Winter-Touched Sprite

graystone's page

Organized Play Member. 17,185 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 17,185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Captain Morgan wrote:
2. Some GMs really dislike sharing too much information because they like players being surprised or they find it too meta for some reason.

I think there are also some that dislike being forced to come up with 2 pieces of information for every fail check thanks to Dubious Knowledge... I've played with people that had a hard time coming up with 'wrong' answers.


Finoan wrote:
four actions and 4 checks at DC 15 vs six actions. Don't forget the action cost.

I didn't forget though as it's 4 rounds to get those 4 activities as Act Together* only allows 1 multi action activity so both summoner and Eidolon can't do an Assisted Recovery in one round. So it's 4 2-action activities over 4 rounds vs 2 3-action activities over 2 rounds.

*Act Together
Secrets of Magic pg. 53
"Either you or your eidolon takes an action or activity using the same number of actions as Act Together, and the other takes a single action."

Finoan wrote:
Also, in games that I have played in the action cost of Assisted Recovery includes various incedental things like taking off a cloak or grabbing a waterskin. But that is a GM specific and table specific type of thing.

For me, I usually only see it not using extra is if the item is in hand: so the character would need a waterskin or blanket/cloak in hand to perform it. I've also seen some that treat it like tools, meaning if it's worn, like a waterskin on your belt or wearing your cloak, doesn't take an extra action. It's another area where the rules could use some tightening.

YuriP wrote:
In any case, there is nowhere where Eidolon is in stasis.

How can you say that when we are given NO information about what happens when they are unmanifested? Literally anything could be happening to them since we aren't told about it.


YuriP wrote:
That's why there's no lore reason to stop the effects when the Eidolon is unmanifested.

There is no lore reason for what happens when they are unmanifested period. For instance, if it's mobile and effects happen, does that mean something might attack and injure or kill it while on that other plane? I mean, there is no lore reason your Eidolon can't kick the bucket while it's living its life on its home plane either... It's opening a whole can of worms if the Eidolon isn't in some kind of stasis. I mean if we're only going by "lore", your summoner could reasonably wake up dead from its Eidolon getting killed. ;)


Finoan wrote:
YuriP wrote:

Yet this is an edge case once the usually when a char falls the first thing that the players usually try to do is heal it and then they may try to remove the persistent damage. So is way more likely that the players will try to heal the summoner and then when summoner manifests the Eidolon again. If eidolon still suffering from persistent damage they may try help it.

Honestly is pretty rare to my players to try to heal a persistent damage. They usually just try to heal the HP and keep fighting while wait the persistent damage to pass.

Dying to persistent damage is not any more of an edge case than living with it.

Normally people would rather just take the damage and attempt their flat check rather than spending six actions mid-battle removing persistent damage. Two Assisted Recovery attempts means that you are spending four actions and get a total of 4 flat checks at DC 10 to remove the condition (two immediately after each Assisted Recovery, and two automatically at the end of the Summoner's turn as normal). Six actions and zero checks sounds like a downgrade to me.

DC 10 is only with "a particularly appropriate type of help" and isn't guaranteed: this means you should look at it from a DC 15: so 4 checks vs a DC 15 vs auto check is what you should be looking at. That or you might have to spend extra actions to get items for that "a particularly appropriate type of help" like pulling a waterskin out of a backpack [2 actions] or taking off a cloak to smother flames [1 action].


1 person marked this as a favorite.
siegfriedliner wrote:
It seems odd when an eidolon doesn't have a body any more (unmanifested) it could still be taking poison, especially given their is nothing you can do about out.

What makes you think it doesn't have a body?

Secrets of Magic pg. 58
"Home Plane: This is the eidolon's home plane, where it goes when unmanifested. This can help you determine the effects of abilities dependent on a creature's home plane, such as banishment."

This means that beast and plant eidolon go back to the Material Plane, which leads to some... interesting questions.


Finoan wrote:
graystone wrote:
only 5.25 [.25 for Play an instrument] are impossible for an Eidolon to use...
Which is still enough for the ruling to be considered to have problematic repercussions.

As the parameters for what is "problematic" is, or how to define it's amount, are completely undefined, any number from 0 to all of them could be "considered to have problematic repercussions". As such, it's completely pointless to debate if something is or isn't "problematic" as you can't make a general ruling on an amorphous and undefined requirement. It's more productive to debate on what we have to work with since none of us can say what will be problematic to someone else.

What I was posting though on "not overly problematic" and it doesn't 'severely limit' skill and skill feat use. It was a qualified response* with a qualifier: IMO, .061% is a small percentage of issue and thus is "not overly problematic" IMO: but as I said, any amount of problematic could trigger the 'Ambiguous Rules' to make a house rule.

