Andrews Donovan's page

Nice try with Twirling Throw, but the critical failure clause destroyed the feat.

Let's hope that finisher removed the precision trait from the damage

Novel link is broken, should be https://paizo.com/products/btq02sx8?Pathfinder-Godsrain

Edit: actually all links are broken

Parabéns a New Order por ter traduzido o Remaster!

Great news to the brazilian players!

Will Halfling sling staff be a combination weapon?

It should be a staff AND a sling, not just a 2 handed sling.

is it just me or does that half-orc Dromaar look a bit more elvish than expected?

Maybe its a Orc with versatile Half-Elf heritage

Boon to access Lost Omens: Legends -> Paragon Battle Medicine

I know it's too soon, but I'm expecting a huge ACP cost for that, so...

Exemplar access

Good luck for the Demiplane team and the Pathfinder nexus.
Let's hope they manage to keep up with Paizo releases and that someday it become financially viable for the most of us.

Let's hope the devs take that chance to add a "Physical" trait to ancestry feats to make it clear what we can get or not with adopted ancestry and that mounted combat get some attention too because right now it's an almost neglected option. ( Let the reach work as normal and don't reduce the damage category for jousting)

The solution for the Power attack in my opinion is to have the option to add a third action to give even more damage and a level 2 feat to add half of your strength ( round down ) on the power attack, going up to your strength at level 8.

Now we need Versatile Heritage for Metal and Wood to goes with it.

Can we go back to the original question and discuss how to handle multiple persistent damages of the same type in a single strike?

Rogue with Swashbuckler dedication, critical hit a a Bleeding Finisher with a Wounding Knife, apply bloody debilitaion.

Bleeding Finisher = 1d6 bleed, critical = 2d6 bleed
Wounding Rune = 1d6 bleed, critical 1d12 bleed
Knife = critical 1d6 bleed
Bloody Debilitation = 3d6 bleed, critical = 6d6 bleed

Total = 9d6+1d12

The "rolling any damage dice anew each time." is what breaks the system.

Without it, the system becomes simple.

1 - Calc how much persistent damage => X
2 - Define type of damage => Y
3 - If [Y] equals one active Persistent damage already applied, take the Greater [X], otherwise Apply the condition "[X] [Y] Persistent damage"

So if I hit someone three times, inflicting 1d6 persistent bleed each time, on their turn they roll 1d6 bleed three times, taking only the highest result?

What if, instead of compare dices and use them each time persistent damage is about to be applied, we use the rolled value.

This follow the "step 1: Roll the Damage Dice and Apply Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties" and solve all comparisons.

Persistent bleed damage ( PBD )
d6 PBD , roll 2 = 2 PBD

Apply another d6 PBD
roll 3 = 3 PBD

Apply d8 PBD
roll 2 = keeps the 3 PBD

Apply 2d6+1 PBD
roll (2 and 4), total 7 = 7 PBD

Apply 4d6+1 PBD
roll (4, 3, 2, 1) total 11 = 11 PBD

Not "humanoid", but humans...
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2646
Strix Defender.
Mixing with the options above...
Strix, rogue mastermind, ranger dedication to get Monster Hunter

We got secrets of magic, guns and gears, there is room for a secrets of combat and I would love to see a warlord and a ninja

One of the Strix lvl 9 ancestry feats is Wing Step. It is almost identical to Elf Step except for this:

Elf step says "you step 5 feet twice"

Wing step just says "you step twice"

Just curious if that was an oversight or just Strix get a slightly better ability (which is fine) it just has some interesting interactions with tiger stance (maybe others abilities too.)

Hope they change the elf feat instead of the strix feat.

Hey, everybody! We appreciate all of the great feedback and information you've been providing in the thread so far. I've logged everything you've posted so far and look forward to getting a chance to update the FAQ page in the future.

I'm here with a request. Since the first batch of FAQ covered the first three books in the Lost Omens line (World Guide, Character Guide, Gods & Magic), I'm hoping to have the next FAQ update focus on the next three books in the line (Legends, Pathfinder Society Guide, Ancestry Guide). If you have any clarifications or errata for those books, let me know! We have an internal list of changes based on existing posts and stuff we've caught internally, but the more you can bring to our attention, the better!

Thanks again for your help and I look forward to getting another update out soon!

Thank you, I'm happy to know FAQ's are on the hot list right now.

Since Swipe counts as two attacks for Map,I think I'd lean towards it only effecting one of the two targets.

But it would definitely play well with Sticky Poisons @ lvl 8.

So is Power Attack, there is no direct interaction between MAP and the number of strikes.

