Coldermoss's page

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.

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.

"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.

RE: Maneuvers applying MAP as well as contributing to it

Page 449 in the CRB still says this

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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).

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.

Aren't permanent talismans just magical weapons and armor?

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.

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?

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

Coldermoss wrote:

They could just make those spells Rare. That should fix your problem, right?

Y'know, maybe they should make all utility spells rare, so that casters can never use magic for other things than killing or killing. :-/

First of all, I find that argument very disingenuous of you. We all know that spells that make food are not the only utility spells.

But what I should have posted was that the OP capitalize on the agency the CRB places on the DM to make certain options rarer than others for their specific campaign. If a specific spell or a subset of spells would trivialize what is intended to be a major theme of a campaign, should the DM not have the right to remove them? To say otherwise is to say that the DM shouldn't run the kind of game they want to.

They could just make those spells Rare. That should fix your problem, right?

Yeah, other folks have pointed out in other places that light and medium armor start out as much better options than heavy armor for most fighters, thanks to the ACP and speed reduction. The Fighter bonuses to Heavy Armor, in that context, look much more like making Heavy Armor viable in comparison to the lighter ones than making them the best option.

The way I see it, a second product line is totally unnecessary. Just take a few minutes to subtract the level values from what monsters you're going to be using for the session. I'm not saying that I wouldn't appreciate support for bounded Pathfinder (mostly through alternative encounter building rules in the Beastiary), but there's no need to print a second version of all the rulebooks for such a simple fix.

In D&D 5th edition, this kind of thing would be a Variant rule, and would have a sidebar in the DMG. And for a tweak as simple as this (it's far-reaching, yeah, but it's really simple), that's all you'd need besides the aforementioned alternative encounter rules.

Sometimes using a skill in a specific
situation might require you to have a higher proficiency
rank than what is listed on the table. For instance, even
though a high-level barbarian untrained in Arcana could
reliably use Arcana to Recall Knowledge regarding the
breath weapons of the various colors of dragons, the GM
might decide that Recalling Knowledge about the deeper
theories behind magical energy of a dragon’s breath
weapon might be something beyond the scope of the
barbarian’s largely utilitarian and anecdotal knowledge
about how to fight dragons. The GM decides whether a
task requires a particular proficiency rank, from trained
all the way up to legendary.

Page 142.