Vaarsuvius

Captain Zoom's page

Organized Play Member. 858 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just want to point out that there are PF2E options/elements that will never be reprinted in ORC because they are OGL specific, BUT that these are still part of PF2E. If you want to use those options/elements of PF2E, you'll need to either refer to AON or buy the pre-remaster books.

ALSO, there are pre-remaster options/elements that remain legal for Pathfinder Society play, BUT if you want to use them in Pathfinder Society, you need to have the book (PDF or hardcopy) to use them.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
Is there a background that gives a bite attack or something?

Sort of.

Magical Experiment Background

While it does not list a bite attack as one of the stated options, it does say:

Work with the GM to select an appropriate ability from the following list or to come up with another special ability.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I almost mentioned Agents of Edgewatch, but my understanding of the problem there was that much of the wealth as written was basically robbing the people you arrested which is gross.

Our PCs in Edgewatch never robbed anyone we arrested. We instead got our loot through Civil Forfeiture.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

the Pathfinder Wiki has an entry for Aroden. Of course, back in PF1 they didn't have anathema and such, but at least you can get a god entry to look it.

They have him as LN

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Each ancestry gives a set of boosts and flaws.

You can simply REPLACE the set of boosts and flaws specified for the ancestry with the Alternate Ancestry Boosts, basically getting two boosts to two attributes of your choice.

The Alternate Ancestry Boosts are basically the same as the Human ancestry boosts/flaws - two boosts to two attributes of your choice.

So a Human can give up his or her two boosts and replace them with two boosts (i.e. the human standard boosts versus the Alternate Ancestry Boosts are identical). Under no circumstances do you get both.

All ancestries, including Human, can take a Flaw, BUT unlike earlier versions of the game, you get nothing back for the Flaw other than the satisfaction of having gimped your character for roleplaying purposes. In earlier versions of the game, you could take flaws to get an additional boost, but that is no longer the rule under Pathfinder 2E Remaster.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperParkourio wrote:
I can't find it in the new Player Core or GM Core. Now that I think about it, the devs are likely trying to remove some big problems this hazard presents.

Just because something isn't in the Core Remaster doesn't mean it was removed from the game.

Yes, if your GM decides to limit you to the Remaster books, then I guess you can't use it, same as before when some GMs limited players to only using Core or Core+APG.

But unless they removed the spell, it's still part of Pathfinder 2E.

To quote the Paizo BLOG:

It’s November 15th, and that means that Player Core and GM Core are now officially out! These remastered products bring a lot of exciting changes to Pathfinder Second Edition, but that doesn’t mean you have to ditch your older books or stop using the classes that don’t appear in Player Core. To help you use classes and other options that are affected by the Remaster changes, we’re presenting a handful of compatibility errata for the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Advanced Player’s Guide, Secrets of Magic, and Dark Archive on the Pathfinder FAQ!

So check the FAQ and Errata page to see if they've removed the spell from the game, or made changes to it.

If your GM allows all official Paizo material, then you're good to go.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
I honestly doubt that PFS and even many tables will keep allowing the old content from CRB/APG so long once that these books will no longe be reprinted and will becoming sold out over time and more and more tables will abandon the usage of this old content that for many will be only found in some legacy part of AoN/SRD site.

According to the Remaster plan on the AON Homepage, old content is NOT going to be relegated to some "legacy part" of AON.

AON: "Mechanics which were only present in one version or the other will be visible on both views. However, mechanics from an edition you are not presently focused on will have a warning banner at the top to indicate they are from the other version and the rules may not function exactly as they did."

Only hybrid mechanics - "those with a legacy version and a remaster version (regardless of if it's a simple name change or a more complex difference)" - will require you to toggle back and forth between the old and remaster versions.

So, Eldritch Trickster racket should still show up on AON regardless of whether you've toggled Pre-Remaster or Remaster, but if you are toggled to Remaster, a warning banner will display that basically says it was not re-done in Remaster.

On the other hand, Ruffian racket (a hybrid mechanic) would display the Remaster version if you toggled Remaster and the old version if you toggled Pre-Remaster.

Although I buy all the books as PDFs, I RARELY look at them. I almost exclusively look at AON, so when building a character I will see ALL the options. Building a Rogue? Eldritch Trickster will still show up with a banner (actually more visible due to the banner!).

And as for reprints of the books, who cares? That's NOT going to affect availability. It's been 4 years since 2nd Edition came out and Paizo still sells PF1 PDFs even though the physical books ran out years ago. Also, I'm guessing most people these days prefer the PDFs over physical books due to not having to find shelf-space or having to lug a heavy bag around. And if you want to use the old material in PFS, you need an official copy, so the old PDFs will still sell.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:

Yet I feel that's safe to change all instances of Produce Flame to Ignite without problem.

These errata maybe not complete (yet?) but is already a good guide how to deal with similar compatibility problems.

This doesn't appear to be a compatibility problem ---

The Remaster does not remove Produce Flame. Produce Flame is still a valid Pathfinder 2E spell and you can learn and use it.

Just keep using Produce Flame until they publish a Remaster version of the Psychic class.

If it truly offends your sensibilities, then houserule it.

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Maggard wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:


Any chance in the short time while we wait on the main PDF's to be updated. That we can have all the errata made into a single pdf or even txt file that we can download? That would be a lot more handy that having to check the web page.
I second the motion for @Paizo to provide a comprehensive errata released as a single PDF.

As mentioned before, all you have to do is go to the FAQ/Errata page, open all the sub-headers, then print to PDF.

