Nar'shinddah Sugimar

Fuzzy-Wuzzy's page

4,648 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 4,648 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
This seems supported by other descriptions on what weapons can have other specific Runes etched on them.


Last I checked, Usage was not the same thing as a Prerequisite or a Requirement. It merely describes how the item in question is properly used.

In the case of runes Usage has a formal meaning.

CRB p580, Runes, last paragraph of first column wrote:
Each rune can be etched into a specific type of armor or weapon, as indicated in the Usage entry of the rune’s stat block. Explorer’s clothing can have armor runes etched on it even though it’s not armor, but because it’s not in the light, medium, or heavy armor category, it can’t have runes requiring any of those categories.

The first quoted sentence shows that Usage indicates a specific type of weapon that the rune can be etched onto---not that the rune is properly etched onto. The second sentence backs this up by referring to the Usage entry as the rune requiring a category.

Assisted recovery just lets them make an extra flat check. That is, your assistance may auto-succeed, but their recovery still doesn't. Medicine actually stops the bleeding directly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can kind of see it. Brainstorming: A Kalistocrat could hear of such an amazing opportunity in Rahadoum selling irreligious symbols (or whatever) that they move there, at least temporarily, bringing their family with them. Their kids are naturally raised as Kalistocrats, but one of the kids get so impressed by a Legionnaire's shiny armor that they sign up. Um, although legitimate opportunities to make a profit in the Pure Legion are probably scant, so that would be a very un-Kalistocrat thing to do, so they'd have to be corrupt. A corrupt Pure Legionnaire could really rake it in. Of course that's not so Lawful.

Titan Wrestler by itself won't get you there, but there's always enlarge.

Nik Gervae wrote:
AestheticDialectic wrote:
. In 1e I like playing the witch and wizard primarily for crowd control, debuffing and summoning, as well as occasionally buffing.
Rather off-topic, but, there was a witch class in 1e? I don't remember there being one.

As of the 1e APG... the Witch (1e)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The versatile heritages are (so far) all Uncommon, so you need GM permission. Beyond that no problem.

The outside PCs mostly just want to damage it as much as possible in hopes of killing it and freeing everybody at once. But if they really want to Aid an Escape attempt, a nice long pole should do the trick w/o risking anything. If you don't have a pole, a polearm should probably work.

(1) That's "assisted recovery" stuff.

You can take steps to help yourself recover from persistent damage, or an ally can help you, allowing you to attempt an additional flat check before the end of your turn. This is usually an activity requiring 2 actions, and it must be something that would reasonably improve your chances (as determined by the GM).For example, you might try to smother a flame, wash off acid, or use Medicine to Administer First Aid to stanch bleeding. This allows you to attempt an extra flat check immediately.

The GM decides how your help works, using the following examples as guidelines.

* Reduce the DC of the flat check to 10 for a particularly appropriate type of help, such as dousing you in water to put out flames.
* Automatically end the condition due to the type of help, such as healing that restores you to your maximum HP to end persistent bleed damage, or submerging yourself in a lake to end persistent fire damage.
* Alter the number of actions required to help you if the means the helper uses are especially efficient or remarkably inefficient.

(2) You use the spell to find magic items but skills to ID them. Check out Identify Magic on page 238 of the CRB.

Anything that was observed by you before you went blind becomes hidden automatically, yes.

A hidden creature can still be targeted, but you have to make a DC 11 flat check or lose the action(s) involved without effect.

Once they start moving around they become undetected by you. Then all you can do is guess a square they might be in and attack it. This is the same DC 11 flat check, but both it and the attack roll are made secretly by the GM, and if you don't hit something they don't tell you why not.

To make undetected creatures merely hidden you need to Seek, which you can do with your imprecise senses but at a -4 status penalty (applies to all Perception checks while blinded).

I don't have any examples. :-(

Just in case you or someone in the audience doesn't know, the rules for perceiving things in general are on p464-467 of the CRB (or here) and the rules for being blinded are on p618 (or here).

In PF1 it was actual adoption; in PF2 it retains the name but not that fact.

Adopted Ancestry wrote:
You’re fully immersed in another ancestry’s culture and traditions, whether born into them, earned through rite of passage, or bonded through a deep friendship or romance. Choose a common ancestry. You can select ancestry feats from the ancestry you chose, in addition to your character’s own ancestry, as long as the ancestry feats don’t require any physiological feature that you lack, as determined by the GM.

