Errenor's page

Organized Play Member. 279 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Karmagator wrote:


I think it is a lot more complicated than that. It depends on a number of factors, such as what playstyle you are going for, what subclass/feats you have, what slots you have left for the current situation, how long you expect the fight to take and what non-spell alternatives you have.

And do the enemies have nasty Will save abilities. It's important to remember that Stupefied reduces Will saves.

For your use too, as this debuff is useful not only against casters.


Probably they should have designed some more half-undead ancestries for PCs and not have touched traditional undead like skeletons. And left full-undead play to GMs completely. Because the result now is confusing and not fun to many, I think.
Besides, traditional undead are rather boring for PCs.


Castilliano wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
If you search this Forum you'll find plenty of discussions on the topic. It's fine to pick a side, so long as you understand what the other side is.
And I'll add it's important to consider Mobile Shot Stance re: Reactions, which IMO decides the core question.

Or not. If you decide that the stance is badly designed and should have included removing reactions to reloading reload 0 weapons too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

Anything.

Seriously, those of you with multiple Bestiaries, open a random one to a random page.

Humans can't even get along well with themselves, I don't see how they would be able to share the planet with anything listed here.

Yeah. The writers have really good imagination to invent various horrors. If you turn on your own imagination, see things in there as something possibly real, most of them would become quite scary.


AlastarOG wrote:
Errenor wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:
Aoe's already have the advantage of hitting more than 1 target vs single target effects, therefore it would not be balanced to make them on par with single target effects since they are also more likely to hit.

Some AoEs do more damage to single targets then some single target effects (even without accounting for additional effects). And you completely throw out here that this is a special case: you need not any AoE but only the right AoEs to which a golem is not completely immune. That very much could balance the scales.

But also do what you want, of course.
Can you list some ? Most AOE I can find deal less damage than on level single target effects.

d4 cantrips, of course. Chilling Darkness/Searing light on most targets. Snowball. One-person damage-type Harm and Heal. Moonbeam. Some scale more or less the same: Magic Missile and Force bolt, Hurtling stone, Fire Ray, Hydraulic push and so on.

Yes, some of these have more or less important side effects which sometimes compensate for lesser damage. But not at all always.

What is important though is that single-target and instant area damage are rather close and are NOT scaled (2.5-3):1 as golems' 'harmed' properties.


AlastarOG wrote:
Aoe's already have the advantage of hitting more than 1 target vs single target effects, therefore it would not be balanced to make them on par with single target effects since they are also more likely to hit.

Some AoEs do more damage to single targets then some single target effects (even without accounting for additional effects). And you completely throw out here that this is a special case: you need not any AoE but only the right AoEs to which a golem is not completely immune. That very much could balance the scales.

But also do what you want, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suppose demanding attack spells to actually hit but allowing instant AoEs to work as a 'target' (bigger damage) hit would be some kind of a compromise? Rules turned out to be unclear so we have to make up some ruling and that is rather consistent with how spells work in general.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Yeah I'm glad Scare to Death isn't as auto-picky as it used to be while still being useful.

Probably true (never got to it myself), but they should have also changed the name of the feat to 'Scare a lot' for example. Or "Better Demoralize' (it is better, right?) Because I just don't believe in two critical fails/successes with Incapacitate.


Ravingdork wrote:

This occured in 1st Edition, where such a ritual could be cast MUCH faster.

I suppose someone with the Ritualist archetype and the Efficient Rituals feat could still do it in as little as four hours, possibly catching sleeping occupants unaware. XD

Ah, that's how. :)


Ravingdork wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
You could also use the Animate Object ritual to create something that behaves similarly to a complex hazard.
I once uad a witch use that on an entire cottage, while her enemies were still inside of it. It made for quite the memorable encounter!

Have the enemies been waiting for a whole day while the ritual was being casted?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:

(first time) is singular, (an) is singular. So the convention is the sentence is singular.

(every) is plural and changes the whole sentence to plural, making it so there are multiple (first time)s

Other rules handles multiple focus pools becoming one focus pool with multiple points.

