paizo.com Favorited Posts by graystonepaizo.com Favorited Posts by graystone2024-03-26T19:45:29Z2024-03-26T19:45:29ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Unanswered Eidolon Questionsgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ybw?Unanswered-Eidolon-Questions#422024-03-12T22:03:58Z2024-03-12T20:44:36Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">siegfriedliner wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>What makes you think it doesn't have a body?
<p>Secrets of Magic pg. 58
<br />
"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."</p>
<p>This means that beast and plant eidolon go back to the Material Plane, which leads to some... interesting questions.</p>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...graystone2024-03-12T20:44:36ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Unanswered Eidolon Questionsgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ybw?Unanswered-Eidolon-Questions#302024-03-12T19:11:57Z2024-03-12T16:48:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Thod wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Eidolon bleed status: I have never seen it being tracked after unmanifestation. Again that implies it no longer shares the HP pool after unmanifestation.
</p>
Eidolon poisoned status: I have never seen it being tracked after unmanifestation. Again that implies it no longer shares the HP pool after unmanifestation.</p>
<p>We actually seem to contradict ourselves how it actually is handled in different cases. No - off course the rules don't say either way. </blockquote><p>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?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...graystone2024-03-12T16:48:57ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Unanswered Eidolon Questionsgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ybw?Unanswered-Eidolon-Questions#232024-03-12T19:08:07Z2024-03-12T13:57:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gortle wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>I don't see the logic that transfers the death effect to the summoner as it's not a listed condition that transfers.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gortle wrote:</div><blockquote>Yep but still clearly a reasonable candidate for TBTBT. </blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">YuriP wrote:</div><blockquote><p>To put the summoner into a permanent coma because the eidolon is dead and cannot recover the shared HP?
</p>
Well if we do this also will prevent the eidolon ressurection with nothing less than a <a href="https://2e.aonprd.com/Rituals.aspx?ID=20" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Rank 9 Resurrect ritual</a> because when the Eidolon HP zeroes it's body vanishes!</p>
<p>Honestly is better to kill the summoner and allow it to be resurrected! </blockquote><p>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.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...graystone2024-03-12T13:57:52ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Unanswered Eidolon Questionsgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43ybw?Unanswered-Eidolon-Questions#72024-03-13T03:19:54Z2024-03-12T04:46:12Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Finoan wrote:</div><blockquote>Corrolary: After your Eidolon dies, Ask your GM how to continue playing the game with that Summoner character. </blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">YuriP wrote:</div><blockquote>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!!!</blockquote><p>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.
<p>So, no it doesn't kill the summoner but it's mighty close.</p>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...graystone2024-03-12T04:46:12ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Objects as Targets!?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xu4?Objects-as-Targets#102024-02-07T17:37:21Z2024-02-07T09:59:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ascalaphus wrote:</div><blockquote>They don't say you <i>can't</i> Strike objects, they just don't mention it.</blockquote><p>By that logic, you can say 'they don't say you <i>can't</i> Strike 3 creatures with a single strike, they just don't mention it' or 'they don't say you <i>can't</i> 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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ascalaphus wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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.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...graystone2024-02-07T09:59:22ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Razing Weapon Abilitygraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43snk?Razing-Weapon-Ability#112024-02-02T18:46:45Z2024-02-02T17:35:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> What constitutes an object in PF2?</blockquote>Pretty much everything physical that doesn't constitute a creature. </blockquote>K. Though I did read it works against animated objects. I'm thinking any creature with a hardness. </blockquote><p>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".
<p>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.'</p>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...graystone2024-02-02T17:35:10ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Razing Weapon Abilitygraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43snk?Razing-Weapon-Ability#92024-02-03T13:25:34Z2024-02-02T06:15:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deriven Firelion wrote:</div><blockquote> What constitutes an object in PF2?</blockquote><p>Pretty much everything physical that doesn't constitute a creature.Deriven Firelion wrote:What constitutes an object in PF2?
Pretty much everything physical that doesn't constitute a creature.graystone2024-02-02T06:15:42ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Remastered Fighter & Bastard Swordgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xl4&page=3?Remastered-Fighter-Bastard-Sword#1102024-01-27T00:10:04Z2024-01-24T08:52:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">RaptorJesues wrote:</div><blockquote> Boy, do I hate getting this free thing I do not want. Class ruined. F tier. Gimme back my money pls </blockquote><p>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.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.graystone2024-01-24T08:52:09ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Spellheart questiongraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43xln?Spellheart-question#202024-01-27T00:09:14Z2024-01-23T21:48:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Aristophanes wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Finoan wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Perpdepog wrote:</div><blockquote> Correct me if I'm wrong,</blockquote><p>You are probably right about what they are intending to ask.
<p>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.</p>
<p>But to continue taking questions way too literally...</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Perpdepog wrote:</div><blockquote>but I think they're asking if they could attach spellhearts to each of the weapons in their bandolier. </blockquote>Certainly. You just have to buy enough spellhearts so that each weapon can have one. </blockquote>Could I use the cantrip of the Spellheart from the weapon that is in the Bandolier while it's in the Bandolier? </blockquote><p>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.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...graystone2024-01-23T21:48:03ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Thaumaturge is whack. It's a franken-class that breaks the rules...graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x9d&page=4?Thaumaturge-is-whack-Its-a-frankenclass-that#1712024-01-22T21:28:02Z2024-01-16T08:57:54Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kaspyr2077 wrote:</div><blockquote>I'm not asking which existing feat has better mechanics.</blockquote><p>Of course it's a matter of mechanics. If not, then what basis are you using to determine what feats are good or not?
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kaspyr2077 wrote:</div><blockquote>Why does the game need to gate these things behind feats, rather than being a skill anyone can try to do?</blockquote><p>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
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kaspyr2077 wrote:</div><blockquote>Is there that much specialist knowledge involved in either?</blockquote><p>100% accurate lip reading? I'd say that's a talent that's not normal while getting a +/- 50% estimate of items isn't.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kaspyr2077 wrote:</div><blockquote>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?</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kaspyr2077 wrote:</div><blockquote>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? </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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...].</p>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...graystone2024-01-16T08:57:54ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Thaumaturge is whack. It's a franken-class that breaks the rules...graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x9d&page=4?Thaumaturge-is-whack-Its-a-frankenclass-that#1592024-01-16T03:15:33Z2024-01-15T18:50:50Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Plane wrote:</div><blockquote> I agree. The Thaumaturge should have <b>Eye for Numbers</b> automatically. </blockquote><p>I'd rather have it than Dubious Knowledge... :(Plane wrote:I agree. The Thaumaturge should have Eye for Numbers automatically.
