Baarogue's page

Organized Play Member. 206 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Megistone wrote:

With a bow, reloading gets folded into the simple Strike action. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, and it also doesn't mean that it requires an Interact action.

When you Strike with any weapon (or without) the game doesn't get into the small details of what is actually happening, things like shifting your weight, angling the blade, aiming for a particular opening, dislodging the weapon back from the spot you hit. Some of these 'subordinate actions' certainly do happen in the game world, but are considered irrelevant from the rules viewpoint, and folded into the simple Strike action.
So yes, an archer has to pick up an arrow and nock it, but it's deemed to be quick and easy enough that it doesn't require an action, nor does it leave an opening for a reaction.

but what about grabbed?


Okay, first the Invisibility. Remember that Invisibility is an illusion, but not a visual effect. It is effective no matter the sense being used, even pseudo-science "infrared vision" that "allow them to detect the presence of infrared light" because it blocks the invisible being from being perceived at the mind level

Foil Senses is also effective vs. IRV because it is a special sense, but it doesn't break the rule that the user needs to have cover or concealment (or better) to become or remain hidden with Hide or undetected with Sneak. If the rogue lost their invisibility and was not in cover or concealment, they're observed as soon as they're in line-of-sight, even if that "sight" is IRV

Since the rogue in your play example used Invisibility first, they became hidden (due to going invisible when someone can see you, CR 620) at that time. They then used Sneak to get around the corner. If successful, they became undetected and the worst they could get would have been a failure, which would keep them hidden instead due to making some telltale noise. I agree that the potion wouldn't break sneak or invisibility

Following the rogue around the corner might have been some unfortunate metagaming on your part due to not being sure about the situation, but don't worry about it. You'll know for next time. In any case, even if the rogue was out in the open, as long as he doesn't break his invisibility nor fail his sneak checks he'll still be undetected (assuming he was successful with his Sneaks) until he does. The deculi can use spot checks to try to detect where the rogue is, but with invisibility still in effect the best he can get is hidden. Once invisibility is broken, Foil Senses can still help the rogue Hide and Sneak vs. IRV, but they'll still need cover or concealment to do so as normal

edit: I assume you're talking about the spell Invisibility or something that creates that effect since you didn't specify how he activated it


Ravingdork wrote:

But would you allow someone to cast a heightened spell with lesser effect? (That is, it still counts as the increased heighten level, but has a lower level effect.)

For example, casting an 8th-level heightened invisibility, but opting to have the 2nd-level effect so that you can benefit from the longer duration AND counteract resistance (though it would pop upon attack).

No I would not


Disrupting Actions, CR 462 wrote:

Disrupting Actions

Various abilities and conditions, such as an Attack of Opportunity, can disrupt an action. When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.

The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn’t transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away.


Unicore wrote:

The premise of this thread is to ask whether a subordinate action is baked into a strike action taken with the bow. The answer to that question has to be no, because all reload 0 weapons would be incapable of making strikes if the act of firing them combined two actions into an activity. The rules about actions and other actions make it clear that the intended design goal of traits and actions is for subordinate actions to be called out within the activity that adds them and the same for adding traits. We see examples of this being done throughout the game.

I believe it is most fair to Darksol to summarize their position as: if reload 0 does not turn the strike action into an activity, then it it impossible to attack with a bow because the bow can never be reloaded, reloading a weapon requires an interact action, the common language of describing what happens during a reload makes it feel like the intention was for striking with a reload 0 weapon to be an activity with a subordinate interact action and that didn’t get resolved well in the final rules.

I would agree that the best way to resolve all of this, if the goal is to make the strike action resemble an activity with a subordinate interact action, is to just add abit about reload 0 weapons getting the manipulate trait and then either adjusting the language of repeating as a trait or not, depending upon how those are intended to work.

However, it still seems perfectly reasonable to me to not assume a mistake was made in the writing of reload 0, and that the intention of that text is not to add a game breaking subordinate action to the strike action, making it an activity, but instead that language is there to explain how you do not have to add an interact action to the strike action to fire a bow because reloading 0 can modify the strike action by not adding any interact actions to it, but acknowledging that the description of the strike needs to include the idea of nocking an arrow as well as firing it. Reload 0 is a logical place to add language...

