| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will mithral win again next week, bigger and better than ever? Will it actually be taking 10 again? Should we make a FAQ about whether you can take 10 to craft things out of mithral and watch it get 1000 clicks in 1 day? Find out on the next exciting FAQ Friday!
Time for Simulacrum!
Or Scry & Fry.
;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Paizocon: Lots of fun moments. My games were my favorite parts though. Amazing players. Tons of fun. And I was super-worried for both of them because of how things could have gone wrong. I also was the last Paizo staffer at the bar on Friday night, which is a personal first and possibly last (more or less impressive, take your pick, since I didn't actually drink anything but water).
Last man standing? Excellent! Water still counts, especially if your sleight of hand is good enough to pass it off as something else.
I agree with default mostly, except that ring of invis is actually 20,000, so I would say somewhere around 10,000 (and the same for enlarge person). The ability to not be lost forever if someone casts enlarge person (without a roll) or dispel magic (with a successful CL check) makes it significantly better than a permanencied reduce person in my book.
Way back in 3.,5, I once gave a magic tattoo that granted use-activated reduce or enlarge (her choice) to a halfling pirate. I didn't have to price it since it was a tattoo, which is good because for a human it would have been far more powerful than it was for that halfling, and I probably would have needed to price accordingly.
Hm... Interesting! I priced the item a bit lower (8 000 GP). First I considered the Permanency option - it's susceptible to dispelling and you can't turn it on/off at will, but on the upside it doesn't cost you an item slot and being permanently Small is much less of a hassle than being permanently Large. In my opinion that means it should be more expensive but not dramatically more expensive - somewhere between 7500 and 10 000 sounds reasonable.
Next I considered similar items. The closest I could find was the Greater Hat of Disguise which grants continual Alter Self, and so all the advantages of being small while avoiding the strength penalty. It also throws in darkvision, low-light vision, scent and a swim speed option (complete with underwater breathing) at the extremely reasonable price of 12k. I'd have a hard time imagining anyone paying 10k for the ring when the hat provides everything the ring does, avoids all the drawbacks, AND throws on a host of awesome abilities for only 2k more.
Though come to think of it, maybe it's just the hat that's criminally underpriced?
@Paizocon: Lots of fun moments. My games were my favorite parts though. Amazing players. Tons of fun. And I was super-worried for both of them because of how things could have gone wrong. I also was the last Paizo staffer at the bar on Friday night, which is a personal first and possibly last (more or less impressive, take your pick, since I didn't actually drink anything but water).Last man standing? Excellent! Water still counts, especially if your sleight of hand is good enough to pass it off as something else.
I agree with default mostly, except that ring of invis is actually 20,000, so I would say somewhere around 10,000 (and the same for enlarge person). The ability to not be lost forever if someone casts enlarge person (without a roll) or dispel magic (with a successful CL check) makes it significantly better than a permanencied reduce person in my book.
Way back in 3.,5, I once gave a magic tattoo that granted use-activated reduce or enlarge (her choice) to a halfling pirate. I didn't have to price it since it was a tattoo, which is good because for a human it would have been far more powerful than it was for that halfling, and I probably would have needed to price accordingly.
Hm... Interesting! I priced the item a bit lower (8 000 GP). First I considered the Permanency option - it's susceptible to dispelling and you can't turn it on/off at will, but on the upside it doesn't cost you an item slot and being permanently Small is much less of a hassle than being permanently Large. In my opinion that means it should be more expensive but not dramatically more expensive - somewhere between 7500 and 10 000 sounds reasonable.
Next I considered similar items. The closest I could find was the Greater Hat of Disguise which grants continual Alter Self, and so all the advantages of being small while...
The hat is for sure underpriced by a significant margin. In fact, it seems that the hat used the chart in the back of the CRB but forgot the multiplier for constant minute per level spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D-d-d-d-d-d-double FAQ!
