Gaterie's page

372 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 372 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Rysky wrote:
I’m aware of the rules, that comment wasn’t about the rules but using the other poster’s own logic and view of play they were touting against them.

If you were aware of the rules, you'd know the rules already answer you. Why would you try to trick another poster in this case? He will simply quote the rule.

Instead of polluting the thread with your useless messages (or your "awesome tricks that are already answered in the rules"), go read the rules. Now.


Malk_Content wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Scout is explicitly listed as one of the Exploration Mode activities

Hey guys, our first cheater in this thread!

"Yes, I can totally do any exploration activity I want while having a permanent +1 to initiative because my pet rock is scouting, that's common sense, familiar are totally intended to break the activity economy".

Thats a harsh reading for someone who doesn't agree with you.

Hum, no. Using a false reading of the rule to justify a permanent +1 to anything is cheating.

Anyone can be wrong when reading the rules. But at the moment you starts to think "with my reading of the rule, I can get a free +1 bonus at no cost", you should question your reading of the rules - or you shouldn't be surprised to be treated as a cheater. Permanent +1 bonus are awesome and everyone wants some, but the game doesn't give it for free: if you get some for free you're cheating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
By your “Economy” reasoning no one can attempt any activities unless they remain perfectly still, since Striding is an action. “No one gets to ignore Actions”, remember?

... If only the rules stated it's possible to do an alternation of two action...

Risky, I think you should read the rules before posting. Right now, you look... I'll say "ridiculous" to use a nice word: posting about rules you don't know or understand doesn't make you look clever. And talking about "common sense" or "bad faith" while being proud of your false paradox doesn't either.


Themetricsystem wrote:
Scout is explicitly listed as one of the Exploration Mode activities

Hey guys, our first cheater in this thread!

"Yes, I can totally do any exploration activity I want while having a permanent +1 to initiative because my pet rock is scouting, that's common sense, familiar are totally intended to break the activity economy".


Rysky wrote:
Or just continue arguing in bad faith extremes, okay.

Seriously? That's your only "argument"? "Mommy, there are people who disagree with me and its can only be bad faith". Who old are you?

But if this kind of "argument" allows you to cheat at your table... More power to you, I guess ?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Minion rules for animals aren't common sense either (I can buy it for summons), but we apply them because it's the rules, set there to ensure balance over realism.

And, according to common sense, if action economy is so important it has to be enforced over realism, then action economy has to be enforced over realism during encounter mode, exploration mode and downtime.

Would anyone allow a character to perform two downtime activities at the same time ? two exploration activities at the same time ? If not, then a wizard with a familiar shouldn't break a activity economy "because he has a familiar".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

According to common sense, if it requires constant supervision during a fight, chances are it requires constant supervision outside of a fight - at least to do anything useful.

Look at a child: during a fight, he requires constant supervision or he'll get killed. According to your "common sense", can he scout without any supervision?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Is Exploration Mode measured in Rounds and Actions? No.

Exploration mode is measured in exploration activities. A character able to perform two exploration activities at once performs more activities than another, and break the action economy (or the activity economy, if you prefer).

Rysky wrote:
You can use things that are Actions in Exploration Mode, that doesn’t mean Exploration Mode is measured in Rounds and Actions. Or do you also scrutinize player’s actions in Exploration and Downtime Mode, going over single move “action” and the like?

Do you allow a character to craft several items at the same time while performing a jog, or do you limit every character to only one downtime activity at a time?

In the latter case, there's a downtime activity economy - and most players use this economy.

Prethen wrote:
Flier only as far as I know....where does it say it requires darkvision?

Don't owls see in the dark ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zergor wrote:
Yup it should be able to do that easily if you give it speech and flight as it's familiar abilities.

Isn't a owl familiar required to take flier and darkvision?


The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Or we play with GMs who have opponents go after the bigger threats to themselves (the PCs) rather than ignore the Barbarian introducing the greatsword to their face in favor off going after Smoog the party mascot.
I fling a fireball, or line up a dragon's breath into the middle of the party, where the familiar is standing beside their wizard or whatever, in the middle of all the other targets I would normally attack. RAW, the familiar rolls a save and takes damage like everyone else, so I'm not sure that's what people are worried about.

