FowlJ's page

191 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's been acknowledged a couple times already that there are far, far better options for this specific purpose than Dominate, but by all means latch on to it even harder - it's a great look.

Quandary wrote:
Monk Feat "Wild Winds Initiate" doesn't have Stance trait, despite openly describing itself as a stance, and it's subsidiary Focus spell having the Stance trait. Although it's unusual in having a Focus spell to enter instead of an action directly enabled by the Feat, I don't believe that disqualifies it from being a Stance Feat?

I would say that Stance is a trait applied to the action of entering a stance, not just to any feat that grants a stance - it just so happens that in every case except Wild Winds Initiate, the feat itself is also the action.

This makes a fair amount of sense, since Stance is one of the traits in the game that inherently implies something about an action, instead of just being a keyword for other things to interact with:

A stance is a general combat strategy that you enter by using an action with the stance trait, and that you remain in for some time. A stance lasts until you get knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated, until the encounter ends, or until you enter a new stance, whichever comes first. After you use an action with the stance trait, you can’t use another one for 1 round. You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode.

Those rules and restrictions don't mean anything for Wild Winds Initiate, because it is a non-action feat that just awards you the focus power (plus a extra focus point), so the actual stance itself has the trait instead.

I'm not seeing the confusion with what the stance interacts with, since as far as I can tell none of the feats like stance savant care where a stance actually comes from - they normally reference 'an action which has the stance trait', which the Wild Winds power unambiguously is.

Ageron wrote:
I think there's room for a house rule where component on hand subtract from the gp cost. For example, if the PCs come across 30gp worth of lumber it seems fair to subtract 30gp from the cost of crafting wooden items,as the lumber is 'consumed', rather than turning around and selling that lumber later.

This is an official rule, more or less - in the published adventures there is a situation or two where the party finds a stock of raw materials that can be used to pay the cost of crafting certain items, like herbs that can be made into Antitoxin.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Not to mention oddities like Unconventional Weaponry making it easier for a Sorcerer to get proficiency with a Katana than with a Longsword, as long as the Sorcerer isn't from Tian Xia.
Not sure I see what you’re getting at here. Can you explain?

The feat Unconventional Weaponry is the humans' answer to the similar weapon familiarity feats from other ancestries. The requirements for the weapon you choose are as such:

You’ve familiarized yourself with a particular weapon, potentially from another ancestry or culture. Choose an uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc) or that is common in another culture. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a simple weapon.

Katanas lack a trait corresponding to an ancestry, and if you are from Tian Xia then they are not common in 'another' culture, so they are technically not a valid selection for the Sorcerer in question (but would be for a Sorcerer who was not from there) - they would need to buy martial weapon proficiency somehow to wield one effectively, and also don't natively gain access to it (so they couldn't buy one at character creation without approval, for instance).

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you look at any of the published adventures so far, they give out uncommon items all the time, something consistent with the guidance given in the book:

Giving out uncommon and rare items and formulas can get players more interested in treasure. It’s best to introduce uncommon items as a reward fairly regularly but rare items only occasionally. These rewards are especially compelling when the adventurers get the item by defeating or outsmarting an enemy who carries an item that fits their backstory or theme.

Uncommon character options can be more restricted than that, but they can also be even less so - there are many instances where there is something a player can decide for themselves that gives access to an option (such as being from a particular region granting access to one of the archetypes from the Lost Omens World Guide), or even directly rewards them the option (such as a Cleric of Abadar receiving the Magnificent Mansion spell, as well as how all focus powers work).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Also, like Shalelu, his levels total 1 more than his CR, but I still gave him a level equal to his CR, because as I understand that's how you do it? Can someone please confirm/deny?

Yep, more or less. CR converts directly to Level as far as the monster rules are concerned, with the PF1 CR being 1 less than the PF1 level because NPCs get a lot less gold to spend on items.

Lanathar wrote:

How have you come up with the numbers for the NPCs? Have you used the new guide? Because their stats are all amazing especially Ameiko

They put the PCs to shame quite significantly

Ameiko's stats don't seem too out of line for a 4th level character, with the exception of the ability score modifiers, but those don't actually do anything for most purposes and so aren't really a big deal.

I assume that it will spell out two variants, like the critical hit deck does - only natural 1s being the default and all critical failures being an optional extreme ruleset.