But there's no such thing as multiple focus pools from the beginning, so this distinction does not matter. And consequently there's no rule handling multiple focus pools, only the rule adding points on condition.
Squiggit wrote:


I mean, there's nothing particularly legalistic about taking a feat that doesn't mention giving you extra focus points and assuming it doesn't.

There's also nothing particularly legalistic about following one-sentence general rule. I mean this of course: "If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool".


Gortle wrote:
... reads it as if it says You automatically gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point the first time you gain every ability that gives you a focus spell.

But that is true. If it weren't you could get into situations when you had a focus spell, but not a focus pool. And that sentence is written exactly to prevent this. This rule you just can't dispute.

As I understand the essence of your (collective) interpretations is either that feats which miss 'this gives you a focus pool unless you have one' sentence don't trigger the "If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool" rule or (collective) you just ignore and invalidate the "If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool" rule completely.
Aw3som3-117 wrote:
simply add an extra word to the general rule, saying: "If you have multiple abilities that would give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool."

I've tried this already above but breithauptclan is right that it still isn't clear enough wording: if you read hard into "if you don't already have a focus pool" then feats 'would not' give you a focus pool and thus don't trigger the 'multiple focus pool abilities' rule.


Also attacking from hidden state (meaning you need to Hide or Create Diversion).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:


Surely we all agree that
1) A wish can cast a meteor swarm. Its a level 9 spell
2) A spell where you get to choose the energy type when you cast it is more powerful than the identical spell with a fixed energy type. Note, I'm NOT saying how much more powerful, just that it is more powerful. So, a meteor swarm of varying energy types is more powerful than a meteor swarm. Maybe a lot more powerful, maybe slightly more powerful, but it is absolutely unequivocably inarguably more powerful.

So, if we agree with both of the above then what is the argument?

The argument is that you are not casting a 9th level spell. You are casting a unique 10th level spell with the maximum number limit of a 9th level spell. And it's already has a selectable damage type (and effect type). And also explicitly allows to have effects which separately are in line with other 9th level spells (or 7th level).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Honestly, short of spells like Teleport or Maze, a lot of the things Wizards can do, Martials can already do but better at the appropriate levels. Deal damage? Martials outpace them in spades. Debuff enemies? Trip, Intimidate, etc. are more reliable than spells are, and are far more likely to succeed. Plus, spells can't provide Flanking or Flat-footed as reliably, either, whereas martials can do this with relative ease in most combats. Out of Combat benefits? Again, short of spells like Teleport or Maze, a Martial can have the same amount of Out of Combat utilities as Wizards, if not more if they are Rogues or Investigators.

Also we shouldn't forget that spells are limited per day and often fail. Honestly, that 'changing reality' that Lycar forces so hard is just an obnoxiously loud label without almost any substance in PF2e. Maybe it was that in PF1, but not here.

The only thing I personally have some fun with when playing spellcasters is inventing visual effects for spells. At least for now. And some GMs here wouldn't allow even that in their games, it seems :)


SuperBidi wrote:


Because it's the literal definition of what you are describing.
You create a houserule, in this case:

No, it's not and I don't:

You state a wish, making your greatest desire come true. A wish spell can produce any one of the following effects.
Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.

Also, please answer the Losonti's question. It's interesting what you would say.

Perpdepog wrote:
The only cheating I've ever known about was someone who came to table with a fixed die that had a 20 in the 1 spot in addition to its normal 20. We found out and then let him keep using it because his luck was so hideously bad that he would constantly roll 2s.

Masters of Mockery I see.


SuperBidi wrote:


In the rules about the Splash trait, you have this line:
...

Yeah, yeah, an example of one type of items and nowhere else in the whole book, not one mention. I remember. And it is in examples they have less checking it seems.

Also, while we're at it, 'persistent damage' is not even a name of a condition, it's a name of a group of conditions, and very clearly not a damage from the standard calculation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'd like to expand on Wish a bit further

We can at least set the low bar of usefulness for 'wishes' at using them for removing effects that require 'wishes'. I don't really know how often is it needed in high-level play. That and another 9th level spell slot. Is it enough for 10th level slot? Probably not and this still doesn't remove decision paralysis, but maybe would help to not being disappointed too much.

