely stack 4 or 5 of them inside the ship. It would be something like 3 in the bottom hold and maybe 2 on the upper hold. Going full-out by removing a life raft/dinghy and storing on the deck too, would possibly garner an extra wagon or two if the DM is generous.

If your vehicles differ from mine, just use what you think will work and run with it.

I found an error in the Archetypes section of the CRB:

Page: 224

Description: in the Divine Breadth feat, the last sentence says - "Increase the spell slots you gain from cleric archetype feats by 1 for each spell level other than your two highest druid spell slots."

I assume it should be: "Increase the spell slots you gain from cleric archetype feats by 1 for each spell level other than your two highest cleric spell slots."

I too am having this issue just today. I tried to call but only got a busy signal.

What gives?

Sorry to Necro this thread, but another thread on this topic stated that they had contacted Mark Seifter, one of the Lead Designers about this. He indicated that all creatures are assumed to have normal sight unless specifically noted otherwise. {Black Pudding is mentioned as an example: Perception +9; motion sense 60 feet, no vision}

I guess giving the creatures Tremorsense allows them to do their thing even in a zone of absolute darkness.

Thoughts?

Nifty

I hate to break in late to this topic peoples, but as I interpret the rules, a poison is not, strictly speaking, a "persistent damage condition".

I mean, I realize that it does persistent damage assuming it has a duration, but it is not a condition per se.

That said:

I think there is good cause to count poison as "ticking" at the end of the afflicted's turn due to the rest of the paragraph Sibelius Eos Own quoted from the CRB, pg. 455 about Durations:

For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect. This is common for beneficial effects that target you or your allies. Detrimental effects often last “until the end of the target’s next turn” or “through” a number of their turns (such as “through the target’s next 3 turns”), which means that the effect’s duration decreases at the end of the creature’s turn, rather than the start.

Nifty

Sorry for applying my necromancy to this thread, but I was curious about others' take on another "multiple exposure" of poisons.

For example:

If a creature walks into a poisonous cloud and fails the save starting the clock on the poison's activities [either the Onset and/or entering Stage 1 of the effect].

What are your opinions if the creature does not immediately move out of the poisonous cloud either by design or inability to do so and as a result is still inside the cloud at the beginning of its next turn? Does this in your collective opinion count as a multiple exposure by remaining in the cloud for another round?

Thank you all for your time.

Nifty

Please excuse me while I get my Somatic, Material and Verbal components correct to cast Raise Thread... lol

I wanted to point out that it is also possible to use the fast advancement speed (800xp) to level the group faster and possibly account for missing parts of the XP needed to hit the full 1,000xp.

Another thing I have noticed about my attempts to run this adventure is that the Hazards give a set of XP that does not look like they are accounted for completely in the write-up. For example:

All-in-all, I think doing milestone levelling will be the easiest for DMs who are running this adventure.

YMMV

Nifty

I am looking back on my last game where we left off at the attack by the Bloodseekers [Stirges] and I am curious about how you ran it.

My group split up and there were only two there for the fight so it was a target rich environment for the baddies.

Just curious...

thanks,

Nifty

casting Raise Thread here - please bear with me.....

Say I have a party together and we are sent to apprehend a known criminal and return him to justice. The criminal utters the ubiquitous "You'll never take me alive!!!"

We, the group, set to chastising the criminal but want to knock him out with non-lethal damage at the last. How can we know when he is on his last legs where the damage can be changed to non-lethal?

What are your collective ideas for making this happen?

Personally I like the idea that if any part of the damage a creature takes is non-lethal, and by assumption it is not immune to such, the final blow, regardless to weapon trait would knock them out and not kill them.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Nifty

Nifty Butterfinger wrote:

How did some of the rest of you handle the Riding Horses where the CRB says (pg 294 - under the Animals heading) that normal animals in combat become Frightened 4 and fleeing as long as they are Frightened?

If the party successfully uses Command an Animal, the horses don't flee -

CRB p 294 wrote:

If you successfully Command your Animal using Nature (page 249), you can keep it from fleeing, though this doesn’t remove its frightened condition.

Practically speaking, other than in Encounter A, where the "horses running away" mechanic is explicitly called for, as long as the PCs aren't using the horses as meatshields, I'd use a generous definition of when the horses are "in combat" and avoid having them go running off all the time.

I can see this point too logsig, but I seem to recall somewhere the adventure mentions that the animals specifically attack the wagon/cover to get at the items inside and the druids or their companions specifically attack the animals and wagon/cover.