So basically, there really isn't a point of dithering over the Ambiguous Rules as it itself is ambiguous... :P

*'a qualified response' is a phrase used in written English: This phrase is typically used to refer to an answer to a question or statement that is not conclusively accepted or rejected.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thod wrote:

Eidolon bleed status: I have never seen it being tracked after unmanifestation. Again that implies it no longer shares the HP pool after unmanifestation.

Eidolon poisoned status: I have never seen it being tracked after unmanifestation. Again that implies it no longer shares the HP pool after unmanifestation.

We actually seem to contradict ourselves how it actually is handled in different cases. No - off course the rules don't say either way.

I think it's more handwaving it off than ruling something. How many times have you seen beneficial buffs stay on the Eidolon when unmanifested? For myself, that's pretty much handwaved away too: if you rule that conditions continue, then buffs continue too but if you rule that they pause then so to would buffs... Does the DM really want to rule that you and your friends can toss a bunch of spells on your Eidolon, unmanifest it, rest and then go do something with a fully buffed Eidolon and the summoner/friends have all their spells?


Finoan wrote:
graystone wrote:
as I pointed out, it's not overly problematic the vast majority of skills and skill feats are usable without tools.

Quantity is not the same as quality.

Many of those skill usages and skill feats that require tools are the ones that people like to have available.

Such as:

* treat wounds: healer's tools
* repairing equipment (especially shields): repair kit
* crafting: various artisan's, alchemical, and magical crafting toolkits
* force open: prybar

Even some of the lesser used skills require toolkits. Such as Performance: musical instrument, and Disguise: disguise kit.

So no. Just taking a raw count and finding that more than XX% of skill usages or skill feats don't require a toolkit doesn't mean that the ruling that Eidolons can't use toolkits doesn't have problematic repercussions.

As pointed out, there is a skill feat to allow repair without tools and a cantrip to use Medicine checks to Administer First Aid or Treat Wounds without a healers tools. Additionally, force open does NOT require a pry bar...

That means you are looking at actual crafting, treat disease/poison, pick locks/disable device and disguise as issues. Performance can be used 100% [Act or perform comedy, Dance and Orate or sing work fine so it's ONLY Play an instrument it can't use]. AGAIN, it doesn't seem like a big issue that a small/limited number of skill actions can't be used and is sure isn't 'severely limiting' as was suggested. Out of the 68 skill actions [including individual Recall Knowledge/Earn Income/ect] you could take, only 5.25 [.25 for Play an instrument] are impossible for an Eidolon to use... so .061% of possible actions doesn't seem like a big deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
I don't think that is all clear. I can argure the reverse. The Summoners HPs were reduced to zero by a death effect (which damaged it's Eidolon). You only have one pool of hit points. It is not like there is a disconnect or level of indirection here. I'd just as easily have the death effect apply to the Summoner.

I don't see the logic that transfers the death effect to the summoner as it's not a listed condition that transfers.

Gortle wrote:
Yep but still clearly a reasonable candidate for TBTBT.

It'd be nice if TBTBT was in the actual rules. What there is is "If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed." which is vaguer as it's not known which is intended and, as I pointed out, it's not overly problematic the vast majority of skills and skill feats are usable without tools.

YuriP wrote:

To put the summoner into a permanent coma because the eidolon is dead and cannot recover the shared HP?

Well if we do this also will prevent the eidolon ressurection with nothing less than a Rank 9 Resurrect ritual because when the Eidolon HP zeroes it's body vanishes!

Honestly is better to kill the summoner and allow it to be resurrected!

Yeah, I agree but IMO that's how it works. The only way around it would be to say that the dead eidolon doesn't unmanifest as it's an object now and not creature and doesn't vanish but that's a stretch. Better to just houserule something IMO.


Powers128 wrote:
Medicine focused eidolons can probably get away with using healing plaster if they have spells, unless a handful of dirt counts as an item lol

That'll work for beast, elemental, plant and fey [primal tradition]. Good catch! ;)


Ravingdork wrote:
If an eidolon is unable to use mundane tools, then that severely limits its ability to make full use of feats like Dual Studies and Skilled Partner. Several skills (like Medicine and Thievery, for example) don't do a whole lot for you without the appropriate tools.

"severely limits" is quite the overstatement: every skill has uses that do not require tools. This means that basically Medicine [1 1st level skill feat is usable] and Thievery lack variety [3 1st level skill feat is usable] aren't usable for Skilled Partner... Hardly seems like the end of the world and it's doesn't 'severely limit' options.