I'd rather have it than Dubious Knowledge... :(graystone2024-01-15T18:50:50ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Thaumaturge is whack. It's a franken-class that breaks the rules...graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x9d&page=4?Thaumaturge-is-whack-Its-a-frankenclass-that#1542024-01-16T23:00:22Z2024-01-14T17:50:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">The Raven Black wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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: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...graystone2024-01-14T17:50:22ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Thaumaturge is whack. It's a franken-class that breaks the rules...graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x9d&page=3?Thaumaturge-is-whack-Its-a-frankenclass-that#1412024-01-15T12:23:08Z2024-01-13T23:35:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">pH unbalanced wrote:</div><blockquote>No Perception roll necessary to count things — which I would include counting generic people so you know things like troop deployments and such.</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">pH unbalanced wrote:</div><blockquote>No Perception roll necessary to count things</blockquote><p>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?
<div class="messageboard-quotee">pH unbalanced wrote:</div><blockquote>Most GMs would force Perception rolls to get the amount of detail you often want.</blockquote><p>"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."
<p>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.</p>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...graystone2024-01-13T23:35:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Favored Weapongraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x95?Favored-Weapon#22024-01-01T13:11:48Z2024-01-01T02:26:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris_Fougere wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>Favored weapons are specific weapons: in this case, it means the weapon 'crossbow' not the entire weapon category 'crossbow'.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'.graystone2024-01-01T02:26:17ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Starlit Span and Imaginary Weapon: What do you all think?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43x1j&page=4?Starlit-Span-and-Imaginary-Weapon-What-do-you#1902023-12-22T19:50:55Z2023-12-22T19:33:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">The Raven Black wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Calliope5431 wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Don't do that. It's not worth it, the cover reduction is never more than -2 to AC and MAP is more.</p>
<p></blockquote>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. </blockquote>Cat's eye elixir is a staple on any of my PCs who needs to target opponents. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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].</p>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...graystone2023-12-22T19:33:23ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Can NPCs use Recall Knowledge? Should they?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wtq&page=4?Can-NPCs-use-Recall-Knowledge-Should-they#1812023-12-11T05:40:38Z2023-12-10T20:53:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ravingdork wrote:</div><blockquote> 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</blockquote><p>You mean all those civilians that are PRETENDING to be helpless? None that I know of.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ravingdork wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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...
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ravingdork wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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.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...graystone2023-12-10T20:53:01ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Can NPCs use Recall Knowledge? Should they?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wtq&page=4?Can-NPCs-use-Recall-Knowledge-Should-they#1662023-12-10T19:58:18Z2023-12-10T14:28:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ravingdork wrote:</div><blockquote> 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.</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ravingdork wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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...
<p>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.</p>
<p>Impersonate
<br />
Source Core Rulebook pg. 245
<br />
"You create a disguise to pass yourself off as someone or something you are not.": You aren't a harmless servant... </p>
<p>"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.
<br />
Failure The creature can tell you’re not who you claim to be.
<br />
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."</p>
<p>And again, I could see Perform [act] working similarly too.</p>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.
...graystone2023-12-10T14:28:33ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Can NPCs use Recall Knowledge? Should they?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wtq&page=4?Can-NPCs-use-Recall-Knowledge-Should-they#1572023-12-10T01:42:01Z2023-12-09T16:38:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">The Raven Black wrote:</div><blockquote> I'm gonna have a lot of fun letting opponents focus fire on my illusory "familiar". </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>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...graystone2023-12-09T16:38:11ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Can NPCs use Recall Knowledge? Should they?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wtq&page=4?Can-NPCs-use-Recall-Knowledge-Should-they#1522023-12-10T11:59:49Z2023-12-09T05:47:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Captain Morgan wrote:</div><blockquote>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.)</blockquote><p>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?"
<p>"a witch that went to great lengths to deceive others into believing her to be nothing more than a harmless old crone"
<br />
"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."</p>
<p>I don't see how disguising yourself as "a harmless servant" isn't impersonation.</p>
<p>"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."
<br />
Again, that sure sounds like Perform [act] or Deception.</p>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...graystone2023-12-09T05:47:28ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Remastered Alchemistgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wvt?Remastered-Alchemist#232024-01-21T01:02:37Z2023-12-05T10:19:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gobhaggo wrote:</div><blockquote>The issue is more 'do I even have the chance to use Elixirs/Mutagens?'.</blockquote><p>Which is followed up by 'do i even want that Elixir/Mutagen.' Most have a drawback on top of needing actions and a free hand to use. Often, I've seen alchemists that couldn't give away free items: free 2xlevel damage, minus saves and ac, attack rolls, damage, ect and you have to get into double digit levels before the duration hit an hour so you'll have to chug one every fight unless you're speed running encounters.
<p>Now there are some like Bravo's Brew, Eagle-Eye Elixir, Antidote, Antiplague that start with enough of a duration to pre-buff yourself or have uses outside combat like Leaper's Elixir, Comprehension Elixir or Infiltrator's Elixir. They just aren't ones you're jumping for joy over or likely to see them make a difference on a regular basis.</p>
<p>Those two points are why I'll see alchemists focus on what they can do for themselves and leave party items for situations when it's likely to come up: like 'we're going into a sewer tomorrow better make Antidote and Antiplague' not 'time to make the daily Antidote and Antiplague'.</p>Gobhaggo wrote:The issue is more 'do I even have the chance to use Elixirs/Mutagens?'.
Which is followed up by 'do i even want that Elixir/Mutagen.' Most have a drawback on top of needing actions and a free hand to use. Often, I've seen alchemists that couldn't give away free items: free 2xlevel damage, minus saves and ac, attack rolls, damage, ect and you have to get into double digit levels before the duration hit an hour so you'll have to chug one every fight unless you're speed running...graystone2023-12-05T10:19:13ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Living Bonfire in combat?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wvq?Living-Bonfire-in-combat#22023-12-02T23:27:35Z2023-12-02T23:19:44Z<p>"The bonfire burns for 10 hours, providing all the benefits of a normal campfire." As there is no stats for a campfire, it's up to the DM if it gives anything other than heat/light.</p>
<p>The main benefit, IMO, is having a wood ranged Elemental Blast come from the bonfire instead of you: it gives you extra fire damage for the blast and you can do things like add 30' to a blasts range or fire around cover.</p>"The bonfire burns for 10 hours, providing all the benefits of a normal campfire." As there is no stats for a campfire, it's up to the DM if it gives anything other than heat/light.