That's what I did and I have all the errata, clarifications, etc., in a 61 page searchable PDF.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Aaron Shanks wrote:
Dancing Wind wrote:

we also have some errata for those books.

Are the errata in the PDFs being released today?

Or will those PDFs be updated at a later time?

Errata in the PDFs are not being released at this time. We need more time to collect, process and copyfit, which is generally driven by the reprinting physical books.
Any chance in the short time while we wait on the main PDF's to be updated. That we can have all the errata made into a single pdf or even txt file that we can download? That would be a lot more handy that having to check the web page.

Just do what I do... Print to PDF.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Page 212 - Familiars - Possible Editing Error

I've gone and methodically searched for every instance of "Familiar" in Player Core and GM Core. The closest rule that I could find addressing something non-witch familiar death is the Special entry of the Pet feat (from which familiars are based): "You can gain a new pet by retraining this feat, releasing any previous pet you have."

Insofar as I can tell, it's either resurrection, or retraining for a week to release your dead familiar.

The Animal Companion rules have the line, "If your companion dies, you can spend a week of downtime to replace it at no cost. You can have only one animal companion at a time." The Familiar rules do not.

The language in the PET feat is what you are looking for. Not sure if you noticed that Familiars ARE pets. The Familiar rules say:

"You gain the Pet general feat (page 259), except that your pet has special abilities."

So I would guess you use the rules in the PET feat to gain a new pet/familiar.

If they errata this, I would ask that they make it simple as "retrain" carries GM dependent baggage (cost, instructor, etc.). I'd suggest: "If your pet dies or you want to replace your pet with a new pet, you can spend a week of downtime to replace it at no cost."

Lantern Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Subutai1 wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Subutai1 wrote:

So far, my biggest dislike is the logic (or lack thereof) behind the balance shift of Rogue rackets. The by far strongest racket, namely Thief, got the biggest buff. Scoundrel and Ruffian got slight buffs and the weakest racket, so Mastermind (ignoring Eldritch Trickster), is completely unchanged. I don't consider fixing Recall Knowledge to finally work at all any buff to it whatsoever.

I understand that they had to hurry with Player Core 1 release and couldn't fix every single tiny issue the game had. But how do mess up something as obvious as Rogue rackets this bad? There is not a single person in existence that would consider Mastermind stronger than Thief or Ruffian, yet for whatever reason it was considered to be "fine" as is, not needing a single change. How?

What did Thief get?
They get DEX to damage to finesse unarmed attacks now, so for example Wolf Jaw from Wolf Stance, which are d8 agile, backstabber, finesse attacks, which are much stronger than any other attack a Thief had prior access to. Especially since Ruffians new martial/advanced weapon access is limited to d6 attacks, those weapons are a joke compared to Thief's access to those unarmed attacks.

What were the designer's thinking!

Before I was FORCED to go Ruffian Racket, STR 18 and Spend 2 class feats so I could take Stumbling Stance at 4th level to do 1d8+4+Sneak Attack damage...

It is inconceivable that the designers now allow you to go Thief Racket, DEX 18 and Spend 2 class feas so you can take Stumbling Stance at 4th level to do 1d8+4+Sneak Attack damage!

And you can even choose NOT to wear armor (so take a 1 point AC hit - AC19 instead of Rogue Max of AC20 at level 4 if wearing armor) to take a martial arts stance (like Wolf Stance) that requires you to be unarmored so that you can do (drum roll...) 1d8+4+Sneak Attack damage.

Seriously - Keeping in mind that many GM's interpreted the Thief Racket's "finesse melee weapon" as including finesse unarmed attacks, and among those in the other campt that felt that RAW meant ONLY actual physical weapons (not unarmed attacks), many in the second "RAW" camp nevertheless still allowed Thief Racket with finesse unarmed attacks as either RAI or because it was cool. I don't have actual numbers, but I suspect a majority (or at least a very signigicant minority) of GMs allowed Thief Racket to get DEX to damage with finesse unarmed attacks.

Personally, I'm not convinced this is an actual change, but might simply be the designers clarifying that they always meant it to be usable with unarmed attacks, and that they saw all the backbiting that was going on since PF2E hit the shelves and decided to be clearer this time around.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
Thod wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
I'd say yes, it can work through walls as other imprecise senses do as well, like hearing.

Lifesense is not an imprecise sense

The feat says

Quote:
You have a limited ability to sense life force, like your psychopomp forebears. You gain lifesense as an imprecise sense with a range of 10 feet. This allows you to sense the life force within living creatures and its counterforce that animates the undead, though you can't distinguish between the two.

So we can assume it's an imprecise sense.

I doubt it would give the character X-Ray vision ( or something similar to see an aura beyond 9 feet of stone wall or ground ), but I expect it to work in situations like a room full of corpses, allowing you to detect that one of them is an undead, or to distinguish whether a cloaked beggar is human or undead at first glance.

I find it interesting that the creature ability Lifesense allows for determining if the "target" is living or undead (i.e. you can differentiate), but that the feat only allows you to sense the "target", but you cannot tell if its living or undead, just that it's there - "you can't distinguish between the two." So someone with lifesense from the feat cannot use it as an undead detector. Is the guy you're talking to alive or a vampire? Can't tell.

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you need (or want) a particular cantrip (especially if you're NOT a spellcaster), 5 gp for a Cantrip Deck (5 pack) might prove useful.

A nice GM might even let you start with a partly used pack, maybe only 2 cards for 2 gp!

