krobrina's page

What considerations are required for the keeping of gnomes in long term captivity? I have heard that they do not survive long because of bleaching.

Asking purely out of intellectual curiosity, of course.

- High Magister Phar, Servants of the Unceasing Light, All Await The Coming Of The Last Ones.

Heck, somewhere earlier in this thread someone was advocating that flying while touching a rope that was touching the ground and I think most of us can agree that's nonsense.

That was me.

I think it's OK.

It's consistent and will always be interpreted the same way.

This type of thing is common in Wuxia (the Chinese fantasy martial arts genre) as they have to work out how to beat someone's technique. It's no less cheesy than achilles and the leader of the nazgul?

To me, the requirement that you need to touch ground means yeah, you can't stand on a wooden floor and use it.

Press F for monks wearing shoes, monks walking on grass, monks who have dirty feet, monks who are walking on dusty stone, monks who have wet feet, and your GM who has to keep making rulings every turn.

Man this thread is a weird read.

I totally interpret the restriction to mean directly touching the ground, which is a bad one of saying "the planetoid you're residing on when on Golarion" and extrapolate that to the analogous description for when you're not on Golarion.

So no flying carpets. No boats. No putting soil in your shoes. No standing on a square of dirt held in a wooden box.

Touch the mother f@~@ing ground, in the most "normal" sense, of the description and don't try to make these arguments about RAW.

What is the difference between a monk on a boat, and a monk with wet feet on the land? Or worse, a monk on a boat vs a monk standing on ice covered land?

Both of them have a layer of water between them and the Earth, and that water is supporting their weight.

This is why the thread is weird.

I interpret it to mean "You are standing on a surface that allows you to have stable footing".

Actually standing? Not prone?

Legendary. I get it. I’m sorry to be dismissive, but wandering into encounters and literally brow-beating opponents to death over and over as a commonplace method of overcoming challenges is not the stuff of legends. Not even the Irish sagas. Not on the daily. It’s...tabloid fodder.

Monsters having this power is the stuff of legends.

I am OK with the existence of this feat but I think it is not balanced correctly against spells.

I put 1 for wizard. Here is why.

There are too many graduations (What does 10 levels mean?) so I simplify it as "terrible, poor, OK, good, amazing". I felt it was worse than poor. It isn't utterly terrible but it certainly requires developer tuning.

The numeric values I could handle would be 1-5 which directly correspond to the 5 grades (terrible, poor, ok, good, amazing). Or I could use 2-4-6-8-10 or 1-3-5-7-9. My response therefore must be 1 or 2 and the GUI layout of this form made 1 easier.

Are you asking if you can or can't bring an intelligent item with you?

You see, that's the old attitude from before item sufferage. Today the question may also be asked "Can an intelligent item cast dimension door and bring me with it"? :-)

Tender Tendrils wrote:

When you have foot-long, razor sharp claws, you don't really get much benefit from a knife or spear.

But what if you absolutely, positively have to launch a 90kg stone projectile over 300 meters? ;)

Imagine the 30-50 feral hogs gun meme, but the hogs have a trebuchet.

If you want to get super detailed, weight and bulk are equally bad.

If I'm loading stuff like bedrolls, ration biscuits and a bit of water into a pack, it'll fill up long before I can't lift it. For this, bulk is a more useful measurement of what fits.

If I'm shoving in lots of metal, I'll lose the ability to lift the pack long before it's full. For this, weight is a more useful measurement.

Either system is bad. The only solution is to pick any, and stop caring, or track both weight and volume. This second idea is not what I signed up for. This isn't Mathfinder. Since I have to choose either weight or bulk, I'll pick bulk as it's easier to count. Numbers are hard, and I just want to smash monsters.

I think there is a strong connection between tools and civilization.

Civilization, at it's core, is a method of passing on a heritage- a way of life, form of communication, and social mores. The technology that created that tool is part of that.

If you don't learn from those that came before you, you will spend a large part of your life reinventing the wheel. Each individual beast would have to start over from scratch after it is born. They would never get very far if they aren't a race that lives for centuries.

Yes, there is a connection. But if they can write by scratching on trees, they satify the requirement to pass down knowledge. That would still be a civilisation, even if we think it wasn't a very good one.

My AC is high which means it's low. Wut? That game!

While it may be in the Core Rulebook, the switch to magical enhancement being necessary and mandatory to balance game play has not been messaged strongly or frequently enough considering how important it is - at least I didn't see or hear that anywhere.

What? Pathfinder has been like that since 1st edition some 10 years ago and the 3.5 D&D it came from was as well. Look in google for something called "the big six" which were standard magic items around which game balance was designed for D&D version 3.5 games.

