Lord Soth

Asethe's page

220 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You would need the 2nd level Monk feat Shooting Stars Stance to allow you to flurry with them:

Shooting Stars Stance wrote:
You enter a stance that lets you throw shuriken with lightning speed. While in this stance, you can use your monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks with shuriken instead.

It has the prerequisite of Monastic Weaponry, so you would grab that at first level, and Shooing Stars Stance at second if you wanted to focus on shuriken as your weapon of choice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reading through the Spellcasting Archetypes section again, I agree with breithauptclan's read on how they work and needing Basic Spellcasting to be able to use spell list checked items as they don't gain the Spellcasting feature until they take that archetype feat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you have it right in your examples.

Eldritch Researcher doesn't give Spellcasting, just a single cantrip, so they wouldn't be able to use anything that checks against the Occult spell list, and would need TMI to use them.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Actual spellcasters have the class feature <Tradition> Spellcaster which grants access to a spell list for that tradition. Focus spells don't appear on a spell list, and don't grant access to one, but are aligned to a tradition for purposes of spell attacks and DCs, and checks to identify their focus spell use.

Staves require a caster with slots to be able to charge, and the spell to appear on the right spell list to be able to cast from, and can only be used by the one that charges them.

Wands and scrolls require access to a spell list with their spell on it to be able to cast. Scrolls can also be cast by someone who can cast the spell on the scroll by other means (they have that spell as an innate spell from an ancestry feat, for instance).

In general, focus only classes cannot use these items, and are mostly only usable by someone with the right Spellcaster class feature in a tradition that has the spell(s) on the spell list. The Trick Magic Item feat can offer a way to use some items with varying degrees of success.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

This is possibly the silliest debate I've ever seen here.

Thanks for the laugh, all!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rest and Daily Preparation wrote:

You perform at your best when you take enough time to rest and prepare. Once every 24 hours, you can take a period of rest (typically 8 hours), after which you regain Hit Points equal to your Constitution modifier (minimum 1) times your level, and you might recover from or improve certain conditions (page 453). Sleeping in armor results in poor rest that leaves you fatigued. If you go more than 16 hours without resting, you become fatigued (you cannot recover from this until you rest at least 6 continuous hours).

After you rest, you make your daily preparations, which takes around 1 hour. You can prepare only if you’ve rested, and only once per day. Preparing includes the following:
Spellcasters regain spell slots, and prepared spellcasters choose spells to have available that day.
Focus Points, other abilities that refresh during your preparations, and abilities that can be used only a certain number of times per day, including magic item uses, are reset.
You don armor and equip weapons and other gear.
You invest up to 10 worn magic items to gain their benefits for the day.

RAW it can only be once per 24 hour period, is done after an 8 hour rest, takes an hour, and everything that would require prep, like spell selection, staff preparation, full Focus point regain, and magic item investiture happens during this period.

So, it's a 'no' by RAW on most of what you proposed

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Warning : analyzing the content of a setting book through a game power lens might cause distress.
Sounds like someone who never read the stats for vegemite.

This made me laugh more than it should have.

This is why Australians can continue to live in a country where everything wants to kill them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I still think it feels very wrong that simply changing weapons dramatically increases the utility of these types of spells, I have to concede you are technically right, and in this subforum, that is always the best kind of right.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:

It is possible that the intent behind the rule is that, to prevent exactly the kind of scenario I mentioned.

However if a player told me "I'm stealing my Ally's spell with spell steal" I would be hard pressed to justify saying no to that.

If a player can steal from an ally, can strike an ally, can do everything to an ally, why not an action that can be done on a foe.

Hence the need to come here and see what various people think. Because to me it's obvious, but I'd like to know what the case agaisnt it is.

The devs have done everything in their power this edition to stop bastard players from taking involuntary PvP actions. This is another example of that. The wording on spells has been fairly cleanly split between friendly- and enemy-affecting actions, and quite a lot of offensive actions now exclude friendly targets.

If you really want to allow that at your table, more power to you. If the wizard or battle oracle objects, that's on you as well to adjudicate the results.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It isn't a mistake; your wizard has to spend a day mumbling at a magic circle with some friends to raise a breeze with some falling water. A Storm Giant can just make it storm, or sleet, or shine, or whatever takes its fancy at will. It's cast at 5th level for purposes of counter checks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lazarus Dark wrote:

What I'm stick on is: did the dev writing Inventor archetype say, "choose an innovation", and in the back of their mind thought, but if you aren't naturally trained in Medium armor, then you don't get to be trained in the Power suit even if you choose it.

