Baarogue's page

Organized Play Member. 56 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

It says you ignore the penalty while making attacks within your second range increment. It doesn't say it's eliminated or that you ignore that penalty at any other range, so it's -4 for 3rd, etc.


BellyBeard wrote:

Agreed that poison ammo is not overpowered, and the player should be allowed to use it as written without extra restrictions. There are many chances for the poison to be ineffective:

1. On a miss, the poison is lost for no benefit.
2. If it does hit, they get a save to negate it straight away.
3. On subsequent rounds they can save to reduce or eliminate the effects.
4. The creature can die from other attacks before the poison runs its course.

Because of its expense, you want to save poisons for where it really matters, against bosses. But their better saves against a poison DC at or below your level means they will likely resist it entirely. Mooks who are less likely to save also die quicker to your allies' attacks. So poisons are already pretty hard to use effectively without more restrictions added on top.

That's why you use poison against the mooks IN the boss fight, to quicker free up your party to focus. ;)


Non spellcasters mostly have only a class DC, which is usually raised as they level. Read each class's advancement chart closely, because not all of them have a clear name like "suchandsuch expertise." For instance, Barbarians' first increase is called Mighty Rage at level 11.

Hybrids, like but not only the Bard and Champion, have both a class DC and a spellcasting tradition DC. Sometimes they increase at the same time, but they might not. Again, read the class advancement chart to find the relevant entries. Some aren't governed by the same abilities. I believe Rogues' spellcasting DC is based on Charisma? It's in the errata, which I don't have in front of me.

Pure spellcasters mostly have only a spellcasting tradition DC. For clerics, instead of the class advancement chart, their tradition DC is listed in their doctrines. Others are listead in their class advancement chart.

Mostly, usually, but not always (lol, ikr), the class DC's increases will be in their class advancement chart. All I can say is read carefully, and maybe make a cheat sheet for your own use. ^_^;;


ofMars wrote:
It does say so in the first paragraph of the armor section of the book, so there is that, though I suppose it could have been clarified further by just calling it "Armor DC" or "Attack DC" or something

The phrase "difficulty class" was named to mimic "armor class", which predates it by a lot.


Using Wild Morph? Sure.

I can only assume what you're really asking is can a Wild Order druid employing Wild Shape use Knockdown. I haven't scoured every Form spell's entry, but if they all have the bullet point "-One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use." (emphasis mine) then I would say no. Knockdown doesn't have the attack trait, but it directs the user to make an Athletics check to Trip, which does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Armor Class is defined as the DC to hit a target so, unless it says it's not affected by penalties to "all DCs" somewhere I've overlooked, I would say yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 1d10 that the 1d6 is converted to, plus the 4 str bonus damage is doubled. The extra 1d10 die and the 2 points per BASE damage dice from pick specialization effects are not. So if it is a normal, non-striking pick, it would be 2(1d10+4)+1d10+2


JamesMaster wrote:

So, I thought I understood this subject until I listened to Jason Bulmahn on Knights of Everflame tell one of his players that they could also use Athletics or Acrobatics to escape a grab which appears absolutely nowhere in the CRB.

It makes sense that you could wiggle or power your way free, although those ways would count not against your MAP which would seem to over-incentivize their use. It just doesn’t appear to be RAW. Is he “house ruling” his own game? That seems, weird, right?

Interested to hear any thoughts on that.

It's right there in the first paragraph of Acrobatics, p. 240 and Athletics, p. 241

Quote:
Acrobatics measures your ability to perform tasks requiring coordination and grace. When you use the Escape basic action (page 470), you can use your Acrobatics modifier instead of your unarmed attack modifier.
Quote:
Athletics allows you to perform deeds of physical prowess. When you use the Escape basic action (page 470), you can use your Athletics modifier instead of your unarmed attack modifier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're happy to stick to common spells, you gain a spell automatically whenever it says you do. If you want to learn other spells you encounter in the world, or anything rarer than common, you need to Learn a Spell via the appropriate skill.


