Danse Macabre

Dreamer3333's page

47 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Some things are more effective at higher levels of Proficiency, but that doesn't make you unable to do them at Trained.

Cool, can you give an example of a skill that does this so I can see how it works? Must still have to "know" that the level of success you're looking for isn't possible without [X] level of training

I've looked around, but there's a lot of unrelated discussion about skills that doesn't answer my question.

It is my understanding that all uses of a skill must be as a "named use" (Recall Knowledge, Sense Direction, etc)...but I'm a bit confused by how this plays in a real game.

It sounds like the DM has to be fully aware of all of the "uses" for each level of training?
When a player just says "I'd like to try to do [this] with [skillA]", it doesn't seem easy to know if that particular activity is something that requires Untrained/Trained/Master level (or whatever).

And what happens if something that isn't (yet?) covered in the ruleset arrives as a "new Master usage" of [skillA] - does it just mean what you've been doing all along you just can't do anymore?

It gets even worse if new "uses" are unlocked through skill feats. Then you have to know "oh you can't do that with that skill because only people with that skill feat can do that".

Is the idea you literally just have to look at the skill "uses" available to you from your training and choose one? That works until you want to think outside the box a bit (which all good rp games should allow, right?). It makes sense from the "need to know the different success-type results" but does seem limiting if so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So why not just tie Focus (or whatever you want to call it) to your classes' main stat (set at character creation for str/dex classes?)?
Something about your personal "core".
Everyone's going to have a "best stat", why not use that to drive class abilities (spell points) and whatever you want "focus" to do with respect to magic items.
Yes, it might mean you need something else for Charisma to do for non-charisma classes so it's not so obviously a dump stat...

That being said, I'm still not sure why/how thinking/wishing/focusing/praying really hard should make magic items act better.

And I also think the whole "invisibility potion is more powerful with focus than a 20th level Wizard's casting of it" is really weird/broken (spell only ever lasts a minute, but focus makes potion last 10)??

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanmei wrote:
Data Lore wrote:


I disagree. Your deity's divine grace was channeled into the magical elixer you used your Focus on. As you imbibed it, you were charged with her divine sense of strength and purpose.

It works just fine. Focus means different things thematically for different classes but has similar mechanical functions with regards to items. That's OK.

I'm still seeing classes having to choose between something everybody does and things which make them recognizably what they are, and I dislike that mightily. A monk never had to choose between healing potions and a Ki Pool before; now they do. A cleric wasn't choosing between their domain powers or elixirs before; now they do.

Ya, it does seem very odd that some class-specific abilities are drawn from the same resource pool that all characters have, that are required for other, non-character things.

So some class abilities come at a "cost" that other classes' abilities may not.
(non-scientific example):
Class #1 has these unique things they can do : A, B, C
Class #2 has these unique things they can do : D, E, F (but E & F each cost focus).

And if the solution is "Class #2 will get a small boost in focus to allow for their focus-based abilities" shouldn't we ask whether spell points + focus points (or some version of 2-resource-pools) makes more sense (as much as they're trying to avoid keeping track of these things).
Because adding to focus pool then allows them to (for some reason??) be able to do more "non-class-based" focus spending.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
It seems like potions in general are not supposed to be spells-in-a-can anymore, and overall I like that.
I like that too, and for magic items to be less formulaic.

But it does mean every spell in the game, if it's allowed as a potion, needs a new entry saying what it does as a regular (and Focused) use potion.

Also doesn't explain why a focused invisibility potion works better (longer) than any level caster casting the spell itself (as far as I can tell).

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like where this is headed, but have a couple questions/issues concerning potions:

1) I don't like how focus + potion = more powerful effect than casting the spell can do.
Example given is invisibility potion. Seems like even raised to 4th it's still only 1 minute duration (just doesn't end when you attack). Is there no way to get the 10 minute scout effect of a focused-potion.