Then I guess I'm on my own side then, because I don't want to turn 0-reload strike into an activity. As I've posted previously I understand the pitfalls associated with that, and that's why I brought up the manipulate trait on bomb strikes and suggested they should treat 0-reload strikes like that if they choose to clarify their intention. But I'm definitely not on the side that's saying 0-reload means the arrow teleports into the bow, which is a hyperbolic way of putting it but that's essentially what they're arguing. This game is not a program and we're not Norman so this "beep boop beep I'm a computer and 0-reload does not compute" stuff is below us

My goal in this discussion is to help reach a consensus about 0-reload strikes that respects their strengths, and their utility with Mobile Shot Stance, but also acknowledges the downside of needing to reload wrt Grabbed and the like. It sounds like you agree with me that *if* they want 0-reload to have the manipulate trait, they should just add it to the strike like they did with bomb strikes, and that's encouraging. If they go the other direction and clarify that 0-reload isn't subject to Grabbed, well I'll be a little incredulous but what can I do


HumbleGamer wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

I'd go in the opposite direction, removing the manipulate trait from reloading.

Mobile shot stance would work perfectly.
There won't be double AoO against ranged attacks made with bows ( and characters reloading and shooting a reload 1 or 2 weapon).

Then what about Grabbed? No, I would rule MSS works with 0-reload as-is but it definitely could benefit from explicit clarification IF they add manipulate to 0-reload strikes

That would make mss almost mandatory, and worse than it is now ( it works with any ranged weapon. Not only with reload 0 ones).

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying I think MSS doesn't work with all ranged weapons, nor am I saying they should curtail its use. Just that if they add manipulate to 0-reload strikes, they could also take that opportunity to explicitly state that MSS protects those strikes, as I would rule it does already


HumbleGamer wrote:
Megistone wrote:

It makes absolutely no sense that you can't cast a weaker version of a spell if you want to. The rules don't cover that case because you generally want to get the maximum possible effect, and if the rules covered all the possible cases an encyclopedia wouldn't be enough.

A reasonable DM will check what you are trying to do, and if it doesn't involve some strange shenanigans, they will allow it.

I agree.

But since we are talking about it ( focus spells and cantrips), would there be any gimmick ?

Any reason why this might be forbidden?

I honestly cannot think of any and I'm pretty munchkin. But I'm not the most munchkin here so I'm sure someone could think of something I haven't, so "GM ruling per case" is the best I can recommend


HumbleGamer wrote:

I'd go in the opposite direction, removing the manipulate trait from reloading.

Mobile shot stance would work perfectly.
There won't be double AoO against ranged attacks made with bows ( and characters reloading and shooting a reload 1 or 2 weapon).

Then what about Grabbed? No, I would rule MSS works with 0-reload as-is but it definitely could benefit from explicit clarification IF they add manipulate to 0-reload strikes


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
By the way, I just found out in this webpage that, the damage bonus for 4th level (+9) is higher than that of 5th level (+7). Perhaps a typo?

the damage bonus is lower but you double the damage dice. I do not think it is a typo


Unicore wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
Unicore wrote:

Thinking about this more, it seems very clear to me that none of the other rules about striking with a bow work if reload 0 turns that strike from a single action to an activity with a subordinate interact action. That is just not how actions work and so any other activity that gave you a strike action would be impossible because just like quick draw and every other example activity of combine actions, you cannot combine combined actions within other activities.

If the intention of reload 0 was simply to give the manipulate trait to strike actions made with weapons with this reload entry, then directly adding the manipulate trait to those strikes is both the easiest way to put that into the rules, and the only way to make it play nice with the rest of the game.

That's a p good idea, but gosh if it doesn't sound familiar to me :3
The issue is, that wasn’t what happened. Maybe because the developers decided it wasn’t necessary?

I'm fairly certain you already know the whole premise of "our" side of this argument is that the devs might have felt it wasn't necessary because reloading is an interact action, even if it costs no extra actions to perform with a 0-reload weapon while striking, and so already has the manipulate trait and is subject to that trait's downsides like the Grabbed condition

I posted earlier that I hoped they would do what you have now also recommended, which is follow the lead of what they did with alchemist bombs and give strikes with 0-reload weapons the manipulate trait to incorporate the interact action of reloading. Oh and I need to amend the bit about repeating weapons in my earlier post. Rereading them yesterday I noticed that they still refer to cocking the weapon every strike, so IF they add the manipulate trait to 0-reload weapons repeating ones should get it too


Unicore wrote:

Thinking about this more, it seems very clear to me that none of the other rules about striking with a bow work if reload 0 turns that strike from a single action to an activity with a subordinate interact action. That is just not how actions work and so any other activity that gave you a strike action would be impossible because just like quick draw and every other example activity of combine actions, you cannot combine combined actions within other activities.