TheGuccett wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:

The best way to fight with picks against enemies at-level or below is probably going for one attack per round at highest bonus, and using the rest of your actions to move away, trip or demoralize, or otherwise reduce the enemy's damage potential. Subsequent attacks will have much lower chances of critting. Against an opponent with higher AC (one which you only crit on a nat 20) you might instead attack as much as possible to fish for a 20, but picks will do poorly in this situation generally. Definitely try to flank, demoralize, and do everything else you can to lower AC before attacking.

I personally am super excited to play swashbuckler. I think either that or the rogue will do well for your idea, as long as you keep the above in mind. You can play investigator, but then your character concept should not be "dwarf who attacks with pick" because melee combat is not an investigator's strength.

About the rogue: how can he keep up about the Light Pick? It seems that the Dwarven Weapon familiarity feats allow only the Pick, ant it's a martial weapon, so this would mean no sneak attack. The Ruffian allow to make sneak attack with simple weapons, but it seems that only dwarven weapons are downgraded... but they have only the advanced axe that goes martial. You can multiclass war, but you need to wait 12th level and also stay on expert forever.

Any advice about that?

My kneejerk advice is don't go rogue if you're attached to picks, but then I remembered that all dwarves have their clan dagger, so that's something you can have at hand for backstabs that's in-character.


Yes.

Also, thank you.


The errata quoted by CrystalSeas allows us to stop arguing that "ammunition is weapons" in order to use injury poisons on arrows.

CRB p. 550 wrote:
Contact poisons are infeasible to apply to a creature via a weapon attack due to the logistics of delivering them without poisoning yourself.

Some have read this line to mean contact poisons can NOT be used on weapons, but that's only implied. Contact poisons feature prominently among traps that injure their victim, so there is precedent for using injury as the method of exposure for contact poisons. But that's totally your call as GM how you interpret it. If I was GMing a PFS game, just to keep things simple I would disallow it. If YOU want to allow your players to apply contact poisons to their weapons, I recommend making them jump through some hoops like protective gear or assign some risk like a flat check (and not an easy one - I'd make it flat 16, or 11 at the least) to avoid poisoning themselves on a miss, and have that be the automatic penalty for crit missing on the attack.

There is no stated expiration for injury poisons applied to a weapon or piece of ammunition until they are used in an attack, so a player could poison all of their arrows (up to the number of doses they have, natch) in the morning. There IS an expiration for anything created from Alchemist daily prep free reagents, so any poison applied to weapons or arrows would evaporate/spoil/go stale/whatever upon the player's next daily prep if that's where they're getting their poison.


That appears to be correct, and I'd hazard it's intentional. Wizards don't get their "regain 2 focus points" feat until 14th level, and they don't get a "regain 3 focus points" feat at all.


Blave wrote:

The way I see it:

You can apply all feats that alter spells you cast (like Dangerous Sorcery or metamagic).

Feats that interact with your spell repertoire or spell slots, such as Occult Evolution, only affect the repertoire you gain from the sorcerer dedication.

Anything else would have some most likely undesired results and would be a total headache to manage. Imagine a level 20 Wizard with Divine Evolution casting a 10th level Heal every day.

I acknowledge your concern, but would a wizard (or cleric, or druid, or any other prepared spellcaster) have a means to do this? AFAICT this is a combination that could only be utilized by a spontaneous spellcasting class like the bard. You may be right though, and it'd be easier to avoid creative abuse by disallowing it altogether.


Right on. Glad I could help, though I do hope others pitch in too. As Ravingdork pointed out to me recently, there's nothing wrong with more discussion.


Some GMs may say no and would be perfectly justified in doing so, but in the interest of simplicity I can't see why you shouldn't be able to exploit this feat that way. It's only one spell, after all, and doesn't say anything about circumventing the rarity rules.

As for metamagic or feats like Dangerous Sorcery: I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing anywhere that they can only be used with the spells granted by the class whose feat list you learn the metamagic from. Dangerous Sorcery and feats like it already say they're for use with spells cast from spell slots (i.e., not focus spells or cantrips) so it's not like any player can use it all day long. Blood Magic effects specify they only work with bloodline spells, so that loophole is already closed.

