Baarogue's page

Organized Play Member. 653 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 653 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Since the staff is a 1h weapon, how would one go about holding it w/o wielding it?

4 people marked this as a favorite.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Foxfire Inferno wrote:

Thread Necromancy, engage. Apologies if it's bad form.

The GM of my PFS group, as well as his mentor, is absolutely positively convinced that you can 'attack' someone with the Kineticist's Wood Elemental Blast and heal them with it. I know this doesn't work, if for no other reason that it's RIDICULOUSLY stupidly overpowered.

I understand 'healing doesn't damage and damage doesn't heal', but I am apparently incapable of explaining that to someone else. Could I pretty please get some specific rule quotes, or something from the devs, that *absolutely* dispels this misconception?

just report them in the PFS board. Let their heirarchy handle it. Don't name names in public though. Get in touch with one of their higher ups in PM

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Chatgpt is not a source. The books and Archive of Nethys, the official prd, are sources. Chatgpt is wrong. Raise a Shield is not an interact action, and lacks the manipulate trait and anything that would give it that

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If they're using a hero point to reroll a dying check, you might want to remind them that if they would die due to dying value they can spend all their hero points to automatically stabilize without raising their wounded value. Feelsbad to fail the dying flat check on a hero point reroll when that was your last hero point

If you have to use the word "technically" to describe how something has been "worked", such as a random rock you've chipped out of the wall with a pick, it's not "durable, crafted goods like a stone statue"

They literally included objects made out of three different elements: stone, metal, and wood, as examples of "durable, crafted goods"

Did this come up in a game you played with an unreasonable GM or is this just another one of your implausible hypotheticals?

Okay, well have fun explaining to all the rogues they can't Twist the Knife after Twin Feint, Underhanded Assault, Head Stomp, etc.

I admit I had a little fun with my bard, cleric, fighter examples post a little bit above. Not the summoner Blood Frenzy one, that was legit. But this one is 100% sincere, and I think it's pretty damning to your cause. Insisting that several feats for a class that are clearly synergistic are unusable together because of the interpretation you guys are stuck on will not fly with its players. I'm tempted to run it past the Reddit crowd but I'm p sure it'll get downvoted to oblivion. Besides, they're all too busy simping for which god is going to die right now

>The name collision of 'action', 'action', and 'action' (yes, three different game mechanics meanings) is one of the worst things about PF2.

I agree it does cause confusion and delay

>"Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions" is not the same as "subordinate actions don't happen".

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. If you try to say that the Strike you made after the Stride you made after the Stride you made after you used Sudden Charge ISN'T your last action, you're denying that it was its own action

Act Together is a tandem action, which means you and your eidolon act... together during it. Act Together IS your action, but the subordinate actions it allows your eidolon to take are still subordinate to Act Together. They don't qualify since "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions."

I did not include any reactions or free actions with triggers in my examples (or at least I didn't mean to - if I missed removing any let me know which they are), and none of the feats which modify Strikes say they modify activities which include a Strike so, sorry. "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions." According to your model you can't use them together

If you're going to go with a restrictive, non-intuitive, not supported by the examples interpretation then go ALL IN on it. OWN it

I got curious and decided to look into how many feats would be crippled by the "container" paradigm for activities. This is a "non-exhaustive list" of feats I've found that refer to other actions

Martial Performance extends the duration of courageous anthem when you damage an enemy with a Strike. Basic Strikes only in the container model!

Warrior muse loses again. Triumphant Inspiration is also restricted to basic Strikes in the container model

Whoops, if you're hit by an activity that includes a Strike you can't use All In My Head. Basic Strikes only!

