|
Are the battle poi a double weapon? In table at the back of the Armory, they are listed as an one -handed melee weapon with no special abilities. My understanding of the game mechanics is if you were to wield two battle poi and had Exotic Proficiency (Battle Poi), You would get two attacks at -4 attack penalty since you get to use the TWF feat but are not using a light weapon in your off hand.
This seems a bit harsh, especially since the Battle Poi have always been described as being made specifically to be wielded in pairs (both in the LOF book and the AA). Perhaps an extra bit of descriptive text got left off? ;)
When wielded in pairs by someone proficient, should battle poi take a -4 or a -2 to each attack roll?
We are dumping the NPC.
Good. He was a cheating bastard, and you deserve much better, Erik. There are plenty more fish in the sea, (or kobolds in the cave, if that's your preference).
|
Are the battle poi a double weapon? In table at the back of the Armory, they are listed as an one -handed melee weapon with no special abilities. My understanding of the game mechanics is if you were to wield two battle poi and had Exotic Proficiency (Battle Poi), You would get two attacks at -4 attack penalty since you get to use the TWF feat but are not using a light weapon in your off hand.
This seems a bit harsh, especially since the Battle Poi have always been described as being made specifically to be wielded in pairs (both in the LOF book and the AA). Perhaps an extra bit of descriptive text got left off? ;)
When wielded in pairs by someone proficient, should battle poi take a -4 or a -2 to each attack roll?
Battle poi are not a double weapon. You have to buy 2 of them and if you have Exotic Wpn Prof( battle poi ) you are treated as having 2-wpn fighting when you wield one in each hand.
given their weight and intended use I think they should be moved to the light weapon category. That would also allow weapon finess to work with them( which makes sense ).
Pesh and Tobacco - Both of these are "addictive" but when I went to see what that means exactly it seems that there aren't any rules for this in Pathfinder.
Download Wayfinder #2 and look for the article called, "Drugs of Golarion." :)
Not only will you find a handy little sidebar offering up a simple system for addiction but also about two pages worth of new addictive substances which I had to cut from the Black Market section of Adventurer's Armory.
Wayfinder isn't official but the sidebar at least is a codification of the implied RAW found in different Pathfinder sources. By this I mean, there aren't really any hard and fast addiction rules that I'm aware of. But if you read the description of various addictive substances you start to see a pattern and the sidebar uses that pattern as its template.
I've been making lots of posts asking many questions about the AA because the book is almost entirely open for Pathfinder Society use, however there are a lot of mechanical holes in AA that need to get filled in so that all of these cool items can be properly used for a living campaign. It really wouldn't be hard to houserule all of this stuff for a homebrew game, but when you're supposed to be cleaving as close to RAW as possible in PFS, having the RAW as tight as possible is a good thing.
But I don't really think that addiction really is that important for PFS though.
I would suggest that everything doesn't need mechanics to go along with it to make it work.
|
|
I went back to my source files and found something interesting--the tent write-up was originally going to have its own table right next to the descriptive text, and include the capacity and assembly time for each tent. That little table had the person-counts for each tent. The chapter was running long, the subtable got cut... leaving only the basic name and price in the main table because there wasn't room for the extra info. :?/ That's the sort of thing that happens when you have to cram 30 pages of info into 20 pages....Anyways tents, there is 4 kinds but the write up only mentions they go between 1 and 10 people in them. By that we can guess a small tent fits 1 person comfortably and a pavilion fits 10 people. But what about the medium and large? I think in the reprint it would be very helpful to have it list how many. Perhaps on the price chart have
tent, small (1)
Tent, Medium (2)
Tent, Large (6)
Tent, Pavilion (10)
It is understandable why it got cut and understandable why it wasn't then added in somewhere the number of people for each. Just saying that's a very important bit of information on tents. Perhaps the most important :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to divide the areas of concern about this book into two categories
(1) Errata, where changes, additions, or subtractions need to be made to the book's text so it is correct.
(2) Clarifications, where I'm pointing out relevant rules issues that give you a better understanding of the content of the book, but don't require changing any of the book's text.
This post is all about clarifications. In most cases here, I'm paraphrasing the original questions. The abbreviation "CR" means "Core Rulebook," "AA" means "Adventurer's Armory," and "PCCS" means "Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting."
{How is the cost of feeding an elephant 'exorbitant'? Feed only costs 5 cp per day?}
The generic "feed (per day)" entry in the CR is for 10 lbs of food. It's an abstraction, and covers the animals in the CR--horses, ponies, and dogs. A horse actually eats 15-25 pounds of feed per day, but you can hand-wave the difference between that and the 10 lb. "feed" entry because you can assume the horse can forage. By comparison, elephants spend up to 16 hours a day feeding and an adult can eat 300–600 pounds of food per day--far more than you can just hand-wave as foraging if you have an elephant pet or work animal. You HAVE to provide feed for an elephant if you want to get any use out of it during the day. At 5 cp per 10 lbs. of feed, providing feed for an elephant costs 1.5 gp per day--more than the daily wage of a common laborer. Thus, for most non-adventurers, the cost of feeding an elephant is indeed exorbitant.
{Sly Draw feat, what does it really mean?}
Quick Draw lets you draw a weapon as a free action. Feinting is normally a standard action. So, if you start the combat unarmed, draw a weapon, and feint, it lets you use your SOH skill instead of Bluff to make a feint. It's a decent feint for a Dex-focused rogue, especially if his Cha is bad. As to the idea of "he's used sly draw on me four times, I won't fall for it a fifth time," that's not how feints work, using Sly Draw or otherwise. With Sly Draw, you never know when the guy's "empty" hand is going to have a weapon in it. You could argue that this feat would be more useful if it *always* let you use SOH instead of Bluff to feint, and I won't disagree, but that doesn't fit the *theme* of the feat.
