Why would you take away Novas for GMs? So now all we get for our hours and hours of volunteered time are more ACP? I have over 1,000 SFS1 ACP and nothing I want to use it on, so that doesn’t mean much to me. The Novas weren’t game altering, but they were a nice acknowledgement of the time people had put in.
Your novas aren't being taken away. You will still have 4 novas for Starfinder 1st edition.
Second Edition rules are vastly different than 1e; they're basically PF2e rules with some modifications. Just like what they did with the split between PF1e and PF2e, there will be a separate tracking of GM experience between the two systems, it's just not going to be the same as before.
I would like to request that it be made explicitly clear that the Divine Access Oracle feat is not able to be taken by remastered Oracles.
Divine Access is now a base feature of Oracles at level 11, however a class Feat and a feature aren't the same thing. I'm sure many players will still attempt to take the feat at level 6, since the feat wasn't reprinted as a feat, so it's still technically a valid feat.
I'm not arguing the semantics here, I just want it to be clear that it doesn't work so I don't have to argue with people online that it doesn't work. Or make it explicit that it does work, either way I just don't want there to be arguments about it.
Basically, yes the cone would spread into the room. To make it easy, just calculate a cone from the choke point to where the cone normally ends, so with a 30ft cone it would cut it down to a 20ft cone.
We need urgent clarification on how this section of the scenario is supposed to work!
Spoiler:
In the plane of Fire there's supposed to be a chase scene where we run away from the plane trying to kill us. However, the end of the section says "If the party gets at least 3 chase points per PC..." which is not how Chases work. If you want the party to make different skill checks every round, and see how many points they got at the end, use the standard Victory Point system. If you want a chase scene, there needs to be something to chase, or something to run from.
In this case, there should be the "wave of fire" behind the party which advances one obstacle per round. If the fire ever reaches the party they should take damage (with a Basic Reflex of course), and be forced forward one obstacle. This way, if they roll well at the start they can get very far ahead and have extra time if they get stuck. It also limits the time of the encounter by having the party auto advance if the fire hits them, and gives a penalty if they're failing. You can have Farah carry any unconscious PCs so they don't die, that way a series of bad rolls doesn't make it a TPK half way through the scenario.
That's the biggest issue with scenario mechanics. Other issues exist, but they don't break the scenario and confuse GMs like this one.
Please note that the guide was updated a couple months ago (Specifically, Feb 28th) to say "permanent curses" aren't removed. This was probably because the Animate Dream's curse was causing too many players to have to pay for curse removal, even thought it would eventually end on its own.
A permanent curse or effect is typically not something that has stages. If there are stages and nothing explicitly says it's permanent, it can go away on its own; it would be something that doesn't have a duration, or explicitly says is permanent. For example, a Curse of Nightmares is a permanent curse.
Here's the curses you mentioned in your original post:
Mariner's Curse spell - Permanent if you Fail or Crit Fail
Curse of the Werecreature - Permanent
Graveknight's Curse - Not permanent
Mummy/Bog Rot - Curse is Permanent, disease isn't
Rotting Curse - Not permanent
Expeditious Evolution - Curse is Permanent, disease isn't
Mummy Rot counts as a permanent curse, as the stage portion of the ability is actually the disease. You would only need curse removal however, as diseases are automatically removed for free, since no disease I know of is permanent without a Curse rider.
Without clarification, it allows you to make as many wands as you have knives during a single daily prep period. The clarification says you can only make one knife a day. The intent of the feat is that you can only have one knife at a time, ever.
It definitely should be added to either the clarification or the feat itself that enchanting another knife ends any existing enchantment, which is better than having it last until your next prep just in case you forget about it for some reason. But it's also clear that the intent of the feat and clarification is that you get only one free wand knife at a time.
To be clear, it was not my intent to try and get around anything. I already have the appropriate boon for the weapon. Since I DO have access to it, I should be able to invent the formula, right? That way, if I lose my weapon, I can more quickly craft a new one, using only one day of downtime rather than two.