Better brief your party to use only basic Strikes, no activities that include Strikes, while Discordant Voice is in effect

noticing a pattern? These aren't "last action" abilities, but they all refer to basic Strikes, which don't qualify if they're included in an activity according to the container model

according to the container model, Divine Weapon cannot be combined with Restoration Strike nor Channel Smite, nor any other activities which Casts a Spell <- capitalized activity. Abilities which refer to uncapitalized "cast" are safe

Can't use Magic Hands with activities that involve Treat Wounds, like Risky Surgery

Zealous Rush... is safe! Because it doesn't refer to the Cast a Spell activity, it just works lol

Basic Strikes only with Castigating Weapon

Durid (sic) had nothin' so on to Fighter. This gon' be good:
Reflexive Shield's benefits can't be gained if you Raise your Shield via an activity

Ricochet Stance only benefits basic Strikes, not any of fighter's activities which include Strikes

Mobile Shot Stance only benefits basic Strikes, not any of fighter's ranged activities which include Strikes

Fearsome Brute only benefits basic Strikes against frightened creatures, no activities which include Strikes

In case you couldn't guess, roughly 90% of fighter feats are activities that include at least one Strike

I gotta take my kid to school and I'm honestly bored looking for examples for this. I think you get my point. These all fit within the "no substitutions" clause of the strict container model. If your action was an activity that uses a Strike, then it doesn't qualify for feats that look for Strike (unless it's a reaction, since reactions are spelled out as still triggering off sub actions)

>Basically my argument is that the rule text defines the 'container' model of activities - to use your terminology. The fact that the only example that they give is the forward looking option doesn't change that.

And that's the crux of our disagreement. My argument is that it defines no such thing. You're envisioning it to mean that when the examples don't support it. The fact there are only replacement and next action examples is significant

Doing it your way cripples many synergies that appear built into classes and archetypes, like the one that began this discussion. Do you think it's intentional or accidentally bad design to have an activity that allows one to Raise a Shield at the end of it along with another action that depends on Raising a Shield in the same kit? I haven't looked into that archetype in-depth but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more synergies like that

But here's another one: do you play a summoner? Have a look at Blood Frenzy. How about Merciless Rend? Would you allow either of those after the eidolon qualified for them when you used Act Together? (And what summoner doesn't Act Together every single turn?) I would allow it. But Act Together doesn't deal blood damage, nor is it a Strike. Act Together is what allows you to use subordinate actions to accomplish those goals, but in your paradigm, "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions" means you didn't qualify

Even if you twist your logic to justify those, it's just so much easier to envision the actions as simply being sequential. Did the eidolon deal bleed damage to a living creature with its last action? Yarp. Did it Strike and hit twice (etc. all the other reqs) with its secondary attack this turn? Yarp. Easy peasy

Finoan wrote:

And for me, the inconsistency that I can't handle is that most spellshape feats don't work Spellstrike because they look for 'your next action' being cast a spell, but a Wizard with Magus Archetype could combine Spellstrike followed by Bond Conservation.

If we are ignoring the activity and subordinate actions rules when looking backwards because that scenario wasn't in the list of examples, then why are we enforcing it when looking forwards? Why not allow 'your next action is...' abilities to trigger on the first subordinate action of an activity?

Again I have to point out that the examples illustrate the rules. The examples don't define the rules.

Well good news, everyone! Bond Conservation can't be used that way even at my tables - neither with the old 2e verson of Bond Conservation (which in its description - not its reqs line - called for your next action being Cast a Spell via Drain Bonded Item) nor the 2r version (which calls for your last action be Cast a Spell enabled by Drain Bonded Item.)

Spellstrike wrote:
You channel a spell into a punch or sword thrust to deliver a combined attack. You Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires a spell attack roll. The effects of the spell don't occur immediately but are imbued into your attack instead. Make a melee Strike with a weapon or unarmed attack. Your spell is coupled with your attack, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell.

So first you Cast a Spell, then you Strike. The spell's effects are added to and resolved along with the Strike, but you definitely Cast the Spell first and Struck second. Your last action was the Strike

edit: re: your question to me, I was thinking of them as "extra action" and "next action" rules, but I was referring to the one rule w/ two examples in the second paragraph

shroudb wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
Proliferate's example of "a small tree" is probably greater than the Base Kinesis bulk limit of any kineticist, so my read is that the bulk limit doesn't apply to Proliferate. Whether the "expanded to fill its square" material is suitable to use as permanent fortification or building material without working with tools is another matter up to the GM. I would take my cue from Sculpt and rule it is not, but could be used as cover or area denial in a fight

Is it though?