2) isn't it dangerous/terrible to have potion effects different (in general) than their spell's regular effect? Probably don't want to have to have a magic item entry for every single spell that can be put into a potion, to describe how it's different than the spell, and how the focused version is again different. Wouldn't it be better to have a more general rule of "potion does base of spell, focus elevates it to higher level effect of spell"? Or something like this?

Unless I'm missing something, the revised Death rules still mention "slowed" under the 'Unconscious' heading:

"If you were dying when you regain conscious, you’re slowed for 1 round, with a slowed value equal to the dying value you had just before you returned to 1 HP"

No, I get that - I just mean if "balance" was really the reasoning for that, meaning they don't want you multiclassing until you are higher level - there are better ways than stat pre-reqs.
And could still gate the other feats (and technically the 1st feat too) by what your Int is (still need certain amount to cast certain spells, etc)

I still think the "but I want to be just a little bit good" at this other class is a valid character concept. Rather than being "just slightly less than the best".

I'm not sure I see how making a high stat requirement limit you from taking dedication feats at 2nd level.
You could have a 16 Int at 2nd level as whatever class you want be primarily be.
If balance was the issue, they'd make level pre-reqs for dedication feats, not stat one, since you can get them whenever.

I'm sorry if my search-fu was weak and I missed this elsewhere.

Has there been any discussion about loosening the restrictions to multiclassing?
I love the way it's been designed, to add flavour of another class to your base class, without losing out on the "core values" of your class (for balance, etc), at the cost of optional choices in your class.
SO many character options open up.
Even things like "Am I a Cleric with Rogue or a Rogue with Cleric?" - makes a difference and makes for different characters.
Why do I have to be (for example) an excellent partial wizard?
What if I just want to be a crappy partial wizard? Why Int 16??

Seems like the Class Feats (is that the right term?) inside the archetype could have varying degrees of [main stat] requirements if you really want to do that -- but what if I just want 1 or 2 things?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm fine with the order:
Critical Success
Critical Failure

I think the devs said before it has to do more with what's more common, not "best-to-worst". Could be just we need to get used to it.
Critical Success
Critical Failure

makes some sense using that understanding.

I personally don't like the short-forming that I've seen in a lot of stat block examples above, where you're just using S, CS, F, CF

These short forms are a bit too short maybe.
Also you have to remember that a lot of spells have full sentences to describe the different effects. It's not just "half damage", "no damage" etc.
I think for the "non standard" saves, 1 per line will look better.

Look at Dominate for example, these save outcomes would look terrible without newlines, using just S/CS/F/CF

36 people marked this as a favorite.

I like it.
Maybe consider putting it somewhere other than in the actual description though.
So when we know what the spell does and are just looking for how exactly the saves work, could still look at the bottom somehow, where the saves would be listed if NOT Basic (please capitalize)?
(Keep this information in the same place, regardless of Basic or not)

Maybe the term "Standard" instead of Basic?

And while I have YOUR attention (and we're talking about spell blocks).
It seems (unless I'm missing something) that there's no way to tell while looking through a spell description (or a page full of spells) what spell list(s) they are on. It's a real pain to have to have to reference back to the spell list charts every time you're looking for a spell.
1) find it alphabetically
2) see what spell level it is
3) check all the spell lists independently at that level to see who gets it

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Qazyr wrote:
16 means you need some exceptional stats (how many characters do you have with two or more 16+ attributes?)
In the playtest, there is only 1 possible character build that doesn't have at least 2 16+ stats by level 5 (starting with 18 12 12 12 12 12, literally trying to avoid having a 16 in a second stat as much as possible). Even then and if you keep trying to avoid more 16s as much as possible, you still have 20 16 14 14 14 14 at level 10).

Firstly, love the idea - can't wait to see how it works out.

