Augmented Gearsman

Del_Taco_Eater's page

250 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 250 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

On the topic of aid, you no longer need to be capable of making the check on your own.


I haven't seen anything about minimum damage being one.

Inspire courage affects spell damage rolls.

In most campaigns you can channel with downed enemies nearby and not revive them.


One qualm I have with the one foot line method is that it depends too much on geometry. In the example of firing around a corner, how many squares from the corner your target is determines in you have line of effect. I doubt, if/when we get a ruling on the topic, that it will end up being that complicated.


Ubertron_X wrote:

Just for me because I am not quite clear with the explainations so far?

Checking for cover is center to center, right?

Is line of effect also center to center? Or any corner to any corner? How about when you move along a line that borders both open space and a solid barrier?

Consider two guys C and O standing in alcoves. Can they hit each other with (non-AOE) spells?

XXXXXXXXXXX
........................
XXXCXXXOXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX

Re: cover - correct.

Re: line of effect - in 1E it was any line through both squares. In the playtest it was center to center. In the 2E CRB it is completely unspecified, which is what I want to draw attention to.

Re: the picture - The target demonstrably has no line of effect by playtest rules. In 1E I believe the line could originate from a corner of your square but had to pass through the interior of theirs (no line of effect). Although unspecified, I find no reasonable interpretation of 2E's rules to allow line of effect either.


graystone wrote:
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
My reason for combining line of effect and cover is due to how intertwined they were in the playtest. I'm curious if your interpretation is the same as mine that by playtest rules the caster in the picture does not have line of effect.
I don't understand what the playtest has to do with the final rules: I'm 100% talking about the final rules, and by the final rules, there is line of effect. By the playtest rules, I don't know. I'm not pulling them out to see.

I think they are relevant for two reasons.

1.) The playtest was of course the "beta" version of PF2E. There is arguably a precedent set by playtest rules for how PF2E works in cases where the new CRB (which ofc 100% trumps any old rules) uses the unchanged wording from the playtest. In the case of line of effect, it clearly does to meaningful extent.
2.) The justification I understand you are making for the caster in the picture having line of effect is that an unlocked path can be drawn. The playtest used (I think?) your language verbatim and still didn't grant line of effect.

I feel I may not be getting getting my point across if you read me to be saying that playtest rules should still be followed in 2E.


graystone wrote:
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
Miscommunication, sorry. By "around corners" I meant like in the picture in my OP where casty's target has cover around a corner. To reiterate my point, the playtest had the exact same wording as you quoted above, i.e. "you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell." However, the playtest also seemed to deem many common examples of standard cover (e.g. said corner, or a pillar, etc) capable of blocking line of effect. So maybe line of affect is more restricted than you assume?

In the picture, there IS an unblocked path to #4: you can draw a single line between the two and not hit a barrier. For instance, you can draw a line from the right hand top corner of the monster to the top right hand corner of #4 and that is all you need for line of effect. Cover is different in that most of the target is blocked so the cover is greater cover.

I think you are combining cover and line of effect and they just aren't the same thing. "unblocked view" is explained on page 457: "usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain a line of effect". So if a 1' wide line can be draw to a target, from any part of one to any part of the other, you have line of effect.

My reason for combining line of effect and cover is due to how intertwined they were in the playtest. I'm curious if your interpretation is the same as mine that by playtest rules the caster in the picture does not have line of effect.


graystone wrote:
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
graystone wrote:
You usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell. So you just need to be able to draw a line between the 2 that isn't blocked. That's it. "you have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier." As long as any part of them isn't behind a barrier [ie, a line can be drawn], it's fine to target. So even greater cover doesn't affect line of effect as being able to "barely see one another" is still an "unblocked path to the target".
The issue I see with such quick dismissal is that the playtest also used the language "You usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell" .... yet line of effect didn't go around corners. That's the language we still have.

I don't understand what you're talking about. If it needs line of affect, of course it can't go around corners.

If you're talking about "usually", then it means some spells don't require it. For instance, take Scrying. Range is planetary and you don't have to draw a line of effect for it.