The guidelines aren't that clear, but the core rule book does have "expected wealth" for characters at each level, which will give a guideline of what they should be carrying.

The new Gamemastery Guide (out now!) has an alternative balance system that removes the need for magic items, if you choose to go that way. You may enjoy it.

Kids these days and their exotic animals. Why can't they have normal pets like a dinosaur? Did we raise them wrong?

I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion, but it's kind of interesting how we're generally okay with Humans or Elves (and maybe orcs and hobgoblins) being both low and high level antagonists but things like Goblins and Kobolds are sort of mentally coded to be treated as trivial threats and make unsatisfying high level baddies.

1) Tolkien

2) 45 years of humans and elves as player character races ancestries so cannot be level limited. Yes, get down you grognards! I know about the elf level limits in the older games. There's a reason we don't play those anymore.

3) Lack of a sane system to to advance monsters in the early rules.

One of the trickiest things there is that kobolds skew low level and dragons skew high level. It makes it difficult, awkward, and sometimes impossible to do adventures where a worthy dragon is served by kobolds and not having one side of the play experience be lopsided.

What if the dragon is just kobold voltron?

krobrina wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Wizards don't need more skills, period. They can solve problems by altering reality, let's have those who can't cast spells be better at "mundane" ways of getting ahead.

Wizards are supposed to he a fountain of lore. Lores are skills.

Where does it say that they're supposed to be fountains of lore? I've just checked the PF2 CRB and there's nothing about fountains of lore there. Care to show me where you got this?

Standard fantasy trope. You picked a weird hill to die on. Some positions just aren't defensible.

A skill that prevents you getting taken down is usually better than a skill that helps you after you get taken down.

Wizards don't need more skills, period. They can solve problems by altering reality, let's have those who can't cast spells be better at "mundane" ways of getting ahead.

Wizards are supposed to he a fountain of lore. Lores are skills.

Wizards were over nerfed in second edition. They needed it, but they did it too hard.

Powerful shove states:

My question about this rule is what is a defined object? The appendix of the CRB refers you to the equipment sections but gives no official definition. The appendix also tells one to see the items entry. This would lend that a creature would need to be pushed into a wall / tree / wagon or some similar thing which holds a object type stat block, but couldn't one argue that a creature is still a object?

I tried to work out how to fireball a chair in the RAW and I failed.

eztool has this as well

http://www.pf2.easytool.es

hamburger menu, utility sheets, and it's there with stats for the creatures as well

I got a $50 budget Android device for gaming apps. It lives in my game club bag. You can get a better deal if you shop around but the easy option is the 7" kindle fire from amazon. They do not have the google play store out of the box but an internet search tells you how to sideload it.

Because that turns a spell like Sleep from a fairly weak spell into a TPK. Heck, even a critical success on a Grapple would be insta-death. Once you have rules for it, players will be dying left and right. Now that is not fun.

Sometimes it is fun, and we use dice for a reason. Not every TPK is a problem. Some groups are fine with them.

It's not insta-dead either. It's 3 actions and a fortitude save.

Jader7777 wrote:

Pants boy

This is not a new Iconic, it's young Valeros (the Iconic Fighter). Just FYI.

Teenage high school fantasy roleplay when?

So... Relics ...

At first glance the idea seems very cool. Looking over the abilities provided some are not bad. The damage of the varies abilities tho are even worse than cantrips.
Ex .. Flare bolt = 1d6 / 2 lvls. So at 10th lvl your doing 5d6 dmg once per round. Why bother ?

Fighters can't cast cantrips. Having that on a sword is OK.

The problem with these leader classes is that their mechanics can make them the default leader of the party unless they are very well designed.

I remember one which gave a formation bonus for being next to it and buffed the attack of any player who was hitting a specific target. Mechanically it was fine, but the whole group ended up following the warlord around and assisting on his target, which made a terrible play experience.

The 4E Warlord was a lot better designed. You only had to have the warlock in your line of sight and within a few squares to gain the bonus. However the problem still existed for it, though in a much less obscene way. Unfortunately it was part of a much larger problem that was 4E.

The hostage dies for the same reason Aeris(or Aerith if you prefer) did. The plot says so. You don't need rules for that.

Why play if the plot is pre-determined? Railroading sucks.

Are we watching a movie or playing an interactive game? Are we passengers or drivers?

I think what armies are generally good for is conquering and holding territory, which is why high level characters bother building them. Your level 13+ characters aren't usually available to man an Outpost or walk a beat. And player characters are rarely the conquerers themselves.

Why governments aren't like that? Some of them are: cheliax has a high level sorcereress with a divine patron, and she can clap her hands to drop pit fiends on troublemakers. What about the ones that don't?

How do they keep order?

