Pathfinder Adventure Path #105: The Inferno Gate (Hell's Vengeance 3 of 6) (PFRPG)

Aratorin's page

1,275 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 392 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lightning Raven wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

People think bard is near overpowered.

Meanwhile I've been thinking it's the only balanced caster lol

I'm with you on this one.

I also find it funny that Fighters and Rogues whole design niche is being best at fighting and being best at skills, which is basically what every other class is trying to achieve, but can't. Both classes have insane base chassis AND a lot of interesting feats (a lot of them as well) on top of it and I've yet to see it mentioned (except me, a couple of times, but I'm not as present as other members here, so maybe it's on me).

I mean, Bards are pretty good, they're interesting to play, they engage well with the action economy, all of the class' paths inspire different playstyles that realize them well and feel rewarding, they have a lot of unique options in their feats (House of Imaginary Walls, Allegro, Esoteric Polymath, Fatal Aria, etc) and is flavorful as hell. They're what every caster should be. I didn't mention their spell list because it's quite limited (mostly buffs, some healing and a lot of Will spells), because other classes get it and it's not what makes it one of the most well designed class.

Fighter's schtick is being best at Accuracy specifically. That doesn't mean they are the best at "fighting". Barbarians do more Damage overall, and Rangers do more damage to single targets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Apparently this thread is no longer sticky.

Yes it is. The sticky mechanism of these forums is just weird in the way that it works. If you are within the Rules Discussion subforum, it will always be at the top, but if you are in the Pathfinder Second Edition overview, and you have already checked it, so that "new" posts notifications show, it will move around within the Rules Discussion section on that page like any other thread.

These are truly the oddest forums I have ever seen. I'm not sure why they didn't just go with phpBB.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

The errata needs errata. It needs to say "Add the Requirements entry" not "change."

Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.”

There is no Requirements entry in the Battle Medicine feat. Therefore, as written, there is nothing to change and the errata does nothing.

Pg 18 Shows that all Feats have a Requirements entry. They just don't print it if it's blank. Just because a variable doesn't have a value doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Sapient wrote:

Only a character that has really trained for that sort of athleticism should have a non-zero chance of doing it, really. In the real world, 10 feel horizontally (with no elevation change) is about what a typical person can do. Only a small percentage of the population could jump up 5 feet and land on their feet, running start or not.

They SHOULD have to have invested experience into appropriate abilities. Most characters in a typical party should find this jump impossible without grabbing an edge.

To clarify, I am assuming that yes, players will have items and feats and spells which improve their ability to jump. It's honestly one of the best ways to avoid or cheapen difficult terrain as well as small gaps in terrain, compared to either running around or climbing up, which may be a bit more difficult, or not even feasible depending on the gap.

But what I'm saying is that the mechanics for jumping as a whole aren't very fluid. A player can't jump both 30 feet distance and 10-15 foot height as part of the same activity (discounting Jump spell of course). Granted, I can see the arguments behind why that is from a realism standpoint (as they are certainly different types of jumps), but considering this is a fantasy realm where players are doing all kinds of superhuman feats, I don't see why they can't jump like this.

I suppose the real question here is: Is this actually possible to do within the rules? Let's assume a 30 foot gap with a 10 foot height difference, you being on the lower end. Can the PC possibly make this jump check? [Bonus question: What are the average limits a PC can do with this kind of skill?]

Long Jump then Wall Jump to High Jump then Grab an Edge. Nothing other than Master Athletics and a single Skill Feat required.

Once you grab Cloud Jump you don't even have to Grab an Edge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
Cottoncaek wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Cottoncaek wrote:


I mean, when one feat is something *EVERYBODY* needs to take, that's just as imperfect.
Everybody doesn't need to take it. Battle Medicine can only work once per day per induvial. It says after the HP are healed, the target then becomes immune to Battle Medicine for 1 day, as it says on pg 258.
Boy are you in for a surprise! The target becomes immune to *your* battle medicine, friendo. Everyone can have it, and everyone can use it on everybody, once per day, per person. Four person party? Each person can be Battle Medicined 4 times per day, and if you end up with Godless Healing->Mortal Healing, it gets even more insane.

I asked my GM about this and his ruling was that each additional attempted Battle Medicine only allows the single highest result rolled to apply each day, (same way Temporary HPs work), even if you have since lost those HPs because of recent damage. The limit resets each day after you sleep.

If every single PC can apply Battle Medicine to every other PC every day and they all stack, without limit, then why force multiple characters to all take the same feat? Just allow the same character to do it multiple times a day.

That's a fine house rule, but it's not how the Feat works.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone really believe that they would require you to have Healer's Tools but not use them? I mean, other than it not specifically saying that in excruciating detail, that's really just a silly position. The Tools don't heal the target by emitting positive vibes from within your Bandolier.

It's a wonder the Paizo team doesn't just say "We're done with this nonsense." and close up shop.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

If something says "make a Strike", you cannot make a Twin Feint, because Twin Feint is not a Strike.

If something, like Sneak Attack, applies to all Strikes, it applies to the Strikes contained within Twin Feint, because they are Strikes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

Yup; that's part of what makes them a leshy. Same reason that goblins are small, elves are medium, and trolls are large.

