The Quasi-perpetual Pathfinder Thread

[BobChuck]

90 day seasons synced up with 30 day months, sub-months were units of the month; still had 365ish days, but had the extra days set up as "non-month" "extra" days, that had special significance. I have never seen that anywhere else.

the ten-day instead of a week thing did mess up most of the craft/profession skills, but other than that, it was a unique approach. Frustrating at times, as any new system would be, but definitely unique.

EDIT: apparently, the item elf is back, but as an NPC? interesting...

[kenada]

90 day seasons synced up with 30 day months, sub-months were units of the month; still had 365ish days, but had the extra days set up as "non-month" "extra" days, that had special significance. I have never seen that anywhere else.

If you ignore this statement from James Jacobs, the Golarion calendar has all of those properties except for the weeks instead of tendays and no bonus festival days. The one that I am using (from the Pathfinder Wiki) has 90 day seasons that always line up with the start of the month (e.g., winter always begins on 1 Kuthona, summer solstice is always on 21 Sarenith, etc). Months are always 30 days in length (except every 8 years when Arodus has an extra day).

the ten-day instead of a week thing did mess up most of the craft/profession skills, but other than that, it was a unique approach. Frustrating at times, as any new system would be, but definitely unique.

Couldn’t you just multiply the crafting times by 7 and get the number of days? It seems like that would be easy to workaround.

EDIT: apparently, the item elf is back, but as an NPC? interesting...

I forgot to reflag him as a PC when I unflagged him as a GM character. I did that along with reassigning them back to you.

⁂

I added the environment rules to the wiki. I was pleased to see that the APG added some new clothing types. That was my last major bit of prep.

[BobChuck]

I see that Thomas's character is posted.

the Bard I posted should have Mule stats in it, if you need them.
I could not find his feat "saving shield" anywhere, so I am curious what it does.
His "cure light wounds" spell is bugged - should be 1d8+1, not +5. (I checked the rest of his spells and all of mine - none of the others look off)
His "special attacks" field is missing, so there's no info on his spells per day. (should be 4 1st level).
his spells known looks right.
his "courageous" trait gives him a +2 on saves vs fear; this should probably be noted somewhere.

I'm almost done doing what should be the final update to my character; it should be posted shortly.

EDIT: done.

[Thomas Kerwin]

Saving Shield (Combat)
You deflect attacks that could mean your ally’s death.

Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency.

Benefits: Whenever an adjacent ally is the target of attack, you can, as an immediate action, grant that adjacent ally a +2 shield bonus to AC. You must be wielding a light shield, heavy shield, or tower shield to use this feat.


It's from the APG. Basically, you can give someone next to you a shield bonus of +2 as a immediate action.  Seems pretty good to protect shieldless people.  Most of the feats I want I can't take yet because I don't have +1 BAB.

[BobChuck]

no complaints here, just wondering what it did.

Also, is it just me, or is -66F ridiculously freaking cold? maybe we should wait a day or two before leaving.

ah well, see you in an hour.

[kenada]

The messed up cure light wounds thing was because I copy and pasted the block from one of my NPCs. Oops.

[BobChuck]

Loot and Acquired Gear has been itemized and posted on Obisidian Portal. Some requisition requests for Oleg for this week's shipment are also posted.

[BobChuck]

Also, I do not believe you were running Dirty Trick correctly.

I think i works like this:

normal: attempt combat maneuver, which provokes attack of opportunity. if successful, impose one of the listed conditions for 1 round, + 1 round for every 5 points the check beat the target's defense. At this point, the effect goes away on its own, without requiring any action on the victim's part, which is why the effect has a duration listed (why else would it have a duration, unless it goes away on is own?). Alternatively, the target may remove the condition with a move action spent prior to the listed duration.

I'm pretty sure it works this way, otherwise the Dirty Trick maneuver gets very silly. Compare it to being Tripped, Grappled, or Disarmed - Dirty Trick lets a character do a wide variety of different things with a single kind of maneuver, but none of them last as long or are as difficult to overcome as the more specialized tactics.

There are two feats one can take to improve the effectiveness of the tactic:

Improved Dirty Trick feat: As above, but does not provoke an attack of opportunity; you get a +2 bonus on dirty tricks, and a +2 to resist dirty tricks. This feat requires Int 13 and Combat Expertise.