Three points:
- With access, you can just buy the weapon. No need to waste downtime.
- Also with access to an uncommon item, you can just buy the formula for it. PFS Formula Rule here.
- How would you even permanently lose your weapon in PFS?
Pre-Remaster, bards were able to replace Verbal Components with playing an instrument. As Perpdepog quoted, post-remaster rules say Bards use music for spellcasting.
There are a lot of creatures who can't speak but are able to cast spells. Speaking isn't necessary for spellcasting, you just need to be able to produce a sound to fulfill the incantation of the spell, whether it be speech, growling, music, or tapping the floor with a staff.
You 100% are able to use music as a replacement for speech when spellcasting.
Why are you saying it's -1 at 17? Thaumaturges get Apex items too you know.
At level 2, when you get Loremaster Dedication, you would have a +8 while Thaumaturges have a +6 for general RK. This is the only time you're ever better than a Thaumaturge.
At levels 3-6, a Loremaster would be equal to a Thaumaturge.
At level 7, the Thaumaturge becomes a Master, making them +15 while a Loremaster is only +13. From here on out, the Thaumaturge is always better than the Loremaster at general RK. They also will likely be increasing their Cha at the same rate as the Loremaster's Int, so ability modifiers are irrelevant.
Yes, the Loremaster gets a couple feats that increase action economy, but remember that Diverse Lore also allows them to use the result of their Exploit check as a RK check, which also saves them on action economy. Not to mention, since they're using RK on a creature, they have +4 over a Loremaster.
Plus, action economy means nothing outside an Encounter. The only Loremaster feat that matters outside an Encounter is Loremaster's Etude, which for a focus point gives you advantage on one check. This can help for very important checks, but can't be done constantly. The Thaumaturge still has a +10% chance over the Loremaster for general purpose checks.
The point I am trying to make here is that we shouldn't have to dump multiple class feats and tons of money into magical items just to be on par with a single class feat from an overtuned class.
Is there a real purpose not to take the Diverse Lore as a feat?
It's overpowered and makes the game not fun when you can just know everything.
It's also annoying as a GM when a player wants to use Esoteric Lore in place of a different lore skill when I didn't say it was a Recall Knowledge check.
I see the gestures from spells with the Subtle trait as being, well, subtle. You could probably detect them, but the whole point of the trait is being able to cast without it being obvious. I don't think you would have to wildly flail your arms when trying to Charm someone.
RAW, you would have to Restrain the PC before feeding them the elixir, which could be difficult if you don't have someone good at Athletics in the party. You could just make the PC make an Athletics check against their Fort DC to force them to drink it as part of the activate action. The confused PC would be struggling and attempting to not drink it, so imposing some sort of check makes sense.
It says you move, not that you Stride. I was suggesting it work like Tumble Through, where you Stride, and if at any point during that Stride you go through Uneven Ground or a Narrow surface, you make the check then. suggesting you can simply Stride across a 20ft long tight rope just because you have a 30ft move speed is obviously not the intent of the Balance action.
RAI is just as important, if not more important, than RAW. Especially if it is fundamentally broken as written.
Either of these two things should be changed to make Balance work:
1. Include a Stride in the Balance action, similar to Tumble Through. This allows you to move as part of the action, and adjust the degrees of success to mention Stride rather than just moving.
2. Make Balance a free action that is (by default) triggered by entering uneven ground or a narrow surface. The degrees of success should be adjusted to treat the ground as difficult terrain, or falling if you fail too hard. This will allow you to Stride into uneven ground without having to stop your movement first. This can then further be triggered by Spells and other effects, like Grease, by specifying in the spell or ability that it triggers a Balance check.
I much prefer the second option, it makes the game much smoother.
Also, I want to mention that anything in this thread won't make it into the initial Player Core printing. Paizo typically sends the finished book to the printers months in advance, since they need a LOT of books. It's a good outlet to let out frustrations but don't take it personally if the printed rules aren't what you wanted.