If the intention of reload 0 was simply to give the manipulate trait to strike actions made with weapons with this reload entry, then directly adding the manipulate trait to those strikes is both the easiest way to put that into the rules, and the only way to make it play nice with the rest of the game.

That's a p good idea, but gosh if it doesn't sound familiar to me :3


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So what, Drawing a weapon with Quick Draw is supposed to be protected by MSS now just because a Strike is also included in the activity? No, there is no sideways inheritance of MSS's protection


Guntermench wrote:
Subordinate Actions wrote:
...This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action...

Subordinate actions still trigger things if they would otherwise. Which...I was wrong in the other thread, Draw is a defined game term and still has Manipulate so it still triggers.

This is the same for Cast a Spell being a subordinate of Spellstrike and triggering.

Now if there was something that said "this doesn't trigger" on the action or activity, then the subordinate actions are modified to not either. To use an example from the other thread, Mobile Shot Stance would make bow Strikes not trigger because the Strike is modified to not trigger, so the subordinate action of drawing shouldn't either.

Mobile Shot Stance has very deliberate text. "your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity or other reactions that are triggered by a ranged attack."

AoO and other reactions that are triggered by anything else are fair game. Essentially, MSS is altering the AoO and other reactions of would-be reacters like so: "Trigger: A creature within the monster’s reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using."

And that doesn't matter anyway, because it's not the ranged Strike that's triggering the reaction. It's the draw, which is not covered by MSS


Psychic, like Monk, is what I call a jealous class. They either have so many must-have class feats, or class features that aren't super compatible with other class features like this refocus trick that discourages using other class focus spells

Now, MCing INTO Psychic is another matter. Their dedication is a pretty good deal


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thezzaruz wrote:

Can't see how this is even a question tbh, the spell very clearly lays out how to get rid of its effects.

Quote:
The effects of this curse can be removed only through remove curse or another effect that targets curses.
And any leeway one might think exists was sorted by the errata as Captain Morgan quoted.

The first printing lacks that line, which may be what Raving and their group owns


BloodandDust wrote:
Terrible oversight that the CRB makes only passing reference to the difficulties of the hard-working magic-users among us.

What, do you think it's easy to keep a *god* happy, with everyone else clamoring for their attention? What have *you* done for them lately? And those poor durids (sic). You've heard the phrase, "changeable as the seasons," right? Nature is the OG fickle lover. Must be nice to get all that power for the low cost of holding a tune or reading a book :3


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I haven't read all the old arguments prior to The Rules Lawyer's necro, but it occurs to me that there is already precedent for Strike to have a subordinate interact action like the 0 reload might be, though again they're careful not to call it that because of the argument for turning such Strikes into an activity instead of the basic action. "Due to the complexity involved in preparing bombs, Strikes to throw alchemical bombs gain the manipulate trait. The bomb is activated when thrown as a Strike—you don’t have to activate it separately." CR 544

If they were to clarify reload 0 to end this argument, I'd like to see it be treated like that if their intention was to have reload 0 be subject to Grabbed and the like. Something akin to, "due to reloading during the attack, Strikes with reload 0 weapons which lack the repeating trait gain the manipulate trait." That could also be an opportunity to clear up its interaction with Mobile Shot Stance


Meh, just let it work until they say something official. It's not overpowered, and focus points are psychic's whole thing so like you say being down to 1 the rest of the day would be harsh


sleight*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because a short/longbow Strike includes a reload at 0 action cost doesn't mean the reload doesn't happen, obviously. Reactions and other effects or conditions don't refer to action cost. They react to or affect the action itself. This is covered by the sidebar on Subordinate Actions, CR 462

I suspect the reason this reload isn't explained as a subordinate action is because that would make the short/longbow Strike an activity which includes a Reload and a Strike instead of the basic Strike itself, and thus some would argue it wouldn't qualify for skills, feats, or spells which specify making a Strike like the Haste example in that sidebar

I think the 0 reload was some too-clever slight of word meant to maintain the status quo of short/longbow users attacking quickly while still keeping them in line with other ranged weapon users re: mechanics of reloading before firing and thus subject to the same hazards of doing so in melee reach. Clearly that has backfired on the designers, if this stupid thread can generate over a dozen replies every time I see it

HumbleGamer wrote:

As for the persistent damage on a critical hit I swear, it's the first time I heard of anybody thinking to double it on crit.