I'd p much apply the "if it sounds too good to be true" rule when choosing whether to be a hardass about things like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Bows have to be manipulated to use. You don't just swing the bow, you pull the string. So bows, crossbows, and other items that aren't one piece and as straightforward in use as the longsword in the text are susceptible.

2. Whatever you or the player wants to describe as happening, as long as everyone understands that any fluff description doesn't supersede the mechanics of the ability and aren't precedent for anything outside the bounds of the mechanics of the game.

3. A chain (or any object or machine) is only as strong as its weakest link.

4. I recommend looking up the Incapacitation trait before you get too concerned about balance.


masda_gib wrote:
I'd say you stay at stage 3. Because the text says "would increase" and not "increases" which means it doesn't actually increase, I think (non-native speaker here though...).

Yeah, that's an accurate interpretation of the wording, especially when combined with, "the affliction instead repeats the effects of the highest stage." (emphasis mine)

"instead" indicates that it doesn't raise a stage, but stays at the highest stage and repeats its effects.


One of the best things PF2 has done for the druid is abandon the stupid TN thing. A wider range of available alignments allows a whole spectrum of interpretations of how nature should be interacted with and cared for.


Yeah, wait for the errata. I anticipate they'll change the wording on what injury poisons can be applied on to read more like PF1, which roughly says "a weapon or piece of ammunition". I also hope they alter the wording on contact poison similarly to indicate they can be used as injury poisons.


What for? Even if you misspoke in the OP, the two respondents so far aren't the sort to answer without looking up the rule themselves. They would have caught your typo and answered accurately. In my opinion, they (and you) are reading it right.

If you're looking for some sort of fluff explanation for the way this works, I picture the familiar as hiding behind or in the folds of their master's clothes/armor - always positioning themselves to take advantage of their master's protective equipment, but unable to benefit from spells or specific situational bonuses the master is utilizing.


Mellored wrote:

Forgot to add sneak attack.

Not that rogues have martial weapon proficiency, but still there.

The routes I've found to address that are Alchemist MCD for Trained with bombs, Fighter MCD for Trained with martial weapons (and level 12 option to raise that to expert) and the Weapon Proficiency general feat to gain Trained with martial weapons. Have I missed anything?


Atalius wrote:
Interesting, seems like level 13 he starts taking over with the damage bonus of +15. Even at level 12 if he went Stegosaurus he would be doing 4D8+6 that's pretty significantly better,no? Had a question on all the dinosaur forms and animal forms there Athletics modifier is listed, are they able to perform combat manuevers such as Grab or Trip?

I suppose that depends on how you interpret the bolded bit of this bullet point, since Grapple and Trip (and Shove, and Disarm, to cover all the Athletics-based combat maneuvers) all have the Attack trait. They also have Requirement: You have at least one hand free if you want to be a stickler.

Dinosaur Form, p. 329-330 wrote:
One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use. You're trained with them. Your attack modifier is +16, and your damage bonus is +9. These attacks are Strength based (for the purpose of the enfeebled condition, for example). If your unarmed attack modifier is higher, you can use it instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bracers of Armor has conflicting descriptions. There's the stat block on p. 607 that says Dex cap of 5, and then there's the sidebar on p. 556 that says it has no Dex modifier cap. Usually I'd go with the stat block but in this case, unless I was hosting a PFS game, I'd go with the sidebar until errata gets posted saying otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quickened Casting is a free action because it's Quickened Casting. Unusual Composition is a 1-action activity, like many of the other metamagic and metamusic (my term, not an official game term) feats Bards have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:
I'm still just sitting over here disappointed that you lose the +8 heal (for either version) if you push it to the 3 action AoE variant.

Well, I mean, I think it's pretty cool the designers let us have the 3-action variant without hampering its utility in any way like making us choose to heal or damage, not both at once.


How does one go about raising their armor proficiency above Trained when gaining it via feats instead of as a class feature?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. ಠ_ಠ Have you even heard of a GM doing this, or is this a straw-man intended to illustrate a clearly "unacceptable" breach of RAW in a PFS game?

2. Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. It's a 1-action activity with the manipulate trait. Seems clear to me that it's not supposed to be a terribly burdensome activity. Practically anyone who has the feat likely has Healer's Tools anyway so I suspect anyone arguing about it is just theorycrafting and hasn't actually had a tabletop fight over it. The important detail to me is: if the player insists they don't need Healer's Tools, then they also can't benefit from any bonuses associated with them, like with the upgraded tools. If I was GMing, I would require the tools but I'm not going to argue with a GM who doesn't, nor would I argue with a player who pushed back - I would simply point out the note I mentioned above. For my own character, I plan to have my Healer's Tools in a bandolier.

3. Again, doesn't seem that big a deal. As a GM, I would rule that it's clearly a ranged spell attack roll since the damage gains the caster's spellcasting ability modifier. I don't see any GM aside from maybe a particularly dickish one insisting a caster use their likely inferior Dex modifier for the ranged attack. I suspect the same thing is going on in arguments about this one as with Battle Medicine, and won't lose any sleep over the issue unless it happens at a table I play at.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's the line that says, "...the actions from the Delayed turn are lost, your initiative doesn't change, and your next turn occurs at your original position in the initiative order," that should indicate you can't delay into the next turn and thus jump the line in order to have a better initiative position for the rest of the combat. You can choose to worsen your position, but not loophole your way into bettering it.


Yeah there isn't really any way to keep the 16 Str at chargen unless you sacrifice Wis or Cha, neither of which would be my choice. The Str boost you get at level 5 puts you at the req for the heavier med armors, if you prefer them over scale mail.

That's quite an alpha strike if you can pull it off. Have you considered fitting Selective Energy (Cleric 6) in your build somewhere in case you wanted to take out a lot of minions without nuking your party, or are you solely single-target focused?


The easy way I see you getting Dex 14 is putting your Farmhand free boost into Dex instead of Str.

I might not have emphasized Harm so much without supporting it with a higher Cha modifier. I guess you're only planning to use it against the big bad, and even then only if they're not undead?


Thanks guys.


Blave wrote:
Deadly Simplicity has nothing to do with rarity. It doesn't do anything for the spiked chain becase it's a martial weapon and Deadly Simplicity only affects simple weapons. And only weapons with a damage die smaller than d8.

Emphasis mine, to highlight the part I have a question about. It doesn't say so in the feat description, so could you tell me where to find that information? I'm going to be creating my character this weekend, and that seems pertinent because I've been compiling a list of likely deities based on their weapon damage potential.


Elderpoot wrote:
Blave wrote:


Dazzling Flash has a material component and requires a free hand (or one holding a holy symbol or emblazoned weapon/shield). That's quite easy to achieve, but somethign to keep in mind.
Where is this detailed in the book?

p. 391 Dazzling Flash focus spell description

p. 303 under Spell Components > Material
p. 118 first para under Divine Spellcasting
p. 122 Emblazon Armament cleric feat entry


Yeah, that's the only circumstances I can imagine that being a desirable choice. And it would explain why there's no change from the purchase in cases when your earn income roll exceeds the price of the object.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saros Palanthios wrote:

So despite poring over the 2e CRB in detail for the last two months, i somehow failed to notice until yesterday that *arcane spell failure chance from armor doesn't exist in PF2*! Literally the only thing stopping Wizards (and Sorcerers) from armoring up is lack of proficiency-- a problem easily solved with a single feat.

I feel like a moron for not realizing this sooner, particularly since i've been intentionally trying to read and interpret the PF2 rules "as they are" rather than through the lens of PF1. Clearly i failed in this case, and it makes me wonder-- how many other things have I missed thanks to "mental blinders" or subconscious assumptions formed by years of playing PF1?

Has anybody else had similar experiences? Any tips on keeping an open mind/avoiding false assumptions? Apparently it's harder than i thought!