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Jr wrote:

I was reading this archetype and for prerequisite for it is to have a class such as cleric, druid, witch, and wizard, that prepare spells in spell slot s using the same number of prepared spells per day.

Reading this, what spell casters can not take this archetype.

Thanks for any info.

Any spontaneous spellcaster: Sorcerer, Bard, Oracle.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wyvern76 wrote:
Captain Zoom wrote:
On switching targets, RAW I don't have an opinion. As a GM I'd be fine with most minor effects, like switching from cooking one piece of meat to another, or lifting up several pieces of a broken vase (as opposed to ruling that you need to target each piece separately).

Well, the spell description *does* say that each time you Sustain it, you can choose any of the listed options (Cook, Lift, Make, or Tidy). Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you're limited to a single target -- how often would you need to levitate the food you cooked using the spell? But I wondered if there was an official ruling on the matter.

Quote:
As for permanent effects... if you move a glass across the table, it doesn't pop back where it started when the spell ends, if you cook a piece of meat, it stays cooked, and if you clean gunk off your coat it remains clean once the spell ends (subject to you getting new gunk on your coat!). On the other hand, if you create a temporary object, well, it's temporary and disappears when the spell ends.

All of that seems like common sense, but that's not really what I was asking. As I said, the spell description says that all effects of the spell are temporary "beyond what is noted above," but as far as I can see, it *isn't* actually "noted above" which effects are permanent. What's the point of saying it's "noted above" when it isn't?

(As a side note, moving a glass across a table isn't actually one of the listed spell effects. You could *levitate* a glass, but presumably it doesn't continue levitating after the spell ends.

Also, I find the use of the word "cook" rather dubious when all the spell actually does is "cool, warm, or flavor" food. If it generated enough heat to actually *cook* a piece of meat, it would be capable of doing fire damage.)

I am not even going to bother arguing with you.

I shall simply make a note to never try to help you again.

Have a nice day.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wyvern76 wrote:

I have two questions regarding the Prestidigitation cantrip:

- Can you switch targets when you Sustain it?

- The spell description says that the effects aren't permanent "beyond what is noted above". Where exactly is this "noted"?

On switching targets, RAW I don't have an opinion. As a GM I'd be fine with most minor effects, like switching from cooking one piece of meat to another, or lifting up several pieces of a broken vase (as opposed to ruling that you need to target each piece separately).

As for permanent effects... if you move a glass across the table, it doesn't pop back where it started when the spell ends, if you cook a piece of meat, it stays cooked, and if you clean gunk off your coat it remains clean once the spell ends (subject to you getting new gunk on your coat!). On the other hand, if you create a temporary object, well, it's temporary and disappears when the spell ends.

Lantern Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole discussion reminds me of the "Self-Defence Against Fresh Fruit" skit by Monty Python's Flying Circus.

One of the soldiers keeps insisting that the training sergeant should teach the soldiers how to defend themselves against anyone who attacks with a pointed stick, and the sergeant replies:

"Ooh, ooh, ooh; we want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you, eh? Well, let me tell you something, my lad! When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after YOU with a bunch of loganberries, don't come cryin' to me!"

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
I've yet to see daze taken or cast without regret.

I have NEVER seen daze taken or cast with regret.

But then again, I've never seen daze taken or cast!

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I don't think they would pick up the weapon and use it in the middle of a battle. Most PCs I know generally wouldn't do so.

It's an obviously magic weapon. Magic, especially magic you know nothing about, should be approached with a degree of caution. Especially if you're some noob bandit who knows little to nothing of magic.

Frankly, unless there was some story element that pushed my PC to grab an opponent's magic weapon to complete the battle, I'd leave it for after the battle. Let the magic types examine it, check for curses, does it have some sort of alignment restriction (like good characters holding it are enfeebled), etc.

Also, warriors typically use the weapons they are used to. Picking up a strange weapon and getting the feel for it in the middle of a life and death situation isn't optimal. I know the mechanics of PF2 don't account for handling an unfamiliar weapon, but not every longsword is balanced or feels the same. Now, if the bandit lost his weapon and the only weapon to hand was the strange magicky-one, then maybe the bandit would pick it up and use it.

This harkens back to the old idea that if a PC drops a magic weapon, or uses a magic thrown weapon, or anything along those lines, an NPC should just scoop it up and run off. After all, that magic weapon is worth a lot of money. Your average bandit would probably consider it a win to simply grab the loot, run off (leaving the other bandits to their fate) and survive the battle with magic loot he can sell (or use).

Comments about kicking the weapon away or doing something similar is common in real life and fine in battle.

Comments about enemies picking up the weapons of fallen opponents is correct AFTER THE BATTLE. It's not too common for opponents in battle to be policing up weapons in the middle of a fight.

Will no enemy EVER pick up the weapon... no, NPCs vary and the GM has to decide what happens. There may very well be an NPC who would pick up your magic weapon in the middle of battle, but I really doubt it would be the default expectation.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel real bad, so I'll just make one more post on skills, then sit back and let others have a say.

You list Medicine at "A" for a Bard, and Medicine is generally a good skill, BUT as you state in the guide, the Bard is starved for skill increases.

While Bard has the standard 3 skills it can improve to Legendary, one is pretty much locked to Performance. While not obligatory, many Bards will advance Occultism, especially if they're going Bardic Lore, want to be good at Rituals or simply consider it their class's special knowledge skill (like the Cleric who maxes Religion). And what's a Bard without a social skill? Deception, Diplomacy and/or Intimidation, depending on what kind of Bard you are going for, social skills are your shtick.