No, because [insert here any houserule protecting the familiar]. Since any DM who doesn't use this houserule is the worst DM ever, there's no need to include this houserule in the rule.

Anyway, the only consensus here is:
1/ the best familiar abilities are the pet rock abilities (the abilities that doesn't involve familiar's senses or familiar's move or even familiar's existence).
2/ a pet rock in your backpack isn't affected by AoE.
3/ if your familiar does anything a pet rock can't do (like delivering spells our moving around), then it's fair play to kill it.

Hence, choose any familiar, put its eyes out and pull its legs off, now it's a pet rock and you're golden. I think everyone can agree on this.

The question if it's an awesome game design or not is unrelated.


Bartram wrote:

A lot of people seem to be missing this, but PF2E is not, and was never meant to be an economics simulator, nor a physics simulator. It is an adventurer simulator. The rules are designed to accommodate and encourage adventurers doing their thing.

NPCs do not function by the rules in the book. They do their crafting and make their money and go about their lives, and the rules neither address nor care about how they do so. The rules only care about adventurers doing adventure.

You would be right if you weren't plain wrong.

The rules are designed to force the PCs to have a level-appropriate equipment or be tpk-ed. Thus, in order to allow the adventurers to do adventures, the rules have to provide a way for the PCs to get level-appropriate equipment. Since the DM may decide there's no level 15 sword to sell in the wasteland where the PCs are, the rules should give a way to craft the level 15 sword.


Talonhawke wrote:
So as a question do we still have distance modifiers on Perception, and if so do those modifiers or any others such as from precipitation effect perception rolls for initiative?

Using circumstance penalty on init roll doesn't make a lot of sense since characters may use other skill for init.

DM: "There's a lot fog and..."
PCs: "We all use the avoid notice tactic."


voideternal wrote:
A blind, deaf, stuffy-nosed character still rolls initiative in encounter mode, and can still beat others in initiative. Even if such a character can't perceive threats, they can still take combat-viable actions, such as summon a monster or drink a potion, before the opposition acts. I find this bizarre.

Moreover, this kind of character may have a very high initiative. He probably have an abysmall Perception, but who cares since he may use the avoid notice activity or any other tactic allowing him to roll init with something else than Per?


Sapient wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:


One party, the one acting aka setting up an ambush or surprise attack, does a skill check versus a fixed value, usually Stealth (but maybe Deception or even Athletics in our case) versus passive Perception mostly and this roll is also used to determine the acting partys initiative.

However once the GM calls for initiative, a new roll - ranked roll as they call it - is made and it may easily be that even if the prior skill check was high enough to beat the passive DC, however is not high enough to beat the active initiative roll of the opposition.

Which for an ambush or surprise attack can lead to situations where one side is not aware of the others whereabouts or intentions, they just know that things are about to happen and need to act to their best knowledge and ability, e.g. using a seek action in order to detect the ambush or shouting a warning for everybody to stay put in case of negotiations.

And with true surprise rounds out of the equation the principle of "you can't punish people for rolling high" must be applied to both NPCs and PCs, which simply means that if a NPC guard can react to a PC "surprise attack" simply by being faster, then this principle also needs to hold true for a PC character that spurs to action before an ambush actually happens.

I don't really agree with the "Spidey Sense" description, as others have put it. It isn't that the character is reacting to a feeling something is going down. It is that they initially didn't notice the concealed character (or deception, or whatever), but did as the attack was beginning. They notice the bow being pulled back, the person getting in position to jump, the bead of sweat that gives away the lie, etc.

I do agree that initiative should work the same for PC and NPC alike. This is one of the reasons I dislike the proposals for a free turn for whoever decides to attack first. PF adventure paths are full of areas where NPCs will attack on sight. The typical, non-murderhobo, PC party wants to...

"Spider sense" is a derogatory to talk about the situation where you know you're in a fight but you have no idea where the enemies are.

Maybe you heard a bow being pulled back - but you don't even know the direction this sound come from. Maybe you see a black cat running the street and you know it's a bad omen - but you don't know what this omen is about. In the end, you are in a fight, you know it, but you have no idea where the danger is - and we use the generic concept of "spider-sense" to designate this situation, because that's what spider-sense is: a perception of danger (without any clue where the danger is).

