eris's page

[3:20 Tuesday Update]: All PDFs have been delivered to your Paizo Store Library.

All my 1e pdfs are gone. Was that supposed to happen?

What I can't figure out is why the Lizfolk in the Bestiary has the scores it has. NPC class build raw ability scores are 13 12 11 10 9 8 for a total ability score point build of "+3"

Lizfolk has S13 D10 C13 I9 W10 Ch10 with race mods of +2 Str/Con

Adjusted for the bonuses to str/con, the Lizfolk now has raw scores of:

S11 D10 C11 I9 W10 Ch10

There is no 13, no 12, no 8 either. The total ability score point build is "+1" not "+3". This bugs the crap out of me. It makes Lizardfolk weaklings but does not define why.

Does anybody know why twigjacks have agile maneuvers? They're already tiny and therefore can use Dex for CMB...

Does anybody know why a twigjack has agile maneuvers? Its already tiny, so it can already use its Dex for CMB.

I can understand why they don't all get "militant" because why would a hill giant use a club when it now has a menu of choices? Instead, give the true giants martial weapon prof as a bonus feat for the weapons they're traditionally associated with.

I also like the idea of rock throwing being a ranged touch attack. When a four-door van is coming your way your only hope is to dodge. You can indeed be crushed inside your plate mail. Think of it like falling damage only part of the earth is flying at you instead of you falling to it.

Bummer. Was thinking of buying this for use with We B4 Goblins.

When a character has taken the form of a creature of another type, does their own type also change until the effect ends?

I couldn't find a rule regarding which favored enemy bonus should be applied. Say a ranger is fighting a human wizard who shape-changes into a demon to avoid favored enemy bonuses, only to discover that the ranger specializes in demons. I thought this would be humorous but couldn't find any rules to support it.

I don't want to be an "easy" DM, but I also don't want to ruin anyone's fun by making them sit out the final sessions.

Yeah. That's kind of my instinct too. I'm worried to use the Blasphemy spell-like ability that many of the tougher demons have in the next session or two (whatever's left). It seems like it would be a major let-down to have a PC stuck back on the Prime during the final battle. If I was a PC I'd rather have my character die in battle like a proud Klingon than just get banished.

On the other hand I don't want to make things too easy by having demons just not use one of their best spell-like's...

Oh well. I guess I just have to hope they roll good on those penalized Will saves....

If a character is banished from a plane through a spell like Blasphemy or similar magic, they "cannot return for 24 hours."

Does that mean "cannot return under their own power" or does that mean cannot return, period. Like, if they stepped through a Gate, would they simply step through to the other side but still remain on their "home" plane? Would the magic fail for them?

Or does the idea of "banishment" just mean they can't use a spell-like ability such as plane shift to return under their own power?

I hope this doesn't seem too much like a nit-picky question. A cohort of one of my PC's was banished from the Abyss and I'm sure my party would like to have her help in wrapping up the campaign. If she can't return, she can't return. But this is the last calendar day of the campaign so in this case it matters. Under normal circumstances, I'm sure they'd just wait one more day before pressing the attack. But they're on a time schedule, so...

Thanks! Not sure how I missed the last line of the spell.

I think I agree about it getting full hp when summoned with the spell. When brought back through ritual the following day, it would still be at half hp no matter what happened while summoned.

Also, I suppose any other conditions imposed on the eidolon (sickened, etc) would not be in effect. But if they are long term enough, would be the following day in the ritual version.

If I'm off my rocker here, please tell me.

If your eidolon is banished because of hp damage (death), can you still summon it using the Summon Eidolon (APG) spell? The class description says it "can't" be summoned until the next day, but I don't know if I should take that to mean "can't come back using the summoning ritual."

If so, how many hp does it have when it returns using the spell?

I read on another thread somewhere that eidolons come back with half hp after a day (couldn't verify in APG). If that is true, would it also apply to the Summon spell?

I've seen a couple people post about Reduce Person (not going to quote, they're a ways back and anyone here is certainly being asked their opinion), and it seems like they're implying it would lower DPR or be a disadvantage of some kind?

I can't find anything in the Bomb description that would imply bomb damage goes down based upon the size of the alchemist.

The text does say "bombs are considered weapons and can be selecte4d using feats such as PBS and Weapon Focus."

But right after that it says "On a direct hit, an alchemist's bomb inflicts d6+..."

Nothing in there about a small alchemist's bomb's doing d4 or a large one's doing d8. It does call them a weapon, but does nothing to imply that d6 is the base damage for a medium creature, just that d6 is the damage it does. Mundane alcehmical weapons (acid, etc) don't do less damage if made with and for smaller hands.

If it actually does reduce the damage done it would be less useful to be the skeleton of a pixie using Undead Anatomy III. If anything my initial reaction is that DPR goes up if you're tiny because you'd hit even more often and, rules as written, your damage stays the same.

If I am doing it wrong by having d6 dmg no matter the size, please someone let me know.

In 3.5 there was a spell you could use to pull someone into the plane you're in. I think it was in Spell Compendium. My clever players got themselves ethereal and then went through a castle to go after the evil leadership personally while bypassing most minions. My players are smart. It was a great tactic for not harming the brave, mostly lawful soldiers who weren't doing anything wrong, and instead going after the actual evil leadership. Brilliant!