The main benefit, IMO, is having a wood ranged Elemental Blast come from the bonfire instead of you: it gives you extra fire damage for the blast and you can do things like add 30' to a blasts range or fire around cover.graystone2023-12-02T23:19:44ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Adamantine Daggergraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wtm?Adamantine-Dagger#72023-11-30T13:59:04Z2023-11-30T11:53:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Nelzy wrote:</div><blockquote>but it dose say that it shape the object into 3 needles, but dont say in what form the metal returns.</blockquote><p>Again, it doesn't say the original item is harmed in any way: full stop. Anything after that is a houserule.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Nelzy wrote:</div><blockquote>and completely transforming something dont realy need any text explaining the item is damage in any way since it dont exist anymore.</blockquote><p>It NEVER says the entire object it turned into needles. In fact it'd be rather silly in some situations like casting from your Fortress Plate [a 5 bulk item] meaning that if the entire item is used, each needle is 1.66 bulk.. I don't see that as intended at all: what it says is it forms needles, they shoot out and "the metal returns to you after the attack" NOT the needles.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Nelzy wrote:</div><blockquote>Its obvious that they never intended us to use the spell on an item that we want to use normally, since they dont explain clearly what happens to it, they expected us to use a clump of metal and not a metal dagger.</blockquote><p>It's the opposite: unless something is spelled out, it's not in the rules. If they don't explain the item vanishing or being damaged, it isn't. They'd need to clearly spell out the items is broken or destroyed for that to happen.Nelzy wrote:but it dose say that it shape the object into 3 needles, but dont say in what form the metal returns.
Again, it doesn't say the original item is harmed in any way: full stop. Anything after that is a houserule. Nelzy wrote:and completely transforming something dont realy need any text explaining the item is damage in any way since it dont exist anymore.
It NEVER says the entire object it turned into needles. In fact it'd be rather silly in some situations like casting from your...graystone2023-11-30T11:53:05ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Adamantine Daggergraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wtm?Adamantine-Dagger#42023-12-01T23:05:59Z2023-11-30T09:28:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Nelzy wrote:</div><blockquote>Also im fairly sure that Needle Darts dont fully restore the object you use, it only say that the metal returns, propbly forever in the form of 3 or more needles.</blockquote><p>The spell doesn't say the base item is damaged, so it isn't.Nelzy wrote:Also im fairly sure that Needle Darts dont fully restore the object you use, it only say that the metal returns, propbly forever in the form of 3 or more needles.
The spell doesn't say the base item is damaged, so it isn't.graystone2023-11-30T09:28:17ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Multi armed racesgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wrj?Multi-armed-races#242023-11-30T13:57:56Z2023-11-30T09:24:05Z<p>The best use for more arms is the Thaumaturge's Implements. Even if all those extra arms can do is hold items, it'd make them THE best ancestry for the class by allowing them to hold each implement AND have a hand free to work with.</p>The best use for more arms is the Thaumaturge's Implements. Even if all those extra arms can do is hold items, it'd make them THE best ancestry for the class by allowing them to hold each implement AND have a hand free to work with.graystone2023-11-30T09:24:05ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Adamantine Daggergraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wtm?Adamantine-Dagger#22023-11-30T07:31:47Z2023-11-30T05:06:36Z<p>Precious Materials, Core Rulebook pg. 577</p>
<p>"The Price entry for each material gives the Price of a simple non-magical item made of that material, based on its Bulk <b>(if the item is lighter than 1 Bulk, use the price for 1 Bulk)</b>, as well as Prices for different amounts of the material itself."</p>
<p>However, a dagger is a weapon: Adamantine Weapon
<br />
Item 11+
<br />
Uncommon
<br />
Core Rulebook pg. 599
<br />
Price 1,400 gp (+140 gp per Bulk)</p>
<p>So if you want an Adamantine dagger, it's 1540 gp. Now if you want an adamantine letter opener, that's 350gp.</p>
<p>Now in the new GM core pg. 253, "The Price entry for each material gives the Price of a simple non-magical item made of that material, based on its Bulk (if the item is lighter than 1 Bulk, use the price for 1 Bulk), as well as Prices for different amounts of the material itself. Prices for armor, shields, and weapons made of precious material are in the Armor (page 228), Shields (page 233), and Weapons (page 240) sections of this chapter."</p>
<p>Going to "Weapons (page 240)"you'll find the same price as core: 1,400 gp + 140 gp per Bulk.</p>Precious Materials, Core Rulebook pg. 577
"The Price entry for each material gives the Price of a simple non-magical item made of that material, based on its Bulk (if the item is lighter than 1 Bulk, use the price for 1 Bulk), as well as Prices for different amounts of the material itself."
However, a dagger is a weapon: Adamantine Weapon
Item 11+
Uncommon
Core Rulebook pg. 599
Price 1,400 gp (+140 gp per Bulk)
So if you want an Adamantine dagger, it's 1540 gp. Now if you want an...graystone2023-11-30T05:06:36ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Remaster Roguegraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wf7&page=7?Remaster-Rogue#3072023-11-26T07:32:24Z2023-11-24T19:27:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote> Like the idea behind giving the rogue bespoke weapon proficiencies to begin with was "rogues should be using rogueish weapons".</blockquote><p>You mean like wizards bespoke weapons were in place to it enforce wizard themes? Who doesn't recall stories of the mighty archmage with a crossbow or club in hand.
<p>I think the bespoke weapons were a copy/paste from pathfinder 1, which was a copy/paste from d&d 3.5. I think that's as far as it went. I mean, it allows for the super sneaky/stealthy Flintlock Musket [and now Blunderbuss] sneak attacks. Between things like this AND ruffian being the 'use non-standard weapon rogue', I'm not sure 'it's not "thematically inappropriate for a rogue"' holds much weight here. If it's thematically ok for a thrown bomb, Wrecker [ranged], Dwarven Scattergun or Switchscythe [with a sweeping, axe-like blade or a hooked pick on a long rod of wood or metal], "thematically inappropriate for a rogue" doesn't mean what you think it does.</p>PossibleCabbage wrote:Like the idea behind giving the rogue bespoke weapon proficiencies to begin with was "rogues should be using rogueish weapons".