When PF2 first came out, I kind of grooved on Versatile Performance, but I've since cooled on the feat.

It doesn't give you diplomacy... it just lets you "Make an Impression" using Performance. So you can't use it to Gather Information or Request. So, I can improve the target's attitude towards me (Make an Impression), but I can't close the deal (Request)!

It doesn't give you Intimidation... it just lets you "Demoralize" using Performance. You can't Coerce or use it with Scare to Death.

It doesn't give you Deception... it just lets you "Impersonate" using Performance. You can't use it to "Create A Diversion" or "Lie".

Versatile Performance is ok, but it really isn't a substitute for actually having social skills. Maybe if they come out with additional Versatile Performance feats that expand on its use, it might be more useful.

But the point is that Versatile Performance really doesn't substitute for actually having a social skill (except possibly Intimidation if you just want to Demoralize).

So where am I going with this? Bards don't really have an unused skill advancement for Medicine. You can make a "Medic" Bard, but it'll cost you.

I would leave the Medicine skill (at least anything more than Trained) to other characters.

I do find your guide interesting as I like to gather ideas about a class from different people/guides. It's always good to get a perspective from others... you may learn something new or realize you could do something better. Keep writing the guides and don't let the opinion of others (like me) discourage you because if everyone agreed on everything, the game would be boring!

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not an error, but I found it funny that when you list examples of Reactions available to the Bard class you don't list the one Reaction that ALL Bards have as part of their core class abilities - Counter Performance.

Interesting reading so far...

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As you yourself quoted from the rules:

Core Rulebook pg. 214 2.0 wrote:
You or an ally can ride your animal companion as long as it is at least one size larger than the rider. If it is carrying a rider, the animal companion can only use its land Speed, and it can’t move and Support you on the same turn. However, if your companion has the mount special ability, it's especially suited for riding and ignores both of these restrictions.

So if your animal companion has the mount special ability it IGNORES the rule that it can only use its land speed when you are riding it... i.e. it can fly while you ride it.

Champion sez:

Steed Ally: You gain a young animal companion as a mount. Ordinarily, your animal companion is one that has the mount special ability, such as a horse. You can select a different animal companion (GM's discretion), but this ability doesn't grant it the mount special ability.

So, if you want to ride a flying Steed Ally, just select an animal companion with the mount special ability.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just some random thoughts...

Maybe let him find a crossbow and some bolts in the dungeon, that way he has something to do now. I'm kind of assuming he took DEX 16? Or maybe someone else in the group has a crossbow they're not using.

If you want to be nice, you can have him discover a few assorted bombs as loot in the dungeon. Give him bombs that are unusual or that he wouldn't normally take, then see what he does with them?

Long-term, if he multi-classes or takes an archetype that reduces the feats he has available for Alchemist Class Feats, so it may or may not create a problem, depending on his build -- in other words, can he afford the feats to multi-class or take an archetype?

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
I assume they have to do some kind of penance, although what it would entail would depend a lot on the deity. Iomedae would probably have them save a kid from a burning building or something else really heroic, while Urgathoa would probably say something like "kill ten enemies of my religion and make them undead."

Per the cleric class rules:

"If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity, or if your alignment changes to one not allowed by your deity, you lose the magical abilities that come from your connection to your deity. The class features that you lose are determined by the GM, but they likely include your divine font and all divine spellcasting. These abilities can be regained only if you demonstrate your repentance by conducting an atone ritual."

Lantern Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

No dude, this is pure unadulterated metagaming, the GM used the Lie mechanic and it defeats the DC needed to pass against the PCs.

This is no different than a character ignoring an Illusion they failed their save against because of PLAYER knowledge. You cannot just DECIDE to ignore the consequences of the mechanical results... this isn't roleplay, it's ignoring the whole player-GM agreement to abide by the rules.

I am a paranoid son of a b_____ and I live in a world that wants to kill me.

Many years ago, I was playing Shadowrun. I was a Troll Adept. I don't remember why, but me and the other PC (there were only two PCs) went to someplace late at night (an abandoned school I think it was). This cute little girl (under 10 years) comes running up to me acting all friendly like. Perfectly normal looking kid. Nothing to suggest anything nefarious. I IMMEDIATELY DROP KICKED HER INTO THE NEXT COUNTY as soon as she reaches me - The GM is VERY SURPRISED... I don't think the word "incredulous" would be inappropriate. I definitely took her out, can't remember if I actually killed her, but I think I did.

Her brother, another cute little kid comes running out, TAKES OUT THE OTHER PC IN ONE ROUND, then I spend several rounds being beaten up by him. I only defeat him because I start dropping grenades at my own feet to catch him in the blast radius (I can't hit him, but the grenade's area of effect can). I survive (barely), but the grenades eventually take him down.

The GM admits after the fact that the little girl was really, really powerful and would likely have taken us down. Certainly, her brother was very extraordinary and by himself nearly took us down.

To be honest, if it had turned out that she really was a cute little girl, my Troll would have felt very, very bad about drop kicking her.

You call that "metagaming". I call it: "I'm a paranoid son of a b_____ who lives in a world that wants to kill me."

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have just realized that I've been grossly incorrect regarding Tumble Through.

It does nothing for a Tiny creature like a Sprite.

First, a Tiny creature may under the Tiny Creature Special Rules enter another creature's space.

Second, and here's the misconception I had, Tumble Through DOES NOT negate reactions or AOOs.

Read the action carefully. Nothing in the action says anything about negating reactions or AOOs. It's a "Move" action, so it triggers Move-based reactions.