But when talk started of building their party around that idea (once the arcane caster could cast it and the group could be ethereal they were going to treat all dungeons like that) I decided that I had collected enough Pathfinder rule-set books that I was ready to try it out.

Gotta hand it to clever PCs. My rule has generally been that if they can find some creative loophole, go ahead and let them exploit it at least once. But my advice to them is to not overdo it, or you ruin your own fun by taking the challenge out of the game. Every encounter shouldn't be a gang-stomp. And game would be boring if it was.

I actually usually have dungeons go nova. I'm not easy on my PCs by any means. Particularly when they are as powerful as they are. Not all dungeons go nova, of course, but the ones that have any organizational relationship do, and realistically should.

Lawful enemies are just naturally organized and have contingency plans and everyone knows what their job is in advance of being raided.

Chaotic enemies are good at making a lot of noise, whether battle cries or just general screaming and yelling, which usually alerts nearby enemies. Chaotic Evil enemies are even worse than other chaotics because each individual's top goal is usually to preserve his or her own life (probably true with any Evil). There is always a ready volunteer to go alert the rest of the dungeon.

I don't generally reset dungeons because I don't think that is realistic. I've seen modules where re-staffing was actually included in a sidebar, for the particular organization running that dungeon. It had details such as: how many over time could be recruited, ideas for replacing unique creatures and so forth. But something like that takes place over time, and it would feel like cheating to just reset. It can be got away with in certain circumstances as long as it isn't overused. I remember a certain Moathouse where the undead would rise again the next night, so you had to fight through them in order to explore the dungeon further. That was a great idea but only works in the pre-teleport levels and if overused would lose its unique quality.

Also, regarding teleport, often adventure areas are warded against such magic. This is also great but can be cheapened with overuse.

Its not really that hard to find a safe place to rest once your party has access to teleport. They can literally go home and rest in the comfort of their own bedrooms and even drink the tea out of their own cupboards.

So far as "what I allow them to do", I'm simply allowing them to use the rules as written. My complaint is with a feat that creates incentive for a five-minute game day. And it does that all by itself the way its written without any help from me (see "its the DM's fault," above; I'm here asking for advice, not to be told that I'm a bad DM...bad DM's don't ask for advice, they generally just punish the players or take an "oppositional" attitude toward them--my goal is to create a situation where we're all having fun, not to clobber my players or to tell them which strategies are valid).

Partially this IS due to inexperience as this is only my second Pathfinder rule-set campaign. I was still running the early Adventure Paths that were using 3.5 rules. I ran one with Path rules (nobody played an alchemist so Fast Bombs never came up). I'm currently running one written for 3.5 but decided to convert it as a way to learn the new rules thoroughly. So I haven't yet made many house-rules because I want to see how the game plays without me adjusting things for balance. Fast Bombs is one of the things I intend to adjust for future games.

There are situations where the party has to get so much accomplished within a certain amount of time, and in those situations the player conserves some ammo. But I can't have every situation be a time-limit situation because that, again, would be cheating on my part. Variety makes the game interesting. If they're always in a race against time, there isn't much variety.

Honestly I don't even have a problem with the amount of damage dealt. I think it is comparable with other PCs of a similar level. Not with this particular party at any rate. If we had a rogue in the party, the rogue would be feeling foolish for playing a rogue because she would have to risk her neck and get into position just to have a hope of keeping up with the same damage as the alchemist (and then, only when they get a chance for a full-attack). And rogues do have talents that can cause some decent penalties but they still have to hit the full AC of their opponent and get within full-attack melee range for the most part.

Mostly it is a problem of being up there with the best damage dealers and also being able to penalize enemies at the same time, with impunity, and running out of resources faster than anybody else. If they could only throw one bomb per round, they'd be doing a bit less damage but would still get to cause great penalties with impunity which is still pretty balanced. I think the best solution is one full attack per d4 rounds, like dragon's breath (except when using haste, when they'd still get 2 attacks irregardless of the d4 rd limit). They'd keep more ammo but still get to have a round here and there where they can alter the battlefield like a pro. Just not every round until a minute has passed when they have to go sleep.

Five minute day: meet nine rounds!!!

Balance, to me, means either doing tons of raw damage or doing normal damage but also penalizing your opponents; both is a little unbalanced, particularly every round to multiple opponents, compounded by the ability to attack with impunity in most cases. Sure I can hit him with the occasional touch spell, but when he can use Undead Anatomy III to turn into the skeleton of a pixie, his touch AC goes up by ten and is flying to boot. Impunity, like I said. Its pretty hard for bad guys to fight when force bombs knock 3-4 of them on their butt every round (four when using haste, which also cuts down on how many rds he can fight), not to mention the damage. And if bad guys are having a hard time fighting, it removes the challenge. I know game isn't all about fighting, but when one happens it should at least be exciting.

The force bombs also make energy resistance irrelevant. It isn't much of a damage penalty (d4s vs d6s, especially when most enemies they've been fighting have Resist10 on most energy types). When enemies don't have fire resistance, he usually uses explosive bombs, strafe, etc. Which is great. But he still runs out of ammo.

