I clarified it because that was the first time I've seen it in RAW, and players are adding x+y+z not realizing the formula is capped because of a clause in x... most likely because unless you build at the appropriate level for the combo all you see is a straight 20% bonus on your character sheet as what x is... even though x is probably only 0-20% of y, and never was a straight 20%.I appreciate the clarification, but I'm still comfortable vetoing something even if it is RAW.
One nuclear capable party member in a group of happy elven bards does not a good game make.
Balance is a good idea, regardless of mechanics. :D
you could choose to read it differently depending on order.
X=80%
y=20% from archetype
z=20% from metamagic.
if (X+Y)>100:
Return 100
Else Return (X+Y)
Above + Z = 120%
without breaking the rules and applying the archetype, and then the metamagic
I clarified it because that was the first time I've seen it in RAW, and players are adding x+y+z not realizing the formula is capped because of a clause in x... most likely because unless you build at the appropriate level for the combo all you see is a straight 20% bonus on your character sheet as what x is... even though x is probably only 0-20% of y, and never was a straight 20%.I appreciate the clarification, but I'm still comfortable vetoing something even if it is RAW.
One nuclear capable party member in a group of happy elven bards does not a good game make.
Balance is a good idea, regardless of mechanics. :D
you could choose to read it differently depending on order.
X=80%
y=20% from archetype
z=20% from metamagic.if (X+Y)>100:
Return 100
Else Return (X+Y)
Above + Z = 120%
without breaking the rules and applying the archetype, and then the metamagic
VETO!
;)
I clarified it because that was the first time I've seen it in RAW, and players are adding x+y+z not realizing the formula is capped because of a clause in x... most likely because unless you build at the appropriate level for the combo all you see is a straight 20% bonus on your character sheet as what x is... even though x is probably only 0-20% of y, and never was a straight 20%.I appreciate the clarification, but I'm still comfortable vetoing something even if it is RAW.
One nuclear capable party member in a group of happy elven bards does not a good game make.
Balance is a good idea, regardless of mechanics. :D
you could choose to read it differently depending on order.
X=80%
y=20% from archetype
z=20% from metamagic.if (X+Y)>100:
Return 100
Else Return (X+Y)
Above + Z = 120%
without breaking the rules and applying the archetype, and then the metamagic
VETO!
;)
I kinda agree on the veto. 100% would be fine though for me
Not sure how its so OP... its just a weaker empower at that point (empower is a 50% boost... this is a 20% if lookes at that way)... for a rather high spell slot... yeah... not seeing it... like...at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure how its so OP... its just a weaker empower at that point (empower is a 50% boost... this is a 20% if lookes at that way)... for a rather high spell slot... yeah... not seeing it... like...at all.
At least you can adjust it depending on the situation. An empowered fireball is not going to harm a devil, but a shadow evocation can (even if just a little).
There's another way to get over 100%.
Shadow conjuration/evocation -> 20%
Capstone lv 20 for Shadow Bloodline -> +20%
The Crook of Cidhureen -> up to +50%
The metamagic feat -> +20%
Totaling 110%.
This time there's no explicit limit.
Its the idea that with these spells you can pick what you are effectively casting, on the fly.
It turns a prepared caster into someone who has an infinite spell list.
Even putting aside the discussion of damage being greater than normal (101-120%), it just seems... abusive.
Lol again, a weak empower xD.
As for the adaptability, its a 9th level spell slot. Compared to every other 9th level spell, an extra 20% damage on a lower level spell is modest..
Remember, this is competing with the likes of Time Stop, Wish, Gate, SM IX, and Greater Create Demi Plane... compared to that, a slighty beefed up Shades spell ia... meh.
Sure, for sorcerers its decent but for wizards its really just kinda cool but not game breaking by any measure.
Lol again, a weak empower xD.
As for the adaptability, its a 9th level spell slot. Compared to every other 9th level spell, an extra 20% damage on a lower level spell is modest..
Remember, this is competing with the likes of Time Stop, Wish, Gate, SM IX, and Greater Create Demi Plane... compared to that, a slighty beefed up Shades spell ia... meh.