Courageous Weapon Property: Is the courageous weapon property meant to help only on saves against fear? The text seems to give unfettered increases to all morale bonuses, which is way out of line for a +1 equivalent weapon ability.
A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata.I call b*$$&$+@ on this one. You can say it was "meant" to be that way all you want, but there is literally no way to read the ability that way as written.
I absolutely cannot believe that if the intent was for it to only work on Fear effects someone consciously decided to word it in a manner that CANNOT be read to give the effect intended. It wasn't even a matter of ambiguity, here.
Change it, I guess, but claiming it was meant to be that way all along just makes the guy who originally wrote it look like a colossal screw-up.
What Cheapy said.
I agree with you that the original wording is nearly impossible to read in the way intended; that's why it will need to be changed in the next errata.
Not a colossal screw up, just an easy-to-make mistake that one guy made where he missed 4 words as part of his 2,000 word turn over on weapon abilities. Just about anyone who does game design has made similar mistakes.
It's not just a missing 4 words, it's the entire structure of it as written.
"This special ability can only be added to a melee weapon.
A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1)."
Why write it as "any morale bonus (to saves against fear) the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus?
Instead of writing it as "In addition, morale bonuses to saves against fear from another source are increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus"?
"ANY morale bonus" is such an obtuse way of saying it. It's not "any morale bonus" if it's only morale bonuses to save against fear.
I'm also peeved that they turned a good weapon property into pure trash. An extra bonus on saves against fear is not in line with the other good +1 weapon properties. It doesn't fall in line with Keen? Or Bane? Or Ghost Touch?
Please.
Just call a nerf a nerf and be done with it. I've long been tired of this whole dancing around, pretending a change is merely a "clarification" charade.
All it does is serve to obfuscate the purpose of any given FAQ for no reason I can see.
|
D-d-d-d-d-d-double FAQ!
Courageous Weapon Property: Is the courageous weapon property meant to help only on saves against fear? The text seems to give unfettered increases to all morale bonuses, which is way out of line for a +1 equivalent weapon ability.
A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata.I call b*$$&$+@ on this one. You can say it was "meant" to be that way all you want, but there is literally no way to read the ability that way as written.
I absolutely cannot believe that if the intent was for it to only work on Fear effects someone consciously decided to word it in a manner that CANNOT be read to give the effect intended. It wasn't even a matter of ambiguity, here.
Change it, I guess, but claiming it was meant to be that way all along just makes the guy who originally wrote it look like a colossal screw-up.
What Cheapy said.
I agree with you that the original wording is nearly impossible to read in the way intended; that's why it will need to be changed in the next errata.
Fooie, making all my Barbarians sad over here :3
It's nice to see Courageous is a weapon property that will be relegated to the "no one will ever use this" bin.
Historically, when they wanted to nerf something, they have straight up said they were nerfing it. They've said it with Paladin's Smite, they've said it with Crane Wing, they've said it with the Summoner (and the summoner's spell list). They already do the thing you want them to do.
There's no reason to see a conspiracy when they have nothing to gain from one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this particular case, the PDT members who were actually there for UE's publication made it clear that the fear thing was the original intent, after I explained why the exact wording of the text made it do the other thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, the design team is human just like any of us, and I'm sure they don't enjoy being called liars or having BS called on them when you disagree with their FAQs.
The content of your statement isn't wrong, Rynjin, but the tone seems unnecessary as the first thing shown after Mark and company pop out a double FAQ in one week. I'm not on the design team, but I personally would find that kind of language and phraseology counterproductive to motivation to work hard on keeping these things coming.
This isn't a "suck Paizo's [REDACTED] and thank them for the privilege", but merely try not to be a jerk when you're pointing out your disagreement. I'm sure the design team could otherwise be spending their time on stuff that makes the company money, like writing new material, instead of being good to the community and putting out free clarifications to otherwise ambiguous rules. I imagine that having immediate blowback from it surely doesn't help reinforce the idea that it was time well spent.