But I accept it ( and I am glad for them that the errata put an end on this ).

Bomb persistent damage was always doubled on a crit because it was the result of a Strike, which is why the alchemical bombs section didn't call it out as if it was special and specific to bombs. But that's old news, and I am just as grateful it was spelled out explicitly


Cordell Kintner wrote:

The real answer is make it a Skill Challenge. Make the sniper make Stealth checks as they are moving into position and setting up, with Circumstance bonuses based on how the party distracts the guards and target. Then assuming the sniper hasn't failed badly, have the sniper take a single shot against the target's AC with the following effects:

Critical Success: The shot is a head shot, the target dies instantly.
Success: You hit a vital organ, the target is significantly wounded, dealing X amount of damage and making them Enfeebled or something.
Failure: You barely miss the target.
Critical Failure: You hit an ally with your shot, dealing damage to them instead.

And then you can roll initiative. While there's no surprise round Skill challenges can still lead into an encounter just fine. You can use the Infiltration subsystem to give additional bonuses to the strike due to the relaxed guards, or penalties if they mess up and put the guards on alert.

You're all forgetting one detail. This is the same OP who plans to make a sniper/investigator and have his party stall multiple rounds if necessary until he Devise a Plans into a one-shot kill on the boss


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Avoid Notice explicitly uses Sneak rules, at least when initiative is rolled. And you can't actually Sneak if there's nothing to hide behind.
No. Avoid Notice and Sneak are two distinct actions with their distinct rules. The bonus from Cover is only RAW for Sneak. Also, you can Avoid Notice even if there's no Cover nor Concealment.

Sorry, SB. While you technically can attempt to Avoid Notice with no cover or concealment, it means f-all because if you're out in the open you're immediately observed by anyone with line-of-sight. So cover and concealment is important, and is incorporated into the Stealth check "both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results)." ~ CR 479 under Avoid Notice, emphasis mine


In its description, everything before the section on your daily preparations sounds permanent, but probably could be retrained in downtime as most "permanent" choices can be. So the stats (1h 1d4 agile/finesse, 1h 1d6 finesse, 1h 1d8, or 2h 1d10 reach) appear static but as it says, you decide the form (club, spear, or sword) with your daily preparations

As a mental construct >only you can hold, carry, or wield, I'd say it has the heft and feel of a real weapon but wouldn't have any real bulk, all of the "weight" being in your head


1 person marked this as a favorite.

>if you know

The metagaming player's character doesn't know your character is undead (and is not tracking you in the scene you describe) so >it works as a normal compass


Through the train animal feat maybe? The CR says warhorses and warponies are combat trained and to look to the bestiary for animal statistics. There, the descriptions of both dogs imply they're combat trained. I'd say it's obvious animal companions are combat trained


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JstCurious wrote:
Cordell Kintner wrote:

Handwraps of Mighty Blows adds to every Unarmed Strike you have, not just punches. Fangs are an Unarmed Strike, so they would also be improved.

Interesting. Odd, but interesting. Not sure I would let a pair of gloves affect a bite attack (or even a kick), especially when the description heavily implies they are meant for hand attacks, but it is ambiguous enough, I can see people doing it.

Almost like it's maaagic


Errenor wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
Will you help me understand what do you mean by "buy all low-level equipment formulas separately?"
Yes, all apart from 8 alchemical formulas they get for free. I mean of course alchemical and magical items you want to exclude from the book. That is 12 alchemical and 3 magical in case they would need them (can you craft (un)holy water?). Even with respectable number of 8 given, always having additional base 12 items for almost free is helpful.

I understand, but I hope my list shows just how much the alchemist does get for free. You can craft (un)holy water, but naturally not until you take the Magical Crafting feat

Quote:
Also, comparing to cantrips is nonsensical btw.