Mutagens, extracts and so forth last a long time and are usually already utilized before a fight begins. My PCs aren't dumb and usually know when they're walking into a danger zone. On occasion I still catch them by surprise, but if they were surprised every time it would cut down on variety. I try to make encounters as unique and memorable as I can. I don't want my game to be same-old.

If I were in his shoes, I would be happy to deal a decent amount of damage and knock a foe prone in the same round, while not being in much danger myself. But instead, he's doing as much damage (roughly) as the monk and the samurai but without any risk to himself. All the poor cleric ever really gets accomplished is a couple short-term group-cracks and maybe a heal spell before the fight is over. I feel sorry for the cleric, and that isn't a state of mind I'm generally in. I like clerics, I think they're pretty essential to a party and I don't want to make anyone playing a cleric feel like a chump or a band-aid. But if they only get in one good attack spell every other fight they tend to get bored.

I don't generally run wandering monster encounters as I find them fairly boring, easy, and often there isn't really much point in them. I'm far more interested in story-driven encounters. I guess maybe that is my fault. But I don't set up encounter areas with only one bad guy guarding a whole dungeon or whatever. I generally run published adventures. I'm currently running Savage Tide. It is a masterpiece of writing, particularly the final two modules. Also, the end of the third to the last is just pure genius.

Thank you everyone for your great replies. I swear you're faster than Fast Bombs. Not really, but pretty fast anyway. You have all given me a lot to think about, and hopefully my experience and my sharing it helps others as well!

Extra points for anyone who gets this reference...."We are Sex Ba-Bomb, and we're here to make you think about death and get sad and stuff!!!!"

I often think of that quote when I think of alchemists.

I'm having this problem in my game as well. I have a Lv18 Alchemist who regularly lasts about 9 rounds because he runs out of bombs and then everybody wants to rest. Which basically makes the more "soldier-on types" (ie rogues, fighters, rangers, monks) irrelevant. Its really great that those types of characters are built to last all day long, but that strength of theirs is moot if the entire party wants to rest every nine rounds because the Alchemist is out of bombs (he is a major damage dealer, after all, and a party generally wants to operate at full strength).

This leaves me in a position where I have to either plan my sessions to include no more than two encounters per rest period, or to "punish" my alchemist PC for having chosen a feat (Fast Bombs)that is clearly too hard to resist. Building an alchemist without choosing this feat is a dumb thing to do if what you are trying to do is make a character that is trying to win fights. It isn't "munchkin" if the feat is a no-brainer to choose.

A rogue might get in 10-15 sneak attacks in nine rounds (estimated average, on some rounds they'll get a full-attack sneak-attack, in others they will be using mobility or acrobatics to get into position). Compare that to 27 bombs in 9 rounds for the alchemist. And the rogue has to actually put herself in danger of receiving a melee full-attack. The alchemist can do comparable damage to a rogue, with impunity, from a distance.

An archer potentially can do as much damage as an alchemist but they won't be knocking anyone prone, setting them on fire or poisoning them with a ridiculously high DC. And an archer still has to get through a full AC, where an alchemist will most often hit so long as they don't roll a "1". Designing encounters where the enemies are all rogues and monks, with high touch AC's, feels like I'm specifically trying to counter the alchemist, which is not what I'm about. I'm not going to design encounters specifically to combat the alchemist. That feels like cheating on my part as a DM. It would also further send the message to other PCs that they are irrelevant and that all fights are about countering the alchemist. Which, again, I don't want to do. I prefer more organic encounters that are more believable. None of my bad guys spent their entire life training to fight this one PC.

Spell casters will only use about 10% of their available spells before an alchemist runs out of Fast bombs. Its hard to get anyone to play a cleric when few PCs even get damaged enough to actually need them over the course of 9 rounds.

I get that this is not a PvP game, but PCs should still be somewhat balanced so that other players don't feel like suckers for not having played an alchemist with Fast bombs.

If there was no Fast Bombs feat, I think the alchemist would be a perfectly balanced character class. My assessment after having an alchemist in my game for over a year now is that everybody's schedule is dependent upon the alchemist. And no PC is even remotely as important as the alchemist. Its almost like they're his bodyguards or something. What they do in a combat is irrelevant because the alchemist pretty much steals the show. This would not be the case if there was no Fast Bombs feat.

I think that after this particular campaign is over, I am going to house-rule edit the APG to strike the feat from my future games. I'm not doing so this campaign because I don't want to penalize my player for choosing the most obvious feat in the book for his character class. I hope this does not cause future players to not play alchemists in my game. I think its a great idea for a class but its just out of control with this feat. And it also disrupts the flow of game when my party can only last through a maximum of two quick fights before resting, and penalizes all of the "soldier-on" type characters, relegating them to the role of "damage soak".

I have always felt that the best moments in RPGs are when parties are stretched to their limits. When they have to choose carefully which of their dwindling resources to use and when to use them. But when the alchemist runs out of ammo so soon after waking up in the morning, nobody else comes anywhere close to being stretched to their limit. Which is very game-breaking in my opinion.