You mean like wizards bespoke weapons were in place to it enforce wizard themes? Who doesn't recall stories of the mighty archmage with a crossbow or club in hand. I think the bespoke weapons were a copy/paste from pathfinder 1, which was a copy/paste from d&d 3.5. I think that's as far as it went. I mean, it allows for the super...graystone2023-11-24T19:27:18ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Remaster Roguegraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wf7&page=7?Remaster-Rogue#3012023-11-26T07:31:32Z2023-11-24T08:45:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">nicholas storm wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I think expectations from some posters for the remaster exceeds the amount of resources paizo had for the project.</p>
<p>The end result is not perfect because they were trying to fit all the changes in with limited resources.</blockquote><p>Nobody expects perfection: that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up if things seem off. Would the dying rules have gotten a day one errata if people had kept their mouths shut?
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Nicholas storm wrote:</div><blockquote>Most of us think what we got is fine</blockquote><p>Citation please: I don't know that the majority of this thread thinks so and i have no idea about the user base at large. I don't see what harm there is in asking if it can be done better and if so, can it be errata'd: at the worst it's 'no' and at best, it might get a look at. The only way you can ensure that the issues you see don't attention is to stay silentand encourage others to just accept what they got and not mention things that seem off.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Nicholas storm wrote:</div><blockquote>If you don't like the end solution, then make your own home brew rules </blockquote><p>Well for a lot of people, that's not a satisfying solution whether it's because you are a player, you play PFS or you just would like to keep your houserules to a minimum [and PF2 already requires a pile with the amount of ask your DM 'rules']nicholas storm wrote:I think expectations from some posters for the remaster exceeds the amount of resources paizo had for the project.
The end result is not perfect because they were trying to fit all the changes in with limited resources.
Nobody expects perfection: that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up if things seem off. Would the dying rules have gotten a day one errata if people had kept their mouths shut? Nicholas storm wrote:Most of us think what we got is fine
Citation please: I...graystone2023-11-24T08:45:02ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Crafting Scrollsgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wpz?Crafting-Scrolls#92023-11-24T08:05:51Z2023-11-24T03:49:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Baarogue wrote:</div><blockquote>Is there an archetype that gives expert crafting? </blockquote><p>Vehicle Mechanic Dedication: "You become an expert in Crafting".Baarogue wrote:Is there an archetype that gives expert crafting?
Vehicle Mechanic Dedication: "You become an expert in Crafting".graystone2023-11-24T03:49:11ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Remaster Roguegraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wf7&page=6?Remaster-Rogue#2942023-11-26T07:30:34Z2023-11-24T03:04:55Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote>people seem perturbed that it was not enough of a buff</blockquote><p>People are confused at the cut off for the benefit, wondering why that particular cutoff point was warranted when the base class itself exceeds that cutoff. IMO, it'd be weird if people didn't look at martial weapons every rogue can use like Dueling Spear, Elven Curve Blade and Spiked Chain and wonder about the balance reasons there was for a Khopesh or longsword not working.
<p>I know for myself, if a d8 was a must for my ruffian, I'd ignore the current 'benefit' of the current feature and either take the Dueling Spear [for Disarm and Versatile S] or Spiked Chain [for Disarm and Trip] so I can do just fine with the current version: I just can't see why I can use those weapons and someone else is prevented from using a longsword, Battle Axe or Jiu Huan Dao with a feature that adds non-finesse/agile weapons to the weapons a rogue can sneak attack with.</p>
<p>So debate over this doesn't equate to being perturbed. I mean, I'm not calling people here perturbed because they question the validity of debate over the subject of a thread.</p>PossibleCabbage wrote:people seem perturbed that it was not enough of a buff
People are confused at the cut off for the benefit, wondering why that particular cutoff point was warranted when the base class itself exceeds that cutoff. IMO, it'd be weird if people didn't look at martial weapons every rogue can use like Dueling Spear, Elven Curve Blade and Spiked Chain and wonder about the balance reasons there was for a Khopesh or longsword not working. I know for myself, if a d8 was a must...graystone2023-11-24T03:04:55ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: The New Art for the Domaeosaur is Disappointinggraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wo1?The-New-Art-for-the-Domaeosaur-is-Disappointing#372023-11-23T20:24:08Z2023-11-23T04:51:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">AestheticDialectic wrote:</div><blockquote>That isn't speculation though, that is simply incorrect. Dinosaurs can't pronate, dromaeosaurs had more feathers etc. Those we know, other stuff is speculative</blockquote><p>Where in the quotes you provided did it say pathfinder dromaeosaurs can or can't pronate their forelimbs? And I provided a direct quote that not every pathfinder dromaeosaurs has feathers let alone "more feathers" than the picture you have a personal dislike of.
<p>So... we're back to you insisting pathfinder be exactly like irl... except magic... and dino existing alongside people... or aliens... oh, and elemental creatures... and demons and devils walking around... and bucklers that strap to your arm... And people can be immortal... oh, and alchemy... </p>
<p>Yeah, dino images really have to be museum accuracy or it's a crime against nature and intentional misinformation about a fantasy land! Stop the presses! Seriously though, we all have images we don't like and a RPG game isn't the place to expect museum quality 100% exact recreations of things: for instance we could spend our lifetimes debating on the correct terms for weapons/armor or usage like bucklers and arming swords. I think most are happy to enjoy the well-done images and stats in the game and don't worry about irl accuracy.</p>AestheticDialectic wrote:That isn't speculation though, that is simply incorrect. Dinosaurs can't pronate, dromaeosaurs had more feathers etc. Those we know, other stuff is speculative
Where in the quotes you provided did it say pathfinder dromaeosaurs can or can't pronate their forelimbs? And I provided a direct quote that not every pathfinder dromaeosaurs has feathers let alone "more feathers" than the picture you have a personal dislike of. So... we're back to you insisting pathfinder be...graystone2023-11-23T04:51:37ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: The New Art for the Domaeosaur is Disappointinggraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wo1?The-New-Art-for-the-Domaeosaur-is-Disappointing#312023-11-23T20:22:36Z2023-11-23T02:58:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">AestheticDialectic wrote:</div><blockquote>There is no in universe explanation of this</blockquote><p>There doesn't have to be. In fact we KNOW things work differently in pathfinder because dinos never went extinct there. NOTHING in DINOSAURS IN FANTASY mentions that pathfinder dinos are 100% exact replicas of earth dinos.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">AestheticDialectic wrote:</div><blockquote>There is no "pathfinder has different evolution" explanation in the game</blockquote><p>There doesn't have to be an explanation for anything: You have as much proof on your side as I do, hence the pictures standing on their own as we can't prove either way. What i can prove however is that it's a fantasy game where things played out differently than earth and that has many factors, like magic and alternate dimensions affecting it, that we don't have irl. 'But irl' isn't a convincing argument for much IMO.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">AestheticDialectic wrote:</div><blockquote>We can see that even with your argument it is clear dromaeosaurids have their real world feather coverings in fiction</blockquote><p>First, it's specifically talking about velociraptors, so it isn't proof that pathfinder dromaeosaurids as a whole have feathers.
