This question has been asked before I'm sure, but when it comes to the entry:
[quote"PRD] Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Does it mean only the attack penalties from the two-weapon fighting, or the damage penalties of a main-hand and off-hand weapon as well? Reading it specifically, I think it means only the attack penalties.
I ask because I'm making a character focused on the Meteor Hammer, and I want to get the damage right.
I can only assume he got the bonus from the Pureblooded Azlanti of the Inner Sea World Guide:
Pureblooded Azlanti said wrote:
Although technically the last of the pureblooded Azlanti
was Aroden, Golarion is nothing if not a magical place.
Ancient Azlanti could be introduced into a game via a
number of different methods, such as by being released
from a temporal stasis effect, restored to freedom from an
imprisonment, or even resurrected by powerful artifacts
or ancient magic capable of restoring life to someone
thousands of years dead. There could even be pockets of
pureblooded Azlanti dwelling still in remote and wellhidden
locations.
Unlike a typical human, a pureblooded ancient Azlanti
gains a +2 bonus to all six ability scores. Such powerful
humans can become player characters only with the
permission of the GM.
Even then, his scores are still high, and I've no idea how that would happen.
Also, why is the +1 Cruel Great-Sword cost 8,350 gold instead of 4,350?
By the way you could get a spell-caster in a town to make your Great-Sword masterwork for 340 gold via Masterwork Transformation spell. (300GP for spell components + CL 2 "I think" X Spell Level 2 X 10GP =340GP). Only 10 Gold savings but I like keeping my weapons. Alaire was given his Great-Sword by an Angel that saved his life.
Can you give me the actual pricing rules for multiple enchantments? Thanks.
Weapon Special Abilities wrote:
Some magic weapons have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including from character abilities and spells) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.
Emphasis mine. Along with the normal 2,000 gp for a +1 enchantment, the Cruel Special Ability specifically has the bonus price of a "+1 Bonus", thus another 2,000 gp. Add in the masterwork component and the normal price of the weapon, and you'll have your total of 4,350.
Note: I don't know the price of a greatsword off the top of my head. Just assuming from what was written prior.
So the new crafting rules in Unchained really are something, huh? I have one concern when it comes to the compatibility of those crafting rules with the Skill Unlocks section of the book, as I am making a craft/rogue based character:
Under Craft for Skill Unlocks:
Craft
With sufficient ranks in Craft, you earn the following.
5 Ranks: When determining your weekly progress, double
the result of your Craft check before multiplying the result
by the item’s DC.
10 Ranks: You do not ruin any of your raw materials unless
you fail a check by 10 or more.
15 Ranks: When you determine your progress, the result
of your check is how much work you complete each day in
silver pieces.
20 Ranks: You can craft magic armor, magic weapons,
magic rings, and wondrous items that fall under your
category of Craft using the normal Craft rules.
Bold mine, the new rules for the Craft skill not only advise to work the Craft checks and DCs around a daily progress, but also have a set amount of progress per day, multiplied by how much you exceed the Crafting check. Would it be wrong to shift the ruling of the Skill Unlock for Craft around to accommodate the newer Craft rules? How would you go about this situation and others like it?
During the weekdays, the shifts of all 5 of us differ. During the weekends is when we are truly open, until new jobs arose. I decided to talk to everyone (including the two other players with no conflicting schedules, alone), and found that there were some complaints.
All in all, the player who couldn't play on Sunday had continuously backseat DM'd me for almost the entire campaign, almost halting the game at every other player's turn to question their actions. This is something I talked to him about a while ago after he DM'd his own session and came back to mine. The fact that he is still doing this, and the other players have complained of this to me, made me have to make a decision that based on that, I would have to eject him until he could put his "Rules Lawyering" in check (which is what they called it).
I'll break the decision later in the week. Does this sound like a justifiable decision?
Could you alternate weeks where you plan on Saturday and Sunday? It's probably not the best situation for either player, but would allow both players to still participate in the campaign. Either the GM (you) or another player would need to run the missing player's character every week, though....
