Oh no one disagrees with you.
The problem is the degree of risk. How much money are you willing to risk in order to save yourself 6-8 damage?
If you want shields to work as large AC buffs plus infinite-use DR X/turn, the numbers are going to have to go way down - just see the Indestructible Shield for example, which is both Rare and has 4 less hardness than the lower-level Sturdy Shield.
May as well remove the "use your shield infinitely" feats then, if fighters aren't meant to use it infinitely.
Because holy cow do they get a lot of reactions to use on Shield Block. Twice per round.
No one is going to take a "get a free bonus reaction to shield block every turn" feat if they're only meant to shield block once a fight.
Captain Morgan wrote:
This is a red herring. No one begrudge the Dropper. The problem is that Blocker is "sturdy or bust" and that there are only one or two options for the dropper and the aren't "on level" options for them at very many levels.
The problem is not the dropper.
The problem is "sturdy or bust."
Pre-Errata, maybe. Neither of these shields is in danger of being destroyed by anything short of a crit, at any level - and both have superior hardness to the Spellguard shield to boot.
Ok, yes, they did get a boost with the errata.
But that still leaves the Jawbreaker Shield (60 hp+hardness), Dragonslayer's Shield (58 hp+hardness+elemental), and the Nethysian Bulwark (50 hp+hardness) which are equal to or worse than a fully refreshed Spined Shield (60 hp+hardness+spines) despite being double (or better) its level.
The Exploding Shield is also Bad At Blocking and You Block With It, but its supposed to be destroyed, so...whatever. Its also dirt cheap.
You keep using the one shield that matches your argument really well and keep forgetting that other shields exist.
Like the Forge Warden. Or Arrow Catching.
Both of which are designed to be blocked with yet can't take a hit any better than Spellguard.
Or any of the special material shields. Why is Adamantine so bad at blocking? What benefit does it give?
Amusingly, that's similar to the dent mechanic that shields had in the playtest, but people didn't care for it.
It was less that people didn't care for it and more that the rules didn't make sense. It was one of those "if it takes up to its hardness, then zero dents, if it takes up to double, its one dent, and more than that is two dents" except so poorly worded that we had to ask for clarification multiple times with multiple scenarios ("ok 5 hardness and 10 damage, how many dents? What about 15 damage?") combined with some additional rules from elsewhere and one clarification post from a designer that just muddied the waters.
It could have worked. But it was poorly worded with a bad example that figuring out how the rules ACTUALLY WORKED was frustrating and confusing.
Performance (noun) an act of staging or presenting a play, concert, or other form of entertainment.
I'm in agreement that you can't hum a tune to yourself or whisper to the walls.
The entire point of the feat is to be doing one thing (that everyone knows you are obviously doing and grabbing attention) and at the same time doing something else (casting a spell).
Look up Apollo Robins some time. He's literally taken the coat off people's backs without them noticing. He's done it after he's told them he's going to rob them blind. I saw a video once where he took a guy's eye glasses and the guy didn't notice.
That's what Melodious Spell does.
Does anyone have a working link to the 2nd errata? The link Mark Seifter posted above is dead.
Should be https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq.
Rather than getting a Swipe that shoots off a stored spell twice and a Whirlwind Strike that does it as many times as you have enemies
Whirlwind doesn't actually do that. Whirlwind explicitly states that the spell can only affect a maximum number of targets based on the original spell (which because of the way Striking Spell works, this is always 1). Swipe actually does let the spell hit multiple targets even if it was originally a single target spell because it says so.
The thing that makes both of them Bad is that they take more actions than the Magus is actually likely to have without being Hasted unless he misses his attack and carries the spell over to another round.
But how many enemies are likely to say within reach so the magus can actually use all three actions on Whirlwind without moving?
Simplifying the lists made a huge amount of sense, not even going to try and argue against that one: I'm 100% on board.