{Does having a blanket give you a bonus to Survival checks?}
No, it's just nice to have if you want to sleep. Not everything in the game has to have rules text (though "has straps so it can be rolled up and tied" may be useful if for some reason you need to steal a strap, or justify how you're carrying it). Remember, we got a lot of flak for the CR not saying how much a backpack can hold (because it's a backpack), and this book added more should-be-obvious descriptions to common gear that didn't have descriptions in the CR.
{Do I need an animal harness to use Handle Animal?}
No. Like the blanket, knowing that your animal has a harness may come in handy at some point in the game, but the GM is not a robot and the books shouldn't try to explain every single possibility for every single item in the game. "Your guard dog has fallen into the icy river, how are you getting him out?" "He has a harness! Do I get a bonus for that?" "Sure, GM's best friend rule, I'll give you a +2 on your roll!"
{How much space does a bag of marbles fill?}
Marble entry says "Like caltrops, marbles can be used to slow down opponents; creatures entering a square with marbles scattered on it...." Also note that the caltrops entry says they fill one square.
{Wrist sheath seems like it can't hold much, what's up with that?}
Ah, the wonders of the English language! Originally there were two wrist sheathes, one for weapons and one for wands. The weapon one originally said "any light weapon or a ranged weapon with a weight of less than one pound," meaning "any light weapon works with it" and "any ranged weapon with a weight of less than one pound works with it"--because obviously you shouldn't be able to use it to conceal a longbow, shortbow, net, crossbow, or javelin. When the wand-sheath got folded into the weapon sheath's description, the use of commas made the language ambiguous. To be clear: A wrist sheath can hold (1) any light weapon; (2) any wand; or (3) any ranged weapon that weighs less than one pound. So a 2 lb. dagger is fine, as is a 2 lb. wand, but not a ranged weapon that's more than 2 lbs.
(And here's where we run into the case where attempting to provide more language to make things clear didn't help, and to make the item perfectly clear we'd have to add even MORE language, like "obviously you can't fit a starknife, sickle, light pick, or light shield in a wrist sheath because those weapons are more circular than linear, thus you couldn't fit it into a sheath designed to hide along your (linear) forearm." So you either provide a minimal explanation and assume some common sense, or you go full out and list every single weapon or item you can fit in the sheath (which you have to add to every time you stat out new equipment). Because the book was running long, we chose the former.)
{The sneezing powder looks suspicious. 60 gp and TWO POUNDS of powder really seem a lot for one dose. :)}
As for the weight: Two pounds of cake mix or peppermint is about a 4" cube--enough to fit in a pouch, and enough to fill a 15 ft. by 15 ft. area with enough powder to warrant saving throws (it's a splash weapon, so it's not just a one-square area that's affected).
As for the cost: This isn't simply black pepper; pepper wouldn't make the average human target sneeze 60% of the time and last up to 24 seconds. It's probably a mix of hot peppers, sulphur, and other irritants. Remember also that sneezing power makes you *staggered*, and being able to reduce someone's actions by half for a few rounds is pretty significant.
{Why are horses given descriptions when they're covered in the core rulebook?}
Because it would be weird to describe all the animal entries in that section *except* for horses--making the player have to open the CR just for horses seemed annoying.
{But then the combat trained dog is introduced, and it is the same price as the guard dog from the Core book (which doesn't have any description) and no mention of which stats are to be used. It would seem an awfully cheap way to get a riding dog, since that is the only medium dog stats we have available in the Pathfinder line.}
The guard dog in the CR *is* a combat-trained dog. It's a Medium dog, so it uses the Medium dog stats in the Bestiary. As to why you'd pay for a riding dog rather than a guard dog... you can't ride a guard dog. Perhaps there's a misinterpretation arising from the CR horse entry: "A combat-trained horse can be ridden into combat without danger." That doesn't mean that *all* combat trained animals are automatically riding animals, it just means that a combat-trained horse *is* a riding animal. Dogs are not automatically riding animals. A riding dog *is* a combat-trained dog that you can ride (it's been trained for both). A guard dog is not trained (or bred) for riding.
{Why are holly and mistletoe listed and described if they have no game stats?}
Because they're significant to the druid faith and I felt they needed more description than what's in the CR.
{Why is garlic listed as a black market item?}
The name of that section changed several times ("Drugs, Herbs, and Poisons" was one iteration) and I'm not entirely happy with the final name.
{When I read the HUGE "Arayam Bismut, Alchemist for Hire" I was hopefully expecting a preview of the Alchemist Class.}
Unfortunately, that's an unreasonable expectation--this book was due to ship before we even finished the playtest period for the APG, so there was no way we could print an alchemist-class character in this book and expect it to not be invalidated by the final APG (it's really the same reason we continued to publish under the 3.5 rules even as we had the public Beta... things would change, publishing under those rules would make the text wrong when it changed). I mean, Jason's finalizing the alchemist class *now*, we couldn't present a preview of the class in the AA and not have it be wrong in several ways once the APG is released (and THAT would confuse people in the future as they looked back at AA and wondered why that character didn't match the final class... I mean, we still get people wondering why our pre-PFRPG books still refer to Spot checks and the Concentration skill...).
{However, I think that the book suffers from the "what the hell are Companions supposed to be" syndrome that plagues the line from the very beginning. After Paizo decided that Companions are player-focused books they decided to divide each into Combat, Faith, Magic, Persona and Social chapters.}
Not true, the Companions have had those backmatter articles since I started working here (July 2008), and the "how are the Comp and Chron different" decision didn't happen until several months after I started here. Check Osirion, Elves of Golarion, and other older Companion books and you'll see those Combat/Faith/etc. articles.
{I'm OK with first three, but persona and social in a gear book?}
"Social" doesn't always literally mean "social." The four original articles (C/F/M/S) refer to the four class archetypes (fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue). The Social article has covered (in various Companions) traits, "what do people of this [topic] think of each character class?", "what are character classes from this [topic] like?", new feats for social interactions, achievement feats, feats for a particular social class of a country, new magic items for thieves and smugglers, new feats for dealing with the black market, an elf prestige class, and the culture of dwarven beards/crafts/brewing. "Social" is a very broad category.