I know that, and you know that, but I also knew if I didn't include them when I mentioned wizards someone would come in with "um, actually, cantrips exist" ^_^


Bump in hopes this makes it into the next next errata


Ed Reppert wrote:
Heh. One of the things that really stood out for me watching a Youtube series playthrough of "Menace Under Otari" was the fact that the GM only once (if that) asked for a Recall Knowledge check or for the PCs to identify treasure. He just dove right in and gave the info for free. I kept thinking "I would never do that" but I dunno. :-)

Yeah when I run the BB I have all sorts of recall knowledge values scribbled everywhere for if the players show an interest. If time is of the essence I probably wouldn't insist on it for everything. I bet the YouTubers sped things up so viewers wouldn't get bored with the minutiae of play


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
I would also rule that the note in table 6-13 about 0-level common items being purchased collectively in the book does limit what it contains. Otherwise, are we supposed to accept that formulas for level 17 items, the superior lock and manacles, supposedly 750gp formulas EACH, are also in the book?

This could be a good point. But. I'm not sure lvl 17 lock and lvl 0 lock have different formulas. There's different formulas for "multiple types of different levels" items rule. But these 'types' are clear only for magical items with specifically formatted entries and the word 'type' in them. Does this apply to common equipment (yes, lvl 17 lock is common because nothing says otherwise)? I'm not sure.

Baarogue wrote:
I agree with Themetricsystem. What would be the point of the Bomber and Chirurgeon studies stating that you begin with "two 1st level alchemical bombs" or "two of the following: lesser antidote, lesser antiplague, or minor elixir of life" if every 1st level bomb and all three of those formulas are in the basic crafter's book already?
And that is a bad point. Because Squiggit is right, 'nerfing' basic crafting book would make it worse for Alchemists, not better: without full set of recipes in the book they would need to buy all low-level equipment formulas separately.

Will you help me understand what do you mean by "buy all low-level equipment formulas separately?" I'm not arguing against all 0-level common equipment formulas in the CR chapter 6 being in the book, and I don't believe anyone else here is either. That is, explorer's clothing and all light and medium armors on table 6-3 & 6-4 (9 items), all of the shields on table 6-5 (4 items), all common weapons on tables 6-7 & 6-8 (65 items if you include ammo recipes, which I do), all 0-level common adventuring gear on table 6-9 (67 items, since explorer's clothing is already accounted for in armors), and the light barding on table 6-18 (2 items). I don't think I'd phrase it as a nerf to restrict the recipes in a 1sp "basic" crafter's book to only 147 items ^_^

Aside from all of those 0-level formulas for equipment and gear, a 1st level alchemist also gets the Alchemical Crafting feat and the four common 1st level alchemy formulas granted by that feat (CR 72 under Alchemy), a formula book (different from the basic crafter's book) with two common 1st level alchemy formulas (in addition to those granted by Alchemical Crafting and their research field, CR 73 under Formula Book), and finally their research field grants two common 1st level formulas from their field (CR 73 under Research Field) which comes to a total of eight common 1st level alchemical formulas gained by feats and class features for free. Wizards gain ten cantrips and five (six if they're a specialist) 1st level spells

Contrast all of those gained formulas with how many aren't included: the heavy armors on table 6-4 (3 items; two level 1, one level 2), the higher-than-0-level adventuring gear on table 6-9 (27 items), and heavy barding on table 6-18 (2 items; one each level 2 and 3). All weapons are 0-level. The only ones not included are uncommon ones. So 32 items which are higher-than-0-level


I agree with Themetricsystem. What would be the point of the Bomber and Chirurgeon studies stating that you begin with "two 1st level alchemical bombs" or "two of the following: lesser antidote, lesser antiplague, or minor elixir of life" if every 1st level bomb and all three of those formulas are in the basic crafter's book already?

No, the alchemical and magical items from chapter 11 are listed as a convenience for players gearing up their 1st level character, but they aren't gear from chapter 6 and so their formulas aren't included in the basic crafter's book

I would also rule that the note in table 6-13 about 0-level common items being purchased collectively in the book does limit what it contains. Otherwise, are we supposed to accept that formulas for level 17 items, the superior lock and manacles, supposedly 750gp formulas EACH, are also in the book? They're technically not marked uncommon, lol. 9_9 No, the most specific rule wins. Since that note in table 6-13 states, "formulas for all 0-level common items from this chapter can be purchased collectively in the basic crafter's book," and that is the most specific description of the book's contents, that's all it contains. That's already a steal. The 5sp price listed for 0-level formulas is for ones from other sources and a base price to use for calculating the price for uncommon or rarer formulas