Is a sapling bulkier than a ten foot pole?

Cause you can affect that at level 5 with base Kinesis..

Well the 10' pole is a worked object that's only an inch or so in diameter and completely smooth, while a sapling presumably has branches and leaves, albeit not many of them since it'd be restricted to being 5' tall. Maybe the sapling would fit w/i the base kinesis bulk limit after all but only at higher levels. I would not say it's as low as 1 bulk though

Proliferate's example of "a small tree" is probably greater than the Base Kinesis bulk limit of any kineticist, so my read is that the bulk limit doesn't apply to Proliferate. Whether the "expanded to fill its square" material is suitable to use as permanent fortification or building material without working with tools is another matter up to the GM. I would take my cue from Sculpt and rule it is not, but could be used as cover or area denial in a fight

Guntermench wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Guntermench wrote:

Having it work one way in one instance and another in another effectively identical instance isn't good game design, for one thing.

Consistency is generally a good thing.

Yeah, but there's only a consistency issue if we accept a certain premise on how activities work. That's part of the problem. Both conclusions make complete logical and consistent sense within their respective frameworks, while making zero sense in the other framework.
And we're only given one of those frameworks in the book.

No, you have decided a one-direction rule should work both ways and fabricated the activities-as-containers framework to justify it. We were given two rules and one clear example for each. You have inferred a third. I have remained true to the rules as written and not assumed that in four printings and a remaster they just forgot "last action" abilities exist


Your quote tags got broken but yeah, I wouldn't have it any other way

Finoan wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
I know players will enjoy looking for those activities that have synergy with triggers looking for the last action to be X if it is allowed. But does allowing it break the game?

I think the only one that breaks the game is allowing activities that call for X action to have X action replaced with Y activity that includes X action. Such as combining Sudden Charge and Flurry of Blows to let the character Stride twice, then Strike twice. Or letting Flurry of Maneuvers let you Grapple, then Suplex for one action.

I just think it is more fair to the players and less of a developer trap to have forward looking and backward looking 'your last/next action...' abilities be consistent.

What you're describing are replacing subordinate actions with other activities or altered actions, something that is explicitly disallowed and not even I am arguing for. Flurry and suplex, etc. aren't next/last action abilities so I'm totally on the same page re: their use and restrictions

Finoan wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
Yes, you and I have shared our readings in a previous thread, and it's the same thing Guntermench said above.

Yeah. We have.

And in future threads you are certainly allowed to present your interpretation as though it was undisputed consensus. But you should also expect that others with differing interpretations are going to present theirs in opposition.

D-did you not read my very first post in this thread?

I shared both sides and I did so non-disparagingly. Why should I "present my interpretation as though it was undisputed consensus" in future threads when I didn't even do that here?

Yes, you and I have shared our readings in a previous thread, and it's the same thing Guntermench said above. I disagree with that reading exactly because the rule only lists "extra action" and "next action" scenarios and has one "extra action" and one "next action" example each. You say "non-exhaustive list of examples" as if it needs more to get its point across, but it doesn't. The rules and examples are crystal clear. It is one example each because no more examples are needed because there are no more permutations of the rule. You are overthinking it. Sometimes the absence of a rule nor any examples to support it means it does not exist

I understand. You believe that rule to mean that activities are containers. I would not waste play time arguing with you at a table if you were my GM. But I believe that rule to simply mean only exactly what it says: that the "next action" you're taking is an activity and so its subordinate actions do not qualify for "extra action" or "next action" requirements, because those subordinate actions are not your next action. I do not see any reason to apply it in reverse. The last action you used, whether it was singly or the last subordinate action of an activity, was your last action

Yes, justifying that reading by getting persnickity about which action you "used" one or more of your three actions on is the common approach, but the Subordinate Action rules don't differentiate between an activity you spent the actions on and the subordinate actions it allows you to perform when they use the word "use"

Subordinate Actions, 2e CR but 2r has the same wording wrote:

Subordinate Actions

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.