It does feel a little bit more (too much?) like 2e D&D though... Where your stats precluded you from taking certain classes.
Why can't you be a somewhat lesser part-wizard? Why are you enforcing that you have to be a "talented" wizard?
Is there a balance issue I'm missing? So much of 2e has been "play the character you want to play" - this seems to be a bit of a change in that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DFAnton wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Almarane wrote:

I feel like many people against this blog think they lose a feat by doing a Half Heritage feat. I don't see it this way for two reasons :

- First, you get some things that you wouldn't be able to get or that would require other feats to get (for exemple for the elf : increased move speed is only for elf characters or Trained in Diplomacy would require a Skill Feat).
- Second, the Half Heritage opens two whole new feat trees. Even if the Half isn't that fleshed out (which would be weird, and would still be fixable, and can't be worse than PF1 options for Half-breeds), you would at least get 1.5 new feat trees. You could take the best of three worlds. (maybe humans, with their adaptability, could get a feat that would allow them to increase their spell slots, while elves, masters of magic, would get a feat that increase their spell damages)

You don't take Half Heritage feats just to say "I'm a half-orc/elf" like many seem to imply. To me, those feats look more like Combat Expertise from PF1, which gives you a benefit and a tone of new options.

Hmm, weird. I always took Half Orc/Elf because I thought it suited the character. Why do I have to suddenly weigh the options of picking it now?

You've turned a fully fleshed out race into a math problem.

Agreed. I don't know where the notion of "you don't take half heritage feats just to say 'I'm a ...'" would even come from. Munchkins who treat every character decision as a means to power are actually rarer than people think, in my experience.

I pick half-races (they're actually my favorite) because I feel they make for interesting backgrounds and RP opportunities.

I totally agree. Have to be careful comparing 1e to 2e, and rather compare 2e to 2e.

Yes, you can't be a Half-elf from start (where you'd be able to, theoretically choose from human OR elven ancestry feats right away).
But the games are different. There are WAAY more "racial feats" than before, with much wider benefit (ancestry feats). Which is why they explained (as I understand it) that standalone split races are too powerful.
Have to think about it terms of "I am a Human, I can take a human feat at 1st to give me (x,y,or z) OR become a half-elf and get (2 of 4 new racial abilities) and open up the ability to take from 2 sets of feats".

Which does kind of open up a bigger question of playtest feedback. I wonder what happens when a majority of people "complain" about something because they liked it the way it was before (even if the developers have the math/reasons to prove it's too powerful or breaks stuff).
I assume the devs will not capitulate in these cases (good) but will still cause some backlash (they didn't listen to us).
Giving a voice is super-cool and a really good idea, but of course some people are going to think they should have more "ownership" on the finished product than they do.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not bad, I have really like every class preview so far - this one falls a bit flatter imo though.
Love the spell list idea, and the bloodlines are cool - but I'm yet unconvinced that losing the "spells per day" advantage over wizards is overly balanced out by anything else, when you consider the spells known requirement - what makes them "that" different?

1) I'm a bit confused I think.
I thought there was only 1 "heal" spell - that just is better depending on at what level you cast it -- so you don't have to learn/know a different healing spell at every spell level.
The description of heightening helping out not needing to learn new "heal" spells confuses me, or at least makes me think my understanding was wrong from previous spell blog.

Also, if the spells per day are the same as the wizard, and the argument is "they should be better at magic items because they should have more resonance"...that logic seems a bit flimsy, unless the sorcerer specifically gets to somehow be better based on a class ability. Since anyone can have a highish CHA - just because it's a side effect of having it be their primary stat is a bit off.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Ryan 783 wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
So throwing uses Strength on attack rolls?
I don't think it really goes off of anything. I think it's just what the designer wants it to be. The ogre has +5 mod on str. +10 to hit with his ogre hook, +8 with his javelin and does 7 static damage with each. No current understanding of the math makes all that add up.

That's a good question -- does the math still "add up"?