OR: Did the dev say "choose an innovation" and in their mind they thought, anyone who can take this dedication can use any of the innovations in a useful way equally no matter what class as long as they meet the INT prerequisite of it, and they never realized lack of training would make Subterfuge suit difficult to fully use by half of the classes, or half the classes could not fully use a martial weapon even though the Innovation page they refer to gives the option of a martial weapon.

The dev intention, as it has been shown in previous offerings this edition, has never to automatically make something in a dedication useful just because you chose to take it, just to make it usable. There is a world of difference between those two things.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lazarus Dark wrote:

I have a question about Inventor Archetype dedication that I'm just not seeing eye to eye with others on. If a sorcerer for example takes Inventor Dedication at level 2 and chooses Armor Innovation, is it the intention that they be trained in that Armor Innovation? If not, then the earliest they could be trained is level 7 after taking the Armor proficiency general feat at both level 3 and 7 to get medium proficiency. Whereas a martial class would not have this issue. Additionally, if the intention is to be trained in your innovation, then what about scaling? Scale like an Inventor or scale with the sorcerer's unarmored scaling? This still leaves it unequal to a martial with better scaling. Is the intention that any class can use and scale the armor innovation equally using the Inventor's scaling? Secondly, the weapon innovation let's you choose a simple or martial weapon, how does training/scaling work for those if you are a sorcerer and choose martial weapon or even a wizard choosing a simple weapon they are not trained in?

More discussion can be found here, with deeper analysis by me, but I feel I'm at an impass with everyone else, I just think the devs might have had intentions that every class could take the Inventor Dedication and use it equally, but I could be wrong: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43i5d?Inventor-Archetype-are-you-trained

The devs rarely, if ever, have answered directly in this thread, haven't had a Paizo casual stream since Payton left around this time last year, and didn't address rules questions that didn't already have an obvious answer on the stream since the very early versions of that stream.

Your best bet is to continue your original thread as you will not get anything official, or markedly different, here.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lazarus, I think the biggest cognitive problem you're having with this is that you're trying to view it through the lens of getting another class. It's not. What it is is spending a class feat on something that's outside the list for your class.

Look at all the other MC/Archetype dedications. They mostly have a similar power, and few, if any, on their own outshine the best class feats. The advantage of Dedications is that they unlock access to feats from their MC/Archetype that you can then spend more class feats on later.

The Dedications that give any proficiency all give very little else in the Dedication feat itself. As has been pointed out, proficiency is expensive in terms of internal costing, and proficiency progression moreso.

Of course a fighter will be better at wearing armour with bells and whistles, or swinging a sword with gizmos hanging off it than a sorceror; the fighter is already trained in wearing armour and swinging a sword, where the sorceror is not. For the fighter, Inventor MC Dedication and the follow-on feats just add options to things he already knows. For the sorceror, it's picking up a completely alien set of implements.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAW only one of them would count. You don't have to use paired weapons paired, they just gain a small advantage if you do

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Clearly a case of unacceptable power creep: The comparative amount of fun a player can have with this is far greater than the offerings before!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:

And solving crimes ( detective background and dedication ).

Who let the gnoll out?

Did you just make Scrappy Doo?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

GM fiat, but PF2e takes a fairly commonsense approach to what you can wear. As Healer's Gloves are not described as particularly bulky, I would say a provisio'd 'yes'. AFAIK there is nothing in the rules to prevent you from doing so, assuming you Invest them at the start of the day, but there is also nothing to explicitly let you.

The provisio is they probably can't be used while you are wearing the gauntlets because of the big chunk of leather and metal between the gloves and your intended patient.

Really, this one will vary table to table, and comes down to how the GM wants to handle it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For Power Attack, the MAP applies after your attack completes. So, you Power Attack at -0, then any subsequent strike(s) would be at -10 or -8 if you have an Agile weapon.

I can't think of an instance that you don't apply MAP after the Strike completes

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it was more this, from the Morph trait description, that denied the Spellstrike:

Morph wrote:

Effects that slightly alter a creature's form have the morph trait. Any Strikes specifically granted by a morph effect are magical. You can be affected by multiple morph spells at once, but if you morph the same body part more than once, the second morph effect attempts to counteract the first (in the same manner as two polymorph effects, described in that trait).