The Gnome Feat replaces 2 with 3, and the Halfling Feat adds +1, so you'd learn 4.

If both Feats instead replaced 2 with 3, there'd be no point in taking them together.

I never know anymore, everything can fall on the "too good to be true", not intended by RAI, or even Duplicated effects

Yes I agree but it is a simplification

The major types of rules issues in roughly decreasing order of occurance are:

1) The gamer can't find the rule because the book is large.
2) The gamer misses a relevant rule because the rules are spread across multiple sections.
3) The general rule is overwritten by a specific rule elsewhere
4) The gamer has an idea in their head about how the rule should work, but the designer did something else.
5) There is no rule because there is only so much space in the book, or it is clearly GM territory to decide such a thing
6) The rule is missing - it is clear it should be there - like for example the range of the Leshy Seedpod (PFS fixed), or a proper definition of Additional Damage.
7) The rule is ambiguous at least in the mind of some people. This can be due to the use of natural English, tricky punctuation, inappropriate flavour text, absence of a keyword, or multiple designers going in different directions.
8) The rule is clear but people agreee it is just flat out stupid and refuse to do it. Example: the wildshaped druid can't 'Escape' because that would be an 'Attack'.

This Paizo forum can clearly sort out 1-5 and that is the vast bulk of it all

We can also identify 6-8. We can suggest possible options. But there will often be multiple answers. After a healthy discussion most adult participants do agree there are multiple interpretations. But sadly that is not everyone. We just have to live with the fact that people do have preconceived notions, differently starting points and aren't entirely rational. Its going to take some people more time to come around than others.

However there is often lots of value in the debate.

After we sort out the first 5, can we agree that a errata/FAQ on the others will help everyone?

They did clarify the number of hands for Battle Medicine :-)

Not only that, but a complete errata at the tools system that solved the problem to quick repair, quick unlock, climb, alchemist tools, etc...

Good to see more people that agree we need more clarifications and erratas in a timely manner!
I would love to hear the opinion from someone in the design team if they do make ambiguous rules on purpose...
Just to be clear, I don't want that a designer give a public answer in the forums about a rulling, just check the most asked question check with the team and make an errata/clarification in the correct place.

I'm not sure that what you are actually asking for is possible, feasible, or even a good idea.

What you state you are asking for is to have someone on these forums giving official answers to any and all rules questions. The underlying request is that the rule set is complete and unambiguous - which is actually impossible.

It would be a thankless job to be on here alienating the majority of the customers for one ruling or another that they didn't personally agree with. I have my own thoughts on how the game rules should work, and I am perfectly happy to voice them because I know that anyone who disagrees is completely justified in ignoring me. If I was instead giving official answers that everyone else would have to change their games to account for - well, I wouldn't be posting on these forums either.

The point of the game is to have fun. And not everyone's fun is the same. Recently we were debating how much use a familiar should have during exploration mode. For some groups it was not fair for one player's character to be twice as powerful as the others. For other groups it is not fun having a character that has to have their familiar unable to do anything. Having the ability to run the game with either ruling increases the amount of people who can have fun with it.

I certainly sympathize with people who have anxiety issues and are constantly running the risk of being told that their build is 'wrong'. But if the people that they are playing with aren't respecting their thoughts, ideas, rules interpretations, and desires but are instead just shutting them down without any consideration - well, no amount of rules text either in the books or on these forums is going to change that.

Many questions here at the forum can be answered just pointing to the right set of rules that interacts with the question.

Other questions lacks an input from the design team because the rules are not clear enough yet.
Example: How much damage a critical hit with a great pick does while using grasping reach?

A clarification about the priority of damage increase/decrease would solve the problem in this case and every other similar case in the future too.

Yes, I want the rules as complete and unambiguos as possible. I know that will take time and many things are corner cases that usually only happens at theorycraft should have a low priority, but my main concern is the valid options at PFS be clarified somehow.

It can be simple:
Add an option to "Request clarify" and every member of the forum can upvote the option.
Once every x days, 7 for example, a designer/a team check the most upvoted and give an official feedback releasing erratas/faqs if needed and closing the topic.

In a home campaign sure. But if you go online and post your build and get mocked because you are a cheater or it just doesn't work.

Or if in PFS what if it doesn't work with every second GM you get?

People want to know the official way to play these rules. They want to do it right in a way that is seen as balanced and fair as judged by an offical 3rd party arbiter.

THAT is the reason of my post, it's not enough to just write random rules at the books and forget about those, i'm not asking much here...

They point people to the forum not to find a designer providing answers, but because we the community can answer many questions for ourselves if we elect to do so.