Perhaps a compromise would be only allowing an alchemist to use Fast Bombs once per day or once per d4 rounds or 1/min or something like that. Other abilities have been so limited. Why not this one?

Is it just me or should it be impossible to physically blind a construct?

I know, constructs are already immune to a huge ton of stuff. But should they be vulnerable to being blinded? Possibly if their face were temporarily covered, with, say, a lamp-shade as part of a dirty trick maneuver.

But should it be possible for example, for an alchemist to blind a construct with a "blinding bomb"?

Particularly, constructs with no eyes, like an animated sheet or chain...

My gut says no, but I can't find anything in the rules to justify my gut sense.

Anyone?

I'm wondering if having a slam attack should count as "improved unarmed strike" for purposes of qualifying for feats.

It sort of seems bunk for a monster w/ slam attack to have to pick up unarmed strike, which doesn't do jack (for them) except qualify for certain feats, say Vicious Stomp [ultimate combat].

Does having a natural attack substitute for "improved unarmed strike" for the purpose of feat prerequisites?

Could you use a net to do the tying up? Since a net is a weapon, Quick Draw would work with it...

Also, you could attach spikes to the rope and call it a weapon....or use a whip like it was a rope. Or you could argue that since you can hang someone to death with a rope then it is a weapon. If he says no, refer him to the lynchings they used to have in America back in the day.

Thanks! I guess I read that other part but it didn't really make sense on the first glance so I think I filtered it out. I'm pretty sure I get it now.

In the Bestiary p.196 under "ability scores" it states that a lycanthrope gets +2 Str, +2 Con in hybrid and animal forms. However, in both of the examples provided the sample wererat/werewolf has a Dex two higher in hybrid form than in human form. Are lycanthropes supposed to get a +2 to all physical ability scores? I couldn't find anything in the errata.

Exactly. His products would be the one sold with the economy check of the district. Naturally that mean that other shops will not be selling the "big item" that they have produced in the meantime. And how many taxes he is paying on his sales? His shop? His activity?

All those thing are subsumed in "selling at 50% of the market price" as the shop owner take care of them. when the Pc is the shop owner the situation change.

If he don't pay any tax because he is one of the nation lords the nation is short of those BP and probably he would be hated by the other shop owners as he will be benefiting from a unjust advantage. I would probably apply a 1d4 unrest point generated by each sale if he was getting a position benefit.

Then there is no reason why his item would be the one sold. If there are 3 medium items on sale from different shops, unless he is taking step to remove his competition, he would have a 33% chance that his item is the one picked.

Owning a shop in Kingmaker isn't so simple if you want to make a decent simulation of how it would work.
My solution was to manage it in a abstrcat way:
if your shop sell a minor magic item 8that in...

Hey, wait. I didn't realize that only one item can be sold each month. Really? I'm just getting started with the kingdom building section (party just just finishing first module). I was thinking since so many buildings produce magic items that they each got a chance to be sold each month. I'll admit I'm pretty new to how all this works. I guess I was just hoping I could use the same rules to rationalize how many items he sells.

Contraire, Diego. Your digression is the whole point of this thread. Thanks for the tip!

Not that it matters to the math, but you take the 30% off the price of the item, which is then halved to find the crafting cost.

And no, he's not profiting any more from crafting this way because the selling price is also reduced. And no, he cannot control the flow of money even if he tries to set up a storefront and become a full time merchant. You are in control. You determine if people want to buy what he has. You determine if he gets robbed. You determine if the necessary components are even available and at what cost. He can only control his intent. You control result.

And yes, you are quibbling over pennies. By 10th level a player should have in the ballpark of 62k gold worth of stuff. Unless he gets every single craft feat, and you give him years of time in which to craft his gear, he's going to be paying full...

I'm actually not quibbling over pennies. You haven't done the math. I'm starting to think you're just going to argue against everything I say. I don't know if you just don't like me personally or if you think that because this conversation is taking place on the internet that it simply must be controversial. I am in control to a certain degree. Sure I can have his shop get robbed every other week but after a while when his little shop becomes the most robbed business within 3000 miles he's going to start thinking I'm just being restrictive. If I simply decide that that the necessary components aren't available then I'm actually EARNING that criticism. If the materials aren't available then he can't use his feats at all.

I've already stated that he won't be able to turn around 1000gp per day (more like per month). I was planning on using the rules in the Kingmaker AP for selling items out of shops that the party has founded in their roles as founders of a kingdom. I'm getting tired of your lectures. Do you have anything to say to me aside from that I'm soliciting advice and then ignoring it? I did have a feeling about how I wanted to rule this but I also wanted to hear from some of the bright minds around here. 99% of them agree with me. All except you. So don't act like I'm the one who asks for advice and then ignores it. Most of the DM's on this thread both agree with me and have given me more reasons to agree with my original position.

"You say you don't want to arbitrarily penalize the PCs, but you're entire argument is justification for arbitrarily penalizing the PCs. Your argument basically boils down to 'I don't like it,' then trying to justify that stance by irrelevant and false economic theories, even after admitting you like some items that have requirements..."