Because in the end, this is how the system works per RAW : you know there a danger but you don't know where. Maybe it's an ambush, maybe the guy you're talking with will stab you in the next few second, maybe a bulette will come out of the ground, etc.

Note: the tutorial given by RavingDork gave a new piece of information: rolling one stealth roll for init and to remain unnoticed is a special rule of the avoid notice activity. When you roll Perception for init, you don't uncover your enemy, no matter how high your roll is - and this make sense: since a Seek action affect only a small area, how could a non-action init roll be a Seek action on the whole battlemap? (while being a Sense motive action on every character you can see at the same time). Hence, in the end, going first while not noticing any enemy is a very common situation.


Captain Morgan wrote:
You know what though, if you applied the stealth initiative vs perception DC concept to deception, you might wind up with someone beating you in initiave but doesn't realise your intentions due to beating their perception DC. Interesting. Your GM could use the Spidey sense solution again, but I guess they'd be using actions to Sense Motive instead of Seek?

Which is exactly what I already explained. It's so sweet to be always right...

Except for one more detail: stealth isn't automatic. Hiding intentions is (except if a lie is involved). Hence, while hidden people have to beat Perception DC with their Stealth check in order to be actually hidden, people who are hiding their intention don't have to succeed at any roll to actually hide their intention (except if a lie is involved). But then it works like Stealth : a hidden character (resp hidden intention) may be detected using the Seek action (resp. the Sense motive action).

The normal state of people is "not hidden", they may use the Stealth action to be "hidden", hidden people may be detected with the seek action. The normal state of intentions is "hidden" (except if a lie is involved), hidden intention may be detected using the sense motive action.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Gaterie wrote:

Because the barbarian isn't doing anything requiring a deception check: he isn't Creating a Diversion, Impersonating nor Lying.

if someone else gain init, that person may ask the barb if he intents to attack - forcing the barb either to lie (and make a deception check), either to keep silent (which could be interpreted as a confession). But at the moment the barb decide to be hostile, there isn't any deception involved.

Please keep in mind that the skill actions listed under a skill are not meant to be all there is.

Except, at the moment init is rolled, the barb didn't do any thing at all - he has just some intent, but there isn't any rule saying every character must state every of his intent at all moment or roll deception. There is a rule about lying, and there is rule about sense motive (this costs action to the person who's sensing motive - and he can't do a "general sense motive", he has to spend an action for every person. If there are 4 PCs, there's no way a character may sense the motive of every one of them within 1 round).

Since the barb isn't lying, what is the rule that makes the most sense to use?

Note: you may allow some sort of "passive sense motive". But remember: everyone is trained (or more) in Perception, while only a few numbers of characters are trained in any skill - including Deception. If you allow "passive sense motive", you should clearly state the intents of almost every character at every moment. "The merchand intents to buy your item even if you raise the price by 25%", "your prisoner intents to be a brigand once you'll release him", "your employer doesn't intent to pay you", etc. It's possible to play that way (this is how Malk plays), but this isn't the usual way.

The barbarian, if they want to get a drop on people who are standing right in front of them. Needs to be hiding their emotions, this is a form of deception, quite analogous to non verbal lying in this situation...

You're right, except the game handle it the other way around: the barb doesn't have anything to do to hide his emotion, other people may spend action to discover those intents.


Ubertron_X wrote:
Gaterie wrote:

Because the barbarian isn't doing anything requiring a deception check: he isn't Creating a Diversion, Impersonating nor Lying.

if someone else gain init, that person may ask the barb if he intents to attack - forcing the barb either to lie (and make a deception check), either to keep silent (which could be interpreted as a confession). But at the moment the barb decide to be hostile, there isn't any deception involved.

Please keep in mind that the skill actions listed under a skill are not meant to be all there is.

Except, at the moment init is rolled, the barb didn't do any thing at all - he has just some intent, but there isn't any rule saying every character must state every of his intent at all moment or roll deception. There is a rule about lying, and there is rule about sense motive (this costs action to the person who's sensing motive - and he can't do a "general sense motive", he has to spend an action for every person. If there are 4 PCs, there's no way a character may sense the motive of every one of them within 1 round).