{As a ninja preview of the new class it would be really great, but please please don't throw NPC class statblocks that anybody can put together in 5 minutes.}
Please tell me your secret to creating accurate stat blocks for 6th-level characters, including gear, in 5 minutes. I mean, I've spend a hundred hours on a stat block-generating spreadsheet for all the base classes, and it still takes me more than 5 minutes to do a complete and accurate stat block for a 6th-level character, with the stat block doing all the math for me.
{And to confuse things even more, as I look at the Companion line I can see more racial books (OK, that works) but there out of the blue comes the Sargava book. Didn't we establish that setting books should be in Chronicles ?}
No, we didn't. Player-friendly (no spoilers) regional supplements are perfectly OK for the Companion line. Andoran, Cheliax, Qadira, Osirion, Taldor, and now Sargava--all the background sort of info that a player would need if playing in a campaign set in that country, or if they want more information on creating a backstory for their character who's from that country. Yes, more detailed (and GM-spoilers) information goes in the Chronicles line, but there never was a decision that Companion books should not contain setting material.
{From Sean's post "Bladed scarf is correct on the table" I got the impression that it lost the finesse and grapple damage qualities too, since they're not mentioned on the table... if that's not the case I might reconsider classifying the weapon as completely useless.}
I hate to break it to you, but no country ever fielded an army of warriors wearing bladed scarves. It's because swords, spears, and axes are much more effective at killing people. Not all weapons in the game are great weapons. Some, in fact, are suboptimal choices. Some exotic weapons are exotic because it's hard to learn how to use them. For example, the three-section-staff (said to be very effective in battle) has serious drawbacks even in the hands of a master. Yes, the idea of using a bladed scarf in battle is neat and visually stunning, but in most cases a common weapon is going to be more effective, and the guy using one isn't going to be Mr. Kick Ass, he's Mr. Sneaky You Don't Know I Have A Weapon. The game stats (even as an exotic weapon) don't reflect that you can disguise your weapon as a scarf or a sash (Mr. Bastard Sword doesn't have that option). They also don't reflect the idea of, "dude, you're trying to kill me with a scarf, but I have a 5 foot piece of sharpened steel." The whip is another sub-optimal exotic weapon... but people use it because they like the theme (heck, my PC did in Monte's game for 2 years). I could see some cool equipment tricks or a prestige class for using the bladed scarf (or a trait that swaps out some other common weapons but gives you scarf proficiency), but I'm not going to pump up its game stats just to reflect the cost of spending a feat to use it. Some weapons aren't as good as others, and it's bad game design to stack crazy (meaning "ridiculous") abilities on a weapon just to make it more appealing in terms of numbers.
{Are these errors going to be fixed in the 2nd print run?}
I've noted everything that's actually an error, and with the exception of one or two that people found this week, they're being fixed.}
{Why do some PCCS items get an entry on page 18 and others don't?}
PCCS items get new descriptive text on page 18 if their descriptive text changed from the PCCS version. They got an entry in the table if their PCCS table text changed. Thus, the armored kilt's description changed but the table didn't, so it got an updated description but not an entry in the table.
The bladed scarf *could* use a new descriptive entry in AA because the reach went away (though that's clear from the table), and the trip and disarm rules changed from 3.5 to PFRPG (though the keywords in the table technically cover that, too), but the table covers the changes (and the chapter was running long).
{also the "butterfly knife" described is a switchblade. a buttefly knife can also be confused with the martial arts weapon of the same name which is a paired weapon with a large thin flat bladed edge.}
All the information I've seen for "butterfly knife" is for the folding knife, not some other martial arts weapon you're describing. Do you have a link I can check out for what you're talking about?
{Are the battle poi a double weapon? Because it seems harsh that using them with TWF means you're at -4/-4 instead of -2/-2.}
Battle poi are one-handed weapons. The errata will note that you can use Weapon Finesse with them, and because you wield them as if you had TWF, you basically have saved yourself a feat by choosing the weapon, and can spend that feat on Weapon Finesse instead, which will counteract that penalty (after all, if you were to spend it on TWF, you'd have at least a 15 Dex anyway, so that's a +2 bonus you can apply with Weapon Finesse).
{Flayleaf - What does "immune to pain" mean mechanically? Flayleaf seems to have a lot of overlap with Pesh. Does immunity grant temporary hit points, bonus to fortitude saves, or perhaps extend the range of being disabled beyond 0 hit points?}
Mechanically, it means that anything that works by causing pain doesn't affect you. For example, symbol of pain. We don't categorize most things in the game as pain effects because it's not a torture/sadism game, but it's one of those things where a GM can make a ruling based on common sense. "Your captors have been beating you for hours. Take 20 nonlethal damage and a -2 on all actions because of the general pain." "I take my smuggled flayleaf!" "Okay, you can ignore the -2 penalty... what's your escape plan?"
As for it being similar to pesh, yes, many drugs have similar effects on the human body.
{Pesh and Tobacco - Both of these are "addictive" but when I went to see what that means exactly it seems that there aren't any rules for this in Pathfinder.}
Addiction rules are in the GameMastery Guide.
{I would suggest that everything doesn't need precise mechanics to go along with it to make it work.}
Yes, thank you. :) As Monte says, "the GM is not a robot." And relating to that is the next meta-question:
{Does [item] give a bonus to [something] or [have a specific game effect]?}
Much of the equipment in this book is based on real Earth equipment. If you could use it for that purpose on Earth, you should be able to use it for that purpose in the game. AA is not the place to codify how long a drill lasts before it wears out, or what temperature a firework burns at, or the chances of breaking a shovel on hard gravel, or how much damage a bundle of burning rice paper causes. The item works as expected for its intended purpose; if the players or the GM are getting too bogged down in round-by-round analysis of hp, hardness, break DCs, and fatigue, they need to take a step back, hand-wave the specifics because it doesn't matter for the adventure, and let the PCs get back on track doing some adventuring.