Note that Dual Studies isn't impacted at all as every skill has non-tool options: even medicine is used for Recall Knowledge and has the skill feat Forensic Acumen for Skilled Partner. The only way you really see limits is if you specifically go out of your way to pick tool skills and then pick skill feats from those skills: even then, there are enough options you can pick feats. Take craft: Recall Knowledge is usable without tools and a 1st level skill feat, Improvise Tool, allows repair checks without tools and you have feats to speed up repair, ID magic items, aid others in crafting...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finoan wrote:
Corrolary: After your Eidolon dies, Ask your GM how to continue playing the game with that Summoner character.
YuriP wrote:
Now. The Eidolon shares the HP with the summoner. The Eidolon died and its hit points are automatically reduced to 0. What's happens to the summoner when the Eidolon dies!? The summoner dies too!!!

No, the player goes to Dying 1 because it's hp are 0. As they share hp, and the dead can't raise their hp above 0, you can at best make them unconscious with 0 Hit Points: this means that you can prevent death but they can't ever do anything until the Eidolon is brought back to life.

So, no it doesn't kill the summoner but it's mighty close.


#1 ask your DM. The Eidolon trait states "An item with this trait can be used or worn by an eidolon only, and an eidolon can't use items that don't have this trait. (An eidolon can have up to two items invested)" so the DM has to determine if that means all items or just magic ones.

#2 ask your DM. This is an area not covered so how it's adjudicated is up to the DM.

#3 it dies: an Eidolon only unmanifests when it's forced beyond 100' or you are reduced to 0 Hit Points. Since the effect is what reduces hp to 0 it must happen BEFORE it can unmanifest: it can't unmanifest before it's dead or it wouldn't reduce hp to 0.


HammerJack wrote:
Saying that getting through such walls requires downtime is a statement that hardness and HP is not the only difference.

If that was true, they wouldn't then give stats for hardness and hp for said structures but they do: you can't say "Strong walls, such as well-maintained masonry or hewn stone, can’t be broken without dedicated work and proper tools" and have it make even a little sense when the chart then gives you stats like every other structure [Hewn stone hardness 14, hp 56 BT (28)]. If you allow a stone door to be destroyed, there is no reason to deny a hewn stone wall as they have the exact same stats. Once you give it stats, how can you say they are meaningless and unusable and you need some other method?


SuperParkourio wrote:
What does Hardness have to do with downtime? Is there actually a defined downtime activity for tunneling through solid rock?

YOU said "Only downtime will work against these." The ONLY thing mentioned about downtime in that section is "Strong walls, such as well-maintained masonry or hewn stone, can’t be broken without dedicated work and proper tools. Getting through such walls requires downtime": the only difference between these and other structures is their hardness and hp. Once you can bypass enough hardness to do damage with every single action, we quickly move out of the downtime needing "dedicated work and proper tools". A 8th level barbarian with a pick and an 18 str is doing a d6 per attack on hewn stone and a d6+7 with an adamantine tool per attack. This means in a minute rage, they can deal up to 30d6+70 damage to the walls hp vs the walls 56 hp. this shows that even if you bump it up x10 the hp, it's an activity measured in minutes not days.

Guntermench wrote:
A monk can teleport at level 7.

I thought you were talking about Teleport, not any ability with the teleport trait: "You teleport up to a distance equal to your Speed within your line of sight." isn't super helpful getting through a wall/door that's blocking line of sight.


SuperParkourio wrote:
No, I'm talking about structures so reinforced that the values on the table won't suffice. Halving the Hardness of a reinforced stone wall won't do much good if the Hardness is only lowered to 100 or more. Only downtime will work against these.

I 100% understood that when I made my comments. Even if you're doubling or triple the hardness of hewn stone walls [28 or 42], it's still not immune [14 or 21 with adamantine]. If you move it to plot armor levels [100's of hardness], then there isn't a downtime activity that would work on it so it wouldn't apply to the rule section referenced. There just isn't a realistic argument for denying attacking [and damaging it] it if you can attack other objects: you should note that is gives an example of a reinforced wall, hewn stone, and it's hardness is only 14 and iron is 18, far from "100 or more". Also, hardness doesn't change for thickness: an iron door, wall or portcullis all have an 18. At best, you can inflate the hp to extent the time it takes but that's not moving it to downtime unless you make it a comically absurd and unrealistically high amount.

Guntermench wrote:
By the time that that's realistically a problem you have people flying and teleporting and jumping 30ft in the air, or jumping 50ft+ horizontally.

People are teleporting at 8th?

Guntermench wrote:
It's not unreasonable for people at such a point to be able to break down a door or cut a table in half if they so choose.

Who's talking about that? I replied to a comment on structures not tables.

Guntermench wrote:
Besides the rules say to just plot armour them after a point. That isn't a problem, hacking your way into a castle through the 10ft stone wall is the dumbest way you could potentially do that. Cutting down the door, however, is entirely reasonable.