This is Paizo, not "flame-war central". I'm not trying to start an argument. And I could do with fewer cutting comments coming from your corner. And seriously, what's this about "false economic theories"? I haven't presented any economic theories so I don't know how I opened myself up to having them called "false". Maybe you assume that all economic theories are false. Maybe you just assume that everything I say is false. Who knows. I'm getting tired of being your whipping boy, though.

Does anybody know if a Candle of Invocation had the discount applied twice? It seems incredibly cheap for an item with a CL of 17 and the ability to duplicate a 9th level spell (Gate). It also is pretty much only good for Clerics and each candle is tied to a different alignment.

So if the discount WAS applied twice, that throws out the argument that "either" means one but not the other in the context of (p.549) "once you have a cost figure, reduce that number if EITHER of the following conditions apply..."Item requires skill to use"...or..."Item requires specific class or alignment to use".

Sometimes, "either" can be interpreted as "either/and/or".

Firstly, you can have one skill plus class or alignment. Not all three, and not multiples of each.

As to your bag of holding example:
How about a bag of holding that requires 5 ranks of disable device. It functions as a bag of holding, but it appears as an intricate oragami puzzle which requires some skill to unravel. Created by a mad, paranoid gnome.

And the sword:
Blade of the Usurper-- +2 longsword, human bane. Requires 5 ranks in Knowledge Nobility or History (Was used in the Galten Uprising of 1035).

I don't see why either of these are any more arbitrary than the lyre. I find it much more cheesy that someone who has no skill at all in stealth can slip on a pair of magic slippers and be more stealthy than a rogue. I prefer items that actually synergize well with the character and require some investment to use.

That's a neat example with the bag of holding. The only problem I have with it is the 'general rule' regarding the construction of "new" magic items: if it duplicates a magic item that already exists then it isn't a "new" item.

The "blade of the usurper" I'm less enthusiastic about. I agree that such a sword might exist but I don't see a PC making historical swords from 1000 years ago when the PC wasn't from then and doesn't have access to time travel. Also, the problem I'm having with this isn't where you have a sword with various traits that you can justify saying "this is a lawful sword" based on axiomatic qualities and maybe a permanent align weapon spell. The problem I'm having is arbitrarily designating a sword as being "lawful" or "only works if you have ranks in Spellcraft" in order to apply a discount that in my view is not warranted. Also, you will note that a Holy Avenger (which I think qualifies for the discount) doesn't simply refuse to work if you're not a paladin. But it still costs a ton more than a cold iron longsword +2 which is what it is if you're anything but a paladin. So even if it is worth less than a "true" +5 longsword that is justified because it doesn't have as much utility for anyone who isn't a paladin (in fact it's just a really expensive +2 sword for anyone else).

Earlier you more or less said I'm raising a stink over a PC saving a few pennies here and there or "a couple hundred gold". Actually the math is a lot more extreme than that. I'm not sure if you realize how big of a chunk 30% is. That is six times the average sales tax rate and about ten times the average rate of inflation over the last 30 years. That makes it a pretty big number. When you combine it with the 50% discount you get for crafting your own items that means you are only paying 35% of the cost for items you create. I think you'd calculate the item as being half cost because you're looking at base price and then you'd take a 30% discount from that. So a 1000gp item is half off for 500gp and then 30% off for a total of 350gp that the PC is paying to craft a 1000gp item. That is far more than "a few hundred gold here and there". Okay so he only saved 150gp on a 1000gp item (not counting the fact that it's already half off) but what happens when you're making a 10,000gp item? You only have to pay 3,500gp. This will add up faster than you realize.

You say that as DM I'm the one controlling the flow of gold to the PCs. But I don't want to arbitrarily penalize PC income just to counteract the one PC who is an entrepreneur, and in my view, exploiting rules that were intended for one thing and then appropriating them for something else. Also, if they are able to craft and sell items for a profit then I am no longer the only factor that controls the flow of gold. So that train has left the station. In a regular game, you can't normally profit from item creation feats but this isn't a normal campaign.

The biggest problem I have with any of this stuff is the interpretation that you can tie some irrelevant skill to a magic item and then arbitrarily declare that only people with that skill can use the item. Like requiring swim ranks for a mundane +1 bastard sword. Or knowledge nobility for a bag of holding.

He can make 1.000 gp of magic items at sale price, not crafting price, so at most he will gain 500 gp/day.

PRED wrote:

his process can be accelerated to 4 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof) by increasing the DC to create the item by +5.[//quote]

Base price, not cost.

And:

PRED wrote:

Selling Treasure

In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price, including weapons, armor, gear, and

...

My problem is of the specific, not the general. I'm running Kingmaker which takes place over a period of decades, not months or the typical one or two years of an adventure path. There is absolutely no reason why my soul-forger PC couldn't open and operate a magic shop if that's what he wants to do during the YEARS of down-time that will take place during this campaign. The reason PC's generally sell stuff at half the market price is because they don't own shops and don't have the luxury of waiting around until a buyer shows up with enough cash to pay full price. That's why they generally sell loot at half price. But given the context there is no reason a PC couldn't sell stuff at market value provided they are patient enough to wait for a buyer. So it isn't like he'll be turning around 1000gp per day, more like once per month.

lol, real world economics. So terribly relevant.