'Low 2' means that the encounter is designed to be Low difficulty for a level 2 party, and so the group is behind the curve if they are still level 1 when encountering it. In that case you would probably need to recalculate the XP totals based on their level, so a Party Level-1 creature worth 30 XP becomes a PL+0 creature worth 40 XP, and so on. (Generally, this will bump the encounter up to the next highest difficulty, so a Low 2 = a Moderate 1 (80 XP), but it will sometimes be off by a little).

I think that awarding XP per creature/hazard and awarding XP per encounter are both fine approaches, and will be the same number most of the time anyway, but the default method may be to give it per creature?

XP rewards listed in an encounter are generally in addition to the normal XP for the encounter, yes.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll add another voice saying that PFS adventures normally work this way, yes - if you look at any PF1 scenario that can be done at multiple levels you see the same thing.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
krazmuze wrote:
d6+1 is in fact not always greater than d6 - simply because you are NOT rolling the average every time, but instead are more likely to see a deviation.

You... do realise that you aren't even talking to anyone here, right?

Literally nobody has claimed the thing that you're disputing here. Nobody has said that through some magic 1d6+1 will always roll better than 1d6, 100% of the time. It has been said, accurately, that 1d6+1 will always be better than 1d6, in that given the choice between the two there is no reason why 1d6 would be a better option.

As has happened several times now, the basic math you've taken it upon yourself to try and explain to everybody is something that only one person present has seemed to be struggling with, and it isn't the person you want it to be.

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Probably the same way that mindless creatures having Wisdom and Charisma always worked.

Non-scores were always kind of clunky and inconsistent, and all they really ended up doing was making it so that you used another different ability score (or an inherent modifier of some kind) to do the same thing without really making as much sense. Can't say I'm too cut up about them being gone.

SuperBidi wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

I was poking around on AoN and found:

Ghost touch
Usage: etched onto a melee weapon

The rest get so expensive so fast for enchanting one arrow, I can't see it being very widely used. (And you need a +1 fundamental rune on there first). I also don't particularly mind the idea of paying a bundle for a one time use +1d6 Acid arrow.

As for Striking, that rune sets the damage of the weapon, not increasing it be a factor, so you wouldn't be able to stack a Striking Bow and a Striking Arrow.

Well, if it's ok for you to cumulate up to 6 property runes on each attack, I'm out of arguments.

For the low low cost of ~9000gp or more per arrow, since you need to have a +3 potency rune to add 3 property runes, this is really not actually a big deal, as much as it is likely not intended.

Like, 8000gp is the price given to a Spellstrike IX arrow, which casts a 9th level spell on hit. The Spellstrike arrow has some restrictions that this tricked out arrow wouldn't, but the rune arrow also has a fraction of the total effect for a significantly higher cost.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure that ability score modifiers have never not been retroactive, so I can't say I see the problem there.

Yes, though, this is specifically detailed in the Levelling Up section:

If an ability boost increases your character’s Constitution modifier, recalculate their maximum Hit Points using their new Constitution modifier (typically this adds 1 Hit Point per level). If an ability boost increases your character’s Intelligence modifier, they become trained in an additional skill and language. Some feats grant a benefit based on your level, such as Toughness, and these benefits are adjusted whenever you gain a level as well.

This is what the Touch Range section of the spellcasting chapter indicates:

A spell with a range of touch requires you to physically touch the target. You use your unarmed reach to determine whether you can touch the creature. You can usually touch the target automatically, though the spell might specify that the target can attempt a saving throw or that you must attempt a spell attack roll. If an ability increases the range of a touch spell, start at 0 feet and increase from there.

So I think the intent is that Chill Touch and similar effects hit automatically.

Likely, the 'Attack Rolls' section is in error - after all, if you follow that section to the letter that means that if you want to trip an enemy, you need to succeed at a melee attack roll against the target and then roll your Athletics to trip, because it does not indicate that the skill check already counts as an attack roll.

I don't believe that any of a weapon's traits actually apply to Hand of the Apprentice - the description of the ability doesn't paint it as a weapon strike that you make at range, it is essentially a spell with variable damage, type, and critical specialization based on what weapon you're using with it.

Specifically, it indicates that on a success you deal damage as if you had hit with a Strike (using INT instead of STR), but double that damage on a critical success (rather than dealing damage as if you had critically hit with a Strike). Damage from, for instance, property runes or weapon specialization is included (since you would deal that damage if you hit with a melee Strike), but no other effects are duplicated.