I've also done some research concerning attacking objects and it appears they are tied to attacking Hazards. To that end I have squint-eyed some stats for the cover and wagon to facilitate the encounter at the end of this week. Have a look-see:

Cover Statistics:

AC: 13 Fort: +4 Ref: +4
Hardness: 2 HP: 8 (BT: 4) Immunities: critical hits, object immunities, & precision damage
​

Wagon Statistics:

AC: 14 Fort: +9 Ref: +5
Hardness: 5 HP: 20 (BT: 10) Immunities: critical hits, object immunities, & precision damage

Thanks,

NiftyB

Pepor wrote:

Blinded, Confused, Clumsy, Dazzled.... neither. So?

I think these were left off inadvertently or maybe the list was not so long at the time it was created since Confused is clearly a Mental trait and Blinded/Dazzled only applies to creature/objects that "see" somehow. Clumsy applies the same except that most common objects do not move of their own accord.

On to other topics, I think the best way to handle this is to assign the object an AC like the Hazards they are often lumped in with when referencing damaging objects:

CRB wrote:

Damaging a mechanical trap or another physical hazard works like damaging objects: the hazard reduces the damage it takes by its Hardness.

(pg. 521)

A review of the sundry Hazards in that section of the book shows several different AC amounts given. The general rule seems to be that the AC DC goes up for Hazard Level and possibly adjusts for size

Thoughts?

Thanks NiftyB

On a secondary review of Hazards, it appears they indicate an immunity to critical hits as well as the normal Object Immunities and precision damage, so my thinking is that normal objects would too be immune to critical hits.

Other thoughts?

Thanks,

NiftyB

Blinded, Confused, Clumsy, Dazzled.... neither. So?

I think these were left off inadvertently or maybe the list was not so long at the time it was created since Confused is clearly a Mental trait and Blinded/Dazzled only applies to creature/objects that "see" somehow. Clumsy applies the same except that most common objects do not move of their own accord.

On to other topics, I think the best way to handle this is to assign the object an AC like the Hazards they are often lumped in with when referencing damaging objects:

Damaging a mechanical trap or another physical hazard works like damaging objects: the hazard reduces the damage it takes by its Hardness.

(pg. 521)

A review of the sundry Hazards in that section of the book shows several different AC amounts given. The general rule seems to be that the AC DC goes up for Hazard Level and possibly adjusts for size

Thoughts?

Thanks NiftyB

How did some of the rest of you handle the Riding Horses where the CRB says (pg 294 - under the Animals heading) that normal animals in combat become Frightened 4 and fleeing as long as they are Frightened?

I'm planning on running this in a week or so and would like to hear some of your experiences.

Thanks,

NiftyB

I cannot imagine that there are DM's out there who are so nit-picky as to rule that there are no items laying about that would not allow this cantrip to work every time.

The only situation where this might be a possibility is an area that is perpetually cleaned by a persnickety entity of a "Rain Man" OCD caliber and is described in such a way that a signal is given to the players that this cantrip may not work reliably.

NiftyB

TheHarangue wrote:

Nifty Butterfinger wrote:

From my perspective, Greater Cover would be akin to targeting someone standing behind an arrow slit or other equally small opening (i.e. sliding speakeasy door window, jailer's window, or very closely-spaced iron bars in a iron wall [about 1/2" apart])

Greater Cover should be difficult to obtain in normal circumstances, IMHO.

NiftyB

I agree with you, it should not be easy to get. I think I will use greater cover to describe things that are military in design.

A hole is cover.
A fighting hole is greater cover.

A watch tower is cover.
A guard tower with merlons would be greater cover.

etc.

Greater Cover is not meant to be that difficult to get. If you have Standard Cover, and use an action to Take Cover, you get Greater Cover.

CRB 471 wrote:

TAKE COVER [one-action]Requirements You are benefiting from cover, are near a feature that allows you to take cover, or are prone.You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover (page 477). If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action.

Something like an arrow slit in a wall would effectively make you untargetable. That's kind of why arrow slits were invented. They let you attack from safety.

Successfully laying siege to a castle is in fact nigh impossible, which is why most historical armies chose to cut off supply lines and starve the occupants instead.

I was making my statements from the opinion that no "Take Cover" action was used by the creature seeking such elevated levels of protection such as the archer standing behind the arrow slit and plying their bows to great effect. they would benefit from Greater Cover automatically by virtue of the construction of their surroundings.