Not the dumbest at all: doors can have traps, guards ect. Tunnels through walls can bypass huge sections of an adventure and the obstacles there.


SuperParkourio wrote:
Why would letting Strike target unattended objects turn the world into wet cardboard? The Material Statistics section still says that sturdy structures are of higher Hardness and Hit Points than the table suggests, and it points to the Urban section saying that structures that are sturdier still require downtime to break down. If you down want your players to destroy the dungeon, just say the Hardness is too high.

Mainly because you quickly find that the 'higher hardness structures' are meaningless in the face of higher damage from strikes and adamantine items [like a pickaxe] that cuts such hardnesses in half. Unless you say every item/structure is make out of adamantine, players are going to be able to damage them unless you plot armor them and that's pretty feels bad. Give a Giant Instinct barbarian an adamantine oversized pick and let them rage/strike something and even if every single thing is made of iron, their rage bonus alone gets through it's hardness [9 since it's halved]. Now make it an adamantine Earthbreaker instead and you add even more damage. Then we make it a goblin with Vandal and the harness drops more...

So, no one is REALLY going to believe 'it's too hard to break through', especially when it happens repeatedly. And you can buy an adamantine miner's pick at 8th level...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
They don't say you can't Strike objects, they just don't mention it.

By that logic, you can say 'they don't say you can't Strike 3 creatures with a single strike, they just don't mention it' or 'they don't say you can't Strike creatures outside your reach or range, they just don't mention it.' As such, #2 clearly runs into issues with its logic and isn't a viable read IMO.

Ascalaphus wrote:
Especially since there are quite a few abilities that actually relate to Striking objects, such as the Razing weapon trait, wall spells with AC and HP, and traps often having an AC.

But most of those do NOT require a strike on normal objects: there are spell attack spells that target an items AC and spells that deal damage to items. There are actually only 2 or 3 things that actually rely on a Strike and even those do not require a Strike on a normal item: for instance, Razing works on shields, animated objects, structures and vehicles and there are rules for attacks/damage on those. Or a goblins Vandal that works against traps and unattended objects [like hazards and vehicles]: it works without the ability to target any normal object with a Strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
graystone wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
What constitutes an object in PF2?
Pretty much everything physical that doesn't constitute a creature.
K. Though I did read it works against animated objects. I'm thinking any creature with a hardness.

I'm thinking the opposite myself as it specifically calls out animated objects when it COULD call out constructs as a whole if that was the actual intent since the entire category "may have Hardness".

That said, it wouldn't bother me if it would cover everything with hardness. It might easier to houserule Razing doing 'Targets with Hardness takes an amount of additional damage equal to double the number of weapon damage dice.'


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
What constitutes an object in PF2?

Pretty much everything physical that doesn't constitute a creature.


Squiggit wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I gotta say, I don't love that rule and ignore it for my own games.
If Recall Knowledge had a slogan...

I'd buy that on a t-shirt... :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RaptorJesues wrote:
Boy, do I hate getting this free thing I do not want. Class ruined. F tier. Gimme back my money pls

It's the way I feel about the Thaumaturge and the Dubious Knowledge skill feat. I have to take the feat, can't turn it off and it activates automatically... I'd play the class more often if I didn't have to beg DM's to let me NOT take the free thing that ruins the class for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aristophanes wrote:
Finoan wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong,

You are probably right about what they are intending to ask.

And no, attaching a spellheart to a Thrower's Bandolier, or Gunner's Bandolier would not replicate the spellheart to any of the weapons inside the bandolier.

But to continue taking questions way too literally...

Perpdepog wrote:
but I think they're asking if they could attach spellhearts to each of the weapons in their bandolier.
Certainly. You just have to buy enough spellhearts so that each weapon can have one.
Could I use the cantrip of the Spellheart from the weapon that is in the Bandolier while it's in the Bandolier?

Your best bet would be to attach the spellheart[s] to gauntlet[s] or other free hand weapons instead of trying to find some kind of workaround with the Bandolier. That way you could use the Bandolier to throw weapons while having spellheart[s] active for weapon[s]. If you're looking for man number of spellhearts active at once, go with 2 Hand Crossbows with Bayonets/Reinforced Frames so you can have 4 weapons wielded at once.


yellowpete wrote:
Funnily enough, Kineticists can activate even the leveled spells of a spellheart with their scaling DC while full casters cannot. It does seem a bit silly to have wands/scrolls/staves scale their DCs, but not spellhearts, even considering they save a hand in terms of usage. They already become worse over time since the damage is static, no need to double dip with the DC as well.