Since the barb isn't lying, what is the rule that makes the most sense to use?

Note: you may allow some sort of "passive sense motive". But remember: everyone is trained (or more) in Perception, while only a few numbers of characters are trained in any skill - including Deception. If you allow "passive sense motive", you should clearly state the intents of almost every character at every moment. "The merchand intents to buy your item even if you raise the price by 25%", "your prisoner intents to be a brigand once you'll release him", "your employer doesn't intent to pay you", etc. It's possible to play that way (this is how Malk plays), but this isn't the usual way.


Ubertron_X wrote:
Just a quick question from my end: What is limiting us to treat a Deception initiative check like a Stealth initiative check when transitioning from Exploration to Encounter mode?

Because the barbarian isn't doing anything requiring a deception check: he isn't Creating a Diversion, Impersonating nor Lying.

if someone else gain init, that person may ask the barb if he intents to attack - forcing the barb either to lie (and make a deception check), either to keep silent (which could be interpreted as a confession). But at the moment the barb decide to be hostile, there isn't any deception involved.

Spoiler:
You could give the player the choice between Per and Deception for init - assuming a high deception allows him to be more surprising. But this would be advantageous for the PC - PF2 is designed to punish players, not to give them any advantage.

Forcing him to roll init using Perception, while there isn't any deception action involved, and while an untrained skill has an abyssmal score - far lower than anything level-appropriate. Remember, most people says admit the characters can decide to roll Per instead of Stealth for init when they set an ambush - because rolling untrained Stealth is far too punishing, even by PF2 standard. It's the same for any skill: asking for an untrained roll is just a way to say "you auto-lose because i don't like you lol", it's not a thing you should usually do.


Ravingdork wrote:

In the barbarian/balor example, I'd let the barbarian change his declared course of actions, but not to cancel the fight. It would be obvious to all that he intended hostile action.

He could change targets, course, actions, or even try to de-escalate (as Malk stated) with some seriously hard checks, but he could not cancel the fight like it never happened. That would be meta gaming. Kind of like walking down a hallway, springing a trap, then saying you actually are going down the other hallway.

Let's say there's a corpse with some loot in the trap. What you're advocating for is to apply the effect of the trap, while not allowing the PCs to see the corpse and the loot - the detrimental effect without the benefit, just to punish the players.

Again, this is not how the game works: when you decide to resolve an action, you have to apply the benefit of his action. The barbarian can't be the one who broke the peace if you deny him of his action.

Anyway, look at the rule quoted by Mark : at the moment the barbarian gets the idea of being hostile, you have to roll init. This is automatically before he does anything - he can't have done anything hostile before the moment he had the idea. And normal people don't express all their idea at the moment they get it (only Mark's character does that).

You roll init, every character gets his spider sense and may use the sense motive action (with the risk of crit failure, especially if some character have high deception: "ho no, the negociator decided to attack!") or something else (or you can deny of their actions as your tutorial explains - what you can't do is deny them of their action while applying the detrimental effect of the action they intended to take) etc.


Malk_Content wrote:
Page 498 states to roll initiative "when a creature on one side decides to take action against the other." So the barbarian player declaring hostile intent is by RAW when you roll initiative. That the barbarian regretted after the fact doesn't change anything.

Yes, "when a creature decide to [something]". And how do the other creatures know who decided what?

Other creature gaining init means nothing more than "their spider-sense activates".


Claxon wrote:
I think the whole issue is that some of us believe that a player saying "I want to charge attack him" is really saying "I'm interested in starting hostilities" and in character that can be displayed many ways, without actually taking any actions (in the mechanical sense). The character can yell, pound his fist on the table, start to draw a weapon, etc. Exactly what is done is left to the GM and the table to describe.

No, the problem is that some people are so committed into trapping the players and preventing them from doing anything, they want to apply the detrimental effects of the barbarian's action (he broke the peace) while not applying the beneficial effects of his action (he attacked and maybe dealt some damage).