How about "any such morale bonus," and they just left out the "such?"
I think this is exactly what happened (and the "such" may have even been removed to copyfit long after development without realizing the change, or many other possibilities). The FAQ adds four words to make it even clearer than "such" would, but I think it likely that "such' was how it was at some point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, the design team is human just like any of us, and I'm sure they don't enjoy being called liars or having BS called on them when you disagree with their FAQs.
The content of your statement isn't wrong, Rynjin, but the tone seems unnecessary as the first thing shown after Mark and company pop out a double FAQ in one week. I'm not on the design team, but I personally would find that kind of language and phraseology counterproductive to motivation to work hard on keeping these things coming.
This isn't a "suck Paizo's [REDACTED] and thank them for the privilege", but merely try not to be a jerk when you're pointing out your disagreement. I'm sure the design team could otherwise be spending their time on stuff that makes the company money, like writing new material, instead of being good to the community and putting out free clarifications to otherwise ambiguous rules. I imagine that having immediate blowback from it surely doesn't help reinforce the idea that it was time well spent.
Thanks greentea, I appreciate it. I hope it doesn't make other people feel this thread is too negative to have those posts, but I personally am not too offended by it; as I mentioned to Rynjin a while back, I've sort of come to an understanding that Rynjin uses that sort of tone an awful lot more than most people, so I've desensitized myself to it when it comes from him. What it means is that it's easier for me to see it when he makes a good point (and he often does, even if I disagree) without being as put off by a negative reaction to his posts blinding me to his good points, but by the same coin, it also means it's much harder for me to gauge the difference of severity of something coming from him, since I'm mentally toning it down.
You know, the design team is human just like any of us, and I'm sure they don't enjoy being called liars or having BS called on them when you disagree with their FAQs.
The content of your statement isn't wrong, Rynjin, but the tone seems unnecessary as the first thing shown after Mark and company pop out a double FAQ in one week. I'm not on the design team, but I personally would find that kind of language and phraseology counterproductive to motivation to work hard on keeping these things coming.
This isn't a "suck Paizo's [REDACTED] and thank them for the privilege", but merely try not to be a jerk when you're pointing out your disagreement. I'm sure the design team could otherwise be spending their time on stuff that makes the company money, like writing new material, instead of being good to the community and putting out free clarifications to otherwise ambiguous rules. I imagine that having immediate blowback from it surely doesn't help reinforce the idea that it was time well spent.
Altho I totally agree, it still remains that a +1 or 2 to moral saves vs fear only is not worth a +1 bonus. Previously it was hwaaay too good, admittedly.
This is my mildly irritated tone, and it has a very specific facial expression that accompanies it that probably makes me look doofy enough that it explains why it doesn't generally bother people IRL.
@Deth: If it were all saves it'd be pretty good. Wish they'd done that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is my mildly irritated tone, and it has a very specific facial expression that accompanies it that probably makes me look doofy enough that it explains why it doesn't generally bother people IRL.
Yup. I mentally tone it down to "mildly irritated," as you've mentioned similar things before. Online, you come across to others (and me before knowing to tone it down) as being much angrier than that. Probably a trick of wording choices and our own personal way we read tone into text.
On a totally unrelated note, at your suggestion I gave the rest of Agents of Shield Season 1 a chance, and you were right; it literally became better where I stopped. Hulu doesn't have any but the last few episodes of S2 though.
Eh.. I don't really care that much about the Courageous property beyond that it got nerfed to the "never be used" category. I mean, it was really only useful for a handful of characters (mainly barbarians) and the way it was being used wasn't game breakingly powerful or anything; it was just a good property to have if you benefit from lots of morale bonuses.
Now it only grants a morale bonus on saves vs fear and increases morale bonuses on saves vs fear. Compared to other +1 enhancement bonuses, this is very lacking in usefulness.
Season 2 was excellent. Hulu Plus had the whole season while it was running, but I'm not sure now. Maybe it'll hit Netflix soon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Season 2 was excellent. Hulu Plus had the whole season while it was running, but I'm not sure now. Maybe it'll hit Netflix soon.