If they used the "take cover" action they would be effectively
not 'targetable'. This is likely not within RAW and possibly not within RAI, but it's how I would and will roll when running as a DM.

..I do what I want.. lol

NiftyB

lol... I like math, but you guys are making my head hurt!

Good on both of you!

NiftyB

I would think this term would mean "not held or touched by another creature. If an item is somehow in the possession of an inanimate creature or Hazard, then I would say it is not likely "unattended".

Why do you ask daresay?

NiftyB

From my perspective, Greater Cover would be akin to targeting someone standing behind an arrow slit or other equally small opening (i.e. sliding speakeasy door window, jailer's window, or very closely-spaced iron bars in a iron wall [about 1/2" apart])

Greater Cover should be difficult to obtain in normal circumstances, IMHO.

NiftyB

okay, I am now ready to receive this product. Paizo, feel free to press the "Release" button.

That will be all - Thank you,

NiftyB

my question is what damage does it deal? is it for the single action casting or double action casting? 3d8 vs 3d8+24 is a big difference and the feat language itself doesn't really say.

So this is a 3rd level of the spell being expended with the Channel Smite? So this is a 5th level character performing this action since only a 5th level character can cast 3rd level spells, correct?

I wouldn't think a 2-action feat would allow a single-action weapon Strike and a 2-action version spell to be expended. Barring some sort of official change to the RAW, I'd rule it was the single-action expenditure of the spell

NiftyB

Yeah, I'd say Forest = Jungle = Forest

If you read one or the other, understand that they are synonymous with each other.

Forests are defined in the CRB on pg. 513 and include jungles and other wooded areas.

NiftyB

Zapp wrote:

It is very easy to understand the restriction.

Applying the spell's effects to an already-magic shield can effectively upgrade that shield by several thousands of gold.

It would make the spell useful to a far greater degree than intended.

A shield isn't a weapon, you could only apply it to a shield boss. And in that case it does the same thing as applying runes to a shield boss.

Again... The spell only does what it does for any other weapon.

I would gently remind you that a shield IS a weapon. It is listed in the weapons section along with a shield boss and shield spikes.

NiftyB

...One of these actions must be a successful command an animal check. The other two are then able to be used by the rider to tell the mount what to do or to act himself.

This is incorrect as I understand it - the rider of a normal mount must use Command an Animal each time he wants the mount to do something - want it to Stride three times, then use Command an Animal three times with no extra actions left for either the mount or the rider

NiftyB

It is my understanding that you have to issue as many commands to the non-minion animal as you want it to undertake as illustrated in the Command an Animal action as part of the Nature Skill:

You issue an order to an animal. Attempt a Nature check against the animal’s Will DC. The GM might adjust the DC if the animal has a good attitude toward you, you suggest a course of action it was predisposed toward, or you offer it a treat.

You automatically fail if the animal is hostile or unfriendly to you. If the animal is helpful to you, increase your degree of success by one step. You might be able to Command an Animal more easily with a feat like Ride (page 266).
Most animals know the Leap, Seek, Stand, Stride, and Strike basic actions. If an animal knows an activity, such as a horse’s Gallop, you can Command the Animal to perform the activity, but you must spend as many actions on Command an Animal as the activity’s number of actions. You can also spend multiple actions to Command the Animal to perform that number of basic actions on its next turn; for instance, you could spend 3 actions to Command an Animal to Stride three times or to Stride twice and then Strike.

Success The animal does as you command on its next turn.
Failure The animal is hesitant or resistant, and it does nothing.
Critical Failure The animal misbehaves or misunderstands, and it takes some other action determined by the GM.

This paragraph forms the basis of my understanding of how this is supposed to work.

NiftyB

From what I'm seeing in actual gameplay, shields are really popular for the AC and rarely used for blocking damage. Mainly, because a lot of characters are picking up shields who don't even have the Shield Block ability.

The most peculiar may be monks, because shield-bearing monks have never really been a thing before. But they work pretty well.

With the way the math stacks up in PFS scenarios, I'm starting to hear a lot of "well your monster hit me but didn't crit me because I had my shield raised". 2 AC is a lot in this game.

I can certainly see this, but definitely put me in the category of "uses shield to block".

My fighter [Tank] feels that it is worth 5 extra hp every time he is hit and his shield is not broken. I've considered carrying an extra steel shield for this very purpose.

NiftyB

I've got a couple questions from trying to make a ranger with an animal companion. First, specifically with the ranger, their animal companion also gains the benefits of their Hunter's Edge so if they had the Precision Edge (which does additional precision damage on the first attack you hit with in a round) can both the ranger and companion trigger it in the same round?

