Sailor Moon-Unit's page

First off, I'm getting a 404 error with your link. Check to make sure that the internet at large has access to your page.

Second, have you had a look at the wounds/vigor variant rules offered in Ultimate Combat? I'm starting up a campaign that uses them and liking what I've seen so far.

Finally, flagged to move to the Suggestions/Homebrew forum.

Okay, so I think I fixed the problem causing the 404 error - thanks!

Second, I have tried the wounds/vigor rules, and I do like them, but they still don't do what I'm looking for, which is simulate gradually declining offensive ability as the character takes damage.

Finally, thanks for the flag! I wasn't aware that forum existed. I'm still sort of new here... well, not chronologically, but in terms of experience with the forums.

I have written up a very initial version of a wounds-based combat system for Pathfinder (that is, it doesn't use Hit Points, but loads up characters with wounds that affect their performance). I'd like to know what people think of it. If possible, when using it, try running whatever combat you're planning under the standard rules first, then running it under these rules, to compare the way things come out.

Feedback is welcome, so long as it is constructive. Note that this is meant to give the game a "grittier" flavor, so feedback along the lines of "wow, after a few hits, my combat abilities were really screwed up and it took a long time to heal" will be interpreted as positive. (grin)

Also note - elementals and other creatures immune to critical hits become much, much deadlier under this version of my wounds-based rules. I know this and am trying to decide whether it's a bug or a feature.

Thanks in advance.

Here's the link: http://db.tt/EZosxSXP

<edited to fix 404 error>

I just relocated to the Greeneville area - close enough to the Tri-Cities for my purposes - and I'm looking for gaming, too. I sent Prater et al a message and am waiting to hear back. In the meantime... anyone still interested? I can run if I have to, but I did a lot of running back in my old group, so I am looking to play - meaning that if I am going to run, I'd have to be assured of a game I can play in, in return. I'd rather just sit on the outside of the screen for a while, though, if possible.

Well, on the one hand, I think it was a mistake to nerf the ranger Favored Terrain the way they have (I'm not a fan of the latest iteration of Ranger), so I'm happy to see ANY class "get it right" as it were. And it WAS a Horizon Walker I was looking at when I stumbled across this (I had previously used a Ranger (Warden)/Druid (World Walker) for it). But it DOES get pretty wild. Setting aside one feat for Endurance and one feat for, I dunno, a combat feat of some kind, a 6th level human rogue can have taken Terrain Mastery five times, for a top bonus of +10 in his or her best terrain, so that by the time he or she hits 9th and gets the first Terrain Dominance from Horizon Walker, the top bonus could potentially be +14. It's grotesque and fabulous.

The Terrain Mastery Rogue Trick, from U.C., makes Rogues better at the whole Favored Terrain gig than Rangers - that seems a little... weird.

The ranger ability has been changed from previous versions of it (some in games by Another Company) where getting a new Fav. Terr. increased ALL previous Fav. Terrs. by +2 to a version where getting a new one only increases ONE Fav. Terr. by +2. The rogue talent explicitly says that each time a new Terrain Mastery is selected, ALL Favored Terrains gained through other selections of Terrain Mastery increase by +2 each. This is similar to the old model and is clearly superior to the ranger's ability to acquire Favored Terrains (not to mention the fact that, through the Extra Talent feat, rogues can acquire Favored Terrains FAR more rapidly than a ranger can, as there is no feat that allows Rangers to select an extra Favored Terrain).

My question is, was this on purpose or a mistake? Should it be changed?

I put up a blog post about this issue recently:

http://landonsgametheory.blogspot.com/2010/10/magic-of-money-or-vice-versa. html

I've also spent some time with the 3.5 "generic PCs," looking at what kinds of bonuses they get through their advancement, in an effort to see what I would need to hand out to the PCs in order to keep them adequately geared for CRs, as calculated, if I took away all or most of the magic.

The Gloves of Dueling (APG) indicate that "[i]f the wearer has the weapon training class feature and is using an appropriate weapon, his weapon training bonus increases by +2."

Now, some of the "subclass" packages of alternate class features for fighters (from Chapter 2 of the same book) swap out weapon training for other abilities. The Archer, for instance, gains "Expert Archer" instead, which functions like weapon training, but with bows. The Polearm Master gets "Polearm Training," which functions like weapon training, but for spears and polearms.

My question is this: does having one of these abilities count as having "weapon training" as a class feature for the purpose of Gloves of Dueling? If so, a rubric to cover these cases is needed, and wording may be important, as some of the things that replace weapon training are less straightforward than the examples already cited (see Mobile Fighter). I'm not against the idea of applying this bonus to anyone who has weapon training 1 or any substituted class feature, but I'm curious to see how the ruling comes down, and the reasoning given.

Folding Boats despite thier magical nature are treated just as ordinary boats of the relevant type. i.e.rowboat or sailcraft.

The whole point is that given the description (dimensions, complement, etc.) under the item, neither form of the Folding Boat corresponds to any type of boat specified in the rules... as stated in my original post. No where did I indicate that the "magical nature" of the FB was my issue; indeed, I *assume* it functions just like a normal boat of the relevant type. Figuring out *what that type is*, however, is the problem.

As stated in the original post.

I'm leaning toward the Pinnace, at least for my games. As for when I'm playing, I'll pitch the idea to the GM and hope he bites. Otherwise, it's all voodoo and mystery.

I totally love the wondrous item "Folding Boat." But I didn't love it enough, apparently, to notice before now that neither form of the item (boat or ship, as the text seems to have settled on dubbing them) matches any of the forms of transport in the equipment section well enough to determine what its movement stats should be. Both forms seem to fall neatly between "Rowboat" (on the too-small end of things) and "Keelboat." Complicating things further, because of the design of the Keelboat, it moves slower than a Rowboat, so I can't even split the difference between the two speeds and call it a day. The "ship" form of the folding boat seems to be like a quarter-size version of the Sailing Ship, but that isn't really helpful in terms of determining its stats. Straying from pure Pathfinder goods, it comes closest in terms of size to the Pinnance as described in Stormwrack, and indeed both have the same complement (about 15 people), but the Pinnance is described as having more sails. Should I suck it up and use the Pinnance from Stormwrack, or has this been dealt with by some errata or official utterance somewhere already?

The permanency spell plus animate object spell is indeed the normal way to build permanent animated objects. While it's certainly still possible to build one using Craft Construct... we were unable to fit that information on the monster's page and decided to forgo it for that entry.

And the retriever's missing construction data is half error, half "PCs shouldn't be building these anyway since they're made by demon lords." We still shoulda put put in a construction paragraph though, probably.

Except... you didn't forgo it. From the Bestiary, p. 14, entry for Animated Object:

"Permanent animated objects can be built using the Craft Construct feat (see page 314)."

Obviously, using Craft Construct would be preferable to merely using the spell, because it can't be dispelled. The same goes for the spell plus Permanency - none of the creatable Constructs can be dispelled, even though all of them (I believe) require Animate Object to make.

Either the reference to Craft Construct under the Animated Object entry is an error and needs to be errata-ed out, or we need costs for building them.