I like the idea of not having to be X HD to get skills (etc) as high as you'd like (which meant automatically Y hit points and Z BAB -- even if you didn't want them that high).
But how do you keep it flexible and still follow some ruleset to estimate challenge, etc?
Maybe some type of point buy for things per monster "level"? More of something means less of everything else?

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Looks good, thanks!

Seems odd to list the 10 ft reach in the weapon specifically, if it's because of the creature's size.
Makes it harder to figure out if/when they pick up other weapons during a fight -- is the reach because of size or the weapon itself? What if the weapon itself provides (extra) reach? etc...

It seems to me like the system (as much as we know about it) may have a type of "armor as DR" baked in.

In 1E, you can assume crit rate of a monster (5% if needs a 20) but 2E's crits are just if you beat a PC's AC by 10.
This means that a PC's AC is more important than it was before in figuring out how much damage a monster is going to do, on average.
Rather than having random damage spikes, I wonder if the idea will be more "balance for the crit" (assume crits) -- this would mean that a side effect of having a "tank-level" AC is actually taking less damage when you are hit, since you will be crit much less often than your more-squishy party members.
Also means a lot more balancing to get the numbers right.
Similar to the "4-stages-of-success" discussion...
A lower AC will be much-more-likely to be a crit (so is even worse to get hit) - so those characters who are less likely to survive a hit will be also taking more damage from said hit.

I do love the idea of the 4 stages of success/failure. We have a tough time in our group with all-or-nothing approach to so many spells. I assume this is partially the reason why monster saves are so high.
Wondering about how we can expect the range of saves, to-hits, and ACs to be different than they are now?
We have a hard enough time getting a monster to fail a save as it is, so critically failing one seems right out (with current numbers obv).
Similarly, monster to-hits are so high they hit everyone (even the tank) often on a 2 or 3.
Critical hits are kept at a known chance rate when they need a 20 (or 19-20) to crit. Seems like they’ll be more prevalent against the characters least likely to be able to survive them.
But perhaps that’s the point? Balance by expecting them to crit the average ACs so against the tanks they do less damage, making them more effective tanks?
Same goes for PC saving throws. For a current character’s “low save” they are going to almost always critical fail for the save to be at all challenging to the good-savers.
I assume all this has been taken into account; very interested to see how the changes to AC, hit, saves reflect this.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Your interpretation seems legit.

That's not even the most devastating thing I would do with a Grapple.

Grappling is devastating in the right situations. Grappling is completely ineffective against a Wizard who considers the possibility of getting Grappled and casts Freedom of Movement on himself. Or who casts Contingency on himself for just such an occasion. Or who invests in a Ring of Freedom of Movement.

Something else to bear in mind. When you take it upon yourself to Grapple somebody, you have their undivided attention. When you have 2 Grappled, you have both their attentions, and you can be expected to be treated to their Full Attacks. If your GM created a balance campaign such that you actually need your fellow party members, then there is a good chance you will be seriously hurt by a creature's Full Attack directed soley at you. And in the initial round, you usually can't make more than 1 Grapple Check even if you do have Greater Grapple: you probably used your Move Action to close with the opponent, your Standard Action to Initiate the Grapple with 1 opponent, and then you're done. When you get Rapid Grappler, your opponents get more formidable as you level up.

If you want to really focus on Grappling, it takes 9 levels of Tetori before you can shut down Freedom of Movement. If you dip into other classes in order to get totally-worth-it benefits, that puts off Inescapable Grasp for even longer.

If I were trying to maximize the brokeness of my character, I wouldn't fully invest in Grappling. But I sure would invest some.

Well, that assumes anything that can cast would certainly have Freedom of Movement on at the time - that's still one spell effect being the only thing that stops a caster from being totally screwed.

And I'd assume that a "fighter-type" who's specc'd for grappling could probably take a round of full attacks (also considering they can't use 2-handed weapons will be less damage) - and they still have to hit (etc).