Let's look at the flip side instead. The Demonic Bloodline says "Either a target takes a –1 status penalty to AC for 1 round, or you gain a +1 status bonus to Intimidation checks for 1 round." If one were allowed to target anyone with their blood magic effect, then could I cast Enlarge on an ally, and then make an enemy take a -1 penalty to AC? Of course not, that makes no sense and is indeed too good to be true. If it's true for allies, it would be true for enemies, since all it says is "one target" and not "one ally/enemy".
There is a feat for what you want, Sympathetic Vulnerabilities. You can only apply a Mortal Weakness bonus to your attacks if they have a weakness. If they have no weakness, you can only use a Personal Antithesis, which only applies to that specific target.
Splash damage is already "added" damage, so it shouldn't be increased by things like this. You aren't directly attacking adjacent creatures, they are just taking a specified amount of damage. The same would go for things like Crushing Grab, where the target takes a set amount of bludgeoning damage, and things like Inspire Courage wouldn't increase it.
If you could increase splash damage in this way, it would make Alchemists insanely powerful. They can already add their Int onto splash damage, so adjacent targets can take up to 11 damage, but adding something like Gravity Weapon into the mix would increase that to 19, and that also opens the door to so many additional buffs. It would scale very fast, and soon alchemists would be doing over 20 guaranteed damage to multiple creatures every time they strike.
The majority of this thread was about a different topic than the one now being talked about so using what is basically "well for all this thread you have been disagreed with so you're wrong and should stop posting" I think sucks especially as one who was disagreeing with the quick alchemy stuff
Did anyone agree with the quick alchemy stuff? When I was actually involved in the thread at the start, most people were not on board with what Trip as suggesting. I then fell off and when I came back suddenly there's 200 more posts and the subject is completely different from the original topic, and STILL I see people disagreeing with them.
All I'm trying to say is that it's futile to try to change people's minds here. You can interpret rules however you want, that's why rule 1 exists. But if you come here trying to overturn the community's preconceptions and they refuse to see from your point of view, just leave it alone. Trying over and over to say the same things isn't helping anyone.
0 mention of 2-H weapons anywhere in the reload rules.
And what, pray tell, is the reason the whole "Switching to a free hand/regrip weapon" part is there? Is it maybe because if you're wielding a 2-handed weapon that needs to be reloaded, you would need a specific rule to make sure reloading works?
Also, mentioning logical arguments doesn't make you look smart, it just makes people see you as pompous.
Literally this whole thread the majority of the people here have not agreed with you, and many of us have been playing 2e for years. We know the rules pretty well. Yes, sometimes a fresh viewpoint might make people realize they were running things wrong, but this isn't one of those instances. Please, just let this go and stop posting. Trust me, I have been in these situations on this forum many times before. It's not worth the stress.
Count as invisible. If you are blind, it's not like everyone is invisible and therefore you can use See invisibility. The spell makes you treat everyone as blind, deaf, and unable to use any of their senses, it doesn't actually bend light around you like invisibility does.
The Invisibility spell makes you undetected, as that's what the spell says it does. You do need to Sneak to stay that way if you plan to move.
If you aren't Sneaking, you're making noise, so someone could pinpoint your location that way. You would still be Hidden though, so there's the DC 11 flat check to hit you, unless they have some other precise sense.
For example, Oozes don't have vision, they detect movement. Invisibility would not help against an ooze at all.
They didn't butcher Shocking Grasp, they completely replaced it with a different spell. Magic Missile on the other hand has just been renamed to Force Barrage, and functions exactly the same. These changes were mentioned in the Core Preview and recent blog post.
As for the Shield spell, unless they released a teaser I don't know about, we will have to wait until Player Core is released to see what happens to it.
As Aratorin said, the thesis does not give you the ability to ignore prerequisites or requirements of feats. If something doesn't explicitly allow you to ignore those, you can't ignore them.
The duplicate effects rule is about things like multiple buffs or debuffs. If someone is using two spells slots to cast two burning spheres and using two actions each round to force two saves, why is that two good to be true?