Which is why arguably in Golarion there shouldn't be armies of peons except to do grunt work like building, searching, looting, or rounding up (even lower level) civilians. Or setting off traps and scouting danger (a.k.a. dying for the cause).

There's a lot of military busywork to be done, but the critical fighting would fall upon the commando teams taking out rival commando teams involving lots of trickery.

Think of (or go watch!) the movie Clear & Present Danger. Commandos decimate lesser enemies who set a trap which the commandos, due to intel, can suss out and avoid. And that's without level bonuses & h.p. :)

That is how the game system works. But if it worked like that in the lore, it would be a superhero setting not a fantasy one.

Does this help?

OK, that's fine. I will concede. They need to get that into the rulebook or errata fast because it's ridiculous to have to read twitter to understand the rulebook.

edit: For such a fundamental thing as attack rolls, no less!

Hiring someone for FAQ/Errata probably isn't going to save as much work.

Most of the work is talking to the designers to determine their intent, and making sure that any changes you make do not affect the ability of a character to do what the designer wanted it to do. This needs the designer to be involved.

In this case, they could make a quick ruling for this one spell: enemies only/all. But that would have a knock-on effect with other spells, and other spells currently under development, that have similar wording. Was the occult caster also meant to be somewhat isolated? Bards are good urban solo infiltrators, and in combat might be flankers or back-rows, and occult sorcerors are childen of cthulhu raised by hag covens. They smell like fish and don't understand how personal space and tentacles interact.

I once saw a player roll a 17. Followed by a 6. Then a 2. Then a 14. Then a 20. Then a 10. Then a 5. Then a 9. Then a 12.

Thats absolutely incredible. The chances of that set of rolls is
1 in 20^9.

I bet nobody has EVER seen this run of dice before. Or ever will again.

I was just going to do this but you beat me to it.

I think most people here don't understand why this is such a great post.

20^9 is 512,000,000,000.

Each person alive on earth could make about 60 rolls of 9d20 and between all of the rolls, that combination will statistically arise just one time.

Here's the question I have then:

Why does PFS play get free consumables?

To prevent hoarding which disrupts the treasure balance between hoarders and non-hoarders and creates arguments over who should use their bomb. The items are only for that adventure and vanish afterwards ensuring a more balanced game.

They could have picked a better name. I'll wager the name was chosen by a renaissance re-enactment fencer back in the old days of D&D for its historical and exotic nature.

The US military calls it "dead checking".

It's hard to do anything in FR without bumping into some ridiculous mary sue munchkin npc that creates plot holes in your adventures just by their very existence.

Shield My Castle from Magic Shenanigans

Ritual.

Casting time 24 hours. 1 caster and 1,000 gp per level per 100 feet of perimeter. Duration 1 year.

Puts up a magic shield of the given level around the perimeter. Spells passing in either direction must roll to penetrate the barrier using the 10.5 table for DC by level. A dispel effect targeted at the barrier that penetrates its resistance reduces the barrier by 1 level.

During the ritual you can create a number of tokens that allow the bearer to cast though the barrier unhindered. These tokens last one year and can be permanent or consumable at your option.

Disclaimer 1: Completely untested rules.

Disclaimer 2: Magically augmented beings like liches may experence "minor discomfort" on encountering the barrier.

Gorbacz wrote:

krobrina wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Iomedean, not Iomedaen.

It's OK to swap her letters over. She's often drawn androgyneous.

If you think "woman with short hair" means "androgyneous", well, you need to get out more.

I won’t comment on the spelling, but I did also feel like she appears more androgynous in the second edition art and it has nothing to do with her haiir. I thought it was intentional?

She was very female in 1E. In 2E gods and magic (the interior art, not the cover) the lines of her face have changed. I also believe it is intentional.

This does set up the potential situation where someone survives the final blade, which is gonna be really badass when it happens.

Unless the blade bounces off, it's likely that they resist the final effect and somehow regenerate or get raised. Alternative is the blade works and something else comes back in the body but pretends to be the old creature?

If only one side has wizards though (or if the wizards on one side manage to neutralize their counterparts and achieve "magical superiority"), I don't think war mages would have much trouble dealing with ranged units 600+ feet away: Invisibility heightened to 4th lets you stay invisible while attacking, so that plus Fly would let them quickly get within spell range and fling fireballs with impunity.

Military units above a certain size should have some kind of vision and counterspell item the same way that police in a large city will. It's not possible for them to do their job otherwise. It probably isn't as good as your own wizard, but it should stop a few abuses.

Iomedean, not Iomedaen.

It's OK to swap her letters over. She's often drawn androgyneous.

CRB pg. 278 wrote:

When you make an attack and roll a natural 20 (the number on the die is 20), or if the result of your attack exceeds the target’s AC by 10, you achieve a critical success (also known as a critical hit).