Also, AFAIK the time your character gets a feat need not be the exact same time they got whatever it represents; they just didn't mechanically have it until then. If that makes sense.

They probably need to be handled case by case.

Monster Hunter's Recall is done "as part of the action" to Hunt Prey, so I'd say you need to double the Hunt Prey action to apply Ageless Patience. Which makes it worthwhile if you're looking at tracks but not if you're in combat, which sounds right.

Trap Finder's free check isn't part of anything that takes time, so I don't see how you could double it. And it would be sort of weird IMHO if you could extra-patiently not search an area, so I think that's ok.

Are there particular free actions you're looking at?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aricks wrote:
So here's a question: what would be a better solution? I honestly see why they might keep it as is, since it's simple. The solution needs to be quick to resolve so it can be handled and move on to the next part of combat. It also has to deal with values that might be fixed, dice based, or a combination of the two.

Not sure what you mean by "keep it as it is," but I would go with "the one with higher max damage wins, break ties with higher min damage, break further ties by seniority because it doesn't matter at that point."

(Fixed values are not special in any interesting way, you're just rolling d1s, e.g. 4 = 4d1.)

If both conditions are of the form XdY, max and min suffice to determine either completely, so you'll never have to break ties beyond min.

Note that for XdY, finding the max (X*Y) and min (X) requires no non-trivial math.

A "seriously complex" condition in the above sense requires something like
"2*(2d6) vs 4d6" or
"(d4+d10) vs (d6+d8)"
which I believe have the properties that
(a) Paizo isn't going to publish an effect that does 2*(2d6) (or whatever) persistent damage, and neither will any 3pp, at least not before PF3 comes out.
(b) If you did end up with such a situation, it really doesn't matter which one you keep, so you might as well not do any math and just keep the oldest one. Or roll a d2 (also known as "flipping a coin"), whatever.
I mention such extreme theoretical possibilities only out of an obsession with completeness. In practice the rule is "higher max wins, break ties with higher min."

Aricks wrote:
So, would it really be wrong to roll the damage dice on application of a new persistent damage condition to see which condition is stronger?

As far as I'm concerned, any method that sometimes says 2d4 < 1d4 is wrong.

And any method that sometimes says 1d10 < 1d4 is wrong.

Why? Both common sense and because either of those imply that someone with 1d10 persistent fire damage can be partially cured by inflicting 1d4 persistent fire damage on them and getting lucky, which is very, very wrong.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
Are there any backgrounds besides Warrior that give Intimidating Glare as a skill feat? If not are there any backgrounds that give Bon Mot as a skill feat?

You could lobby your GM to use/allow the Deep Backgrounds variant in the GMG, lobby more to get to select table entries instead of rolling, and take Bullied as your Major Childhood Event to get Intimidating Glare as an option.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
Hi all, currently playing a Ranger in a campaign, I ran into the issue of my enemy being highly resistant to my arrow (P). Is there any way to buy arrows that are of a different type (ie. B)?

Not yet. I'd ask the GM to let me buy blunt arrows at the same x2 cost multiplier as in PF1.

Yes, because Paizo's intent is definitely to maximize the amount of bookkeeping players and GMs must do to implement the mechanics. That's one of the guiding principles of PF2!

Also, the current wording is not unclear, it is merely incomplete. Incompleteness is not sufficient cause to throw out the part that is there and rewire everything based on a guess as to what Paizo may "really" have intended.

Which persistent damage condition stays and which goes is to be adjudicated by each GM. The fact that one stays and one goes is not up for adjudication, being firmly in RAW, which is why all methods like "roll both at each end of turn and do the max" are wrong.

The OP was asking for a good and/or official method of adjudication. As I said way back, highest average damage is a good method, but highest maximum damage is much more likely to be adopted by Paizo (if it ever does adopt a criterion). Highest minimum damage also works but is even more certain not to be adopted by Paizo (except as a tie-breaker), because the phrase "highest minimum" has been known to confuse some non-mathy people.

A druid can certainly cast magic fang on themselves, now that it doesn't specify "ally."