Greater Dirty Trick feat: as above, plus you get an additional +2 bonus on Dirty Trick (stacks with Improved) and an additional +2 to resist Dirty Trick (stacks with improved). Also, the Trick lasts 1d4 rounds base, rather than 1 round base, and removing it early takes a standard action, rather than a move action. This feat requires int 13, Improved Dirty Trick, Combat Expertise, and a Base Attack Bonus of +6.

[kenada]

Yeah, I should have had Trever spend a move action instead of a standard action to unblind himself.

normal: attempt combat maneuver, which provokes attack of opportunity. if successful, impose one of the listed conditions for 1 round, + 1 round for every 5 points the check beat the target's defense. At this point, the effect goes away on its own, without requiring any action on the victim's part, which is why the effect has a duration listed (why else would it have a duration, unless it goes away on is own?). Alternatively, the target may remove the condition with a move action spent prior to the listed duration.

This interpretation makes sense. The thing that got me stuck is that if someone slows you by pulling your pants down or blinds you by spinning your helmet around, those things aren’t getting fixed unless you do something about it.

[BobChuck]

yeah. I think it works by assuming you take a series of free actions, or do it all at once to get rid of the penalty earlier.

Like with the "sand in eyes" trick, either you stop to wipe the crap out, or you fight through it and blink a bunch and it eventually goes away.

[kenada]

I was thinking the same thing this morning. I’ll put a note to that effect in the combat section of the wiki later today. Until the duration expires, it costs a move or standard action to negate the effect. After it expires, it costs a free action (but you have to actually say you are doing it!).

[kenada]

I am very impressed with the new bard options in the APG. Some of them are a bit niche (e.g., sea singer), but I can see almost all of them being potentially interesting.

[kenada]

Rob, I’m thinking of dropping the requirement to be Lawful to be a monk in Pathfinder. Of the alignment restrictioned classes, it seems the most arbitrary. As you observed last week, Doan wasn’t behaving particular LG (though I’m not going to fault a new player for getting it wrong), but I’m not sure why monks really have to be lawful. Supposedly it’s due to the required discipline, but that only makes sense if we use 2e’s wacky alignment definitions, but we don’t because they’re completely stupid. Plus, all classes require some degree of discipline to master their skills. It’s not like fighters just wake up knowing how to cleave. Everyone has to spend time training.

The reason why Lawful doesn’t really work for barbarians is that it conflicts (at least thematically) with rage, and paladins are pretty much Lawful Good incarnate as a class. Druids are a probably closest to monks in being a bit dubious, but neutrality and nature fit together a lot better thematically.

[kenada]

There is another combat-related house rule that we talked about in this thread that I need to add to the Obsidian Portal site. Unfortunately, I can’t remember what it is.

I’ll upload everyone else’s characters tonight. Thomas, do you know if Brad and Renee have registered for Obsidian Portal yet?

[BobChuck]

Regarding Lawful Monks: there's a thread on the Pathfinder forums making the same argument; one side says "the Lawful restriction is arbitrary, refers to a very specific kind of character, and restricts an already niche and out-of-place class". The other says "the devotion and discipline defined as Lawful behavior is required for the classes pusedo-magical abilities to function - otherwise, they are just brawlers".

It then deteriorates into various topics, including:
complaining about the monks' puesdo-magical abilties
wanting to drop the magical abilties and replace them
wanting to keep the class as-is and introduce a more generic "brawler" style class
saying "you dont need to be lawful to have discipline"
saying "yes you do"
and so on

Personally, I agree with you; in fact, I've long thought that the Monk path was much more Chaotic than Lawful - that it should be a personal journey of self-mastery and self-discovery, rather than rote mastery of a pre-determined series of movements and meditations.

regarding other combat idea: no clue.

regarding half-elf druids: not that it's relevant anymore, but the ability makes perfect sense to me. Druids can either access a single domain or gain an animal companion; the race ability improves both of these, so is useful regardless of which the druid chooses.

regarding bards: yeah, the bard alternate paths are amazing. They let players take a very middle-of-the-road class and move it more towards pretty much any extreme, while still keeping the versatility and jack-of-all-trades "feel". Most of them seem fairly balanced, as well, when you compare what they have to give up. My all bard party idea doesn't seem so out there now, does it?