That link doesn't seem to go anywhere.

Anne Archer wrote:
citricking wrote:
... but it adds 1d8, not 1d8 + 3.
The support feature says that the bear gets 1d8 slashing, as you say. But why would the bear not add it's +3 Str to this? It normal attacks are listed as 1d8 P bite, 2x claws at 1d6 S. No mention of Str modifiers there, either. Are you telling me that the bear gets no Str to damage at all? Or any animal companion?

The support benefit isn't a Strike and doesn't work the way that Strikes do. It says 1d8, so it deals 1d8.

shadowswalker23 wrote:
Hello, new GM here trying to get ready to present this demo adventure to a group of new players aged 11-12. I read through the demo but am confused on one thing. Under the ogre warrior's weapons, there is a + 12 after the ogre hook and a +6 after the javelin. Are these modifiers that are added to the roll against the characters AC like the Strength modifier? Sorry if this is a newb question. I looked through the core rulebook, but did not see any other weapons having this. The only thing I saw was information on the damage die to use. Thanks for your help.

That is the monster's attack bonus, yes - it is the complete bonus for the attack, you don't also add the strength modifier or anything.

The Reading Creature Statistics section from the bestiary gives some additional detail on what each part of a creature's entry means.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You shorted the success rates by 5% (+30 VS DC 45 is a 30% chance, not 25%), and you also didn't include the Resilience rune, which all characters are expected to have and which gives +3 to saves by 20th level (you said no equipment, but characters are always supposed to have this so that isn't a reasonable comparison - there is no equivalent for increasing spell DC, so it is purely a bonus to success rate. (You also gave the caster a +7 ability modifier, which requires an item)). So the actual success rate for a Master character is 45%, 35% for an Expert character.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
One unsympathetic act does not a Chaotic Evil character make. A person can well be a Lawful Good person with problematic views. A dwarf who is Lawful Good can very much see goblins/orcs/whatever as pests to be exterminated and retain his LG alignment. After all, he'll still act LG in every other circumstance and towards everyone else.

'Mass murder doesn't make you evil as long as all the people who you murder are people who you chose to murder' is... certainly a take.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

is that what Lawful Good means? Well.. I suppose it is a good thing I prefer Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Good. I don't have to tear down someone's house and make them homeless in order for an unproven benefit to everyone else to happen.

Sorry, Tanner.. but we really can't have you dropping the property values around here. It will improve the city to make you homeless. And since you being homeless wouldn't be good for the city.. here is a ticket to Cheliax.

more or less, the law doesn't see individual people and so you're good, but often being tied to do things that aren't good to this particular person. and I mean, they'll probably pay for the property, but not have a chance to keep their house. (also it was a hitchhiker's guide reference)

(note i just mean A lawful good could do this and still be more or less lawful good, not that all lawful good acts this way. so one that particularly emphasizes the weaknesses of lawful good, could fairly easily do something like killing an entire goblin village if only a few of them have been attacking, etc)

I'd point out that, even if you strip out all the parts of this concept you've presented that are definitely super evil, the character in question is probably still not good, and would fit better into Lawful Neutral.

Compassion and respect for the lives and happiness of individuals is part of what defines 'good' in Pathfinder. Total willingness to destroy people's lives or livelihoods for nebulous, impersonal gain is pretty firmly out in most cases, and in general someone who values lawfulness over goodness in most situations where the distinction matters isn't really a good fit. They are not necessarily a bad person (depending, you know, on how many innocent people they will kill just because somebody told them to, among other things), they just aren't really good either.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Otherwise it would just be a straight upgrade to intimidating glare (well, except that it has the auditory trait)

One of those is a 1st level skill feat and the other is a 10th level class feat that requires intimidating glare to begin with. It would be very strange if it wasn't intended to be an upgrade.

The access condition for Lastwall Sentry is 'you are from the Eye of Dread region' - being part of the knights is a prerequisite that you have to meet even once you have access, unless waived by the GM.

I'm not sure whether putting 'Knight of Lastwall' in your backstory generally counts or not (though it's not like there is a special mechanic for being a member of an organization), but that part doesn't interact with the rarity/access system.

