|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So I'll go ahead and say that because this is a book that introduces a lot of new ideas and rules, this thread likely won't get very big. Probably even smaller than the GMG errata thread, which had stat blocks.
Nevertheless...
Pg. 58 - Magic traits
Storm-Touched trait says "you gain DR 1/- against creatures and attacks with the electricity type."
Unlike the other [blank]-type traits introduced in this section, there is no such thing as an electricity subtype. Air would be the closest thing, but there's already an Air-Touched trait.
EDIT: It's likely this trait was never meant to be, as there's no such thing as an Acid-Touched or Cold-Touched trait.
Some spells do have the [electricity] type, such as Shocking Grasp.
|
|
Some spells do have the [electricity] type, such as Shocking Grasp.
Yes they do, the electricity descriptor is a thing, what I was saying is there's no such thing as an electricity subtype for creatures.
EDIT: to elaborate, the other [blank]-Touched traits in this chapter are Fire-Touched, Water-Touched, Air-Touched, and Earth-Touched, traits that do the same thing, but against attacks and creatures with the fire, water, air, and earth types* respectively. Storm-Touched is dealing with electricity, one of those attack-only descriptors that doesn't have a creature subtype that matches it verbatim, just like acid and cold. Generally electricity is usually aligned with air, acid with earth, and cold with water.
*the word "type" is also being used broadly here to include both spell descriptors and creature subtypes.
So the errata would be to delete "creatures and" from the description of this trait.
I'd just say that the DR works against stuff that would be thematically appropriate. Lightning Elementals for example. Not very balanced, but it's better than nothing.
Another thing would getting their Dance Hall references straight. Now that it's a well known issue, it shouldn't be more than a simple automatic search and replace command in the file.
Another thing I found that's an error in Ultimate Campaign was in the Kingdom Making section.
Two things. Under Black Market Discount- It mentions brothel for a discount. Yet their is no brothel building. Now I know their is one in the original King Maker book but none here. Also their are events that mention brothels like
Drug Den- For every type of buildings brothels included adds to the check.
Then we have the Trade Route Optional Rules for Kingdoms which is a pain in the ass to figure out but here's my problem.
DC= Control DC + your settlements Corruption+ the RM+ the LM - Your settlements Productivty.
So we have TRL (trade route length) divide it by 10 to get RM (route Modifier.
Then we subtract the TRL from your Kingdom Size to get LM (length modifier)
So lets do some math lets see say this formula.
DC= 65 + 5+ the RM+ the LM - 5 (Kingdom Size is 60)
But lets use two different length. Lets have a TRL of 50 and 5.
80= 65 + 5+ the 5+ the 10- 5 (TRL 50)
121= 65 + 5+ the 1+ the 55- 5 (TRL 5)
And I didn't even get into the theory crafting for faster hexs and what not since it really doesn't matter with all things taken equal. It's easier to do a Trade Route 50 hexs away aka about 600 miles then the 60 miles away. Even though it says under the rules that shorter routes are easier. Then again maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I've read it over 3 times along with friends and we all seem to come to that conclusion.
And what's this about Dance Halls?
The brothel was renamed dance hall, but nobody did a find and replace on the word brothel in the rules, so it keeps appearing.
So... a dance Hall = Brothel... an estblishment for dancing, drinking, carousing, and holding celberations = A place to pay for companionship of any sort.
I'm not quite getting the connection to be honest and how a black market gives on a discount on a Dance House...I mean at best that sounds like a lover lane for middle age times or the current era of Golarion, but meh...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As near as we can figure out, the decision was made that the mechanical bonuses granted by the (previously) brothel suited a more broad type of building, which they decided to call the dance hall. A brothel is reasonably a sub-set of the dance hall, and if you don't believe me, I suggest you read up on the Moulin Rouge.
Sure, not all dance halls are like that, but when you consider Gentlemen's Clubs (the kind you get outside London, England, anyway) as a type of dance hall, it actually makes a fair amount of sense.
So, here we have two buildings that the designer has decided give identical benefits, and so has rolled them up under one name. And since it's quite likely that the black market should grant a discount on one type which falls within the scope of the new name, and that particular type of building will be... quite popular in many communities that can reasonably support it, it's easier to give the discount to all dance halls than it is to separate out dance halls and brothels again.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Brothel" was changed to "dance hall" at the very last stage in editing, because... someone decided to make the change.