Feel free to change as you want in your game, but for PC ancestries that are medium plants, we've got the ghorans already.

How would you feel about something like General Ancestry Feats that could be taken only at Level 1, by any Ancestry, to represent genetics or other conditions that make you 1 size larger or smaller?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Joe Pesci made a career as a small intimidating guy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mrspaghetti wrote:
Aratorin wrote:

I mean when it comes down to it, personally, I disagree with the assertion that Darkvision allows you to see when absolutely no light exists.

The only situations where absolutely no light exists are a sealed environment at absolute 0, and within the gravitational pull of a black hole.

I don't think creatures with Darkvision can see in either of those circumstances.

All other environments have some amount of heat, and therefore, some amount of light. That light just happens to be in a spectrum that we cannot see, but that Darkvision can.

Whether or not that light is capable of producing a noticeable reflection or refraction is really up to the GM.

As for Darkvision being black and white, that really has nothing at all to do with what spectrum of light it picks up, and is entirely based on how the eyes transmit that light to the brain.

It's definitely not Magical, as it doesn't have the Magical Trait

So the spell Darkvision is not magical? And it doesn't actually do what the spell description says? I guess the devs will need to address that in the next errata.

Yes, of course the Spell is Magical. That was never under debate. The ability that it grants is not, nor is the natural ability of Dwarves. Just like the Goblin Pox inflicted by Goblin Pox is not a Magical Disease. It's a mundane thing created by a Spell.

mrspaghetti wrote:

"You grant yourself supernatural sight in areas of darkness. You gain darkvision."

So darkvision is supernatural sight, whether granted by a spell or ancestry. There is no "non-magical" darkvision (assuming 'supernatural' and 'magical' can be considered synonymous).

Evocative descriptions are not Rules. Magical abilities have the Magical Trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean when it comes down to it, personally, I disagree with the assertion that Darkvision allows you to see when absolutely no light exists.

The only situations where absolutely no light exists are a sealed environment at absolute 0, and within the gravitational pull of a black hole.

I don't think creatures with Darkvision can see in either of those circumstances.

All other environments have some amount of heat, and therefore, some amount of light. That light just happens to be in a spectrum that we cannot see, but that Darkvision can.

Whether or not that light is capable of producing a noticeable reflection or refraction is really up to the GM.

As for Darkvision being black and white, that really has nothing at all to do with what spectrum of light it picks up, and is entirely based on how the eyes transmit that light to the brain.

It's definitely not Magical, as it doesn't have the Magical Trait


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cut out a length from the center and connect the ends with rope. You will have turned your Bo Staff into a Nunchaku, thereby giving it the Finesse Trait. ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, all this time I've been beating enemies over the head with my Longbow to get the benefits of my Striking Runes...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
As has been brought up before on these forums, cannibalism in a fantasy setting (such as Golarion) doesn’t just mean eating one’s own kind, it means eating any fully sapient species, so yeah a human eating a kobold would be a cannibalism, probably need a better name for it though.

Not only is that not the definition of cannibalism, it's not even a workable definition of cannibalism.

Dogs aren't sapient, but a dog eating another dog is cannibalism. A dog eating a human is not cannibalism.

Wargs are sapient carnivores. Are you saying they are all inherently cannibals if they eat a goblin or kobold? That's ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Foeclan wrote:
I'm hoping it evens out a bit in part 2. It's a bit demoralizing.

It doesn't, I would advise moving to a nicer adventure like extinction curse (you can run the first book like its own stand alone adventure pretty easily). The only real threat in that are some demon encounters that have clear advice for the GM to make sure that they are nerfed tactically.

This is not blaming you of course, it is the adventure and sometimes companies just release the wrong adventure in the wrong place (imo).

If you think your players are a bit gungho it is easy to have a fireside story before that point and have someone talk about the dangers of the demon in question. Heck even giving them access to some holy water would be fine if you are concerned (splash good damage is great for triggering weaknesses)

There is another encounter which could be dangerous but the demons won't fight unless pushed/harassed and one of them continuously pushes players rather than optimally getting them in two AoE blasts and maximizing fear effects.

Oh and I always suggest reading a full adventure book before running it. It can give a lot of insight into what you will need to do to make the adventure fun for the players if you are running something prewritten.

Agents of Edgewatch might also be worth looking into, but I am no longer a subscriber and haven't seen the PDF yet :)

EC has an encounter with 3 Boars, so I'm not sure how "If you think that fight with 1 Boar is hard, try this much easier AP where you fight 3 Boars!" makes any sense. EC is an unrelentingly difficult AP. Every encounter is extremely deadly. Especially in the first 2 chapters.

If your group is not absolutely min maxed, you're gonna die, unless the GM pulls punches.

Which is very unexpected from a campaign premise that encourages quirky, unoptimized characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given the popularity of things like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Dexter, The Walking Dead, etc..., I think people are more ok then ever with fantasizing about, and roleplaying as, "heroes" who are terrible people.

It's not my personal cup of tea, I like my heroes good and my villains evil, but clearly the populace at large loves it.

Leaving them out would be a huge blunder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
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.

But then that counteracts the previous argument about summons/companions. The act of sustaining a summon/commanding a creature has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action.

Another creature has to take actions for any harm to result. You didn't take those actions.

