Devis

Bardo_RS's page

Organized Play Member. 25 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After a series of misadventures the group of 5 level adventurers ends up being taken to the quarters of a certain negotiator demon that proposes a deal: the soul of a criminal for group freedom and city lives.

Unconvinced and instigated by the cleric and the champion the party set out to confront. Extremely disadvantageous battle for a group being almost without resources, the demon negotiator only see the combat with his soldiers who are quickly eliminated by the heroes. However, even cornered and with serious injuries the heroes insist on refusing the countless demonic offers that would save their lives.

Overcomed by resistance the demon puts an end in the adventurers.

Group: A human rogue/medic, A dwarf warpriest of Torag, A human champion/barbarian of Sarenrae, a globin ranger, and a Fetchling rogue.

TPK wins!


The transparent walls written in Book 2 area C4, C5, C8 and C9 are really walls or more parapet. Is possible to go for C4 low-level to up-level?
I m confuse.


King_Of_The_Crossroads wrote:

Hello all!

I will be participating in a game this Wednesday, and we are playing the Abomination Vaults AP. My DM hinted that undead are a big thing in this AP, so I decided to make a Psychopomp bloodline sorcerer, and am leaning into the Duskwalker ancestry for added flavor.

I am fairly new to Pathfinder 2e, and am unsure how I should built this character. What spells should I take, how should my stats be set up, etc. Should I stick with the sorcerer idea, or go with something else?

The rest of the party is an Orc ranger, a Kobold wizard, and a Leshy monk.

Thank you!

I'm running this adventure and wish your group good luck, don't worry about the formation of the group. This AP is more luck and exploration strategy than others I've seen.

For a building, this adventure has a large variety of monsters, undead are a good choice to focus on. The rest just depends on how the GM uses the scenario.


Watery Soup wrote:
graystone wrote:
I honestly don't see what the fuss is about

That's because responders haven't really been reading the thread.

The question is not what Battle Medicine does. It's how we know what Battle Medicine does.

For better or for worse, the way to use Battle Medicine was informally canonized before it was formally canonized - it was a core component of the new system, and the CRB worded it with a lot of GM variation. In places like PFS, the rules pretty quickly coalesced around "yes there are crit successes and crit failures and you need one hand plus the healer's kit in a bandolier to use it". Some of those agreements were formally put into errata, and some weren't.

All the information for this feat (and several others) is scattered, and confusion persists (and will likely persist) until someone fixes the system.

Excellent point.


Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Bardo_RS wrote:

First of all the post isn't about battle medicine being super powerful, it's about mechanics and rules that seem to directly affect this action and how it's read.

Except it is. Your only real argument has been "this is too good to be true". The "corresponding HP" includes critical success and critical failure in the exact text it references. It is a much stronger leap of logic to exclude them than to than include it.

Your math hasn't really helped prove your point, and the hyperbole that everyone needs it is unfounded. More than a single use on the same character is impossible for 24 hours even when used by another character (baring additional feats). Also carries the risk on killing someone on a critical failure. Strong yes, but in line with other low level healing options:

Healing font 2 actions (1d8+8) at first level 3/day. Gets even better from there, and is substantially more powerful than combat medicine.

Lay on hands 6 points for a ten minute break.

alchemist 6/day @ 1d6

First post >>>> According to the rules of success and failure, if it is not written in the talent/action/magic, the successes and critical failures do not occur, they are only considered success and failure.

"If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead." CRB446

Since battle medicine is very detailed about what is and is not similar to the treat wound action (DC used, difficulty increase, immunity, hands, actions, effects) the omission left this doubt in the air.
Unless you treat the action that the feat provides like treating wounds, which doesn't seem to be the intent, critical effects shouldn't occur with battle medicine.
<<<<

That's my argument and my question. But all you read, if you read it, are the last two lines in the post, a reminder of a basic thing.
To be more precise, battle medicine is poorly written, it doesn't claim to roll to treat wounds, or roll medicine and modify it, it just claims to use some mechanics (DC, 2d8, high DC), it's different from power attack action, who says to roll the strike and modify it. Or a Hobnober that modifies the effects of the Gather Information activity.

