Silver Dragon

Draco18s's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 3,129 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 3,129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Every feat and action that requires a free hand lists "free hand" as a requirement.

There's an entire thread on this argument in the rules forum somewhere.

And I'll remind you that the barbarian's Quaking Stomp is [Manipulate] and does not mention needing a free hand either.

Something something Goose something Gander.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Caralene wrote:

I've seen this mindset consistently grow bigger in the community and I find it very concerning.

Having to take risky and meaningful decisions in an RPG is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. I love the high risk high reward feel of deciding its worth risking destroying a shield to block the damage that could otherwise down me.

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?

Oakblade wrote:
Does your GM describe people getting gutted like a fish, convulsing on the floor for minutes?

I've played a system that has last-breath actions as a mechanic. "Oh, you were brought down to zero and are about to die/fall unconscious? Sure, take a dying action."

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
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.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Shields and their ideal users can basically be fitted into 3 categories: Raisers, Droppers, and Blockers.

People seem to resent the existence of the dropper or that you can't have the qualities of all 3. I do get wanting to be able to branch out a bit more with the exoteric shields on a blocker. That said, specific shields are in the same boat as specific magic weapons, largely. They are cute when you get to use their gimmick, but largely your workhorse, bread and butter choice will be the boring old weapon with as many elemental property runes as you can cram onto it because that is the best damage.

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."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
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.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Performance (noun) an act of staging or presenting a play, concert, or other form of entertainment.
Staging (noun) the method of presenting a play or other dramatic performance; the organizing of a public event.

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.

paulstrait wrote:
Does anyone have a working link to the 2nd errata? The link Mark Seifter posted above is dead.

Should be

BastionofthePants wrote:
Strictly speaking, the poison occurs at the initiative count on which it occurred.

[citation needed]

I just read over the rules on core p457 and nothing in there says anything about initiative or rounds. All of the examples are in minutes.

FWIW, some people enjoy playing the bard where the majority if their time is providing bonuses to other people.

I know for me its very implementation-dependent for the support role (for example, I really liked 4E's warlord, but haven't really found something comparable since).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
manbearscientist wrote:
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?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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).

4 people marked this as a favorite.
RPGnoremac wrote:

Even weirder to me now is they are creating two half caster's now. Which I originally thought was against their design philosophy. I guess they wanted the core rulebook to be "simple".

I 100% am not a fan of the new half casters from the playtest that have 4 spell slots all game. Seems like they will be super strong for low adventuring days and feel weak at 4+ encounters, even worse than normal casters. The design seems very "nova/bursty"

I think I would have actually preferred slightly modified dedication progression.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Well, glad I got to enjoy the new format for a couple of posts, at least.

And the "jump to new post" broke for me again. But the "new post count" is accurate again.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure DBI was intended to be used on mutliclass spell slots, but nothing says you can't, not even the updated <Classname> FAQ errata.

Now I end up here properly. Maybe it was because I managed to get the accurate URL and had to log back in again?
But yes, the new-post count is also wrong for me now too.
(Oh and the live type preview is bad and keeps flicker-undoing stuff and ending up with characters I've definitely typed not visible; extremely annoying).

I did notice I can no longer reach this thread from the main forums.
i.e. both of these links take me to the Paizo homepage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or you could spend the 4 days traveling back to town...
Because seriously, if you're in the middle of nowhere crafting for 4+ days...

What is the rest of the party doing?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
The only issue with this argument is that if you don't have access to a particular item, you probably don't have access to its respective formula.
but i think that there are more universal formulas that you can use more than once (stuff like Runes) that you buy once in the settlement and then can craft anywhere you are.

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.

Nefreet wrote:

The Fox actually sees [U] and [color] in the "How to format your text" spoiler.

Read from HERE down to comment #32, focusing on the spoilers.

It was also mentioned in a Blog sometime before that, when color was introduced.

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.

Nefreet wrote:
In other discussions it seems some browsers do, though.

[citation needed]

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

All it does is incentivize one party member to stick around in a backwater town. This is decidely unfun for the remaining party members, rather than actually fun for the crafter.