{Also, copy editing is an art and the worst people to pick up typos are the original writers themselves.}
None of the people who wrote AA work as editors at Paizo. The entire book got a development pass by me, then editing passes by Chris, Judy, and Rob. And despite four pairs of eyes looking at it, errors are going to get through. The trick is to look at it enough to catch most of those errors, but not so much that you're falling behind on all your other books. Twenty readers are going to catch things that three editors (and a total of four editing passes) didn't catch.
Remember that a book this big has over 20,000 words in it. If there were 32 errors in this book--one error on every single page--that's 32/20,000, or .16% ... point one six percent, aka [one sixth of one percent, aka 99.84% error-free. Adding extra editing passes means we run into the rule of diminishing returns... we're spending more time on a book to push it to 99.9% error-free, or 99.99%, when we could be working on some other late book.
I think your comment was meant mostly in jest, please don't trivialize the amount of editing that gets done on our books. We work really hard on what we do, we take it seriously, and we don't like errors in the final books any more than you do--but please don't tell us that we're doing it wrong or that you could do it better (unless you work in the publishing industry and produce 100% error-free books, then I want to know all your secrets).
|
|
I would also like the add for future reference. That while yes this book fits the idea of Companion line. I really think it should have been a chronicle line for size reasons. I would have loved to see a lot more Golarian stuff in the book and expansions on some of the stuff that was in book, as well as more things. Like what are the best wines of the world of Golarian and where do they come from etc. I love little details like that. I know AA touched on all of it, I just think it could have used at least twice the coverage on a lot of that stuff. Which is why I think a book like this should have really been a Chronicles book for size reasons.
Or done a RPG generic equipment book and then a Golarian Companion supplement book that only listed Golarian gear in addition to the generic book and/or Golarian versions.
Anyways Paizo it is still a good book, I think the problem is normally you guys constantly put out quality 11 books on a scale of 1-10 and this one while still good falls short of your normal work. Also remember that while we critic this book, it is because we care and want you guys to keep putting out only the best stuff. So it is nothing personal just our way of being rabid helpful fans. :)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I'm assuming the poster is confusing butterfly swords with butterfly knives. I've never heard of a butterfly sword being called a butterfly knife, but it is indeed a completely different weapon. Wikipedia does claim that it is sometimes translated as "butterfly knife".
|
Sean - I'm a bit confused on one issue. I understand that if there is descriptive entry in the AA for an item from the PCS, it should replace the PCS's entry with the AA's. Same for a table entry, it replaces the one in the PCS if it exists in the AA. As per your own example, the Armored Kilt has no table entry in the AA, so we use the one from the PCS. It does have a new description, so we replace the one in the PCS.
My question concerns the Bladed Scarf. Your response to the grapple/finesse issue seems to make it sound like those abilities were gone. However, the table in the PCS didn't list them in the short hand (misc. abilities), instead listing those abilities in the description. The AA only gives new stats for the table, which would imply the old description from the PCS should be used. Obviously things like reach went away since those aren't in the AA table anymore, but the other things were never in the table to begin with.
So, in short, what does the Bladed Scarf do now? What I have in my Archives is:
Scarf, bladed Cost 12 gp Damage (S) 1d4 Damage (M) 1d6 Critical x2 Weight 2 lbs. Type S Special disarm, trip
Knowing their unkind reputation and that their seductive performances can sometimes bring out the worst in watchers, some Varisians craft rows of razor-sharp blades into their scarves. While one side is all color and sequins, the other hides a deadly weapon. The skill required in using such scarves effectively and not revealing their deadly nature makes them exotic weapons. If you are proficient with a bladed scarf, you deal 1d4 points of slashing damage to any creature that makes a successful grapple check against you.
You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls with a bladed scarf sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you.
The table information is from Adventurer's Armory, the description and bits below from the Campaign Setting (with the bit about reach removed since the AA took that out).
What in the above is wrong or should be changed?
{also the "butterfly knife" described is a switchblade. a buttefly knife can also be confused with the martial arts weapon of the same name which is a paired weapon with a large thin flat bladed edge.}
All the information I've seen for "butterfly knife" is for the folding knife, not some other martial arts weapon you're describing. Do you have a link I can check out for what you're talking about?
I have a sales website, if that will help: Superior Martial Arts Supplies.
{Why are horses given descriptions when they're covered in the core rulebook?}
Because it would be weird to describe all the animal entries in that section *except* for horses--making the player have to open the CR just for horses seemed annoying.
Alright. But why are they even in that AA if you (generic) were pressed for space?
|
{As a ninja preview of the new class it would be really great, but please please don't throw NPC class statblocks that anybody can put together in 5 minutes.}
Please tell me your secret to creating accurate stat blocks for 6th-level characters, including gear, in 5 minutes. I mean, I've spend a hundred hours on a stat block-generating spreadsheet for all the base classes, and it still takes me more than 5 minutes to do a complete and accurate stat block for a 6th-level character, with the stat block doing all the math for me.
Sean, I'll hit this one issue here. We're talking about an alchemist for hire, human expert 6. Do we need his combat stats (AC, attacks, etc) ? Not really. He's a non-combatant. So, what we need is his skills to see how good he is at what he is there for.
Human Expert with Int 18 Wis 14 Cha 12 means up to 11 maxed skills. With this amount of skill points I can safely assume Craft (alchemy), Appraise, Spellcraft, Perception, Knowledge (relevant) and Diplomacy are maxed.