Something I was pleasantly surprised by was the removal of alignment restrictions from practically all classes except Crusader. I liked Druids, but everyone always had their own biases about what "True Neutral" meant, and the demands maintaining that alignment would have on an adventurer.


There was a recent discussion on this topic. You may find something of use there. https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42s4v?Familiar-and-Master-Abilities


Malk_Content wrote:

So RAW the Fighters Double Slice works with melee thrown weapons because it only requires melee weapons in each hand (so hatchet qualifies) but doesn't specify melee strikes.

One of my players is going shield (with boss) and hatchet and the ability to toss his hatchet if his boss attack kills his current enemy has been very satisfying for him.

I'm attempting to reconcile your second sentence with the first, and this line in Double Slice.

Double Slice, p 144 wrote:
Both Strikes must have the same target.

Could you explain how they all fit together?


The Fifth Wanderer wrote:

The hidden pit and drowning pit hazards say you can Catch an Edge to avoid falling in, but fail to give a DC. So do I use the DC from table 10-5 on page 503? Is this the same DC to climb out?

Also, no spiked pit?

I would use the DC for the pit's level as the DC to Catch an Edge or climb out. The entry for Bottomless Pit, a level 9 trap, sets the DC to Catch an Edge or climb the walls at 26.

And no, I don't see any Spiked Pit either.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's almost as if they wanted to discourage the PF1E player habit of dipping only one level into a half-dozen classes to get the baseline benefits of them all.


Where would turning invisible in order to get a +2 to hit against a hidden foe fall on the big brain meme?


Ed Reppert wrote:
A flying tortoise? The mind boggles!

His name is Tank.


Zapp wrote:
Baarogue wrote:

Q2 OR you could choose to extend what I mentioned above about the poison having no expiration until a strike to imply they have as many doses of the venom as listed worth of pre-applied arrows.

Only problem I couldn't find any indication in the rules themselves that poison was to be essentially a ranged combatant's game. Being able to pre-poison a dozen arrows (or throwing daggers) is vastly better than the alternatives for melee fighters.

Quote:
And yes, obviously creatures with natural venom or poisoned attacks don't need to spend action applying them.

Where in the rulebook does it say? How can a tell a given monster needs to apply poison or not?

Quote:
Q3 The free hand required by the Rogue feat is to draw the poison and apply it in one action. Normally one would require an interact action to draw, then follow application rules to apply.

Yes, obviously nobody will do it without the feat.

Quote:
The feat requires one action, and doesn't include the strike. It DOES, however, allow a Rogue with the feat to use poisons (like the aforementioned black adder venom) without needing 3 actions to apply it, with the con being they have to hit with their next attack before the end of their next round or it's wasted. The trade-off for applying quick and dirty instead of taking 3 rounds to get a lasting application.

How do you reconcile this with the findings above.

I understand you mean for this specific feat to put a duration on the poison (use before end of next round), but you also say you can pre-apply all the poison well before the combat.

Maybe you're just saying what I am saying - that melee weapons are worse off than ranged (from the poison user's perspective)?

re: monsters with natural poison. Using the Archives of Nethys because it's easier to search than the book which hasn't arrived yet (arriving today!)

Green Dragon, Iron Golem, Alchemical Golem, Chuul, Shuln, Dark Naga, Imp, Jungle Drake, Kraken, Osyluth, and Pit Fiend all have at least one attack that applies poison damage as part of the attack or applies their own venom which has its own stat block in the entry. None list a number of doses or mention applying the venom to their own fangs, claws, tentacles, etc. Some cannot be used again for X rounds, and in the case of the Alchemical Golem there's some randomness, but still no mention of application.

Homonculous has poison too. One dose, which it can refill "from its stores" with an interact action.


SuperBidi wrote:
Baarogue wrote:

Alright, so we have the common ground of agreeing ammunition should be poisonable. So let me ask you this: What do you gain by arguing ammunition aren't weapons. What do you lose by agreeing that they are?

I agree that sling bullets can't be poisoned, but not because they're ammunition. They're Bludgeoning, and so can't apply Injury poison, and Contact poison would be too problematic.