Sure, for sorcerers its decent but for wizards its really just kinda cool but not game breaking by any measure.
You haven't played with my group.
This level of flexibility in a single spell would crack the game open and cook it like an egg.
Or something.
I dunno. I hate it and I want it to die in a fire.
Its the idea that with these spells you can pick what you are effectively casting, on the fly.
It turns a prepared caster into someone who has an infinite spell list.
Even putting aside the discussion of damage being greater than normal (101-120%), it just seems... abusive.
Ok? But your burning a significantly higher spell slot... an Arcanist can sinply switch what spell he prepared as a full rpund action.
The Shadow spells have been.around for a while and they are often seen as decent at best for wizards... barely even game breaking...
Unless you start abusing the technicalities of it being only partial real (like using resilent sphere on an party archer aince arrows auto disbelieve so he can.shoot out of it) or other random things like that.
Its the idea that with these spells you can pick what you are effectively casting, on the fly.
It turns a prepared caster into someone who has an infinite spell list.
Even putting aside the discussion of damage being greater than normal (101-120%), it just seems... abusive.
Ok? But your burning a significantly higher spell slot... an Arcanist can sinply switch what spell he prepared as a full rpund action.
The Shadow spells have been.around for a while and they are often seen as decent at best for wizards... barely even game breaking...
Unless you start abusing the technicalities of it being only partial real (like using resilent sphere on an party archer aince arrows auto disbelieve so he can.shoot out of it) or other random things like that.
Plus anything else you can imagine. It's all one player that does stuff like this in our group. I keep my cheesiness to melee, keeps me under the radar. :D
Lol again, a weak empower xD.
As for the adaptability, its a 9th level spell slot. Compared to every other 9th level spell, an extra 20% damage on a lower level spell is modest..
Remember, this is competing with the likes of Time Stop, Wish, Gate, SM IX, and Greater Create Demi Plane... compared to that, a slighty beefed up Shades spell ia... meh.
Sure, for sorcerers its decent but for wizards its really just kinda cool but not game breaking by any measure.
You haven't played with my group.
This level of flexibility in a single spell would crack the game open and cook it like an egg.
Or something.
I dunno. I hate it and I want it to die in a fire.
You would hate Arcanists....
Oh and sorcerers with Human FCB....
Actually by ElMustacho's reasoning, i think it would go to 190% if you used shades and they were saved against, (non believed)... THAT IS A LOT.
ITS +110% over and above what the spell does. Thats 210% damage
Actually by ElMustacho's reasoning, i think it would go to 190% if you used shades and they were saved against, (non believed)... THAT IS A LOT.
ITS +110% over and above what the spell does. Thats 210% damage
...at least it's not over 9000. :D
There are people that play this game that read every occurrence of the word "concentration" as having no meaning other than referring to spell duration.
That is a stupid thing I have noticed recently.
It has come up discussing Call Lightning, and the Fly spell.
There are also concentration checks. "Concentration" is a game term so I'd say using it in rules text but outside of that context is a sign of poor word choice; it is just asking for confusion.
So that is why the wizard vs a housecat is a thing... he tried using the CRB to do it.... on that note, I really hope Paizo releases that kind of CRB addendum some day, nothing different, just quite abridged/simplified.
Something like 3.5e's rule compendium would be neat one day.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no concept of "conversion rates" between countries that mint their own currency in Pathfinder, so unless there is some deal done between the kingdoms (unlikely) value has got to be based on actual worth.That might explain why there is no skill for counterfeiting coins in PF. No one would bother because a gold coin with the local monarch's face on it and a blank disk of the same metal of the same weight would have the same value.
Historic counter-fitting wasn't done by pressing gold with a monarch's face because, as you point out, there was no gain there. Heck - in the 18th century, silver smiths melted down coins for their silverware and cups etc.
Historic counter-fitting was going light on the metal. Say the normal coin is 22 carrot gold - you make coins which are only 12 carrot gold. That's why you see people biting gold coins in old movies - if it was close to pure gold their teeth would make an indentation.