It was the spells-per-day thing that changed. Sort of feels like full casters became two-thirds casters and half casters are now either bumped up to being "full" casters (two-thirds) or dropped down to one-quarter casters.
The 4-slot system absolutely does not work for the magus. For the summoner I think it was "fiiiine?" but other issues got in the way of being able to evaluate it (action limits basically leaving little time to even attempt a spell, so the lack of slots was not an issue).
Yeah I feel the same way. Also mind that all casters lost "Stat to Bonus Spells" in the transition and the base number went down by 1.
PF1 wizards had 4 spells of each level, plus 1 for school, plus bonus for high INT.
PF2 wizards get 3 spells of each level, plus 1 for school.
The justification was that a bunch of spells got merged together so you didn't need Invisibility, Invisibility Sphere, and Mass Invisibility any more, but that's a spells known problem (which didn't change) not a spells prepared problem.
Or maybe it was justified because lower level slots have improved DCs, but I'm not convinced due to the updated math on how often enemies succeed and how many enemies you face at one time.
Now I end up here properly. Maybe it was because I managed to get the accurate URL and had to log back in again?
I did notice I can no longer reach this thread from the main forums.
This is one of those things that I go, "Hmm, do I spend 1000 gold on a +1 rune, or do I spend 10 gold* now, 500 again at some point in the future, and then another 500 worth of either gold or time? I.e. 'do I spend 1000 gold, or 1010?'"
*The actual cost of the formula is irrelevant as long as it is non-zero.
And in #32 he says it is probably a plugin. Whether a plugin or a Tampermonkey script is unclear, but the end result is the same. It is not standard Chrome.
In other discussions it seems some browsers do, though.
I've never seen the underline tag work and there is no reason I can see that a different browser would render it "correctly" because those characters are character literals, not html markup tags (which use <> instead).
Now, someone might have a userscript that injects it, but that's not a stock feature. Its a userscript.
Yeah I remember someone once saying that you only really get "ahead" by effectively stealing money from the other PCs (because sticking around in a backwater means they earn less than normal, while you earn normal). Sticking around in a larger town means everyone earns maximum.
Thomas Keller wrote:
Sorry, I don't know how to post it as a link.
Just some BBCode. Specifically you start with a pair of square brackets.  and on the inside you put url= and then the link. You then put whatever text you want the link to look like after the ] and then finish off with a [/url].
Also, there's a handy "How to format your text" button right below the post window. ↓
The main issue with Sustaining Steel's temp HP is that yeah, you save a reaction over shield block, but oof the (effective) DR you get is pretty low.
A common steel shield gives you DR 5 (and 2 AC!) for an action+reaction, whereas a 1st level spell (TWO actions) gives you a whopping 2 Temp HP. The hardness on shields scales more slowly (average +2.6 every +3 levels) but only just. It isn't until level 15 that the spell side of things manages to catch up (and is ahead by 1 point at 15th, 17th, and 18th and otherwise even or behind).
But shields can be used more than once a round. Both do have limits on how many total blocks they can make (shields break, magus runs out of spells) but it comes out about even (even sturdy shields can only take about three hits from a same-level creature, magus only has 4 non-cantrip spells).
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
However, the GM rolled their saves in groups instead of individually to save time (which was fine, this was a lot of enemies to keep track of), and rolled a Natural 20 on one set, and a save on the other set.
Oof yeah, as a GM (or even my GM) would have re-rolled or used smaller groups, leaving the nat-20 on one guy just due to how outcome-affecting that is.
That’s acceptable as well. Could probably even make it 10 minutes if you were really inclined to.
Certainly. It was just an arbitrary time unit to indicate that it wasn't a combat-speed thing. Basically the only difference between "1 minute" and "1 hour" in the grand scheme of things is whether or not you can do it in between fights.
Then do that.
"You are an Expert in crafting, you turn magic items into reagents that can be used for all sorts of things--including being sold for their full value. You spend [an hour] and turn any item into half its listed cost worth of reagents."
