I don't have a horse in this race, but citation needed. My players are quite good at this game and our combats are regularly 7+ rounds unless they get real lucky on initiative, crits AND saves. Or if it's a steamroll combat to make them feel powerful, but that's a different thing entirely.
Super campaign dependent and definitely a conversation that should occur in session 0 so that players have an idea of what they should or shouldn't invest in, proficiency-wise. Fast-paced campaigns just might not have time for crafting all the time or at all. Slower campaigns might use it a lot, with months or years of downtime every so often. Age of Ashes (the only AP I've run so far) leaves a lot of room for long periods of downtime, at least between books. Edit to elaborate: What I usually do is ask what my players want to do in downtime, figure out the longest activity or combination of activities and just add 3-5 days to that to figure out the cutoff. You don't want to leave it too nebulous or your players will waffle around for 3 sessions.
There are a total of 62 firearms and supporting weapons in Guns & Gears, including all the magical firearms but not including any of the siege engines or the non-firearm gears weapons. All of the traits used for all of those firearm weapons are-ThrownI have to admit, I'm quite curious on the firearm that you have to throw. ;) Hmmm, maybe....
About my only con is that people can't just logon to fiddle with characters, but the ease of levelling in Pathfinder and Foundry itself makes that close to moot. Actually if you follow the tutorial they have available for setting up an Oracle free cloud server, they can do just that. I went through the setup and its been fantastic and is free for as long as Oracle offers free server systems (which shows no signs of changing).
We know the intent, though, even if it's not explicitly stated in a book anywhere: "the core expectation if no one in the team has Crafting is that you pay the 5 sp to have a skilled hireling perform the task."i mean that has to do with the crafting skill, the use of which was never in doubt, it has nothing to do with he feat "magical crafting" It's also specific to PFS play, which has very different base assumptions than most home games.
I do appreciate the link, thank you.
That discord conversation that was just quoted was fresh in my mind when I replied to this thread originally, but let's please remember that comments made on Arcane Mark aren't official answers and shouldn't be cited as such, and at least include some disclaimer to that effect. And if used as an argument, perhaps they should include the exact question he is responding to. Context is important, even if the answer might seem to have a clear attached question.
Anything not directly contradicted/progressed by 2e books or progressed forward by Adventure Paths is generally considered still canon as far as I know. So you should be good to use any of your old PF1 material.
I know it's silly, but is there anything in the RAW that actually indicates you can't be Hidden from yourself? "While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are." Unless disoriented somehow, you know precisely where you are.
Wow- Most of the posters responding to Xenocrat label him mentally incompetent. Actually, with context, Xenocrat opened that can of worms by implying that everyone who disagreed with him/didn't find memorizing clothing easy is mentally incompetent. Now, that doesn't really excuse the retaliations of everyone - we should be above that whenever possible. But Xenocrat insulted a large swath of posters in one go and this has colored every potentially positive response since as bleeding with sarcasm. That's not a fair way to treat posters that simply disagree.
If I'm wearing my bandolier, I can already retrieve a toolset and use it as a single action. The bandolier rule covering single-action retrieval and use is only applied to such sets. Sure, but let's say you want to use 2 potions. Valet lets you do that in one turn. 1 action to command, handed a potion 1 action drink, handed a second potion 3rd action drink. Without it you could only draw two potions (1 action each) and then drink 1.
Well they're pretty screwed given the stipulations of the ritual. They can't leave unless an external force destroys the prison. So they'd need to be able to convince a (probably high level) something to go through the act of destroying the prison for them. There is otherwise no escape for the target. What level is the party? Edit: Also, honestly I'd let them starve. You don't screw with a deck of many things unless you can face the consequences. :P Otherwise, what's the point of having bad stuff in the deck.
Blind activation hasn't even been the lore of what is happening when identify spells or mechanics are used. Back in AD&D the identify spell had the caster spend the day in magically induced trance trying to resonate with the magic of an item in order to figure out what it did - that's far more like sleeping snuggled up to it than it is pointing it at a volunteer and pushing a (typically non-existent) button. Are you talking about 1e PF or 1e DnD? Because that is definitely not how identify worked in 1e Pathfinder.
This is where Heightening spells comes into play. If you prepare or cast Charm in a 2nd level slot, it now has full effect on creatures up to level 4; at 3rd, up to level 6; etc. Also, this trait is important because of how powerful the effects of these spells are and this game wants a single higher-level enemy to actually act as a threat. Even a single round of blindness is basically a death for any enemy that doesn't have a reliable, unaimed AoE. And further, DCs for 1st level spells are the same as your DCs for 9th level spells. So it isn't any easier to make the save against a 1st level Charm spell. This is another reason that trait exists.