Of course, even many nations varied in how pure the official coins were. The Spanish coins were known for being both pretty pure and consistently so - and on them was a snake wrapped around a couple of pillars. That's actually what the $ symbol comes from.
Another trick I am aware of which was apparently practiced and watched for in the Viking age was to shave off the edges of coins, and after collecting the shavings melt them down into new coins. As a result, damaged coins went around carrying less of the metal than they were minted with, and thus exchanged for more value than they were actually worth.
The vikings tended to measure their currency by weight of the material and not by the number of coins (half and quarter slices of coins, etc, circulating as legitimate currency was actually common, and I have also seen bracelets and pieces of silver bracelets, in piles of silver coins in hoards), so by being underweight the shaved coins were betrayed.
(this is from memory.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cutting metal from the edge of coins was known as clipping or chiseling. That is why a cheat or swindler is known as a chiseler. It is also why coins were later minted with patterned borders or a ring around the monarch's head. Coins lost value if this ring was broken, indicating the coin had been adulterated. From Shakespeare's Hamlet: "Pray God, your voice, like a piece of uncurrent gold, be not cracked within the ring." Chiselers simply began shaving coins or gouging metal from the faces instead of the borders.
The PF rules for using linguistics for counterfeiting state that paper and ink are required. If you were going to do it with coins you would just use the Fabricate spell.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Since PF economy, such as it is, is based of the weight of the coins and not any sort of paper currency, the advantage of counterfeiting is lessened. Unless you decide there are countries that won't take foreign currency, there is little value in stamping actual gold into "fake" gp. On the other hand, making false coins out of baser, cheaper metals would totally be a thing.
it was 3:40 in the morning and I was busy contemplating things that keep me awake at night, such as the oddities in the d20 rules, because that is what a well-adjusted individual such as myself does.
I realize I mentioned it before, but I feel like I have to revisit the "tiny hit die [vs cat]" problem. Again. I can't leave it alone.
Let's start with the original 3.5 SRD, the daddy of them all, since it was the most egregious case.
A creature of Humanoid subtype has d8 hit die, or according to character class. (Interesting comparisons: Animals have d8 hit die, Vermin have d8, plants have d8, fey have d6 and no type has d4. Monstrous humanoids still have d8.)
Thus, we can safely assume d8 is the normal baseline for a human, and can rank the classes in this way:
d12 Made Of Muscle: Barbarian
d10 Hardy: Fighter, Paladin
d8 Average: Cleric, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Aristocrat, Warrior
d6 Weak: Bard, Rogue, Adept, Expert
d4 Too Frail to Live: Sorcerer, Wizard, Commoner
As mentioned before, no creature type has a d4 hit die, yet there are classes with a d4 hit die. Somehow, studying wizardry makes you more frail than the average human, and the Commoner, which I would assume to stand for your average unskilled everyman, is not only more frail than the average human, but is in fact more frail than any creature type in the world. I honestly wonder who thought a d4 hit die was a good idea.
Now, that was 3.5. Does the situation improve in Pathfinder?
A humanoid still has a d8 hit die or a character class, and an animal still has a d8 hit die. Monstrous humanoids have d10 hit dice now. undead are reduce from d12 to d8.
d12 Made Of Muscle: Barbarian
d10 Hardy: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Warrior
d8 Average: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Aristocrat, Expert
d6 Weak: Sorcerer, Wizard, Adept, Commoner
d4 Too Frail to Live:
The situation in pathfinder is indeed much improved. the d4 rank no longer exists (thank the beautiful gods), and Warrior is now hardier than the average as would be expected. Commoner is still weaker than average alongside the religion-oriented Adept and the magic oriented Sorcerer and Wizard.
But the d6 rank is still more frail than animals, vermin and plants, and that is just weird.
Interestingly the npc classes seem to match up to an average [western] societal structure of a state society or so-called "civilization":
Aristocracy
Adept - clergy
Warrior Class
Expert - skilled laborers, trade laborers, scholars, merchants
Commoner - peasantry, unskilled laborers, serfs, slaves
Another interesting point: if one were to merge together aristocrats and warriors, one has an analogue of the varnas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the commoner issue would be someone who is domesticated living a nonchalant nonphysical life style compared to someone who quite literally lives in the wild and has no social interaction at all, thus advancing racial HD rather than class HD.