The meaning of level as it pertains to the game world hasn't changed at all. Pretty much every creature that was CR X in PF1 is now level X in PF2, adventures that happen at level X still happen at level X, and basically everything the world design side of the game has ever cared about level for functions in the same way it always has.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The higher proficiency limit for the rogue feat is kind of a niche benefit (since you're rarely ever going to find hazards limited by those proficiency ranks at levels where a character couldn't already have obtained them, plus there are other actions such as lockpicking that could demand a high thievery proficiency).

In terms of 'who is the better trapfinder' the rogue has +1 due to their feat and gets legendary perception by 13th level from their class, so they're pretty good. Characters that only get to master perception end up 3 points behind and characters who only get to expert perception end up 5 points behind (though 1 point closer if they ever have a circumstance bonus, since the one the rogue gets from their feat doesn't stack with one from somewhere else.)

Careful Explorer is probably plenty good enough for what it does - the rogue's aptitude in this area is the exception rather than the rule, so being behind a bit doesn't mean you're just going to be whiffing all the time, and the main benefit of the feat is that you can do two things at once anyway.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
This makes Bardic Lore better than I'd thought compared to standard knowledge skills, as you should always get the absolute lowest possible DC.

I don't think that tracks. Bardic Lore isn't a lore skill that counts as all lore skills (so you can say it counts as whatever is most specific in a situation), it is a special lore skill that can be used to recall knowledge on any subject - as opposed to normal lore skills that just flat can't be used to recall knowledge about things which are completely outside of their purview, even at a higher DC.

I believe this is confirmed to be appearing as an official variant in the Gamemastery Guide early next year.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
What I wanted from PF2 was an evolution on PF1 with even more options and depth. What I got instead was a completely different game with little depth by comparison. So yes, I am disappointed in PF2, which is why I am particularly active on the boards here as opposed to other systems I dislike, which I largely ignore.

What in the world do you hope to achieve by posting regularly and extensively about a game you clearly dislike?

I mean, seriously, you're constantly running down a game other people are (kinda definitionally) here to enjoy. That's just unpleasant for everyone else, and I can't imagine it's super fun for you either, so why in the world are you doing it?

At least one of the following:

1) PF3, if and when it is released, winds up being more in line with my tastes

2) They release an 'unchained' book with more palatable rules

3) They significantly overhaul the system in the next printing

The first two at least have a decent chance of happening. It isn't fun, but it's necessary to be constantly heard to be taken into account for future plans. I'm doing everything I can to push towards a shift back at some point.

Considering that basically every post you make about your preferences here further clarifies what a colossal mistake it would have been for Paizo to publish a PF2 filled with your idea of 'improvements', I'm gonna have to say that no, those things do not have a decent chance of happening in the way you want them to.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

My question-

I'm really interested in using proficiency gating beyond untrained/trained. This already exists in terms of things like "there are expert locks, people without expert thievery cannot attempt to pick them", but is there any guidance on extending this to all skills? Can I have a diplomacy check which requires master proficiency to attempt?

This is standard part of the Minimum Proficiency rules:

Sometimes succeeding at a particular task requires a character to have a specific proficiency rank in addition to a success on the check. Locks and traps often require a certain proficiency rank to successfully use the Pick a Lock or Disable a Device actions of Thievery. A character whose proficiency rank is lower than what’s listed can attempt the check, but they can’t succeed. You can apply similar minimum proficiencies to other tasks. You might decide, for example, that a particular arcane theorem requires training in Arcana to understand. An untrained barbarian can’t succeed at the check, but she can still attempt it if she wants-after all, she needs to have a chance to critically fail and get erroneous information!

(Technically it only lists trained here, but it is in a paragraph comparing it to the Thievery proficiency gates which can be Expert-Legendary - I think it's safe to assume the system doesn't distinguish between those tasks based on that.)

Seems like it will accomplish pretty much what you want it to - 200 XP is like 2-4 encounters/objectives, so the difference between steps will be significant but not really enormous.

I had personally considered a similar idea for a sort of 'E6' game - I don't think PF2 has the balance issues at higher levels that are part of why actual E6 exists, but a low powered game where XP required is normal for levels 1-6 and then increases every level after that (to the tune of like +500 XP per level, really slowed down) seemed like an interesting idea to me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

+15 to hit and DC 21 sounds like it might be the Blood Ooze, a level 4 creature.