And for those who don't think a dance hall is a place to find companionship, or wonder why the secret underbelly of a city might have connections to a dance hall, you probably should watch Moulin Rouge!
I've seen Moulin Rogue I am one of the people who wonders why people like it so much.
I suppose my point is why not keep it the same, why change it like that to only cause confusion.
Still not seeing anything about the trade routes though.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Still not seeing anything about the trade routes though.
Probably because you're not wrong.
As written, because the Length Modifier (LM) is kingdom size minus Trade Route Length (TRL), minimum zero, and because LM is added to the DC for the checks, the larger your kingdom is the harder it is to establish a trade route, and the longer the trade route is, the easier it is to establish, which is in flat contradiction to pretty much any kind of logical sense.
Either the sentence needs to be changed to read "subtract your kingdom's size from the TRL" or the DC calculation needs to be "-LM" instead of "+LM". My personal preference is for the first one, since that would mean that the minimum LM (0) is any trade route of the kingdom's size or smaller, and longer trade routes represent the kingdom overextending itself. It's a little harder to explain the other option, since any trade route longer than the kingdom's size results in a LM of 0, which means there's a maximum difficulty modification that the LM can give, which is when the length is equal to the kingdom size, and any shorter routes make it easier to establish. I can't wrap my head around "it doesn't matter if the trade route is 80 hexes or 800, my size 10 kingdom's trade route LM is zero!"
Someone objected to the word (and concept) of "brothel" appearing in our core rulebooks, so it was changed to "dance hall."
Someone objected to the word (and concept) of "brothel" appearing in our core rulebooks, so it was changed to "dance hall."
I thought it was something like that. -sighs-
Well glad to know someone else agrees on the trade route. Just want to hear a confirmation were not all in group think in our game when we read over the rules you know.
Feel free to call out typos here, too.
|
Someone objected to the word (and concept) of "brothel" appearing in our core rulebooks, so it was changed to "dance hall."
Wow! They seem a bit...uptight?
Why not be a good friend and help them relax? Maybe take them for a night on the town...might even end up in a dance hall, or...something...
(Did somebody drop the 'B-bomb'?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone objected to the word (and concept) of "brothel" appearing in our core rulebooks, so it was changed to "dance hall."
How does this someone feel about Calistria?
|
|
I'm amused that in a world depicting axes to the face, spells and curses, undead, and even the Worldwound (a portal to the Nine Hells/the Abyss in the surface of the world) spewing devils/demons into reality, that the very word 'brothel' (without describing what it is or what happens there) should be the part which is censored.
Maybe the game isn't sanitised enough. Maybe we should say the devils come from the Nine Hecks.
As long as we've got a dev in here:
In the mass combat section, p. 239, the so-called Strategy Track has columns for both +OM and +Damage. Damage is only ever defined as OM-DV, or the difference between your OM and opponent's DV (if positive), so isn't having a +Damage modifier unnecessary? Shouldn't it just be +OM?
This was there in Kingmaker, but I seem to remember bringing up this discrepancy back then and being told to ignore the +Damage column since that was a vestigial remainder of an earlier version of the system where Damage was rolled separately.
If that's the case, it seems to have been accidentally grandfathered into Ultimate Campaign. There is still no specific verbiage as to how the +Damage modifier is meant to be tallied, so at the very least it's an oversight.
There is a great thread that did a statistical analysis of the MC rules and seemed to find that certain tactics/special abilities are horribly broken as well (i.e. always leads to a win against evenly-CRed armies).
You can have +damage as a separate statistics, it's just not as valuable as +OM.
+OM means you're more likely to overcome the target's DV, and (because damage = offense check – DV) adds to damage if you "hit."
+damage doesn't help you overcome the target's DV, but if you do manage to do so, you deal extra damage.
OK, there's just nowhere that spells out how those things interact, since the only definition of damage just says OM-DV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you understand that if you have an effect that adds to your damage, it adds to your damage, yes?
And there are other effects that only affect damage: fog or snow reduces it by half, sniper support adds to damage, breath weapon adds directly to damage, so does channel negative energy, incorporeal affects damage, judgment alters various stats (including damage), rake and rend add to damage, rock throwing adds to damage, and so on.
It's a stat. Sometimes game effects alter it.
