White76Knight's page

White76Knight, you haven't told me anything I didn't already know. This isn't the forum for making Pathfinder more realistic. This is the forum for discussing the rules that actually exist.

Which is why I said "you can simply stick to the Rules As Written, but I just thought I'd thrown some data out there to give you folks the option."

I reckon there's nothing wrong with having extra options for those who want them.

The Lucerne Hammer is a reach weapon and so can not normally be used to strike enemies 5' away.

CRB wrote:

Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.

Just for the record, I'd like to point out that the whole rule about not being able to use Reach weapons against adjacent opponents is complete and utter nonsense. While that indeed what the rule says as written, it just falls down flat in the face of real world usage of these weapons. Sure, you could just take a step back or rely on Armor Spikes or a Bite attack, but sometimes the best tool for the job is whichever tool you already have in your hands. To illustrate this fact, there were entire schools combat in the of medieval era that taught the use of various different pole arms, Talhoffer comes to mind for one, an I can assure you that any properly trained user (ie To put it in D&D terms, anybody who is actually considered proficient with the weapon) could and DID practice techniques for engaging opponents who managed to maneuver inside the standard range of the weapon.

As much as we modern folk like to consider ourselves intellectually superior to our "uneducated" ancestors, the truth is that our forefathers may not have had our access to higher education but they certainly weren't stupid. We have to remember one indisputable fact... For us, as in this example, the issue of how a pole arm could or could not be used is an abstract concept, merely a matter of interest while we are playing an RPG or perhaps watching a movie or tv show. For them, such issues had very clear real world applications that were quite literally a matter of life and death.

They would have been no more inclined to handicapping themselves with a weapon that would leave them vulnerable than we would be. If defeating a pole arm users ability to effectively defend themselves was no more difficult than simply stepping a little closer so that they couldn't hit you, then nobody would have been stupid enough to use them.

If an enemy stepped too near, the pole arm user could simply choke up his grip on the haft of his weapon and fight a closer fight, this would not be at all difficult to do between with opponent that stayed five feet away as assumed by the 5x5 squares in Pathfinder. In case he didn't have enough time or distance to do that, many pole arms were also equipped with a butt spike, for exactly this reason, that would likely do damage equivalent to a Spear or Short Spear. Even those reach weapons that were NOT so equipped could still have a quick and dirty butt spike added by the simple expedient of sharpening the butt end of the haft like an oversized wooden stake, and would do damage accordingly. Finally, remember that the entire haft of a pole arm is basically a quarterstaff, and opponents could be and WERE struck with any section of the haft that happened to be handy.

In the medieval era, pole arms were often used from behind a shield wall or from behind a barricade, so many modern game designers probably assume that this is how the were DESIGNED to be used, and by extension, the only way that they COULD be used (many of them perhaps having only limited knowledge of how these weapons were actually employed in real life), but it simply isn't so. I have actually seen first hand, and even experienced, the way these weapons work in a Medieval reenactment context, and I can personally attest to the fallacy of the Non-Adjacent Only rule for reach weapons. I have lost several matches precisely because I foolishly believed the idea that a pole arm couldn't readily be used to hit you if you just stepped in close enough, which I only believed in the first place because I had spent my childhood and teenage years reading it in D&D rules, only to take a haft or a butt spike to the face.

Now whether you decide to incorporate any of these ideas into your own game to add a little realism to your combat is, of course, entirely up to you. If you prefer, you can simply stick to the Rules As Written, but I just thought I'd thrown some data out there to give you folks the option.

Makes sense to me. Thanks for your help.

Nope. Two different creators in different systems wrote up different items.

But that's just it, they're NOT in two different systems. Both the Crystal Ball and the Pool originated in the 3.5 system. The fact that one was brought to Pathfinder while the other wasn't is most likely a simple matter of the Crystal Ball coming out of the core DMG whereas the Pool came from a sourcebook.

That said, I'm sure you're probably right. I'm looking for a logical internal consistency where there is probably none to be had, within a game system that is often KNOWN for it's lack of logical internal consistency. LOL

I'll most likely do as you said, and create a new version of the Pool myself with the Pathfinder RAW with a reduction for a stationary object.