Your morph effects might also end if you are polymorphed and the polymorph effect invalidates or overrides your morph effect. The GM determines which morph effects can be used together and which can't.

The reason I said the ruling was reasonable is that the Morph trait is something that uniquely affects the caster's body.

So, the Magus could choose to Spellstrike with an Unarmed attack, get their fist damage plus spell damage, but couldn't transfer it through a weapon, whether that be bow, sword, halberd, whip, fluffy feather duster on the end of a fishing pole, or whatever as a Morph spell couldn't change these things.

It's an odd interaction between trait and ability, but I imagine that this won't be the last time people run into it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The difference between Gouging Claw and something like Produce Flame is that Gouging Claw has the morph trait and a specific description that it morphs your limb to deliver the strike.

It's a fair interpretation that the non-morph spells can be transferred through weapon, but something that specifically morphs your arm to deliver can't.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
*snip for brevity* Sure, you can throw it at it.

So, what you're saying is that the best class to have a familiar is a Barbarian with Raging Thrower for that extra utility range?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

Hah. Indeed. The ever popular, vague, undefined 'your spell list' again. So tell me, with a rules reference, why are focus spell that you are able to cast not on 'your spell list'?

Sure, so let's start by looking at Focus Spells to see if they have anything to say about appearing on Spell Lists (CRB p.300):

Focus Spells wrote:
Focus spells are a special type of spell attained directly from a branch of study, from a deity, or from another specific source. You can learn focus spells only through special class features or feats, rather than choosing them from a spell list.

So, Focus spells are not on a spell list and are chosen by a different method. So, where do Spell Lists come from? Traditions of Magic, p.297:

Magical Traditions wrote:

Spellcasters cast spells from one of four different spell lists, each representing a different magical tradition: arcane, divine, occult, and primal.

Your class determines which tradition of magic your spells use. In some cases, such as when a cleric gains spells from their deity or when a sorcerer gets spells from their bloodline, you might be able to cast spells from a different spell list. In these cases, the spell uses your magic tradition, not the list the spell normally comes from. When you cast a spell, add your tradition’s trait to the spell.

So, Spell Lists are divided by Tradition, and are used to determine which spells you have access to as a spellcaster. And where do we find them? Page 307 in the CRB provides the base lists with this as the header:

Spell Lists wrote:

These lists include the spells for each

tradition, including cantrips. (Focus
spells appear on pages 386–407.)

Before going on to list all the slottable spells by tradition and level.

So, from these, we can determine three things: The Spell Lists are divided by Tradition, Focus Spells have their own separate space and are not on them, and they only have slottable spells and Cantrips.

It seems like a pretty clear way to determine the-not-vague-or-undefined "your spell list" and that Focus spells are not on them.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

An Arcane Spellcaster is someone with the Spellcaster class feature and uses the Arcane tradition, so Rune Witches would be fine.

While Innate Spells might allow you to cast an Arcane spell, they don't grant you the Spellcaster class feature.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eidolons use their own stats for everything else, so spellcasting would be the same without specific language to the contrary

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't looked at summoners closely enough to recommend anything, but just want to say that this is a really awesome character concept.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
I am not seeing any specific restriction on it. I am fairly sure that it isn't intended though. I wouldn't allow it.

The restriction is that they can't be cast as they appear on no spell list.

Staves wrote:
You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list

So, barring the point I made above, you could potentially inscribe them into the staff if a common Focus spell were ever made, but you would never be able to cast them, so the argument as a whole is academic.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

AFAIK all focus spells are Uncommon or Rare. Personal Staves specifies that you can only inscribe Common spells, so, no, you can't inscribe a focus spell into a staff even disregarding any other restriction.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind wrote:

Page 110: For the horizon thunder sphere, it is unclear what kind of actions the 3 actions on the second round are. Material, somatic and verbal? Concentrate? None of the above?

One could also interpret the second round as including another spell attack roll even though I don't think that is the intent. I say this because "empower the spell even further" isn't clearly defined and the next sentence mentions, "after attacking the target." Is this referring to the attack in the previous round? Or does it mean for you to attack the target again?