Miscommunication, sorry. By "around corners" I meant like in the picture in my OP where casty's target has cover around a corner. To reiterate my point, the playtest had the exact same wording as you quoted above, i.e. "you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell." However, the playtest also seemed to deem many common examples of standard cover (e.g. said corner, or a pillar, etc) capable of blocking line of effect. So maybe line of affect is more restricted than you assume?


graystone wrote:
You usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell. So you just need to be able to draw a line between the 2 that isn't blocked. That's it. "you have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier." As long as any part of them isn't behind a barrier [ie, a line can be drawn], it's fine to target. So even greater cover doesn't affect line of effect as being able to "barely see one another" is still an "unblocked path to the target".

The issue I see with such quick dismissal is that the playtest also used the language "You usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell" .... yet line of effect didn't go around corners. That's the language we still have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There seems to have been substantial change in the line of effect rules from first edition (link) to second edition (link). Additionally, line of effect was described differently in the playtest than in either edition. Here are the important differences:
1.) In PF1E, you had line of effect if you could draw a line from any corner of your square through any part of your target’s square.
2.) In the playtest, you had line of effect if there was an unblocked path between you and your target. To calculate if you path was blocked, you were told to calculate as if checking for cover, i.e. a line from your center to the center of your target. A great description of the straitjacketing effect the playtest rules had on spellcasting is presented in this previous post.
3.) Now, in the PF2E CRB, we are told that you have line of effect “unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier.” However, unlike both of the previous definitions, no methodology for calculation is described. I find it currently ambiguous whether standard cover blocks line of effect like it did in the playtest. I think a case can be made for the current Line of effect rules to work similarly to either PF1E or the playtest:

Pathfinder 1E case: If standard cover blocks line of effect, then some of the cover rules do not make sense. Specifically, the following methodology for determining if you have cover from an area spell is provided:

cover rules CRB p.477 wrote:
Standard cover gives you a +2 circumstance bonus to AC, to Reflex saves against area effects … Draw a line from the center of your space to the center of the target’s space. If that line passes through any terrain or object that would block the effect, the target has standard cover … When measuring cover against an area effect, draw the line from the effect’s point of origin to the center of the creature’s space.

But line of effect is necessary to even be affected by the spell in the first place:

line of effect rules CRB p.457 wrote:
In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected.

So it is nonsensical to give +2 to AC and Reflex saves to a target behind cover if said cover makes the target immune to the spell’s effects.

Playtest case: It is arguable that in cases of ambiguity, the playtest’s precedent should be followed and any contradictions from PF1E rules are irrelevant and thus ignorable. If a rule was unchanged upon full release of PF2E, shouldn’t the rule work as it did in the playtest? For emphasis, line of effect rules in the PF2E CRB are clearly held over from the playtest:
playtest line of effect rules CRB p.298 wrote:
You usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called the line of effect. If you need to check whether you have a line of effect, draw a line like you do when determining cover.
PF2E line of effect rules CRB p.457 wrote:
When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called a line of effect. You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier.

Furthermore, the rules for cover can still make sense with “playtest line of effect rules” because the text from above: “When measuring cover against an area effect, draw the line from the effect’s point of origin to the center of the creature’s space.” Can be applied to lesser cover, or future types of unusual cover.

Lastly, a visual way of representing the problem:
W = wall square
C = caster
T = target
X = empty square

X W W W
T W W W
X W W W
X W W W
X C C X
X C C X
X X X X

Does the caster have line of effect to the target (i.e. an “unblocked path to the target of the spell”)?

Developer insight on this issue would be ideal (e.g. in an FAQ or on the Friday podcast), but hope is faint, and I’d greatly appreciate the community’s thoughts on the topic.


I think you've raised a good question, and it's a bit up to interpretation of whether "You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see" is rules text or not. That sentence clearly contradicts what constitutes line of effect, so it's my opinion that magic missile does not require line of effect.


I know there's been some chatter about it in this thread; the dueling sword is supposed to be sp and not gp. It was mentioned on the Pathfinder Fridays twitch stream.

(Sorry if it's been mentioned, but ctrl+f didn't turn anything up)


If it's a PFS character I think you've got to. Otherwise, negotiate with your GM! I would wave it, personally. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to blow the human ancestry feat that gives you an unusual weapon in order to overcome the penalty in a "fair" way.


Rest in peace 1E PA. It would go so much better with a mug fighter.


I apologize in advance for not knowing how to format a beautiful character like Ravingdork has, so I'll use these forums instead.