SuperBidi wrote:
the most important thing with "pushing for a houserule"

I don't understand why you are still calling this situation 'houseruling' when it very obviously by intent, nature of these spells and the text of them is definitely not. Asking for a change of energy type (and do not overgeneralize it to good, force and others, it's the slippery slope fallacy) in existing spell is probably the smallest change possible. I won't buy the argument that the difference between energy types is that game-breaking. And it's still 10th level slot and 9th level effect at maximum. If wish is not allowed to do even that, then yes, it's a rather bad investment. Physical damage types also are quite interchangeable.

Yes, GMs still could restrict that, but no, that's not a good move.


Gortle wrote:


This actually ties the damage to the original effect so its not unreasonable to consider the properties of the original effect.

But the problem is that the damage procedure describes persistent damage, but like additional damage, doesn't fully define it's use. We are just supposed to treat it somehow like normal damage.

Or not. I still don't see any reason and evidence to double persistent damage on crits for example (unless an effect explicitly says so).


YuriP wrote:

IMO you loose your ready reaction.

It's not specifically written but when you use Ready action you keep the concentration trait until activate the reaction. If you being Fascinated during before use the reaction you loose the necessary concentration to do the reaction in correct time.

I don't think it works like this but yes, that's what some people say.

SuperBidi wrote:


Per strict RAW, Fascinated doesn't prevent you to make the action.
But the situation you are describing is not one I would solve with combat rules. Once the NPC threatens to kill the downed PC, the fights stops and you should handle that with out of combat rules.
Anyway, I'd allow the fascinating PC to grab the enemy's attention and allow another one to sneak on the enemy (with the Perception penalty).

Yes, if a GM allowed this to take place outside combat, it would be nice. Though the situation would be a lot worse if there were not one but several of enemies around the downed PC.

But in case GM loved this particular hostage trick in combat, it's interesting how to get out of this situation within the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mad Gene Vane wrote:
It a low charisma character or one that is untrained in social skills makes a really good case a GM could either give a bonus to the character’s roll or lower the DC, since the character did something to appeal to the NPC.

The reason the question arisen is that the difference between trained skill and untrained skill at 10th level is 12, at 15th level: 17. Are you ready to give a bonus of +12 or lower DC by 17? :)

People here gave good options to avoid this.


Ready action has Concentrate trait. Fascinated prevents Concentrate actions. Does it prevent a reaction from the Ready action if Fascinated was applied after Ready? Basically does the reaction from Ready get Concentrate?
As an example: an NPC says that she will kill downed PC if anyone makes hostile action and Readies Strike. Then another PC makes the NPC Fascinated (with himself or something else than downed PC). Can the NPC use reaction to Strike the first PC after that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Errenor wrote:
Ok, firstly, why do we need a 'basis' for magical effects? We know what magical means, what durations are and effects describe themselves in their sections.
We don't know... Can you point out if change shape is an instantaneous effect with a persistent non-magical effect or an effect with an ongoing duration that can be ended? [source book and page number please] I can't prove it so a basis for how they work would be nice as how those work are very different and components aren't as rigidly listed and described.

I can point out that the result of Change Shape (at least general one) is an indefinite effect. Which can be ended by another Change Shape to 'return to its natural shape or adopt a new shape'. If not 'natural' forms (which for all the creatures are defined) aren't magical, what is the point of even choosing one as base, natural and others as shapeshifted?

There's a section from the Bestiary:
Change shape wrote:

Source Bestiary pg. 342.

(concentrate, [magical tradition], polymorph, transmutation) The monster changes its shape indefinitely. It can use this action again to return to its natural shape or adopt a new shape. Unless otherwise noted, a monster cannot use Change Shape to appear as a specific individual. Using Change Shape counts as creating a disguise for the Impersonate use of Deception. The monster’s transformation automatically defeats Perception DCs to determine whether the creature is a member of the ancestry or creature type into which it transformed, and it gains a +4 status bonus to its Deception DC to prevent others from seeing through its disguise. Change Shape abilities specify what shapes the monster can adopt. The monster doesn’t gain any special abilities of the new shape, only its physical form. For example, in each shape, it replaces its normal Speeds and Strikes, and might potentially change its senses or size. Any changes are listed in its stat block.