If they take the Kinetic Activation feat and the spells share their elements: even some major elements, like water, can't all of its spellheart and others don't match at all.


Atalius wrote:
Now would you be able to carry a staff in the Buckler hand or would that be considered a "weapon"?

Yes, staff is a weapon: "Staves are also staff weapons."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kaspyr2077 wrote:
I'm not asking which existing feat has better mechanics.

Of course it's a matter of mechanics. If not, then what basis are you using to determine what feats are good or not?

Kaspyr2077 wrote:
Why does the game need to gate these things behind feats, rather than being a skill anyone can try to do?

Feats generally allow you to do something you normally can't or allows you to do something easier than you normally could: IMO Lip Reading does so and Eye for Numbers doesn't

Kaspyr2077 wrote:
Is there that much specialist knowledge involved in either?

100% accurate lip reading? I'd say that's a talent that's not normal while getting a +/- 50% estimate of items isn't.

Kaspyr2077 wrote:
Is either thing going to come up so often that a player will spend scarce resources on it and feel good about all the mileage their PC is going to get out of that investment?

Depends on the campaign: Should we not include Quick Swim because the DM might run a game in a desert? You have a game that revolves around a lot of intrigue, scouting and spycraft and you might find Lip Reading more used than Battle Medicine.

Kaspyr2077 wrote:
If 'guaranteed success' is what tips you over on the issue of Read Lips, would it not be better if the player could take Assurance (Society) and get a guaranteed success on all sorts of Society rolls, not just this one roll that they might or might not have to ever make once in a campaign?

What makes you think reading lips would use Society? I think the majority of people would have you make a Perception check and you're NOT getting Assurance on that. Even if you find a Dm that uses Society, you're left with a Dm fiat DC which means Assurance might not be enough to make the rolls: for instance, you'd be out of luck on a very hard level based DC.

Bottom line, IMO Read Lips is a good feat in its niche: if the feat has an issue, IMO, it's that its niche isn't that big and a lot of games don't fit it. Eye for Numbers has 2 parts, one that's completely useless [guestimate number of items] and one that is a niche ability in a niche ability [a bonus to deciphering writing [codes] but only numerical codes...].


Kaspyr2077 wrote:
Are any of the differences relevant to the rest of the conversation? Is Lip Reading more or less worthy of a skill feat than Eye for Numbers? What about it makes it so? Why does it satisfy you more to have one or both of these things as a skill feat, instead of an ungated skill action that anyone can do?

I'd argue that Lip Reading is more worthy of being a feat. Outside of encounters it grants an automatic success: This means while others might have to roll a perception check vs a Dm fiat DC, you could tell what people are saying across a noisy bar or what the guards are saying while you watch through a spyglass from a building hundreds of feet away. Still niche use, but one with an automatic success and that, IMO, is what bumps it up to feat worthy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Plane wrote:
I agree. The Thaumaturge should have Eye for Numbers automatically.

I'd rather have it than Dubious Knowledge... :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
TBT I was not trying to convince anyone that it's a must have feat. I was refuting the idea that it was a feat tax.

Not a tax per se, but its existence might stop a DM from giving out info they would normally give as it makes it seem that you need a feat to make a quick guesstimate at numbers of items. For a feat, it should grant you something you normally can't do and this feat is pretty light on that: a +2 to break a mathematical hidden code is about it and it'd still be niche feat for a game with hidden codes in it.


The Raven Black wrote:
With Eye for numbers you can get a pretty precise assessment of an amount of things by looking at the heap for 2 seconds.

It really doesn't though: 200 could be anything from 150 to 250...

The Raven Black wrote:
Try doing this IRL. I know I can't.

If it was actually a precise assessment I'd agree but I can guess at a dozen things as well as it can tell me there are 10: both might be off by 5 or so. Getting an answer that could be 50% off seems pretty inaccurate.

Bluemagetim wrote:
You could be playing a criminal character making a deal with other shady types and you quickly count the payment without taking your eyes away from the otherside for too long. You see theres about the right amount so you hand over the goods. Or you see that its not enough and you use a deception check to start combat.

As I pointed out above, even this isn't super useful unless you're fine with a substantial loss: people can slip you 15,000 and you could count it as payment in full for a 20,000 one. "About right" can be substantially off as you "rounded to the first digit in the total number".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
No Perception roll necessary to count things -- which I would include counting generic people so you know things like troop deployments and such.

It isn't overly useful for this: it only counts people but can't tell you anything about them: Can't tell if they are archers, cavalry, casters or cooks and scribes... As such, it's useless in telling if it's a trade caravan or an attack group as ALL it does is count numbers: full stop.

pH unbalanced wrote:
No Perception roll necessary to count things

I don't see DM's asking for rolls for generic estimates unless it's for something that needs done quicky. Who asks for a perception check to glance at the table with obvious potions on it and ask for a perception check to get a ROUGH estimate on the amount?

pH unbalanced wrote:
Most GMs would force Perception rolls to get the amount of detail you often want.