If you don't like crafting, don't allow crafting. Problem solved. But don't disallow it because of some nonsensical comparison to RL economics. Saying you can make 1,000 gold a day is all well and good, but if you want to make it more 'realistic' you can do that without nerfing the ability: Add some overhead, take demand into consideration, competition, etc, etc. There's plenty of ways to finagle the whole $1k per day thing that are more interesting and immersive than just, 'No, you can't use the rules from the book.'

But at the end of the day, if your player has fun hanging out in his lab making magic items and turning a tidy little profit, why the hell not? Game is supposed to be fun. Soon as you interject real world economics the fun factor tends to takes a dive (for the average gamer. Maybe you'd enjoy that).

I'm really not trying to inject real world economics into game. I'm just pointing out that if you run a magic shop and if you are the crafter of items in said shop you can make 100% profit on a daily basis. Typically, PCs sell items at half their market price which is their cost of production so there is no profit in it for a PC to make items for sale.

To put it in context, I'm running Kingmaker right now so it isn't a typical campaign. Using the rules for selling items made in item crafting shops you could easily sell your own items when your campaign takes place over years and you have the luxury of waiting for a buyer. I have absolutely NO problem with the item creation rules or the possibility that a PC might sell an item he made for double what it cost him to make it. The reason why is because you have to make a stability check to sell an item and you only can sell one per month. So its not like the PC is going to take out a 100,000gp loan and turn that money around in 100 days. This is a demand issue and the simple rules provided actually do neatly articulate a consistent if simple economic model.

The problem I have isn't with any one item creation feat. The problem that I have is using rules that I believe were intended for specialty items like Rings of Wizardry (only useful if you prepare arcane spells), Incense of Meditation (requires preparing divine spells), Lyre of Building (one of its powers requires a successful perform--strings check), not to arbitrarily declare that a cheaper version of a bag of holding exists where it only opens if you're a True Neutral Halfling Rogue/Sorcerer with ranks in Prof--Scholar and Swim. And non-intelligent magic swords are tuned in enough to their users alignments, classes and skill ranks that they can simply refuse to function if you don't have any ranks in, say, Knowledge--Nobility.

'Imbalance' generally is in regards to players in relation to the other players.

That hasn't been my experience. As a DM I do try to provide encounters that are challenging but not so hard that I have a TPK every week. While power levels between PC's is an important issue it is not the only issue regarding running a balanced game. Otherwise there wouldn't be any space at all devoted to keeping your game balanced with regards to rewards, power and everything else in books like the Gamemastery Guide. They wouldn't even use a CR system if there was no issue about balance between PC's and NPC's/monsters.

By the way I'm grateful for your input even if we don't agree on much.

Wow. Thanks for all the thoughtful responses you guys! Usually it seems when I write to the message-boards my message gets buried and I get few responses. I have never seen such a reaction to one of my posts and it does me good to know that I've stimulated so much intellectual conversation!

I think I've decided to rule that these "discounts" are only for items that actually require you to be a certain class or alignment in order to get the benefit of the item. Ring of Wizardry was an excellent example.

I love you guys at Paizo but all this confusion could have been avoided if you'd included an example such as Ring of Wizardry so that players wouldn't be looking at this section as a way to make their feats imbalanced in their favor.

Shalmdi wrote:

So you were talking about making money by paying less in your prior post? I presumed you were talking about making money by selling things. You mentioned resale twice.

My mention of resale was in response to your question 'why does he get a discount.'

Quote:

The player in question is attempting to create a custom version of a magic item that already exists to save even more money than the half-price that a crafter normally pays while still getting the full functionality. You don't see this as twisting the rules or being a munchkin? The GM doesn't need to change the rules as you stated to disallow this. Read the section on pricing. It lists this discount as something to check for not something you can add. As in seeing if a staff can only be used by a cleric. If yes, it clearly gets the price discount. There isn't even a section for adding an alignment limiter to weapons or most other things.

Huh? I'm honestly not sure what you're saying. Are you're claiming that if a cleric goes and buys a staff that's specifically designed for clerics he gets a discount, but crafting said staff costs the same as crafting one that anyone can use? How does that even make sense? The crafter would be taking less profits for no reason.

The way you figuring out the cost to craft is by first calculating the price. Restricting use by class and/or skill is explicitly allowed by RAW. If you want to change and/or modify that, fine, but the rules are as stated, and they work just fine.

As far as the value of particular items, that's outside the scope of this conversation. Sure, it's perfectly possible to design an item that's under-priced. But a simple weapon with enhancement bonuses is not it.

The only thing that's not allowed that the OP mentioned is stacking multiple skills or multiple classes with alignments. An item can require a skill and a class or alignment. Not multiple skills, classes, and alignments.

Vestrial: does that mean you are perfectly comfortable with the idea that some swords only function if you have the right class and others only function if you have the right alignment? If that is the case, then shouldn't every magic shoppe be "alignment-themed"? Like a Hot Topic for the goths to shop at and a Footlocker for the jocks? And that tennis shoe intended for the jock simply won't fit on the goth's foot?

ryric wrote:

The player is clearly trying to pull something here, what with talk of making items free by stacking non-restrictive "restrictions" on his items. If a restriction isn't an actual penalty or lessening of the effectiveness of an item, then why is he getting a discount?