Especially if it's a summon you can't communicate with, and therefore cannot command. You have no control over what it chooses to do after you take the passive action of sustaining its existence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TomParker wrote:
For creatures that have spells that do some damage roll plus primary casting ability modifier, what is that modifier? Is there a default stated somewhere, like divine spells always use Wisdom? Given that creatures have their own rules for their bonuses, I'm not sure I can reverse engineer the bonus from the Spell DC or Spell Attack.

Unless the Spells are Innate, which always use CHA, I use the creature's highest mental stat, as I assume that is their "Key Ability" for casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:

the issues is that perfect preparation is being used as a argument to claim the wizard is perfect and need no balancing

Not in this thread they aren't. Certainly not before you went off. This thread was not about balance. It was made to talk about wizards (and alchemists and sorcerrs) perceived lack of niche to be the best at a particular thing. That's a lot less about balance than it is about a class being interesting. The most balanced you could have classes would be every class working the same, and it would also be boring.

The giant totem barbarian deals the highest damage in the game and has the best reach. That's a unique niche and draw of the instinct which can't be denied. But some people still think it is poorly balanced because it sacrifices its AC and reflex saves to hit just a little bit harder than the other instincts.

The conversation was about what wizards could do better than anyone else, not if they were overall weaker than the other classes. Cintra's answer was: taking advantage of planning and intelligence gathering. Saying "not everyone gets to plan" doesn't refute the idea that wizards are the best when they do.

An actual counterpoint would be that that clerics and druids can prepare their spell selection with a day's notice too, and have access to a much bigger chunk of their spell list. The wizard has a more flexible and powerful spell list, but probably has fewer spells in their spell book than the cleric and druid can call upon. I think the wizard only clearly pulls ahead if they have spell substitution.

The conversation has pivoted a little to general balance stuff now, at least among a few people. But that's largely because you started talking about balance. Until then it was just about the class having a niche. I don't know what you've experienced in other threads, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with this one.

i would find it hard to argue that having a niche and doing that niche...

They are the only Class that gets five 10th Level Spell Slots. They are the undisputed champions of high Level Spellcasting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Aratorin wrote:

A maxed out Fort Save at Level 2 is +9. The DC is 21. That's less than a 50% chance of Success. I'm not sure how that's a "not particularly hard Save".

The Reflex Save for the initial Damage is also less than 50%.

It's a "not particularly hard Save" because the game establishes the normal range of difficulty in such a way that a 2nd level character could be looking at DC more in the 24-27 range since a level 4 enemy is not the highest level enemy they could face, nor is a 21 DC the highest that a level 4 enemy could have.

And since you brought up "less than 50%" in a way that suggest you believe that to be bad odds, I would point out that the odds of a character failing their reflex save and then also failing their fortitude save and thus the creature actually getting them affected by the poison are more than likely less than 50%

Let's use the worst case from my own party as an example: Reflex +4, Fortitude +8. 80% chance he fails the Reflex save and has to make the Fortitude save, but only a 60% chance he fails the Fortitude save, so the overall chance of 48% that the poison affects him.

2-3 times per turn. Not to mention that the character is probably already down from the 18-27 average Damage that he already took just from the Attacks.

Couple that with the fact that the party had no AoE or Splash damage, and that the previous encounter had already left them with below max HP, even after Treating Wounds.

That's the biggest problem with EC. None of the encounters by themselves would be deadly, but the first 2 Chapters especially have encounter after encounter after encounter, with no time for an 8 hour rest in between.

The first Chapter alone has 3 Low, 7 Moderate, and 1 Severe encounters back to back.

Unless you tell the party ahead of time "hey, you're going to have 11 fights in a row with no rest, so don't use any limited use abilities until the 5th or 6th fight", any party is screwed. Even then, unless you add a time bending 8 hour rest in there, it's gonna be a bad time.

Compare that to AoA, where you can rest pretty much any time you feel like it. Heck, the hexploration portion forces you to have no more than 1 encounter per day. It's basically a lazy jog.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

I think the thief is just able tk use its Dex Modifier instead of the stregth one, but this doesn't transform its attacks into Dex attacks.

I see a thief being able to choose between dex and str as the stat which gives damage, but nothing more.

Everyone can attack using their DEX on Finesse weapons.

Everyone cannot deal DEX to damage though.

And this line in the Racket:

Quote:
When you attack with a finesse melee weapon, you can add your Dexterity modifier to damage rolls instead of your Strength modifier.

Because it states "instead of your Strength modifier" makes the damage roll a non-STR Damage roll (in the same way that any other type of damage roll is not affected by Enfeebled that does not apply STR, such as a Crossbow).

The intent may be that it applies, but as written, it does not.

Quote:
Clumsy should never have been mentioned

Clumsy is the "applies to DEX" condition.

Of course Clumsy doesn't apply to damage rolls, because 99% of the game doesn't have a damage roll contingent on DEX.

The only one that does is the Thief Racket.

If you're going to come in and comment on a post, I implore you to at least take the few seconds it takes to read and understand what the OP is saying before you just start spamming comments.

