*...I can see where they thought this would make for a unique and interesting concept. It's probably the type of item someone would think to make in a fantasy world. It's just not an item that would be good for the game given all the situations it's intended to negate.
i'm wondering if this means that it makes adventuring too safe, or is negating situations actually something you also don't like, even if it doesn't make adventuring safer. would an item that negated something like grappling be unacceptable simply for the fact that it makes part of the rules irrelevant?
Bah, did the list a couple hours one night, then made it a better format (the newest version) on my lunch break at work. No big deal.
Well then, since it's no problem, can you link all of them? Thanks! :)
Seriously, major props for organizing all of those with the judges' comments.
Well the search thread function seems to make that unnecessary. However, I am worried about the guy who said earlier that your chart marked his as reviewed, but he couldn't find it.
The alabaster moth works as a figurine of wondrous power (Core Rulebook, page 513) and, as such, appears to be a statuette of a small moth with a wingspan of about 2 inches. However, unlike others of its kind, it does not become a living creature immediately after the appropriate command word is spoken. Instead, this figurine becomes active right after its owner (who must have spoken the command word earlier that day) falls asleep. The living moth has the exact same size as its statuette form, with a flight speed of 10 feet and perfect maneuverability (using the owner’s fly skill check). While sleeping, the owner of the figurine assumes complete control over its movements, being able to see and hear everything around the creature as if it was affected by a scrying spell (without being able to cast any spells through this sensor). Any disturbance that awakes the owner causes the figurine to turn back to its statuette form. The item can be used once per week, and will be active for 8 hours, or until the moth is willed back to its alabaster form by its owner, who will continue to sleep normally. Due to the frailty of this particular figurine, it will be permanently destroyed if suffers any damage in either living or statuette form, including a potential fall should the owner of alabaster moth awake while its figurine is in midflight. Once awake, the owner can clearly remember everything seen and heard through the figurine, as if he had been subject to an effect similar to a dream spell.
Hi everyone. I actually developed this one in a hurry, and looking more carefully now, I think I can spot some flaws. But I would still like to have some feedback from you guys.
PS: English is not my first language, so feel free to point out any mistakes...
one of the auto-reject rules was making figurines of wondrous power.
does anybody happen to have a checklist of the items in this thread and which ones have been reviewed?
With the 2nd round closing soon (plus other duties that call) the judges are working steadily on the posts as they can from the posts I have read.
The item on deck before Azmahel began helping out with the thread was on page 3 which was JadedDemigod's Genteel Rogues Handkerchief. Not to speak for Azmahel but I see why he started fresh with his views on the items and giving quick concise account of each item, doing a page at a time is timely and amazing.
Neil has been steadily going at a good rate (considering we all have things to do) but that kind of feedback doesnt happen instantly. I have learned alot so far from seeing each judges comments (copy/pasted or novel) and cant wait for my item to be dissected.
Cheers
That doesn't really help much. I was wondering if anyone knew how many items there are in total, as it would be a pain to go through and look for the items on 11 pages. If someone has already done it, it would be nice of them to share it, so people have a good idea of how far off their item is.
Sash of the Careless Spelunker Aura faint transmutation; CL 1st
Slot -; Price 8800 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
Description
Originally crafted for cave-divers with a habit of falling or dropping equipment while climbing, this 20-foot, scarlet sash has been modified by adventurers to provide a measure of defense as well.
The sash functions as if under the spell animate rope, but unlike under the spell, it moves of its own volition and only follows the untie command. As well, the sash attacks with its own attack bonus of +20.
If the wearer falls at least five feet, an end of the sash will attempt to tie itself around the closest hook within 15 feet, be it stalagmite, torch sconce, or even leg.
In addition, the sash will catch any item the wearer drops, as well as small or smaller weapons thrown at the wearer. Both ends of the sash can catch an item. However, an end holding an item cannot catch another until it is released. Items can be retrieved from the sash's swaying ends as a move-equivalent action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the wearer falls while it is holding an item, it will drop it, so that it can extend to save the wearer.
Construction Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, animate rope, shield; Cost 4400 gp
has paizo published a magic item compendium? barring that, they are not selling many books by advertising their magic items. don't they make most of their money selling adventure paths? that would be why that is what the contest is for.