A second question, there seems to be an error with either heavy barding or the AC item bonus cap for companions. Under the rules for companions it states they can not get more than a +2 item bonus to AC, yet heavy barding gives a +3 bonus and the dex cap seems to be balanced around the whole bonus applying. Is there something I am missing here?

A recent errata changed the +2 bonus cap to +3

NiftyB

The animal companion continues to support your attack without being commanded to do so every round. That is, as long as the enemy doesn't move away from the animal. This is quite effective for an archer ranger.

I don't think this is correct. The first paragraph of the Animal Companions & Familiars section (pg. 214) says that animal companions gain 2 actions when you expend one action to Command an Animal. Support is a single action activity and without the master/mistress expending the action to Command an Animal to begin with, the companion would not have the 2 actions to use at all.

If this is modified from another section of the book, I am not aware of it and encourage you to show me the error of my ways.

NiftyB

Unless I am missing something in the description given here the NPC rider would have to use Command an Animal to successfully control the mount and then he/she/it would have to give all of its action to having the mount Stride three times where the PC with a Horse Animal Companion would use one to activate the companion and would still have 2 more for other things [attacking the NPC, holding on for dear life, etc.] while the companion would gain 2 actions of its own to presumably Stride twice.

I realize this does not help with the sheer speed differential, but potentially the flubbing of a Command Animal check by the NPC could be the linchpin that pulls it all together?

NiftyB

Wheldrake wrote:

But... why does the DM call Ted a "dope"? <g>

I'm bringin it back man.

You two are funny..lol

back to the OP's question:

Keep in mind that there are shields and then there are SHIELDS!

Imagine, if you would, being strapped to the Supreme Sturdy Shield (Hardness: 20, HP: 160, BT: 80) [CRB pg. 588]

Also imagine, the possibility of creating a Supremely Indestructible Sturdy Shield at a later date in this game. This assumes more instances of adding two different magic items together (Indestructible Shield & Sturdy Shield) are allowed/house ruled.

NiftyB

NielsenE wrote:

'Priests's of Razmir in 1e were always been stated as non-cleric casters. Often bards or wizards. The party line so far is that Razmir is not a deity(despite his claims) and can not grant spells, so his priests all fake it.

In 1E I understand there was a sorceror AT for being a "priest" of Razmir.

I have also checked the 1E Gods & Magic and it specifically states that Razmir is not a god so I suppose I should have checked first.

With that being definitively stated,I guess it stands to reason that his "priests" would not be actual Clerics

NiftyB

Waaaaaaaaitaminnit!

The Without Trace or Fail Team has a guy named Ostog. Is that *THE* Ostog? Or is he just named after a certain unslain Ostog of legend?

I'm sorry, I am not catching the reference, can you enlighten me please?

Thank you,

NiftyB

I am just now seeing this. Does the current Supply List mean that Snow Shoes/Skis and sled are not needed anymore or are they provided by the VC?

If they are not needed how is it justified that the group travels 200 miles in a 4-day span, on foot, in the snow and other rough terrain?

Thank you all for your advice.

NiftyB

numbat1 wrote:

Also on Harsus - the T3-4 statblock does not include the Cleric Domain Spell - is this intentional?

I'm prepping this for tomorrow (most likely high tier) and just caught that too. Since the rest of his spells are arcane, I'm wondering if maybe the low tier stat block is the one with the error, or if at low tier Harsus was somehow given that domain spell from another source beyond his base class to help exfiltrate once/if things go wrong with his initial plan.

I'm also wondering if his cantrips should be heightened at the high tier, too.

You raise a good point with this but I wonder if Harsus was made the way he was in the new 2E mindset for creating bad guys. I am pretty sure Harsus is a priest of Razmir so him having the Domain spell is completely appropriate. Maybe it was left off accidentally?

I just checked a few of his other spells and it appears he has the spells of a Wizard, so maybe Priests of Razmir don't necessarily have to be Clerics and the inclusion of the Domain Spell is more confusing than I initially though.

I think the cantrips will need to be heightened like you mentioned but it would be nice to have a reminder for DM's to do that "math" as they are running the adventure. Maybe a superscript note or something to at least draw attention to that fact?

The Appendices are all over the place on giving incorrect names for the NPCs:

Web Stalkers vs Web Lurkers
High Tier Chops statblock refers to Brute
Rebel Brutes in High Tier Encounter C refer to Elite Rebel Brutes in their statblock

Low tier in the waterworks is especially bad where it calls out different tactics for Rebel Brutes and Rebels. Then, we have stats for only Waterworks Rebels.