The blood ooze is a notable creature in that it is in some ways quite a lot stronger than other level 4 creatures, with high attack, HP, and Fortitude saves, but also has some significant weaknesses - for one thing, it has AC 12 and +6 Reflex and Will saves, and so is incredibly easy to attack. It is immune to critical hits, so you can't just crit it to death with attacks, but is not immune to critical failures, so spellcasters can potentially have a field day with it.

The second, and probably more significant weakness, is that it has a movement speed of only 10 feet. It is ridiculously easy to outrun, and even easier to just keep clear of its AoE attack (since that attack costs 2 actions, and so it can't chase you very far and still use it). If the party has ranged options and you aren't in a space where you can't back away from it you essentially win by default, and even in melee you can back up to force the ooze to use several of its actions chasing you in order to attack.

In a confined space, the ooze is incredibly dangerous, but easily handled if you have control of the situation - it doesn't have Attack of Opportunity or anything, so the only way it has to force you to remain engaged is to grapple you (which, to be fair, it is quite good at).

Saldiven wrote:

To me, easily accessible resurrection has always created a logical problem for any setting.

How is any powerful enemy ever actually defeated? Why wouldn't they keep coming back as long as they had any minions at all willing to work to bring them back?

The level limits on resurrection magic can interfere with that, at least for extremely powerful creatures - even a 10th level Raise Dead only goes to level 21, so many of the biggest bads in the setting are too powerful to be affected.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Firstly, I'm not sure that 'every character has every lore skill' is technically correct. (EDIT: Double checked the lore entry and it does say you can recall knowledge untrained, so you are right there.)

It doesn't really matter, though, because you don't get a lower DC for having the correct lore skill, you get a lower DC for using the correct lore skill - there are maybe a couple levels where your modifier in all those untrained lores won't be far and away worse than the trained or better skills you could be using instead, to the point where a lower DC would still be a loss for using them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
FowlJ wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
I don't think choosing narrower Lore is particularly useful because except for extreme circumstances the advised adjustments are small...
The example posted by Fuzzy-Wuzzy above seemed to have a difference in DC as high as 10 points (24 for arcana or 14 for aberration lore). That's not small at all!

Sure, but five of that goes away if you have the right 'normal' Skill. Lore in and of itself seems to be a 5 point difference in DC at most.

Not that 5 points of DC is a small difference...

I mean, presumably it could be any of the DC adjustments, which range from -10 to +10 compared to the standard difficulty - I think you'd need a pretty laser focused lore to ever get the -10 DC though.
The example given was 5 harder than normal for outside the field and 5 easier for specificity. So 10 difference between two applicable examples, not 10 difference from a baseline.

Yeah, but what I meant is that 'Very Hard' (+5), 'Easy' (-2), and 'Very Easy' (-5) as given in the example are specific adjustments described in the book - 'Incredibly Hard' (+10) and 'Incredibly Easy' (-10) are also options, as well as plain old 'Hard' (+2).

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
I don't think choosing narrower Lore is particularly useful because except for extreme circumstances the advised adjustments are small...
The example posted by Fuzzy-Wuzzy above seemed to have a difference in DC as high as 10 points (24 for arcana or 14 for aberration lore). That's not small at all!

Sure, but five of that goes away if you have the right 'normal' Skill. Lore in and of itself seems to be a 5 point difference in DC at most.

Not that 5 points of DC is a small difference...

I mean, presumably it could be any of the DC adjustments, which range from -10 to +10 compared to the standard difficulty - I think you'd need a pretty laser focused lore to ever get the -10 DC though.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Do we know if class archetypes will lock you out of taking other archetypes? The most obvious choice for an Aldori Duelist is easily the inevitable Urban Barbarian, but if electing to go dex based locks you out of taking the Aldori archetype... that will be most unfortunate.

They have a dedication feat like other archetypes, and you can only ever dedicate yourself to a single class archetype (but can have a mix of class and non-class archetypes with enough feats, as normal).

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
FowlJ wrote:
68 damage would be a critical hit, basically nothing hits for that on average, so it is definitely an extreme example - it doesn't need to be nearly that much, though, because non-sturdy shields cap out at 8 Hardness and 32 HP (for the Force Shield and Dragonslayer's Shield) and most of the shields with special properties have 6 Hardness and 24 HP - at high levels enemies will pretty regularly be hitting for those kind of amounts.
I don't have bestiary on hand so can't see the damage numbers right now, but from a glance at say, level 10 enemies vs Forge Warden with (Hardness 6, HP 24, BT 12), vs say, a level 10 grave knight whose Str is +7, that hardness alone negates most of the damage from Str. Not sure how much a mook would have, need to look a bit more into that kind of thing, but would it be typical for a Grave Knight level enemy to deal 30HP in one swing very often?