Int based skills go off at 13, Wis based skills are at 11, Cha based skills are at 10, he has Skill Focus in Craft (alchemy) so this one goes to +16 and hey presto ! Thanks to Jason's wise changes to skills I have an NPC ready in 5 minutes, ready to interact with my group :-)
The Expert 6 statblock has it's place - in GMG, where it belongs with 100+ other statblocks for quick and dirty reference in case the players catch me flatfooted. A statblock belongs in a book only if it's going to be useful to anybody - remember first Companions and the "nation/race leader" statblocks ? You guys dropped them because they are of peripheral use to most people. Thanks heavens you resisted the lure of statting out gods/archdevils/etc - who needs a 3-page statblock for Orcus when high chances are you will never use it ?
In a 32-page gear book I want what the good stuff, read: gear gear gear. Anything that is not equipment better had a good reason to be there. Faith items and Alchemical focus do, Expert 6 statblocks don't, IMHO.
I would have loved to see a lot more Golarian stuff in the book and expansions on some of the stuff that was in book, as well as more things. Like what are the best wines of the world of Golarian and where do they come from etc.
Yeah, another ten pages would have done wonders. :)
Anyways Paizo it is still a good book, I think the problem is normally you guys constantly put out quality 11 books on a scale of 1-10 and this one while still good falls short of your normal work.
I agree, and it's frustrating. I still feel it's a good book, and all the discussion here makes it seem like there are many more errors in it than there actually are. I'll be compiling a post later listing all of them. I certainly learned some things in assigning and developing this book--lessons to apply to the next book like this that we do.
What in the above is wrong or should be changed?
If I were to include a description of the bladed scarf in AA, it would look like what you put in your post.
I have a sales website, if that will help: Superior Martial Arts Supplies.
Yeah, I'll have to agree with Russ, here--even that link calls them "butterfly swords" as well as "butterfly knives," which makes me think they're incorrectly calling them "butterfly swords." Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_sword (see especially the text under "Other Terms")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balisong_(knife)
Alright. But why are they even in that AA if you (generic) were pressed for space?
Because my overzealous authors turned over twice as much text as I requested and I hard to start making cuts in the flavor text of every single item. The idea was "I can cut 50 words out of every entry and it'll all fit," not "what things can I cut entirely, and hopefully I won't forget to delete them from the tables as well."
Sean, I'll hit this one issue here. We're talking about an alchemist for hire, human expert 6. Do we need his combat stats (AC, attacks, etc) ? Not really. He's a non-combatant. So, what we need is his skills to see how good he is at what he is there for.
Not true. If he travels with the PCs, he WILL get into combat whether he wants to or not. And if I provide you a "stat block" that *doesn't* have his combat information, I have *failed* to provide you a stat block, I've just given you a summary of his skills.
|
|
What other kinds of weapons would you want to see? "Oriental" weapons and firearms are off the list.
I understand Paizo has plans for oriental themed products sometime, and it would make great sense to include such equipment there.
But what about firearms? is this because there are similar plans? or are they being ruled out for other reasons?
But what about firearms? is this because there are similar plans? or are they being ruled out for other reasons?
Short answer: firearms are complex enough, and have enough real-world fans and physics involved, that to do them proper service (and not cause horrendous outrage among fans who wants guns in the game and want them done RIGHT) would require a book on its own.
|
What in the above is wrong or should be changed?If I were to include a description of the bladed scarf in AA, it would look like what you put in your post.
In that case, I'll admit that the bladed scarf is perfectly reasonable, I only saw the changes as over the top because I thought those abilities where removed too. Though I'd suggest that any exotic weapons are unlikely to have seen mass use in warfare, due to the requirement of specialist training.
|
|
I agree, and it's frustrating. I still feel it's a good book, and all the discussion here makes it seem like there are many more errors in it than there actually are. I'll be compiling a post later listing all of them. I certainly learned some things in assigning and developing this book--lessons to apply to the next book like this that we do.
Bold is mine, so um I thought that was interesting and applies there might be more. Which I hope is true. yeah i know this book just came out, but I still want more. :)
I would have loved to see a lot more Golarian stuff in the book and expansions on some of the stuff that was in book, as well as more things. Like what are the best wines of the world of Golarian and where do they come from etc.
I may be unique, but I would love to see a book on the Cuisine of Golarian. I really liked the food article in the elves companion. I want more!
|
|
Great job keeping up with all the questions, Sean, but there is still one key issue that's been brought up that a lot of people will want an answer to: The Holy Super-Soaker!!! :D
If someone were fill up a pump water canister with holy water, schlep it to the nearest crypt, and point it at some unlucky undead or evil outsider, how much damage would it do per turn?
In the core rule book, one flask (1 pint) of holy water is said to do 2d4 pts. of damage to the targeted creature, plus 1 pt. of damage to every adjacent creature. If we simply apply those stats to the gallon of water the pump puts out per a turn, that's 16d4 pts. to the target creature plus 8 pts. to every creature adjacent! (1 gallon = 8 pints)
Sure, you're flushing 200g down the drain per turn, but dang, that is one big canister of Zom-b-gone...
Also, what kind of roll would you need to make for the attack? Ranged touch? What happens if you miss?
Actually, I think clarification on that falls into the errata category, as it requires some specific rulings to keep it from serious abuse, and I'm going to address it in a later post about the errata. The short form is: it should require a ranged touch attack, and how many flasks worth of holy water you can use on an enemy depends on your BAB (yes, a super-soaker uses your iterative attacks!).
Chief Technical Officer
|
There's some weirdness in the PDF. The bolded words in the paragraph above appear as Pathnder, prociency, buttery, procient and benet when viewed in Adobe, but are normal when cut and pasted into, for example, this message. Something about "fi" and "fl" it doesn't like?
I've noticed on some previous Pathfinder PDFs, "fi" and "fl" are visible in the Adobe Reader but are followed by a blank space is I cut and paste a paragraph into, for example, MS Word: Pathfi nder, profi ciency, butterfl y, profi cient and benefi t.