I wasn't spamming anything. It was a valid response to what you posted. You either made an error, or were making a very unclear and nonsensical point with that line. It's not a big deal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

Maybe this has been answered before, but currently as written the Thief Racket Dex to Damage is immune to Enfeebled because Enfeebled specifies "Strength-based damage rolls" and Thief Dex to damage says "instead of Strength".

It is also immune to Clumsy, because Clumsy specifically states "checks and DCs" and damage rolls are not a check or a DC.

I would imagine that the Thief Racket is good enough as it is and this RAW immunity is probably not intended.

Has anyone dealt with this at the table and if so how did you handle it?

An Attack Roll is 100% a Check. Clumsy even points out that Ranged Attack Rolls are a type of Check in its description.

CRB 446 wrote:

Specific Checks

While most checks follow these basic rules, it’s useful to know about a few specific types of checks, how they’re used, and how they differ from one another.

Attack Rolls
When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll.

Quote:

CLUMSY

CONDITION
Your movements become clumsy and inexact. Clumsy always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to the condition value to Dexterity-based checks and DCs, (these things are all examples of checks and DCs) -> including AC, Reflex saves, ranged attack rolls, and skill checks using Acrobatics, Stealth, and Thievery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Should PCs be able to learn new game mechanics, such as spells, through observation alone?

For example, a wizard witnesses an enemy caster using sudden bolt on an ally, or perhaps is targeted by it himself. He observes the enemy caster's hand motions, hears their incantation, sees an unnatural cloud form overhead, feels the gathering charge as his arm hairs stand on end, then endures the lightning.

Could he later look back on that experience and add the spell to his spellbook (making all the necessary checks and spending the appropriate time and resources for Learn A Spell as normal)?

Would it make any difference (perhaps in the form of a higher check DC?) if he only saw the spell effects and not the components (such as with permanent spell effect he finds in place long after it was cast)? Would it make any difference if the enemy caster he witnessed was a druid using primal magic rather than a sorcerer using arcane? What if it were a Rare or Unique spell, instead of an Uncommon one?

Or is mere observation not enough, and the player needs to have his character diminished by needing the GM need to say "here's a step by step scroll," or "here's a mentor to teach you" or something similarly condescending?

Same for gear or magic items. Could a PC learn the formula with enough interaction with a given object or magic item? (Again, not bypassing the neccessary time and resource components).

Same for a fighter who witnesses or experiences an enemy using an uncommon feat (once, more than once?).

I think it's actually more condescending to everyone else to think that a character can witness an incredibly complicated thing one time and then replicate it.

Nobody watches Bobby Fischer play Chess, or Michael Jordan play basketball, and then just goes and does it equally well.

Casting Spells and Crafting objects are inherently complicated tasks.

Heck, even mundane magic, like pulling a tablecloth off of a fully loaded table, is too complicated to learn by just seeing it once.

Not to mention that it steps on potential design space for something like a Blue Mage, or some kind of Feat or Item that gives you a Sharingan type ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mrspaghetti wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Unicore wrote:
How do you use a halfling slingstaff as a staff? You can make strikes with a ranged weapon, so some feats would still work fine by the rules.

RAW I don't think this works at all. A Halfling Sling Staff isn't a Staff. It's just a flavorful Sling. Its Weapon Groups is Sling, and it's only listed as a Ranged Weapon. The fact that it's even mentioned in the Dedication is just confusing.

It's possible that RAI the Sling Staff can be used in Melee as a generic Staff, but nothing in the Rules actually indicates that.

Well it's a long stick that happens to have a sling at the end. A staff is "a long stick". So why would one need the rule book to specify that you can use a stick as a stick? If you wrapped some oily rags around the end and set it on fire, would it not become a torch? Does the book need to explicitly permit that? And would it need to also specifically state that strips ripped from your explorers clothing may be used to create torches?

Using it as a Melee Weapon when it is not explicitly made for that function would make it an Improvised Weapon. So, yes. If it's not listed as a Melee Weapon, it's not a Melee Weapon.

A Bow is a long stick with a string, but that doesn't mean you can use it as a Staff.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Unless you really want to RP the party putting everything into a pile, walking 35 Feet away with a single Item, Casting Detect Magic, rinse and repeat ad nauseam to determine which items in their loot are Magical, just let them Identify Magical stuff...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bobtheworm1513 wrote:
Does a player get to choose to use a hero point before they know the results or after they know the results. I am having a hard time defending that you get to know the results before you choose because nowhere in the Core does it specify.

After they know the results, of course. Why would you reroll a Check without knowing the results?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the Weapons and Shield, yes. For the Armor, no.

You aren't wearing Explorer's Clothing, Padded Armor, and Full Plate. You are wearing Full Plate. It just happens to be made up of those things.

You aren't getting the individual Armor benefits of each piece.

Much like a Halfling Sling Staff can't have 2 Weapon Talismans. Being made up of 2 things is not the same as being 2 things.

The Gauntlets are an exception, because though they are provided by the Armor, they provide a stand alone function.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NielsenE wrote:

I'm assuming this is just an error in Hero Lab, but before I report the bug, wanted to see what people thought here.

When you take the feat Magical Crafting you get the formulas for 4 common magical items of level 2 or less. HeroLab doesn't allow you to choose a formula for a +1 Weapon Potency Rune as one of your choices. As far as I can tell nothing in the rules should block it. The Rune has the Item tag, and is level 2 or below.