But if you then wild shape you'll lose the benefit, because it's attached to a specific unarmed attack of the form you had when you received the spell, and you won't have that particular attack any more.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Champions, being The Absolute Best in armor the way fighters are with in weaponry, get armor expertise at 7th. The lowest level at which someone could take the feat often becomes the level of the feat---that is, this one is level 8 because some people can qualify then, not because everybody can.

Bast L. wrote:
I think the worst part is the added "you still must have a hand completely free." Like, this was so good without that addition?

I imagine that was put in to make it work the same way as other casters' methods of skipping material components. Clerics can skip them if they're holding their divine focus (takes a hand). Druids can skip them if they're holding their primal focus (takes a hand). Bards need a hand for their instrument. Only sorcerers don't need a hand to deal with material components, because they have magic in their blood or whatever. I forget what the APG casters do.

Of course, none of the others need to spend a feat to get their substitution to work. IMHO it'd be reasonable to let that replace the free hand requirement.

How could it be "necessary" to torture him when you always have the option of non-torture entertainment?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You get a free Recall Knowledge check about your prey. It follows all the normal rules for Recall Knowledge, but doesn't take an extra action (this is the big deal of the feat) since it's folded into Hunt Prey. Whether a successful Recall gets you a weakness, a strength, or whatever is up to the GM as usual.

If your Recall happens to crit, you get the normal effects of a crit Recall (namely, more info than a mere success) plus you also get an attack bonus. The attack bonus is frosting.

GM OfAnything wrote:
If you have both 2d4 persistent fire and 3 persistent fire, I'd just run it as 2d4 (min 3) persistent fire. The case comes up so infrequently, it's fine for the GM to figure out what works for the situation.

I'm curious why you would go with "2d4 (min 3)" instead of either "2d4" or "3". The rules make clear that one of the latter two must be the actual answer, they just don't tell us which. I might roll a die to choose between them or I might go with the one with the higher max or higher average, but I'd never say "I don't know which so you get something worse than either."

It's only 1 hp/rd in your example, of course, but it could just as easily be 2d12 vs 12.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gods and Magic, Changing Faith says yes, but it takes at least a month of downtime, and that's switching between two closely related deities.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
While fury is a bit basic, it does have its advantages. It doesn't have any specific feats, but that means there is more you can spend into marshall without feeling like you are missing out.

Actually, as of the APG there's Furious Vengeance. It's only one feat, which you obviously don't have to take, but I think it's inclusion indicates that there'll be more fury-instinct-only feats in future adds to the barbarian feat list.

And personally I don't find Fury boring. Most PF1 barbarians would have the Fury instinct if converted to PF2, I think, and those were fine and flavorful just with Raging....

EDIT: that last part is in reply to other people (who've called Fury boring), not lemeres.

Unicore wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Unicore wrote:
The only real trick I think would be making a way for the character to have to use runes to boost their attacks and defenses to keep the character from being able to bypass having to spend wealth on things other characters do.

For dragons, you can stipulate that they eat runestones to gain their runes' powers. If they try to exceed their level limits they risk vomiting up all their swallowed (and now digested) runestones.

For minotaurs and most other things "eat the runestone" doesn't work so well, but for dragons I like it.

I really dig that idea conceptually. In practice though, I think the runes would have to be applied to each of their natural attacks separately or else their natural attacks would have to be balanced around not having much wiggle room in the kind of traits they can get. Swallowing a +1 striking rune to get a bonus damage die to all of your natural attacks is pretty powerful if you can do more than D4 piercing damage with your claws or if you have a feat to add in a tail attack.

Isn't that the exact effect they'd get from handwraps? Those apply their runes to every unarmed attack you have.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
The only real trick I think would be making a way for the character to have to use runes to boost their attacks and defenses to keep the character from being able to bypass having to spend wealth on things other characters do.

For dragons, you can stipulate that they eat runestones to gain their runes' powers. If they try to exceed their level limits they risk vomiting up all their swallowed (and now digested) runestones.

For minotaurs and most other things "eat the runestone" doesn't work so well, but for dragons I like it.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
no actual martial arts styles limit themselves by things like "well, this only works indoors"

I'll have you know the entire school of martial arts I learned in only works while indoors, sitting down, and holding a gun.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the order a deity's anathema are listed in is priority order the way the tenets are. Does Cayden Cailean really care about wasting alcohol more than owning slaves?

If you can figure out the deity's priorities, then yeah, take higher over lower and you're good to go.