If you're letting a playtest PC in your game for the long run, I would suggest adding a trait similar to the Hex or Composition trait to the focus spells, only allowing one of them to be cast or sustained each round, and casting a second one ends the first. That's a pretty fair compromise, and honestly should be in the class when it fully releases. Also make sure to use the survey to tell Paizo about your feedback.
You keep bringing up a poison that multiple people have said it way over-powered, and even banned in PFS. A more common poison would be Hunting Spider Venom, since it makes enemies off guard at Stage 1.
So you poison the fighter's swords with Hunting Spider Venom before a fight, giving him two doses. Your DC at level 11 is 30, so the venom has a DC 30 Fort save. You're fighting a Level 13 boss, let's say, a Gelugon (AKA Ice Devil).
At AC 34, the Fighter with +24 to hit has a 55% chance to land a Strike, and a 5% chance to lose the poison all together. If they have a flank, it jumps to 65% to hit. After landing a Strike, the Gelugon with a +24 fort save now has a 25% chance to fail (5% to crit fail). Together, the Gelugon only has a 13.75% chance to become poisoned, 16.75% with a flank, thus becoming off guard. The fighter can only do this twice this fight, once for each sword. Meanwhile, the Fighter has a 5% chance to crit, making the devil automatically Off Guard for one round, or a 15% chance to crit with a flank, almost as good a chance as the poison.
On the other hand, a Bomber throwing a Bottle Lightning of any level has a +21 to hit due to Alchemist Goggles, giving them a 40% chance to hit, and on a hit the Gelugon becomes off guard for a round. This is a much better way of applying a condition, and it's still free with no downside, and can be done for the whole combat.
This doesn't even cover the vast number of creatures who are outright immune to poisons, which bombs work on just fine.
My advice, you are thinking way too much into this. Perpetual poisons are fine.
Bottled Lightning applies Off-Guard on a hit; Frost Vials, Goo Grenades and Tanglefoots lower speed; Thunderstones can temporarily deafen; Dread Ampoules apply Frightened; Sulfur Bombs and Skunk Bombs sicken (and possibly slow). All these work on a hit, with the only exception being Skunk Bombs. Meanwhile poisons require a hit AND a save.
Why is it that poisons are bad again?
Also, Alchemist is being re-published in Core 2. Just wait until then to see what they change.
You need to be a Storm Order Druid to gain Access to the air elemental, since it's an uncommon option. After that, you can pick it as soon as you pick up something that allows you an animal companion, like Beastmaster Dedication. It also works if a Druid picks up Order Explorer to become a member of the other order. You must pick Order Explorer as an Elemental Druid to gain the Animal Companion feat, as it has the prerequisite of being in the Animal Order.
I theory crafted a Monk using the Armor in Earth impulse. They have a higher AC than a Champion until later levels.
Basically any impulse that buffs you is a good pick. Ocean's Balm from Water is also really nice to have on hand since impulses still scale based on your full level.
If it were intended to be three attacks split how you choose, it would just say "Make 3 ranged impulse attacks" and not specify the number of targets. Since it specifically calls out the targets rather than the number of attacks, it's definitely intended to be one attack per target.
Also, on the topic of Magic Missile, all spells have a "Targets" line, and Magic Missile's says "1 creature". They need that additional text to allow for targeting multiple targets. You can't really compare that to this ability.
A better comparison would be something like Scorching Ray. For one action you can hit a single target, but each additional action adds a new target, and thus an additional attack roll. This ability is much closer to Scorching Ray, however since it's an Overflow ability it is always 3 actions instead of being variable.
You make an attack against up to three enemies.
You don't make three attacks against up to 3 enemies.
The wording is set up in a way that allows you to attack less than 3 enemies, just in case you don't have three valid enemies. The only reason it is three attacks is because it's three targets, it's not three attacks that can target three creatures.
Basically, it's one attack per creature targeted, and it's "up to" to allow for less targets.
Also, they already revealed in the remaster preview that Magic Missile is being re-named to Force Barrage. It's still exactly the same spell.