Bug in HeroLab or rule I'm missing?

They actually don't have the Item tag.

Compare to Potions.

Quote:

BARKSKIN POTION ITEM 4

ABJURATION CONSUMABLE POTION PRIMAL
Quote:

WEAPON POTENCY RUNE 2+

EVOCATION MAGICAL

Whether or not that means they are not Items, I'm not really sure. They do grant an Item Bonus.

Actually, looking further, the CRB seems to explicitly say that they are not Items.

CRB 580 wrote:

Rune Formulas

The Price of a rune’s formula is the same as the Price of a formula for an item of the same level; it can be acquired in the same way as an item formula (described on page 293).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Aratorin wrote:

Not unless your Unarmed Attack has the Grapple Trait. Otherwise, you aren't using that Unarmed Attack, you're just making a Skill Check with no Weapon at all.

If you're an Ape Barbarian using your Fist Attack to Grapple, then yes.

If you're a Fighter just using Grapple, then no.

Although, even for the Ape Barbarian, it's debatable, as that Attack doesn't explicitly belong to a Weapon Group the way a Monk's Dragon Tail Attack does.

I'm not making a strike with a weapon with the Grapple Trait

I'm making a Grapple skill check with the attack trait and a free hand. Which I consider to be a body part that can be treated as a Fist. As per Core Rule Book page 278.

A Fist does not have the Grapple Trait so it cannot be used to Grapple. If it could, the Grapple Trait of specific Unarmed Attacks would be pointless.

An Attack must have the Grapple Trait to be able to use it to make a Grapple Check.

A generic Grapple Check does not have a Weapon Group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Disagree with Gleeful's ruling. The special text tells you what you change on a repeat selection, but it doesn't mean the rest of the feat's text disappears. If the intent is to prevent you from getting additional focus points, it needs to be a lot more explicit about it.

It says what happens when you take it a second time. Not what changes, literally in the "how to read feats" quote I shared earlier.

You, choose a different domain than the first, and gain a spell from it.

What you gain is specified and impacted.

That doesn't work for the vast majority of Feats that you can take multiple times, so I don't think your overly strict reading is correct.

Assurance wrote:
Special You can select this feat multiple times. Each time, choose a different skill and gain the benefits for that skill.

If that's the only text present when you take it the second time, what are the "benefits"?

Multilingual wrote:
Special You can select this feat multiple times. Each time, you learn additional languages.

How many additional languages?

Terrain Stalker wrote:
Special You can select this feat multiple times. Each time, choose a different type of terrain.

Great, so I choose a terrain, of any kind apparently, what does that do for me? This has no benefit without the full wording of the Feat.

Multifarious Muse wrote:
Special You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you must choose a different type of muse other than that of your own.

Again, I choose a muse, and then what happens? Without the text of the Feat, this does nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:

A correction some of the statements on RAW in this thread are misleading and just wrong. Which honestly is fair as the book needs improvement here.

It is true that unarmed attacks don't necessarily have weapon traits or specializations.
But unarmed attacks CAN have belong to a weapons group - Core Rule Book page 278, and unarmed attacks CAN have weapon traits - Core Rule Book page 280.
The rule on Groups (Core Rule Book page 280) says

A weapon or unarmed attack’s group classifies it with similar weapons. Groups affect some abilities and what the weapon does on a critical hit if you have access to that weapon or unarmed attack’s critical specialization effects

Making it quite clear that unarmed attacks do have critical specialization effects.

The rules which define what a critical specialization effect is, are what the original poster used to apply then to all attacks with a critical success, even if they are skill checks with the attack trait.

Certain feats, class features, weapon runes, and other effects can grant you additional benefits when you make an attack with certain weapons and get a critical success. This is called a critical specialization effect. The exact effect depends on which weapon group your weapon belongs to

You can't allow the slack use of certain weapons to exclude unarmed attacks, because we already know unarmed attacks do have critical specialization effects. This rule above is the definition of critical specialization effects, not merely one example of its use.

Further you can use the listed statistics for Fist with any normal body part that you attack with, ie a kick or a head butt. Core Rule Book page 278. But not for other unarmed attacks, such as you might get from a polymorph spell or a bite from a heritage feat.

So if you have the specialization effect for fist (because you are a raging level 5 barbarian, or a fighter specialised...

Not unless your Unarmed Attack has the Grapple Trait. Otherwise, you aren't using that Unarmed Attack, you're just making a Skill Check with no Weapon at all.

If you're an Ape Barbarian using your Fist Attack to Grapple, then yes.

If you're a Fighter just using Grapple, then no.

Although, even for the Ape Barbarian, it's debatable, as that Attack doesn't explicitly belong to a Weapon Group the way a Monk's Dragon Tail Attack does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Let's look at the whole piece of text that the various sentence fragments are cited from;

CRB p. 302 wrote:

FOCUS POINTS FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES

It’s possible, especially through archetypes, to gain focus spells and Focus Points from more than one source. If this happens, you have just one focus pool, adding all the Focus Points together to determine the total size of your pool. (Remember that the maximum number of Focus Points a pool can have is 3.) If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool. For instance, if you were a cleric with the Domain Initiate feat, you would have a pool with 1 Focus Point. Let’s say you then took the champion multiclass archetype and the Healing Touch feat. Normally, this feat would give you a focus pool. Since you already have one, it instead increases your existing pool’s capacity by 1.