"You immediately learn the number of visually similar items in a group you can see (such as coins, books, or people), rounded to the first digit in the total number. For example, you could look at a case of potion vials and learn that it held about 30 vials, but you wouldn't know that it was exactly 33 vials, how many different types of potions there were, or how many of which type. Similarly, you could look at a pile of 2,805 coins and know that there were about 3,000 coins in all."

I've got to be honest... That's pretty much what DM's I've played with normally give. 'You see about 2 dozen men' or 'it looks like 2 or 3 thousand gold' are things I'd expect to hear without the feat. The difference would be that the feat doesn't seem to take an action but for things like watching for troop movements, it's a non-factor anyway so it's only useful when you're on a time limit like 'we have to grab the best loot quickly before the guards come' type scenarios which I find to be pretty uncommon. Seems super niche ribbon effect IMO: the +2 Decipher Writing, while niche, seems more useful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris_Fougere wrote:
I'm just curious how strict this is. One of my players is a cleric of Abadar and the favored weapon is crossbow. Would they be able to use a heavy crossbow, a hand crossbow or a gauntlet bow as well or is it strictly crossbow only.

Favored weapons are specific weapons: in this case, it means the weapon 'crossbow' not the entire weapon category 'crossbow'.


Gortle wrote:
Some may even not let you use it twice.

That would go against the clear and unambiguous writing of the feat though: "You can attempt to overcharge the knife, and this can break or destroy the knife as normal." I'm not sure an argument that a DM can houserule something to be less powerful is a meaningful counterargument to something being powerful.

Gortle wrote:
I can't see many GMs actually letting you use it like that.

I can't say one way or another as I haven't played with an updated witch yet that has access to 6th level feats yet. I can see this feat working in various ways: maybe it's redone daily; maybe it's redone if you wish to change the spell in the knife or when it's broken; maybe it's something different. The only thing for sure is that it's nowhere as limiting/clear as the potion feat on its intent: As written you either get a bag of knife/wands or the DM has to step in and make up some houserules for it.


Dubious Scholar wrote:
It's really not.

The overpowered part is, unlike Cauldron, Ceremonial Knife never calls out that they "temporary" or become "inert" the "next time you make your daily preparations". So it's not really "functionally two additional spell slots per day" but functionally two additional spell slots per day of downtime plus your daily two additional spell slots per day.


Atalius wrote:
Assuming I am an Occult Witch and level 15, does this mean I could put any level 5 spell that I know in the Knife?

Any 5th rank spell your familiar knows: that means if you take a Multiclass caster, say Cleric, and the Expert Spellcasting Feat you wouldn't be able to put a 5th rank divine spell in it because the familiar doesn't know it.

Atalius wrote:
Furthermore it says I can overcharge it, so wouldn't I always want to destroy the knife since the cost of a new dagger is a couple GP?

It depends on the availability of new daggers and what spell you put in the dagger. For instance, you are unlikely to need 2 5th rank Mystic Armor cast in a day. Or if you are galivanting around the plane of air, you might be limited to however many daggers you brought with you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
graystone wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:

Don't do that. It's not worth it, the cover reduction is never more than -2 to AC and MAP is more.

I think it'd be more to avoid a DC 5 flat check from concealed. If you have both concealment/cover and you have an agile weapon [say a Wrist Launcher] handy you trade -2 to negate a 25% chance to miss off the top.
Cat's eye elixir is a staple on any of my PCs who needs to target opponents.

Cat's eye elixir is a hard sell for me as magus is already action starved: this is 2 actions [draw then drink]. Maybe if you can pre-buff.

The 30 range can also be a detriment if you would otherwise be engaging at longer range: having to move from 100' to 30', for instance, is a substantial drop in range. Shooting Star also gives it's benefit to anyone targeting the creature, so your conflux spell recharges your spellstrike, gives a free attack and is a buff for your party for a single action.

PS: Expansive Spellstrike can also make a second MAP spellstrike more viable: a shot missed by a flat 5 check has no affect but even a missed spellstrike will have the spell go off and the spell isn't affected by MAP. You could slap on a cantrip like caustic blast or timber and even if you miss the Strike and they make the save, you'll be doing some damage without spending a slot [and at a much higher max range].


Calliope5431 wrote:
I admit I don't usually see concealment and cover at the same time, especially not standard cover. Lesser is much more common.

The instance I recall was some tower shield wielding guards backed by archers behind arrow slits that had some kind of blur effect on them: they were an effecting roadblock while our target ran away.