1-3: it follows normal visibility rules which means yes, someone with low-light vision or darkvision can see the target clearly without even trying. If the target's only concealment is from the spell, the target isn't concealed to them and so is automatically spotted as mentioned under Precise Senses

4: low-light vision and darkvision are pretty common

I recommend familiarizing yourself with the senses and stealth rules fully and having other forms of concealment at your disposal to augment your kit. Either stay near or have ways to conjure physical or illusory cover or use smokesticks and the like when Cloak of Shadow or Darkness aren't effective


Targeting a space is mentioned in the conditions appendix under Undetected, CR p.623, but I don't know if it's mentioned anywhere else and is not a normal rule for bombs or any other type of weapon afaik. Allowing it against a visible target would be at the GM's discretion

It works like attacking a hidden creature except the DC 11 flat check AND the attack roll are both secret rolls performed by the GM. I would not make the rolls secret if a player asked to attack a hidden or higher visibility target's square. But since this question has big "attempting to avoid no splash damage on crit fail" energy, I would still require the DC 11 flat check and subsequent attack roll, with a failure on the flat check being the same as "misses entirely" as if they crit failed the attack roll, described on CR p.544 under Splash Trait


HumbleGamer wrote:
Potency runes do not affect spell attack rolls.

That is not always true, but in this case it is since the spell doesn't say you roll as if it was a melee strike, only that you do damage as if it was one. That means striking and property runes on the staff activate, but the potency rune doesn't add to the spell attack roll as HG says


breithauptclan wrote:
Baarogue wrote:

Focus spell = focus point until at your maximum of 3. There are so few feats that give a focus spell without mentioning adding focus points that I read the lack as an oversight, not design

breith, the example on 302 spells out how we add those to our pool. I don't consider it a "violation" of the English language or somesuch drama. Just redundancy

That is a valid interpretation of RAI.

But it isn't RAW.

I also already explained how it is RAW. Really read what I wrote before you circle again


breithauptclan wrote:

So, scenario:

Bard class (no archetypes). Enigma muse.
At level 2 they take Hymn of Healing.

How many focus points do they have?

And how do you justify that answer from the printed rules?

Man, I told you I don't argue in circles with devil's advocates. You already brought that spell up above in the thread and my answer and reasons haven't changed. But why wait until level 2? Seems odd to me you picked enigma muse, or was that a trap? 9_9 Be a human maestro muse and take Hymn at level 1 and have 3 focus points out of the gate. OMG so OP! It's only 3 focus points. Who cares if they can blow a slightly bigger wad in one or two battles


Glad I got some sleep. I spoke too soon. I was looking at the PF2S pregen characters and adding up their focus points and thought I found something in the level 5 Lem that differed with how I understood it. I forgot that Bards, like Witches, have two different thematic spelltypes. One is a focus spell, the other a cantrip. I was adding up his additional composition cantrips as focus spells

So, false alarm. Sorry folks. I'm back to my original paradigm, which is no gotchas. Focus spell = focus point until at your maximum of 3. There are so few feats that give a focus spell without mentioning adding focus points that I read the lack as an oversight, not design

Asc, "especially" doesn't mean "only" or "always." I don't assign any significance to all of the examples being MC beyond they're making it clear how to handle focus points when picking up feats from multiple classes since the wording of most class feats are written from the perspective of beginning from that class's base abilities

breith, the example on 302 spells out how we add those to our pool. I don't consider it a "violation" of the English language or somesuch drama. Just redundancy


Get a load of this guy telling me to read the whole text. ME! Yes sir, I read the whole sidebar and even quoted the relevant parts twice above. If you think the paragraph about using and refocusing points is also quoteworthy, that's cool

But I can't gloat. I went looking for sources to prove me right and instead I found something (unrelated to the sidebar) that disputed one of my claims. I'm tired after my nightshift though, and need sleep before writing a (short) wall of text so I'll post details later after I've collected my wits and sorted the rules as I now understand them after a slight paradigm shift


The example in the 302 sidebar includes the feat, Healing Touch, that has that very wording of "if you already have a pool" as the second one taken and concludes with gaining an additional point, just like I've been saying. Really, go read all of the rules together. Don't just cherry-pick the wordings that fit the worst take to prolong confusion. I'm here to answer questions or be educated and arguing in circles with a devil's advocate does neither so have fun


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because you're not reading all of the rules together. There are no gotcha scenarios like you describe. The first time you gain an ability that gives you a focus spell, it gives you a focus pool and 1 point in it. If you already have a pool, it gives you another point up to your max of 3 because if you didn't have a pool it would give you one even if it doesn't explicitly say so because of that general rule and the sidebar on 302

Why is the writing all over the place? Who knows. Who cares. Just follow the "no gotchas" rule and you'll find the way through


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
There have been numerous threads like this one. Several errata later and still no answers.

