| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for taking the time to answer questions in here, Mark!
I have a couple projects I am hoping to get on Infinite this fall.
Search Posts
My Magi player has no problems because I just let him use spells from the CRB and basically anything, really - like, sure, yeah maybe for PFS it's an issue, or really stingy GMs, but I don't know if its actually that much of an issue at most home tables. It's not a problem in PFS, so really only an issue for home players with particularly annoying GMs.
Elsewise, lots of spells aren't going to worry overly much about reactions that trigger on those traits in hard rules games like PFS. This is a nonsense argument. Hard rules games like PFS don't fall for convoluted rules trap arguments. Nothing changed about the concentrate and manipulate traits on the CRB spells. There is nothing to show you because nothing actually changed. Do remember that in PF2, RAI is the RAW. The designers were kind enough to protect you from yourself.
The Skymetal Striker's Temporal Stutter ability can grant quickened 1/quickened 2. Those are not valid for the quickened condition, which only ever grants one additional action per turn and usually limits the possible actions can be used.
Ehh, the “everything is transmutation if you aren’t careful” problem was a huge burden on the game. Some part of the old schools still underlies a lot of spells, it just isn’t as rigid a system anymore. I’m all for just letting magic be magic.
Yeah, one thing I like about this game is that there is not just one strategy that you can hammer every single encounter with. Players do best when they have multiple options to choose from depending on the circumstances they find themselves in or that their party creates.
Yeah, it reads as an Interact action to me as well. But I would also allow a Strike to count for the same reason as Claxon.
Yeah, Double Prey comes online as a level 12 feat.
Nah I assume the strawman they are talking about is "assuming being perfectly prepared" vs "assuming you can target many things". Which I say is the same thing just worded different. The game expects that you play a specific way and anything short of that (aka anything short of perfect) means you are playing wrong. Lol. Absolutely not. There are four defenses a caster can target. Every caster is capable of having a healthy mix of spells for handling what comes at them.
Yeah, the RAW is clear that the two free actions are executed in different parts of your turn and therefore do not conflict. There is no need to twist the wording into a conflict.
Trying to get these two things to conflict is a pretty clear violation of RAW, imo. Don't interpret things to be broken when you can instead interpret them to work.
The absence of reminder text does not indicate the absence of a rule.IMO, absence of a rule for something that is similar to something that does have a rule, doesn't indicate a rule for the first thing. All the absence of a rule means is that here is no rule there: full stop. Agreed. There is no rule allowing you swap out granted spells.
The absence of reminder text does not indicate the absence of a rule. I agree that because you didn’t learn granted spells, they were granted, you may not swap them out. In addition, allowing swaps would be silly.
That is indeed the general rule, but it does not answer my question.
Light armors do belong to weapon groups that correspond to armor specialization effects. They just don’t normally gain access to them. Is there anything that specifically prevents this from working as intended?
I like the anklyosaurus, but apparently not enough to not misspell it for twenty years. I think I like the velociraptor. They're just little chickens with teeths! Just remember that it is also Adam Driver's favorite dinosaur. The An-Kylo-saurus
What's everyone's favorite dinosaur? I'm partial to the ankylosaurus
I am hoping that there is plenty of dinosaur content.
When it is an illusory bridge over a chasm you wish to cross!
So your options are either to apply to a recruiting campaign (which can be a bit of a gamble, but sometimes it pays off), or you can play PFS games and find a group you like to play the kind of campaign you want to play. Many GMs/campaigns have rules for what is allowed at their tables. In organized play, you have the ability to earn an exception to the rules after you've played a bit and learned some more. In any case, the best way to find a game you enjoy is to be a player who people want to play with. Consider your words and actions. Would you want to play with you?
Arboreals regularly get up to Huge size, and while not technically animals, they are more similar to animal creatures than they are to Earthly plants. I say that if you have buy-in, go for it!
Haven't we all been participating in a live playtest for the past several years? I think the designers have plenty of feedback to work from.