I believe this was a carry-over of my preconceptions from FIRST EDITION where you "tumble" to avoid AOOs. In SECOND EDITION, all the Tumble Through action allows you to do is enter an enemy's space, which is something you normally cannot do under the movement rules.

I now understand that we've been playing Tumble Through wrong in my group, and I suspect many others have as well. We played 1st Edition for many years, and are still playing at this time (finishing up our last 1st Edition AP). This is a classic example of 1st Edition Players carrying forward their 1st Edition preconceptions to the 2nd Edition rules... and I admit to being guilty.

So, I have in a round-about-manner basically answered by original question and the answer is that the Tumble Through action is largely irrelevant to a tiny creature. Tiny creatures can move into spaces occupied by enemies and Tumble Through does nothing to change the fact that the tiny creature triggers an AOO when they do so. For a tiny creature, it's effectively no different than striding into an enemy's space.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people are getting hung up on the name of the action and introducing your own prejudices to the mechanic of the action.

Nothing in the action says you have to exit the enemy's square in any particular direction. The mechanics are simple. You stride, attempt to enter a space occupied by an enemy by making an Acrobatics check, then you either fail or you succeed. If you fail, you stop where you tried to enter from and trigger reactions. If you succeed, you move into the enemy's space and each square is counted as difficult terrain. If you don't have sufficient movement to exit the enemy's space, then you effectively never entered, go back to the entry point, and trigger reactions as if you had moved.

For most practical uses (by non-Swashbucklers), you will probably exit from another direction as you are using the action to get from where you are to where you want to go and there is an enemy you can't get around.

For a Swashbuckler, you can do this simply to gain Panache. A Swashbuckler might very well use this action to move into an enemy's space and then reverse direction and literally return to the square they started from, and will gain Panache. This is no different than counting coup, a traditional way of showing bravery in the face of an enemy... which is really what Panache is about. So yes, a Swashbuckler might show great bravado by tumbling into an enemy's space to show he can, then tumbling back out to where he started. In the Swashbuckler's case, he's not looking to move anywhere... he looking to show derring-do!

And I don't see any reason why Vexing Tumble should be mentioned. It's a class feat and VERY different from Tumble Through.

Vexing Tumble allows you to move WIHTOUT TRIGGERING REACTIONS. This is what makes Vexing Tumble very nice.

Tumble Through STILL TRIGGERS REACTIONS - everyone seems to be thinking FIRST EDITION where you tumble to avoid AOOs. Read Tumble Through carefully... no where does it say that it negates reactions or AOOs. Tumble Through is a "MOVE" action which triggers AOOs. Personally, I didn't realize this until your discussion forced me to read the action very, very carefully and think about it. All the Tumble Through action allows you to do is enter an enemy's space, which is something you normally cannot do under the movement rules. This also means my idea of using it so a Sprite can enter an enemy's square without triggering an AOO won't work - in fact Sprites don't need to Tumble Through as the "Special Rules" for Tiny creatures allows them to move into an enemy's space.

Your discussions have been an eye-opener for ME as I now understand that we've been playing Tumble Through wrong in my group, and I suspect many others have as well. We played 1st Edition for many years, and are still playing at this time (finishing up our last 1st Edition AP). This is a classic example of 1st Edition Players carrying forward their 1st Edition preconceptions to the 2nd Edition rules... and I admit to being guilty.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:

If needs must you could also homebrew a first level Heritage feat that says what type you are.

Also, am I the only one who thinks it odd that an Undine sprite shoots people with fire?

Just ask your GM. My GM lets my Sylph Sprite do 1d4 Bludgeoning (Air) with Sprite's Spark.

Really, it's not going to break the game.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

There used to be a rule that you had to be closer to the cover than the enemy you are getting cover from, but that doesn't seem to be the case in this edition.

So if the enemy is taking cover behind a wall that they are adjacent to and you are 25 feet away, you also have cover against their attacks because of that same wall that they are cowering behind.

I disagree:

Core 477 Special Circumstances

"Your GM might allow you to overcome your target’s cover in some situations. If you’re right next to an arrow slit, you can shoot without penalty, but you have greater cover against someone shooting back at you from far away. Your GM might let you reduce or negate cover by leaning around a corner to shoot or the like. This usually takes an action to set up, and the GM might measure cover from an edge or corner of your space instead of your center."

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you think your player would be interested, I have a couple sprites I built for Age Of Ashes that I won't be using:

Sprite/Slyph Monk - Wild Winds Initiate build (Punching from range using gusts of wind!) Very fast on the ground and eventually gets Slyph Wings. (I also have an earlier version of this which covers level 1-7 by taking Monastic Archery and yet another version that is a Monk/Alchemist)

Born and raised in Absalom, Max and his family are "City" sprites, known for helping struggling craftmen, particularly cobblers. As sprites go, Max is a bit mixed up, having grown up in a major human city (Adopted Ancestry - Human Feat) and his ancestors somehow having gotten a Slyph in the family tree (Slyph Versatile Heritage). But like his grandfather always said "A good craftsman is always welcome", so Max has decided to travel Golarion to see the world and the many shoes inhabiting it. Recently, Max has arrived in the town of Breachill, and has heard rumours of an abandoned castle full of shoes.

Sprite/Oread Wizard multiclass Witch/Arcane & Alchemist with Corgi Mount
GM allows Corgi Mount to combine with Witch Familiar so your mount will resurrect the next day if killed. Also, you get all the Witch slots at full Arcane spellcasting. This tiny sprite takes Stone Form at Level 17, so can turn into a HUGE earth elemental 1/day.