Calliope5431 wrote:

Don't do that. It's not worth it, the cover reduction is never more than -2 to AC and MAP is more.

I think it'd be more to avoid a DC 5 flat check from concealed. If you have both concealment/cover and you have an agile weapon [say a Wrist Launcher] handy you trade -2 to negate a 25% chance to miss off the top.


Calliope5431 wrote:
Worth noting that the conflux spell actually doesn't work on spellstrikes (it's just a vanilla attack)

That isn't true: "This gives the benefits of concealment negation and cover reduction to any attacks made against the creature (by anyone) until the start of your next turn." As such, you could cast Shooting Star [and also recharging spellstrike], then spellstrike and get the concealment negation/reduction. Granted, you have to then deal with MAP so it depends how much you want to avoid concealment.


Baarogue wrote:
The "common" part of the sentence refers to its game-mechanic rarity: common, uncommon, or rare.

This is a fairly meaningless distinction because of Rarity: Different Contexts [Gamemastery Guide pg. 35] "Just because something is common or uncommon in one context doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the same in others" and Rarity: Starting Elements [Gamemastery Guide pg. 35] "For instance, a game set in the lizardfolk empire of Droon might have lizardfolk (normally uncommon) as a common ancestry while the typical common ancestries are less common."

So when it says "a common Medium humanoid ancestry prevalent where you grew up (typically human)", it's clearly NOT limited to the default book listing but based on what's Common for the setting and context of it: it's a matter of perspective and not a hard restriction/requirement. An Anadi growing up near Kihime in Tian Xia or Angen in the Inner Sea region very well could have the option pick Kitsune since the book rarities are by definition mutable and shifting.


Ravingdork wrote:
I don't know anyone who ever played it that way

I agree with Errenor: I can't recall anyone playing it that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
I wonder how many civilians are routinely murdered in your campaigns because some of these example NPCs live "In a world with magic users and shapeshifters around", graystone. :P

You mean all those civilians that are PRETENDING to be helpless? None that I know of.

Ravingdork wrote:
Sure people will be more wary of such things, and given enough context clues, may deduce that an unarmored person with a pet is a spellcaster, but I imagine non-adventuring NPCs are far, far more common than those types of threats are in the vast majority of Pathfinder campaigns.

Non-adventuring NPCs are far, far more common in combat situations? In dungeons? Breaking into a bandit camp? My imagination comes up with different numbers that you I guess. We aren't talking about walking through the market in exploration mode...

Ravingdork wrote:
In short, seeing an armorless person with a pet is not enough to confirm anything on its own. You need all the other context clues (dangerous setting, heroic companions, not outright fleeing during combat, etc.) in place for it not to come off as hostile GM fiat.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying. No matter how helpless you try to make yourself, it's a hard sell when you're 5 floors into a dungeon.


Mathmuse wrote:
A key element to a long-term impersonation is avoiding arousing the suspicion that would induce an NPC to make that Seek action. We can assume that a guard at the city gates would routinely make that Seek action, but a local city gang planning to shake down the party would be too busy with their Stealth or Deception to find time for Seek.

IMO, we're not talking about long term impersonations: we're talking about in the moment, combat length of times. For me, that's "If you attempt to directly interact with someone while disguised, the GM rolls a secret Deception check for you against that creature’s Perception DC instead."

Mathmuse wrote:
In addition, the Impersonate activity mentions a circumstance bonus against the Deception DC based on how well the NPC knows the Impersonated person.

Sure, for out of combat. In combat, it's not that anymore but an attempt to look harmless. In a world with magic users and shapeshifters around, not having visible and flashy items doesn't equal harmless.

So I would disagree on a circumstance penalty in combat. Out of combat... Yeah, a circumstance penalty/bonus could be had.


Ravingdork wrote:
For one thing, not everyone will have training or a high modifier, meaning the whole ruse is only as viable as the weakest link. A ring of lies does little good for my witch when the 8 Charisma character without training botches their roll.

Illusory Disguise gives "a +4 status bonus to Deception checks to prevent others from seeing through your disguise" and that ring of lies gives "a +2 item bonus to Deception checks". Seems like with that it overcomes some bad Charisma. Ventriloquist's Ring grants "a +1 item bonus to Deception checks" for a 3rd level item or +2 for the greater at 9th level. Clandestine Cloak gives "a +1 item bonus to Stealth checks and to Deception checks to Impersonate a forgettable background character, such as a servant" at 6th and the 10th level one bumps it to +2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
I just wanted to add that the witch might very well be the servant to the heroes. She may actually cook their meals, do their laundry, and care for their steeds.

And what does any of that matter in a battle? She isn't cooking, doing laundry or caring for the steeds in the middle of a swordfight.