These are two separate issues, actually. As we've mentioned in the thread a few times already, that one paragraph—and *only* that paragraph—had a font issue where the "fi" and "fl" ligatures dropped out between proofing and printing. We'll fix it for the reprint, and we'll update the PDF when the reprint becomes available.
The copy and paste thing is actually is a broader issue relating to the way that the PDF format works. Essentially, when a PDF is created, characters in the original document get converted to "glyphs" in the PDF, and glyphs are not always one-to-one equivalent to characters. For example, if a font in the original document has a ligature—that is, a single object representing both characters—for "fi", the PDF will contain the instruction that it's supposed to display the "fi" glyph, but it doesn't actually know that that glyph is standing in for the characters "f" and "i"—that bit of information is forever lost during the PDF creation process.
So when you go to select text out if it, the PDF viewer you're using has to try to reverse-engineer which characters each glyph actually represents, and some applications are better at that than others. Thus, while you might get an extra space when you copy a "fi" out of one PDF reader, you might find that another app might completely drop both characters, or another app might do it perfectly. (Similar mistranslations also often occur where "small caps" fonts are used—copying the word "APPLE" in different PDF viewers could result in you getting "Apple", "APPLE", "apple", or even something like "aPpLe".)
While we are at it can we get some clarification on what sort of damage to expect out of non-bladed combat sheaths? I know I'm beating this into the ground but the combat sheaths grabbed me so they have my focus currently and that's one of those vital pieces of information when you are looking to use them in combat.
|
|
I would have loved to see a lot more Golarian stuff in the book and expansions on some of the stuff that was in book, as well as more things. Like what are the best wines of the world of Golarian and where do they come from etc.I may be unique, but I would love to see a book on the Cuisine of Golarian. I really liked the food article in the elves companion. I want more!
Your not, I find little details like that really bring a setting to life.
Thanks for taking the time to respond; I'll try to expand on my thoughts.
{1. Is named "Adventurer's Armory" yet has only four (4) pages of weapons and armor. Four. Yes, you read that right.}
What other kinds of weapons would you want to see? "Oriental" weapons and firearms are off the list.
I'd like to see more detail in each weapon's writeup, and more art, such that the same number of weapons would be many more pages and a lot more useful. I'd also like to not have "oh just use the one from the Campaign Setting" - that's bad for two reasons. One it assumes someone has another product, and two it is a 3.5e and not a PFRPG product. Reprint or omit, don't kinda reference it but not bother to put it in a table.
I assume the book has every kind of weapon that has appeared in any Golarion work. But there were things like special materials (noqual, whatever the shadowforged thing from Nidal is) that weren't in there.
I think a 64-page book with the weapons and weapon-related stuff pushed out to a much larger percentage would have been a must-have product for all Pathfinder players. Hell at 64 pages it should have nothing but weapons, armor, and equipment - you'd want to go to 96 if you want to put in the equipment tricks and other rules and whatnot.
{You didn't make the book generic - there are Golarion refs - enough to annoy "genericists" but not enough to help Golarion fans. Now I have PCs coming from Sandpoint wanting to kit out with a hunga munga and dueling sword and boomerang for general minmaxing reasons?}Well, you're the GM, if you think there is zero chance that a PC would be able to get a hunga munga in Sandpoint, tell them "you can't have that weapon." It's your campaign.
How do I know that it's not a Varisian weapon? This is especially a problem with weapons that have appeared in cultural contexts already in published products - but that context is not mentioned in this book. Unless I have an encyclopedic knowledge of all products, how do I know? That's one of the huge values this book could have brought me.
{I am mostly inclined to disallow the book or at least make people get my approval, and having regional origins would streamline that process a lot.}
Does knowing the hunga munga is mainly used in the M.E. make your decision to allow the above character easier, or...
Much easier, it becomes a slam dunk "yes." Even if the PC is just coming up with the Mwangi backstory to justify the hunga munga - oh look he has setting-hooked backstory, something we DMs usually consider a big win. I think if you look at it without being defensive you'd see that it's pretty much a great benefit.
And how much space should we assign to each weapon's description that says where it's from and how likely it is for nearby and far lands to have that weapon?
More than zero? It could be pretty darn terse you know. Hell it could just be in the table. "Usually found:" -everywhere -garundi lands -among northern barbarians -aldori aristocrats -bonuwat mwangi etc.
AA is a book to put spoiler-free game mechanics in the hands of the PCs. If you start restricting it to GMish info like "this is from here and you don't see them often outside of that land," the players are going to end up asking you about every single item because they don't know how rare "rare" is. "Can I buy a Harrow deck here? How about a printing press? Beast lure? Kaava musk? Linnorm mead? Mwangi coffee? Sargavan pineapples?" Or you put this info in a GM book (like the Chronicles), which means the GM has to copy out text they want the players to see, and defeats the purpose of having a supplement to the Core Rulebook that the players can bring to the game.
Great, maybe they should ask the DM. Heck, y'all could have used the opportunity to put in a mechanic for "make this kind of check to lay your hands on some exotic foreign item, modified by city size."
I think that I am not by any means alone when I say that when a random player says "I have some Kaava musk!" and always just pays their couple gold to have some more, I'm going to have to butt in as DM.
Remember a lot of the crowd here loves the world Golarion, as we did Greyhawk etc. before it, and Paizo seems to be going to a whole lot of trouble and page count to put in realistic nations and races and interactions, so yes, we care about this and don't like player entitlement to anything from anywhere ever.
