Dwarf Spell

BellyBeard's page

264 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I think the back of the book is fine, but unneeded for the article. You usually look there for a summary of the book's materials if you have the book in hand, but the ToC and list of spoiler articles gives a much better summary.

I think neither way could be said to be RAW, as it is completely ambiguous, but that yours would be "more RAW" (if there is such a thing) because it doesn't say the grapple is broken, and in general you should do only what it says on the tin unless you have a good reason.

Just taking the skeletal giant and giving it all the owlbear's screech and talon abilities and maybe a little more HP should be good enough. Would be a level 4 creature.

K1 wrote:

Indeed, but Somehow it is like to say

I spend time in a librari reading the monster book. So I will know everything related to any mob we will encounter.

This because, if players are allowed to make experiments to know better a specie, the it is obvious somebody before them would have gathered info about many creatures.

So, if i would allow study i could also permit them to learn about Monsters through books and other characters.

Adventurers, scientists, researchers, and even common folks who had contacts with creatures

Yeah, those all sound good to me.

Studying in the library to learn about monsters you know you will fight is a super common trope (like the movie It, for a recent example). Of course you can't just say you're going to learn everything about every monster, but you can learn some stuff that way.

Learning about monsters from a mentor or townspeople is also a good thing. Just have them Gather Information to learn key info from townsfolk. Super good opportunity for role-playing there.

If there's something you've learned recently, or applied yourself, you don't need to Recall Knowledge. For example, if you killed troll with fire, you don't need to make a check when you come across another troll to remember that fire weakness, unless that was a long time ago and you have fought a lot of monsters since. If instead it's some tidbit of knowledge from a book or casual talk with a mentor, that's when the character rolls Recall Knowledge, where success means you remember reading it, or talking about it that one time. Failure on the check just means you can't quite remember whether the book said mariliths resist fire or cold when a marilith is charging your team with swords raised.

To recap, my opinion is that all of these methods of learning about enemies are valid and good role-playing opportunities, and the Recall Knowledge combat action exists for the PCs to gather knowledge in combat so they can fight the enemy effectively and everyone feels useful but it shouldn't be seen as the only way to do things.

I think external forces break the grapple. But I also understand not saying that explicitly at that part of the book where it details the immobilized condition, because sometimes immobilized wouldn't be broken by a forced movement. For example, if you're immobilized by being thoroughly tangled in a net or bound, your horse moving would take the net/bindings with it. If immobilized by being paralyzed from the waist down, the horse would not cure you by moving underneath you (that begs the question of how you are riding a horse while partially paralyzed, but it's just an example).

It should maybe read that the external force can take the escape action for you, or something like that. Because it seems to me that's what's being conveyed (just what makes sense to me).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:
It is perfectly understandable that players would like to study a monster, but it somehow ruins how the game work, in terms of knowledge checks.

I don't think it really ruins anything. It makes sense for the characters to learn the enemy weaknesses over time and exploit them. Whether it's done in combat or out, the character is still contributing with their knowledge skills.

Tzakkesh wrote:
We are told that every other humanoid has wild variations in appearance depending on their region. I really don't see why one can't say that hobgoblins can be gray or red or yellow or green or purple with no noses or big noses or hairy or scaly or so on-- because they are a race fairly influenced by chaos that breeds and adapts quickly to various terrains. And the various tribes/clans utterly disdain each other far too much for much interbreeding to go on to even out these adaptation.

They are lawful, actually, the least influenced by chaos of most of the standard monsters. And they usually focus on warring with other races to take slaves. What you are describing sounds more like orcs (which gets at the point that Paizo is trying to make the monstrous races distinct and interesting).

I would change as follows:

You envenom your fangs. The next fangs Strike you make before the end of your next turn that hits and deals damage deals an additional 1d6 poison damage. On a critical failure, the poison is wasted as normal.

It seems like there may have been waffling as to whether it should last for one attack attempt or until one attack connection, and the final result has a bit of both.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

On the note of "Scout tactic" I find that particularly weird when parties try to actually scout.

Should I be telling them no don't scout? If the scout themselves gets caught, do they just roll initiative?

What if they're trying to scout while not being seen? Do they get to avoid notice?

I guess the best way to handle it would be Avoid Notice, see enemies, return, then Scout ahead?

But then they have prior knowledge that there are infact Goblins ahead, but no real bonuses to initiative (outside a +1?)

Maybe I just don't understand the rules, I do like the "activity" aspect of Exploration mode in that it's defined, but it does seem a bit hard to compensate for normal PC tactics within them (at least I haven't quite got that part down).