Originally hailing from the Wildwood, Glossaryck is a Luminous Sprite with Oread blood, something that both puzzled his family (as no one could figure out where that came from) and caused Glossaryck to feel like a bit of an outsider among the other sprites of the Wildwood. In time, Glossaryck left the Wildwood to pursue an interest in arcane magic, travelling to Nex, where he trained as a Wizard. Glossaryck spent decades in Nex and saw the war between Nex and Geb first hand. He remembers the day the Archwizard Nex fled to the Refuge, witnessed peace between Nex and Geb, and lived through the time of rebuilding.

Glossaryck recently decided to set off, leaving Nex, to return to the Wildwood. In travelling back to the Wildwood, Glossaryck reached the town of Breachill, heard about the Call Of Hearoes, and decided he really wasn't all that interested in visiting his relatives...

I can post more detail if you want.

Edit: These do not use the Free Archetype variant, but that should be easy to add. Also, both are CHA 10 - not big on social skills.

Lantern Lodge

20 people marked this as a favorite.

I apologize ahead of time, but I can't resist...

The 2E Wizard's Job is to generate many threads with 100+ posts to drive traffic to Paizo's web-site. If nothing else, it's bumps up Paizo's Google ranking!

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Captain Zoom wrote:
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Plants for example, don't have blood.

It's called sap.

A better example would be an ooze.

It's called cytoplasm.

A better example would be a fire elemental, which actually lists bleed as an immunity.

I agree about the Elemental, but cytoplasm?

"Cytoplasm, the semifluid substance of a cell that is external to the nuclear membrane and internal to the cellular membrane, sometimes described as the nonnuclear content of protoplasm."

"In cell biology, the cytoplasm is all of the material within a cell, enclosed by the cell membrane, except for the cell nucleus."

It sounds like cytoplasm is the stuff inside a blood cell - it's not itself blood. But my high school biology is 40+ years out of date, so I could be wrong.

And yes, "sap" is probably not the correct technical term for whatever plants use, but I think it gets the point across.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Captain Zoom wrote:
Well, I believe it has been theorized that a five-ounce swallow can carry a one-pound coconut.
What do you mean? An African or European swallow?

Huh, I don't know that... waaaaaaaaah!

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I believe it has been theorized that a five-ounce swallow can carry a one-pound coconut.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I couldn't find anything restricting you from casting a spell on a scroll of a higher level than you can cast.

The following snippets of rules seem to govern:

"The spell on the scroll is cast at a particular spell level, as determined by the scroll."

AND

"To Cast a Spell from a scroll, the spell must appear on your spell list. Because you’re the one Casting the Spell, use your spell attack roll and spell DC. The spell also gains the appropriate trait for your tradition (arcane, divine, occult, or primal)."

I checked the definition of spell list and it doesn't seem to impose a limitation in terms of level:

"Spellcasters cast spells from one of four different spell lists, each representing a different magical tradition: arcane, divine, occult, and primal.

Your class determines which tradition of magic your spells use. In some cases, such as when a cleric gains spells from their deity or when a sorcerer gets spells from their bloodline, you might be able to cast spells from a different spell list. In these cases, the spell uses your magic tradition, not the list the spell normally comes from. When you cast a spell, add your tradition’s trait to the spell."

So unless someone finds something, I think you just need to have the spell on your spell list and you're good to go!

This makes a dip into a magic using class nice. You only get 2 cantrips, BUT you gain the ability to use scrolls of spells on that magic using class's spell list.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
whew wrote:
Though the summons only lasts a minute, during that minute Comprehend Language can be cast, which lasts for an hour. During that hour, work on making a dictionary.

Or easier still, go to a library or book shop and pick up a dictionary someone else already made.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Captain Zoom wrote:
Hi! Are you using a variant, like double the class feats? I'm just trying to understand the build...

Lots of those feats are skill feats and you get them quicker. For instance, Thorough Reports is a skill feat too and also ones that qualify for your Skillful Lessons. For instance, at 6th, you could take Pathfinder Agent Dedication, Thorough Reports AND another skill feat: if you wanted, you could start and end Pathfinder Agent by taking the dedication and 2 skill feats for the 3 you need and take another unrelated dedication at 8th.

So the feats that "eat a class feat" are Loremaster Dedication, Loremaster's Etude, Pathfinder Agent Dedication, Scrollmaster Dedication and Bestiary Scholar: this means you can take them all at 10th if you wish.

You're right. I did check to weed out the skill feats, but I missed one, Thorough Reports, which gives you just enough class feats to get everything by Level 10.

Thanks

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

She uses all tricks to maximize her Identifying creatures checks : First, Loremaster dedication to get Loremaster's Etude.

Then, Pathfinder Agent dedication to get the circumstance bonus from Thorough Reports.
Then, Scrollmaster dedication to access Bestiary Scholar, which together with Cognitive Crossover, gives her even more chances to get a critical

Hi! Are you using a variant, like double the class feats? I'm just trying to understand the build...

Level 1: Not usable to take any of the feats mentioned (even using retraining) as the other feats are all Level 2 or higher feats

Level 2: Loremaster Dedication

Level 4: Loremaster's Etude (and I'm going to assume you take Orthographic Mastery as a skill feat as your 2nd feat to meet the requirement to take 2 Loremaster feats in order to take another dedication)

Level 6: Pathfinder Agent Dedication

Level 8: Thorough Reports (EDIT - Here's the mistake- Thorough Reports is a skill feet... missed that)

Level 10: Scrollmaster Dedication (which you can take as a continuation of the Pathfinder Agent dedication)

??? Bestiary Scholar

Cognitive Crossover is a skill feat, so that doesn't eat a class feat.