And "last action" requirements don't say "the last action you spent actions on", they typically say (using the wording from Devoted Guardian) "Your last action was..." and I find it far more intuitive for your "last action was" to be the actual last action you performed before the one with that requirement

I don't blame you for your interpretation and I'm not invested enough to continue arguing if you're entrenched in it. Just understand that your way is not explicit and is less intuitive, and so without a clear example or indication from the devs I will continue to read it my way. I'm not denying your choice to your way - in fact I acknowledged it right off the bat and advised the OP to be prepared to accept it at others' tables

Guntermench wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
Others may believe subordinate actions don't count as your "last action taken."

That would be because they explicitly don't.

Subordinate Actions wrote:
As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.
They don't count as last action taken for the same reason they don't count for a if your next action is.

That only refers to "next action" requirements, and gives no such guidance that it should be applied in reverse. As I said, I understand why you and others interpret it that way but I believe you are overthinking it. It is not "explicit." You are inferring a connection between the two

I would allow it since everstand strike has Raise your Shield capitalized like Raise a Shield, which to me indicates they mean that action. But don't be surprised if some GMs get hung up on the difference between "your" and "a" and deny you

Others may believe subordinate actions don't count as your "last action taken." I'm not in that camp either. Just be prepared for perfectly valid and reasonable table variation if you play with different GMs is what I'm saying and maybe running it past them beforehand would be prudent

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
Talon Stormwarden wrote:
So a RK check might fail to learn new info about Wolf #2 because it didn’t beat the higher DC, but still beat the standard DC and so trigger abilities like mastermind?

Wait, what higher DC?

'If Robbie later tries to Recall Knowledge against Bob, they would use the typical DC, not an increased DC for a subsequent check against the same creature. Similarly, if Robbie is later attacked by two new wolves, the checks to Recall Knowledge would start at the typical DC.'
Yes, it's not actually in the book, but the intent seems clear to me. We've been always running it like this: no increased DC against new creature of the same type.

c'mon man. Read the whole post

>Would you say then that “for the purposes of learning new information” you would use the increasing DC and stop after a failure or the incr hard DC?

So when the player rolls RK against Bob (from the example in the FAQ I quoted) would you have them simply ID Bob and say "yep, that tharz a wolf arright" and give them the same info you gave for the first successful RK? Or would you give them NEW information even though they haven't beaten a higher RK DC that would normally be required to get more information about the same creature? Or would you do as this person asks and have the check be a two-tiered one; let them ID the creature type at the base DC ("For the purpose of abilities that require successfully identifying a creature using Recall Knowledge"), but require that the check beat a higher DC in order to get new useful information about the creature type?

If one lumps the splash damage in with the bomb damage and subjects it to the reflex save then it should be done fairly and also doubled on a crit failure. I found that to be counterintuitive to how it is normally handled, which is why I didn't calculate it that way in my answer above

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another reason to open with trip without assurance that I forgot to mention is that in addition to getting your full proficiency+attribute bonus on the trip check, you also get the item bonus from whatever potency runes you etch on the shield's augmentation

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As YuriP says, your success with assurance isn't assured, but I would recommend trip without assurance because that'll make them prone for the strike if it succeeds, then everstand strike at -5 MAP +raise a shield if you hit, then shove with assurance or raise a shield if you missed and that's important to you

1 person marked this as a favorite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would allow it since they can be etched with weapon runes, but...

How do you figure that everstand strike is at no MAP? Assurance doesn't mean you didn't take two attack actions already and are thus at -10

> I need a Paizo official answer


I would allow stacking of knife fighter and wily attack once each. So wily attack wouldn't get stacked twice just because the target qualified for both reasons

1. If you're not already holding a qualifying bomb, it's one action to use quick alchemy to create a bomb, or one action to draw one created earlier. For instance, one created during daily preparations for more efficient use of infused reagents. One action to use mega bomb to add its additive. One interact action to throw the mega bomb. So a total of 2-3 actions