My imperial blooded sorc/champion of Cayden:
Ancestry - skilled human. (natural ambition: counterspell)
background - field medic
stats - 16 STR, 10 DEX, 14 CON, 12 INT, 10 WIS, 18 CHA
Ability boosts in STR (x1), CHA, CON, WIS, and INT
Feats:
1 - counterspell
2 - champion dedication (liberator of Cayden)
3 - toughness
4 - lay on hands
6 - liberator reaction
7 - incredible initiative
8 - advanced bloodline
10 - quickened casting
11 - fleet (?)
12 - bloodline focus
14 - diverse armor expert

Notes/play style: I plan on being a frontline sorc, using true strike + shocking grasp for damage but being very buff-focused. I plan on casting a lot of false life, growth, haste, heroism, etc. Teammates will also benefit from lay on hands, DR from liberator reaction, counterspells, and battle medic (which will have assurance for reliability). The character will be armored with full plate and a steel shield for 18+lvl+item AC levels 1-13, 20+lvl+item beyond. I am very excited for the frontline casting play style that 2E allows, as well as the diverse options for spontaneous casting, single action healing, and reactions.


HammerJack wrote:

You might want to reread whirling throw. People are apparently great at rolling with the impact on Golarion, and they only land prone on a critical success.

WHERE you throw them may impact this.

re: "WHERE" - This may be to what you were referring, but one could throw their foe to a square that would cause a >5ft drop to apply prone and light damage. Staying heads-up in combat to look for such opportunities sounds like fun.

Also, if you can find the one GM who allows it, directing your throw to be nearly vertical would add ~15 damage and auto prone to all successes.


Could you elaborate re: cover?


Though I haven't quite read cover to cover, I'm not seeing anything in 2E analogous to size modifiers in 1E. Besides the specific abilities that apply modifiers based on relative size, are there any size modifiers to stats like stealth, AC, attack rolls, etc?

Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An idea - take the combat climbing feat to reduce the number of hands needed to climb to one. Then, whenever someone tries to climb nearby you, use your monastic speed to climb next to 'em, grab 'em by their ankle, and throw 'em 30ft off the wall! Falling damage got buffed, so this might actually kill people.


I saw that mistake pointed out in the large thread where folks are noting typos. I think we're all assuming it's supposed to be negative.


Awesome! I was deceived by how explicitly AoO calls out that "This Strike doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn’t apply to this Strike."

Crane flutter gives no such reassurance.


I have a question about the sixth level monk feat crane flutter which gives the following reaction:

Your circumstance bonus to AC from Crane Stance increases to +3 against the triggering attack. If the attack misses you, you can immediately make a crane wing Strike against the attacker at a –2 penalty, even if the attacker isn’t within your reach.

Am I correct, given you are using flurry each turn, that this retaliatory strike is being made at a -10 penalty? If so, how good do you folks think this feat is? +3 AC seems large, but I'm not sure it offsets taking 2 feats and attacking with d6's.


Grandlounge wrote:

Additional cost to being a fighter. Consistent source of flight that gains the oracle >10000 gp right there.

What source are you thinking of?


Slim Jim wrote:

Not unless you're two-handing your polearm, which you're not doing with Shield Brace in conjunction with a heavy shield (at least not in PFS, anyway).

Why's that? I know very little about the feat.


Thoughts on what feat is best to lose for divine interference? (instead of taking it at lvl 13)


I should add that I'm not opposed to casting summon monster X. I think summoning monsters can add utility to any caster. Instead, I do not want to completely gut the build to be focused on summoning.


Slim Jim wrote:
Oracles are a nine-levels spellcasting class -- unless it is your deliberate intent to do so, you shouldn't nerf the most powerful aspect of the class by ignoring it to instead devote your feats to weapon-play. I.e., what does Power Attack bestow upon you at, say, 11th level? Six miserable extra points of damage in a one-handed melee attack at the cost of -3 to hit. Compare that to what Superior Summoning does: give you a whole extra pet monster, which I'll bet does a helluvalot more than +6hp damage. Or Divine Interference, which let's you force enemies to reroll their crits on the party.

In fairness, PA adds 9 damage per hit at 11th level. That means adding roughly 40% to my damage even after increasing my damage with buffs. I still consider it one of the feats which could be cut for divine interference - a suggestion you brought up which would make great use of my plentiful low level spell slots.

As for general playstyle, I'm not looking to build a summoner. (I wouldn't be playing a battle oracle if that were the case.) Thus, I'm evaluating feats like PA not from a "is attacking > summoning" standpoint, but rather a "how good is -x to hit +3x damage" standpoint.