So you're out of class feats after Scrollmaster if you're only building to Level 10.

You mention liberal use of retraining, but I don't see how that fixes any of this.

I'm trying to work up a Witch based knowledge character and I was trying to understand your build to help me with my build, but I seem to be missing something.

Thanks

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

My opinion is that you are over-thinking it.

Every day a Fruit Leshy has one special healing fruit that ripens and does special stuff.

If you want the character have other fruit that is ripe or ripe-enough for the goodberry spell, then let 'em. It's not like they're claiming they produce enough ripe fruit to feed 6 people daily and thus the group does not need rations!

Or if you don't want their personal fruit to be an unlimited resource, just say they produce 1d6 additional (non-special) fruit per day that can be used with Goodberry.

Whatever seems reasonable and don't overthink.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkSpooder wrote:

Some reference before the question: Sprite's Spark is a 1st level ancestry feat for Sprites that gives a ranged unarmed attack. "The damage type and name of the unarmed attack depends on your heritage, described below; most sprite heritages not presented in this book also use luminous spark."

Now my question is, If I choose a versatile heritage for my Sprite, does it default to luminous spark, is it up to GM discretion on which unarmed attack you get, or perhaps paizo intends to list more unarmed attacks in the future?

I'd say this is an "Ask your GM" issue.

My take is that you, while having a Versatile Heritage, still derive from one of the Sprite heritages. In other words, I tend to think of the PC/Character as a "Draxie Aasimar", or a "Melixie Fetchling". Same goes for Humans - I don't think of the PC/Character as a Human Aasimar, but rather a Human (Varisian) Aasimar or Human (Kelish) Beastkin.

If I were your GM and you took a Versatile Heritage, I'd let you pick an associated Sprite Heritage and you get the spark that goes with that heritage, and I would expect your physical appearance, outlook, etc., would be in line with the Sprite Heritage. So a Nyktera/Aasimar would probably be bat-like with aasimar physical traits. As you don't actually have the Sprite Heritage, I'd have to think over whether you could take Sprite Ancestry feats that have that heritage as a prerequisite... not answering that here.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Yea it does seem pretty odd. If balance is a concern just stipulate the martial weapons need to be a d6 or smaller. Maybe it's a thematic thing on the designers part, I'm not sure

I think this is a legacy from 1E (where rogues had a similar weaopn list) that the developers didn't get rid of. The wizard has a similar defect.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

For future weapons, a "Rogue" trait (much like the "Monk" trait) would

allow for easy adding of more options.
Similarly, there could be a path via Rogue feats to add that trait to some weapons (again much like the "Monk" trait which has a few options to do that).

The starknife absence does bother me.

(There could also be a "Wizard" trait to add to their set. LOL)

It would be simpler to just change the rogue's proficiencies to all martial weapons and the wizard's to all simple weapons.

I'd make it proficiency with all simple weapons (regardless of finnese or agile traits) and with all martial weapons that have the finesse or agile trait, and keep in the shortbow. Also, note that this may include some weapons that are Uncommon. The rogue might be able to use them, but doesn't necessarily have access to them unless the GM allows them to obtain the Uncommon weapon.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just bumped it so it should be near the top!

Or use the Search function and search for "Guides" with an s.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Been away from my computer on which I check the boards for a few days, so just saw this.

I just want to express support for Ravingdork...

I generally have no problem whatsoever if someone wants to offer a legal service and someone else is willing to pay them for that service.

To be honest, my answer may be different if someone were offering what I considered to be a reprehensible service (and that does make this subjective as different people will consider different services reprehensible), but GM'ing an RPG game is not reprehensible.

To be clear, by reprehensible service, I mean the service itself is reprehensible, not the fact that someone is paid to do it.

I would also like to point out that the pay to play model has been around for decades. In the 1970's and 1980's there were individuals and companies that ran play by mail strategy games. I played several games of Hyborian Age by mail where I paid a fee for each turn of the game. Even today, games have moved on-line with many games, like Warcraft, requiring a monthly subscription to play. I just don't see why a GM couldn't charge for his game as well. If he's too expensive, or people don't like the service, he won't get business. If he meets a need and people are okay with the price and service, he will get business. You don't want to pay, then go the free route - hopefully you have a GM available or are willing to GM yourself - not all of us do.

I for one would love to play in a game run by Ravingdork (and no, I've never met the guy). My problem would largely be an inability to play in his time slot and, given the demands of my job and the separate, but equally (if not more) compelling, demands of my wife, an inability to commit to his game.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PlantThings wrote:

Since summoned creatures also have the minion trait, it gets a bit more specific on top of the summoned trait.

Minion said wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 634 1.1

Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions. Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands. For an animal companion, you Command an Animal; for a minion that’s a spell or magic item effect, like a summoned minion, you Sustain a Spell or Sustain an Activation; if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command, a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits. If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don’t act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please.

For Summon Fey, Sustain a Spell is the appropriate command and it only has the concentrate trait and requires the user to not be fatigued. This is distinct from Command an Animal which additionally has the auditory trait. It sounds like you can communicate with it directly through the spell itself even without verbally speaking a command.

As to what it can communicate back to you (what it can sense that you can't, etc.), it doesn't really say. For this, I would go with the summoned trait rules pointed out by cavernshark, which simultaneously apply.