If you phrase your Google searches correctly and look past page 1 you can find almost any show for free online...it just might take a while.
Season 2 was excellent. Hulu Plus had the whole season while it was running, but I'm not sure now. Maybe it'll hit Netflix soon.
Apparently, Hulu+ had the last 5 episodes of S2 at any given time, which allowed viewing the whole season if you started in time. Some of the ABCs they have the full now, though, so we'll see. Regardless Netflix'll get 'em eventually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Season 2 was excellent. Hulu Plus had the whole season while it was running, but I'm not sure now. Maybe it'll hit Netflix soon.If you phrase your Google searches correctly and look past page 1 you can find almost any show for free online...it just might take a while.
Sadly, I'm a boring and legal sort of guy most of the time, though ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Season 2 was excellent. Hulu Plus had the whole season while it was running, but I'm not sure now. Maybe it'll hit Netflix soon.Apparently, Hulu+ had the last 5 episodes of S2 at any given time, which allowed viewing the whole season if you started in time. Some of the ABCs they have the full now, though, so we'll see. Regardless Netflix'll get 'em eventually.
Season 2 has a dramatic change in arc over the midseason break - it's basically two seasons in one. (In my mind, Agents of SHIELD has had 4 seasons aready: S1 pre-Hydra, S1 post-Hydra, S2 pre-break, and S2 post-break.)
Three of those are excellent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, instead of nerfing mithril like it is currently in PF, why not just raise the price and let heavy armor made of mithril count as medium armor and medium armor count as light. and raise the price to 10000 gp for heavy armor made of mithril and 7500gp for medium armor made mithril.
I think adamintine for heavy armor is over priced i think its dr should be increased to DR/5 adamintine. When compared to stoneskin that gives dr/10 for a limited amount of time dr/3 is to low IMO for 10K gp.
This is my mildly irritated tone, and it has a very specific facial expression that accompanies it that probably makes me look doofy enough that it explains why it doesn't generally bother people IRL.Yup. I mentally tone it down to "mildly irritated," as you've mentioned similar things before. Online, you come across to others (and me before knowing to tone it down) as being much angrier than that. Probably a trick of wording choices and our own personal way we read tone into text.
On a totally unrelated note, at your suggestion I gave the rest of Agents of Shield Season 1 a chance, and you were right; it literally became better where I stopped. Hulu doesn't have any but the last few episodes of S2 though.
I spent the first 4 or so episodes just laughing at the show. Like how could anyone take this show seriously? Then it became substantially better. Haven't tried S2 yet.
|
|
Mark would you see a problem with making a spell like Infernal healing that does not have the evil requirement of devils blood. I have several
Angel Kin Characters who would like to have a spell that gives you fast healing but are repelled by the thought of using devils blood a a spell component and also don't like the Idea of asking The Gather of lies for anything as he is their eternal enemy.
Mark, instead of nerfing mithril like it is currently in PF, why not just raise the price and let heavy armor made of mithril count as medium armor and medium armor count as light. and raise the price to 10000 gp for heavy armor made of mithril and 7500gp for medium armor made mithril.
I think adamintine for heavy armor is over priced i think its dr should be increased to DR/5 adamintine. When compared to stoneskin that gives dr/10 for a limited amount of time dr/3 is to low IMO for 10K gp.
How is mithril nerfed?
How is mithril nerfed?Mark, instead of nerfing mithril like it is currently in PF, why not just raise the price and let heavy armor made of mithril count as medium armor and medium armor count as light. and raise the price to 10000 gp for heavy armor made of mithril and 7500gp for medium armor made mithril.
I think adamintine for heavy armor is over priced i think its dr should be increased to DR/5 adamintine. When compared to stoneskin that gives dr/10 for a limited amount of time dr/3 is to low IMO for 10K gp.
