Coldermoss's page

59 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Coldermoss wrote:
They say it "might" take the penalty because attacks in general might not take the penalty, especially in the case that its your first attack of the turn.
Does the section on attack rolls also have "might" in it as those too 'might' be used on a first attack?

It doesn't actually matter whether or not the language is mirrored exactly, because the intent is still clear. Paizo doesn't make a habit of printing rules that do nothing, at least on purpose.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Coldermoss wrote:

"Sometimes a skill action can be an attack, and in these cases, the skill check might take a multiple attack penalty, as described on page 446."

Specific beats general, right? So this passage must mean that those skill actions with the attack trait must apply and contribute to MAP or else this passage from page 449 means nothing.

They Might be affected by MAP, as described on page 446.

Page 446 wrote:
The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll.

So attack rolls take a -5 penalty. The errata just said they are no longer considered to be Attack rolls. They are actions with the "attack" trait, or "attack actions". Page 446 would need to be re-written to say "A -5 penalty on your check to perform an attack action".

Skill check might take a multiple attack penalty, but I can't find the cirucmstances where it does.

They say it "might" take the penalty because attacks in general might not take the penalty, especially in the case that its your first attack of the turn. It's pretty clear intent, and I don't even have a law degree.

I mean, the problem comes when you take things to the extreme, like wearing 60 short swords. Under most cases, will you be carrying dozens of L items? On one hand, you may not have much of a reason to, but on the other, you don't have much reason *not* to.

The inventory rules work fine when used as intended but can get weird when taken to their full extent. This was true before this errata so not much has changed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Sometimes a skill action can be an attack, and in these cases, the skill check might take a multiple attack penalty, as described on page 446."

Specific beats general, right? So this passage must mean that those skill actions with the attack trait must apply and contribute to MAP or else this passage from page 449 means nothing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

RE: Maneuvers applying MAP as well as contributing to it

Page 449 in the CRB still says this

CRB wrote:
Sometimes a skill action can be an attack, and in these cases, the skill check might take a multiple attack penalty, as described on page 446.

The maneuver skill actions are still attacks even if they don't use attack rolls, so those skill checks must be what this passage is talking about.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The 'fist' attack on the weapon table is just the default unarmed attack. There are tons of special unarmed attacks you get from a variety of sources that don't have the same traits, as stated on page 278. "Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body. Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks. Details for those unarmed attacks are provided in the abilities that grant them."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The conversation has largely moved past this, but FWIW, I think that PF occult magic is supposed to be similar to real world occultism. A lot of the effects and themes are similar between the two, especially the fact that they're both more concerned with the unseen world than the physical.

Ravingdork wrote:
Could you use levitate and fly in conjunction to avoid eating the attack penalty and the action expenditure?

I don't see how that argument could be made.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For question 3, the answer is no for Summon Fiendish Kin, with the caveat that you'd need specific choices in lineage and deity for it to work at all (such as being a Paladin of Abadar with devil lineage, since Abadar prefers any lawful alignment), but yes for Fiendish Word, since the spell becomes Evil, which means casting it breaks the first tenet of Good.

It allows you to add your profiency bonus to your AC, which is rather important.

The Raven Black wrote:

The 4 essences are actually 2 groups of 2.

One deals with what is affected by the magic : Material, which is the Inner Planes and all things tangible (like the Elements) , and Spiritual, which is the Outer Planes and all things intangible (like emotions, souls...).

The other deals with how you affect, the nature of your access to magic : Mental, which is the rational approach, and Vital, which is the instinctual approach.

You need one of both to do magic : an object and an approach.

I got a very different reading. My thoughts on Material and Spiritual essences align with yours, but Mental and Vital also describe objects- those being the Mind (often affected by illusions and enchantments) and Life Force (often affected by necromancy).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quick Stow makes it a free action instead of an action.

SlackC wrote:
For those of us who just woke up and haven't had our coffee: Does this mean the second strike in Twin Feint does NOT get the additional precision damage die from Sneak Attack?