AA is a book to put spoiler-free game mechanics in the hands of the PCs. If you start restricting it to GMish info like "this is from here and you don't see them often outside of that land," the players are going to end up asking you about every single item because they don't know how rare "rare" is. "Can I buy a Harrow deck here? How about a printing press? Beast lure? Kaava musk? Linnorm mead? Mwangi coffee? Sargavan pineapples?" Or you put this info in a GM book (like the Chronicles), which means the GM has to copy out text they want the players to see, and defeats the purpose of having a supplement to the Core Rulebook that the players can bring to the game.{Aside: I understand the answer may be "but the standard Companion format is 32 pages and it has to have an NPC and other stuff..." But no one cares (no customers do) - you should focus on making the book the best it can be, not fitting your own internal format.}
Subscribers care. They know in advance that every Companion book is going to be a certain length, a certain format, and a certain price. If suddenly March's companion is 2x the size and 2x the price, subscribers (rightly) will get upset. And as subscribers pay for the bulk of the costs of the book, their opinions carry significant weight.
1. I am a subscriber, so "subscribers care" doesn't impress me much. Just goes to show it shouldn't have been in that line.
2. Last I checked, every other Companion is pure Golarioney content, most of them are named "of Golarion" or are named after a region thereof. It seems to me that by deciding to go light (not remove, oddly, just go light) on the Golarion content y'all were already deciding to deviate from the normal format as it's understood by me, a subscriber.
3. Perhaps putting it in the Companion line wasn't the right call then. I know it's not *your* call, but I'm not calling *you* out I'm calling the product out. Chronicles isn't the only other choice - in my opinion and experience from every other D&D version, I'd say a good A&EG would be in the rules line along with the APH and GMG. (And perhaps open tested a bit because of the rules-intensive angle to find some of these problems.)
{In general I think you should look at the Companion format. I haven't been too impressed with them (Cheliax was especially weak) and I think it's a combination of being too small with having a certain format imposed. If you can't keep the "one a month" tempo up and keep in adequate content and quality, dial it back - I'd rather have a book that would really let me run a campaign in Cheliax, for example, than what I got.}One, Cheliax has gotten a lot of good reviews, so your disappointment with it isn't the general reader's opinion of the book.
Two, the Companion line is every *other* month (it alternates with the Modules).
Three, the Cheliax book isn't the book to run a campaign in Cheliax, it's the book to give your players when you're running a campaign in Cheliax. A GM's book for Cheliax would either be in the Chronicles line, or the source material in the Council of Thieves AP. Cheliax isn't intended to be the GM's book for that country any more than the Legacy of Fire Player's Guide is supposed to be the GM's book for Katapesh.
Four, I'm always open to hear how you'd like to see the line do better. Unfortunately, "abandon the format you're using" isn't a viable solution, and "the books have disappointed me" doesn't give me enough information to make any improvements.
I think it's obvious that the Companions are for GMs as much if not more so than for players. One, GMs are the ones often buying most of the books. Two, it's not like there IS a good DM's reference to Cheliax, so if I'm going to run something there I'll have to use that book.
That doesn't mean there has to be "GM secret" information in it - that's a false assumption. Both from the player and GM point of view I found the Cheliax book wanting. As a player, if I wanted to create a Chelish character - how much did it really give me? As a GM, if I wanted to have some PCs show up in Cheliax and operate and have a good idea of all I need for that (which is really the same information) - in my opinion it didn't have a lot of that and mentioned it in the forum for that product at the time.
The fix for Companions isn't change the format. The fix for the Armory is totally to change the format. The fix for the rest of the Companions is to run through use cases. As a player (or GM), what am I supposed to use this for? Does it really do that? Should it reprint stuff articles in the back of APs, or never touch stuff from APs, or what?
I don't mind NPCs in the actual Companions (as long as they're of a level/station that it makes sense to stat them for PC interaction). Companions are all Golarion heavy books about a race or culture. NPCs can be nice to illustrate that. Having an NPC in the Armory book, on the other hand, was very counterproductive. (And as has been mentioned, having an alchemist who's not an example of the real alchemist class about to come out is bleeeeeeeah.) Of course, having an NPC is the mark of a DM's book not a player's book - a signpost about the confusing mess the line is becoming. (Gods & Magic - really GM only? Magic items - player information?) Other ones do this too, the otherwise excellent Qadira book has monsters on the last two pages. There's a lack of clarity of vision here that running through user stories may alleviate.
The Cheliax one especially seemed too small. I've read the PFCS entry and the Thieves player's guide - I've read a lot of this before. The additional fluff is good but still a little vague. And one of only 32 pages being used for blurbs is a hard bite to take - these aren't really magazines.
I am running a game where the players are Riddleport pirates and are reaving the Chelish coast. And some of them have Chelish backgrounds (mostly of the "i used to be a slave" variety). I eagerly awaited this book and read through it and realized there was about nothing to use! (I did use Batsel Hoon though, or his stats at least.) From a player POV, most of the other ones have a p-class or race or something - this one doesn't. So I see it as weaker than the ones before and after it. I'm sure others' opinion varies and that's fine.
You're not, I find little details like that really bring a setting to life.I would have loved to see a lot more Golarian stuff in the book and expansions on some of the stuff that was in book, as well as more things. Like what are the best wines of the world of Golarian and where do they come from etc.I may be unique, but I would love to see a book on the Cuisine of Golarian. I really liked the food article in the elves companion. I want more!
Luckily, there's the Taste of Golarion column in Wayfinder to satisfy those urges. Word has it that Brevoy's wines are particularly good this year.
|
|
Yeah I loved that in Wayfinder. I was just agreeing it would have been nice to see more from Paizo too.
On a side comment something else I would like to see more of that was started in this book. Alchemy items used with spells to make the spells more effective. I did like that and hope we see future stuff like that.
|
|
d'oh, ya pick up on the buttefly knives/swords, but didn't answer my first post on how come the meteor hammer got SO MUCH rules love. it kept reach, and there's no double weapon stats for how much damage it does. or why its got a 19-20 crit range on top of 1d10 damage..
the one exotic feat makes it better than dual wielding bastard swords w/ a -4 penalty ( the only thing i can think of that does 1d10/1d10 and has a 19-20 crit ), but the hammer also pulls, trips and has reach =X or can be used for a two handed weapon and still give a +1 shield bonus. ..