I agree. Thankfully my players are okay with the abstract handwaving of just giving an initiative bonus normally. However, if someone really wants to scout ahead in the normal sense of the word, I would do as you suggest and have them Avoid Notice or Seek without the rest of the party, and if they get in trouble they do combat all alone as well. Splitting the party to scout is a much worse idea this edition though, since at-level enemies will be likely to spot you.

Avoid Notice wrote:
If you’re Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results).

Based on this, the goblins should have rolled against the PC's Perception DCs to determine whether they are noticed. Then, if they are noticed, the party rolls initiative, but the goblins do not reroll. If they aren't noticed, the goblins keep the high roll they got and the PCs roll initiative, and presumably the goblins start in a more advantageous position. The passage suggests the roll to sneak up on the party is used as their initiative either way.

This doesn't take into account the party actively trying to spot the goblins, but none of the rules support that as far as I can tell. The Search exploration activity only talks about searching an area carefully for traps or hidden objects, and doesn't seem to be what we're looking for. Maybe the Scout activity could be used to add a +1 to the party's Perception DC for the goblins to roll against. Though that isn't written into Scout, I think that activity makes the most sense for the situation.

Edit: So in the case of the goblins sneaking up and succeeding, what actually should happen is that everyone rolls initiative, but the party doesn't notice them yet so shouldn't take any combat actions (they don't "hear the fight music"). However, to avoid the out-of-character knowledge that initiative was rolled, you can effectively give the goblins a free turn where they act undetected, and then roll initiative once they take an action that reveals themselves.

Zapp wrote:
And I am not sure the Green Arrow character is relevant to the matter at hand. After all, I'm looking to hand out a few bonus fire d6's. The fact this won't change the life quality of an enchanter shouldn't be held against this desire. :)

Yeah sorry, that was posted before I knew why you were asking. Also didn't see the part in the book about overwriting your bow's runes, thanks for pointing it out, that means they aren't as powerful as I first thought.

If we did the PF1 thing of 1/50 price they would be 10 GP each (it makes a good starting point for comparisons). If these arrows are going to be Flaming arrows with the crit rider, I would say that sounds about right.

Compare to moderate alchemist's fire, also 10 GP. The arrow will do d8 or d6 + d6 fire, and on crit will add d10 persistent fire. The bomb will get +1 to hit, do 2d8 fire, 2 splash, and 2 persistent fire. On crit bomb damage is doubled but not the other effects. The arrow obviously has better range too. So the bomb is probably better DPS in the general case of a close enemy with low crit chance, but the arrow is more valuable from farther away and with higher crit chances. So compared to the moderate alchemist's fire I think a Flaming arrow is either equal value or slightly below.

Hope this helps! :)

K1 wrote:

Tell me something with with a lvl 2 feat gives you 10 flat elemental damage of your choice by lvl 20.

Dangerous Sorcery. And it's level 1. :) (I know, spells are less likely to hit and you only get one a round, I'm just kidding)

It is powerful, yes. But losing 2 HP/level and 2 Fort is pretty harsh on a melee. I think it's okay balance for a homebrew.

I think it was consciously cut from the game. In theory in first edition you could make a Green Arrow character who has many different types for every occasion, but in practice you probably just have one type of go-to arrow, in which case you just enchant the bow instead.

Magic ammo is a thing still, but they are special specific ammo, not just any rune. I think it's to prevent ranged characters from getting double runes, from weapon and from ammo, instead you just get weapon runes.

The expected price should be fairly high, since stacking runes as mentioned above would be a very powerful boon which would be more valuable than simply adding an extra rune to the bow. Compare to the non-damage boosting ammo that exists, or maybe to the alchemical bombs, to try and come up with a number, keeping this in mind.

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Of course, I don't see many situations in which a living creature is unwilling to be healed, unless they have a deathwish.

If the enemy targets you with an unknown spell, are you willing? Possibly not.

Also, the paranoia spell makes the target unwilling to accept any spells.

Your divine font is harm, so you get free harm spells and have to use spell slots for heals. That said, you are definitely able and encouraged to do so. Evil people need to heal their minions as much as good people need to heal their friends.

It's released, though I don't think it's out on the SRD yet.

All three races look awesome, but especially the new art style for Leshies, which look less like little dolls and more like little people. Hobgoblins have a lot of military-related options with a good consistent theming.

Lizardfolk get a cool frilled lizard heritage which gives an improved demoralize. But TBH they have the fewest cool options of the three.