Ravingdork wrote:
The only acting or deceiving going on is for her to seem far less threatening than she actually is; to obfuscate the fact that she is one of the great heroes too.

Sure... Roll deception or Perform [act] to do so. Just look at the Innocuous feat: it's about seeming to be an "unobtrusive assistants of larger folk": know what it gives you... trained proficiency rank in Deception...

In fact you are 100% planning to engage in combat and pretending you aren't. Hence, you are trying to deceive those around you that you are something you aren't.

Impersonate
Source Core Rulebook pg. 245
"You create a disguise to pass yourself off as someone or something you are not.": You aren't a harmless servant...

"Success You trick the creature into thinking you’re the person you’re disguised as. You might have to attempt a new check if your behavior changes.
Failure The creature can tell you’re not who you claim to be.
Critical Failure The creature can tell you’re not who you claim to be, and it recognizes you if it would know you without a disguise."

And again, I could see Perform [act] working similarly too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I'm gonna have a lot of fun letting opponents focus fire on my illusory "familiar".

Was this debate ever about focus fire on a familiar? It's about them being a viable target. There are plenty of npc/monster abilities that target areas/multiple targets and there is no reason to think that they would overlook a familiar as one of those targets or that if a familiar is the only target in range that it wouldn't make an attack on them.

Basically, an "illusory "familiar"" or an illusory "monster" would both be valid targets. Now, wouldn't it be a primary target? Most likely not unless it's in the mood for a bite sized snack.


Ravingdork wrote:

Witches are Common (note the cap C) yes, but are they really so common (note the low case c) that people's very first thoughts are going to be "witch" over "servant," "squire," or what have you?

I suspect non adventuring occupations are far more common than adventuring ones.

Not witch but caster: there are plenty of npc occupations with spell casting that could have a Pet/Familiar and, again, those have Common abilities that can be used in combat like Spellcasting and Spell Delivery. With spell casting and familiars Common, they don't HAVE to know specifics to conclude a small animal in combat might be a familiar and that it might be a threat ESPECIALLY if odd/weird magical effects are happening around it. It's moot if you are a witch or not.

Lets be honest, with a normal combat with weapons swinging around and spells flying, a NORMAL cat would have run away from it: one in the fray isn't a normal cat which leads to the question then is the person it's protecting a normal 'servant'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Forcing the player to roll a Deception check that the rules do not require them to roll is the opposite of agency. (Although this has also drifted away from the question of the thread, as recognizing someone as disguised is a deception vs perception thing, not an RK thing.)

But the rules do. Look at what was being suggested: "Now, if a player approached you (the GM) beforehand, and explained that they were planning to make a witch that went to great lengths to deceive others into believing her to be nothing more than a harmless old crone, would that impact the ruling you make when the enemy being harried by the party martials sees a hissing cat?"

"a witch that went to great lengths to deceive others into believing her to be nothing more than a harmless old crone"
"If you'd like specifics, let's assume I'm talking about a character that uses things like Subtle Spell, spells without obvious observable stimuli (such as inevitable disaster), a clandestine cloak, disguise magic, illusory disguise , and mundane disguise kits and tools to make herself appear to be little more than a harmless servant (such as a cook, porter, or armor cleaner) to the rest of the heroes with all their glowing high level gear."

I don't see how disguising yourself as "a harmless servant" isn't impersonation.

"What's more, she most often appears to cower and hide during combats while her cat appears to try and protect her with threatening hisses."
Again, that sure sounds like Perform [act] or Deception.


Dragonchess Player wrote:

Instead of duplicate or eliminating stats, maybe reduce the number of stats: Body (old Str/Con), Energy (old Cha/Dex), and Mind (old Int/Wis)? Allow a total of +7 to distribute between them (including ancestry modifications) with a maximum of +4 in any one stat.

Energy or Mind could be the key stats for spellcasters, possibly based on whether they are prepared (Mind) or spontaneous (Energy).

Sounds like the Tri-Stat system that has Mind, Body, and Soul.

Body: a measure of the character's physical prowess and health.
Mind: a measure of the character's mental capacity and intelligence.
Soul: a measure of the character's spirit and willpower.


Ravingdork wrote:
Now, if a player approached you (the GM) beforehand, and explained that they were planning to make a witch that went to great lengths to deceive others into believing her to be nothing more than a harmless old crone, would that impact the ruling you make when the enemy being harried by the party martials sees a hissing cat?

No. A tiny animal in combat is likely a familiar. Then add to that that the 'crone' is having to spend actions/activities on preform [act] and Impersonate to be convincing in the role... How invested is the character in cha and cha skills?

1 to 50 of 17,185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>