Dreamer3333's page

I was looking into greater staff of healing for my Cleric, but looking into it, it seems kinda awful.
The concept of not having to prepare things like Restoration or Remove Disease, but since they’re in the staff as 2nd and 3rd level spells means doesn’t seem likely would be able to counteract very much at 8th or 9th level.
I suppose the 3rd, but almost certainly not the 2nds…

There are a lot of posts and videos about P2e crafting I’ve seen. The common theme is crafting is especially useful (or useful at all) to make things you can’t otherwise buy. So many examples citing that at a certain level, you won’t be able to easily find a city of high enough level to buy something of your level.
But my question is, isn’t the level and rarity of an item likely the same for a formula of this item?
If I want a 13th level item (even common, but uncommon and rare are similar but different conversations), how am I supposed to find a formula for this item, if it’s (likely) 13th also???
No one seems to talk about this. If I need a 13th level city to buy a common 13th level formula, why wouldn’t I just buy the item?

Am I missing something? Couldn’t find anything that would suggest their formulas are any lower level.
Same issue with uncommon/rare - why not search out the item rather than its formula.

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.

Thoughts?

Hi,
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.
Great!
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.
BUT
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?

Thanks,

Hey,
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...
Thoughts?

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?
Ex:
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

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.
Thoughts?

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?

Thanks

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:

Hi,
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.
Thanks

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.

Thanks

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)?

Thanks,
- Dreamer

Hi,
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.

Thanks!