Traveling to a bigger city is a vastly better option.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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. ↓

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Unicore wrote:
With the Errata to Polar Ray, to double on a crit

That also tells me that the damage on Hydraulic Push should probably be looked at. Crit for +3d6 is now triple weird. The only other spell that even looks similar now is the paladin's Litany Against Wrath.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
I was surprised that Shooting Star Synthesis was apparently as popular as it was. It didn't stand out to me as particularly exciting.

I like it as a concept.

I just think it is very bad at doing that concept.

Exocist wrote:
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.

Yeah, fort is one of the worst saves in general. More things have better reflex (and that's still second fiddle to high AC).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

KrispyXIV wrote:
Salamileg wrote:
Or really any feats at all that interact with your thesis.
I'd like a Focus spell that lets you substitute a spell on the fly for Spell Substitution.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:

How relevant this is, IDK, but Paizo has been stressing that the BB does not have any rules that are different from the CRB.

Beginner Box Hero's Handbook, pg 24 wrote:

Battle Medicine [reaction]

I am amused, however, that Battle Medicine in the BB is a reaction though. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Exocist wrote:
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?

Loreguard wrote:

you spend 4 days, and spend 15sp in materials and are half done. Spend any combination of 15sp in extra materials or cost reduction time to complete the remaing 15sp. If as you suggest the player can make 5sp/day progress, that means to complete 1 takes 4days, +3 days for the remaining 15sp. So 7 days for 1 potion.

If you make a batch of 4, you take 4 days, and spend 15x4 or 60sp in materials. That leaves you with 60sp of progress to complete it. Then at 5sp/day you can complete them by spending the rest in materials, or spending up to 12 days finishing them.

I think you missed something:

Draco18s wrote:
(ignoring those 4 days).

Themetricsystem wrote:
Draco18s wrote:

And yet crafting four potions at the same time takes 4 times as long as creating a single potion, (ignoring those 4 days).

The mind boggles.

What are you talking about? Potions are consumables and can be made in batches done all at the same time using the same check... please explain what you're talking about because I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say.

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....

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And yet crafting four potions at the same time takes 4 times as long as creating a single potion, (ignoring those 4 days).

The mind boggles.

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.

Exocist wrote:
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."

The rules also explicitly state that an eidolon is "not a minion" (which is relevant because Summoned creatures have the Minion trait).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FowlJ wrote:

It may interest y'all to, you know, actually read the playtest document at some point, considering the literal first sentence of the summoner section is:

You’re the mortal conduit for a powerful being called an eidolon, which you can summon into your world.

This is the only place in the entire document that "summon" is actually referring to the eidolon.


They also explicitly equate manifesting the eidolon with summoning it:

Ostentatious Arrival wrote:
If the next action you take is to Manifest your Eidolon or to Cast a Spell to cast a 3-action summoning spell, the summoned eidolon or creature appears in an explosion of energy or other visually impressive display.

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

7 people marked this as a favorite.

"The bed I sleep in is basically like everyone else's, except that I don't use a pillow. Or blankets. Or a mattress."

"So pretty much not a bed, then."

CrystalSeas wrote:
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:

PlantThings wrote:
would you be healed by the feat twice?
PlantThings wrote:
I'm trying confirm if can you double dip the feat's healing in this scenario

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
[SNIP](e.g. "Why aren't there any items that improve spell attack rolls, particularly considering that monsters generally have spell attack bonuses that are 2 points better than their save DC implies?"). Something like that would be a great addition to the errata.
IMHO, I see it more as their DCs are two lower, to count for the fact it's harder for players to boost their saves, and almost no character can boost their 3 saves equally. So the DCs are lower. But that's just my speculations based on the general discussions and design philosophies the designers talked about these last few years, and the monster creation rules.

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.
(b) saving throws across the board are exactly where they're supposed to be at needing a 9-11 to succeed and spell attacks are boosted by 2 points in comparison.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because it is making sure the player knows that being treated with Treat Wounds still counts as "resting"

PlantThings wrote:

Poorly worded, yes. Not sure if this is any better: Would you be healed by Solar Rejuvenation from resting (con x half level) and also healed by Treat Wounds with the Solar Rejuvenation bonus (Treat Wounds heal + con x half level) if both simultaneously happen in the same 10 minutes?

double dip

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PlantThings wrote:
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.

1 to 50 of 3,129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>