No, Sneak Attack is a passive benefit that benefits all Strikes, even subordinate ones. If Sneak Attack was itself an action with Strike as a subordinate action, *then* you wouldn't be able to use it with Twin Feint.

Why not just use accomplishment XP for finding treasure? Is it about granularity or removing subjectivity from judging the relative wealth of a find, or something different?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's from the APG.

And I'd say it's more than "staff-like," it's straight-up called a staff. That means it fits the spirit (but not the letter) of Staff Acrobat at least as well as the Halfling Slingstaff does.

But because it doesn't fit the letter, it doesn't fit the letter... But I think a GM who doesn't allow it is missing the point.

Probably because even without level to proficiency, PF2 is different enough from 5e to warrant using.

To the OP, I think your goals conflict somewhat. You want to run an isekai game where meta constructs like character level are common knowledge, but you're also trying to hide those constructs and make them matter less, which seems to me like a misuse of proficiency without level in particular. These two ideas undermine one another, and proficiency without level is going to make you do a lot of extra work. Are you sure that's what you want?

I've said it before and I'll say it again- some light clarification on the nature of attacks and the weapon traits like Trip would be very useful.

Thomas Keller wrote:
What if it leaves a square but remains within your reach? Or is that only in 5e that such a move doesn't trigger?

You have it right- leaving a square but remaining within reach is still leaving a square within your reach. It provokes an AoO in this system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
There is no Combat Maneuver Trait for weapons. Nor is there a Combat Maneuver trait for anything else in PF2

They're talking about traits like Trip, Grapple, Disarm, and Shove.

As for the OP, we haven't received any official clarification about those traits, to my knowledge, since the days of the playtest. However, I can definitely say that you can't use Fist's agile trait for those maneuvers because Fist doesn't have the appropriate traits. There's no hidden rule that equates Fist to open hand, as "Fist" is just a generic Unarmed Attack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the problem is with perception, why isn't perception also the solution?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems obvious to me that they mean the Tiger Claw damage die, which is a d8. What else could they mean?

So space is measured differently depending on whether the words "apart" and "away" are used? That seems far fetched to me. Could you please explain your reasoning in further detail? Specifically how the two words are different.

Edit: nevermind, I figured out what you're going for. It still seems like two separate ways to determine distance, and the intention of staff sweep could have been made more clear by saying "two creatures within 10 feet of one another" instead of "no further than 5 ft apart" but I suppose we'll just have to disagree there.

So reach says it allows you to "attack creatures up to 10 feet away instead of only adjacent creatures". Does that mean one square between the two of you or two? Because the "up to one square between" interpretation of staff sweep would suggest two squares in the case of reach.

If they could have 1 square between them, they should probably have said they could be up to 10 feet apart, which is consistent with how distance works in all the other parts of the game.

I'm working on a subsystem for the same purpose, a flight from danger over several days or weeks. I'm taking more inspiration from the Infiltration subsystem than the Chase subsystem, since the latter feels more appropriate for short sprints than the marathon hide-and-seek I'm going for.

My idea is to use diminishing VPs to represent the party's lead over their pursuers, with complications arising at different thresholds, representing the rising danger as the bad guys gain on the players, things like encountering scouting parties, the bad guys recruiting spies, and strongarming local authorities into hunting the PCs.

The PCs lose Lead Points by traveling too slowly, leaving a trail, and making too much of a ruckus when visiting settlements. They can regain points by pushing themselves to travel as fast as they can and by forming positive bonds with people in settlements, who might stifle the bad guys' investigations.

For level 1, I think Diehard is likely more impactful. Toughness gives you just 1 HP at that level, and while it does scale, it'll give you the same amount of HP if you take it at level 3 that it would if you had it the entire time. But that's assuming you're going to be taking both anyway- if it's one or the other, I'd go with Toughness.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Using your house rule, the difference in healing someone someone can do while merely an expert in medicine versus what they can heal if they're legendary is 4 hit points. That is not worth two skill increases.