And no, organized play is not so stifling as to not have the GM at the table serve as a GM is expected to when it comes to smoothing over ambiguous rules.

I know the forums can help many people but this stops at the point 2 possible answers become possible and the guessing starts.

As a venture agent I received enough complains already from players that had problems with GM's enforcing wrong rules that luckily was possible to solve just pointing at the right section of the book and heard many others players that just droped an idea they liked because of the fear of being called out as wrong or cheater.
Social anxiety disorder is a thing and deal with unknow people with the burden of doubt is not easy for those have Social Anxiety.
A little excerpt about what Social Anxiety disorder is:
"It is an intense, persistent fear of being watched and judged by others"

If past (and quite frankly, recent) conversations are any indication, the regulars here in the Rules Forum often know the rules better than the Designers do =P

Let's hope Paizo pay a dolar a month and give the "regulars" a badge of official clarification to fix the issue then.

This is really exaggerated. PFS aims for a level playing field and consistent experience, not robotic adherence to as-literal-as-possible rules. The Table Variation section of the PFS Guide gives lots of examples where it's totally fine for the GM to just apply common sense to make rulings in corner cases. And there's an appendix with even more guidance.

"No alteration of mechanics of player characters,

3) Leadership has told us time and time again to ask rules questions here, rather than there.

It's not just us posters flagging threads for removal; it's at the behest of the Campaign Developers themselves. Rules arguments eat up limited game time and can foster a frustrating experience that people wrongly correlate as a Society failing, when Society has nothing to do with Errata or Rules FAQs. Leadership wants to limit that false attribution as much as possible.

How many times have you seen someone in any of the rules forums rolling their eyes and complaining about Society being strictly "RAW"? It's such a pervasive belief,
and yet it's never been true. GMs are specifically empowered to issue a ruling for their table and move on with the adventure.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qqqh?How-are-badly-written-rules-ha ndled-in-society#13

Thanks for the link, that shows the problem happens for many years and never got solved, looks like many just got used to dont have answers whatsoever...

The mother of all Lost Omens books!

or father, when Lamashtu is involved we never know

Be an orc, adopted ancestry human at level 3, and call yourself half-human

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=312
If you follow the steps of the checks:

Step 1: Roll d20 and Identify the Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties that Apply
Graspping reach triggers here

Step 2: Calculate the Result
Step 3: Compare the Result to the DC

Step 4: Determine the Degree of Success
Fatal Triggers here.

Increases to X will override the any reduction previously applied, including grasping reach.

Remember that Ancient elf Eldritch rogue can start without any dedication with this build:

Ancestry
+2 Int, +2 Dex, -2 Con, Free: +2Con
Optional Flaw:
-2 Int, -2 Dex, +2 Con
Background:
+2 Str, +2Con
Class:
+2 Cha
Choosen attributes:
+2 Int, +2 Dex, +2 Wis, +2 Con

Final Score:
Str: 12
Dex: 12
Con: 16
Int: 12
Wis: 12
Cha: 12

There is no valid option of dedication with this score.
So BOTH dedications will not give anything.

And on the topic:

Ancient Elf
Choose a class other than your own. You gain the multiclass dedication feat for that class, even though you don’t meet its level prerequisite. You must still meet its other prerequisites to gain the feat.

Eldritch Trickster
Choose a multiclass archetype that has a basic, expert, and master spellcasting feat. You gain that archetype's dedication feat as a bonus feat even though you don't meet its level prerequisite, though you must meet its other prerequisites. For you, the Magical Trickster rogue feat has a prerequisite of 2nd level instead of 4th level. You can choose the spellcasting ability score for the multiclass archetype you chose as your key ability score.

Archetype Wizard
Prerequisites Intelligence 14
You cast spells like a wizard, gaining a spellbook with four common arcane cantrips of your choice. You gain the Cast a Spell activity. You can prepare two cantrips each day from your spellbook. You're trained in arcane spell attack rolls and spell DCs. Your key spellcasting ability for wizard archetype spells is Int, and they are arcane wizard spells. You become trained in Arcana; if you were already trained in Arcana, you instead become trained in a skill of your choice.

Special You can’t select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the wizard archetype.

------------------
You GAIN the feat, the only "prerequisite" is the attribute.
The "Special" says you cant select, but you gained it, its not "optional" to gain, is not you gain if you can, is not you gain if you are not an Ancient Elf/Edritch Trickster, its you GAIN period.
Thats how I handle it until an official errata or FAQ is released.

The book was released over a year ago, plenty of time to release an errata, FAQ or blog note at least.