It doesn't feel any stronger than Retributive strike or Liberating Step to me. Those both prevent a ton of damage and one deals damage and the other provides positioning advantages. Iron Command doesn't prevent damage. And using that level 1 feat, while more damage over time, does delay the damage to the target potentially giving it an extra turn to cause problems. Of the 6 champion reactions so far, Selfish Shield is the only one I think might be a touch underpowered, but I'm not always sure how to value evil/negative aligned damage.
Well, I tend to be a very permissive GM and let weird things run abound. One of my players next characters is probably going to be a half-elf goblin because he wanted a cute anime goblin and, well... So I'd let most of this slide if someone really wanted it. I don't find Ancient elf all that strong regardless and I use the Free Archetype rule variant. However, all of this comes down to whatever your GM envisions for the game. And if you're playing in Society, this'll simply never happen.
On this point specifically, I haven't actually found much need to adjust for the most part. Since ABP removes +x, striking, and resilient from weapons and armor, a huge amount of that extra gold just doesn't exist anymore since they don't have as many expensive magical items to sell off.
Not a fan of the none human rule for this one especially since modules come out so infrequently. I mean, you can just ignore it. It's not computer code.
If you use it just for this buff, it would not be an offensive action. It's a question of intention. But I hardly doubt people use Inspire Courage just for the small bonus to saves against fear.Note that Inspire Courage does actually provide a defensive buff against Fear as well. So its goal is not just to harm.Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.Inspire Courage has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action. Other actions must be taken, by other characters, for any harm to result. And you didn't take those actions. Okay, but you also aren't causing a negative consequence to an enemy, either directly or indirectly. You're making a negative consequence more likely but only affecting allies. If you command a minion, you are responsible for the action that causes negative consequence. You have given the minion actions with which it will only try to harm (generally speaking, but there are exceptions here that I don't think would break invis either like directly ordering it to run away). Unless you are dominating your own party, Inspire Courage is non-hostile in that manner. If it provided your party with a reaction that caused an attack, it would break it because you have caused negative consequence. In general, strengthening your allies (haste, inspire courage, etc.) do not cause negative consequence to an enemy. Only positives for your party that may be later applied in a harmful way.
Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.Inspire Courage has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action. Other actions must be taken, by other characters, for any harm to result. And you didn't take those actions. Note that Inspire Courage does actually provide a defensive buff against Fear as well. So its goal is not just to harm.
I would definitely have it break invisibility at my table, but I imagine there would be some variance here. My reasoning being that the wizard is actively performing an action that will cause harm to an enemy.
Well, for one, Serpent's Skull wasn't written for 2e. So there's that. Second, because hitting water from any considerable distance is like hitting concrete unless you're actively diving (and then the distance is just a bit longer depending on good form). Also, that's not exactly how falling damage into water is decided. It says that the maximum it can be reduced by is the depth of the water, more as a limiting factor than anything. 20 foot reduction to the fall is the baseline, 30 for diving. Less if the water isn't deep enough. But what it comes down to is use your best judgment when converting AP stuff, because some of the rules have changed. You can't expect all of the numbers to line up. In addition, if you fall into water, snow, or another relatively soft substance, you can treat the fall as though it were 20 feet shorter, or 30 feet shorter if you intentionally dove in. The effective reduction can’t be greater than the depth (so when falling into 10-foot-deep water, you treat the fall as 10 feet shorter).
So cultural appropriation as a bad thing is probably the toughest thing for me to wrap my head around. Mostly due to the conflicting standards I've heard in relation to it. Sometimes it's "don't use our things in insulting, mocking or otherwise insensitive ways." Other times it's "no, you can't touch that, that's our thing and any attempt to copy (respectfully or otherwise) or create your own version is hostile." Now, I admittedly have little attachment to any side of my heritage, so I don't have much stake in this. However, I would appreciate if someone could explain what the actual problem here is. I know there's the "wendigo psychosis" controversy, but that doesn't seem present here at all.
Until I hear differently from errata or the like, acid splash will be assumed to be in error, and we will be using the normal splash rules for the spell in my games. Ditto. I find it absurd to interpret the words "splash damage" as even possibly intended to only hit a single target.
I'd probably allow it, but I wouldn't let it be used more than once per creature. A level 2 boosted to level 7 by way of the Elite template is way overstatted. Edit: As an example, using your two centipedes, slapping on the Elite template 10 times (to get from -1 to 9) gives the giant centipede obscene stats compared to the titan centipede. 7 more AC, 5 more attack bonus, ridiculous saves all around, a much higher poison DC. That's not okay.
doing observation (of) thread...dotDash? And it literally puts a dot on the thread.
Another reason for Owlcat (or anyone else) to stick with PF1 for quite some time is that there is only 1 complete AP for PF2 right now. There is no "best of" set of PF2 APs yet. Kingmaker and WotR are both super well known and liked for different reasons. AoA doesn't really have that going for it right now. It's good, but as the intro campaign for the entire system, it is pretty safe story- and mechanics-wise.