<p>Secondly, the picture you showed from player core that you don't like in fact HAS feathers on "their backs and along the sides of their arms, legs, and tail" so it's not contradicting anything. It never states complete coverage with plumage. Or instance, if I say "she had freckles extending down her arm", that doesn't mean they are completely 100% covered in them.</p>AestheticDialectic wrote:There is no in universe explanation of this
There doesn't have to be. In fact we KNOW things work differently in pathfinder because dinos never went extinct there. NOTHING in DINOSAURS IN FANTASY mentions that pathfinder dinos are 100% exact replicas of earth dinos. AestheticDialectic wrote:There is no "pathfinder has different evolution" explanation in the game
There doesn't have to be an explanation for anything: You have as much proof on your side as I do, hence...graystone2023-11-23T02:58:39ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: The New Art for the Domaeosaur is Disappointinggraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wo1?The-New-Art-for-the-Domaeosaur-is-Disappointing#272023-11-23T02:25:58Z2023-11-23T00:24:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">AestheticDialectic wrote:</div><blockquote>That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh.</blockquote><p>How can an animal from a different reality be wrong? However it's presented is correct as it'a a piece of fiction. If there is a setting that has pink furred dinosaurs, it's correct for that setting. Nothing in pathfinder purports to 100% mimic prehistoric age fauna.AestheticDialectic wrote:That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh.
How can an animal from a different reality be wrong? However it's presented is correct as it'a a piece of fiction. If there is a setting that has pink furred dinosaurs, it's correct for that setting. Nothing in pathfinder purports to 100% mimic prehistoric age fauna.graystone2023-11-23T00:24:57ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Remaster Roguegraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wf7&page=6?Remaster-Rogue#2692023-11-22T21:26:07Z2023-11-22T20:03:59Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote><p> One of the basic reasons to bar polearms from ruffians is "it's hard to be sneaky carrying a 7'pole."</p>
<p>Of all the various "it's just long, by design" weapons the easiest one to pass off as something else is the spear since it's got the least ostentatious metal part and it's a precise weapon (unlike, say, a bardiche). But honestly I wouldn't be adverse to not being able to sneak attack with spears either. </blockquote><p>I mean, once the game says it's cool to sneak attack with a longspear, Breaching Pike, Dancer's Spear, Elven Branched Spear, Lancer and mounted lance... I can't really take "it's hard to be sneaky carrying a 7'pole" seriously: especially noting the Elven Branched Spear as NOT sneaky as it's pretty ostentatious and doesn't seem any more precise than a bardiche.PossibleCabbage wrote:One of the basic reasons to bar polearms from ruffians is "it's hard to be sneaky carrying a 7'pole."
Of all the various "it's just long, by design" weapons the easiest one to pass off as something else is the spear since it's got the least ostentatious metal part and it's a precise weapon (unlike, say, a bardiche). But honestly I wouldn't be adverse to not being able to sneak attack with spears either.
I mean, once the game says it's cool to sneak attack with a...graystone2023-11-22T20:03:59ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Remaster Roguegraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wf7&page=5?Remaster-Rogue#2472023-11-22T10:21:33Z2023-11-21T22:39:40Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Arachnofiend wrote:</div><blockquote> Do you think they should have just invalidated the longspear as a choice for Ruffians? Because that's what would have happened if they got martial d8 weapons.</blockquote><p>Mainly because it should mirror what happens with every other rogue: the class now has the ability to use 1d8 martial weapons at base but the ruffian should be limited to a longspear? Why should it be limited to d6 martial when the base class isn't? When you can use a Dueling spear without looking at subclasses, why should you be excited you get a feature to use a longspear?
<div class="messageboard-quotee">MEATSHED wrote:</div><blockquote> Why should the subclass where their passive is that they can sneak attack with more types of weapons be able to use better weapons to sneak attack with </blockquote><p>Because they can already use 1d8 martial weapons from their class: it's just odd you have to downgrade to a simple weapon to do the same damage you can do with a weapon you can pick without any subtype.Arachnofiend wrote:Do you think they should have just invalidated the longspear as a choice for Ruffians? Because that's what would have happened if they got martial d8 weapons.
Mainly because it should mirror what happens with every other rogue: the class now has the ability to use 1d8 martial weapons at base but the ruffian should be limited to a longspear? Why should it be limited to d6 martial when the base class isn't? When you can use a Dueling spear without looking at subclasses, why...graystone2023-11-21T22:39:40ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Remaster: Does batch crafting really save time?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43woe?Remaster-Does-batch-crafting-really-save-time#302023-12-12T23:05:44Z2023-11-21T21:32:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Finoan wrote:</div><blockquote><p> While the title of the rule may be the Ambiguous Rules rule, that second sentence also covers unambiguous cases that have problems.</p>
<p>Such as being unable to swing a +1 Ghost Touch greatsword at a ghost.</p>
<p>Or being unable to use the Escape action while in a polymorph battle form. (which was given errata) </blockquote><p>My point is that a rule can be too bad to be true and unambiguous, or ambiguous but not problematic. Hence, me thinking that using 'too bad to be true' as shorthand for 'use the ambiguous rules' as a mistake.
<p>As to "that second sentence", I don't think it does apply to non-ambiguous rules: IE, it means 'if a rules is ambiguous because the wording has problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended...' IMO, it's pointing you to the houserule section: "House Rules
<br />
Source Gamemastery Guide pg. 29
<br />
You and your players will inevitably come across a rule you disagree with, or that runs counter to the theme of your game. You might even decide to add a specific rule to an area not covered by the written rules. Collectively, these rulings, changes, and additions are known as house rules."</p>Finoan wrote:While the title of the rule may be the Ambiguous Rules rule, that second sentence also covers unambiguous cases that have problems.
Such as being unable to swing a +1 Ghost Touch greatsword at a ghost.