Now going to more objective things:
>>> using max bonus attributes and lvl 1 <<<
- Source of healing: Two actions x5 days (1d8 + 8) is no more better than a 2d8 (4d8), x4, or x6, one action in one day;
- Alchemist Elixir: one action, 1d6) x8, is no more better than a 2d8 (4d8), x4, or x6 day, one action;
- Lay hands with a hp one action, x4 to x5 encounters in one day, no is more better than a 2d8 (4d8), x4 or x6 day, one action, at low level;

Yes the player needs to buy one or two skill feats, oh my god, but that choice hurts much less than maximizing secondary attributes to heal, or doing all on the same item per day with no flexibility, that's in my opinion.


Nefreet wrote:

I'm getting flashbacks to the first few months of PF2 when people kept spewing math as a reason for Battle Medicine being "omg too overpowered".

Bardo will eventually get over it, but methinks we'll never stop seeing posters like this.

First of all the post isn't about battle medicine being super powerful, it's about mechanics and rules that seem to directly affect this action and how it's read.

I don't intend to change the way the community uses the feat after 3 years, right or wrong, but to raise a debate about something that has been missed. And maybe not just in this situation.

Second, I used math just to show a solicited opinion, about an interpretation of what I referred: "Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is." CRB444
However, when I mentioned this warning it was because I knew that the community had already adopted the best possible version of rules for this action/feat and I wanted to remember that the system already foresees this possibility and not everything is written in iron.

And as a hobby-based community, it's common for themes to come and go from time to time, even more so in a game where the social contract is renegotiated all the time. Get over it Nefreet.;0)
Finally, if the rules section of the forum is not the place to think and discuss rules, and its ins and outs, which are heavily based on mathematical arguments, indicate to me another space and way to do it?


Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Bardo_RS wrote:
-> Combined with assurance you remove the chance of failure and could choose higher DCs without risk, even guaranteeing criticals. From 2lvl onwards you can ensure that battle medicine always works at DC 20 and heal 2d8+10 (average 19) without risk, or risk healing something between 4-32 (average 19) with 30% chance at DC15, and each level beyond lowers the risk of trying the critical. At lvl 7 (+17 on roll) you could choose to always crit at DC 15 (4d8), or "risk" at DC 20 to heal 2d8+10/4d8+10 (5% chance critical miss, 10% miss, 45% success and 35% critical success);

You cannot automatically succeed with assurance at level 2 against dc 20. The best you can get this way is 16. 10 for assurance, 6 for proficiency bonus (lv 2 + 4 (expert). You never add your stat bonus when using assurance as it is not part of the proficiency bonus.

Yes a few hours later I realized that I treated assurance as take 10 (old habits). I was busy with other, more urgent things, sorry. Leaving the blood in the water for a while attracted more sharks to the post, that was good.

But this error doesn't change the fact that battle medicine is a very low risk and high reward action at low level if it has crit effects. The use of assurance eliminates the low risk for a healing a lowness category, but still relevant.

Errata =>> From 2lvl onwards you can ensure that battle medicine always works at DC 15 and heal 2d8 (average 9) without risk, or "risk" healing something between 4-32 (average 19) with 30% chance at DC 15, and each level beyond lowers the risk of trying the critical. At lvl 7 (+17 on roll) you could choose to always heal at DC 20 (2d8+10), or "risk" at DC 20 to heal 2d8+10/4d8+10 (5% chance critical miss, 10% miss, 45% success and 35% critical success); That w/o item bônus.


Aw3som3-117 wrote:

2. Based on the question it sounds like you think this is too good to be true and are looking for a reason to exclude these effects. Would you mind explaining? In fact, one of my characters would actually love for it to not include these effects. It would make it safer to attempt moderately difficult DCs against players who are dying or close to it and need a huge boost of health. As it stands I have to use a very inefficient assurance that's one level away from hitting that higher DC because I don't want to have a 1/20 chance of killing them. That's not to say that removing the crit success and crit failure effects would always be a good thing, but rather wondering why it's so powerful that it might qualify as "too good to be true", especially considering those higher DCs are way stronger than an extra 2d8.