Yes, it doesn't say one way or the other on magicalness.

graystone wrote:
Errenor wrote:
Secondly, Dismiss is an action for spells and magic items which these polymorhs aren't. So already we need another action. These actions have different traits and at least magic traditions are important, but 'polymorph' and 'transmutation' also could work. And then I guess authors just reused already created actions to not make two of them for each shapechanger.

It's NOT just for spells/items. Look at...

I hope this makes it abundantly clear that you where wrong here: no new action was needed as Dismiss is in no way, shape or form limitd to spells an items.

Good to know. All is very well, but you just ignored the other crucial part of my argument: they have entirely different traits. So they are very different and the devs had all the reasons to choose one or the other. And they choose concentrate, magical, polymorph, transmutation Change shape action instead of concentrate Dismiss. Whatever this means. I'm nowhere near wrong here.


I very vaguely remember one of the designers saying something about heightening of wish-like spells' effects. But don't remember what and where. FAQ? Youtube? Forum? Maybe someone could find or remember it?
If it really exists of course...


Thank you, guys, for very interesting answers! Now I see more options.

Guntermench wrote:
I make it clear that I do use the checks (I wouldn't let someone describe an attack to avoid a roll or climb something so I don't do it for social stuff) so they know this could happen going in.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Obviously, you need to severely punish the player for breaking character...

Okay, maybe not, but this is a very basic issue for RPGs: What do you do when there is a sizable gulf (in either direction) between the character and the player for Mental / Social checks (Oddly enough, in my experience players are never required to physically climb a wall or make a long-jump before they can make an Athletics check for their character).

Yeah, but the situation could still happen unexpectedly for the player. For example, player just participates in conversation, not trying to achieve anything specific, just roleplaying, talking with a NPC. And then 'Ok, roll Diplomacy". Oops. And I consider untrained Diplomacy as a PC still able to talk about things, so it's not even out of character.

Nefreet wrote:
But also, most unsocial characters I've encountered have a Hireling for Diplomacy, so it's not an obstacle I encounter often.

I completely ignore hirelings. Guess they have some uses and I should have a look.

Ascalaphus wrote:
This isn't a problem that's new to PF2 of course. You can have the same problem in Vampire, Shadowrun, PF1 or really another game system with social stats where you can have a sizable difference between someone who invested to be good at it, and someone who didn't but still does the RP.

Well, but what if you invested, but not in that exact skill? For example I have a sorcerer which has Deception and Intimidation, but not Diplomacy. It's hard to invent a suitable useful lie, and the GM can't allow it for a check without lies. And I don't think that Intimidation is useful here (and the character can but doesn't like intimidate everybody around). So I just talk and get into a trap :) And I'll take Diplomacy after all for this reason, but only in 3 levels...


Let's assume players 7+ lvl. For example some social encounter is happening and a player says something great. Or, better, not that great, but good. Now it's time for a check! You tell the player that and it occurs that his character has Deception/Diplomacy/Intimidation untrained. Which means that for ~7 lvl it would be an already bad roll, and for 15+ lvl it would be a critical failure.
So what do you do? Ignore social skills and checks? What about PFS? Force players with unsocial characters to be silent unless they are forced to roll a guaranteed failure? Introduce DCs which not only un-levelled but also depend on who is rolling them?


graystone wrote:
Well, there aren't rules for magical effect that aren't spells in general, so things like duration and such just don't have any basis if we don't look at spells for it. Secondly, you once again missed my point: change shape ALREADY has a way to end it's effect if it is an ongoing one. As such, it has no reason to state you use the action again as stating it can be dismissed is all it needed. I am quite aware that things need to stay they can be dismissed and in fact THAT'S MY POINT!!!