2. You are not making a strike, so quick bomber is not used. If you're drawing a bomb it'll cost one action

3. Mega bomb says you don't make a strike and doesn't call for a check, so no. All targets in the 30' burst are affected

4. You are not making a strike, so uncanny bombs is not used. Mega bomb sets the range at "within 60' of you", period. Uncanny bombs also doesn't affect the burst radius, not even for normal bomb strikes. Only the range increment for strikes. So within 60' you have no penalty, at 61'-120' you're at -2 to hit because of range, etc. Again, this doesn't affect the mega bomb, I'm only going over it because your question suggests you misunderstand uncanny bombs

5. Every creature within the 30' burst, which is centered within 60' of you, takes damage as if they were the primary target of the bomb you used for mega bomb. That includes splash damage, because the primary target of a bomb takes the splash damage too. But even if two targets are near enough to each other to normally take expanded splash damage, they won't take double splash damage. So every target in the burst would take 4d8 fire with a basic reflex save (so half damage if they save, and no damage if they crit save, but double damage if they crit fail), 9 fire splash damage, and 4 persistent fire damage if they fail the save (double if they crit fail). But nothing outside the 30' burst takes splash damage, not even if they're within range of expanded splash

I recommend discarding the electric arc visual. It can only confuse the issue in the future

No links included because everything is right there what you quoted

The movement rules say every other diagonal costs 10' of movement and tracks all movement during your turn. Step says you move 5'. Not that you move one square. Specifically 5'. If that diagonal would cost 10', Step doesn't give you enough movement to enter it

We'll see if the attack trait gets errata'd away in the future since it's an emanation. NBD until then since MAP doesn't affect spell DC, unless you plan to make a Strike or other attack action after casting it

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see any conflicts between your character's edicts and anathema, so just try to fulfil the edicts while avoiding the anathema. As long as you keep a way to deal non-lethal damage at hand you shouldn't have any trouble with them. There shouldn't be any need to codify everything into a prioritized list. What's most crucial might change depending on the situation. If a villain is about to shoot a child, you might not have time to turn it into a teachable moment

Don't overthink it, and don't let anyone else overthinking it tell you you're playing your character wrong. Characters are supposed to be people. Just do your best to roleplay them doing their best

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are feats that allow you to perform "trained" actions despite not being trained. Perhaps those hazards have the (trained) note as an extra layer of specific gatekeeping to prevent those with such feats from being allowed to disable them

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In four printings, they "forgot" the trait? They gave it to Iron Command just fine first try. Looks intentional to me. Maybe that will change in PC2, but until then, nah. I'm not going to assume I know better in a clear-cut case like this. No mental trait = not mental, or you open the door to people claiming you can't use Glimpse on anything immune to mental because of the flavor text

Being shielded from mental effects (in the case of non-mindless mental-immune creatures) or not having a mind to comprehend the "visions of redemption" and make the right choice doesn't equate to the champion's deity not delivering the visions and consequences at all

>official guidance that there is no delineation that should ever be made between descriptive flavor text and mechanical phrasing.
I'd like to see this, if someone has a link. It stinks of quoting out of context

Captain Morgan wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
For a long time, that was exceptionally rough for PFS, where you have many different GMs. I was really glad to see the campaign rulings added, this last November.
What was that ruling?


[NEW - Nov '23] For the purpose of abilities that require successfully identifying a creature using Recall Knowledge (like the mastermind rogue racket), how do I know what creatures I have successfully identified?

Let us imagine that Robbie the Mastermind Rogue is attacked by three identical wolves: Alice, Bob and Charlie.

For the purposes of such abilities, a character is considered to have successfully identified a creature when they succeed or critically succeed at a Recall Knowledge check, regardless of what information they gain. If Robbie successfully Recalls Knowledge against Alice, their racket ability triggers against Alice, but not against Bob or Charlie. The information they gain would still be useful against all three.

If Robbie later tries to Recall Knowledge against Bob, they would use the typical DC, not an increased DC for a subsequent check against the same creature. Similarly, if Robbie is later attacked by two new wolves, the checks to Recall Knowledge would start at the typical DC.

In short, each creature is treated as a separate creature, even if they appear to be identical.

