ozgnp's page

The spell (Core, pg. 305) doesn't list a range, so one assumes it is virtually unlimited, except when intercepted by running water. Yet, the wording of how one uses the spell is a bit confusing: "You...sense when you are facing in the direction of the creature to be located, provided it is within range."
So does the spell have a range or not? If so, what is it? Long, like Locate Object?
Please explain this self-contradiction.

The gaming group I'm with uses PFRPG set in Forgotten Realms (pre 4th-Ed). Our gamemaster had picked up Gods and Magic to see if it would help in converting FR deities to PF, but he complained the G&M gods were too generic, had few if any interesting personality quirks, and were overall unhelpful for his purpose. He was also extremely unhappy that all but one of the demi-human gods were absent from the book.

The gaming group I'm with is playing in the Forgotten Realms setting. Since this is obviously a Golarion campaign supplement, $40 is too much to pay for a minimally useful book. Odds are none of us will pick this up.

A friend of mine is planning on running a campaign using PFRPG, but he wants to include critical hit and fumble rules. We are comparing several different systems, Torn Asunder among them. He asked all the players to look at the systems under consideration and provide critiques. I have a few questions about Torn Asunder:

1.) Page 5 shows Table 1-1, which lists a comparison between a factor level and its relevant severity. The Mild and Serious factor levels are identical, however. Was Serious meant to be 15 above minimum attack roll?

2.) On several pages, we are told to apply "base weapon damage". This term isn't used in PFRPG, as far as I know, so what definition do the authors of Torn Asunder use? Also, how is "unmodified base weapon damage" different?

3.) Bleeding on Page 34 (and later in the collection of tables near the back of the book), Tables 1-13 and 1-14 list amounts of blood loss. However, the worst is listed as "Heavy" instead of "Serious". Why does this not match Severity for critical hits, while the two lesser effects do?

4.) Table 1-17: Called Shots (Page 37) lists the Mouth's penalty from the Abomination profile earlier presented (Pages 11-14). Since this is less of a penalty than aiming at the head, calling for a shot at the mouth instead would allow a higher chance of hitting. Unless the mouth is larger than the head or located somewhere other than the head, this makes no sense. Do the authors have a suggestion what can be done about this?

5.) Page 43 lists Black Walnut Lead, but its text implies this should have instead been "Black Walnut Meat." Am I correct?

6.) The authors state that Magical Healing (starting on Page 47) would focus on lesser damage first. However, in later paragraphs, is contradicted by an argument that more severe damage would be taken care of by magical healing first. Then the example given goes back to the lesser damage cured first, but a higher-level cure spell would take care of more severe damage first. Could the authors clarify this please?

7.) Do some or all of the Healing Spells (Pages 64-66) qualify as usable as Spontaneous Casting by clerics channeling positive energy?

8.) The Critical Fumble rules (Page 39) seem to target fighters and paladins the most, since they have the highest likelihood of rolling many to-hits during combat, thereby risking fumbles most often. The Dexterity check against DC 15 seems harsh, considering those wearing heavy armor tend to have little to no Dex bonus. A fighter with no Dex bonus has a 75% chance of fumbling, should he roll a 1. It is a distinct possibility for a 1st-level party with a lone fighter to suffer a TPK, should that fighter accidentally fall on his own sword and kill himself, leaving the rest of the party at the mercy of the monster(s) he was holding off. I don't see the players who must endure this being very pleased with these fumble rules.

I'm afraid this is as far as I've gotten with the book, so I'll have to save further questions for some other time.

Why is dexterity not included in the basic CMB? Several of the maneuvers, like Disarm, Grapple, Feint, and Trip pretty much equally incorporate strength and dexterity to successfully execute. I can understand Bull Rush, Overrun, and Sunder being strength-only, but the others should incorporate dexterity as well. Kind of throws a spanner in the works for the Agile Maneuvers feat, but it struck me as being not very relevant anyway.

The present setup is a major drawback for rogues, which are weak in combat to begin with. If they can't include their dexterity from the get-go in doing combat maneuvers, then they lose most of their reasons for even getting into a fight, until they obtain some talents.

Most characters won't have a very high dexterity bonus anyway, and fighters, barbarians, rangers, and clerics will be restricted by their armor to limited numbers in that regard. The present additions to CMD will be more than ample to compensate for inclusion of dexterity bonus.

My suggestion is incorporate dexterity bonuses in the CMB, then do away with the feat.

As an alternative, branch off the maneuvers that I mentioned include dexterity to use that bonus alone, while the remainder use strength bonus, as they presently do.

If the latter is done, the Agile Maneuvers feat can then be changed to Improved CMB, which will then allow the player to use either dexterity or strength, whichever provides the better bonus. That way, a fighter with great strength but average dexterity can then disarm using their brute power to knock a weapon out of the hand of an opponent.

As a disclaimer, let me point out I presently run a cleric in 3.5 OGL, and will probably run a wizard in Pathfinder, when the gaming group I'm in converts over.