If you can't expend the spell or lose a spell slot, you can't use the ability.
This is actually pretty good, though could perhaps be consolidated a little further into: Action: Jaws +8 (1d10+4 plus [action-symbol] Grab) It saves a line, but would it be too confusing?
No, I'd argue the GM is being wholly unreasonable, especially since this effect is save-based and saves aren't really an opt-in action. Edit: I derped and read the wrong bit. However, it's still unreasonable to not let a PC know that the escape action would work like with every other grab/swallow in the game.
But Grab is one of the most common monster abilities in the game. That would take up so much page space across a bestiary.
Both Age of Ashes and Extinction Curse have multiple lock picking instances that use non-complex, level appropriate DCs, rather than the lock DCs available for PCs to purchase. All this means is that locks are explicitly bad at keeping player characters out. Which is kind of how it should work, otherwise the GM might as well just put up a giant brick wall of "No, you can't go here yet". Lockpicking rules (and pretty much every other non-combat player-facing rule in the CRB) apply only to the players, of which there are usually 3-8 in the world. Locks are great against the other 99.9999% of the world. So, no, the CRB isn't failing at all, it just doesn't want to lock players out of advancement entirely arbitrarily and instead prefers to use other methods than "You spend an hour trying the lock and can't seem to get through." Padlocks aren't interesting if they take a lot of table time. Also, if the whole world stops having locks suddenly, I'm gonna start stabbing a lot more fancy lookin' chests because that there's a mimic.
Why are you choosing to ignore an old thread that asks essentially the same question you are asking?
Well, I don't think you roll initiative until someone declares an imminent intention to attack. If the group is still only planning to position around for an entire round, combat shouldn't have started yet (unless someone failed their stealth roll anyway, in which case, none of this matters). Then the only way you don't start essentially unnoticed is if someone rolled really high perception. In which case, they should probably have at least some chance to respond to the combatants, even if they don't know their exact location.
I think the important bit here is that as long as you and your group are having fun, you're at the intended difficulty level.
I think you're not taking into account the probably level difference between the crafter and the settlement task. If the crafter is higher level than the settlement, he's absolutely "making" more money crafting just on saving costs.
Since there is no listed limit anymore, I would assume it is as far as normal vision could see in bright light.
Because one is new and the other is old? I don't expect a system rooted in d20 to move away from classes. But they made an effort to make classes less restrictive. At the same time, they created Backgrounds, which made a part of the system more restrictive than it previously was. So by your perception, would it have been less restrictive for them to leave out backgrounds entirely, and simply not give you what a background does? Because I see backgrounds as 2 bonus skills and a bonus feat that a PF1 character otherwise would not have received to make a more interesting hook into the world.
Also why can't I start with the weapon proficiency I want as a wizard? That seems fair, but why does one bother you so much more than the other when they're exactly the same?
Probably the fact that polymorph states that constant magical items are still active after changing forms. It's not totally unfair to wonder if a buff spell with a duration will continue afterward.
A minor sidenote, but I'm really worried about the context of mentioning Animate Rope. I really can't understand why it would be a Necromancy spell. Animate rope is mentioned next to aqueous orb and chaotic/lawful summon spells. I don't think the implication is that those are all necromancy spells.
I was trying to do a quick read-through, but is there anything stopping you from using a finisher early in your turn and then generating panache with a subsequent action? Thus refreshing your temp hp until your next turn when you could essentially repeat this, gaining hp every round? That seems pretty good to me, like bringing back the playtest barbarian's temp hp every three rounds only potentially better. Like being so cool they restore their own combat stamina.
Despite the number of actions generally being equal to the number of components, the two are not technically tied to one another. So removing/changing components doesn't directly affect number of actions to cast. Only if it explicitly states that it reduces number of actions will it do that (like quicken spell). Edit to directly answer the question: It essentially takes two verbal actions to cast the spell.
I can't see any reasons that Pathfinder (first or second edition) can't be a grand geopolitical game. It requires that all the players and the GM be on the same page when it comes to that, but as long as no one decides to be a murder hobo, you can have world-spanning, world-changing political epics. You just have to put in the work. A 6 book adventure will probably never be that.
Sounds like a pretty cool story though honestly. The heroes find the town destroyed after thinking they'd won and, when finding the one responsible, go dark and beat the perpetrator to death without mercy, feeling like garbage people afterward.
Why are 8 apparently combat-worthy enemies all moving on the same initiative? That seems built to OTK people. Splitting that into 2 or 3 groups makes it much more fair.
Well, a rpg is a game, not a narrative. That's gonna be a hard disagree from me. TTRPGs are such a narratively focused game. They use the rules and the game to structure and tell a story.
I'm not sure how "want to autosucceed" isn't wanting an easier game. I think what sherlock wants is computer programming.
|