This is a definite trend in PFS2 Appendices.

I think this is a copy/paste error, but you are correct there are no Rebel Brutes in low tier so I plan to ignore the tactics for the Brutes and have the Rebels try to get as high as possible to use their ranged attacks.

Since Harsus' plan is to escape in either tier, if things so south for him, I'll have him use Invisibility and his Stealth to get away and once he is safely out of the combat area, he will use Illusory Disguise to appear like a common soldier and walk calmly away. His future plans will involve spreading more "Peace & Prosperity" of the Razmiran faith.

In low tier, I guess he will have to rely on Sudden Shift to try to get away.

I'm a little confused about how the PC's are supposed to perceive the Quagmire/Treacherous Quagmire. Is is assumed that the hazards are hiding using their Stealth bonus and the PC's that are Seeking during Exploration Mode get a secret check to notice it?

This seems to be the best way to run it unless I am missing something.

If someone has spotted the Hazard, to what end would they go to the trouble to Disable it?

If a group were making their way through the area where this Hazard was located and the person(s) who were Seeking missed it on their secret checks would everyone fall victim to the Hazard or would the first person in marching order fall in and everyone else immediately stop moving [assumes a single file]? ...or would you use the marching order and arrange it so that the first in a line/area fell in?

Thanks for the advice in advance!

Nifty

Keep in mind that creatures with the "Minion" trait only have 2 actions

The Concealed condition (CRB, pg. 618) indicates that you can still be observed [seen] but are harder to target. To do so requires a DC 5 Flat Check.

The condition does not indicate that Precision damage is affected one way or another and this leads me to think it works normally - other than have a Flat Check to see if you hit them at all or not.

Thoughts?

Nifty

Franz Lunzer wrote:

Yoshua wrote:

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

What would the point of the pdf of this product be?

I'd have many uses. Being able to incorporate the official stat blocks in my electronic notes without taking a crappy cell phone pic would be first and foremost.

I can snag them from the bestiary, but I guarantee that these are going to be much better formatted for individual use.

Out of interest: Why not look up the monster on 2e.aonprd.com and copy from there?

No doubt, lots of ways of doing this. I use a digital organizer to create all of my dialogue and notes. I like to have all of the information I can in one spot. I've even been known to almost rewrite entire adventures using the source material.

I can definitely hop out and even link to other sources, but when I am in the middle of a game it breaks immersion for me and it's a personal preference to have all of the information in one spot. For example while writing I will put the note for a monster

Name of Monster
Initiative +##
PF2eB1 pg###

Then later as I prep I will go in and fill in stat blocks or copy and paste from the Bestiary. When I get the cards I'll be using them, but for reference sake I'd still like to put them in my notes if possible.

Way back in the day I'd photo copy and put stat blocks in that way....

Remember, you were curious :D

Yoshua,

What digital organizer do you use? I use Realm Works for mine and being able to post a picture to my players of the monster/map/what-have-you has been great

I was making my own cards for 1E and am glad they're making these :D

I also agree that the AP ones were pointless though.

Unikatze, can you give me a description of how you would use these cards? I'm having difficulty in envisioning the purpose you would put them to and I assume this is just a deficiency on my part.

Thanks,

Nifty

We don't offer PDFs of our card products.

What is the thinking behind this business decision? I would think that if you priced the PDF near the price point of the cards themselves, you would likely be ahead.

Myself, I buy the PDF as a cheaper way to see if I can actually use the product and if I find I can use it, I buy the hardcopy product too.

Any likelihood of getting a picture of what the cards actually look like?

(all weights reference males)

Light Horse (think Light cav/Mongol horse archer) weight 880 - 1,100 lbs
Brown bears weight 440 - 1,200 lbs
Bengal Tiger weight 440 - 660 lbs
Draft Horse (wagon puller) about 1,600 - 2,200 lbs (Some hvy cav units will use draft horses but the normal medieval heavy cav were likely closer to light horse around 1,100 - 1,200 lbs)

You are not the only one able to post random facts :)

Laran, thanks for these, but to my american eyes the weights don't mean much without conversion. I went ahead and did the maths for those of us who need it.

Nifty

There may also be some descriptive differences between the two.

Imagine standing there like a pole-axed ox, eyes all a bewildered as you are stunned vs. actually moving and doing things just very, very slowly.