@Magda you bring up an interesting DPR comparison between PA and combat reflexes. The deciding factor for me was eventually getting fortuitous on my weapon. The enchant would give PA extra value while not interacting with combat reflexes.

My current plan is to go with the original build but with the racial +2 in strength, replacing reactionary with magical lineage, and replacing extra revelation with quicken spell. (either at 7th or 9th level, same as PA)

Another question (sort of brought up by Magda): What do you all think of skill at arms? Some call it a trap, but I disagree on the basis of getting +3 AC and a significantly expanded threat range with weapon mastery. As things stand, I think it basically replaces combat healer in my build.


Grandlounge wrote:
My math on my battle oracle was that with divine favor I should always be using power attack. With the buff layed out I could frequent exceed the barbarian and fighter to hit at higher levels. Power attack actually has some self correction for lower accuracy class build it. Most 3/4th bab classes with accuracy boost should be power attacking.

Agreed. I do consider PA to be one of my weaker feats, though. If I take quicken spell, I would likely replace either PA of extra revelation: surprising charge. (And then get charge with the ring)


Slim Jim wrote:

* Warpriest half-orcs gain a huge boost from Sacred Tattoo since they can pop off Divine Favor (or anything else) as a swift action. Other spellcasting classes might be better off keeping the otherwise traded-away Orc Ferocity racial trait. (That way, if dropped neg, you'll remain conscious to cast a spell.)

* You are not a full-BAB class, and do not rage. Power Attack is a feat that makes you miss for the occasional benefit of receiving extra damage that you either didn't need to drop the target, or which is still a few points short of dropping the target. I wouldn't take it until much higher up after you can drop really big buffs.

Once again, I would appreciate second opinions in this. Slim Jim made me reconsider taking the tattoo due to the strong alternatives. (After all, I can get something like a lucky horseshoe by taking a GP hit.) I'd consider taking either orc ferocity or human-raised (for skilled) instead.

The power attack suggestion surprised me. Some napkin math showed that after buffing a couple times, (which I think the reach strategy permits) I'm reaching fairly large bonuses to hit. (+18 at level 8, around when I planned on taking PA). Going from +18/+18/+13 1d10+14 to +16/+16/+11 1d10+20 seemed strong. Thoughts?


This is good advice about why quickening DF is strong, and I agree. I'm still interested in hearing how you all would go about doing it. I can think of 3 "ways": getting a lesser metamagic rod, taking the feat, or taking the feat and getting 1-2 traits to lower the spell level.

If I do decide to take trait(s), I feel that there is a whole conversation to be had about how best to do that. I don't like taking extra traits because my build is already tight. I'm left thinking that maybe I should replace reactionary with magical lineage.


Just checking: As of right now/forever any bardic performance ends any bardic masterpiece? It's been so many years/pages I can't remember.


Gummy Bear wrote:

Having played an Oracle of Battle in PFS, I can tell you from first hand experience that action economy is going to be your biggest hurdle. I put a good amount of resources into being able to quicken Divine Favor ASAP. If I were to redo my build, I would be using a reach weapon with combat reflexes too.

I'm curious about your thoughts on DF. I'm assuming that as soon as I hit 8, DP would be my opening spell in every combat. (+3 to hit and damage, extra attack) Do you still consider quickened DF to be strong after learning DP?

If so, how would you go about quickening it? A rod is quite expensive, but without one DF is a fifth level spell. (only 3rd with extra traits)

Gummy Bear wrote:

With 3/4 BAB, Str pretty much has to be an 18 IMO. You won't generally be casting spells with a DC, so a lower Cha in exchange for Str, Con, Dex is ok. Another struggle I had was HP. My AC was plenty high (especially with buffs), but a d8 HD can be rough when you are the frontliner.

I had the charisma as a primary stat so that I could always meet the bonus spell slot requirements. Admittedly, I haven't played a caster which immediately gets 3 spell slots before. (e.g. oracle or sorc) Do you think that falling behind in cha and capping it around 18 is worth it?


I'm admittedly unfamiliar with some of the feats you are using, but some of your math confuses me. Why does seething hatred give +5 to hit? Also, doesn't focused target give a maximum of +1 to hit? Why does weapon focus give +1 damage? There may already be threads about it, but I read sap adept to only grant +3 dmg because you have 3 sneak dice. Finally, being invisible does not activate sap master, so you may want to consider that damage a rare bonus rather than your typical amount.