I believe he means that it doesn't cover the proficiency
Sadly, I'm a boring and legal sort of guy most of the time, though ;)Season 2 was excellent. Hulu Plus had the whole season while it was running, but I'm not sure now. Maybe it'll hit Netflix soon.If you phrase your Google searches correctly and look past page 1 you can find almost any show for free online...it just might take a while.
I wasn't strictly speaking about torrenting or anything like that. More streaming from an alternative location. In that instance it's the host who's illegal, not you. (I think.)
Funny, on the note of the Courageous Weapon FAQ, that is exactly how I first understood it as, It seems people mistook "any morale bonus" for "all morale bonus to anything."
Personally I feel that either the four words, "to saves against fear" and the aforementioned "such" both weren't even originally intended to be put there and the writer just thought it redundant to add that part into that sentence, since he had literally made that reference in the previous sentence. Being slightly experienced in authoring I try my best to keep from writing redundant sentences and repeating words, especially in back-to-back phrases.
Basically, I understood that, since the target of the bonus was originally discerned as "saves against fear effects" then it was ambiguously internalized into the ruling of the entire ability, and actually should've required clarification that it was meant to apply to all morale bonuses, rather than vice versa.
That is my take on it.
Except that, more often than not, just because two aspects of an ability are in the same paragraph, doesn't mean they are connected or reference back to each other. It's extremely common for abilities to be crammed into the same paragraph or ability blurb (as I think of them) so that they can save space.
It's entirely reasonable to read the original printing as "gain bonus on saves vs fear Also, increase any morale bonus by half the weapons enhancement bonus."
Fact of the matter is that you have to distinct sentences, one says one thing, another says another thing. Just because they are in the same paragraph doesn't mean one builds off the other. In proper writing format, they should be connected, but when it comes to publishing rules for an RPG, they don't always follow the proper format.
I'll be 100% honest - I always saw it as "vs. fear only", and would have run it as such if it ever came up.
Not because of any quirk of wording, but because it was too good to be true. ^_^
The only way for you to see it as 'too good to be true' is if you saw it as 'vs. all morale bonuses' but consciously made the decision not to run with that interpretation because you knew it was too good to be true.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I know you aren't giving "official" answers here, but there's an aspect about Unchained Monk that's been bothering me since I saw one of your posts in the general thread. I've sort of tried looking for any clarification on this, but I'm not very good at digging through these forums.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s6s8&page=18?Unchained-The-Monk-Unchained# 866
extra attack that is nonlethal only, no? and cant be used with the apparently popular flying kick until 15th, correct?Both correct. Still, you can flying kick in on the first round and then do an elbow smash later when you don't need to move (or with Pummeling, you can just elbow smash all the time). Those limitations don't exist on hammerblow, which doubles your dice on a single attack just like Vital Strike, but that does less damage. May be worth it though, especially since it can add to a high accuracy attack.I was already wondering as soon as I read through the class whether Pummeling Style would still somehow qualify as a Flurry of Blows for allowing Style Strikes. I was leaning towards "probably not", since a lot of the interactions seemed like they would be kind of messy. But then this post jumped out at me, since it sounds like you're implying that usage of Pummeling would allow you to make use of Elbow Smash on the Pummeling charge (the "any time" situation flying kick doesn't allow). A lot of your posts were made with warnings of the things you suggested being your own houserules, but there doesn't seem to be that disclaimer here.
In short, do Pummeling Style and Pummeling Charge allow access to an Unchained Monk's Style Strikes? If so, how does Elbow Smash actually apply? Would it be part of the combined pummel attack, or would it still be a second follow up strike?
On a similar but more contrived situation, how would a successful Pummeling Headbutt interact with the Medusa's Wrath feat?
My post will make more sense with the ACG errata, which will hopefully be very soon (Erik posted a guarantee that it'll be before Gencon!)
|
Contributor
|
The only way for you to see it as 'too good to be true' is if you saw it as 'vs. all morale bonuses' but consciously made the decision not to run with that interpretation because you knew it was too good to be true.I'll be 100% honest - I always saw it as "vs. fear only", and would have run it as such if it ever came up.