It's also important to note that basically none of the playable humanoid races ever have a scenario where they actually achieve racial HD, they all belong to monsters like Gnolls and Lizardfolk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious what a humanoid racial hd level would look like, if you gained a level but flatly *refused* to take a class level.
Presumably we would find a similar mammal, maybe ape? Monkey? And advance that direction.
There is no social penalty for growing a tumor familiar. Or any other odd growths.
Regarding your last point, it's easy enough to simply declare that peoples starting attitude is worse than you might expect.
It's not listed in the tumor familiar, but you can't really argue that it's the GMs choice...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM: "Your Knowledge, Nature check has revealed that this horrific creature with a cybernetic limb, a glowing gem where one eye used to be, a tentacle, membranous moth-like wings, and a separate creature sticking out of its body is... a human."
Player: "Yuck, that makes it so much worse somehow."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(stuff about hitdice)
One thing of note here:
PC's have their first hit-die full. NPC's (that aren't plot-relevant) should have to roll that one as well.
So while a PC sorcerer has 6+CON hitpoints, the NPC warrior has (on average) 5.5+CON, the commoner 3.5+CON.
The Bolt Ace archetype for the Gunslinger actually does nothing to modify or replace the Gunsmith class feature. You can go your entire career specializing in using a crossbow, but you'll still start with a battered gun and a feat to fix it.
Was fixed in ACG errata I thought.
(stuff about hitdice)One thing of note here:
PC's have their first hit-die full. NPC's (that aren't plot-relevant) should have to roll that one as well.
So while a PC sorcerer has 6+CON hitpoints, the NPC warrior has (on average) 5.5+CON, the commoner 3.5+CON.
ah, i wasn't aware of that rule. I thought that all characters got a full first hit die.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM: "Your Knowledge, Nature check has revealed that this horrific creature with a cybernetic limb, a glowing gem where one eye used to be, a tentacle, membranous moth-like wings, and a separate creature sticking out of its body is... a human."
Player: "Yuck, that makes it so much worse somehow."
Shouldn't it be:
DM: "You see a horrific creature with a cybernetic limb, a glowing gem where one eye used to be, a tentacle, membranous moth-like wings, and a separate creature sticking out of its body."
Player: "I roll Knowledge (Dungeoneering) to identify the aberration. Eighteen."
DM: "It's not an aberrat-"
Player: "Oh. A magical beast, Knowledge (Arcana) then. Twent-"
DM: "No it's not a magical beast either, it's a -"
Player: "So it's some messed up Outsider. Seventee-"
DM: "No. Dude, just let me finish... Roll Knowledge (Local)"
Player: .....
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM: "Your Knowledge, Nature check has revealed that this horrific creature with a cybernetic limb, a glowing gem where one eye used to be, a tentacle, membranous moth-like wings, and a separate creature sticking out of its body is... a human."
Player: "Yuck, that makes it so much worse somehow."
Shouldn't it be:
DM: "You see a horrific creature with a cybernetic limb, a glowing gem where one eye used to be, a tentacle, membranous moth-like wings, and a separate creature sticking out of its body."
Player: "I roll Knowledge (Dungeoneering) to identify the aberration. Eighteen."
DM: "It's not an aberrat-"
Player: "Oh. A magical beast, Knowledge (Arcana) then. Twent-"
DM: "No it's not a magical beast either, it's a -"
Player: "So it's some messed up Outsider. Seventee-"
DM: "No. Dude, just let me finish... Roll Knowledge (Local)"
Player: .....
No, I'm pretty sure it's:
DM: "You see a horrific creature with a cybernetic limb, a glowing gem where one eye used to be, a tentacle, membranous moth-like wings, and a separate creature sticking out of its body."
Player: "It must be our new player! Welcome aboard."