Its a minion, but pursuant to the Summoned Trait, you do not need to command it to attack your enemies:

"It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its abilities. If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands. Immediately when you finish Casting the Spell, the summoned creature uses its 2 actions for that turn."

It seems clear that a Summoned Creature by default attacks your enemies. IF you can communicate with it (which in most cases, you cannot), you can command it - the minion trait allows you to command it as part of your sustain spell action (but you still have to be able to communicate with the summoned creature to command it). If you had to command it to attack your enemies, in many cases, the summoning spell would be useless as the caster probably has no way to communicate with the summoned creature.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
If I want to jump 10ft up onto a tree branch or say say another surface like a wide ledge in a dungeon? Would it be a DC 30? Or?

Unfortunately, you simply fail.

Without something to boost your high jump, best you can do is---

HIGH JUMP
You Stride, then make a vertical Leap and attempt a DC 30 Athletics check to increase the height of your jump. If you didn’t Stride at least 10 feet, you automatically fail your check. This DC might be increased or decreased due to the situation, as determined by the GM.

Critical Success Increase the maximum vertical distance to 8 feet, or increase the maximum vertical distance to 5 feet and maximum horizontal distance to 10 feet.

So, DC 30 Athletics check (plus you need to stride) (plus you need a critical success) to leap up vertically 8 feet.

NOW, if you want to do a vertical jump and grab the tree branch 10' in the air, then lever yourself up, I'd be inclined to say you could do it with a simple DC30 success as that gets you 5' up, then you use your 5' reach to grab the branch. if you have Rapid Mantel, I'd be further inclined to let you pull yourself up immediately.

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Exton Land wrote:
pennywit wrote:
The Pathfinders also have the potential to be one of the biggest banks on Golarion. With their lodges all over the place, they could carry certain valuables to and from anywhere. And that presence means that letters of credit (not to mention other bearer instruments) drawn on the Pathfinder Society's assets could no doubt be used as currency nearly anywhere in the civilized world.
Careful, the Pathfinders don't want to end up like the fabled Knights Templar... They may upset a monarch who owes them a lot of money.

Not to mention making every travelling Pathfinder a target for unscrupulous types who figure they must be (regardless of whether they in fact are) carrying super valuable stuff.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Captain Zoom wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
TBH I really don't like Mauler giving proficiency as its first feat - makes it pretty frustrating for a lot of builds that would want to use a big two-hander with power attack but already has proficiency in the weapon it wants to use. A TWF Barbarian can get double slice for one feat, but a greataxe ranger has to buy a completely dead feat before getting power attack? Makes no sense to me.

I do not understand why you find it frustrating. If your hypothetical greataxe ranger wants power attack, he can get it with the same number of feats by taking Fighter Multiclass and Basic Maneuver (Power Attack). You don't need Mauler and have a better option (as it gives you a skill too).

BUT, a lot of other classes do NEED the 2h weapon proficiency provided by Mauler and being able to pick up full proficiency for one feat is very nice.

Frankly, while the Mauler can be used to good effect by a fighter, barbarian or ranger, I really see the archetype targeted at characters who do not have proficiency with 2h weapons. This lets you build a cleric that uses reach weapons, or a bard that uses a bladed scarf, or a Rogue with an Elven Curve Blade.

Because the Fighter multiclass has exactly the same problem of requiring a dead feat before getting the feat you actually want? That should have been pretty obvious. If Power Attack had been the dedication feat and the proficiency had been one of the attached feats then everyone would be happy; scaling proficiency doesn't matter at level two, so you can just use a general feat to get the weapon you want Trained and then retrain that out once you have real proficiency.

All fine and dandy for you, but as I point out, the Mauler archetype is awesome for many other characters. Your Ranger character may already have access to 2h weapons, but many other characters (even some Martials) don't. Those characters find the Mauler archetype to be a godsend. If it didn't give 2h weapon proficiency, the archetype would only be useful to a small number of classes.

And its NOT a dead feat. In real life, gaining access to something is considered quite valuable, and I don't see how that is any different in a roleplaying game.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
TBH I really don't like Mauler giving proficiency as its first feat - makes it pretty frustrating for a lot of builds that would want to use a big two-hander with power attack but already has proficiency in the weapon it wants to use. A TWF Barbarian can get double slice for one feat, but a greataxe ranger has to buy a completely dead feat before getting power attack? Makes no sense to me.

I do not understand why you find it frustrating. If your hypothetical greataxe ranger wants power attack, he can get it with the same number of feats by taking Fighter Multiclass and Basic Maneuver (Power Attack). You don't need Mauler and have a better option (as it gives you a skill too).

BUT, a lot of other classes do NEED the 2h weapon proficiency provided by Mauler and being able to pick up full proficiency for one feat is very nice.

Frankly, while the Mauler can be used to good effect by a fighter, barbarian or ranger, I really see the archetype targeted at characters who do not have proficiency with 2h weapons. This lets you build a cleric that uses reach weapons, or a bard that uses a bladed scarf, or a Rogue with an Elven Curve Blade.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Leshy barbarian? That is funny. The raging, murderous plant.

You ever listen to asong by a group called the Arrogant Worms called:

CARROT JUICE IS MURDER

One of my favorite songs!

Here's the first chorus:

Listen up brothers and sisters, come hear my desperate tale
I speak of our friends of nature, trapped in the dirt like a jail
Vegetables live in oppression, served on our tables each night
The killing of veggies is madness, I say we take up the fight
Salads are only for murderers, coleslaw's a fascist regime
Don't think that they don't have feelings, just 'cause a radish can't scream

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>