> Glimpse of Redemption is pretty clearly Anethema.
Tsukiyo's anathema > inflict harmful mental effects on others as punishment
Glimpse of Redemption > the enemy becomes enfeebled 2 until the end of its next turn.
Enfeebled > You're physically weakened.

I'm not seeing how Glimpse is a harmful mental effect

I was going to say Weight of Guilt might be argued to be one, but then I remembered that "mental" is a defined trait in PF2 which Glimpse and Weight both lack. So no, I don't agree with Glimpse being anathema to Tsukiyo at all

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

What constitutes an object in PF2?

Does Razing work against a wall of force or a wall of stone? Does it work against a door or a hazard like a trap that is made of materials versus say a haunt? How you do you adjudicate this trait and what it works against?

I don't think this is exactly rocket surgery or an especially nuanced call

When I was contemplating Dual-Weapon Reload, Into the Fray, and Reloading Strike, I found the Way of the Drifter pregen character for the Head Shot the Rot one-shot to be informative

Doc Featherton has all three feats, naturally, and has two weapons on her character sheet. A dragon mouth pistol with reinforced stock, and a +1 dueling pistol with bayonet

Dual-Weapon Reload has the wording of "one of which is a ranged weapon" which I agree with Errenor doesn't exclude the other one being a ranged weapon

but Reloading Strike has the requirement of "You're wielding a firearm or crossbow in one hand, and your other hand either wields a one-handed melee weapon or is empty."

Into the Fray says, "You can Interact to draw a one-handed ranged weapon and can then Interact to draw a one-handed melee weapon."

if the character's second weapon was just a ranged weapon with no attached melee weapon it wouldn't qualify for either of these feats. But since both guns have attached melee weapons, and they're the only weapons on her sheet, the writers apparently considered them to be ranged and melee weapons at once

2 people marked this as a favorite.

>When you target the same creature with two Strikes

Scarablob wrote:
Errenor wrote:
No, it should be even better for players: you automatically recognize a spell if you have it prepared or in the repetoire. No feats needed at all, it's a base game rule. Also there's Recognize spell feat and its branch. So basically GM should pause a bit everytime their NPC casts something and check if they need to give players some info or the other. Counterspell is an additional thing.
This is what I meant, you should automatically recognise when an opponent is casting a spell you are able to counterspell using either the basic feat or the "school counterspell" of the runelord dedication. But in practice, as usually GM don't tell the players which spell their monster is casting unless they do a "recognise spell", a lot of GM forget to tell the player when they have an opportunity to counter something, and simply go "monster X is casting a spell, roll a will save".

the responsibility here is shared between the player and the GM. When the GM says "monster A is casting a spell" The player needs to communicate to the GM that they have counterspell and ask if they can identify the spell being cast. By the rules, you automatically identify spells being cast if you have them memorized if you're a prepared caster, or if you have them in your repertoire if you're a spontaneous caster. Otherwise you need to use the recognize spell feat

SuperParkourio wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
And btw "30' in any dimension" at max is a 15' burst so no area was lost. The new wording is just more flexible and gets rid of the less effective and never-picked (at least at my tables) cone option
And with that flexibility comes ambiguity in life-or-death situations. If it were up to the player, they'd always pick a 30' wide cube, because it's the biggest shape that's no more than 30' in any dimension (it occurs to me that a 30' burst is actually 60' wide). But how does a GM decide what size and shape to allow? And under what circumstances?

I dunno where you're pulling 30' burst from but like I said I'm not invested so overthink it all you want

>how does a GM decide what size and shape to allow? And under what circumstances?
Man just use your best fing judgement based on common sense. Can they seek through a plywood wall? Probably. 10' thick cave wall? Maybe not

Really it comes down to one of my GMing principles. Don't arbitrarily limit something if there's no reason for me to do so. I don't agonize over this because in most cases there won't be any reason to deny the players a full 15' burst

3 people marked this as a favorite.