But this is not how the system works. The system is designed to punish the players and prevent them from doing anything (as someone explained somewhere, PCs don't get any benefit from surprise, but it's a feature of the system, not a bug), but not to that point: when you resolve an action, you resolve the whole action, with the detrimental effects and the beneficial effects. You can't just give the penalties of the action and not the benefit. You can't say "you activate your rage? wait, your action is interrupted, and while we resolve the interruption you have the AC penalty but not HP bonus" : either the action of the barbarian is resolved and he get the full benefits and penalties, either it isn't and he doesn't have any benefit nor penalty.

The scene is thus resolved the same way as the example 4 in the video: combat starts, the first guy to act knows he's in combat thank to his spider sense but he doesn't know why. He notices the barbarian, but the barbarian didn't do anything hostile at that point - maybe the actual danger lies in some hidden goblins?

Now let's use example 4 from the video once again; let's say Merisiel, wining init and using her spider sense, summons a Balor - showing your power and summoning a powerful ally for the next few turns is a sensible thing to do when you know there's a danger but don't know what. The goblin 1 sees the demon, and think it's a bit too powerful for a level 0 goblin: instead of attacking, he decides to stay hidden. The other goblins do the same. Now the situation has suddenly changed from example 4 to example 1 - combat doesn't happen, the group pass, the end. Why should it be different from the king's wizard summoning a Balor and discouraging the barbarian from doing anything hostile long before he gets to act?

---
Now, lets imagine another scenario:
1/ the wizard says "I cast a fireball".
2/ roll init, wizard goes last.
3/ at his turn, he doesn't cast a fireball because we can't burn his foe without burning his friend. instead he casts a magic missile.

At this point, would you ask him to remove his Fireball slot?

If yes, then I think you're using some houserule - but hey, maybe you're right, maybe the wizard should be punished because he said "I cast a fireball" and you randomly disrupted his action.

If no, then you agree with me: the wizard didn't even start his incantation. If the spellcasting activity had begun before init is rolled, then the fight would have interrupted and disrupted it (rules p. 461), and a disrupted spell consumes the slot (rules p. 302). Hence, if the slot isn't consumed, this means the spellcasting activity never started is the first place - thus this non-existant casting can't be the peacebreaker.


Malk_Content wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I mean that a player can retain their stated intent to make the rules look silly isntba rules problem, it's a player problem

He doesn't retract anything, he just follow the rules: he didn't act (because the rules say so - and obviously a lot of people agree in this thread), and the thing he wanted to do 10 minutes ago doesn't engage him now.

This is a very common thing in d&d/pf: a PC falls, the cleric say "I'll heal at my turn", the situation change, at his turn he can't heal the PC, he does something else. The fact he said "I'll heal you at my turn" doesn't consume a spell slot or trigger an AoO or anything: the heal spell never happened. This is the same with the barbarian: since it didn't get to act in the first place, his hostile action never happened. This is the same in example 4 described in the tutorial: since the goblin never get to act in the first place, he didn't give away his position by attacking. When his turn comes, maybe Merisiel used some high-level ability at her turn and the goblin knows he shouldn't attack such a powerful foe - so he stay hidden as in example 1.

There is a difference between changing what your combat action is going to be and changing that you wanted to fight in the first place. The second one only happens if you are purposefully trying to make the rules look silly.

I already gave a sensible example of this kind of behavior beforehand (with the goblins of the tutorial). But since you don't read the thread, I'll give another example, just for you:

1/ Init is rolled because the barb declare he attacks.
2/ The king's Wizard next to the king gains init.
3/ The wizard summons a Balor. He doesn't attack or anything, he just summons a Balor.
4/ Barb's turn. Does he have to attack the Balor who wasn't even here at the beginning? Or can he just pass and let his friend resume the negotiation?

If the barb can do the latter, then he never did anything hostile - since he didn't act before his turn and didn't act during his turn.

Is this example simple enough for you?

---
Anyway, I fail to see where people have a problem.

1/ people don't get to act before their turn. That's actually what most of the people here are arguing. (I think there are two people who disagree).

2/ At your turn, you do whatever you want - you aren't tied to what you wanted to do 10 minutes ago when the situation wasn't the same.

Are people disagreeing with point 2/? Can you reference the rules you're using (page ref etc) instead of talking in the void?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I mean that a player can retain their stated intent to make the rules look silly isntba rules problem, it's a player problem

He doesn't retract anything, he just follow the rules: he didn't act (because the rules say so - and obviously a lot of people agree in this thread), and the thing he wanted to do 10 minutes ago doesn't engage him now.