Focus Points are not differentiated by source; you can spend any of your Focus Points on any of your focus spells. Likewise, when you Refocus, you get back a point as long as you follow the guidelines of any abilities that granted you focus spells. Having Focus Points from multiple sources doesn’t change the tradition of your spells; if you had both cleric domain spells and druid order spells, your domain spells would remain divine and the order spells primal. This could mean that you need to keep track of a different proficiency and ability modifier with the spell DC and spell attack roll of different focus spells.

The key here is what "different sources" are. Since most of the text is discussing multiclassing scenarios, I think what they mean is that if you have one feat from one class granting you a focus pool, and another one from another class granting a focus pool, then you have different sources.

If the most straightforward way to get more focus was to take two abilities in the same class that grant a focus pool, then surely it would have been mentioned at least once in this text. But instead it just keeps...

If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool.

That seems crystal clear to me. Just because the author of the example chose to use multi class examples doesn't invalidate it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
My thoughts are that it makes sense for any feat granting a focus spell to also grant a focus point. So unless you're already maxed at 3, I'd say it gives you one.

This is a fine House Rule.

It is very, very, explicitly not how the rules actually work.

How the rules actually work leads to you getting a different amount of focus points if you take the same feats in a different order… so you can see why people feel that it is a mistake that needs correction. (I'm not saying it's not RAW, just the RAW seems wrong)

What's an example of that? The Rules say that if an ability gives you a focus pool, it instead increases an existing pool if you have one. The order never matters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In the Bestiary, this is handled by simply giving extra modifiers to thing a creature would be good at, in a way that isn't represented by their stats.

For example, a Giant Frog does not conjure an image of a creature that is especially Athletic or Acrobatic, but we all know that they can jump well.

So, they have Acrobatics +5, Athletics +6 (+10 to High Jump or Long Jump).

That seems like the most reasonable approach to me.

The issue with Pest Form is that it's an abstraction. Whether the player says he turns into a Cat, a Mouse, or a Caterpillar is irrelevant, the stats are the same. So yeah, a -4 Jump modifier seems terrible for a Cat, but it's mythical for a Snail.

I would be very careful about allowing Acrobatics checks in place of Athletics checks. You can flavor Climbing, Jumping, Swimming, etc... into Acrobatics checks, but that's a one way street. Nobody is rolling Athletics to Balance or Tumble.

Given that Athletics is the only STR based Skill, basically relegating it to Pushing, Pulling, and Lifting is a bad idea.

Everyone will quickly learn to dump it and focus even more on Acrobatics, which is already a vastly superior Skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know about you, but I find throwing Hadoukens left much harder than throwing them right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
The check to understand the arcane theorem would be a recall knowledge check, it even alludes to the erroneous information on a critical failure.

Seems more like Decipher Writing to me. It's actually from the Decipher Writing Arcana example Task.

Quote:
Arcana: writings about magic or science, like arcane theory.

That's one of the things that makes Arcana better than Lore. You can use it for other stuff like that. It's also a Trained use.

I don't think you can have a Proficiency gate for an Untrained use, as it inherently conflicts with it being an Untrained use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Its come up at least 3-4 times in Age of Ashes over 20 levels for my parties Redeemer. Its not useless, and its not too bad.

It is if compared to a paladin reaction.

Also, the fact the DM allowed it to happens doesn't mean that it would occour 3x from lvl 11 to lvl 20.

And 3x is bad.

from 11 to 20 we have 10 levels, which means less than 1 use every 3 levels.

However, to answer to the op:

Redemer and liberator will use their exalt way, way, way less than a paladin. There is literaly not a comparison.

This regardless the fact somebody could consider that specific exalt "Awesome!", "Ok" or "Sucky"

The Paladin version of Exalt is the worst one. If your buddies are in combat with the target, they have better Reactions than a Strike at -5.

Honestly Redeemer is probably the best one. It would have by far the most impact on a combat.

The paladin one will become -2 with its feat.

And will be a possibility.

Don't want to use it but eventually I could

Vs

It could happen 1 every 3/4 levels

really needs no confrontation at all.

You are playing a very different version of this game then. This is something that most groups could routinely use.

Honestly, the fact that the Paladin Exalt is the only one that has a Feat to make it better should indicate to you how bad it is. It's also a Feat that is competing with much better Feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

It doesn't matter if they *can* roll, the minimum proficiency uses a knowledge check (arcana) as an example, but still asserts that they wouldn't have a chance of success if the GM decides it requires a minimum proficiency, instead you'd just be figuring out if you're lying to them.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=557

This IS RAW, no ifs, ands, or buts, suggesting you can't do this or that it happens automatically are houserules.

THEREFORE, untrained improvisation lores can be of benefit vs. a normal skill or even bardic lore, but it runs the risk of not handling minimum proficiency-- because there's a 'texture' difference to the levels of proficiency that isn't expressed in the raw numerical result.

This is pretty much /thread.

Setting a Proficiency gate is RAW yes. That's not the same as changing the DC for one PC but not another.

There is also no precedent that I am aware of in any published material for a Recall Knowledge check being Proficiency gated.