Ok, firstly, why do we need a 'basis' for magical effects? We know what magical means, what durations are and effects describe themselves in their sections. Secondly, Dismiss is an action for spells and magic items which these polymorhs aren't. So already we need another action. These actions have different traits and at least magic traditions are important, but 'polymorph' and 'transmutation' also could work. And then I guess authors just reused already created actions to not make two of them for each shapechanger.

graystone wrote:
As to the rest, lets just say I disagree and would suggest against a continuous magic effect... If we're going be intent, do you think the devs intended for kitsune and anadi monks and those that use unarmed attacks the equivalent of a monks 3rd level Mystic Strikes?

Possibly. They are very magical ancestries. And are rare or uncommon. Or the devs forgot about 'polymorph' properties once more, as with mutagens.


graystone wrote:
Errenor wrote:
No, you couldn't. Spells aren't dissmissable by default. Only spells which explicitly say they can be dismissed can be.
You missed my point: there is NO reason to say you can redo the action to take your other form if you could just say 'you can dismiss this effect' instead if it's treated as a spell.

You are still coming from a completely wrong premise. Even two of them. Firstly considering one of the forms magical effect doesn't mean we have to treat it as a spell: there are magical effects that aren't spells. Secondly even if we were treating them as spells, again spells aren't dismissible by default. So your point just breaks completely: if we are treating them as permanent non-spell magical effect, we have to make some action to reverse that, and exactly it already exists.

graystone wrote:
Errenor wrote:
P.S. Ah, yes. This vagueness again: there's 'a spell or effect' in the text and '1 spell effect' in targets, I forgot. Still, I think only spells and effects which say they can be dispelled can be (like some hazards for example).
I don't see the benefit in reading it in such a way that you CAN read it as continuous effect that an be defected and dispelled. Everything just works so much better if it's treated as an instantaneous duration action that has an ongoing effect that isn’t considered magical. I'd rather not have to debate if a werewolf has to change shape because it walked into an antimagic area.

Why do we need a benefit? First thing we should do is to try understanding what the devs intended. Then we can play as written and/or intended or decide that we don't like that and change something. But I think the rules at least deserve to be understood.

Again, I don't think these magical effects can be dispelled by Dispel magic because they definitely aren't spells and they don't allow to be dispelled in their descriptions. But Antimagic fields works, yes, against werewolves too. :)
To summarize, for better or not:
- humanoid form of beastkins is a constant magical effect, which can be detected, but not dispelled by Dispel Magic. Antimagic field works because it stops non-spell effects (and I guess level matters). Yes, it creates difficulties with good morph and polymorph effects but also protects from bad ones.
- same for werecreatures, base true weres' form is hybrid, for affected it's humanoid.
- same for anadi, their base is spider
- base forms wouldn't be detected by Detect magic because they .. aren't magical effects and just having magic is not detected by it.
It also makes a lot of sense because all of these are magical in origin. Curses and their remains is magic, anadi specifically learned this magic. Also traits.
I don't see any point in searching drawbacks in interacting with mutagens, forms, spells. Yes, these exist. So what? They are rare ancestries even. Some ancesties have their quirks and even drawbacks, that's normal if we don't want them be the same. Let's remove negative healing from dhampirs, that's so inconvenient!
So, if you don't like these you can use something else, but I think this is more or less clear.
What is funny is interaction of mutagens with polymorph trait: the trait says about magical strikes, but mutagens aren't magic at all! So now we have non-magical items giving magical attacks :) Here we have to ignore the part of the trait and leave attacks non-magical, I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I think if you could use dispel magic to do things like dispel a lycanthrope's change shape or Moon Frenzy

But you can't because Dispel Magic only works on spell effects (and magic items). Even if change chapes were magical they still wouldn't be spells and couldn't be dispelled (that way at least).