How could you if you don't know how much damage to apply to the creature's resistances and or weaknesses?

Math.

Hardness 10
Punch 1 does 7 damage, reduced to 0 by hardness.
Punch 2 does 10 damage, reduced to 7 by the "remaing hardness" ( hardness 10 - 7 dmg = 3 hardness )

Same way with weakness:

Punch 1 does 10 damage, trigger weakness for extra 5 damage: total 15
Punch 2 does 8 damage, cant trigger weakness again, total 8.

That seems like meta-gaming to me.

Flurry of blows only states that you combine the damage if you hit the same target. These are described as rapid blows, so at what point are they going to be aware of the target dying when they are not supposed to even be aware of what Hit Points are or know exactly how close to dying an enemy is?

I think that the implication here is clearly that you have to choose your target or targets before making the attack rolls. You don't get to see if the target dies before making the second strike.

Nowhere in the flurry of blows says anything about choose before attack, or to resolve damage only after both strikes, and the normal thing is resolve one attack before resolve another.

Roll first attack, resolve damage and everything else ( crit specialization, reactions, etc )
Roll second attack, if against the same target, if both attacks had hit, you calculate the damage as part of the same attack.

Samir Sardinha wrote:

Blave wrote:

I would allow it. But only to hurt undead. It would harmlessly discharge (without any healing done) if a creature without negative healing triggered the glyph.

A negative healing that trigger the glyph of a 3 action heal, would still heal everyone on the area?

... no, of course not. I forgot that glyph can hold area spells. But that really doesn't change the intend of my post unless you're splitting hairs.

So, whats your point?

Honestly Grovel does some good things for just one feat.

- Target Will instead of Perception. This can be worth a 2-4 point swing in DC. You can usually tell when a creature is relatively dumb but has a good nose or something like that.

- See the result before committing to going into melee. Feint didn't work? Then you can decide to not close in. Or move differently to a flanking position (often when you flank them, it's also easier for monsters to move to flank you; with grovel you can see beforehand if you really need to). This extra safety is nice considering kobolds have poor constitution.

- Get panache before moving closer as a swashbuckler. And panache gives you more speed so doing this first is nice. And if you fail you could still go Tumble towards your enemy for a second chance at panache.

I heavily disagree, you spend 3 actions between grovel, move, attack.

Brazil import tax is 60% and in some states it can be 80% send your prayers to Abadar.

Ah, don't forget that dex based AC is capped at +5 since even "unarmored armors" have this weird max dex, and your dex can get up to +7

Maybe if we can have an "dexterity" propulsive trait that lets you add half your dex to damage with certain weapons.

Please make a second round playtest!
There was too many controversial points and the first playtest suffered too much with the new spellcasting mechanism too.

Add class variants to summoner and maybe magus so we can have a better chasis to improve later, something in the Cloistered/Warpriest line.

Maybe one more focused on spellcasting and the other more martial options ( for the eidolon or even the summoner ).

I would like to see those together with Neutral Champions.
Actually the only class that is not suitable for a neutral character.

Yes, we can call it Eidoloner.
Now he is the eidolon with the shared HP, actions and everything.

I agree, some clarifications do seem easy to give and would help getting more consistent data from the playtest. Still, if we aren't getting them, there must be a good reason.

About a hypothetical second round, it's something that comes out during every single playtest. And yet it never happened, even for things much bigger than two new classes: unfortunately, there's only so much time.

I don't have your kind of optimistic view, maybe is just a company policy that is related to some bureaucracy BS, maybe paizo is being "cheap" and don't want to pay one person to handle those kind of feedbacks, there is a lot of possibilities and not all of them are "good reasons" since the release, despise the variant rules, that the name speaks for themselves, there was never something that changes the game like the summoner ( I didn't even looked at the magus after got disgusted for what happened to the summoner ).

I'd like to see either a revision pass on this test to iron out things like the staff vs limited slots, or a second round of testing with some newly introduced concepts

The test boards have slowed quite a bit in the last week, and much of what is being posted now are just tired variations on what we've seen half a dozen times in the week before

I would be interested to know if there are still solid numbers of playtest surveys being submitted

I got tired of theorycraft and don't get answers from the devs to things that could be simple as "oh that's a mistake, we forget to add a 0 instead of - at the lower level spells and with this you can cast spells from staffs."

I would expect to see devs commenting on the playtest and how it wet, but I wouldn't put money on seeing a round two. They put forth what they wanted tested and it got tested. This was a stress test of mechanics not a call for design submission.

There is too much "new" rules this time.

A second round playtest can help to mitigate it and enable the final version to be better and enjoyable