Not because of any quirk of wording, but because it was too good to be true. ^_^
Um... yes? I think?
I saw what others argued for in the wording, and how it could be interpreted that way. But I felt reasonably certain that what was meant was "vs. fear".
So if what you're saying is that I saw two interpretations, and that I chose the one I felt was intended, then yes. ^_^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
D-d-d-d-d-d-double FAQ!
Courageous Weapon Property: Is the courageous weapon property meant to help only on saves against fear? The text seems to give unfettered increases to all morale bonuses, which is way out of line for a +1 equivalent weapon ability.
A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata.Will mithral win again next week, bigger and better than ever? Will it actually be taking 10 again? Should we make a FAQ about whether you can take 10 to craft things out of mithral and watch it get 1000 clicks in 1 day? Find out on the next exciting FAQ Friday!Jumping: If I want to jump over a 10-foot pit, is the DC 10, like the table says, or is it higher, since I need to move a total of 15 feet to reach a non-pit square?
The DC is still 10 to jump over a 10-foot pit. You do move a total of 15 feet when you make that jump, but some of that is not required to be part of the jump. One way to visualize it is to think of it as walking/running the 2–1/2 feet from the center of your original square to the edge of the pit, jumping the pit right to the other edge, and then walking the 2–1/2 feet to the center of the new square.
I don't think anyone would complain if we had 2 FAQ's again next week. :)
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Teleportation subschool's Shift power says "You must be able to see the space that you are moving into."
Does this require line of effect, or just line of sight? For example, can I Shift into a space I can see through a closed glass window?
Do I need to see the entire space, or can I get by with a small aperture to look through?
Thank you! ^_^
I don't think anyone would complain if we had 2 FAQ's again next week. :)D-d-d-d-d-d-double FAQ!
Courageous Weapon Property: Is the courageous weapon property meant to help only on saves against fear? The text seems to give unfettered increases to all morale bonuses, which is way out of line for a +1 equivalent weapon ability.
A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata.Will mithral win again next week, bigger and better than ever? Will it actually be taking 10 again? Should we make a FAQ about whether you can take 10 to craft things out of mithral and watch it get 1000 clicks in 1 day? Find out on the next exciting FAQ Friday!Jumping: If I want to jump over a 10-foot pit, is the DC 10, like the table says, or is it higher, since I need to move a total of 15 feet to reach a non-pit square?
The DC is still 10 to jump over a 10-foot pit. You do move a total of 15 feet when you make that jump, but some of that is not required to be part of the jump. One way to visualize it is to think of it as walking/running the 2–1/2 feet from the center of your original square to the edge of the pit, jumping the pit right to the other edge, and then walking the 2–1/2 feet to the center of the new square.
You give the Internet too much credit, sir.
Question for Mr. Siefter...
What classes are you looking at playing for your next couple of PCs?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone would complain if we had 2 FAQ's again next week. :)
I definitely wouldn't mind myself, but I recall hearing that part of the agreement on carving time out for weekly FAQs and enshrining that time was that it'd be 1 FAQ a week.
If I had to guess, the original FAQ this week was for the courageous weapon property (which, to be honest, I didn't actually think anyone thought it was intended to work the way the text said), but the Acrobatics DC one was so easy and getting so out of hand that the Design Team, in Their Infinite Wisdom And Grace, did decide to tack that one on.
If anything, maybe next week the FAQ will include a second one on if PCs need to wear underwear beneath plate mail. Of course, wizards need to ensure underwear doesn't interfere with the somatic components of their spells, so they will most likely be allowed to go commando while the fighter will need to wear underwear of some variety.