What needs to be answered? The rules have been clear since the first printing. You get a focus pool and 1 point in it the first time you gain an ability that gives you a focus spell, as stated on CR p.300 quoted above. Then you gain an additional point each time an ability says you do or would give you a focus pool

CR 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.
For example Hymn of Healing or Expanded domain initiate.

You're gonna have to spell out what the example is here. I'm seeing two abilities that give you a focus spell, which would give you a focus pool and 1 point in it if you didn't already have one, or adds 1 to your existing focus pool if you do. It's all in the text on those two pages

There are no gotcha scenarios where you "took the feats in the wrong order" and miss out on getting focus points. If an ability would give you a point under any circumstances, it gives you a point


Battle Oracle's curse specifies the fast healing is "while in a non-trivial battle encounter" so I wouldn't expect to be allowed to continue healing once the threat was over even if we were still in encounter mode

The fact a psychic cannot voluntarily quell their unleashed psyche lends itself to allowing them to continue psyching out the max two additional rounds, though I wouldn't argue with a GM who said, "No, the encounter is over so you immediately chill out"


Ravingdork wrote:
There have been numerous threads like this one. Several errata later and still no answers.

What needs to be answered? The rules have been clear since the first printing. You get a focus pool and 1 point in it the first time you gain an ability that gives you a focus spell, as stated on CR p.300 quoted above. Then you gain an additional point each time an ability says you do or would give you a focus pool

CR 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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the spell has no listed duration and they're the proper level then they're valid for the Conduit feats I think you're asking about. The frightened condition caused by those spells has its own effective duration in its value but is not part of the spell's non-existent duration entry


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

It has recently caught my attention that the description of spell attacks mentions that "Spell attacks don’t deal any damage beyond what’s listed in the spell description."

I take this as applying to Telekinetic Projectile too. So no applying any damage due to weakness to anything beyond the damage type dealt by the spell.

So, no weakness to silver damage even if you fling silver pebbles.

except weakness is not an increase of the damage dealt by the spell. It's an increase of the damage taken by the target. Or to put it another way, would you deny weakness to the S/P/B dealt by TK projectile, or any other spell? How about spells that deal elemental damage to a creature weak to it? No, weaknesses have always applied and should still apply to TK projectile unless you read the "no specific traits" part to mean materials

The "doesn't deal any damage beyond" etc. is demonstrated best by Acid Splash, and how it is the worst cantrip unless facing monsters weak to acid


Yes. I can't elaborate without knowing what your group considers vague


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deathsworn wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Deathsworn wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

I brought this up in another thread, but I'll throw it in here as well.

Since the Dancing Blades cantrip makes a weapon attack, it seems like by RAW it would benefit from any Potency runes on the weapon itself. Its text diverges from similar sorts of spells, and since it uses a permanent item, it can be runed.

I'd like to point out that the Dancing Blade isn't making a traditional Strike, but it is taking the Strike action listed in the spell description. This special Strike uses your spell attack roll and has a specific damage it deals. The damage type can be modified by the runes on the weapon, but no other part of the weapon determines the damage dealt. Also with this interpretation, it cannot critically hit, as spells always list their critical effects because they aren't Strikes.

Now, saying that, it would be nice to rename this distinct Strike action to something that doesn't conflict with the most common action you normally take with a weapon.

Imaginary Weapon has a similar issue for its amped effect, where it says you Strike, though it doesn't have the same pseudo-strike that DW has. It might be an oversight, or it expects you to reference the previous cantrip. Either way it should be rewritten for clarity as well.

The Strike subaction.. thing also doesn't do double damage on a critical hit, unless you partially use the Strike rules. It's a bit awkward overall, but I believe the intent was for it to be very Strike-like and possibly even trigger reactions based on Strikes.

I agree that this might be the intent, but what matters in the end is how it is written.

Dancing Weapon's is written as a subaction that the weapon itself takes as if it were a creature, but it has a listed damage that scales with your spell level and is a spell attack roll. Critical effects aren't mentioned anywhere.