Hardness and Resist: All work differently. That is why they are different things. If they acted the same, they would be the same.And they explain what is different about them. But in no way do they make any distinction to how they react to different types of damage other than they reduce damage by their number. Damage has different types and different types of damage apply to that number separately. There is nothing written in hardness to indicate otherwise. Hardness is more akin to "resist: OR" or "resist:any" than "resist:all". You reduce the total damage by the amount of hardness regardless of damage types versus reduce each type of damage by the value of resist: all.
Hardness and Resist: All work differently. That is why they are different things. If they acted the same, they would be the same.
Should they be treated like Dhampirs since "Despite being living creatures, dhampirs respond to positive and negative energy as if they were undead"? Yes. The text of heal describes the typical interaction. Creatures with negative healing break that assumption and should be treated as if they are undead.
A 26 will beat the low save DC for a level 9 creature, and a moderate save DC for a level 8. Two or three of those creatures will be a Low to Moderate encounter for a level 10 party. Four to six is Severe.
Here is the thing. Even if not everyone has it, you are still badly impaired in the fight. If your party is focusing on one enemy, and you go fight another, you just made the fight way harder. Focusing down an enemy is always the way to go. Spoiler: Focusing on a single enemy is not always the way to go, and can in fact cause anti-synergy with your allies' abilities.
Cordell answered your question. All Intensify Vulnerability effects need you to use the Intensify Vulnerability action first You muddled things when you argued against that. And Cordell is right that you can't use the Intensify Vulnerability action on the same turn that you use Exploit Vulnerability. Requirements You're benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability, you can see the subject, and you haven't used Exploit Vulnerability this round.
I think you misunderstood what Cordell said. In order to gain the benefits of Intensify Vulnerability, you need to use the action Intensify Vulnerabilty. That simple statement applies to all the implements. For regalia, that means first you Intensify, then you get a benefit when you Strike.
Lost Omens Mwangi Expanse added additional dragon types for the two draconic sorcerer bloodlines. Because a Dragon Disciple must match their sorcerer bloodline, if any, and the added dragon types are standard availability, it follows that a Dragon Disciple can choose a primal or imperial dragon (as allowed for in the dedication). Dragon-scaled kobold is entirely separate from draconic sorcerer bloodlines and reference a specific table that was not explicitly expanded. So, no primal and imperial dragons are not valid for a kobold's draconic exemplar.
How is it in error? It's very explicit how Glimpse of Redemption works. Because the rules say that if your interpretation of the rules results in them not working, your interpretation is wrong. Your version of Glimpse of Redemption is explicitly countered by RAW. In PFS you cannot look at an explicit rule and say "Oh well I believe it's intended to work this way so at my table it works that way". Under that logic the game doesn't have any concrete rules at all. The guide to organized play instructs GMs to make judgments to ensure a fair and fun experience. Your interpretation is neither fair nor fun and would be quickly overruled. As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience.
Creatures like golems are why characters need back-up plans and weapons. Reflex is pretty bad on many golems, keeping one prone and aiding an ally's attack can help your party get crits and punch through their resistances.
One action to move two characters is still a nice benefit and you can use the eidolon’s Speed.
No, it wouldn't work because your eidolon's Stride actions gain the tandem trait. So, you can't Stride as part of Act Together. However, you could do: Stride
By level 2, any kineticist can have an impulse from three of the four elements and humans can have all four. That's pretty good flexibility for a universal gate.
So rather than spend one action for a bonus to your next attack, you decided to spend three. That's a valid choice, but kind of undercuts your position.No, it's 1 PLUS whatever actions the next attack is vs those 3 actions so at best it's 2+ actions over 2 rounds vs 3 action in the same round. I don't think that undercuts anything as to me actions that have effects next round are worth less that actions that have an effect this round. I know the situation this round but I don't know what it'll be next You are very inconsistent in how you are counting actions.