P.S. All that being said, even though I run it as being a copy-paste of treat wounds but without removing the wounded condition I actually think a technical reading of the rules wouldn't include the critical failure effect, since it isn't "restoring" HP, and battle medicine just restores the amount of HP as treat wounds. Again, I don't run it that way, but I can understand it being run that way.

to be continued

2) Because it having a critical effect could be considered very good? Let's make some considerations:
-> Balance at low lvl where an action can restore 4d8, on average, half a martial's HP and is easy to hit: 2lvl+expert+atrib (+4 to optimize) = +10 on DC 15 roll (5% chance critical failure, 15% failure, 50% success and 30% critical success);
-> With each new level the chance of failure remains the same, but the chance of success, and critical success, goes up more. At lvl 5 you have a 5% chance of critical failure, 5% of failure, 45% of success, 45% of critical success; Even increasing the DC to heal more the risk of failure would be moderate and the chance hurting the companions would remain low: 5lvl+expert+atrib (+4 to optimize) = +13 on DC 20 roll (5% critical failure, 40% failure, 30 % success and 20% critical success);
-> Combined with assurance you remove the chance of failure and could choose higher DCs without risk, even guaranteeing criticals. From 2lvl onwards you can ensure that battle medicine always works at DC 20 and heal 2d8+10 (average 19) without risk, or risk healing something between 4-32 (average 19) with 30% chance at DC15, and each level beyond lowers the risk of trying the critical. At lvl 7 (+17 on roll) you could choose to always crit at DC 15 (4d8), or "risk" at DC 20 to heal 2d8+10/4d8+10 (5% chance critical miss, 10% miss, 45% success and 35% critical success);
-> Finally, the combination with other feats, abilities and archetypes who affects healing could make achieving the crit effect even easier and creating very powerful interactions.

The current interpretation of the community with rules giving almost certain guarantees of success/critical success makes this action very powerful, something you always need to have with any character at low lvl and which remains useful at high lvl, which is the current status of this feat.


Aw3som3-117 wrote:

My question would be two fold:

1. What makes a success more applicable than a critical success? When you "Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP" success isn't mentioned at all. It just says "the corresponding amount of HP", so, corresponding to what? The roll is against a DC with critical success, success, and critical failure results, so it would correspond to that DC and it's effects. Right?

2. Based on the question it sounds like you think this is too good to be true and are looking for a reason to exclude these effects. Would you mind explaining? In fact, one of my characters would actually love for it to not include these effects. It would make it safer to attempt moderately difficult DCs against players who are dying or close to it and need a huge boost of health. As it stands I have to use a very inefficient assurance that's one level away from hitting that higher DC because I don't want to have a 1/20 chance of killing them. That's not to say that removing the crit success and crit failure effects would always be a good thing, but rather wondering why it's so powerful that it might qualify as "too good to be true", especially considering those higher DCs are way stronger than an extra 2d8.

P.S. All that being said, even though I run it as being a copy-paste of treat wounds but without removing the wounded condition I actually think a technical reading of the rules wouldn't include the critical failure effect, since it isn't "restoring" HP, and battle medicine just restores the amount of HP as treat wounds. Again, I don't run it that way, but I can understand it being run that way.

First I don't know why they did it that way, whether it was intentional or not, I'm not in the developers' minds, and they haven't come out publicly to clarify. If you find out, let me know. I can guess two things though reading the feat, maybe they were wanting to balance the action at low lvl, or bad writing in the description. From what I saw in the feat, for some reason they didn't want it to be a quicker, more usable treat wounds in combat, even if only a few times a day. This was easy to do and wouldn't need so many laps.

Now moving on to the more objective part of the questions:
1) The basic description of treating wounds sets the difficulty at 15, success tells me that it heals 2d8. The talent that gives you battle medicine action tells you to use treat wounds DC when rolling the medicine check to heal a corresponding amount. A corresponding amount determined for the DC you wanted to reach, it's not completely random, by the way this is quite common in PF2 rolls, you set a target difficulty and have four range steps in most cases.
The battle medicine talent even says that higher DC options can be enabled (DC 20 2d8+10, DC 30 2d8+30, DC 40 2d8+50) as in treating wounds. That is, you can have up to 4 amounts of healing to apply that match the difficulty you chose ("the corresponding amount of HP").
The talent tells you exactly what to roll against, and it doesn't ask you to treat wounds, it just asks you to use DC and heal the corresponding result. If they wanted you to use the treat wounds effects table they would ask you to simply roll the corresponding action just once per day per target and not remove wounds.

(to be continued...)


Azin wrote:

Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP.