I'm new to using this (or any) messageboard (I'm very 20th century), but it seems that it's the best way to ask a question and receive an answer. So, here it goes:
The Equipment Character Trait "Heirloom Weapon" states that the character is proficient in that particular weapon. Would that allow a character to qualify for a Feat (knowing that the Feat would only function for that specific weapon)?
For example: Could a character take Weapon Focus: Heirloom Weapon?
|
|
My understanding with the Heirloom Weapon is as follows:
It grants you proficiency with that specific weapon. This means that if it's a bastard sword, you can use that specific one one-handed, but other bastard swords can only be wielded two-handed.
As for Weapon Focus, it requires proficiency in the weapon, which would be proficiency with *every* bastard sword (or the EWP feat). I suppose you could take "Weapon Focus (my heirloom bastard sword) but I imagine that'd be a house rule. I don't believe Heirloom Weapon would cut it for qualifying for prerequisites.
Great product.
I only wish some more of the obvious monk weapons had been updated to actually BE monk weapons.
I mean, meteor hammers not being a monk weapon is just wrong!
I usually take criticisms with a grain of salt, because what bugs one person about a product may not translate to what upsets someone else. That having been said, a lot of the concerns and issues about this product have been pretty well elaborated, and they don't (for the most part) sound like completely subjective issues.
I'm a bit concerned about spending my gaming dollars on this, especially when they are a bit pinched right now. I'm happy that Paizo made good sales on this, and I doubt that the problems that came up were intentional, due to a lack of skill, or due to any kind of dismissal of quality, but at the same time, a lot of the items I have old stats for, and for quirky things, I still have my Arms and Equipment Guide from 3.0. This may be one of the first Paizo items that I've skipped for a while.
I'm a little concerned that, while I don't doubt that Paizo does worry about quality and is willing to push items back when they need more work to make them better, that there might be a few products getting lost in the shuffle of the "almost back on schedule" rush.
I've seen someone else mention this, but I don't know if it was specifically for the Garrote in this book. The Garrote shouldn't use the suffocation rules, they aren't meant to just cut off air. It is supposed to cut off the flow of blood to the brain. Characters caught with a Garrote should be unconscious in 1-2 rounds, not the 20-40 that the suffocation rules allow. I admit that this would make the Garrote into a pretty powerful weapon, but it isn't like wizards can't just do the same thing with sleep spells at level 1.
Other than that, great book, I'm going to get a lot of use out of it :D
But what about firearms? is this because there are similar plans? or are they being ruled out for other reasons?Short answer: firearms are complex enough, and have enough real-world fans and physics involved, that to do them proper service (and not cause horrendous outrage among fans who wants guns in the game and want them done RIGHT) would require a book on its own.
Not to mention including them would make some of us break out our black sharpies :)
Not to mention including them would make some of us break out our black sharpies :)
That was pretty much my thought. I never wanted to mix guns / gunpowder / science into my FRPG.
I've seen someone else mention this, but I don't know if it was specifically for the Garrote in this book. The Garrote shouldn't use the suffocation rules, they aren't meant to just cut off air. It is supposed to cut off the flow of blood to the brain. Characters caught with a Garrote should be unconscious in 1-2 rounds, not the 20-40 that the suffocation rules allow. I admit that this would make the Garrote into a pretty powerful weapon, but it isn't like wizards can't just do the same thing with sleep spells at level 1.
Other than that, great book, I'm going to get a lot of use out of it :D
The modern wire garotte is a lot more effective than the classic device. The technology to produce a flexible wire garotte is more complex than many would think. A cord or, bowstring would be the norm (bowstrings were used by Elfs in my game). The modern special forces type wire garotte works very quickly, the cord type takes longer. In India the Thuggee used a scarf with a coin wrapped in it to help (the rumal, an advance over the plain garotte) and they employed assistants to help control the struggles of their victim during strangulation. I'd say, mess aside, you're better off with a knife / dagger.
*edit* The rules for holding your breath assume, imo, time to prepare to hold the breath. A strangler striking by surprise wouldn't give you that time. I'd cut it in half based on that. If the strangler times it properly, on the victims exhaling, it could be reduced further, say one round per pip over the required number of his grapple check. Or maybe one round per + in the stranglers strength bonus... bears thinking on. It's been awhile since one was deployed in my game... My 2 cp anyway, ymmv.
|
|
I usually take criticisms with a grain of salt, because what bugs one person about a product may not translate to what upsets someone else. That having been said, a lot of the concerns and issues about this product have been pretty well elaborated, and they don't (for the most part) sound like completely subjective issues.
I'm a bit concerned about spending my gaming dollars on this, especially when they are a bit pinched right now. I'm happy that Paizo made good sales on this, and I doubt that the problems that came up were intentional, due to a lack of skill, or due to any kind of dismissal of quality, but at the same time, a lot of the items I have old stats for, and for quirky things, I still have my Arms and Equipment Guide from 3.0. This may be one of the first Paizo items that I've skipped for a while.
I'm a little concerned that, while I don't doubt that Paizo does worry about quality and is willing to push items back when they need more work to make them better, that there might be a few products getting lost in the shuffle of the "almost back on schedule" rush.
Hmmm... I have Aurora's and A&E, but I still thought this is a "must-buy" for most Pathfinder GMs. Aurora's is a great book, but A&E is... well, I think about half of the items are good, but there is also a lot of really weird and even outright bad stuff there. I'm also very aware of the fact that, rules-wise, it's easier to use AA than AE or Aurora's (especially Aurora's, because some items require me to do mechanical conversions on the fly).
I don't mind if there are a few quirks or errors in a book -- they're are easily fixed, and I don't think I've yet seen a completely error-free gaming book so far in my decades of gaming. Plus I know my players are expecting me to get this book! :)