And btw "30' in any dimension" at max is a 15' burst so no area was lost. The new wording is just more flexible and gets rid of the less effective and never-picked (at least at my tables) cone option

SuperParkourio wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
Maybe to prevent some players insisting they can seek around corners? I dunno. I'll probably still run it pretty generously, as long as nobody tries to take advantage

Isn't Seeking around corners the whole point of the burst? If there's an undetected creature past a corner, you might be able to hear them by Seeking, making them hidden. Now the mechanics for that are confusing.

Suppose you and your party are Avoiding Notice and combat begins with all of you behind a corner. You all succeed, but a monster wins initiative, so he knows there's at least one enemy nearby. He Seeks in a burst centered outside the door. Since your party is right outside the door, three of you are at risk of being detected, but whoever is all the way in the back is just outside the burst, so they can't be detected. Perhaps the precision of a burst wasn't needed, but it provided the GM an impartial way to adjudicate where the Seek was occurring. Now there's no clear way to tell how many of the PCs are caught in the area for Seek, because the area for this situation has gone from "15-foot burst" to "something no bigger than 30 feet."

Yes, you could decide that the precision is unneeded and just not think about it too hard, allowing the monster to Seek against all four PCs or perhaps two or however many you decide. But the original rule already allowed that because those areas are for when the GM decides precision is needed. My issue is that the vague option is now the only option. Should the Seeker get to Seek in a 30 foot burst? A 15 foot cone? What circumstances would be appropriate for any given area that one Seeks in. Does one even get to place the area oneself?

yeah, don't mistake me taking a wild guess as arguing to justify my guess. I'm not invested in this because I plan to still run seeking as is, which is supported by the new wording even if it's not spelled out that way. And I did and will still allow seeking around corners because sound exists. I just make sure my players know just because they can seek around corners with a burst seek doesn't mean they can see around corners

Maybe to prevent some players insisting they can seek around corners? I dunno. I'll probably still run it pretty generously, as long as nobody tries to take advantage

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ectar wrote:

Heck, I meant Inquisitor, not Investigator.

But now it's too long to edit.

Yeah that had me scratching my head and I was planning to read up on Investigator tonight to see what I'd been missing

SirPeach wrote:
use pacifying infusion the turn before and hope the move is still decently set up when your next turn comes around

and you've stepped in another argument entirely with that one, but I won't get distracted

All I can do is try to console you with the fact that there aren't many 3-action impulses so it's unlikely to come up frequently. Considering their power I suspect making them 3 actions and thus usually un-infusible was a design choice, much like 3-action spells are quite limited in spellshape options for the same reason

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SirPeach wrote:

Ok, I think I'm starting to get my confusion. I only just realized that not all impulses have the stance trait and I'm guessing it's not a stance impulse unless it has the stance trait. Maybe it's just a bias coming from my realization, but that makes safe elements a lot less cool than I thought it was.

EDIT: Well, moderatly less cool anyways. Having to use that extra action for safety can be a pain, especially if it's a three action impulse.

good news then. there are no three action stances. All of the existing kin stances are a single action, and will typically be entered when the kin channels their elements

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In PC1 the rules for hex spells in the witch class section says, "as such, you can use only one hex each turn, and any attempts to use a second hex on that turn fail and the actions are lost."

Then under hex cantrips it says, "so you can cast them as often as you like, though you can still use only one hex each round."

Which is it, turn or round? Incidentally it's the same wording as it was premaster

We have conflicting terminology in their descriptions of the limitation on hex castings that makes this class feature reaction (every witch gets this or patron's puppet) borderline unusable

I would allow phase familiar to exceed the "one hex per round" limitation mentioned in hex _cantrips_ because the primary hex _spells_ rule says "turn" and the hex cantrips rule is written as if it's a callback to the hex spells rule. Or you can rationalize "once per round" as a limitation on hex cantrips specifically even though it says "still." Whatever you like. Fundamentally for me it's just feelsbadman to say "you have all these cool spells you can use but nah, you gotta save that hex casting every round in case your familiar gets targeted." That's just bad design and I don't believe it was what was intended by the limit

I fing hate walls of text but if this is the only way...