The spell can be cast over two rounds. If you do this, you don't make the attack roll on the first round, you spend the 3 actions casting on that round, 3 actions casting on the second round, and then resolve effects. As you are constantly casting, you have the potential to take two rounds' worth of AoO, or other cast triggered reactions, if you're not in a safe place.

Also, "the ball of lightning explodes, dealing 2d6 electricity damage to all other creatures in a 10-foot emanation around the target." All creature other than who? It would seem to mean the target, which would kind of suck because the spell would be more likely to be more detrimental to allies. Maybe it's referring to you, the caster? Or maybe it's not the most precise wording and it just means everyone including the source of the emanation, as emanations usually function.

The wording on this one is a little odd until you consider that a two round cast has the effects of the lesser actions casts, so primary target takes 3D6 or half on a miss, and the other targets in range of the emanation take 2D6 with a basic Reflex save.


Finally, the spell also mentions doing damage to creature that "Grab" you, but in the heightened entry, the damage is dealt to creature that "Grapple" you. Both are capitalized, which would normally denote two similar but specific actions, where the intent seems to be any act that grabs you by hand.

I may be missing something, let me know if I am, thanks.

This could do with a unification of language, certainly

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shigg1ty wrote:

Hi there! Just had a quick question involving the drained condition and the dhampir lineage, svetocher. I am attempting to make an Oracle of Bones Dhampir and it's leading to a lot of interesting interactions with negative healing and drained effects in particular.

The svetocher text says, "when you have the drained condition, calculate the penalty to your Fortitude saves and your Hit Point reduction as though the condition value were 1 lower."

If my character has the drained 1 condition (as they would with the moderate curse of Bones), is it calculated as if it were "drained 0?" Meaning I effectively do not take any negative effects from the drained 1 condition? Or does the svetocher lineage only take effect when I am drained 2 or higher?

Thank you for the clarification!

From Oracular Curse:

Your curse has the curse, divine, and necromancy traits. You can't mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your oracular curse by any means other than Refocusing and resting for 8 hours

So, the drained condition you get from your curse cannot be mitigated, but if something else drains you on top of it, you would count that externally applied drain as 1 less.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You missed the prime opportunity to name the thread "Gisher's Guide to Gisher's Guides"

Thanks for your hard work!

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some bacon, french toast, eggs, fried tomatoes, beans, hashbrowns, and regular sausages go really well with black pudding.

What's that? Wrong type of black pudding? You clearly don't have a halfling chef in the party!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The downside to Subsisting is that it takes 8 hours and counts as the downtime activity for the day. It's cheap in terms of money, but expensive in terms of time, and comes with the fatigue risk you pointed out.

Without feat support, greater skill in survival, and multiple characters performing successful feat-supported Survival rolls, you would not be able to support a large group of refugees in a forest at even a subsistence level without additional supplies.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PMSchulz wrote:
So, if I read that correctly, I could strip both the striking and +1 rune off the rapier and transfer them to the gloom blade, then be able to upgrade from there.

As base, it's already considered a +1 Shortsword, so you could add Striking so that it has that value in bright light.

No upgrade will make a difference to the dim light aspect until you upgrade it past +2 Striking

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
It didn't make much sense to me that my Cliffscale Iruxi had Breath Control. He isn't one of those swamp-dwelling frillbacks, after all. So I Retrained it for Toughness, another 1st Level General Feat. I'll be doing the same for my 10 Int Bard, Retraining his Bard-granted Occultism for something more useful.

These are two examples of things you specifically cannot retrain out of by RAW, as there are no other legal options (specific feat granted by ancestry, and specific skill granted at trained level by class, with no alternative options for either).

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's an ooze. It isn't intelligent, so it will just absorb/eat/consume/dissolve them. They are not waking up.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:

My concerns is about the fact the champion, the way the feat is written, is able to understand whether a target is evil or not before even damaging it

I don't get extra dice?
The target is 100% not evil ( which leaves good and neutral creature, who which you could probably deal without violence ).

The Champion would get that knowledge as he is dealing damage. Once you've hit and are rolling to see how much damage you get, it's too late to stop it.


And also, about this part

Whether or not the target is evil, you can convert all the physical damage from the attack into good damage
What would be the purpose of this?

To allow the Champion an easy way to overcome resistances or exploit weaknesses of fiends, undead, and other such gribblies. It's another useful tool in fighting traditional evils, not neccessarily useful in dealing with more mortal ones...though...