P.S. Damn but it would be embarassing for a champion of CC to lose their powers for wasting alcohol....

4 people marked this as a favorite.
hyphz wrote:
A Lawful Good champion must follow Erastil, Iomedae, or Torag,

This is not so. A champion's alignment must match their cause exactly, but not their god's---it only has to be one allowed by their god.

For instance, Shelyn (NG) allows LG followers, so she can have paladins. I don't believe she has any special anathema about lying.

Also, there are other LG deities than those three---those are just the only three in the "core pantheon" of particularly well-known gods in the Inner Sea region.

"If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition" means that the "higher" amount overrides the "lower" amount in the question of which you get persistently. You only have one amount of PD to check each round (of a given type).

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
I'd roll the 2d4 every turn and the target would take a minimum of 4 so if you roll 3 on the 2d4 he'd take 4. if you rolled 7 on the 2d4 he'd take 7.

Maintaining both sources of persistent damage directly contradicts the rule

CRB wrote:
If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount.

It would also make persistent damage much stronger.

Themetricsystem wrote:
If it's listing a Snare as treasure then it's almost certainly trying to communicate that what is included are the materials needed to craft said snare since they cannot be moved or collected in their completed form.

Plus a little booklet that tells you how to put it together, poorly written and in a language no-one in the party knows. Mustn't forget the booklet.

The only official rules on having multiple sources of persistent damage are

CRB p621 sidebar wrote:

Multiple Persistent Damage Conditions

You can be simultaneously affected by multiple persistent damage conditions so long as they have different damage types. If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount. The damage you take from persistent damage occurs all at once, so if something triggers when you take damage, it triggers only once; for example, if you’re dying with several types of persistent damage, the persistent damage increases your dying condition only once.

As you have noted, this leaves ambiguous what to do with two sources of the same type but different die sizes (flat damage = d1). I raised this issue during the playtest but perhaps not loudly enough. :-(

Malkyn wrote:
My inclination would be to treat the value of a rolled persistent damage effect as the average result for the purposes of determining whether new incoming damage overrides it,

My inclination is largely the same as yours, except that I'm sure that won't be the eventual official answer, because Paizo doesn't want to ask non-mathy people to deal with die averages. So if you want a good answer, I'd go with comparing averages, and if you want an answer that might hold up under errata, I'd go with comparing max values.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

I wouldn't say there are no rules for it. It seems pretty clear to me that, absent master input, minions are essentially NPCs controlled by the GM. The rule you quoted was clearly (to me at least) intended as a guideline and not as rote machine language meant to enslave players and GMs.

For example an animal companion that gets swallowed whole while its ranger is unconscious isn't going to wait around 1 minute before it decides it doesn't want to be digested. Like most any living creature, it's going follow its natural instincts and fight to survive.

That falls under "...except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm." Feeding someone else a potion doesn't.

Ravingdork wrote:
It begs the question: What is a familiar's carrying capacity?

"1 Light object" is implicit in the valet and toolbearer abilities.

(I vaguely think this is mentioned more explicitly somewhere, but I can't find it, so maybe not.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Also, shields should totally have the Shove trait.
This, very much this. When a light hammer has the ability to shove, it doesn't make sense that a shield would not have shove. I'm having a very hard time not making it a house rule for my AP campaign

Light hammers don't have Shove. Their traits are Agile and Thrown 20'.

But I agree shields should have it. They may not be massive like a warhammer, but their shape is perfect for shoving.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If it had Manual Dexterity and Independent, certainly. Without Independent, it'd take GM grace.

<mind blown>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ian Bell wrote:
I also probably wouldn't allow it while prone. "Standing" is implicit in the word "stance", for me. I'm not going to try sitting down opposite my sensei when we're about to spar, you know?

While that is true for the English word "stance," in PF2 it is a technical term.

CRB p157 sidebar wrote:
Stance: 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 take an action that has the stance trait, you can’t take another one for 1 round. You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode.

"A general combat strategy" is clearly not at all the same thing as "a standing posture" (my dictionary's definition), so only the technical definition should be applied.

Also, the rules specify exactly when a stance ends, and falling prone is not in there.

Also-also, if you couldn't be in any stance while prone, being Tripped would be basically fatal for Mt Stance monks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They had to errata that because "action with a trigger" isn't defined in the rules, only "reaction with a trigger" or "free action with a trigger." If you think about the way triggers work for those two you'll see why it gets messy for the stance.

