Bluejay_Junior's page

I do, in fact. And I've done it even in 1E, where it went roughly like this:

Encounter 1 is done. Players are talking with each other about whose wand of cure light wounds is being used. Meanwhile I roll everyone's initiative for the next encounter.

Time passes. The party explores some areas. Then they come to encounter 2 and I can immediately start the combat. There isn't that awkward minute or two of the GM fumbling with an initiative tracker, reminding everyone to roll...

I really like this! That sounds like an awesome idea. I'd love to have play just seamlessly transition into a fight. I might try this out sometime. Thanks for the awesome idea!

graystone wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

If that's not your position then you're selectively reading the rules to mean what you want it to say. Again, it points you to the general rules and defines the exceptions to them, otherwise, you must follow the guidelines printed in the Activity it tells you that you're using.

Runes have formulas and create an end product: transferring require no formula and produce nothing [you're just moving someone else's work]. To craft a rune "you must meet any special Craft Requirements of the rune", like the Magical Crafting feat feat: transferring doesn't say that. Nothing stops someone that's is 1st level from transferring a Winged (Greater) rune as there is no need to meet the creation requirements... like level or having the formula or the Magical Crafting feat.

In addition to the CRB quotes I posted above, note that the PFS Guide states

"Applying and Transferring Runes
The Society has a specialist at the Grand Lodge who can apply or swap out runes for agents of the Pathfinder Society in good standing. This service is free, and requires no check, but is only available before the briefing or once the adventure is complete unless stated in the adventure. Only the service of transfering the rune is free however. Characters must still pay the 10% materials cost and provide any required runestones."

I do not believe they would mention a specialist at the Grand Lodge if anyone trained in Crafting could transfer any and all Runes.

I don't think that's necessarily true. It could just have easily been added so that people don't have to be proficient in crafting in order to use any runes that they find. Otherwise, people would be almost required to train in crafting in order to use anything they found.

TwilightKnight wrote:

...characters should have the opportunity to use their tools (brains) to help the party succeed as much as the strong characters (brawn) bash the bad guy with their weapons.

I snagged this comment because not only do I totally agree with the impact knowledge should have on fights, I think that if this is what Paizo intends, the system is a failure. Successful Recall checks have minimal impact. In many cases, the information isn't actionable. Knowing the creature has Weakness to silver is meaningless if no one has silver weapons.

Between armor class, hit points, or saves, a party will find at least one of these provides actionable information, regardless of the creature. But if Paizo just wants Recall checks to be some niche thing that rarely, if ever, changes party actions, and is a third option for a primary caster, then I guess it's working as intended.

It may not be helpful in that specific fight, but knowing a weakness will allow the party to prepare for it in future fights. If a party cannot take advantage of a weakness, it isn't a fault of the system. It's up to the party to use that knowledge. It is actionable because the party can do something to take advantage of that, either now or in the future.

I don't think there is anything wrong with knowing the numbers (although it isn't my preferred way), but I don't think it's necessary for the information learned to be actionable. I would much rather learn what something is weak to (I don't need to know the number) than learn it's exact AC or HP. Even if I can't exploit it right now. Fighter classes likely aren't going to change their plans much knowing the AC or HP. Casters might focus on casting things that target a save if they know the AC is high. But I see those two numbers as the least interesting or useful information to have about an enemy.

The ability for living, thinking beings to decide something scary is someone else's problem, so long as they can't physically see it, is no joke.

As irrational as it is for an observer, it is absolutely realistic for something to actively decide that those sounds that sound like combat? Its probably just those guys arguing over something stupid again.

I mean, after all imagine how silly they'd look if they burst in there, ready for violence and it was just a card game gone bad?

Awkward or Negative events being "someone else's problem" is a Very Real problem that results in Very Real dangerous encounters going ignored and unreported all the time.

I dont find it particularly unreasonable for monsters or inhabitants of dungeons not to meaningfully respond to something happening rooms away...

I agree. And I'll add in that combat is usually taking less than 1 minute. So the group in the next room hears like 30 seconds of muffled noises. Without other information, their first reaction isn't likely to be "our friends in the other room are being attacked by adventurers, we should bust in there and help them."

It is going to be several rounds of wondering what's going on, talking between themselves about it, etc. Then when it stops, thinking "well I guess that's all settled. Weird."

Leo or Ravingdork, could you please elaborate on why that is the case? I am new, so I am still learning the rules and want to understand why this is the case.
My first instinct when looking at just the feats would be to rule shield block and then retributive strike. I am basing this on the triggers. Retributive strike triggers when an ally takes damage. Wouldn't Shield Block have to be resolved first in order for that to happen? Because if Shield Block reduced the damage you take to 0, then Retributive Strike couldn't be used.
Please let me know if I am missing something here.

As I understand it, a moderate encounter for four lvl 4 PCs would be two level 4 monsters or one level 6 monster.

CrystalSeas wrote:

There's a Pathfinder Tales series* by Tim Pratt in which the intelligent sword is in the possession of** a rogue, who found it on a linnorm's hoard.

Great point! I own several of the PF Tales novels and personally have bemoaned the lack of recent installments in the series and Liar's Blade is actually one that I have sitting in my "to-read" books on my nightstand for when insomnia hits.

Even if an Archetype ends up being Uncommon to prevent this type of thing from being "too popular" that's totally fine, but having a mechanical structure whereby PCs can invest in and improve their friendly (or not) Living Weapon instead of needing to rely on the Intelligent Item Rules from the GMG and constant manual tweaks and adjustments by the GM I think would be very fun and add FAR more to the game as a whole versus providing rules for the Magus (or potentially MC Magus) alone.

Heck, I remember back in the 3.5 days I ran a 4 session game styled after the early Tales of Destiny games that went over great but I do recall statting up the Swordians (The living Weapons central to the plot) was a bit of a pain.

You should absolutely pick up Liar's Blade! It was a fantastic book. It's like a buddy adventure comedy where one of the buddies is a sword.

I didn't get into the second book as much and haven't gotten to the third. ALthough part of that is because I have the audiobooks and the narrator changed after the first one. The first book had a great narrator who played characters/swords very well, while the second narrator was more boring and monotone.

Obviously, there may be table variation, but quoting the relevant text:

CRB PG. 451 "Immunity" wrote: wrote:

You can still be targeted by an ability with an effect you are immune to; you just don’t apply the effect. However, some complex effects might have parts that affect you even if you’re immune to one of the effect’s traits; for instance, a spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid damage to you even if you’re immune to fire.

You can certainly target a creature with Bon Mot even if they are immune, so you would still roll your dice, which means you may still get a success. Even if the creature is immune to one effect of your bon mot attempt (penalty to will saves and perception), you aren't immune to the other aspect (successful attempt gives you panache), so you should gain panache.

Success is a game mechanic term and it isn't tied to actually having an effect or not and nothing says that being immune equals "attempt was a failure", otherwise, what would happen if you try to trip something that is immune to trip? (Obviously, you roll versus ref save, on crit failure you fall, on failure+ you realize that you were unable to trip the target).

Even more relevant rules text. "An action with the

auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds."
If the target can't hear, then Bon Mot cannot succeed.

You are too hung up on whether the effect determines the success of the action.
The definition of the auditory trait says, "An action with the
auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds."
If a creature can't hear it, it can't be a success. It doesn't matter what the roll of Bon Mot is, it can't be a success because the auditory trait says it can't succeed.