Or being unable to use the Escape action while in a polymorph battle form. (which was given errata)
My point is that a rule can be too bad to be true and unambiguous, or ambiguous but not problematic. Hence, me thinking that using 'too bad to be true' as shorthand for 'use the...graystone2023-11-21T21:32:08ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: [Spoiler] Remastered Dislikesgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wd9&page=13?Spoiler-Remastered-Dislikes#6392023-12-25T04:55:56Z2023-11-21T20:27:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Karneios wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">roquepo wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Would you say the cantrip change has widen even more the difference between casters that have a good focus spell (or have focus cantrips) and those who don't between levels 1-4?</p>
<p>Also, a few of them were also buffed a bit, right? A few of them do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + mod. Do these feel better or is it mostly the same? </blockquote>None of the cantrips in player core are 3d4, that's just needle darts </blockquote><p>We've been told Rage of Elements spells were made to be pre-compatible with remaster changes, so it's understandable people add its spells into the pool of 'remastered spells'.Karneios wrote:roquepo wrote:Would you say the cantrip change has widen even more the difference between casters that have a good focus spell (or have focus cantrips) and those who don't between levels 1-4?
Also, a few of them were also buffed a bit, right? A few of them do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + mod. Do these feel better or is it mostly the same?
None of the cantrips in player core are 3d4, that's just needle darts We've been told Rage of Elements spells were made to be pre-compatible with...graystone2023-11-21T20:27:39ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Using a shield with unarmed attacks + Wrestler archetype Barbeariangraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43won?Using-a-shield-with-unarmed-attacks-Wrestler#112023-11-22T19:45:43Z2023-11-21T19:29:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gortle wrote:</div><blockquote>Most heritages don't distinguish the limbs. It is the bird like types that use the term talon. Which is fair enough, it is a more specific word.</blockquote><p>That isn't turn. They do use it for birds but also bats, demons, dinos, dragons, undead and others mention non-attack talons.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gortle wrote:</div><blockquote>However Kitsune and some Nagaji both explicitly state that they have claws on their hands and their feet.</blockquote><p>So? The mention claws, not Claws. Similarly, a mention of jaws doesn't mean a Jaw attack.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gortle wrote:</div><blockquote>Further Fist is clearly referring other body parts. It is also explicitly Unarmed which means it doesn't use a hand at all.You can bite, kick, body slam, headbutt, talon strike or foot claw with your hands full.</blockquote><p>Ok, i said as much: the difference is that the statistics don't change no matter what you want to call it, so it uses the fist stats by default.
<p>"Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though <b>you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body.</b>" This means it's dm fiat if a 'claw' attack deals damage other that B or has a damage dice other than 1d4 since it isn't a Claw attack with it's own stats but a Fist attack.</p>Gortle wrote:Most heritages don't distinguish the limbs. It is the bird like types that use the term talon. Which is fair enough, it is a more specific word.
That isn't turn. They do use it for birds but also bats, demons, dinos, dragons, undead and others mention non-attack talons. Gortle wrote:However Kitsune and some Nagaji both explicitly state that they have claws on their hands and their feet.
So? The mention claws, not Claws. Similarly, a mention of jaws doesn't mean a Jaw attack....graystone2023-11-21T19:29:57ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Paizo Blog: Player Core Preview: The Wizard, Remasteredgraystonehttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sieh&page=12?Player-Core-Preview-The-Wizard-Remastered#5702023-11-21T07:42:23Z2023-11-21T00:21:40Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote>Plus AoN is really good for "figuring out a specific thing that fits what you need, like "I am looking for a martial weapon with reach and disarm" but if you actually want to do a survey of all the options actually picking through a book (or a PDF) is way better since you don't have to click on every single spell or feat.</blockquote><p>That's just factually incorrect as we aren't talking about a single book but having to page through every book/pdf that has those particular type in it. For spells you have to go through the core, secrets of magic, dark archive, rage of elements, Knights of Lastwall, Highhelm, Advanced Player's Guide, and a stack of AP's... IMO, that sounds a LOT harder than looking up nethys. With the way the game is and new material coming out all the time, it's impossible for a book to be a solution: any listing made can't know what's going to be added in the future making it invalid as soon as new material is made. Only a listing that's actively added to works that way, meaning something like nethys.PossibleCabbage wrote:Plus AoN is really good for "figuring out a specific thing that fits what you need, like "I am looking for a martial weapon with reach and disarm" but if you actually want to do a survey of all the options actually picking through a book (or a PDF) is way better since you don't have to click on every single spell or feat.
That's just factually incorrect as we aren't talking about a single book but having to page through every book/pdf that has those particular type in...graystone2023-11-21T00:21:40ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Using a shield with unarmed attacks + Wrestler archetype Barbeariangraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43won?Using-a-shield-with-unarmed-attacks-Wrestler#62023-11-21T19:28:50Z2023-11-20T22:55:14Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gortle wrote:</div><blockquote>Bears have 4 claws. Even humans are alowed to kick and head butt. </blockquote><p>They tend to call feet talons and hands claws [every foot attack I could find was feet, talon or hoof]. As such, my answer stays the same. Now they could of course make a generic fist attack [1d4] and call it whatever they want and use their foot to do it too, it just doesn't get the claw damage [1d6]. I also wouldn't allow an ape barbarian to kick and use fist damage either.
<p>Now of course, his dm can allow bear and cat to just have more options that other animal barbarians but IMO it's not the base assumption.</p>Gortle wrote:Bears have 4 claws. Even humans are alowed to kick and head butt.
They tend to call feet talons and hands claws [every foot attack I could find was feet, talon or hoof]. As such, my answer stays the same. Now they could of course make a generic fist attack [1d4] and call it whatever they want and use their foot to do it too, it just doesn't get the claw damage [1d6]. I also wouldn't allow an ape barbarian to kick and use fist damage either. Now of course, his dm can allow bear...graystone2023-11-20T22:55:14ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Paizo Blog: Player Core Preview: The Wizard, Remasteredgraystonehttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sieh&page=12?Player-Core-Preview-The-Wizard-Remastered#5652023-11-21T14:43:58Z2023-11-20T22:13:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote>Having "here is the full list of spells you're extra good at" just front and center is a huge savings in overhead. </blockquote><p>That was where things like archives of nethys came to the rescue. There was that list you where talking about for pre-remaster as it is the official online resource and allows sort by Level, sort by School and add Heightenable spells in for the level they can be heightened to. That meant you were looking at a manageable list for a particular level and each spell gives a small blurb about what it does so you can narrow down what ones you want to click on for a full description.
<p>Secondly, if their eyes glazed over at a smaller list of spells, how did these new folks manage the non-school spells since they have to look through all the spells for that anyway and it's a MUCH bigger list than the school lists on nethys. IMO, it's not saving much overhead when it's saving you from looking up a few less spells for 1/4th of the spells you get for a level.</p>PossibleCabbage wrote:Having "here is the full list of spells you're extra good at" just front and center is a huge savings in overhead.