Sorry to say...

Whoever this guy is, he seems to disagree.

I mean, but he could be wrong. I'm not sure if I've seen his name anywhere on the book. Maybe I should check the cover.

The book could be wrong due to editing errors.

The developer could be wrong due to dev brain (remembering a playtest version of the rule) or he could be adjusting the game on the fly to tell a story.

The situation is unclear. I would accept either, but the RAW is that natties crit.

From their range, they would need to roll an 19 or a 20 to hit the soldiers. A 20 would knock that hit up into a crit and trigger the deadly trait. Not good! Of course, all of that becomes moot if the soldiers have shields and raise them, taking their AC up to 20. That means that the archers can only HIT the soldiers on a 20

Natties always crit on an attack roll. They're different from task checks.

When you make an attack and roll a natural 20 (the number on the die is 20), or if the result of your attack exceeds the target’s AC by 10, you achieve a critical success (also known as a critical hit).

As a specific rule for attacks, this over-rules the generic task check system.

1. There is considerable debate that "volley" fire happened to a large degree, or at least regularly at ranges you suggest.

2. The longbow has a 100ft range, so long range combat would be at a -10 to hit at 600ft.

3. It's fine that there's a segment of the game that a wizard doesn't immediately solve, even if it's a niche hyper-long range warfare.

4. Wall of Wind would sufficiently protect anyone adjacent to it from volley fire unless the volley originated on the immediate other side of the wall of wind.

5. A war wizard could use invisibility to approach and drop debilitating area effects and blasts

6. A war wizard is likely best suited to standing by and holding their limited spells for strategic moments. A general would be foolish to expend spells at the volley stage, and should prefer to hold them for when the tide of battle calls for it.

1. It happened at Crecy and again at Agincourt. When used by the English using their tactics and training, the longbow really did do this. You can reduce the range a little if makes you happier, or you're assuming mainland European archers (They do not suck. Their army just did not do this so they were not trained for it).

2. In pathfinder you would still crit enough to hurt things. A GM might house-rule an additional flat DC check for extreme range fire vs point targets. Against a block of troops, things are different as that's an area target.

3. Battlefield mass combat is not "niche" to the fantasy setting of Pathfinder. It's fine that there is a gap in the game, because it is a game about small groups, but someone should be able to explain to me what wizards do nations go to war.

4. Agree, but we need to know how high volley fire arcs. The wall is only 30 feet high. I can tell you the answer for a machinegun, but not an English longbow.

5. Agree

6. Agree

krobrina wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

In Pathfinder, it would take several direct hits from a longbow to get you down, in real life one would suffice.

There goes the comparison.

20 archers firing once are statistically going to roll one 20 and then you take 2d8 + 1d10.

You would not be level 1 for that due to CR, if we are assuming a “balanced” encounter.

First you say that they're firing AOE, now that they're firing 20 people at one target. Make up your mind.

I can’t see what you are getting at? If arrows are falling randomly onto a squad, the squad will still lose effectiveness. If the wizard runs ahead, the wizard will be targeted.

To make this clear, we're using Pathfinder rules for range and spells in a real world situation. When longbows have a range of 100 feet? I guess as a spell caster I wouldn't worry. They've got a -10 to hit me and my allies. I don't know how if they have enough high level fighters to overcome that penalty, but I'm just going to move up 100 feet and start throwing fireballs?

Also, with that -10 to hit, even a 20 is likely to miss.

Range INCREMENT of 100 feet.

krobrina wrote:

has it ever explained why pharasma doesnt do anything about galt? At least with tar barphon (the tyrant whisperer*) we know they have some ability to defeat divine mandated armies.

Crusades and jihads do not seem to be Pharasma’s thing so we can assume Galt is full of Pharasma saboteurs?

* he calms tyrants by making them undead, I guess?

Whispering Tyrant, not Tyrant Whisperer.

Iomedaen revisionist history and propaganda.

Cast Wall of Wind 120 feet forward, then walk to be on range of stuff like Horrid Wilting or Meteor Swarm that are 500 feet range.

I do not know the altitude reached by a longbow volley fire. Will it pass over a 30 foot wall?

In Pathfinder, it would take several direct hits from a longbow to get you down, in real life one would suffice.

There goes the comparison.

20 archers firing once are statistically going to roll one 20 and then you take 2d8 + 1d10.

You would not be level 1 for that due to CR, if we are assuming a “balanced” encounter.

So here you are in the Pathfinder re-enactment of Agincourt, under longbow volley fire from 200 meters (600 feet). Someone turns to you and says “you are a mighty wizard, can’t you just blow those archers up?”

At this range they are basically firing aoe mode aiming at the block of infantry and not individual targets. However, they were still effective.

What are your options?