There's still a question of whether the grapple feat tree allows more than other similar feat trees.
The double-damage (mythic vital strike) to 2 enemies concurrently. The ability to shut down 2 enemies such that all they can do is attempt to break a pin if they don't kill the grappler in the 1st round they are grappled.
And just the sheer number of standard actions that can become move/swift/etc.
Saw the same brawler, when one of his 2 grappled enemies rolled a 20 to escape and ran off:
- move action to drag grappled enemy over to fleeing fella
- swift action to pin/damage the guy he dragged
- standard action to grab the fleeing guy again

I've seen much discussion about Greater and Rapid Grapple and what you can do with it.
When you add Grabbing Style, Grabbing Master and Pinning knockout into the mix...it seems pretty ridiculous...

So in total we have:
9th level Brawler:
[among other feats]: Improved Grapple, Greater Grapple, Grabbing Style, Grabbing Drag, Grabbing Master
Martial Flex turns on:
Rapid Grappler
Pinning knockout
So it seems like they can, with 2 people grappled:
move action - pin guy 1
move action - pin guy 2
swift action - damage both guys (non-lethally) for double damage

Considering breaking out of even a basic grapple from a "grappler" is damn near impossible (and basically instant death for casters), at least they had the "either being pinned OR getting killed". Such that they could still fight back with 1-handed weapons while grappled (but not pinned).
Also the fact that the double damage is already basically duplicating Mythic Vital Strike (yet can be on 2 people)...

Seems very suspicious...

RE: Soltengrebbe -- you wrote:

Lochar wrote:
HP reset to 2/3rds max

I'm just learning the Mythic Ruleset - is this something you added or something I missed? Cuz you mentioned not having enough points to do this trick again...


Just started looking at Sword of Valor, reading up on mass combat rules in UC. Going through the armies, there are some I can't figure out how/why they seem different than the build rules would indicate. Any insight?
ACR 2 Tiefling Army:
DV 12, OM +4 as written.
My calc:
DV: 10 + 2ACR + 1spellcasting = 13
OM: 2ACR + 1spellcasting = +3
They do list sneak attack but that should be a +1OM modifier for ambush only.
ACR 2 Dretch Army:
HP 9, DV 14, OM +5 as written
My calc:
Hp: ACR2 x 5.5(dretch is d10 hd) = 11HP
DV: 10 + 2ACR + 1spellcasting = 13
OM: 2ACR + 1spellcasting = +3
ACR 3 Ghoul Army:
DV 13 as written
My calc: 10 + 3ACR + 2(undead) = 15

Bard-Sader wrote:

I'll put it to you this way, in Wrath, mythic itself is 100x more unbalancing than any archetype published by Paizo.

Don't sweat the small stuff. Houserule mythic so it doesn't ruin the campaign. Thousands of damage per round are par for the course for mythic characters.

LOL, ya we're doing non-mythic, with a few character perks. Which is why I don't care really that much about this. Just don't want it unfair to other players, if the demonslayer doesn't have to "pay" as expensive a cost for for archetype upgrades as other characters, which seems to be the case -- for what they get and give up

Bard-Sader wrote:
This archetype is great for a Wrath of the Righteous. Other APs? Not so hot.

Yes, that is the AP -- still, other than having to boost EO, everything else is just gravy though, additions

Kaelan Ashenveil wrote:

Archetypes definitely make you more powerful than the base class- in different circumstances. The ranger is forgoing his FE against non-evil outsiders, which is pretty significant. Meaning, he was be a Betrayer level BA against the Burning Legion demons themselves, he's less than every other martial against their cultists, summoners, thralls, etc.

I honestly don't think it'll be as bad as you're making it out to be.

Not truly forgoing FE in other things, still gets 4 other critter-types at +2 (which I admit isn't much). Not really sure what kind of split Rangers usually do for different FEs (how many they update, how many stay +2 etc).

Ya, I see what you guys are saying about for balance sake. I actually have no real issue with anything in the archetype for power level (except maybe the skills, and that's only because as FE they already get bonus to these skills). It's really that I feel like it should cost more in trade. So many other archetypes give up more than just 1 thing to get these types of additions, and Endurance is really much.