Simplifying all of it in this manner removes most of the value in raising medicine above trained. You might want to take expert if you really want those feats, but unless you really want Legendary Medic? Nah, the return diminishes too steeply to be worth it.

If you wanted to solve a problem with your players taking too long with each rest, I suggest using the stamina rules in the GMG instead. Your players will treat wounds less often, but continued investment in medicine won't be subjected to the same diminishing returns your house rule would introduce. I suspect it would also help your pacing issues.

Squiggit wrote:
Coldermoss wrote:
See, the fact we've had two separate people come into this thread saying "that's not how it works" should be evidence the rules could stand some clarification.

Yes, but not for the reason you stated.

The contention is over whether or not a failed Trip is a miss, not whether or not Trip is an attack.

Whether or not the athletics check made to trip is an attack *roll*. To answer one is to answer the other, or if not, at least it would be closer.

See, the fact we've had two separate people come into this thread saying "that's not how it works" should be evidence the rules could stand some clarification.

Squiggit wrote:
Coldermoss wrote:
If we're subscribing to the "maneuvers are attacks and therefore the check you use to make them is an attack roll" interpretation
I mean, that's just what the rules say, so yeah.

I just wish it was explicitly stated that skill checks can also be attack rolls. It's never said they're mutually exclusive, either, but that's hardly concrete evidence.

If we're subscribing to the "maneuvers are attacks and therefore the check you use to make them is an attack roll" interpretation, yes, under the same reasoning that a finesse weapon with the trait would allow you to use dexterity.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems like an error to me. I think it's likely the intention is that strength-based strikes can be attempted, but no other strength checks can.

Generally, the same trends you see in 5e apply to PF2 as far as useability. Martial characters tend to be easier to build and play than spontaneous casters which tend to be easier than prepared casters. I just think the differences aren't nearly as stark.

My advice is to just make a character concept-first. Any character you want should be fine. Making sure you have your concept figured out is really important because it will eliminate a lot of options from consideration, and decision paralysis can be a real thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Armor and weapons both have 2 kinds of fundamental runes, why shouldn't the same be true for shields? One type of rune to increase hardness, another to increase HP. As for why, I feel like having the whole package in one place is a tad too convenient, and we all like our fiddly bits anyway, don't we?

But yes, I like this idea.

puksone wrote:
New rules + crunch or is it more about soft skills?

Don't worry, there are tons of new (optional) rules. Someone on reddit hosted an AMA about it not long ago.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you allow striking runes on handwraps of mighty blows to double the extra damage from dragon claws, you'll also have to double the additional damage dice from property runes such as the flaming rune.

You haven't addressed MAP yet, and how that's handled could easily break this. Spells will also be a challenge, because something that you begin casting may not be relevant or possible by the time you finish, and partial effects for spells strikes me as unfeasible due to the quantity you'd have to pull (although I guess counting a save or attack for an incomplete spell as one degree better or worse might do).

It seems to me like a really interesting idea, but a few factors make me skeptical of how well it would run in practice. I think it'll take more time, due to more "priority transitions" and single action ticks requiring more mental bandwitdth to plan ahead while keeping track of activities and reactions. More importantly, a single action is rarely satisfying on its own. It's not going to feel good taking an action, spending an entire tick, to set up for a future one by drawing a weapon, moving into position, begining to cast a Spell, or raising a shield.

Those are just referring to the abilities you get from Nature Incarnate.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Tell your players what the concept of the campaign is, and trust them to make characters that fit the brief. Boom, job done and you didn't have to lift a finger.

Zapp wrote:

Do you have any suggestions on how to write a "monster" that encourages a more involved approach?

You could give them abilities that capitalize on missing, like a reaction that allows them to make a strike or other attack if an attack against them critically fails, a la the Fighter Feat "Dueling Riposte." That by itself incentivizes a more measured approach to make each strike as effective as it can be instead of brute-forcing it.