Great. Snark from a dev.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is it snark? Damage is a stat. If something says it adds to damage, it adds to damage. Or does the game actually need to "define" damage as "OM minus DV plus other effects that may add to, subtract from, divide, or multiply this value"?
Yet another reminder that I should never bother to check the boards on the weekend, it's not worth my time and not appreciated.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It felt like snark because your comment seemed to boil down to "duh, use common sense!"
Damage is not a "stat" as it isn't defined in mass combat army stat blocks, or the "Army Statistics" section. Damage is a RESULT of and derived from subtracting the target army's DV from your army's OM. As such having a bonus to specifically damage seems to needlessly complicate what is otherwise a simple and elegant system.
Yes, you ought to define damage as such. It IS already explained, in the section "attacking and taking damage", so acting like it needn't be defined is sophistry. It simply doesn't explain how +Damage modifiers work, and when they are applied. All you need to do is add a line that says "Some tactics, army special abilities, and the strategy track add to damage, but that damage is not applied if the army would not otherwise deal damage."
Again, I was under the impression that the +Damage column was an artifact from an earlier version of the rules in which armies attacked and did damage as separate rolls, similar to skirmish combat. Which made sense to me since getting potentially +10 to damage for a -4 to DV is crazy good. It also isn't mirrored by a deduction of damage TO an army fighting defensively, which seemed to confirm my suspicion about hit and damage being decoupled at one time. Fighting Defensively seems to be an absolutely foolish move unless said army is several ACRs above its opponent.
However, if this is working as intended, the question I then have is this: You don't do bonus damage (static or variable) if you wouldn't otherwise do damage, correct? What about if you exactly meet an opponent army's DV? Do you do +6 damage if you roll a natural 20 but wouldn't otherwise surpass an army's DV, thereby increasing your damage in such a circumstance from 1 to 7? When fog is a factor, or something else that halves damage, presumably rounding down, do you halve the adjusted damage or do you then do 0 base and thus not apply any damage bonuses?
I'm happy to re-ask this in rules if you feel that's more appropriate.
Yet another reminder that I should never bother to check the boards on the weekend, it's not worth my time and not appreciated.
One of the reasons I frequent these boards is the presence of developers on the threads -- but in the hopes of keeping the signal to noise ratio low, I show my appreciation not by commenting, but silence -- and continuing to read these boards, purchasing Paizo products, attending PaizoCon ...
But they're still boards. Boards are inhabited by persons who misread, misunderstand, and even misstate their own intent and meaning.
The point was a valuable one, and the concept is certainly open to misinterpretation as to when and how 'additional' damage is applied.
MI
The point was a valuable one, and the concept is certainly open to misinterpretation as to when and how 'additional' damage is applied.
MI
Hmm. As there is a definition of 'damage' and a column specifying bonuses to damage then the point's value is slight. I thought is was blindingly obvious.
Cheers
Mark
The point was a valuable one, and the concept is certainly open to misinterpretation as to when and how 'additional' damage is applied.
MIHmm. As there is a definition of 'damage' and a column specifying bonuses to damage then the point's value is slight. I thought is was blindingly obvious.
Cheers
Mark
If you have the time and leisure to relax, read and reread the rules, think about the rules, develop and game within the rules with other persons equally devoted -- then certainly. This and many other nuances are obvious, and all that is obvious is blindingly obvious.
It's not blindingly obvious to persons who have less time, must read more hurriedly, or perhaps even have a less error-correcting-group around them when they do have time to indulge what is a luxury leisure activity.
It's very nice for you that you have the time and resource to devote to a deep and fine parsing of these rules, and of course, once you understand exactly what's meant by 'additional damage' -- blindingly obvious. Another way of describing this niceness that appears blindingly obvious to me -- but something other readers may not considered -- is economic privilege.
Certainly I'll grant that simply being on this board smacks of economic privilege, but I appreciate that a developer was keeping that kind of casual (for whatever reason)reader in mind when making a remark. It's exactly that kind of thoughtfulness I've come to appreciate and even expect from Paizo.
Happiness to You and Yours!
MI
I noticed that near the end of the Exploration rules in the PRD, the reference (see Core Rulebook page 424-433) wasn't removed completely and there's still the number "-433" left in the text, which looks very confusing.
Under Gaining Capital, should the formula for Class Abilities be 1d20 + your relevant class level + your highest ability modifier -5 rather than your character level?