Don't make it a check, the intent is to replace "we go to Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" then make it as quick and painless and worth the exact same gold-wise, 100% of the time.
That would be too powerful. There's already a thesis that lets you spend 10 minutes to swap spells.
Spending 10 minutes now to spend an action (up to three times!) at some point in the future is incredibly powerful. It doesn't only obliviate the thesis, but it starts making the wizard look like a sorcerer.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Well, if it exists in body before you manifest it, then you're summoning it - meaning you are calling it to you.
There you go, ladies and gents, teleportation is summoning.
All you've really done there is shown that all of the Conjuration school has something in common. Again, just because Conjuration does not mean Summoning.
All paparazzi are photographers, and all that.
Selling the item takes 0 time and recoups 50% of the cost. No matter what, the feat shouldn’t let you get more than 50% of the item’s cost recouped unless you have to earn income to get more of the item recouped. Taking less time is fine, because it’s being compared to selling which takes 0 time.
Just to clarify, because selling an item takes 0 time and gives 50%, the feat cannot be better than that?
What the growlix did I take the great *for* then?
I think you missed something:
(ignoring those 4 days).
Because one potion costs (say) 3 gold and 4 of them cost 12.
At 5 sp per day crafting speed, that's 3 days for one and 12 days for four.
Unless you're saying that a single check contributes to all four potions at once, meaning you earn money four times faster than if you were making a single item costing 12 gold....
All the math assumes that a PC of level X and a Monster of level X are equal and each had a 50% chance of winning. That's a hard fight that uses a lot of resources.
If you give the PC am extra level or use a creature a level lower, the result is about the same: a hard fight, but one that the PC will most likely win, using some resources.
The +1 difference means a lot more at level 1-4 (about) mostly due to expected damage and hit points: one crit will likely down a PC.
It probably shouldn’t increase the amount you get on a crit, because at that point it is making money. Do like the idea, just shouldn’t have a crit effect, or the crit effect should be like “it takes 1 hour instead of 1 day”.
"It takes an hour" also makes money because you then have a whole day to do anything. Including "making money."
This is the only place in the entire document that "summon" is actually referring to the eidolon.
You've pulled one of the three times "summon" and "eidolon" appear in that ability. Here's the other two:
When you summon creatures or manifest your eidolon
If the eidolon or summoned creature
Your reply is nonsensical. It's a response to something that no one else has raised in this thread.
Dude, seriously. That was actually said. Twice:
would you be healed by the feat twice?
I'm trying confirm if can you double dip the feat's healing in this scenario
Of you actually look at the math, monsters end up hitting PCs on 6s at some levels (regular melee attacks) but saving throws tend pretty stable at needing a 9-11.
The net result is the same, but either:
(a) spell attacks maintain parity with melee monster attacks and saving throws across the board are 2 points easier, resulting in a descrepancy.
Regardless PC spell attacks are missing those 2 points: monsters differ by 8, PCs differ by 10.
Healing from two sources is cumulative. Shocking, I know. Oh, and "any" means "whatever the result was, if that was 0, you get that and this. If it was 5, you get that and this." It doesn't matter what Treat Wounds gave you, you still get your Solar Rejuv.
But I'm still not sure how you got from there to "I can do both and get MORE than both?!"
The feat is 5+5 (10, as explained) but your initial question was asking if it was 15 because one of the 5s counted twice. Which is utter nonsense.
No. Explicitly absolutely not.
All Solar Rejuv is saying is that if you do the thing (rest in the sun for 10 minutes) and are also treated with Treat Wounds, you are not precluded from healing.
Read independently, if you rest for 10 minutes while simultaneously healed by a successful Treat Wounds, would you be healed by the feat twice? Once for resting in appropriate conditions and another for Treat Wounds?
Er, I think you worded that poorly.You get healed by Treat Wounds (because Treat Wounds) AND you get healed by Solar Rejuvenation.
You get each once, but you get both.