I understand that the advantages are only against Evil Outsiders (not just demons) but I was thinking more about the concept of a balanced archetype. An archetype shouldn't make you more powerful than the base class, ideally - there should be tradeoffs.
The only think it gives up is Endurance (and that you have to continue to boost Evil Outsider, but that's just a design decision any ranger could choose anyway).
In return for losing Endurance, they get a big save boost (yes, only to Evil outsiders), extra spells, and skill boosts to skills that are already boosted.

Dreamer3333 wrote:

Running, non-mythic with some boosted stats.

I'm a bit worried about Irabeth's sword, I think the Ranger will likely end up with it and I'm wondering if people thing they will be OP with all their maximized favored enemy (etc) and bane weapon.
I could obviously not have Irabeth bequeath it, but it is a cool weapon for a demon-hunter ranger. Just worried about OP.

As a followup, I now see the Planar magic weapon ability. I wonder whether this is more reasonable. I can't tell if it's less or more powerful than bane. I'm feeling like it's less but still neat. <?>

Running, non-mythic with some boosted stats.
I'm a bit worried about Irabeth's sword, I think the Ranger will likely end up with it and I'm wondering if people thing they will be OP with all their maximized favored enemy (etc) and bane weapon.
I could obviously not have Irabeth bequeath it, but it is a cool weapon for a demon-hunter ranger. Just worried about OP.


Hey, I was thinking about renaming the Sword of Valor to something else, as it's clearly not a sword.
Perhaps even "Shield of Valor" since it's more protective than anything.
Would like something a little more poetic though...Flight of Valor? Light of Valor? Heart of Valor?
Either way, is there any story-reason I haven't come to yet that would cause troubles if it wasn't called Sword?


Johnnycat93 wrote:

Yeah, but 4 30's and a couple 16's? Unless they don't all start at 10.

You should look up Automatic Bonus Progression if you want an easy way to get rid of stat boosting items. It's not great, but it works.

No, No, No, like an 18 costs 18/82.. full points

Johnnycat93 wrote:

Give them a few Gestalt levels.

Or not - that pt buy is insane.

Yes, it's really powerful at early levels, but we also don't use STAT boost items (generally) so higher levels it seems to balance out.

It also helps that we have a very mature group of players who don't tend to power-game. Points are spread out so no one (generally) has a negative dump stat, and everyone has at least SOME int/cha (etc)

Hey guys,
I've DM'd before, but it's been awhile. Looking for some input from people who have run all (or most) of WotW for the power level to give my characters.
I don't want to run them as Mythic, as the consensus seems to be that the PCs become way too powerful for the AP.
I do recognize they will need some boosts, and am looking to follow some of what JJ recommends in the books.
Have also heard that some non-Mythic groups still stomp through it, so worried about OPing them too much.
My ideas:


- We use very high stats (mostly so pcs don't dump CHA). Not point buy, but 82 stat points to buy, straight-up, 1-for-1.
- Still using the campaign traits, just the upgrade will be basically the 1st half (a feat-level increase) without the Mythic point addon.
-- also, reducing the +4 CL vs SR to +2 (seemed OP)
- Instead of "Mythic":

  • +2 any stat (with another +2 later)
  • +2 CON
  • Endurance + DieHard
  • 1st hit-die after wardstone break being full
  • some form of Hero point (possibly 1/session) to allow reroll (likely with +4 bonus) to any d20 roll
  • will have to deal somehow with Mythic DR and resisting Mythic spells at some point (thoughts? thinking maybe the wardstone shard buff?)
  • Also will likely run with Fast XP track

Thoughts/tweaks on this or anything else I should maybe do, based on better knowledge of what I'll be up against would be great.
- Dreamer

Am about to start a campaign where there will ne a lot of demons.
One of my PCs wants to take the demonslayer ranger archetype, and I'm thinking it's a bit op.
As written you only give up Endurance, and you get
1) 1/2 fav bonus to saves vs demons
2) new spells on hour list
3) an option to do something different (better?) with your quarry bonuses
4) 1/2 class level on knowledge/percep/tracking for demons

Was thinking of not giving them other favored enemy types (to balance the crazy save bonus) and possibly remove the extra spells too(?)
Don't wanna nerf too much though, but archetypes outside of the Inner Sea books seem more tradeout/balanced.