Should be rather obvious answer: Because the resale value is less. Normal item: pay more, make more on resale. Restricted item: Pay less, make less on resale. Why is this a bothersome concept? He effectively paid a feat to make a little money, why let him take the feat in the first place if you don't want to let him make the money that the rules allow?

I'm not trying to prevent him from making the money that the rules allow. The rules already allow a 100% markup on the costs of production. It takes one day to make 1000gp worth of magic items and if you can sell them the following day, you make back your initial investment and then top it with another 1000gp profit. I have a degree in economics and I'm here to tell you that there is NO investment in the real world in which you can double your money in a single day and then do it again and again every day from now until forever. If there was such an investment nobody would risk their money in order to make a 5% profit over a period of years. I get that we're playing a fantasy game but when I think of fantasy as related to RPG's I think of the fantasy that dragons exist and magic works, I don't think of the fantasy that you can double your money in one day.

p549 of Core Rules has a section titled "Magic Item Gold Piece Values". There is a subsection "Other considerations" that seems to imply that a sly crafter of magic items could create items that are usable only by people of their own alignment (ie themselves and close, like-minded, associates) for a 30% discount. I have a player who thinks this means that he can make himself a +1 Scimitar that is "only usable" by people of his own alignment and he can make it at 70% cost. Is that what these rules are saying? This seems a little broken to me but there it is in the core rule-book no less. Am I just being a restrictive hard-ass or is this how these rules were intended to be used? If I'm wrong about this and a 30% discount is fair when making an item for yourself then does this "discount" stack? Meaning, if he makes the +1 Scimitar exclusively usable by Magus' with his alignment can he get a 60% discount? If he adds on a rider stating that any user of this magic sword also has to have ranks in Craft--Weapon, Intimidate, Knowledge--Planes & Swim, each providing a 10% "discount" for a total of 100% off, would that mean that magic items are free from now on so long as you make them yourself and you restrict them from being used by anyone who basically isn't you?

Am I off-base for thinking this is ridiculous? Also, if a +1 Neutral Evil, Magus with four skills restricted Scimitar for free is a viable concept, then in the hands of anyone else is it just a hunk of metal that refuses to cooperate with a melee attack or does it at least count as a masterwork scimitar?

Is everybody forgetting that Shelyn's alignment is NG, not CG? Paladins of a NG god(dess) is nothing new - see every Paladin of Sarenrae printed thusfar. Yes, she's a goddess of love, art, and beauty, so her having devoted holy warriors is a bit out of the ordinary, but nothing revolutionary when it comes to the rules.

Just started Curse of the Crimson Throne. One of my PC's is a half-orc paladin of Shelyn.

I agree that paladins should be able to follow (mostly) any god. But, I also think that the final word would rest with the GM. Just that the GM's decision should factor in the official stance by Paizo (both paladins of Sheylin and Asmodeus have now been confirmed).

What? Paladins of Asmodeus? That just sounds like crazy talk! Do those paladins have zero ranks in Knowledge (Religion) or something?

Green Ronin seems to have gone their own way with lots of irons in the fire, but if there was one more company I could add to the registry, it would be them.

Me too. Green Ronin rules. I had a great time running Freeport and I recall in those days GR being the only RPG company to offer free stuff on their site.

I too am looking to get the ToH and am trying to figure out where to start. There is no longer PDF's available, but I'd really rather have hard copies anyway. I'm looking on Amazon and they have something called OP* Tome of Horrors. It does not say "revised" anywhere. I often see a reference to ToH revised, so I was wondering if anyone knows the difference between the two. I definitely want to start with the first book because I've seen more references to that one in the Adventure Paths that I've been running. I'm just about ready to buy but I was hoping for some reassurance that OP* is worth getting. There are no copies of ToHr at Amazon. Does anyone know where to get a copy of ToHr?

Warts and all....very nice.

Forest Drake: what is their "space"? They are listed as Large but there is no entry for their space or whether they have 10' reach. Was that an omission, or should I just assume that it is 5' reach since there was no mention of it? I'm going on the assumption that their space is 10'sq, being large and all. Based on their shape, I could go either way on whether they have reach (which is why I'm asking).

Do you know if that rule applies only to animals or if the +4 Int applies to all non-animal (advanced, simple) critters? I have no problem with this. I can see a Goblin hero, for example being both smarter and stronger than is typical for his kind.

Thank you, fellers!

Hello. I'm in the process of making stat blocks for all of the critters that can be summoned using Summon Nature's Ally I. I'm stuck at Centipede, and have a skill point question.

Their skills are Climb+10, Perception+4 & Stealth+10.

They get racial mod's: +4 Perception, and +8 Stealth. Combine the +8 to Stealth with a Dex Mod of +2 and that covers those two skills. Turning to Climb, they get a +8 for having a Climb speed but then I'm not sure how the rest adds up to +10. I've come up with a few solutions, let me know which is most likely:

1) They get to use their Dex Mod to Climb checks instead of Str Mod, and are the type of vermin who get no skill points. This would mean they have a modifier of +10 to Climb.