I have a feeling it will just be extra damage of the same type as your weapon, unless the spell did damage, then it matches that type. It's just the easiest solution.
If the party is fighting level -1 people when they're level 10 or something, the GM is just being mean. That's not a real fight and it should never go into encounter mode. Just let them KO them without rolling anything, or have them make an Athletics check to restrain them or something.
Then just punch them. It's 1d4+str damage assuming you don't have handwraps, plus it's nonlethal without taking a penalty.
If you're looking for a cantrip that does a small amount of damage and can't kill, use Daze. There's already answers for most of the complaints people have about the rules, you just have to read the rules to find them.
You can use actions out of encounter mode, and anything that lasts "one turn" will not last until you enter an encounter, it will last at most 6 seconds.
Trying to argue rules like that is bad faith interpretations of the rules. The GM is the final arbiter of what's allowed in their games, so if your GM agrees with you, great, but in this forum we don't really like it when people try to rules lawyer stuff to get us to agree, just so they can strong arm their GM into allowing things that are not RAW or RAI.
The rules are not a legal document. It's supposed to be read casually, and if something is unclear you should work with your GM on how it should be clarified for your table.
Yes you can pre-poison your weapons, it's very common in game and in real life. The poison lasts 6 rounds when it affects a target. Until then it's just some oil or paste that is coating the weapon, and is essentially inert until it enters the bloodstream of a creature.
We might have to wait for Bestiary Core to get full answers to these questions, however I do not think the intent is that you can not Strike ghosts with Strength based attacks. It's best to only apply the limitations to Skill Checks like Trip or Grapple, and not Attack Rolls, as those have been explicitly separated in the rules already.
Here's something similar that may help you understand:
"Can you Sudden Charge while Immobilized? Sudden Charge doesn't have the move trait, so I can use it and then Stride as part of the action right?"
Channel Elements says "can" not "must", so if you are unable to use the actions that you "can" use, the Channel Elements still resolves successfully. No weirdness happens, nor can you use it to get around requirements.
However, you do not start a Climb action when you're already clinging to the wall, so why would you start a Balance action when you're already in an situation that requires balance?
Nothing you posted says that entering Uneven Ground makes you stop moving, only that you need to Balance or fall. Therefore if you don't use the Balance action you would automatically fall.
Excuse me, I guess since we're arguing semantics here, an "Acrobatics check to Balance"
Pixel Popper wrote:
Balance is a single action with the Move trait that uses an acrobatics check to determine the degree of success and the results.
Balance is a very poorly designed action and doesn't even work as intended. It is much cleaner of an action if it is a free action that is triggered when you enter an area where you would need to balance, with similar results as it has now. That way, you wouldn't have to move onto a surface with an action and then spend another action to immediately start to Balance, and it can handle situations like this where you need to Balance when it's not your turn.
By the way, what happens if you use your last action of a turn to Stride into uneven ground? You can't Balance, so do you just fall prone without a check, even if you could make it on a nat 1?
Pretty sure the preview says the level 12 feat now refills your pool in one refocus, meaning you get 3 points in 10 min instead of spending 30 min. It may not be useful in every scenario, but if you're on a time crunch it's a huge bonus.
Eoran, what I was trying to say is that "Elemental Familiar" is not well defined, which you pointed out so you're basically agreeing with me. All the Kineticist feat says is that you gain an Elemental Familiar.
The actual text in the book says: "You gain an elemental familiar (page 42) with the trait of one of your kinetic elements."
Page 42 leads to the The Elemental Familiar section. This section of the book lists three new familiar abilities, one of which is called "Elemental", and then lists 5 Specific Familiars, which need at least 3 abilities to pick.
So does the feat actually allow you to pick a specific familiar? If so, it should probably say so. If we go with standard familiar rules, where you only have 2 abilities, the only way to get an Elemental familiar is by taking the Elemental ability, which requires the Resistance ability, thus taking up your 2 abilities.
Anwyllia has not participated in any online campaigns.