The extra armor property rune could be fun, though there aren't many options for it yet. The school warding could be good in the right campaign as well.

Overall I think it's a good option for just about anybody, though probably not arcane casters. Even for other casters though they can dip into the arcane list for some utility they may be missing. Tthink it would be best for martials though, since they're most in need of that extra utility.

Yep, if you have reach it's good to be adjacent if they plan to move away (they will most likely take the AoO rather than waste their whole turn moving away from you), or to be one square away if they plan to melee attack you so they have to step to get to you, wasting a third action.

Reaction builds are good, and most people recommend reach fighter as one of the highest and most consistent damage builds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The talon attacks cauterize the wounds you inflict, thereby stabilizing a downed enemy which is why the attacks are nonlethal. At least that's what I just made up. :^)

It doesn't modify any degree of success besides success, so the other ones stay the same as before. So demoralize 2 on crit success.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You are allowed to pick numbers between the guidelines. It's not like it says +11 is good and +8 is average which means +9 or +10 are off the table. If you want a creature in the average-to-good range either value is acceptable.

With that consideration, the only value for zombie brute you gave that was out-of-range for the guidelines is the HP. Which can be explained by the combination of weakness to slashing, permanent slow 1, and middling to bad saves. This creature has a lot of weaknesses so makes up for it with higher HP, just like they suggest.

The point I'm making is, the rules themselves are monster-making guidelines, not absolute rules that must be adhered to. They are broken if and when it makes sense, taking care to compensate for changes to keep the appropriate power for level.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's easy to know fort is the strongest save of a zombie and weakest save of a lich, they do not look or act the same at all. Zombies are slow moving and unintelligent, you can tell that just by observing them, so fort is highest save by elimination. Liches, unless they are purposely trying to pretend to be a zombie, will be talking or casting spells, will use equipment effectively, will probably be dressed in wizard robes, etc. They will appear as an intelligent spellcaster, and any adventurer in Golarion could tell you spellcasters usually are not as physically fit as warriors who train for peak fitness, hence high will and low fort. To suggest there's no way to tell them apart without metagaming is just silly, its obvious to the character with common sense and context.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of the uncommon options are what you are talking about, having to justify to the GM. But as a GM I see many of them simply as things that shouldn't be added without some kind of story tie-in. In this way, you should be working with the GM during character creation and deciding where you want the character to go. Telling them, "at 5th level I really want to take this Uncommon feat" might mean a GM that just says no, or it might mean they adjust the story to tie that element in and create a more cohesive narrative where you don't suddenly learn the secret techniques of a people on the other side of the planet for purely mechanical reasons.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All the poor little organ grinder monkey Familiars being repurposed for this intense combat reloading, cranking this huge crossbow and loading another bolt within 2-3 seconds. Think of the monkeys! :'(

SuperBidi wrote:

It's better to make multiple exposures against one creature. It can be calculated very easily.
So, as you can see, the only case where focusing on multiple creatures is roughly equivalent to poisoning one multiple times is if the monsters fail all their saves. So, unless the monsters you face have suboptimal Fortitude saves, it's better to poison multiple times the same creature (also, focus fire is a far better combat tactic than spreading damage).

I agree with your findings in the general case. However, focusing fire means the enemy dies quicker, which could mean they die before the poison has full effect. So there still may be cases where you want to tag a lesser target with poison early in the fight to maximize damage I think, but I can't say when that might be because that probably requires a pretty detailed analysis comparing your party's damage and average HP for monsters. Even still, maximum damage probably won't be as valuable as eliminating a target.

Even a Mindless creature can be distracted. It attacks one character, who backs up, then the other character attacks from behind, rinse repeat. Like kiting on a small scale.

The only way it wouldn't happen is if a creature was solely focused in one specific target, and would never switch to the person behind it. Which means that person is free to disable it while it ignores them.

Very cool, thanks for sharing your calculations. The calculations you shared above are for below-level poisons, for a multiclass alchemist. What about a main class alchemist, who can produce at-level poisons with advanced alchemy (and presumably apply poisons to multiple weapons before the fight starts rather than applying mid-fight)? How do the numbers compare to a spell, or a martial attack?

Another avenue of exploration would be multiple exposures against one creature VS poisoning two different creatures. And also, how much value does the Potent Poisoner feat for alchemist add?

Once again, thank you for this analysis. I'm very interested in playing a poisoner, and alchemist and rogue provide way more for that out of the gate than any class did in 1st edition.