Graveknights deal an average of 23 physical damage, so no. Other creatures of that level deal a bit more (since part of the Graveknight's damage is elemental and as far as I'm aware shields don't block that?), but around level 10-12 is still in the zone where the shields do alright (though basically nothing won't at least hit hard enough to break them).

The problem being that at that level you are already at the apex of what magic shields can survive while enemies still get a whole lot better - this is definitely a problem that becomes evident at higher levels (though even a couple levels after the Forge Warden / Arrow Catching Shield come online there start to be enemies that will hit that on average, around level 13+).

Take, for instance, level 18. The level 18 Reflecting Shield also has 6 Hardness and 24 HP, like the Forge Warden - it is a buckler, so it's definitely not meant for shield blocking as a regular thing, but I feel like 'emergency 1/fight block' should be a role that light shields can fill somewhat consistently. Literally no level 18 enemy will not destroy the shield on average. Only a couple enemies from levels 16-17 will not do so. They can still roll low, and you can block those, but well over half the time for many of those enemies (and a little over half the time for most of the rest) it isn't an option. (And, naturally, forget about blocking any kind of boss enemy at those levels, though one could argue that light shields should struggle in that particular regard.)

68 damage would be a critical hit, basically nothing hits for that on average, so it is definitely an extreme example - it doesn't need to be nearly that much, though, because non-sturdy shields cap out at 8 Hardness and 32 HP (for the Force Shield and Dragonslayer's Shield) and most of the shields with special properties have 6 Hardness and 24 HP - at high levels enemies will pretty regularly be hitting for those kind of amounts.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
...and the chance isn't actually 50% because the timing of Shield Block is such that the damage roll has already been made before you choose whether to block or not since "roll dice" is step 1 of figuring out damage and "take damage" is step 4. So you can use the reaction on the hits that won't destroy your shield in one go if that's what you'd rather do than just get a little extra reduction of damage at the cost of your isn't-just-for-defense item.

That decision still doesn't feel right to me.

GM: "You are hit."
Player: "Fortunately, my character is ready to use her shield to absorb the blow, thus preventing damage to her body."
GM: "It's a heavy blow: 68 damage."
Player: "Yikes! In that case she will use her body to absorb the blow, thus preventing damage to her shield."
GM: "The fiend's axe sinks deep into your flesh. Blood flies everywhere."
Player: "Don't worry, little shield. I won't let you come to any harm..."

Won't the shield be Broken before being destroyed, meaning we can repair it after combat, and it effectively works as temporary HP per fight?

It takes 10 minutes to sit down and repair your shield with just trained. If you put more ranks into crafting, you heal more, if not, spend more time or wands of Mending.

Only if the shield has enough HP to not get outright destroyed, which is the thing that keeps getting said here: that shields other than sturdy shields don't at higher levels, at least not with any consistency. A 68 damage hit, as given in that example, will permanently destroy any shield that isn't a sturdy shield or an indestructible shield - blocking it isn't even an option unless you decide the 6-8 HP you save is worth the potentially thousands of gold pieces it costs to buy a brand new shield.

And, to be clear, if it worked as you say then I would have no problem - the shields don't need to be great at shield blocking, a 1/fight emergency shield block is fine for the bucklers, since they aren't really meant for that in the first place, and 1-2 blocks for a real shield that has some other power is likewise pretty alright. >=50% chance for most attacks to be more than your shield could survive is a bit much, however.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Helmic wrote:
but I'd take it a step further and just say that a shield cannot be destroyed unless it's used to block again while already broken.
Except that you can't, because when it's in the "broken" state you aren't allowed to perform the Raise Shield action.

So you mean that a suggestion of how shields could work differently than they currently do would require shields to work differently than they currently do? Darn.

I believe settlement stat blocks, which would include this information, are slated to be in the GMG. I'm not sure if that's been absolutely confirmed, though.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Levels 16 and 18... all those in the bestieary are massive things that should be able to smash a shield in a single blow.

Someone should probably inform you that shields in PF2 can also be level 16 and 18, since you seem to have missed that somehow.

I actually looked at 12th level monsters compared to the level 10 shield, picking some that I figured would be "hard hitters", and found that they'd typically take 2-3 average damage hits to "blow up" the shield.