Hi all! This is a build I'm making for PFS. My goal is to create a capable front-liner with lots of spells. As far as advice goes, I'd appreciate any suggestions about stats, traits, feats, revelations, mystery, magic gear, and magic items. For backstory reasons, this character must be an archetype-less half-orc oracle of Pharasma with the tongues curse.

Stats:
STR 14
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 14+2

Traits: fate’s favored (I’m taking the tattoo), reactionary

Feats:

1 improved initiative
3 shield focus (heavy shield)
5 shield brace
7 power attack
9 surprise charge
11 extra revelation: combat healer

Revelations: (battle)

1 skill at arms
3 war sight
7 weapon mastery (bardiche)
11 stoneskin

Armor: mythral full plate of speed. (can I slap spikes on this?)
Shield: mythral heavy shield. Are there any particularly good enchants? I think my strongest option may be to save the gold and use magic vestment (granted by battle mystery) on my armor and shield each day.
Weapon: adamantine bardiche, perhaps fortuitous. Skill at arms also lets me have some backup ranged and melee weapons as backup. Any good enchants?
Head: In lieu of a better idea, a circlet of persuasion.
Headband: alluring charisma.
Eyes: In lieu of a better idea, eyes of the eagle.
Shoulders: cloak of resistance
Neck: I plan on having an amulet of natural armor and a swarm bane clasp in my haver’s sack.
Chest: No ideas. A go-to for other characters of mine would be an unfettered shirt, but hopefully I can just cast FoM on myself before I’m incapacitated.
Body: no ideas.
Belt: I’m torn as to which belt would be best. I’m trying to have a good ac and init, so I’ve considered dex. STR is obviously my shtick, but I’m worried about being redundant with bull’s strength and mighty strength. I’d appreciate help brainstorming this one. Str dex and con are all good, and I can get them in any of 7 combinations.
Wrists: I just learned that this is a wondrous item slot - no ideas.
Hands: I was thinking claws of the ice bear for a cheap way to mitigate my ghastly climb mod.
Rings: I’m considering a ring of revelation to get maneuver mastery or battlefield clarity. My swim mod will be buns, but rather than a ring of swimming I think I can use potions.
Feet: No good ideas. Maybe boots of escape?
Misc: If I decide to gain maneuver mastery with the ring, I’d probably pick grapple and buy armbands of the brawler and gauntlets of skilled maneuver. Handy haver’s sack.

Any suggestions to fill in the gaps in my items would be quite helpful.

Thanks!


SorrySleeping wrote:
Channel pools are separate, and the second channel pool doesn't meet the prerequisite of 3d6.

I completely understand your reasoning. However, I don't thing a channel pool has to meet the pre-req's for anything. The character does. The argument in favor is that your character has already done what is necessary to take the feat, and the benefit of the feat allows you to improve any channel you create.


I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are about the following.

A character uses their channeling ability from one class to meet the prerequisites for a feat such as fateful channel, liberation channel, or conversion channel. But they also have another pool of channeling energy - say just 1d6 - by taking levels in a different class. Can the character apply the benefit of these feats with the little channel?

The wording of the benefit for these feats doesn't seem restricted to the larger channel, making me think it's allowed. However, it seems possibly unintended, and I would not be surprised if it's been FAQ'ed, etc.

Thanks!


bumping for posterity


If the official decision is to use we are calling "option #3", that masterpieces are not performances whatsoever, is the full audit still necessary?

The issue as I understand from reading this thread is that there are a lot of features (feats, items, etc.) which interact with bardic performance. If some masterpieces are treated as performances for the purposes of these features, a full audit of each masterpiece would be called for to ensure no broken corner case interactions. However, I do not know of items that specifically reference a bardic masterpiece. (I'd appreciate if someone could point out any.) If we are running with option three, all the features which reference performances do not interact with masterpieces, so no corner cases right?

I feel that the biggest bar preventing this FAQ (for years) is the audit, but in my mind it may be unnecessary if option #3 becomes official.

TLDR: If masterpieces are not performances, why audit items which mention performances?


Neat. The specific helm I was looking at was the Batrachian helm. link


As per the title: Can a druid (no metal armor or shields) or a monk (no armor or shields) wear a metal helmet? Due to the lack of mechanical use for helmets, I do not know of any precedent that states all helmets are considered armor.