Give them a high athletics score and make good use of tripping and grappling, forcing the PC to use actions to counter them.

If you were feeling really adventurous, you could give them 2 custom styles, maybe one based on maneuver control and the other focused on defense, for example, and maybe an ability to switch from one to the other with an extra effect. That would make for a really interesting fight, I think.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a reply to a post in the Oracle thread, which I'm making here because, unlike these classes, there's zero reason to have this many threads

CraziFuzzy wrote:
The benefit of the dedication feats I propose, is that you aren't making 'Sorcerer (Oracle)' be the replacement for the 1e Oracle class - you can have, instead, a 'Cleric' that is cursed by a mystery that trades a curse for power - or a wizard who dabbled a bit too much in his youth and was cursed with a similar affliction. The variety of these mechanics being able to be added to a number of base classes is far more enticing to me than the choice of 'I'm an Oracle' from level one, and that's just what you are for the rest of the game.

Like I said earlier in that thread, these concepts can hold a ton more thematic and mechanical weight than a simple archetype would allow. What you're describing here isn't a game design issue, it's one of personal taste.

And the good news is that you can make characters to your taste even though these will all be full classes because they are going to come with multiclass dedications. So you can absolutely make that cleric who trades a curse for power or that wizard who gets in too deep by taking the Oracle dedication at level 2. There is nothing stopping you!

A class has more flexibility, mechanically and thematically, than a simple archetype does. If you did make Oracles a simple archetype rather than their own class, you remove the possibility of a character who gains all their power from the Mystery. It becomes something tacked-on rather than the central focus of that character.

Like, look at Fighters. Their thing is that they're the best-trained weapon-users. Couldn't that have just been an archetype? Sure, it could have. But that approach removes the concept of someone who dedicates themselves wholly to the blade.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure how such a change would promote build diversity. No one is going to take both of them anyway, so combining them doesn't open up anything new.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

How do we KNOW this? It's the first I've heard of it.

It's pretty old, but Stephen Radney-MacFarland commented about it on Facebook during the PT.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
If you are performing the Trip with a finesse weapon (such as the whip that has the trip trait), you add your Dexterity instead of Strength to that particular Athletics attack roll.

There haven't been any changes in the rules between PT and release that suggest to me that the intent has changed, and it would better explain why certain unarmed strikes (e.g. wolf-jaw attacks from monk's Wolf Stance) gain the Trip trait, etc (since simply gaining an item bonus is just really narrow).

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You know what I think needs errata? Attacks. Specifically, attacks that don't use a classic attack roll. There are many interactions in the rules that don't seem to work as intended because of how attacks and attack rolls are defined.

Take athletics maneuvers and their associated weapon properties, and how those interact with finesse. We know the intention is that a weapon with both finesse and Trip, for example, is supposed to allow the wielder to trip using their Dexterity modifier instead of their Strength for the Athletics check, but you wouldn't be able to tell just by reading the rules.

And then you have attack spells that use no attack roll such as Chill Touch. They clearly contribute to MAP, but I've also heard that the intention was that they suffer from MAP as well. If that is indeed the case, you couldn't tell.

Attacks are probably the most frequently-used action by a large margin, so the rules governing them need to be as clearly-defined as possible. The known issue about the athletics attacks demonstrates there is room for improvement.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aren't permanent talismans just magical weapons and armor?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the second interpretation is correct. The volley penalty isn't "the penalty for making ranged attacks within your second range increment." It's totally separate.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
I'm trying to discuss the specific design decision to assume four-man parties. There is nothing "simple" about packaging a four-man assumption into the xp values of monsters. There is nothing it does that you couldn't do with the regular system. It doesn't make anything better. If your party isn't four man, it makes things worse.

They need to put the baseline somewhere in oder to have degrees of difficulty that make sense. Where would you have it?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could you give us a brief overview of the Undead bloodline for sorcerer?

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>