Literally no level 12 physical attacker (the exceptions being the Shining Child and the Lich, whose basic attacks are primarily or entirely energy based) takes 3 hits on average to destroy a Forge Warden, so that's definitely stretching it a bit. Most of them do take 2 hits, technically, in that they have slightly less than a 50% chance of outright destroying your shield.

9 people marked this as a favorite.
heliodorus04 wrote:

Perhaps I've got a different opinion?

I don't deny the maths, but: you don't have to absorb the damage with the shield if you don't want to
it's a magical world with a 1st level Mending spell (now I'm a novice at pathfinder, and maybe Mending doesn't scale to fix higher level stuff well).

Mending doesn't work on destroyed items, only broken ones. Which is pretty much the whole problem here, that these (extremely expensive) shields will rarely be merely broken, because their hitpoints don't measure up well to the damage dealt by higher level creatures.

If the shields scaled enough to keep up, it wouldn't really matter if they weren't great. The Reflecting Shield is a buckler, so it isn't really meant for regularly blocking attacks in the first place, but it can't block most attacks at all, unless you feel like spending 18000gp on a replacement.

(It is actually cheaper for an 18th level character to die and get revived by a ritual than it is for them to replace a destroyed Reflecting Shield, to the tune of 7200gp saved.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You also can't multiclass for higher unarmoured proficiency, though, and not getting hit is often as big a part of those big cinematic exchanges as actually attacking. Either way probably works, but I'd agree that monk is a closer fit out of the box.

NPCs are not built the same as PCs (unless you want to do so) and the rules for building NPCs/Monsters will be coming in the GMG, yes.

I feel like the reason for the unique tag may be partly because of a humorous observation in the playtest that one of the NPCs wasn't tagged as unique, potentially implying that there could be more than one of him - this was of course how it worked in PF1, where very few things had the 'unique' flag in their statblock even if they were a specific individual, but Paizo may have chosen to apply it to any named character with their own statblock now.

They are almost definitely low grade. It's possible this part was written before grades of material were finalised, or else someone just plain forgot to include it.

I think they have a bit of extra HP compared to similar level creatures, but not so much more that a party with silver weapons isn't going to ruin their afternoon.

EDIT: Ah, and the 'creating werecreatures' section gives them a respectable amount (equal to five times their weakness) - the stock werecreatures seem a little bit fragile for that amount, but not dramatically.

thenobledrake wrote:
Category Three: an attempt to redefine the term. For example, the way the D&D 5th edition DMG defines metagame thinking as basing your choices on knowing that you are playing a game (I.e. trying to say that metagaming refers to things like "The DM wouldn't throw such a powerful monster at us!" rather than the usual "you can't do that because your character didn't know [blank]" type of stuff)

I'd point out that the D&D 3.5 manuals had the exact same definition for metagaming (I believe the example they used in that book was about the placement of a lever rather than a monster, but same difference). Any 'redefining' they may have done to get that happened almost two decades ago now at least, not any time recently.

I believe twitch is $5 a month unless they made it more expensive at some point. If you happen to have an Amazon Prime subscription I believe that includes a free twitch subscription every month as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

1) Seems so. Not sure what the reason for this was but I doubt it's a big deal.

2) There is actually one very specific gold dragon who is egregiously Lawful Evil in Golarion lore - his name is Mengkare and he assures you that his philosophy matches his color. On Golarion dragons aren't required to be their listed alignment any more than an orc is, so the alignment in their bestiary is what they "generally" are; there are no special mechanics of changing from metallic to chromatic in an alignment shift or anything.

Mengkare is at least according to the wiki, and another source, Lawful Neutral. Kwislingyr (deceased) however was evil, though his scales were so tarnished that the dwarves who found his corpse, mistook him for a previously unknown form of yellow chromatic dragon.
Mengkare's alignment is something of a topic of debate - for my money I'd say the dude who's obsessed with creating the perfect mortal society and eats anyone who doesn't fit his image is pretty dang evil. It seems he's going to feature in Age of Ashes so we'll get further details on what exactly he's up to soon.

Age of Ashes reconfirms him as LN, though I tend to agree with your assessment.

Age of Ashes Spoilers:
And the fairly detailed plot summary given in Hellknight Hill doesn't exactly make him look much better, IMO.

1 to 50 of 191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>