P.S. Ah, yes. This vagueness again: there's 'a spell or effect' in the text and '1 spell effect' in targets, I forgot. Still, I think only spells and effects which say they can be dispelled can be (like some hazards for example).

graystone wrote:
And if it was a spell, you could just dismiss it [Core Rulebook pg. 305 ]

No, you couldn't. Spells aren't dissmissable by default. Only spells which explicitly say they can be dismissed can be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:


Errenor wrote:
Also, an effect can't be Hidden, only creatures can. And creatures aren't targets of Dispel.
Yes. From an extremely legalistic point of view, there should never be a miss chance to Dispel Magic as it doesn't target creatures.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that using things for their explicit creation purpose and not extending it too much is 'extremely legalistic' ;)

I also didn't much like that you said dispelling a spell from one target dispels it completely. So I read a bit and found only this:
Counteracting wrote:
At least one creature, object, or manifestation of the spell you are trying to counteract must be within range of the spell that you are using.

Based on this, you are actually right.

And that's how to really be legalistic.


YuriP wrote:
OK but did you at last made a flat check? Because at last the effect is hidden.

Also, an effect can't be Hidden, only creatures can. And creatures aren't targets of Dispel.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dave2 wrote:
Only those touched by gods

I would say this is a very bad terminology, most of classes and powerful characters have nothing to do with gods and some of them would even take offence at the premise.

And no, casters are not fine at all. A lot of people (including me) need more (and more reliable) roles for them than utility and healers.


Nintendogeek01 wrote:
Gods have Mercy if a party of 4 or more people could just suddenly explode into 4 or more Fafnheirs...

A bit awkward situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:


It makes my BA in English Lit brain do the good chemicals when a character I play clicks seamlessly into the GM's narrative, enhancing the strength of both and the resulting story.

While not all of us BA's it's understandable. :) But there are different stories. For example about complete aliens (mentally or even physically, Golarion definitely allows for that), about malajusted or awkward people or simply people got in the wrong place at the wrong time. And these stories could be good or even great. Do such characters still 'fit' the narrative? If yes, what's the difference between 'fit' and 'unfit'?


With an attack, I assume? Two flat checks, then compare the attack roll with ACs, one or the other could be hit. But what to do when both could be hit (both flat checks successful, and both attack rolls)? Maybe only the target could be hit. Or just make this easy and allow both to be hit: this would be so rare case that it won't matter, and this is funnier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I simply don't understand the appeal of characters 'fitting' campaign. And even barely understand the concept (apart from obvious blasters among spells, but even that is the base of some settings). If characters 'don't fit' it's their problem, not mine, now they have to make this work somehow. :)


Hsui wrote:


My take away from what they say is that in actual play the outwit ranger is a passable combatant with a bit more of the social skill (which tracks with the theory crafting of the other respondents)

Well, specifically I say that from 3 games and playing with him at 1st and 4th level (it just happened this way) I can't say much. I also don't have experience of playing other non-casters to compare.

But I suppose he will be at least an ok archer: Dex is there and there's a bow and even one archery feat. :) Nowhere close to the best of course: I don't have feat capacity with snares taking almost everything. But it's my problem, not outwit ranger's. I'll sort it out somehow.
To elaborate a little: I took Hunted shot and now have too many actions to use. For now I'll try to Recall knowledge, use ranged Aids and Create distractions to make Prey flat-footed against one shot. Then let's see.


Ravingdork wrote:
Has anyone ever actually played an Outwit ranger? If so, why? What was the appeal? How did you get it to work well for you?

Yes, I actually do. Just because I want to try and see how this would work. He's also a snare specialist (without snares because levelling to 4th level takes forever in PFS), and his stats and skills are all over the place. I also plan to never take optimizations like sentinel or something like this. Optimizer's nightmare. :)

The appeal - these bonuses to skills and AC, of course.
I haven't made it to work yet because it has been only 3 games so far and he's only 1st lvl (not all of the games PFS).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
overrules the actual printed RAW.

All you say could be correct apart from that. RAW is obviously unclear. Nothing in Eldrich Trickster strongly supports that ET cares that the dedication is from a full caster or that you should look deeper into the mechanics for some reason. And the answer that Basic, Expert, and Master Magus Spellcasting feats are enough is the simplest and the least restrictive. Restrictions without solid reason are really bad. And we don't have any valid reasons. Vagueness is not that.


aobst128 wrote:
Although, there's definitely a case for potency bonuses simply not adding to drakeheart since drakeheart isn't armor and therefore could not add the bonuses from potency even if you could wear the runes while drakeheart is in effect.