Talking about protect my allies, I might use it to deal no damage on that specific strike, then go for non lethal damage on the previous ones, just to beat my adversaries down without killing them.

...this is a viable use for it in the circumstances of fighting good v good


I don't really know.

Maybe I am just overthinking about it.

Probably, but it's useful in the case you described to understand it.

What bothered me is that they decided not to use a generic "head slot" but specific parts ( Wondered if this had already been discussed or not. Or even better, answered. Even if I'm just probably still used to the old systems ).

2e doesn't have slots anymore, just physical limitations and investiture to limit what you are wearing. So you can't physically wear two masks, or two sets of gloves, or two crowns/circlets properly, but you do have many fingers to adorn with magic rings.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:

No, not a wolf style punch.

A punch. That is also a wolf.

As someone who has had a large, excited dog jump on my tender bits, this would be a devastating attack. No wonder monks choose that style.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As Haste grants Quickened, and Quickened grants actions at the start of the creature's round, but the Animal Companion doesn't have a round and won't have actions until commanded by the PC, I would have to say that RAW Haste doesn't seem to do anything for Animal Companions.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It specifically calls out having a conversation, which means simply talking AT them is not enough. They need to be willing to engage, and Hostile tends to preclude that without some way to get their attention, at which point you've already stopped the fight.

As mentioned, they would need both Quick Coerce and Group Coerce to be able to have a hope of pulling it off anyway, and the rest of the party would have to back off so that it doesn't automatically fall back into hostilities.

Even with all of that, it would be a situational GM call as to whether any of that works in that particular fight, or if they refuse to engage in the needed conversation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To expand upon what Leomund said, he would be trying to Make an Impression or Coerce, which would require a minute of conversation, and several feats to have it affect more than one person at a time or happen faster, and those are things he's not generally going to get in combat. Even then, it only moves the target's impression by one or two steps, so if they've gone to full hostile, that's not likely to stop the combat anyway.

Charisma skills are about avoiding combat, or nudging the outcome, not stopping it once it's started.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The other thing you need to be aware of, if you're using one of the software builders instead of the books, is that Adventure Path archetypes are notably more powerful in many cases than their rulebook counterparts. These are marked as either Uncommon or Rare in the builders and AoN, and you should really think before letting them into your campaign.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you aim for a DC and fail, you restore nothing to the patient. Being more skilled with Medicine simply opens up the option of trying to check against those higher DCs for more HP, but it likewise increases the failure threshold.

The crit is based on either nat 20 (if the roll would otherwise be a success) or passing the DC by 10 or more (so rolling a total of 25 or more against a DC 15, for example)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dubious Scholar wrote:

I think someone would have to run the numbers on it to be sure.

I have concerns that it's actually much stronger than pure numbers indicate because of opportunity cost and non-strike actions, etc.

I remember that someone did for Advantage in D&D 5e, which is what he's proposing, and it works out at a 3.5 point advantage, which in PF2e terms is massive, and far more powerful than the +2ish that the current proficiency progression would provide.

I would also say that the relative power level of the Press actions is already balanced around the idea that you can't do them without having a MAP, so just making them Opens won't work

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Stack wrote:
Simple firearms should be on par with other simple weapons, likewise martial with martial. The flintlock is worse than a crossbow unless you crit (d8 crossbow vs d6 flintlock, 120 vs 40 ft range, both reload 1, flintlock gets fatal d10 and versatile B), so it is a garbage weapon unless you are a fighter or gunslinger who crits more often.

I think that's the whole point; from a design perspective, firearms are something that you will only use if you really, really want to, or are really, really good at. They will not become all pervasive in the game world because they are not able to compete directly with existing options

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The other thing you need to consider in this is that 5e has Advantage and Disadvantage, and it's relatively easy to get. This will boost/cripple a given roll by 25% on average, vastly improving chances to hit, save, whatever.

Contrast this to PF2e, where you're probably looking at a +1 to +3 equivalent from flanking, bonuses, enhancements, and so a 5 to 15% bonus on a single roll

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Belltowerben wrote:
Scorpion Whip - are bards proficient? Or is it just basic whips they are and its a separate weapon? I can see both sides of the argument.

Scorpion Whip is a distinct weapon from Whip, so bards are not proficient with them

1 to 50 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>