Maybe it'll get further edited in the next errata to say something more complex, if they can figure out how to fit it on the page.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

AFAIK the Bleaching is not directly fatal, but rather leads to deep depresssion that leads to active or passive suicide. (Basing this mostly on their Ancestry description, I haven't read PF1's Gnomes of Golarion.)

So if you keep the gnome away from knives (like by chaining their wrists to a wall) and force-feed them (speaking of nasty things to do to prisoners), they should last indefinitely, Bleached or not.

Wouldn't they stop eating eventually?

Yes, if they can---hence the force-feeding....

Two minor things ('cause I'm not much of a build critic):

Canny Acumen only brings the save (or Perception) you pick up to Expert; it does eventually pump it to Master, but not until 17th level. Since monks start with all Expert saves, I wouldn't get this at 7th. Get it for your remaining Expert save at/around 17th.

Ki spells depend on your Wisdom to set their impact, but this doesn't matter for most of them. Wholeness of Body is an exception. While it will heal your HP no problem, if you want to use it to cure yourself of poison or disease you need to make a counteract check, which for you will be Wisdom-based. So relying on WoB with Wis 8-10 isn't so great.

Is there a dedicated thread for APG errata? I looked but couldn't find one.

My erratum: create demiplane is an 8th-level ritual that costs 800 gp in precious materials. 800 gp seems awfully low for 8th level. Worse, heightened to 10th level it costs 20,000 gp. That's one hell of a jump.

I suspect there was a typo and the cost for the base ritual was meant to be 8,000 gp of materials.

AFAIK the Bleaching is not directly fatal, but rather leads to deep depresssion that leads to active or passive suicide. (Basing this mostly on their Ancestry description, I haven't read PF1's Gnomes of Golarion.)

So if you keep the gnome away from knives (like by chaining their wrists to a wall) and force-feed them (speaking of nasty things to do to prisoners), they should last indefinitely, Bleached or not.

Squiggit wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Does this line of reasoning hold water?

(1) Mountain Stance is quite powerful and the ground restriction is meant to rein it in to a meaningful extent.
(2) If jumping ends the stance, then the ground restriction is meaningfully restrictive, i.e. does its job.
(3) If jumping doesn't end the stance, then the ground restriction really doesn't do much, i.e. doesn't do its job.
(4) The devs who wrote it are good at their jobs, so we ought to assume what they wrote does its job unless we have reason to believe otherwise.
(5) It follows that jumping ends the stance.

I am not personally thrilled with the conclusion, but if (1) is true I tend to believe the rest. Before this thread I had not realized Mountain Stance might be considered significantly more powerful than other stances.

This whole line of reasoning is based on 1 being true though, which I'm not sure is the case.

The significant majority of encounters I've seen in official Pathfinder material take place on a solid surface and don't tend to expect players to spend a lot of time outside those conditions. Even at very high levels, a lot of big fights take place in rooms, on the ground (or some sort of solid platform for people who want to be really picky about ground).

Campaign depending, encounters where it's going to be a significant impediment seem more like an exception than the norm. I don't think it's a meaningful balance factor anymore than not being able to cast Fire trait spells underwater is meant to be a meaningful balance factor.

I can't quite tell whether you think that "no jumping" is not a significant impediment in practice or that it is not present (i.e. that the stance definitely allows jumping). Could you clarify?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As others have said, RAW and RAI are that the second dose of scent does nothing. However, if as the GM you wish to make it do something, I recommend staying with your "extra range" thought instead of precision. Quantitative improvements are generally much easier to deal with than qualitative ones.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grankless wrote:
Lord of the Rings had gunpowder in it.

For fireworks, yes. Not guns.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone go on a furious rant about fireworks.

xNellynelx wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
Timeshadow wrote:
What I am asking is considering the treatment low light vision gets to stack and become Dark-vision in many instances...
Can you give me some examples of this?

Off the top of my head, Dhampir gives you Low-Light vision, but if you already have Low-Light you get Darkvision.

However, it specifically states this. "You also gain low-light vision, or you gain darkvision if your ancestry already has low-light vision."

I believe the Versatile Heritages---the current ones, that is---all do this, always with the same wording. Not sure whether I've seen it anywhere else.

1 to 50 of 4,648 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>