I'm aware that the Pool of Scrying isn't an existing item according to the Pathfinder RAW, that goes without saying. If it was I'd already have the stats for it and I wouldn't be here asking the question.

Even if you only consider the 3.5 versions of both items, though, the question still remains. You have two objects that grant scrying at will, both require the craft wondrous item feat and the scrying spell, but the Crystal Ball is considered CL10 and has a market price of 42,000 gp, whereas the Pool is only CL5 with a quarter of the market price at 12,000 gp. Why?

Diego Rossi's explanation of one item being based on the Bardic version of the spell and the other on the Wizard version of the spell makes sense as far as the math goes to calculate what the CL and market price of each item SHOULD be based on the DC's and such. I mean, I get that CL drives price, so I can see that a CL10 object would cost more than a CL5.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out here is if both objects perform the same function, and both objects have the exact same requirements, is there any RAW reason why the CL would be different in the first place? Why would one be based on the Bardic version of the spell and the other on the Wizard version of the spell? Other than those created in game, aren't all magical items supposed to be created by default according to the lowest level class that can cast the spell?

Hey folks,

In page 507-508 of the Pathfinder Core Rule Book we find the Crystal Ball which is a CL10 item that permits a user to employ the scrying spell at will. It has the following requirements:

Requirements: Craft Wondrous Item, scrying; Cost 21,000 gp

Now as far as I can tell, these two requirements and the cost are exactly the same as the Crystal Ball from the 3.5 DMG.

On page 81-82 of the 3.5 Stronghold Builders Guide, however, we find the Pool of Scrying, an item (only CL5 this time) that is physically larger but otherwise appears to perform the exact same function (scrying at will), and has the exact same requirements:

Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, scrying; Market Price: 12,000 gp.

The stats for the scrying spell itself, caster level by class, casting time, duration, effect, etc seem to be identical between 3.5 and PF, so why the difference in CL and cost for the two otherwise apparently identical items?

I'd like to include the Pool in my PF scenario, but before I do so, I'd like to figure out if this was just a misprint or miscalculation, or if there is some other detail I am overlooking that explains the discrepancy. Thanks in advance for your help.

As per the Pathfinder Bestiary:

No Constitution score. Undead use their Charisma score in place of
their Constitution score when calculating hit points, Fortitude
saves, and any special ability that relies on Constitution (such as
when calculating a breath weapon’s DC).

The part about "and any special ability that relies on Constitution" should logically include regeneration. And whether it does or not, I'm the GM so that's the way I choose to interpret it. LOL

By the way, isn't there a Feat that would allow her to change the fireball elemental damage as you mentioned earlier? I'm pretty sure I remember running across something to that effect, but now I can't find it because I can't think of the name of what I'm looking for.

"Also lich's are inherently immune to cold and electricity. So if you have ways to change the fireball elemental damage to one of those you are golden."

Good point. The Ogre Mage has Regeneration (fire and acid) so that's basically what I was trying to figure out, if she were to cast either a fire or an acid spell and get caught within her own area of effect, would she mess up her own regeneration. The Sorcerers Draconic Bloodline gives her Resist 10 Acid (as a Black Dragon), but 10 points of resistance does not immunity make.

Maybe I'll just avoid the issue altogether, as you said, and stick to the elements that she's immune to, at least when casting area of effect spells.

Cool thanks. That's as I expected, but I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't overlooked something obvious where it DOES say that you're immune to your own stuff, but if not, then not. Thanks again.

Hey folks. I apologize if this has already been asked and answered previously, or if it seems to be such an especially basic question that I shouldn't even need to be here asking. LOL

I'm creating a high level sorcerer (an ogre mage with levels in sorcerer, actually, who has become a lich) as a boss villain, but even though I've been playing fantasy RPGs of various sorts for years, I've never actually played a primary role spell caster before. This brings me to my question.

Is there anything in the RAW stating that a magic user would be immune to damage from his own spells? For example, a standard fireball spell has a 20ft radius. So if my sorcerer were to cast a fireball at a target that was only 15ft away, she'd be caught in her own blast.

Would she still take damage, or does the damage bypass him because it's her own spell?

If somebody can provide me with an answer, that'd be great, but if I could get a book and page number with the answers I'm looking for, that would be even better.