I wouldn't recommend Take Its Course based solely on goblin pox. Advancing it doesn't really make it much stronger, compared to other afflictions, so spending two actions to maybe advance it (or maybe accidentally cure it!) doesn't seem worth the in-combat actions.

That said, it does have a lot of value as a healing spell to help your allies against disease and poison. So you could take it on that merit. If you also plan to use more afflictions later this could be better as well, though typically diseases are not a great offensive plan for PCs given that they affect the target over days without artificial hastening. It could be effective with the poison sting spells against a low Fort target however.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Diseases, poisons, and curses are all afflictions. Goblin pox is a disease, so it counts as an affliction, but Overstuff is not any of those so it is not an affliction. Sickened is a condition, not an affliction.

As for AoO, all it says for sickened is "you spend a single action retching and make a Fortitude save", it doesn't say this is an interact action. It doesn't include the manipulate trait or the move trait, so it doesn't provoke.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
So that symbol near the top of the blog, with the green criss-cross thing on a brown disc---that's the "Glyph of the Open Road," right? Symbol of the Pathfinder Society? What is its symbolism supposed to be? It doesn't look like a road to me, open or otherwise.

The top "legs" of the X are the horizon, and the bottom "legs" are the road shrinking toward the horizon. The star is the knowledge or self improvement or whatever that you're traveling towards. Quite abstract.

I don't think the guardian needs another effect on tendrils if he gets four free tendril attacks each turn.

Nyerkh wrote:

Most of the 40 classes of 1E will show up at some point, one way or another. Some may not be actual full classes, some are likely to be fused, but we'll get them.

Shifter is not one of the four for next year.
But I'd expect it'll appear down the line. Probably not in the second or even third batch though.

Sorry for the tangent, but do we know all 4 classes in the APG? I know of witch but not the others.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On page 16:


Constant and Automatic Damage

Much like reactions, damage for any constant ability should be pretty low. Usually this value is just below low Strike damage. Automatic abilities like the living wildfire’s tend to deal moderate Strike damage or unlimited area damage, and can deal more than that if they only happen after the creature is dead or otherwise no longer presents a threat.

I know the third sentence is alluding to unlimited use area damage abilities, but that's not how it read my first go. :P

Claxon wrote:
How do you jump around corner? I dunno. It's magic.

It's like a Quake rocket jump, you can control it midair.

I agree with the straight line interpretation. Although I would probably allow an arc shape instead to jump over a creature. Something like, straight line, but also with diagonal movement up and down counted in, decreasing horizontal distance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

Play how you want but don’t blame the rules/system, IMO obviously.

Nobody has "blamed the system" for anything, not sure what there is to blame the system for. The idea that combat against a bunch of enemies must happen this certain way? I don't think anybody suggested that's something the system dictates. On the contrary, I pointed out up thread that the system suggests to do otherwise.

SuperBidi wrote:
Monsters have to be played according to their respective intelligence and mindset.

Sorry excaliburproxy, he got ya there. Guess your group just has to stop playing the way you enjoy it.

Samurai wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
CRB page 180, Rogue's Racket, Thief wrote:
When you attack with a finesse melee weapon, you can add your Dexterity modifier to damage rolls instead of your Strength modifier.
IMHO this needs to make explicit whether or not throwing a finesse melee weapon is supposed to work with it.
IMHO it should. Otherwise it would say "When you make a melee attack with a finesse weapon..." It just says attack, so it should work for any attack using that weapon.

There are already threads for discussing rules interpretations and houserules. This thread is typos, mistakes, and FAQ/clarification requests.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just finish your current campaign playing first edition and make new characters in second (assuming you want to change editions, which I assume you do if you're posting about switching in the PF2 boards) if you insist your character must remember the exact details of last edition and must do something in-character about it.

Ed Reppert wrote:

Ah. One could, I think, read it as not automatic to refocus when treating wounds, but a choice that must be made to "use the Refocus Activity" while treating wounds*. One could instead, I suppose, read it the other way.

* can one perform two activities simultaneously?

But then you aren't treating wounds, in a literal sense that your actions are not making their wounds any more treated. If you read it the other way, you are actually treating their wounds, so that action qualifies to refocus you. I definitely think the intention is you refocus "for free" if you do something which qualifies as a refocus activity.