YuriP confused you, but there's actually no problem at all:

Errenor wrote:


Ok, at least I now see what you think is a problem. Even though eidolon's AC item bonus is not armor, runes from the PC increase it literally the same as for PC: they 'increase item AC bonus'. So you have new item bonus. And then, just the same as for a PC and as usual, Drakeheart replaces this item bonus with its own (or not, if it's lower). That's it, no problem, no exploit, no stacking Drakeheart with runes.

Drakeheart: "You gain the listed bonus to AC" (item)

Eidolon: "Your eidolon increases its item bonus to AC based on your armor's armor potency rune or bracers of armor."
Runes: "Increase the armor’s item bonus to AC by..."
Bonuses: " if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you can use only the highest bonus on a given roll—in other words, they don’t “stack.”"
See? To make runes work and stack with armor they invented new language without making new type of bonus: "increase item bonus". Then we have a new increased item bonus, but different item bonuses still don't stack. So there's no problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Errenor wrote:
YuriP wrote:
exploit
Why are you trying to cancel quite clear general rule based on a presumable problem with one item?
It's no just one item. It's the first mutagem that came in my mind. It's virtually possible to combine any other elixir effect in unexpected way due the lack o Eidolon trait, this trait just exists to avoid these things.

No, it does not. Because it obviously does not prevent using items on eidolons and using items on eidolons is not them using items on themselves. Including elixirs and potions.

YuriP wrote:


No, the mutagen explicitly says "If you're wearing armor, you still calculate your proficiency bonus to AC based on your proficiency in the armor you're wearing, even if the drakeheart mutagen has a higher item bonus.". So the normal "is higher" don't apply here.

The bolded part literally does not do anything, the full sentence doesn't concern what we are discussing (because it's about proficiency bonus and we talk about item bonus) and your conclusion does not make any sense.

YuriP wrote:
One is in the traits saying that item activation is done when you drink the item, the other says that you can activate the item to feed someone. But it's easily to understand the context. This second rule exists to allow the use of drinkable itens in characters that are unable to act, while the first one to explain that you will use same interaction action that you use to drink to also activate the item.

What you are saying here does not follow from anything. You just completely made this up. And no, you do not understand this 'context' right. There's no context: they just made a bit vague rule (again) when in one place haven't mentioned that you also can use elixirs and potions on others too. There's nothing else to it at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
So now we don't have any restriction to an Eidolon receives +12 in AC from item+dex+runes because the Eidolon receives a +7 item bonus to AC that does not come from an armor (the restriction from Drakeheart Mutagen that try to block such a thing ) and the rune transferred bonus are not restricted to wear the item due to the summoner transfer ability!

Ok, at least I now see what you think is a problem. Even though eidolon's AC item bonus is not armor, runes from the PC increase it literally the same as for PC: they 'increase item AC bonus'. So you have new item bonus. And then, just the same as for a PC and as usual, Drakeheart replaces this item bonus with its own (or not, if it's lower). That's it, no problem, no exploit, no stacking Drakeheart with runes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
exploit

Why are you trying to cancel quite clear general rule based on a presumable problem with one item?

How is Drakeheart an exploit? What you described is basically how it works. Why is it an exploit?
What do you even mean by 'except if your item bonus comes from an armor'? It gives an item bonus, which, as always, replaces armor's, if it's higher. Or, in the case of eidolon, mutagen's bonus replaces eidolon's.
Even if there were some problem (which I don't see) with one item, the item should be fixed, not the general rule broken.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Yet the potion and elixir traits explicitly says "activated when you drink it" and "used by drinking them" entering in contradiction with the activate/use before drink concept. IMO this enforce the concept that they are activated in drinking action.

Doesn't matter at all: "You can activate a potion with an Interact action as you drink it or feed it to another creature." That's it. I really don't see how you could complicate it. You activate it. And you feed it to another. In one action. Done. It's explicitly allowed.