Yeah, it's definitely in the rules part, but not the example. Weird stuff.That's interesting. And thanks for following up on that!By the way, I asked around the office, and apparently the example in that business section forgot to apply the fact that while going over the minimum employees raises the labor penalty, each assistant should apply the labor penalty again (for a total of 5x the labor penalty if you aren't actually putting any time into the business). This would be a staggering -50 for a large business that the PC ignored completely (causing that 1 rank PC who ignored her business to lose obscene amounts of money each month). Even so, the fact that non-assistant employees do nothing is bizarre.There is such a feat in Melee Tactics Toolbox. I believe it's called Phalanx Formation. Virtually no prerequisites, and (surprisingly/thankfully) not a teamwork feat. ^_^And there it is, of course. I have no idea how I looked right past it. Thanks!
Hey Mark, I'd love some clarification on this as the rules in the Unchained book are a little fuzzy. Terminalmancer has a separate thread on the forum that he referred to in his previous post. Could whomever is the most proficient in the Alternate Profession rules post a clarification in that thread to the questions he had asked?
Our group is currently trying to use these rules and we're finding it very strange to do. We're also curious how other things that affect profession add into it such as Skill Focus or Prodigy.
Thanks!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you say not the non-proficiency penalty with a weapon is the same as being proficient? This would mean feats like Throw Anything or Catch Off Guard and a trait like Rough and Ready would make you proficient with something like improvised weapons or niche weapons.
The reason I ask is because of a 'technical wording' issue. The proficiency feats, like Martial Weapon proficiency, don't actually state you become proficient with the weapon; only that you "make attack rolls with the weapon normally".
Since both the improvised weapon feats, Rough and Ready trait and Proficiency feats all remove the non-proficiency penalty, would that mean taking the two improvised weapon feats or the trait make you proficient?
Should this possibly be a FAQ? Because I could see some issues with Rough and Ready being used to gain free proficiencies. Such as taking something like a hypothetical Profession (guard) would make you proficient in basically all weapons. I know (guard) is not a listed profession, but profession is one of those 'open ended' skills like Craft that has more than what is listed in the core rule book.
Perhaps an FAQrrata to Rough and Ready along with a FAQ for weapon proficiency to close off that little loop hole? Rough and Read appears in Adventurer's Armory, by the way.
It's definitely a tricky situation. I would say that unless a feat had the word proficiency somewhere in it, for instance in its name, it wouldn't technically count as proficiency by RAW. That said, it may not be a bad idea to conflate eliminating the nonproficiency penalty with proficiency some time in the future, as you suggest.
I think Rough and Ready is safe either way--Profession (soldier) would let you improvisedly use "tools" of the trade (perhaps bags of hard tack, pointy figures used on maps to represent troop movement, or the like) rather than soldier's weapons, which are not tools. For instance, a fisherman with Rough and Ready would get to use fishing poles as improvised weapons, but...
This is from 2014 but I had a question along the same vein, if I have the trait Rough and Ready and choose Shovel as my "weapon" can I then take feats like Weapon Focus(Shovel) and further along Weapon Specialization(Shovel)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you watched Gravity Falls?
Is Courageous really that overpowering? Or at least so much that making it a +2 would make it useless? The most mileage I see you getting is +3 Str/Con and +3 Attack from Rage and Bless/Heroism, and that's with a +4 Furious Courageous weapon (So +6 equivalent).
|
Is Courageous really that overpowering? Or at least so much that making it a +2 would make it useless? The most mileage I see you getting is +3 Str/Con and +3 Attack from Rage and Bless/Heroism, and that's with a +4 Furious Courageous weapon (So +6 equivalent).
...you don't see why a +1 enchantment should perhaps not be offering +5 attack, +2x(Con mod) hit points and +2 damage when combined with a single 1st level spell?
I see 3 attack (4 if you had an odd strength score off the bat) 1 HP/level (2 w/odd con), and +1 damage (Again, 2 if you have an odd str)
Granted, its a little better than furious (+2 attack/damage while raging for a +1 cost) so does it still seem a good investment at a +2 bonus?