2) They get one skill point, but since no skills are class skills for Vermin they don't get the bonus +3. Next, they then take a -1 penalty to Climb because of their Str9. This would give them a final modifier of +8 to Climb.

3) They get no skill points and like most critters, use their Str for Climb checks. This nets them a final Climb mod of +7.

My assumption is to go with solution 1, since that adds up to the published "Climb+10", even though the Bestiary does not specifically say that they can use Dex for Climb checks*; but I was hoping to get one of the Paizo Golems to answer officially. The reason for this is that there are 6 other sizes of Centipede and I will at some point want to stat block them. I really like the name "Hissing Centipede" and can't wait to toss one at my players.....!

*Further evidence is that Weapon Finesse is listed as a bonus feat and they get no other feats. The skill-less type of vermin are also featless, so this would support the idea that even the Titan Centipede will have no skill points or feats.

I have some questions regarding the "Horse" entry. Acc'd to Bestiary p177 a light horse gets two hoof attacks w/penalty if not combat trained and damage d4. All well and good. A heavy horse, gains a bite attack at d4 & hoof damage is increased to d6 (this is whether or not it is combat trained, I presume, and is due to increased muscle mass not increased training). The "heavy" also gains the "advanced simple" template which will increase all scores by four. Is that a typo, by the way? Should a draft horse truly have an intelligence of 6? Should it really be able to retain the vocabulary of the average undead shadow? Should its charisma really be on par with the average human?

Now, on Core p.54, under the listing for a Horse animal companion, the horse is listed as having a bite attack & 2 hooves. Does this mean that an animal companion horse is always a "heavy" horse or does this mean that animal companions are inherently special? Also, there is no mention of the "docile" quality that penalizes the horses' hoof (but not bite) attacks.

To clarify my questions and make them easier to answer, I'll number them:

1) Should a heavy horse get an Int6 & Cha11?
2) Should a horse companion of a Lv1 Druid have a bite attack in addition to it's hoof attacks?
3) Does the horse companion retain the "docile" quality until it receives the "war trained" bonus training at Lv4 or are animal companions always considered non-docile?
4) Does the docile quality only apply to hooves or does it also apply to the bite attack of a non-war-trained heavy horse?
5) Is an animal companion horse always a heavy horse?

I hope these questions aren't overly nit-picky. I'm trying to build a druid and I just want to do it right.

eris,

You'll want to pose your questions in the Rules Questions forum.

Thanks, Vic. Will do...

I have some questions regarding the "Horse" entry. Acc'd to Bestiary p177 a light horse gets two hoof attacks w/penalty if not combat trained and damage d4. All well and good. A heavy horse, gains a bite attack at d4 & hoof damage is increased to d6 (this is whether or not it is combat trained, I presume, and is due to increased muscle mass not increased training). The "heavy" also gains the "advanced simple" template which will increase all scores by four. Is that a typo, by the way? Should a draft horse truly have an intelligence of 6? Should it really be able to retain the vocabulary of the average undead shadow? Should its charisma really be on par with the average human?

Now, on Core p.54, under the listing for a Horse animal companion, the horse is listed as having a bite attack & 2 hooves. Does this mean that an animal companion horse is always a "heavy" horse or does this mean that animal companions are inherently special? Also, there is no mention of the "docile" quality that penalizes the horses' hoof (but not bite) attacks.

To clarify my questions and make them easier to answer, I'll number them:

1) Should a heavy horse get an Int6 & Cha11?
2) Should a horse companion of a Lv1 Druid have a bite attack in addition to it's hoof attacks?
3) Does the horse companion retain the "docile" quality until it receives the "war trained" bonus training at Lv4 or are animal companions always considered non-docile?
4) Does the docile quality only apply to hooves or does it also apply to the bite attack of a non-war-trained heavy horse?
5) Is an animal companion horse always a heavy horse?

I hope these questions aren't overly nit-picky. I'm trying to build a druid and I just want to do it right.

Thanks for the help! I tend to reroll stats on all major NPCs so I can flavor them to taste. I think what I'll do is give him one extra level so he'll fit CR14.

Hello, all! I'm currently prepping pathfinder #5 and am stat-blocking Ordikon. As there was no template in the Bestiary I checked the Advanced Bestiary by Green Ronin because Paizo uses that excellent book rather often to flesh out critters with templates. There is a listing for metal-clad creatures & mithril is included in there. I'm pretty sure they were using the same template because it has the same abilities. I found a discrepancy in Ordikon, however. The Adv Bestiary says that a mithril-clad creature has a +1 CR increase in one place but it also says there is a +5 CR increase in another place. I'm not sure my gang is ready for an EL17 encounter, but I think an EL13 would probably feel pretty weak, and a letdown, for them (especially considering Ordikan's unique position and relationship to Karzoug). The listed CR in the pathfinder #5 is 14. There has got to be a misprint somewhere. I'm not looking for blame I'm looking for errata...does anybody know if Green Ronin put out an errata sheet for Advanced Bestiary? Also, did Paizo decide to compromise with a +2 CR increase or did they use their judgment? I'm fine with your guys' judgment, I just want to know how the decision was made to make sure I give my party a memorable challenge without killing them all. Thanks in advance to anyone who can answer my long-winded question....!