To be clear, the animal does not yet have combat training. But it was my understanding that a trick is to teach an animal a command, not the ability to do something. If I use speak with animals to tell it what to do, I should not need a trick at all. I agree with your intelligence point, however. Also I forgot to mention that he had me roll to push the animal. I also disagree that that was necessary.
Yeah that's what combat training is for. the d20pfsrd called it combat training/riding. I see no reason a wolf can't be ridden. I also don't see why a companion's thoughts come into play when asking them to do something. What if they don't want to heel?
it seems to me that teaching tricks just lets an animal know that snapping means x. if you tell them to do something with communicate with animals, there is nothing stopping them from doing it except their will, which shouldn't be a factor for an animal companion.
I am in the process of combat training my wolf(i am playing a gnome). I used communicate with animals to tell it to let me ride it away from some guards. He said he wouldn't but would clear a path fro me to run behind.
is there a ruling in pathfinder or anywhere that tells what kind of action it is to switch which hand you're holding a weapon in? what about switching two at the same time, such as a sling and a pick?
I don't see why a companion would lose its tricks, realistically or in mechanically. Nowhere does it say a companion starts play with the tricks, so i assume they are taught. in that case, there is no difference between teaching a companion and teaching a pet except the +4 bonus to handle.
There are also sideways releases, in which the swing goes around. These throws make it very easy to miss the target by releasing the projectile at a slightly wrong time.
if you're right about longbowmen, then they're fairly even on rate of fire, but longbowmen certainly wouldn't be firing more than two in a round. my point was more to show that d&d is not accurate than to specifically dig into the bow.
but there's no limit on how many horses a fighter can have. it makes no sense a ranger would no longer be able to control a wolf if he makes the handle check.
i would argue that being aware of the opponent implies knowing where they are. going into an area where you know there are assassins won't stop them from surprising you if you can't see them.
Consider the following:
You walk into a darkened room. Suddenly, a disembodied voice that only you can hear says, "Watch Out! There are assassins!"
Do you then:
A) Immediately roll initiative. You know there are assassins even if you can't see them and can still react accordingly.
or
B) Stand motionlessly, unable to act until the assassin initiates combat by taking his surprise round.
Otherwise, any action you take will effectively be a "combat action" that the assassin, or other characters, may want to react to, but the DM will not have the benefit of initiative to arbitrate turn order.
You could argue
C) Assassin immediately takes his surprise round.
But the assassin would not necessarily know you're aware of him. In fact, you could even argue
D) You get a surprise round because the assassin doesn't know you know.
Really, though, the rules clearly support option A in this situation.
Edit: Airy, my group uses you interpretation of how a Paladin's Detect Evil works. I hadn't even considered Father Dale's interpretation. I don't think we will change, though, barring clarification by the Devs.
I agree it makes sense they wouldn't be flat-footed. it's a little confusing though, since they have total concealment. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/stealth
a dev response would be nice in regards to the 3.5 ruling.
um, that wiki explains that a sling is just an extension of the arm. it specifically states that "another" technique is to spin the sling, but that it is less effective, because the timing is harder. if you compare its rate of fire of once every few seconds with the rate of fire of a longbow(8 arrows a minute), the sling is clearly better.
well his argument is that everyone would use a sling since it's so cheap. im not sure that's not how it should be. but i guess he thinks people should use bows, for some reason.
as far as i can tell, slings were abandoned because they are dangerous to your allies in formation, and they are not as good at penetrating armor as arrows. d&d(pathfinder) doesn't have mechanics for armor-piercing, so it seems the lower damage is a result of that. I can deal with the lower damage, but it just seems like slings are shafted because they aren't as popular as bows.
i suggested a feat that deals double damage on the first attack, but he instead wants to make a feat that ups the damage die of slings by one and makes the threat range 18-20. that doesn't seem as good as manyshot to me, but i'm not sure of the math.
we had discussed it, and because slings add strength damage, it was decided that they would be limited. hence the rapid reload for sling instead of just going with the historical quick reload version.(honestly, exotic weapon proficiency would probably handle that, but they both take one feat, so whichever.) a double-pouched sling makes sense, but my gm is worried that it's too good.
slings were very fast. they were not spun. i'm not sure you've done any research on their use. and if you go by the picture, manyshot is someone nocking more than one arrow at once(this picture might have been in the 3.5 book only.)