That was where things like archives of nethys came to the rescue. There was that list you where talking about for pre-remaster as it is the official online resource and allows sort by Level, sort by School and add Heightenable spells in for the level they can be heightened to. That meant you were looking at a manageable list for a particular level and each...graystone2023-11-20T22:13:49ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Using a shield with unarmed attacks + Wrestler archetype Barbeariangraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43won?Using-a-shield-with-unarmed-attacks-Wrestler#42023-11-21T14:42:36Z2023-11-20T20:16:10Z<p>Bite yes, claw no.</p>
<p>from player core
<br />
"All shields, unless specifically noted or described otherwise, must be strapped to your arm and <b>held in one hand</b>, so you can’t hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield’s benefits if that hand is no longer free."</p>
<p>GRAPPLE [one-action]
<br />
ATTACK
<br />
Requirements: "You have at least one free hand and your target is no more than one size larger than you."
<br />
"You attempt to grab a creature or object <b>with your free hand.</b>"</p>
<p>So you have 2 hands, 1 hand is holding the shield and one is grappling leaving 0 hands to claw.</p>Bite yes, claw no.
from player core
"All shields, unless specifically noted or described otherwise, must be strapped to your arm and held in one hand, so you can’t hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield’s benefits if that hand is no longer free."
GRAPPLE [one-action]
ATTACK
Requirements: "You have at least one free hand and your target is no more than one size larger than you."
"You attempt to grab a creature or object with your free hand."
So you have 2...graystone2023-11-20T20:16:10ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: The New Art for the Domaeosaur is Disappointinggraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wo1?The-New-Art-for-the-Domaeosaur-is-Disappointing#62023-11-21T04:38:11Z2023-11-20T08:31:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">AestheticDialectic wrote:</div><blockquote> I want to make it clear this is not a criticism of the artists skill—they are clearly very skilled—but more to do with the fact that is looks significantly less accurate to what these animals would have looked like according to our modern understanding compared to the absolute stellar Deinonychus art in the first Bestiary.</blockquote><p>As pathfinder is a fantasy game where it's painfully clear that the natural laws aren't followed [like Square-Cube law], i see no reason there can't be different versions of animals without any regard for what irl examples are. People are here for the rpg and not for hyper-realistic and 100% historical examples of items/creatures in the game. I see pronated wrists and go 'cool, some dinos have those in pathfinder'. So for myself, I'm happy with a nice/cool picture and wouldn't want the artists spending time checking the latest papers for the current accepted body builds for each animal/item they make.
<p>For myself, I look at the images for the hand repeating crossbows and go 'WTH, there is NO way that is functional...' but I'll just find a usable image if I need one and let it go: I'm sure someone out there thinks it's cool and will use it.</p>AestheticDialectic wrote:I want to make it clear this is not a criticism of the artists skill—they are clearly very skilled—but more to do with the fact that is looks significantly less accurate to what these animals would have looked like according to our modern understanding compared to the absolute stellar Deinonychus art in the first Bestiary.
As pathfinder is a fantasy game where it's painfully clear that the natural laws aren't followed [like Square-Cube law], i see no reason there...graystone2023-11-20T08:31:39ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Remaster Roguegraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wf7&page=4?Remaster-Rogue#1832023-11-19T18:15:03Z2023-11-19T17:46:54Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Unicore wrote:</div><blockquote>Getting deadly d8 on a d8 weapon with reach is not the same thing as getting deadly d8 on a d6 weapon. The same is true for 2 handed weapons with athletics skill traits on them vs a one-handed weapon. </blockquote><p>You can get 2 handed [and weapons that require 2 hands] and shove, trip and disarm now so not seeing your point there.
<p>As to "Getting deadly d8 on a d8 weapon with reach is not the same thing as getting deadly d8 on a d6 weapon", then what about d6 with Deadly d10, Finesse, Trip that can be used by normal rogues too? Or use a d6 with Disarm, Finesse, Reach, Sweep and Trip. Or a d6 with Critical Fusion, Reach and Combination with current ruffian. I don't really see the huge gulf you seem to see between what there is and a "deadly d8 on a d8 weapon with reach".</p>Unicore wrote:Getting deadly d8 on a d8 weapon with reach is not the same thing as getting deadly d8 on a d6 weapon. The same is true for 2 handed weapons with athletics skill traits on them vs a one-handed weapon.
You can get 2 handed [and weapons that require 2 hands] and shove, trip and disarm now so not seeing your point there. As to "Getting deadly d8 on a d8 weapon with reach is not the same thing as getting deadly d8 on a d6 weapon", then what about d6 with Deadly d10, Finesse, Trip...graystone2023-11-19T17:46:54ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Does "Target 1 creature" mean anything?graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wng?Does-Target-1-creature-mean-anything#162023-11-19T09:46:37Z2023-11-19T04:47:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">SuperParkourio wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Guntermench wrote:</div><blockquote><p> It means it's up to the GM.</p>
<p>The GMG had a section on <a href="https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=892" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">"Saying yes, but"</a> that included this line:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Saying yes, but wrote:</div><blockquote>Require a directed attack against an object, then allow foes to attempt saving throws against the object’s effect at a DC you choose. Example: cast a produce flame spell at a barrel of explosives.</blockquote></blockquote>That's rather alarming if it always requires GM adjudication. Hazards can't be affected by things that can't affect objects, so what can or cannot get the job done is very much a matter of life or death. I feel there should at least be some default assumption to plan around, even if the GM decides to make exceptions for exceptionally appropriate spells. </blockquote><p>You can usually assume things with listed defenses [traps, hazards, wall spells] ae vulnerable to attack and that things without them usually aren't. For myself, I'd expect a DM if inform me if either of those assumptions are changed for a game.SuperParkourio wrote:Guntermench wrote:It means it's up to the GM.
The GMG had a section on "Saying yes, but" that included this line:
Saying yes, but wrote:Require a directed attack against an object, then allow foes to attempt saving throws against the object’s effect at a DC you choose. Example: cast a produce flame spell at a barrel of explosives.