Then click the link in the post you just quoted, its used as the example for the "Minimum Proficiency" rule, that's the core rulebook.

As for the other part, I don't think it's worth talking about, since it sounds like the argument would be that the GM is using a system where they don't proficiency gate conventionally for whatever reason, but still want people with a lower "qualification" to have to be luckier than someone who has the same numerical bonus via proficiency level.

I would call it a ruling once, and a house ruled 'minimum proficiency system' if used consistently that way. This is because the GM sets the DC whenever a player rolls it, which means they 'set it' every time it's used, and are objectively within rights to change it, its just that it would 'feel bad' unless there's a reason for it to be changing. Which is why you don't normally see DCs changing randomly without circumstances changing.

At that point there's really nothing to say...

Your Link wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 504

Sometimes succeeding at a particular task requires a character to have a specific proficiency rank in addition to a success on the check. Locks and traps often require a certain proficiency rank to successfully use the Pick a Lock or Disable a Device actions of Thievery. A character whose proficiency rank is lower than what’s listed can attempt the check, but they can’t succeed. You can apply similar minimum proficiencies to other tasks. You might decide, for example, that a particular arcane theorem requires training in Arcana to understand. An untrained barbarian can’t succeed at the check, but she can still attempt it if she wants—after all, she needs to have a chance to critically fail and get erroneous information!

For checks that require a minimum proficiency, keep the following guidelines in mind. A 2nd-level or lower task should almost never require expert proficiency, a 6th-level or lower task should almost never require master proficiency, and a 14th-level or lower task should almost never require legendary proficiency. If they did, no character of the appropriate level could succeed.

None of those examples are Recall Knowledge checks, so I'm not sure what part of that text you are referring to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

It doesn't matter if they *can* roll, the minimum proficiency uses a knowledge check (arcana) as an example, but still asserts that they wouldn't have a chance of success if the GM decides it requires a minimum proficiency, instead you'd just be figuring out if you're lying to them.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=557

This IS RAW, no ifs, ands, or buts, suggesting you can't do this or that it happens automatically are houserules.

THEREFORE, untrained improvisation lores can be of benefit vs. a normal skill or even bardic lore, but it runs the risk of not handling minimum proficiency-- because there's a 'texture' difference to the levels of proficiency that isn't expressed in the raw numerical result.

This is pretty much /thread.

Setting a Proficiency gate is RAW yes. That's not the same as changing the DC for one PC but not another.

There is also no precedent that I am aware of in any published material for a Recall Knowledge check being Proficiency gated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Henro wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
They can roll the specific Lore and get the lower DC too if they want. If they aren't Trained in it, that would be a bad idea though. Unless they take Untrained Improvisation. In which case, they'd still be down 1 point. I don't understand the problem.
They would be down 1 point compared to a master, and they would be able to do this for every single recall knowledge check to identify monsters. At that point, UI is a much better tool for monster identification at level 7 than investing into knowledge skills.

Compared to a Master in a different Skill. A Master in the Lore will be 6 points ahead.

Arcana, Nature, Religion, Occult, Society etc... are broader Skills with many applications beyond Recall Knowledge.

You aren't making an accurate comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Henro wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
You set the DC, and anyone who wants to roll, rolls, with whatever modifiers they have. Don't go changing the DCs for each PC, that's not how the game works.

No? What? That is 100% how the game works, what are you talking about.

The rules for creature identification are quite clear that PCs using appropriate lore get a lower DC than PCs using a more general skill.

Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.
No, the DC is 25 if if a PC who actually is trained in a relevant lore is making the check I'll decrease the DC for them by 2, or maybe even as much as 5. For someone who has Untrained Improvisation the DC remains 25.
That's not how DC's work. That's just a house rule. One which unduly penalizes player for the feat that they took.

No, the player is rewarded by being able to make the check at all.

And the GM gets to decide if DCs are adjusted down.

Recall Knowledge is an Untrained use. Anyone can make the check. That's not a reward, and that's now how DCs work. The GM can absolutely decide the DC. But not on a per player basis. That's just discriminatory.

Henro wrote:

I'm not really one to argue about what is and isn't a house rule - and I don't think that argument is really going to lead anywhere.

I contend two things;

A) If I allow lores as part of the Untrained Improvisation "package", then I'm granting an UI-user an effective +5 to all monster identification checks. This doesn't require any custom-made hyper-specific lores like "Unusually old and Angry Red Linnorm wearing an eyepatch"-lore, this only requires using Linnorm lore against Linnorms, Troll lore against Trolls, etc since I would normally grant those DC reductions to lore experts using "monster subtype"-lore against the appropriate monster.

B) Point A is an issue as the effective +5 bonus means the UI-user is only 1 point behind a master, something that both devalues going after knowledge skills for monster identification through skill increases, while also seeming quite out-of-flavor for the feat, allowing the improviser to somehow improvise obscure facts about monsters and be nearly as effective at it as the people who've trained their entire careers to know stuff.

This is not correct. Master gives Level +6. Untrained improvisation gives Level. The Master is always +6 ahead of someone using the same Skill. If you are comparing different Skills, that's not a relevant comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Henro wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
You set the DC, and anyone who wants to roll, rolls, with whatever modifiers they have. Don't go changing the DCs for each PC, that's not how the game works.