Yes but it would lose all the abilities (including tricks) it recieved from being the ranger's animal companion. Those abilities are basically the ranger's to give to one companion -- none of them stick around if the animal is no longer the ranger's companion.
this implies that tricks do not have to be taught to a companion. are you sure?
it also seems one could have an army of pets they catch and tame.
i would argue that being aware of the opponent implies knowing where they are. going into an area where you know there are assassins won't stop them from surprising you if you can't see them.
would a ranger animal companion lose all its tricks if it stopped being your companion? it seems broken to allow it to be kept as a pet with all the same tricks, unless the advancement is worth more than i think.
A Ranger has one companion.
If he gets a new one, the old one is either dead, or has been dismissed.
So he cant have the new one and the old one simultaneously, even as a 'pet'.
A Ranger CAN get an additional 'Pet' by taking the Leadership Feat and getting a Follower+Cohort.
A Ranger may also tame and train a wild animal (Charm+Animal Empathy+Handle Animal), and have it as a 'Pet'.
So theoretically a Ranger can be juggling three different sorts of 'Pets' that each require their own considerations.
so would you allow a dismissed companion to be kept as a pet if the spell and checks were made?
i think as written, it is implied that the paladin is immune to surprise from evil opponents. i doubt the developers had that in mind.
it should be noted that it is only useful in areas where there are no other monsters. Knowing there is evil in a populated area will not tell you when someone is attacking you(this is all what i think makes sense, not what the rules say).
would a ranger animal companion lose all its tricks if it stopped being your companion? it seems broken to allow it to be kept as a pet with all the same tricks, unless the advancement is worth more than i think.
i want your opinion on the legality of manyshot being applied to nonbows. the text says arrows, so can it be applied to crossbows with rapid reload? what about slings with rapid reload?(my gm allowed that) currently my gm is not allowing manyshot on slings.
people probably wouldn't have continued the discussion if you hadn't said you would give a penalty to stealth checks. now for my redundant opinon: if the spell doesn't give a distance for light emitted, there is no light emitted for the purpose of game mechanics
Well it is a game and I'm pretty sure your not going to get invited back to many of them if you keep intentionally shooting into melee without any regard for the other player's characters. In essence what stops you from doing that is what stops you from fireballing a whole room of people that include your allies without a care for them.
Anyway you only take a -4 if your shooting at someone whose engaged with a friendly character. Two enemy characters fighting means no -4 for your shooting at one of them.
If you must justify the rules of the game with real life stuff, assume that your character normally pulls their aim a bit when Jeff the Fighter suddenly shifts a bit in the melee and that's what ruins your shot if you miss.
I don't know where you got the idea that i'm that interested in shooting into groups of enemies. The point is there are no rules for someone who fires into melee with an ally and doesn't take the time to make sure they don't hit an ally.
the fireball example is horrible, since people often have to shoot fireballs at allies.
what determines if someone is an ally? why shouldn't a reckless person be able to fire into melee and hope it turns out okay? shouldn't there be an option of a 25% chance of hitting him or something if you fire into a melee?(but then that gets into figuring out where missed arrows go.)
Ill look into the trait. The background for the gnome is he came from a race that lived in an arctic area and were expert at guerilla warfare in the surrounding mountains. He is in an order that hunts umber hulks in the outside world. So arctic stuff is background, but not where he lives
I am trying to reconcile a sling with the switch hitter. I'm planning on playing a gnome. GM has said that I can use rapid reload on sling. I'm just not sure about the other feats. I'm also not sure how useful rapid shot will be for me. It seems to imply that it's mainly good at low levels, and I think we're starting at level 4 or higher. I also am not sure if manyshot can apply to slings. If anyone has the apg and thinks any of the ranger stuff in that would help, tell me. I'm using a heavy pick, by the way. I don't really like the look of a pickaxe, and the flavor is important to me.