I understand that part of a "suit of armor" is the helmet, but is there a Pathfinder rule which says such?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


- that aiming better and missing somehow increases the potency of the bomb

A nearer miss, perhaps?
You're really grasping at straws here. How does a "nearer miss" make the bomb itself more potent? It doesn't. If I miss on an 11 compared to missing on a 10, the minimum damage result would still be the same, which means you can't disprove his point.

A conceptual response to a conceptual complaint. Your critique that my statement has no rules based could also be applied to the post I was replying to.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


- that aiming better and missing somehow increases the potency of the bomb

A nearer miss, perhaps?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
You and Darksol are completely within your rights to read it that way, but please don't claim it's the only way it can be read. As I pointed out in my initial post, it can be interpreted in more than one way.

Why should it be? Under what rules paradigm does "add the damage" make more sense than "don't add the damage" ? You can't just say that minimum damage is raw, minimum damage is ambiguous, so you can add.

The thing is, you and Darksol have read the same FAQ and come to different "obvious" conclusions. Nefreet and I have read it and thought a third, different conclusion was true. Perhaps the issue not actually as Crystal clear as you say it is.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

You can't just say that minimum damage is raw, minimum damage is ambiguous, so you can add.

As a side note, why can't nefreet use this line of thinking to argue that adding to minimum damage is ambiguous?


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Without the FAQ, is there an intuitive reason to not add PBS damage to the splash damage?

1) point blank is damage you get for aiming better, you're not aiming splash

2) its an attack roll add on. There's no attack roll, so no add on.

To clarify, are you of the opinion that things like courage do not apply as well?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
So if it doesn't apply to the min damage clause then what actually does get to apply to determining splash damage.

You'd still apply everything else that's minimum damage to the total calculations. All the FAQ is saying is that Point Blank Shot does not factor into that calculation whatsoever.

So, expanding on my Alchemist example above, let's say there was an equal level Bard using Inspire Courage with the Alchemist in the party. That 2D6+4 bomb now becomes 2D6+5, and the minimum damage now gets bumped up to 6 (2 dice + 3 Intelligence + 1 Inspire Courage).

Similarly, if the Alchemist somehow acquired Weapon Specialization (Bomb), he'd add +2 to the direct and minimum splash damage totals, since these are not removed from the splash damage calculation.

Without an errata to PBS, I find this viewpoint very hard to accept. What makes PBS different from a design standpoint than other effects which are added such as inspire courage? What would be a potential justification for the "no PBS on splash" FAQ?

Another way to phrase the question in case I am unclear: Without the FAQ, is there an intuitive reason to not add PBS damage to the splash damage?


You do lose the buckler's ac when you shoot, but it's so cheap that the +1 to FF AC is still completely worth it.


I know you have pretty good dex, but I prefer mythral medium armor for my archers due to the fact that the bolstering enchantment cannon be placed on light armor. With your 20 dex a suit of mythral agile plate with bolstering on it would work well. Any reason why you would need to keep the chain?

Second, slapping adaptive on your bow for when accidents happen might save you at some point.

I am far more concerned about saving throws than the average player, but in your position I would upgrade the cloak as well. I fully understand that lvl 9 archer inquis has pretty beastly saves, so I wouldn't argue that it's necessarily the "correct" move.


The superstition rage power says that the barbarian/bloodrager must attempt to resist all spells, even those cast by allies. My question, like those before me, is does this apply to spells you cast on yourself such as personal spells? I have a couple reasons why I think it may not.

1. You are not always considered your ally, and I would cite this as a case when counting yourself as an ally does not make sense. Why try to resist an affect which you yourself impose? This is purely subjective of course but arguable nonetheless.

2. Page 214 of the CRB states that you do not receive a saving throw against a spell if the target is yourself. Superstition does not seem to allow a save attempt vs things that do not normally require one.

Thoughts? I have a strange feeling that if this did work I would have seen a lot of it by now...


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I've read through many of the old threads on this topic and saw no conclusion. Those are from back in 2014, and I may have missed an answer between now and then.

A few questions:

1. Must the bloodrager have the draconic bloodline to become DD?

2. Does DD advance a bloodrager's draconic bloodline?

3. If yes to number two, does having level(s) of scorcerer change that?

4. Do we all agree that a (non-bloodline class) 5/DD X does not have the draconic bloodline?

Thanks.

1 to 50 of 250 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>