You are mixing 2 non-correlated things. Ammunitions can be poisoned even if they are not weapons. There is a rule, which uses some mechanics with some words and then there's the in-game translation.

Like when you say that you Strike with your bow. The rules use the word strike, but in-game you shoot.

It's the same here. When you poison a bow, you obviously poison arrows.
Considering arrows as weapon only modifies the application of the rule, not the in-game actions and description.

That's actually how I read it originally. If that's what you and albadeon are arguing, I'm fine with it, provided one can poison multiple ammunition ahead of time if they choose.


Bublitz wrote:

So, for Multiple Attack Penalty every action with [attack] trait counts, be it spell or strike. I got it.

But what if the action doesnt have a Attack trait?

Acid Splash, Cantrip: has Attack trait, therefore counts for MAP

But what about Black tentacles? its a Area conjuration that makes spell attacks, no attack trait... ? how does it work? 4-5 dudes in the area and my spell goes -0 -5 -10 -10 -10 ??? Do i get to choose primary targets? cuz after the second i cant see anyone getting hit by this spell (seriously, -10 only goes with a 19-20 on dice)

And non-attack spells that says "make a spell attack roll" but its not an attack, its just a conjuration that attack for itself. Does it count for MAP still?

It does say your spell attack rolls are affected by MAP and I can't find any exceptions, but it's not as dire as you think. That's a level 5 spell, which means your caster is probably not going to be lower than 9th level. A Wizard at level 9 has at least Expert Spellcaster, and so even without his attribute bonus you're looking at +13 on the roll.

But that's only a problem on the first turn you cast it. After that, it lasts 1 minute, attempting to grab (3d6 damage) whenever any creature ends its turn in the area who is not already grabbed, or deals 1d6 with no attack roll if they're already grabbed. MAP doesn't apply to attacks made when it's not your turn.

What other conjuration "non-attack" spells have you found that say "make a spell attack roll?" I don't believe summons use your spell attack roll, but have their own stats.


albadeon wrote:

I have and would again totally argue that ammunition is not a weapon (and if you think of sling stones or even irl bullets, I think it's blatantly obvious that they are not weapons themselves but rather something to be fired from a weapon).

And as I've argued above, the rules do support my view, even if they may be ambiguous enough to support multiple views :).

It doesn't really matter though, as I think we can all agree that the intended rules are that ammo and traps should be able to be poisoned.

Where exactly the exact text of the rules needs to be modified to better reflect this, I honestly don't care.

Alright, so we have the common ground of agreeing ammunition should be poisonable. So let me ask you this: What do you gain by arguing ammunition aren't weapons. What do you lose by agreeing that they are?

I agree that sling bullets can't be poisoned, but not because they're ammunition. They're Bludgeoning, and so can't apply Injury poison, and Contact poison would be too problematic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
albadeon wrote:

Ammo is listed as consumables (and not as weapons) in the Crafting and Treasure chapter. And the description in the ammunition entry in the Equipment chapter makes it quite clear that they are still seperate from weapons despite being on that list (multiple times, as there is an entry for each weapon shooting that particular projectile) for convenience's sake. I'm pretty sure we've been through this, maybe read the thread above :).

Still, I believe the general agreement is that arrows (and not the bow itself) are the object intended to be poisoned. The paragraph on how injury poisons are applied in the Crafting and Treasure Chapter however neglects to mention either ammo or traps, which I believe is merely an oversight and should be errata'd. Officially published adventures have injury poisons applied both via ammo and via traps.

