# Del_Taco_Eater's page

251 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

Favorited by Others

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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?

 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?

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Part of his point is simple. Character has +24 to jump. Player says "I want to jump 15 feet". There's no pit, no obstacle, nothing but open flat ground. How far does he jump with a roll of 1?

I do agree with everyone else, though. I just wanted to make that point clearer.

15 feet. For everyone running the game which is not an automaton that must follow parsed lines of code in algorithms without applying common sense, logic and context.

Then such a person, while being wise enough to do what clearly makes sense, would be going against the CRB.

That's the reason why some people want a change.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with what komoda is saying. The wording in the crb is poor, and doesn't say what they were intending.

(And of course, the faq overrules the poorly worded statement.)

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mention that the -2 to str offsets the +1 bonus to hit, implying that you might be missing the strengths of small characters. (pun) There's no need to beat medium characters at their own game, i.e. smashing stuff with a large metal pole.

Small characters are dexterous, and in my opinion the best thing to do is to build around that. Once you have dex to hit and damage, your size is doing very little to actually hinder you (only one step smaller dice) and is a net positive if you include the to hit and ac boost.

If you want to know a true martial terror, I have never built a stronger martial than my halfling monk/druid/Urogue/mouser swashbuckler. He can wild shape all the down to diminutive, getting his dex up to 30. Also, the halfling feat risky striker is power attack vs bigger creatures. As a diminutive animal, anything small or larger counts! Combine this with pirahna strike and your cute little fists will be dealing astounding damage.

CMB isn't all that bad either, considering that diminutive creatures automatically get dex instead of str to cmb.

Anyway, just wated to make the point that comparing str based small characters to str based med characters is missing out on what small characters do best: being super small, hard to hit, and packing a huge punch.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anton Wine-Maul wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Majuba wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
I cannot possibly roll my eyes hard enough. The question you asked was "Why don't people like to play Small sized melee types?"
See... he didn't. He asked why people put down the players/characters that play/are small-sized melee types.

That's one facet of a larger discussion, yes. That bit has the simpler answer, and it's broadly applicable.

Q: Why do people make fun of other people for their chosen playstyle?
A: Because people are a\$@\$*+\$s.

You read between the lines at statements like this:

Quote:
why wouldn't a Halfling take up a longsword, throw on some chainmail, and try to become a knight or sellsword.
Quote:
taking something that shouldn't work and let it go. Was he dealing as much damage as a Human or if he would have chosen a ranged build? No, but this was far better in my mind.

And it's pretty clear that from the start this was a discussion of why Small races aren't popular to play as Fighters or other melee sorts. Which is, regardless, a more interesting discussion to have than "Why do people make fun of me for playing Small characters", which as we've established is "Because people are a%~#+@~s".

I wish you guys would quit using the same excuses. You list your math and when the aspect of character building instead of class building is brought up you just fallback on people as being a~@*#%!s. I want to know why be a~++*#%s in the first place? Are they afraid of being shown up by someone who doesn't care about making the best build and proving number crunching is not the reason this game was made? Do you feel that if you have every statically advantage then it permits you to avoid playing smart and instead stride in without a care in the world and hack your way to a hollow 20th level? Choose to play that way but keep it to yourselves.

Im responding specifically to the sentence, "Are they afraid of being shown up by someone who doesn't care about making the best build and proving number crunching is not the reason the game was made?"

I would appreciate your clarification on what you mean because on the surface this is hyprcritical and misinformed.

First, halflings are bad fighters, (the role not the class) objectively. You will stand up nobody who does the same thing as you and is medium. A small barbarian is quite strong, a medium barbarian is stronger.

Secondly, this seems to be a boast about character strength, that also shames people who build for mechanical strength. Are you not afraid of being shown up by someone who builds to be a badass? Of course you might not, but that requires you assume the same for them.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Im helping a friend who is new to pathfinder make a character. After going over some things, he said he wants a character that is good at social skills, knowledge, and combat.

I suggested:

Alchemist
Oracle
Sorcerer
Bard
Investigator
(Lemme know if you have other suggestions)

He decided he liked bards, but then I realized im super un-knowledgeable in bards. (hehe, get it?) I see people often say that bards make good combatants but I just cant see what they mean. If you weigh pros and cons, I see.....

Pros: bardic performance, arcane strike, a few buff spells

Cons: poor weapon and armor choices, 3/4 BAB, no feats, and general lack of help from their class.

What am I missing about the bard that makes most people call them a combat-ready class?

Thanks!

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been looking through books for feats to aid my intimidate character and I believe I have found a gem.

The feat "cruelty" from ISG gives a +2 morale bonus to hit and damage whenever you successfully intimidate someone.

And, because I love to cheese, combine this with a courageous AOMF for a +3 bonus instead. (2k gold and a feat for a far bigger than appropriate benefit.)

Mr. Jolly ought to add this feat to his guide its so overpowered.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Das Bier wrote:

AHG, A KLAR THREAD (no apologies. Kowtow to god 10 times for your temerity!~):

A Klar is a weapon that does d6 slashing damage with a blade. It also provides protection as a buckler.
IF you bash with it, it does damage as a light spiked shield.

So, this is telling you that
1) The d6 slashing weapon is separate from bashing with it, because d6 dmg is NOT light spiked shield damage.
2) It counts as a light spiked shield if you choose to bash, instead of using the blade.
3) it's also a shield for enchanting with it.

Ergo,

1) If you enchant it as a weapon, it affects the whole klar at the same time. Because the klar is basically a weapon, with a shield tacked on, not vice versa.
2) If you enchant it as a shield, it only affects the shield portion of it.
3) Bashing only affects the shield portion of it, so has no effect on the normal blade, only when used to bash. You end up with a d6 piercing shield.

So, you can do d6 19-20/x2 slashing damage, or bash for d4 (d6 with Bashing) 20/x2 piercing damage.

Bashing, as a shield enhancement, has no effect on a non-bashing attack, which the default klar attack is.
===============

I firmly believe that any arguments outside this paradigm is wishful thinking and using a rules loophole to try and create a superweapon.

The mere IDEA that a Klar with Bashing does more damage then a large shield makes me laugh. That's a monstrous attempt at a loophole exploit, and no GM in their right mind will agree with it. "Hi, this tiny weapon on a neo-buckler is now as good as a greatsword!" isn't going to fly. I mean, I have no problem with stacking spikes and bashing on large shields for 2-12 20/x2...it's still an inferior weapon because of the threat range. You're making a non-stacking Klar better then a stacking large shield.

And violating all sorts of irreconcilable language between weapons, bashing and other stuff, all on top of it.

I've spotted a true believer!! I don't understand how you can think bashing doesn't affect the 1d6 blade attack, because bashing doesn't say anything about having to be a shield bash.

IF you had said enchanting the shield part as a weapon did nothing to the blade, then no prob. But you clearly believe that enchanting the shield affacts the whole thing. Why the inconsistency?

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:

They are probably just still friends with that big stupid fighter that kept dragging their ass around dungeons, keeping them safe from level 1 to 5 or so and might feel a sense of obligation to keeping them around.

"Now you're just somebody that I used to know"