I had a similar question.
I'm going to run WotR non-mythic with some slight powerups at the end of book 1 (and maybe again later depending on how things go).
I was thinking of using the Campaign traits, if just for a bit of extra story. My question is, without the quests completing a Mythic Trial, are the traits and their associated quests worth it/cool?
I was planning to give the non-mythic-point increase at the end of the 1st book also (except maybe the +4 vs SR might get reduced to +2, and the +3hp/lvl might get reduced to toughness -- most of the others are just feat-power-level)

I just ran into this question last night.
AoMF is unique in that it doesn't require any enhancement bonus before adding weapon special abilities...
So the question arose, if I were to only have something that doesn't add damage, but is still a +1 magical weapon ability (no +1 hit and dmg though), would this still allow a character to hurt incorporeal creatures?
It's still making them a "magic weapon" but one without an enhancement bonus <?> -- I've seen nothing that says that a weapon must have a +X enhancement bonus to be considered magic for DR/incorporeal, but it almost seems implied...

Thoughts? Any official word anyone's heard?

Yes, all that I know as RAW (hence why I'm asking for a discussion)...
What I'm asking about is since the original Monk says it's considered magic "for the purposes of bypassing DR" -- this would mean that an original monk can't use Ki String(magic) to hurt incorporeal undead either. But it was errata'd because they wanted them to be able to.
All of the Ki Strike (type) as they go up all use the same wording about "for the purposes of bypassing DR".

The MA has the ability to bypass all DR, but it seems missing the one ability that the original monk was also missing (and was errata'd) - to affect incorporeal.
Doesn't seem that far of a stretch to assume the errata might possibly imply exploit weakness can affect incorporeal as well.

And I'm never a big fan of the "well, just get X magic item" - that's not always a possibility depending on the campaign/dm, and doesn't have any bearing on the rules or RAI.

So the FAQ was updated with a response about what the intent is for a monk's Ki Strike (magic) with respect to incorporeal:


Incorporeal Creatures and "Counts as Magic": Say I have an attack that counts as magical for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction, such as from the monk's ki pool (magic). Does that mean I can't harm an incorporeal creature at all, since the attack doesn't count as magical for that purpose?

Such attacks should also be able to harm incorporeal creatures as if the attack was magic. This will be reflected in future errata.

My question now is about the Martial Artist's Exploit Weakness ability. It is (Ex) not (Su) and refers to only bypassing (all) DR (or hardness) nothing specific to magic attacks.

It seems like RAI would imply that the Martial Artist is being provided the benefit of all the DR-bypassing abilities as the Ki-using monk, but at the costs of
1) spending their swift action each round
2) having to succeed in the exploit check
3) only on 1 enemy at a time

Incorporeal is really the only rule that specifies a need for magic that's not phrased as DR X/magic. Has anyone heard anything official about this?
Almost like incorporeal should be updated to worded to use some type of "DR" wording.


LazarX wrote:
knightstar4 wrote:

When a Martial artist gains immunity to fatigue, that brings up some interesting possibilities.

If you stayed up for several days, since you never get fatigued from it, do you ever progress to exhausted?

If you are force marching or running continually, do you ever become exhausted? While I realize with this you're still probably taking that temporary damage and need to rest/heal it somehow later.