I've thought about this, to which I've found that one campaign is enough to delve into my life whereas I must still make time for my family also on the other day. Also, the player who cannot play on Sunday specifically requested his character to not be played without him as it would make him sad.
Dave Justus wrote:
Obviously there isn't a perfect solution here. However, it sounds like you are running a game every weekend. It might be possible to run 2 different campaigns, on alternating weekends with one being on Saturday and one being on Sunday, with slightly different players for the two groups.
If that won't work though, and you have to just choose one, I would suggest that the most fair to to keep the originally scheduled day
This might be a better possibility, however could possibly cause issues with a two week gap and loss of interest compared to the one week the other two players will be doing. I agree that it would be most fair to keep the originally scheduled day.
To add on, the other two players without conflicting schedules believe that it would be best to stick to Sunday, and let the player who obtained the commission job and "chose to work on Sunday" be the one not to play since he made an optional choice compared to the other player who needed a second job.
I play in a group where my friends are the four PCs and I'm the GM. We're currently running through Carnival of Tears and they are relatively enjoying it. We've been playing on Saturdays until one of the PCs picked up a second job and couldn't play on Saturdays, which I didn't mind moving it to Sundays.
The issue is that another one of the PCs picked up a commission job and found that they could potentially gain more money if they worked on Sunday, and thus created an issue of basically having to choose either one player/day to play or the other.
Playing on the weekdays isn't possible because everyone including myself work those days and on different hours.
My question/concern is how to go about this situation without causing any kind of strife.
The player who now cannot play on Sundays has shown some sadness that he couldn't play, while the other player who can't play on Saturdays is showing continuous interest in the campaign.
I'm currently running my players through Carnival of Tears, and from what I understand, the results of how my players do reflects on how many people were killed during the carnival. The question is:
How do I gauge how much time has passed to calculate how many people have been killed, provided that certain amount of people are killed each hour? The way it is explained is very vague and I could only assume is that the time is abstract (DM's judgement), in which case, what would be the best way to gauge it?
This is just one specific situation, but I'd like to know for any other future encounters I may broil up for my players that are like this.
Amunyet is an attractive, physically fit Garundi woman with deep tan skin, dark brown eyes, and straight black hair. Unlike many Osiriani women (especially priestesses) she does not shave her head and wear a wig; she has found she prefers her own hair to the itchy wigs. She carries herself with the air of nobility, and tries to dress as such (although she refused her parent's money when she left Osirion for the North, feeling the Pharasman clergy's backing is sufficient).
Most others find Amunyet somewhat haughty, aloof, and even a bit arrogant. While this may be true to an extent, it really is more a product of being a priestess of the goddess of Death, rather than any real coldness. Being constantly exposed to death, and being the product of a culture that puts such emphasis on it, tends to make her keep her distance from others. She was brought up in a family and priesthood that seldom showed emotion, and so that is how she acts now. Amunyet truly does have a good heart, and desires to help the living through the death of a loved one, and ease those who are dying as best she can.
BACKGROUND
Spoiler:
Amunyet was born into a minor Osirion noble family in the capital of Sothis. A strong, but somewhat clumsy, child, she was the youngest of six. At a young age, she was sent to join the priesthood of Pharasma, as many of the younger sons and daughters of those in her station often were. The elder priests and priestesses found she took to their teachings quickly, and had an almost unnatural affinity with the dead.
Amunyet likely would have remained in Sothis for many years, performing her duties and rising through the ranks of the priesthood. However, only a few months ago, one of the elder priests received a prophetic vision - one he believed came directly from Pharasma. He saw a darkness in the sky, a blot, over a gate of strange symbols. There were people about, and as he watched, he saw that their faces were the faces of the dead.
Through further divinations, the priest realized that the gate in question was the Cyphergate of Riddleport, and the vision fortold great calamity. After discussing the matter with the temple high priestess, they decided to send one of the acolytes to investigate, and Amunyet was chosen as the most capable. Now, after several weeks of travel, Amunyet has arrived at Riddleport to look into this mysterious blot.