It seems incredibly rare to me that you would lose all three of your actions in a round to not even be able to Blast. Do you often go rounds where you do zero damage, graystone?You have a 20'/30' range and the opponent has a high speed or you need to gather and move or the target hides and/or goes invisible or you have to deal with difficult terrain and cover. Losing actions to slow/stun just makes an already tight action economy even tighter before adding yet another action to boost damage next round. For me, the ability to go invisible and get a bonus from flatfooted trumped extra damage next round. So rather than spend one action for a bonus to your next attack, you decided to spend three. That's a valid choice, but kind of undercuts your position. Everything else is the same as other characters deal with. If you have to gather and move, you still have an action to Blast.
It seems incredibly rare to me that you would lose all three of your actions in a round to not even be able to Blast. Do you often go rounds where you do zero damage, graystone?
Thank you for your feedback, Lanathar. This idea sprung up mostly as a reason to care about your Con modifier or roll a Con check. I don't think that every ability from first edition should be brought forward, but the previous incarnation does provide a place for inspiration. Mitigating the risk of Attacks of Opportunity was also on my mind. You are correct that I did not give much consideration to the costs. The only other feats I know that replicate runes are the champion blade ally feats. Those grant some much lower-level runes. Free fortification is too much for an always-on ability. But, it could be part of a transformation (such as Assume Earth's Mantle), or require activation and take up your kinetic aura, or most generously require that you have an element gathered. Possible downsides might be conditions such as drained or enfeebled for a few rounds after negating a crit.
Oh, I'm definitely with you on not adding any subtraction unless you really need to, but there's precedent for flat checks having some added math. Recovery checks being the most common, at DC 10 + your dying value. Yes, a little math on a flat check DC is fine. Adjusting the DC of checks to hit concealed creatures comes up sometimes, too. But, when you start introducing subtraction, that's a sign that a flat check is probably not the best mechanic to use. Another alternative: The check is a Fortitude check against the Incredibly Hard DC of your level. At level 9, it is equivalent to a fortification rune for a kineticist that maxes Constitution (requires a 17 on the die). By level 20 it gets just a little better than a greater fortification rune (requiring a 12 on the die for a max Con kineticist with an apex item)
Garbage data in yields garbage data out. This is why we playtest by playing.
I'd rather not introduce subtraction into a mechanic any more than necessary. If you wanted to let the player roll the check (which gets Hero Points in the equation), I would call it a DC 21 Constitution check. But PF2 doesn't really have a concept of ability checks.
The first edition kineticist had a chance to ignore critical hits based on how much burn they had accrued. Here's an idea to bring that forward into Second Edition and give Constitution something special for the class. Elemental Fortification: Whenever the kineticist would be critically hit, the attacking creature must make a flat check with a DC equal to the kineticist's Constitution modifier. On a failure, the attack is instead a normal hit.
What happens if an enemy is weak to water but immune to fire and you hit them when the fire water I would have them take only their weakness in damage.
Negative comments have negative value to the community. A forum full of positive comments can still foster thoughtful discussion on weaknesses and areas for improvement. Too many people on here don't know how to write constructive criticism. Too often a "negative comment" veers into harassment, sniping and vitriol.
The larger issue here though is that it is too late to redesign every spell with an attack roll to balance around higher general accuracy. Adding accuracy to spell attack rolls would be with them the way they are, or not at all. The compromise position was, "add an item that lets you spend an action to target a different defense." This very deliberately and intentionally shows that casting is supposed to(as in it is the intention of the game to make it) hinge around knowing your enemy and gambling around making choices, not be a flat and obvious way to do the most optimal thing.Not when those different defenses are often lower than AC giving you that net +1 or +2 anyway (if not more in some cases). That's if you know your enemy or guess correctly. A flat item bonus removes the dynamism of spellcaster combat revolving around understanding foes.
Yeah, I'd be inclined to allow it as well.
No you are not. That is the amp's heightened entry. It does not apply to the cantrip unless the amp does.Is there any verbiage in the rules that more clearly indicates as such? Yes. Amp Heightened: Many amps have heightened entries similar to spells.
No you are not. That is the amp's heightened entry. It does not apply to the cantrip unless the amp does.
|