I'd think a F3/C4 wouldn't be quite as effective as a F7 in training about swordplay.
Probably not a gamebreaker, but just something that occurred to me reading over the section. (Finally got my copy! Yay!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is it snark? Damage is a stat. If something says it adds to damage, it adds to damage. Or does the game actually need to "define" damage as "OM minus DV plus other effects that may add to, subtract from, divide, or multiply this value"?
Yet another reminder that I should never bother to check the boards on the weekend, it's not worth my time and not appreciated.
Quite the contrary Sean. Help from the devs is greatly appreciated it's just that the mode of communication ie: text misses out on visual cues and vocal inflection. Then people take things the wrong way. Your post could be read two ways.
I for one think that some of your posts come off a bit snarky...intended or not how am I to know?
Don't get me wrong some people on here are clearly epic d-bags and patience is in limited supply. I understand that.
Anyways, your input...all the devs input is appreciated. It's not always apparent but it is. I do think that everyone on the board including the devs should realize text communication is limited and an extra effort must be made not to be taken the wrong way. For instance I may seem high and mighty in this post but I'm not, just trying to be helpful as I know how draining the internet can be.
So to sum it up we appreciate the help but realize it is easy to come off the wrong way on here so being extra careful...polite or whatever will save us all a lot of wasted time.
***trips his high horse***
On page 158, the Terrain Type generator is missing Desert from page 156.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What are the rules for retraining Traits?
Currently, the answer is "there aren't any" - then issue some errata that makes some.
They got left out of the Ultimate Campaign retraining rules, and are causing a bit of a stir in PFS. Please fill in the missing page.
There's probably a more diplomatic way of looking into this topic, thistledown. :/
I too was surprised and confused when I discovered that retraining didn't include traits, as have been some other folks I've encountered. I think, with all the other stuff that's retrainable (especially alternate racial traits), that it seems natural to include traits, to the point that their absence from the retraining rules is kind of puzzling/jarring.
Any chance of us hearing why they're not there? I've been lobbying to get them added to PFS, but one of the main counterpoints has been "we don't need to be adding more PFS-specific rules to the campaign", with a common corrollary of "since the devs didn't print it, it obviously must have been because it's overpowered, so we shouldn't add it to PFS".
If the reason really is "we don't want there to BE trait retraining", then I can stop worrying about the whole thing. :)
If the reason is "that should be a GM discretion area, PFS is free to do whatever", then commentary to that effect would be helpful in the discussion already happening on the PFS boards.
If the reason is "word count" or something similar, a FAQ or something would be fantastic. :)
I promise to be polite and appreciative of any answer SKR or any other Paizo-ite would be willing to give. Thanks!
Traits received as part of the Additional Traits feat can be retrained (just retrain the feat itself).
Racial features can be retrained.
Class levels (including your very first class level) can be retrained.
With the ability to make such basic changes to a character via retraining, it does seem a bit odd that you cannot retrain your initial traits.
The simplest solution would be to modify feat retraining to include those initial traits -- no need to add an entire additional section to the retraining rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Exactly. The omission is jarring, and I anticipate lots of explanations to confused players in the coming months as I GM for organized play. If instead the rules had included traits but left out racial traits (which currently you CAN retrain) then I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so I'm having an issue here on the subject of the Ruler's bonuses through the new Kingdom-building rules. The text reads like this:
"If you have the Leadership feat, the bonus from the feat
applies to all kingdom attributes you affect (one, two, or
three attributes, depending on the kingdom’s Size)."Okay, that's all well and good.... except that, checking the Core Rulebook, Leadership doesn't *give* you a bonus. Then I checked the SRD figuring, okay, maybe my book is out of date... nope, still the same. Are they talking about the bonuses you get to your Leadership score for having stronghold and whatnot? Need to know, since I'm running a Kingmaker campaign with the updated kingdom rules.
You mean this bit:
Leader Statistics: The statistics for the different roles are presented as follows.
Benefit: This explains the benefit to your kingdom if you have a character in this role. If you have the Leadership feat, increase this benefit by 1. If this section gives you a choice of two ability scores, use whichever is highest.
Considering the number of times I read that same passage for the Ruler, scratched my head, and thought "what bonus from Leadership?", I'm not surprised other people have missed it.