Project: J-ko wrote:
Is there something glaringly obvious I've missed that makes this not viable?

Nope, sustain as much as your actions allow.

Sustaining is definitely not casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:


Especially in PF1, where you either know the system and end up playing one of limited character builds that work or you end up with some Rogue/Druid "thematically fun but crippled mechanically" character.

Yes, and then these OP (or just working) builds will become 'same characters time and time again'.

SuperBidi wrote:
Errenor wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
They kind of feel like they're making the same character time and time again with a different cosmetic appearance. They're using the same tactics. They just kind of play the same campaign over and over again.
I really don't understand how this concerns specifically PF2e comparing to any other TTRPG when everyone knows the system perfectly. If you can't wrap the mechanics in imagination and have fun in one game you'd probably end up like that in other games too. Or you've just burned out. Happens.

That's not really true, and even if I really love PF2, I also think there's something missing from PF1.

In PF1 (and 3rd edition) you can create nearly anything. Untouchable AC, auto-hit attacks, irresistible spells and such exist.
They are part of the complaints against PF1: with enough system mastery, you can just break the game. But if your pleasure is to break the game, then you should be happy about it. It becomes a super hero game.

But I wasn't talking about something (not) missing from PF1/2. I say that a game system can't prevent you from feeling 'the same' if you learned it, know optimal paths and have enough experience with it.

Also I don't believe at all that PF1 have richer tactics in any case, and a lot of people say the opposite.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
They kind of feel like they're making the same character time and time again with a different cosmetic appearance. They're using the same tactics. They just kind of play the same campaign over and over again.

I really don't understand how this concerns specifically PF2e comparing to any other TTRPG when everyone knows the system perfectly. If you can't wrap the mechanics in imagination and have fun in one game you'd probably end up like that in other games too. Or you've just burned out. Happens.


Zaxbeez wrote:

On page 240 of the Core Rulebook, it says "Most skills include entries for success and failure, as well as descriptions of what occurs on a critical success or a critical failure. If either of the critical entries is absent, treat those results as a success or failure, as normal."

What about in the case where there is a critical failure but not a normal failure?
For example, the shove action (p. 243). Critical success, success, and critical failure are all defined. I'm assuming that a failure is equal to a critical failure, but I'd like some sort of backing for that aside from (what I see as) common sense.
Thanks!

You are assuming wrong. Failure means you don't produce an effect, both from common sense and ... common sense when reading the rules. I guess they thought it this obvious to not explicitly write that.

So for Shove this means you don't shove on failure. But not fall prone.


Claxon wrote:
So ignoring how it interacts with assurance, the question is academic in the sense that it doesn't make a difference whether it's a penalty or alters the DC, generally speaking right?

Well, if you are not stating to the players that the penalty exists it's really indistinguishable from increased DC. When you do mention it, this gives them some choiсe I guess to continue, abort or do something to reduce it. Then again, you could also warn about a task being harder than usual (which means increased DC). So probably not much difference either.

Squiggit wrote:
the book uses heavy fog that restricts vision as an example of a situation where someone would take a circumstance penalty to perception. Clearly an external factor.

Yes, but it is not the target of the skill. You are not looking at the fog but at other things through it. Even if that doesn't meet 'external - DC, internal - penalty' principle, it's still understandable. Maybe the principle should be 'things internal to the target increase DC, external to the target give penalty'?


Fumarole wrote:
You can use this online spell reference to bookmark the spells that are in your spellbook, sort the list to show only the spells that are bookmarked and then use your browser's print function to Save as PDF and save that file locally. Now you have an offline spellbook.

Thanks, but it is the same thing as the app I was talking about. The author made online version of it for iOS people and PCs. :) So, the same problem: no new books and erratas.

The Raven Black wrote:
IIRC AoN has an export feature that can be used for the spells when you use the Table view.

Interesting find, but it only returns the table view itself: only name, traits and short description, not full spells.

Though, as I understand, ways to fully copy AoN exist and the author of the app and online reference above did that, at least as the start of the project.

1 to 50 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>