I hope that's 3000 XP using the first edition system. Otherwise that's three levels with only one short rest lol

I have no problem adjusting expectations brought to the setting between edition changes. For me, the fact that a battle was won with a particular mechanic that's changed is a non-issue: the important part is who won the battle, how they won it is mostly decoration. In this way, I think most of the changes between first edition and second become issues of the decorations around stories, moreso than directly affecting the story itself. Even if some particular power is retconned out of existence, it's easy to imagine the hero who used it might have some other power with which to save the day instead. Also if a power doesn't exist in second edition yet, or is weaker than before, you can always imagine the GM gave the hero the special power for that story if it makes you feel better.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Well, I get where some other people here are coming from. Like, there is an model of roleplaying games that some people in this thread are describing in roundabout terms where the RP/exploration portion of the game is in some way fundamentally separate from the combat rules.

When a fight breaks out, you are now playing a different game; now you are playing a miniatures games where the GM and the players are against each other and that is fun in its own right and perhaps a game that is much more fun for the GM. The GM plays his hardest even in an encounter that is designed to be stacked against him and both sides try their hardest to win. That can be rewarding for the player and the GM. I would say that 4e DnD works pretty well that way, actually.

Perhaps PF2E is unfun if you play that way and that is arguably a weakness of the system for groups that like that sort of game.

As a side note, I think OP and Collette Brunel (or whatever that poster's name is) would get along well.

That makes sense. I've played Warhammer before, and in that game you play the most tactically optimum way you can play, even if you're playing dumb orks, because that's how the game is played (you probably know this, but I'm elaborating for everyone's benefit) . It's more a board game with elaborate rules than a role playing game. In that context everything I said goes out the window, and if some like to play that way I understand the appeal. I just hope the expectation is made clear to the players for what kind of game to expect, as it can be frustrating for them to try and outsmart the enemies but have them behave uncharacteristically intelligently (not saying this for an orc war party necessarily, but as a general statement). Especially if that leads to excess depletion of resources as a result.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
I think it is either you do that or you have strict rules guidelines for how monsters should be run and those guidelines should also effect the CR of the encounter. This has always been an issue, really. It just didn't matter as much in PF1E because well build players still finished most fights in one or two rounds anyways.

Yeah, I guess it's one of those things taken for granted sometimes that the GM is supposed to role play the enemy actions. But I don't think it's taken for granted this edition, as I said before there's significant book space dedicated to telling the GM to do this. So it's more the GM either being unable or unwilling to follow the game's advice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:

I, perhaps more than Nemo, hate druids and their place in DnD with an undying passion. Trees don't give you super powers. Grow up, Druids.

And, unfortunately for us, neither does reading books. Get real, wizards. :p

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
Combat is an abstraction, not a perfect simulation of events. If this is a tactic that works within the abstraction, there's no reason to assume that it is what's exactly occurring narratively speaking. It also means that thinking the tactic is too smart for orcs, or too meta for an in game creature, isn't a worthwhile complaint to level.

How would you abstractly represent poorer enemy tactics then? Just a change to combat stats, and everything always acts as logically and efficiently as possible?

I don't think combat is as heavily abstracted as that. There is definitely a narrative associated with the actions you take in combat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I expect cackle to work with the Sustain a Spell action and a hex trait on cantrips, allowing you to sustain multiple debuffs with one action.

I expect witch to be a prepared Occult caster who draws from the other lists through patron, like cleric.

I expect familiar to still act as the witch's spellbook, with the witch probably getting an improved familiar with extra familiar choices.

I think the change from individual spell lists to four total spell lists will change things drastically. We'll have bards and sorcerers casting spells that used to be witch only, and vice versa.

I think it would apply to any other athletics checks you make that round, including trip. It says the spells bonuses apply during that extra movement action it grants you, just to clarify you do in fact get the bonuses before you take the free movement. It does not say that the bonus applies ONLY to that action though, so you should otherwise treat it as any other duration 1 round buff.

SuperBidi wrote:

Haaaa, I missed that. I thought by "on guard" it was meaning guard duty (I'm not native english speaker, so sometimes I make interpretation mistakes).

And if you are the one generating the event that triggers the combat, like shooting with a Crossbow?

This falls into one of the many threads about taking combat actions outside of initiative to start a fight. My ruling would be roll normally and they could act before you take your shot if they roll higher, as you do something that makes noise to tip them off, but many on the forums have disagreed and asserted their right to start off with an attack.

Artofregicide wrote:
That all said, I think a low magic campaign in 2e could be a lot of fun with more focus/love on martials.

Agreed, I've thought about a low magic game in PF1 but it just turns into standing there and whacking each other even more than it already was. It would at least be more tactically interesting in PF2.

1 to 50 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>