I think it goes slightly differently:
DM: "You see a horrific creature with a cybernetic limb, a glowing gem where one eye used to be, a tentacle, membranous moth-like wings, and a separate creature sticking out of its body."
Player: "Does he...her...it? Whatever, does it flash it's PC card."
Option a)
DM: "What? No...you can't just...no. Just no. PC cards are not a thing"
Player: "OK, got it. QUICKLY, KILL THE EVIL MUTANT. BEFORE IT CONSUMES OUR SOULS. STRIKE HARD AND TRUE BROTHERS"
Player 2: "Dude, seriously? I spent 5 hours writing the backstory for this guy."
Option b)
DM: "...yes. Yes, it does."
Player: "It must be our new player! Welcome aboard."
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly wonder who thought a d4 hit die was a good idea.
It was a legacy thing from earlier editions. Back in 1e there were no NPC classes (well, there were in Dragon magazine but that was a whole other issue - those weren't what we would consider NPC classes today). A character who was not an adventurer indeed had a d8 hit die, but the GM was supposed to choose their hp from 1-8 depending on how tough they should be - with the average person being a 2 or a 3 hp character. The super tough local blacksmith who likes to brawl on weekends would be in the 6-8 hp range. In that context a d4 HD magic-user was basically just as tough as a normal person, while everyone else was better off.
But 1e had a lot of gameplay and narrative mismatches. At one point in the DMG level 6 was referred to as a very high level, but then published adventures filled entire towns with high level guards and shopkeepers.
Off topic history about 1e NPC classes:
Technically speaking since a creature with a earth glide moves as easily through earth as they do through water, shouldn't I be making swim checks and using my swim speed to determine how/where/if I move?
It says you can earth glide "as easily as a fish swims through water". So you should at least act as though you have a swim speed even if you don't.
Technically speaking since a creature with a earth glide moves as easily through earth as they do through water, shouldn't I be making swim checks and using my swim speed to determine how/where/if I move?It says you can earth glide "as easily as a fish swims through water". So you should at least act as though you have a swim speed even if you don't.
"as easily as" is not the same as "in the same fashion as".
It merely describes a level of exertion. Nothing more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
STupid thing I noticed.. You can quick draw a dagger. You can quickdraw a stake. You could even quick draw a ladder. But you can't quick draw a wand. Even though you could like.. stab someone like an improvised dagger with it.
STupid thing I noticed.. You can quick draw a dagger. You can quickdraw a stake. You could even quick draw a ladder. But you can't quick draw a wand. Even though you could like.. stab someone like an improvised dagger with it.
It's okay, after this grave oversight, paizo created the spring-loaded wrist sheathe.
And all was well.
Yes, I love how stupid rules are "corrected" by the use of items in the game.
STupid thing I noticed.. You can quick draw a dagger. You can quickdraw a stake. You could even quick draw a ladder. But you can't quick draw a wand. Even though you could like.. stab someone like an improvised dagger with it.It's okay, after this grave oversight, paizo created the spring-loaded wrist sheathe.
And all was well.
You can now thanks to the FAQ.
STupid thing I noticed.. You can quick draw a dagger. You can quickdraw a stake. You could even quick draw a ladder. But you can't quick draw a wand. Even though you could like.. stab someone like an improvised dagger with it.It's okay, after this grave oversight, paizo created the spring-loaded wrist sheathe.
And all was well.
Well, as long as you have two or fewer wands. When you get a third one, things get dicey.
It also doesn't help an alchemical user, who create weapons, but some reason pulling a bomb out rapidly is too much
You can quick draw a grenade (it is ammunition) and according to the Technology Guide it is a free action to arm and prime it. Unless you fire it from a grenade launcher, however, it goes off at the beginning of your next turn instead of on impact. So tricks that let you lob it faster only give opponents more time to deal with it before it detonates.
STupid thing I noticed.. You can quick draw a dagger. You can quickdraw a stake. You could even quick draw a ladder. But you can't quick draw a wand. Even though you could like.. stab someone like an improvised dagger with it.
Just craft it to look like/function as an arrow. Drawing ammunition isn't an action.
