-
June 28th, 2020, 10:27 #461
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Posts
- 812
Mummy's Mask part 5 (minor issue): The gear of Isatemkhebet is just plain text, not itemized for easy dragging to the party sheet or a PC.
Last edited by Leonal; June 28th, 2020 at 20:30. Reason: grammar
-
June 28th, 2020, 17:22 #462
-
July 8th, 2020, 05:27 #463
- Join Date
- Nov 2019
- Posts
- 1
Encumbrance and armor penalty
I have a player who is currently playing a level 2 half-elf cleric. Medium encumbered AND wearing "chainmail" which slows.He is being hit by both encumbrance and armor penalties bringing him down to 10 speed from 30. By the book:
"If your character is wearing armor, use the worse figure (from armor or from load) for each category. Do not stack the penalties."
I know I can simply Ctrl+mousewheel up to change his speed but I figured this is something that should be noted.
-
July 8th, 2020, 14:23 #464
We have just started creating characters with the PF2 Core book
The Human Champion said that the Weapon proficiencies were not added automatically. The Gnomish Bard said that the Armor proficiency was not added either.
When Chainmail is added, it has the noisy quality, but did not seem to affect stealth rolls.
Is there any way to have the backpack resolve Bulk properly?
-
July 8th, 2020, 17:30 #465My extensions for 3.5e and Pathfinder
Bug reports please here
-
July 8th, 2020, 17:31 #466My extensions for 3.5e and Pathfinder
Bug reports please here
-
July 13th, 2020, 01:25 #467
More Hook Mountain Massacre Errata:
-----------------------
From the Reference Manual, if one navigates to A.03 Appendix: Bestiary, you'll find that the links for the two tables, Sandpoint Hinterland Encounters and Varisian Lowland Encounters both link to the same table, Varisian Lowland Encounters.
If, instead, one clicks on Tables (in the Library window) to bring up the Tables window, you will find that the four Encounters tables there each link to their correct table.
-----------------------
The image of Rukus Graul (labeled that way in the book) is referenced as, Image: Ogrekin, so if you're trying to show your players an image of Rukus Graul, and search on his name, you won't find it.
-----------------------
From the Library view, in Images & Maps, three generic battle maps are listed:
SmiteWorks BattleMap - Cave
SmiteWorks BattleMap - Outdoor
SmiteWorks BattleMap - Outdoor-2
The Outdoor-2 map just brings up a blank New Drawing.
Also, from the Reference Manual, on the Appendix: Bestiary page, Maps are mentioned, but only two are listed:
SmiteWorks BattleMap - Cave
SmiteWorks BattleMap - Outdoor-2
with Outdoor-2 suffering from the same problem mentioned above.
-----------------------
That's all for now.
Thank you,
- s.west
-
July 13th, 2020, 02:35 #468
Hi swest,
Thanks for the report - I'll look into them.
The part about the image of Rukus Graul, however, is intentional. The image of Rukus, while it is labeled as such in Rise of the Runelords, is actually the stock image for all Ogrekin (which was introduced in Bestiary 2). So, since there are other ogrekin in the module, I left it generic so a GM can show the image to the players to show what ogrekin look like, not just Rukus.
For future reference, if a picture is associated with a monster/npc that has a stat block that creature's picture can be found by opening up the NPC record and clicking on the "other" tab. Within that, if there is an image associated with the monster/NPC, it will have a link. This works even for creatures whose NPCs are added to the combat tracker.
EDIT:
The issue with the Outdoor-2 map bringing up a new drawing doesn't seem to be happening for me. Have you tried updating? Perhaps create a test campaign file and try to see if there is an issue with your campaign file or not.
As for the fact that there are only 2 maps listed in the reference manual for use in random encounters, that is by design. It is not intended to use specific maps, such as the Graul Farmstead, for random encounters. There are two version of the same map (Outdoor and Outdoor-2). Only one of them is listed because there is no difference in the maps. The only reason 2 were created was due to organization and architectural reasons back when this was developed.
I can verify the issue with the bad table link and will fix that immediately, though it won't be in the live system until July 21st.Last edited by sciencephile; July 13th, 2020 at 02:54.
Developer for lots of adventures, particularly 5E, Pathfinder, Starfinder, and Pathfinder 2E
Timezone: US Eastern Time
Ultimate License Holder
-
July 13th, 2020, 04:31 #469
The problem with the Sandpoint Hinterlands Encounters table link has been fixed. You should see the corrected version in the TEST environment tomorrow and on the LIVE system on July 21st when the system changes get deployed.
Developer for lots of adventures, particularly 5E, Pathfinder, Starfinder, and Pathfinder 2E
Timezone: US Eastern Time
Ultimate License Holder
-
July 13th, 2020, 09:44 #470
- Join Date
- Jun 2017
- Posts
- 28
So I discovered a very small problem tonight. It was discovered while troubleshooting another effect that wasn't working correctly. It is a very edge case and it appears that critical hit confirmation rolls are not applying ATK bonus effects in all cases.
Here is what I found.
If I make an attack roll without any effects, critical hit confirmation rolls never error. The proper bonus is applied to the initial roll to hit and the confirmation roll.
If I make an attack roll with a flat ATK bonus effect, say (Test; ATK: 2), the bonus always applies to the initial roll to hit and and the roll to confirm.
However when using "IFT: ALIGN (alignment)" with an ATK roll bonus or penalty, it applies it to all normal attacks and it applies to the initial roll to hit on a critical threat. However on the roll to confirm critical hits it doesn't apply the bonus on the roll. I will point out, I do include a proper alignment in the condition statement.
I've tried it with multiple different alignments for the ALIGN conditional operator and it always happens. I've not tried it with other types of conditional operators to the IFT condition, but based on it not working correctly for ALIGN, I would assume it doesn't work for any of them. I'm attaching a screen shot of a Sahuagin which has attacked one of the PCs in my campaign. The PC's alignment is set properly, his is LN, and the IFT statement is looking for lawful alignment. As you can see the initial roll that threatens does apply the bonus but the confirmation roll doesn't. Also ignore the fact that I have invalid stats for the trident. I'm only using these values to illustrate a point and make it easier to get a critical hit event to trigger.
Crit Confirm Problem..PNG
If you want I can post a screenshot of it working when I use just a flat bonus to ATK as an effect, but I don't feel that it would contribute much.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Bookmarks