I guess I didn't realize anyone was arguing arrows aren't weapons that can be poisoned because that's silly. I did literally just read the entire section on weapons, and didn't see it say anywhere that ammunition are not weapons. I did see them use the terms "weapon" and "ammunition" together in the same sentence for clarity when referring to how they're listed and which of the two decides the damage (and thus we can determine which would get the rune), but nothing to suggest ammunition aren't weapons. The entry on blowgun dart even states that they're hollow to facilitate delivering poison. (inb4 "AHA! That means blowgun darts are the ONLY ammo that can be poisoned!" ^_^;;)

Ammunition is listed in Consumables in Magic & Treasure because they're Consumables (and not Alchemical in nature, which have their own entire section) as opposed to Permanent Items on the tables in pp 536-542, not because they're not weapons. And Alchemical Poisons on pp 550-554 don't list every little thing you can apply a poison to because that would be too restrictive. They simply mention criteria for delivery, and that some methods (contact poison with weapon attacks) are "infeasible" due to reasons. Is someone nitpicking about Injury poisons specifying "applying to a weapon" as though a trap's needle, blade, jaws, etc. don't qualify as one? I mean, I guess you could only put contact or inhaled poisons in traps until that one is clarified in the Gamemastery Guide, but honestly.

Thanks for getting me up to speed on what I missed skimming the thread. 8)


lol, what kind of "consensus" does there need to be on poisoning arrows? What else are you supposed to apply the poison to, the bowstring? I guess I missed it, but is someone trying to argue that arrows "aren't weapons" or something because they have their own ammunition blurb? Just because they're ammunition doesn't mean they're not weapons. Just that not all weapons are ammunition, and ammunition is purchased in bulk for convenience. This is an all B = A but not all A = B situation.

If you need something to point to and say, "they're weapons," they're listed among all the other weapons under Weapon Descriptions, pp 284-286.


Q1 your choice if the mobs have the poison in bandoliers or other "quick access" storage to allow drawing it in the same action as applying it but they must have a free hand to apply it with the other hand holding their bow. Or alternately you could have it in some holster or something. I'm sure I've seen someone poison arrows by dipping them in a pot tied to the archer's leg in some movie or anime or other.

There is no onset in the poison's entry, so yes the affliction begins immediately.

Q2 If the guardians in your example are a humanoid race using humanoid weapons like longbows, why wouldn't they follow the same rules for the black adder venom as the players would from p 550 of the CRB? Have you seen that venom? Rhetorical, of course you have, but my point is if they're level 2 mobs, that's an awfully strong poison to allow them to skip application rules. I would allow them to have the poison pre-applied for the first round since I can't find anything that says the poison expires if not used quickly. But after that, application rules would imply every other round if they want to poison. OR you could choose to extend what I mentioned above about the poison having no expiration until a strike to imply they have as many doses of the venom as listed worth of pre-applied arrows.

And yes, obviously creatures with natural venom or poisoned attacks don't need to spend action applying them.

Q3 The free hand required by the Rogue feat is to draw the poison and apply it in one action. Normally one would require an interact action to draw, then follow application rules to apply. The feat requires one action, and doesn't include the strike. It DOES, however, allow a Rogue with the feat to use poisons (like the aforementioned black adder venom) without needing 3 actions to apply it, with the con being they have to hit with their next attack before the end of their next round or it's wasted. The trade-off for applying quick and dirty instead of taking 3 rounds to get a lasting application.


tivadar27 wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
The RAW say, "two abilities." It doesn't say you can take the same ability twice. It doesn't NEED to say you can't.
To offer a contrary example, the rules explicitly state you can't choose an ability boost for something that's already been boosted... So yeah, this means nothing. It does, if it used language like "you pick" or "you choose", I could see a mathematical argument, as those have particular meanings there, but it says select, and it doesn't say you select two distinct abilities. So it's ambiguous.

Those rules actually say, specifically

Ability Boosts, p 20 wrote:
An ability boost normally increases an ability score's value by 2.

then exceptions for above 18, no score over 18 at level 1, then

Quote:
When your character receives an ability boost, the rules indicate whether it must be applied to a specific ability score or to one of two specific ability scores, or whether it is a "free" ability boost that can be applied to any ability score of your choice. However, when you gain multiple ability boosts at the same time, you must apply each one to a different score.

It continues with the example of the Dwarf gaining boosts to Con and Wis, plus a free boost which can be applied to any score other than Con or Wis. (I'm glad you brought this up and led me to re-read this. I'd missed or forgotten that locked and free boosts couldn't be mixed.)

The use of the words "any ability score of your choice" are what require clarification.

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>