That's rather alarming if it always requires GM adjudication. Hazards can't be affected by things that can't affect objects, so what can or...graystone2023-11-19T04:47:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Remaster Roguegraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wf7&page=4?Remaster-Rogue#1732023-11-21T21:52:19Z2023-11-19T04:32:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Unicore wrote:</div><blockquote>No ruffian would ever use a long spear or a hatchet when they could use a fauchard for a D8 with reach, deadly D8, and sweep.</blockquote><p>I'd find it odd for a class to be using a simple weapon when martial ones are avalible so I would hope the longspear is a worse weapon. As to the hatchet... well there are a lot of lame weapons and hatchet is one of those that doesn't have a clear use and I don't think ruffian moved the needle for it. As to the polearm, Dueling Spear looks better to me: Disarm and Versatile S: with disarm being actually useful, ruffian being a str build and having lots of still boosts it gives a nice debuff attack when they can't sneak attack.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Unicore wrote:</div><blockquote>It was to give them some more weapons with trip, and shove, and forceful, and grapple, and disarm, and razing, and combination, and 2 handed.</blockquote><p>There where already plenty of weapons with those traits they could use if you were looking for traits. You don't have to get out of simple weapons to get 2 handed, reach, shove, parry, versatile, deadly, free-hand, trip, non-lethal... On the others, there aren't any d8 grapple weapons so that trait is moot, you can get disarm and forceful on a d8 martial finesse/agile weapons... so you're missing out on d8 combo and razing: I hope those 2 traits aren't why it's d6 martial/adv.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PossibleCabbage wrote:</div><blockquote>Like "Who uses a d6 martial weapon that is neither finesse nor agile" is a valid question. If no one is supposed to use those weapons, why have them in the game? </blockquote><p>Mostly people with favored weapons of that type, those that picked for flavor reason or those that wants to use a bunch of different special skill attacks with them. IMO, that's a valid enough pool for them.Unicore wrote:No ruffian would ever use a long spear or a hatchet when they could use a fauchard for a D8 with reach, deadly D8, and sweep.
I'd find it odd for a class to be using a simple weapon when martial ones are avalible so I would hope the longspear is a worse weapon. As to the hatchet... well there are a lot of lame weapons and hatchet is one of those that doesn't have a clear use and I don't think ruffian moved the needle for it. As to the polearm, Dueling Spear looks better to me:...graystone2023-11-19T04:32:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Remastered rogue ruffians and rweaponsgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wmz?Remastered-rogue-ruffians-and-rweapons#152023-11-18T09:59:59Z2023-11-18T08:01:24Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gisher wrote:</div><blockquote>The only images I've ever seen of an urumi wrapped around someone's waist looked like a sword wrapped around their waist. While convenient, it doesn't seem concealed to me.</blockquote><p>It pretty much looked like a metal belt with a big hilt jutting out of it. I haven't seen one with a hilt that 'blended in' to be anything other than a weapon handle.Gisher wrote:The only images I've ever seen of an urumi wrapped around someone's waist looked like a sword wrapped around their waist. While convenient, it doesn't seem concealed to me.
It pretty much looked like a metal belt with a big hilt jutting out of it. I haven't seen one with a hilt that 'blended in' to be anything other than a weapon handle.graystone2023-11-18T08:01:24ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Remaster: Covert casting mechanics (Conceal Spell? Melodious Spell??)graystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wf2&page=2?Remaster-Covert-casting-mechanics#752023-11-24T20:18:53Z2023-11-18T06:10:32Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Unicore wrote:</div><blockquote>I don’t know that it will happen soon, but if people keep talking about it and asking about it, I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually get FAQ or Errata on the subtle trait or the conceal spell feat. </blockquote><p>People are still talking about what minions can do in exploration mode and that's been since the release of the system: amount and length of debate doesn't really correlate with getting an answer.Unicore wrote:I don’t know that it will happen soon, but if people keep talking about it and asking about it, I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually get FAQ or Errata on the subtle trait or the conceal spell feat.
People are still talking about what minions can do in exploration mode and that's been since the release of the system: amount and length of debate doesn't really correlate with getting an answer.graystone2023-11-18T06:10:32ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Remastered rogue ruffians and rweaponsgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wmz?Remastered-rogue-ruffians-and-rweapons#102023-11-18T13:09:37Z2023-11-18T06:06:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">aobst128 wrote:</div><blockquote> Any good d6 deadly weapon that isn't the rapier? </blockquote><p>Tamchal Chakram and Zulfikar fit too: they are advanced and have clear ancestry/culture for Unconventional Weaponry.
<p>Myself, I'm happy to have a build for a Polytool: Agile, Modular (B/P/S) 1 tool/weapon for your every need.</p>aobst128 wrote:Any good d6 deadly weapon that isn't the rapier?
Tamchal Chakram and Zulfikar fit too: they are advanced and have clear ancestry/culture for Unconventional Weaponry. Myself, I'm happy to have a build for a Polytool: Agile, Modular (B/P/S) 1 tool/weapon for your every need.graystone2023-11-18T06:06:04ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Paizo Blog: Witch, Witch, You’re a Remastered Witchgraystonehttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sif5&page=7?Witch-Witch-You-re-a-Remastered-Witch#3022023-11-15T00:20:54Z2023-11-14T21:55:14Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">SuperBidi wrote:</div><blockquote><p>"When you Cast or Sustain a hex, your familiar can curse a creature within 15 feet of it"</p>
<p>It seems very much active to me. The Familiar needs to be able to act to "curse a creature". </blockquote><p>Ok, explain what overt action they must use? what reaction or action must they use? Abilities never require the familiar acts.
<p>Familiar Ability says: "The benefit can occur only once per round when you Cast or Sustain a hex, and you can choose whether it occurs before or after the effects of Casting or Sustaining the hex." Note there is no requirement to act: in fact, the witch choices if it happens and when meaning the familiar isn't the one acting but the witch. Would you stop a witch from using the ability if they didn't command it [or it didn't have independent] because it didn't have any actions so it couldn't act?</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">SuperBidi wrote:</div><blockquote> The rules don't ask for an action from your familiar, which doesn't mean it can do it when it can't act. Speaking is not an action and you can't do it while Unconscious. </blockquote><p>"The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you still regain your actions unless another effect (like the stunned condition) prevents it."
<p>Note what 'can't act' prevents: "can’t use any actions, or even speak". The witch patron abilities aren't actions or speaking so they aren't limited.</p>SuperBidi wrote:"When you Cast or Sustain a hex, your familiar can curse a creature within 15 feet of it"
It seems very much active to me. The Familiar needs to be able to act to "curse a creature".
Ok, explain what overt action they must use? what reaction or action must they use? Abilities never require the familiar acts. Familiar Ability says: "The benefit can occur only once per round when you Cast or Sustain a hex, and you can choose whether it occurs before or after the effects of...graystone2023-11-14T21:55:14Z