No? What? That is 100% how the game works, what are you talking about.

The rules for creature identification are quite clear that PCs using appropriate lore get a lower DC than PCs using a more general skill.

Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.
No, the DC is 25 if if a PC who actually is trained in a relevant lore is making the check I'll decrease the DC for them by 2, or maybe even as much as 5. For someone who has Untrained Improvisation the DC remains 25.

That's not how DC's work. That's just a house rule. One which unduly penalizes player for the feat that they took.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Henro wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.

Usually, what ends up happening at my table is;

Player: "I want to identify this Linnorm"
GM: "Okay, roll an Arcana check"
Player: "I have dragon lore, can I roll that instead?"
GM: "That seems totally reasonable. Go ahead. The DC will be a little lower as a result"

Ubertron_X wrote:
And the DC does neither decrease because some player made up an however obscure lore but because you as a GM already set all possible DC's.

This seems like absolute madness to me. Why would the GM set DCs for lores in advance if the PCs doesn't even have those lores? Even if the GM uses only lores the party has, what if someone in the party goes "Actually, I have dungeoneering lore, can I use that to examine this adventurer's pack we just found?"?

Does the GM just go "Nah, I didn't set that as a DC, so nope"?

Isn't the purpose of these quick DC adjustments to increase flexibility in the first place?

I create DCs for everything ahead of time, yes. If someone wants to use a Lore that isn't the one I set a lower DC for, I decide if that Lore is applicable at all, and if it is, I decide whether to use the standard DC, or the lower DC, based on how applicable.

If you planned for Religion and Zombie Lore, and someone has Ghast Lore, maybe you say no, or maybe you say yes, but it's the same DC as Religion, as it isn't especially applicable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Henro wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
You set the DC, and anyone who wants to roll, rolls, with whatever modifiers they have. Don't go changing the DCs for each PC, that's not how the game works.

No? What? That is 100% how the game works, what are you talking about.

The rules for creature identification are quite clear that PCs using appropriate lore get a lower DC than PCs using a more general skill.

Right. So if you say it's a DC 25 Arcana Check, or a DC 23 Some Lore Check, anyone can roll a DC 23 Some Lore Check. The DC doesn't suddenly increase because you don't like that the PC has Untrained Improvisation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
So there is nothing in the rules indicating you can't craft a quicken wand and PF2 opened the door to it by allowing wands with in essence metamagic feats to be crafted. So now as a DM it's merely a matter of allowing it or not based on GM fiat, since the rules seem to infer crafting an item with metamagic in it is possible but provide no framework for doing so.

At that point you aren't asking a rules question. You're asking for advice on how to Homebrew a wand, and the thread should be moved to Homebrew.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Where does it say you can't craft a feat into an item? What about Widen Wands?

Where does it say you can? The rules for Crafting Wands only cover putting Spells into Wands, or Crafting specific Wands, which are listed. No listed Wand has the Quickened Casting Feat effect.

You can't Craft a Wand of Quickened Casting anymore than you can Craft a Wand of Double Slice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They could have at least used Cold or Acid and Electric or Sonic Damage instead of Bludgeoning for 3 of the 4 Elements. As is, there are really only 2 Elemenal Sorcerers. Fire and not Fire. Yes you add your Elemental Trait to the Spells, but that matters so rarely as to be statistically insignificant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
Items don't come immediately to mind, so much as the warning that the majority of the monk ki spells have a verbal component and can't be used during rage without Moment of Clarity, since verbal components have the concentrate trait.

Well, now you are making me realize that I missed some details by just assuming that spells generally come with the concentrate trait.

Quick question (in case I missed something else)- Concentrate is the only one of the 4 spell component types that have the concentrate trait (rest are manipulate). If a spell isn't verbal, is it open to rage casting? Or am I missing another spot of concentration somewhere down the line?

That's correct. Non-Verbal Spells do not have the Concentrate Trait.

Clerics have a large number of non-Verbal combat related Focus Spells, making them a good choice for a Barbarian caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
That's a perfectly reasonable view. Honestly, I just expect the GM to set the checks ahead of time (this uses Arcana DC 30, or Vampire Lore DC 25). However, doesn't the fact that Child of the Puddles gives Absalom Lore kind of directly contradict mister Sayre's statement? Absalom is very much an extant nation.

Absalom is a city-state. He specifically notes cities as the largest thing you can have a modern Lore about, and even gives the example of Magnimar (also a city-state). So...it's nations larger than a city that are actually forbidden.

So that's entirely consistent with not having Lore for anything bigger than a city. His language was perhaps imprecise, but the meaning is clear.

Magnimar has a population of 16,428 and is listed as a large city in the nation of Varisia.

Absalom has a population of 303,900 and is listed as both a metropolis and a nation, so I'm not sure they're really comparable.

Hermea Lore also exists in published 2E materials.

I'm not really clear on what the intent is. Abyss Lore covers an entire Plane of Existence. Surely that's larger than a settlement.

He also seems to be saying that Lore HAS to be specific. So Vampires in Magnimar Lore would be fine, but larger Lore, like Undead Lore would be a problem, as it's a much larger category.

1 to 50 of 392 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>