Imaginary Weapon is a melee spell attack that scales off of your spell level and lists a critical...

If this were just a spell attack I would agree with you. You appear to be quoting the same section on spell attacks I would base that ruling on, except for the last line

Spell Attacks, Core Rulebook pg. 305 3.0 wrote:


Some spells require you to succeed at a spell attack roll to affect the target. This is usually because they require you to precisely aim a ray or otherwise make an accurate attack. A spell attack roll is compared to the target’s AC. Spell attack rolls benefit from any bonuses or penalties to attack rolls, including your multiple attack penalty, but not any special benefits or penalties that apply only to weapon or unarmed attacks. Spell attacks don’t deal any damage beyond what’s listed in the spell description.

In rare cases, a spell might have you make some other type of attack, such as a weapon Strike. Such attacks use the normal rules and attack bonus for that type of attack.

So the Strike in Dancing Blade uses the normal rules for a weapon Strike except where its text contradicts it, as per Specific Overrules General

Strike, Core Rulebook pg. 471 3.0 wrote:


You attack with a weapon you're wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). Roll the attack roll for the weapon or unarmed attack you are using, and compare the result to the target creature's AC to determine the effect. See Attack Rolls and Damage for details on calculating your attack and damage rolls.

Critical Success As success, but you deal double damage.
Success You deal damage according to the weapon or unarmed attack, including any modifiers, bonuses, and penalties you have to damage.

Dancing Blade's Strike entry, Dark Archive pg. 17 wrote:


Strike (attack) The weapon attacks its target using your spell attack roll. On a hit, the weapon deals damage equal to 2d6 plus your spellcasting ability modifier, of a type determined by the weapon (if the weapon has the versatile trait or can otherwise deal multiple types of damage, you choose each time you attack).

Those sections I struck out are replaced with the spell attack roll and the damage dice in the spell's Strike entry. ALL OTHER aspects of this weapon strike remain the same as normal, such as the doubling of damage on a critical success that is baked into the Strike rules. They also go out of their way using the phrases, "the weapon attacks," "the weapon deals damage," "of a type determined by the weapon," to make it clear it is the weapon hitting the target, not some weapon-shaped construct. So it follows that the potency rune on the weapon offers its bonus to attack, the weapon's material activates weaknesses, and property runes that alter the weapon (as with Ghost Touch) or have an on-hit effect (as with Disrupt or Flaming, etc.) should also operate, but not your own abilities or anything that requires activation. Just like for the Dancing property rune


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'ma just quote myself from another thread

Baarogue wrote:
All classes have a class DC. Spellcasters just typically are untrained in it. Their DC is 10+class key ability bonus, so functionally useless yes. Some spellcasters are given exceptions in certain cases, like clerics with weapon spec effects iirc, but that's not a blanket rule. It would not make sense to allow spellcasters to replace class DC with spell DC in all cases because then you could get a situation where pure spellcasting classes who gain weapon spec effects have a higher DC than martial classes
Baarogue wrote:

I've only been able to find the one instance in class features: warpriest doctrine clerics using their deity's favored weapon. That's a very specific, restricted exception, not "most places."

Champions are given proficiency in their class DC AND divine spell DC, and they advance in proficiency in both at the same pace. Why not only one, if they are meant to be interchangeable?

Bards gain weapon specialization effects for a variety of weapons if they crit while their composition is active as a class feature at level 11. There is no mention of using their spell DC like there is for warpriests clerics

Any pure spellcaster who has taken their weapon spec effect ancestry feat can get them as low as level 5. Their spell DC proficiency increases to expert at level 7, master at level 15 and legendary at level 19. Alchemists, monks, and rangers don't raise to expert in their class DC until level 9 and must wait for master until level 17. Barbarians, fighters, and rogues have to reach level 11 for their expert class DC, and level 19 for master. None of them reach legendary in their class DC. Why should a pure spellcaster's critical specialization effect DC outstrip any of those classes, let alone all of them?


This is the Pathfinder 2nd Edition rules discussion forum. This sounds like a 1st edition question


1 person marked this as a favorite.
batimpact wrote:
Does the stunned 1 target also lose that one action on their next turn? It hasn't reduced any action from the condition yet as far as I understand.

Yes. They lose 1 action to stunned 1 when they would regain their actions, and then they lose the stunned condition, regain their other 2 actions and reaction, and can act and react normally

1 to 50 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>