In the glossary & index of PC1


round A period of time during an encounter in which all participants get a chance to act. A round represents approximately 6 seconds of game time. 11, 435

durations measured in rounds 426

since some of you are dead set on counting it as if it was a duration, let's check that page first

PC1 p.426 is the first page of the Effects section

Duration wrote:

Most effects are discrete, creating an instantaneous effect when you let the GM know what actions you are going to use. Firing a bow, moving to a new space, or taking something out of your pack all resolve instantly. Other effects instead last for a certain duration. Once the duration has elapsed, the effect ends. the rules generally use the following conventions for durations, though spells have some special durations detailed on pages 302. (pages 302? lol typo find. also that's spells, so we won't be detouring there just fyi ~B)

For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect. Detrimental effects often last "until the end of the target's next turn" or "through" a number of their turns (such as "through the target's next 3 turns"), which means that the effect's duration decreases at the end of the creature's turn, rather than the start.

Instead of lasting a fixed number of rounds, a duration might end only when certain conditions are met (or cease to be true). If so, the effects last until those conditions are met.

Some effects can be ended early with the Dismiss action (page 419). An effect with the sustained duration lasts until the end of your next turn, but it can be extended as described in the Sustain action (page 419).

So this entire block is talking about the duration of EFFECTS. The "cooldown" of a dragon's breath weapon and similar abilities that "can't be used for X rounds" aren't effects. They're a number of ROUNDS, "A period of time during an encounter in which all participants get a chance to act," that the ability can't be used.

Stopping at PC1 p.11 rq to see what it says... these are the Key Terms pages, and under Round it repeats the definition in the glossary & index

So on to PC1 p.435 for the primary page for the term.
This is the first page of the Encounter Mode section. Round is referred to repeatedly in the context of its definition, not in the context of durations of effects except when it comes up during the steps of your TURN. But this isn't an effect. It's a number of ROUNDS the ability can't be used

Step 2: Play a Round wrote:
A round begins when the participant with the highest initiative roll result starts their turn, and it ends when the one with the lowest initiative ends their turn. The process of taking a turn is detailed below. Creatures might also act outside their turns with reactions and free actions.
Begin the Next Round wrote:
Once everyone in the encounter has taken a turn, the round is over and the next one begins. Don't roll initiative again; the new round proceeds in the same order as the previous one, repeating the cycle until the encounter ends.

Since someone will still be trying to cludge this into being about durations, let's stop by the bottom of the page under Turns

Under Step 1: Start Your Turn, first step mentioned is

If you created an effect lasting for a certain number of rounds, reduce the number of rounds remaining by 1. The effect ends if the duration is reduced to 0. For example, if you cast a spell that lasts 3 rounds on yourself during your first turn of a fight, it would affect you during that turn, decrease to 2 rounds of duration at the start of your second turn, decrease to 1 round of duration at the start of your third turn, and expire at the start of your fourth turn.

Aside: this is why I hate the quicken rules, because if the caster of a haste effect casts it on themselves they're robbed of 1 round of its effect. But that's an old rant

Again, ROUNDS are only ever used in the context of DURATIONS when tracking EFFECTS. This is not an effect, so it uses the DEFINITION OF A ROUND, which is the period of time that ALL participants in the encounter act. Dragon breathes on round 1, rolls a 1 on the d4, yadda yadda, ends their turn. It's still the same ROUND until all have acted. It breathed THIS ROUND so obviously THIS isn't the round it "can't be used." Everyone else acts. Round 1 ends. Round 2 begins. THIS is the ROUND the breath weapon can't be used. Dragon's TURN comes up. It's still the ROUND the breath weapon can't be used because the cooldown is NOT AN EFFECT, so it's not counted down at the beginning of the dragon's TURN, nor its end, nor any other time during this ROUND. Dragon's turn ends. It's still the same ROUND until all have acted. Everyone else acts. Round 2 ends. Round 3 begins. NOW the breath weapon can be used again

edit: inb4 some smart-alec like SP uses my 'obviously THIS isn't the round it "can't be used."' to say I'm saying single-action abilities like this CAN be used in the same round. No

If you use it on consecutive rounds, where'd the round you can't use it go?

1 to 50 of 653 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>