My question is: what does it really mean

"restore the corresponding amount of HP" ?

DC base of action treat wounds 15, sucess 2d8.

(expert) DC 20 2d8+10
(master) DC 30 2d8+30
(legendary)DC 40 2d8+50


whew wrote:

Using Bardo's interpretation, these are just some of the feats for which you ignore critical successes and failures when making their associated checks: alchemical crafting, ancestral paragon, bargain hunter, battle cry, cloud jump, combat climber, continual recovery, courtly graces, experienced smuggler, experienced tracker, foil senses, group coercion, group impression, hobnobber, impressive performance, intimating glare, intimidating prowess, magical crafting. That can't possibly be RAI.

---

Hobnobber CRB 262 wrote:
You are skilled at learning information through conversation. The Gather Information exploration activity takes you half as long as normal (typically reducing the time to 1 hour). If you’re a master in Diplomacy and you Gather Information at the normal speed, when you attempt to do so and roll a critical failure, you get a failure instead. There is still no guarantee that a rumor you learn with Gather Information is accurate.

The master version of Hobnobber does less than nothing if the trained version already eliminates the criticals, so that is clearly not how it works.

---

The correct way to interpret these feats (and thus Battle Medicine) is that if the feat tells you to make a check and that check has results for criticals, then the feat also counts as having results for criticals.

You are making a wrong read of the rule, all these feats effects a actual action roll, and not are new actions, thus they follow their rules as normal. Battle medicine is a new action who only use the DC and some things of treat wounds as refer, but you not roll treat wounds.


Sagiam wrote:
I (and my GM's) have always run it with critical success/failure, due to the "restore the corresponding amount of HP."

That could be only a reference to adjust incrensed healing for high DC. Or to 2d8 for sucess, what is the normal result in case of not mention crit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there critical success/failure effects in battle medicine action?

According to the rules of success and failure, if it is not written in the talent/action/magic, the successes and critical failures do not occur, they are only considered success and failure.

"If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead." CRB446

Since battle medicine is very detailed about what is and is not similar to the treat wound action (DC used, difficulty increase, immunity, hands, actions, effects) the omission left this doubt in the air.
Unless you treat the action that the feat provides like treating wounds, which doesn't seem to be the intent, critical effects shouldn't occur with battle medicine.

Remember "Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is." CRB444

I need a clarification on this and post here in a hope to be seen for the gods of FAQs/Erratas.


Ezekieru wrote:

"Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP;"

I'd argue "the corresponding amount of HP" includes the amount of HP gained on a critical success/failure. But I can definitely see, given the weird way Battle Medicine is written, how we may need some clarification on it.

"the corresponding amount of HP" could be only a reference of adjust for incresead amount of healing for high DC.

This feat is very strange and they didn't clarify why they did it like that. Someday we discover or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there a critical success/failure effect in action battle medicine?
According to the rules of success and failure, if it is not written in the talent/action/magic, the successes and critical failures do not occur, they are only considered success and failure.

"If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead." CRB446

Since battle medicine is very detailed about what is and is not similar to the treat wound action (DC used, difficulty increase, immunity, hands, actions, effects) the omission left this doubt in the air. Unless you treat the action that the feat provides like treating wounds, which doesn't seem to be the intent, critical effects shouldn't occur with battle medicine.

Remember "Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is." CRB444


Full TPK in 4 floor.
The party try chit-chat with a certain girl in tedius. One way battle with chains hitting critical every round and taking the lives of: Salistra (Pharasm cloister cleric), Brisa (Monk of crane), Aeltheric (Fighter Mauler) and Passo Livre (Rogue Thief Medic). All lvl 4.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Dhampir cleric of Nethys Kiefer died in the second floor after a ambush.
The party run in corridor after a loudly morlock and enter disprepared in the corridor where two Morlock Engineer strike with crit hits. In midle of fight the dhampir died with not healing options at disposal for him.


Kasoh wrote:
I noticed a couple of times that its lists treasure as Alchemist Tools (expanded) (C25 for example) but I can't seem to find the item. There is an Alchemist Lab (expanded), so I planned on using that, but if there are expanded alchemist tools, where can I find them?

Same thing here. I take the expanded Alchemist Lab to use.