You get exhausted as normal. fatigue is applied as normal, the effects are not It's like the Black Blade's immunity to the broken condition. The condition is applied and can lead to the destroyed condition but the effects are not. But once broken or exhausted come into play, the effects are applied full force.

I disagree with this. Immunity doesn't mean still affected but don't suffer effects. For example, if there was something that said "max sneak attack damage to poisoned creatures" then you attack something immune to poison with poison -- you wouldn't suffer the full sneak attack damage. They're not affected by the poison because immune.

Same as the many things that are "only works if creature is shaken" (etc) -- creatures who are immune to shaken condition don't still have the shaken condition for purposes of being susceptible to other effects

I think you'd still take the 1d6 non-lethal damage for every failed con-check after 8 hours of walking/adventuring, but you'd never become fatigued or exhausted.
Means you'd literally shop-till-you-drop : you'd be fully active until your non-lethal overcomes you and you just pass out.
Nothing in there says or implies you wouldn't take the damage - forced march says you take 1d6 non-lethal on a failed check, and you become fatigued if you take any non-lethal.
MA is just immune to the fatigue effect.

Ya, that makes sense. So that part doesn't apply to a 10ft hall (you can stop there even w/o the feat) because even squeezing means you take up the 5x10 beside the friendly creature.

That's why even without the feat, being adjacent in a 10ft hallway wouldn't affect me because he's the one squeezing (as long as it's 10 ft wide) - he takes the -4s not me.

- Dreamer

Sweet, that IS what I'm looking for.
Except this part is odd:
"A creature can squeeze past a creature while moving but it can't end its movement in an occupied square."

Does this mean you can't fight side-by-side? Or because of the feat they're not considered squeezing so it's ok?

- Dreamer

I have a question about Narrow Frame, for my large-sized animal companion.
Does this allow him to stand beside me in a 10 foot hallway?
I assume it DOES, but the question is more about how it affects me.
It specifies that HE won't get the -4s if squeezing into a 5ft area, but would I?

If the hallway was 5ft wide, he could fit into it without squeezing.
If I'm standing in a 10ft hallway, the AVAILABLE space for him to go is only 5ft. Does he fit into this 5ft area (and so doesn't affect me)?

- Dreamer

Awesome, thanks! Didn't read the opening blurb well enough

I looked around the forums but couldn't find a citation to an interpretation of a rule.

Most round-by-round official poison examples are for cure = 1 save.
My question is for cure = 2 save poisons.

It seems reasonable to me that, while attempting saves during the duration (not the initial got-hit save), if you fail you take the stat damage, but if you pass you take no damage that round and you have ONE save banked (ie: you have passed your save and are safe for this round).

This is how I believe it works (and have seen several people explain it this way) but can't find any actual Paizo documentation (forum or book) that shows this.

Another interpretation could be "you take damage until it's cured" and it's not cured until 2 consecutive saves or its duration runs out. The official 1-save-cure examples don't fully explain this part because after their 1 save they *are* cured.

Example A (2-save cure):
- get hit, fail save, take stat damage
- on your turn, pass save, no stat damage, 1 save banked
- on your turn, fail save, take stat damage, 0 saves banked
- on your turn, pass save, no stat damage, 1 save banked
- on your turn, pass save, no stat damage, 2 saves -- cured

Example B (2-save cure):
- get hit, fail save, take stat damage
- on your turn, pass save, take stat damage (not cured), 1 save banked
- on your turn, fail save, take stat damage, 0 saves banked
- on your turn, pass save, take stat damage (not cured), 1 save banked
- on your turn, pass save, no stat damage (cured now), 2 saves -- cured

I strongly believe Example A is the way it works, but am looking for official wording/ruling.


cooperton wrote:
Technically the second use of exploit weakness doesn't ask for a check. So you can have the dodge bonus on tough fights with no check.

Have you seen any official ruling on this? I agree that this is how it's read RAW, but it could also be interpreted that the same lvl+wis as above, if it succeeds, could be used for the defensive stuff instead of the offensive??