Alchemist tools in Nethys.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?Category=6&Subcategory=10

But dont make sense at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I use Gimp to open pdf in the interactive maps and get then all clean for use. Only resolution not the best (880x1400 i think)in png.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
IsaacKerry wrote:
I'm sure I'm not alone among GMs planning on running Fists of the Ruby Phoenix after this AP...can we get any guidance on any plot points to include while we play through Abomination Vaults that will let us narratively tie the two APs together?

I will do te same, but i warnned my players about that before begin this AP. And is simple say they have another strange invitation to search a old Lighthouse (internal joke).

One thing in common is the both adventures occurs in islands.


Only one question. What range is this comparison? Is firts range, second range? That make diference for longbow e for fire arms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jim Butler wrote:

First and foremost, thanks for everyone's feedback. I've spoken with Devir about their upcoming products for Brazil, and they have plans to produce a number of books this year and next for both Pathfinder and Starfinder.

Pathfinder in 2018:

April: Inner Sea World Guide
May: Kingmaker Adventure Path #1 (parts 1 and 2)
August: Kingmaker Adventure Path #2 (parts 3 and 4)
November: Kingmaker Adventure Path #3 (parts 5 and 6)

Starfinder in 2018
June: Core Rulebook
October: Alien Archives

For 2019, you'll see the Jade Regent Adventure Path and more core Pathfinder books released. They'll also kick off the Dead Suns Adventure Path for Starfinder and Pact Worlds.

Once partners receive the final rules for Second Edition, we'll let everyone know their plans. We don't expect to know that until later in 2019, however.

Thanks again for supporting Paizo, and if you have any questions feel free to post here in the forums or drop me an email (jim.butler@paizo.com).

-Jim

No books, no calendar, nothing new in the franchise Pathfinder RPG.

Now did they lie in front of you any chance to hear us and try to give the torch to some other publisher in Brazil?
Better a small or medium company that wants to publish some books and get space in the market, than a larger one without the desire to grow the Pathfinder RPG community (yes Devir has one wish, do not let another compete in the local market, just that).

But if the 1st edition was a waste in Brazil with Devir do not let the 2nd edition of Pathfinder go to the same course, do not give to the same publisher please. I do not want to lose players just by a language barrier easy to fix in today's world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

#nodevir

I play RPG for more than 30 years and this publisher is never good, but the last years with Pathfinder in the hand of Devir is like the game dont exist for Brazilian. Three books (core, monsters, not the last prints, and one adventure) in five years or more.
The card game is another one suffer in hand of she, error in cards, error in sheets, and more delays in adventures cards.

Plz have some other competent publishers in Brazil to give this nice game a chance.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Elemental Touch specifically states it gives you a Melee Touch Attack option that has different effects depending on which element you cast, and lasts for the duration of the spell. This isn't a Touch Spell, per se, so it shouldn't wink out if you cast something like Shocking Grasp, but this also means you can't use Spellstrike with it, and make your Sword deal the Elemental Touch effects, as it's not a Touch Spell, but a Spell that grants you a Touch Attack effect, which also works with Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons (i.e. Claws and Slams, as it mentions in the description).

Presuming you cast this on your Free Hand, this means that if you deliver Touch Spells with your Spell Combat without using Spellstrike (AKA, deliver the spell normally), you deal your Elemental Touch damage and effects on top of your Spell's normal effects.

Personally, I think this spell is stupid unless you're an Unarmed-type character who wants a little extra bit added to his fists. Even then, there are better spells for that (Vine Strike, Lockjaw, et. al.), and as a Magus it's just not worth it.

Yes. I'm trying to understand what the hell this magic is in magus spell list.

The only utility that came to me is to combine this with spell stone fist, but spend two rounds, two slot for 2d6 and give up the critics with weapon does not look closely reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question. After releasing elemental touch with spell combat (Magus) how I treat this magic? Not a touch of magic, it's personal, but grants touches attacks and can be used with unarmed strike, slam attack and claw attack. However cause damage to anything hold by the hand which contains the energy effect?

The magus will destroy his own sword combining this magic with spellstrike. Nothing in the Spellstrike tells about extend his benefits to others spells with no touch in basic description (range: touch).

Even worse if you read the FAQ:

"Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells."

And

On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell.

---
Elemental touch dont have discharge and not is a touch spell attack like shoking grasp or chill touch, more like a buff.