This is a very common thing in d&d/pf: a PC falls, the cleric say "I'll heal at my turn", the situation change, at his turn he can't heal the PC, he does something else. The fact he said "I'll heal you at my turn" doesn't consume a spell slot or trigger an AoO or anything: the heal spell never happened. This is the same with the barbarian: since it didn't get to act in the first place, his hostile action never happened. This is the same in example 4 described in the tutorial: since the goblin never get to act in the first place, he didn't give away his position by attacking. When his turn comes, maybe Merisiel used some high-level ability at her turn and the goblin knows he shouldn't attack such a powerful foe - so he stay hidden as in example 1.


Ravingdork wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
RAW combat begins when the barbarian decides to attack, and everyone rolls initiative. But run it however you want.
Sure. But what information does anybody but the Barbarian use to decide what actions to take?
The barbarian is taking hostile action. Full stop.

Of course not, lol. x)

You should look at this video, at the 16th minute (example 4): while it's not a great video, it's quite clear on that point: before the goblins act, they remain unoticed - as if they didn't act at all. Even if their intent is to become noticed at their turn. Would they have already taken an hostile action, they wouldn't be unoticed anymore - I don't think there's any hostile action allowing you to remain unoticed.

It's the same for the barbarian: before he acts, he hasn't acted - hence he hasn't taken any hostile action.


albadeon wrote:
When encounter mode is initiated from exploration mode by the barbarian player saying "I charge the boss", the player reveals information to the GM about his plans. Once we are in initiative order, how the GM-run NPCs at the top of the initiative order act on this GM knowledge is very much a matter of GMing style. Many people here on this thread believe in this case the NPCs are able to tell the barbarian's plans by him "telegraphing" his intentions somehow. And thus can use their turns to prevent him doing that, even by killing him.

Actually hz aren't telegraphing anything - when his turn comes up, he can just raise his hands and ask why the opponents are attacking him.

I guess the intent is to allow the PCs to force the other to initiate the fight. Saying "I draw my sword" doesn't mean you draw your sword, it means the encounter mode starts so the opponent attack you first.

Anyway, I have no idea how people would handle the situation if it was inverted: PCs are negotiating with a group of NPC, at some point init is rolled because maybe one of the NPC will draw his sword and attack - right now none of them did anything and none of them is committed to anything, but hey, one of them may do something at his turn. It's your turn, what do you do?


nicknasti wrote:

Surprise Example

Player: "I'm going to hide in this doorway and attack the first enemy that comes along with my sword" [Ready Action set as a Reaction]
 
Enemy: Enters hallway but out of range of player [To notice: Stealth vs Perception; player wins so we continue]
 
Enemy: Unsuspectingly walks within range of the hidden player
 
Player’s Reaction is triggered so the Readied attack occurs vs flat-footed target
 
Both: Roll Initiative / Start Encounter

This is not how it work.

1/ there isn't any "Stealth vs Perception" roll in the game; you can roll Stealth vs perception DC, or you can roll Perception vs the Stealth DC, but you can't roll Perception vs Stealth.

2/ if you allow to ready an attack out of combat, then every character will do that, and it's exactly the same as the old surprise round : every PC get one attack before combat start, then roll init. Except surprise rounds have been purposedly removed from the game: it's very strange to argue they are still here in another form although they were removed.

3/ the roll determining if the ambush was a success is the initiative roll : if the Stealth as init roll beats the perception DC, while none of the Perception as init roll beats the Stealth DC, then the ambush is a success. or something like that. So you start by determining if the ambush is a success, then you roll init (at long range if you decided the ambush failed, or at short range if the ambush is successful), and this roll determine if the ambush is successful. If the ambushed people gain init but don't see anything, no one knows how it work.


Captain Morgan wrote:
3) Can your allies gain the benefit of "Follow the Expert" to their Stealth checks? By RAW, I'm not sure they can, but that seems exceptionally weird given the flavor of the feat.

Note : "follow the expert" has the auditory trait. I have no idea how it works with stealth. I guess it means a character may use auditory actions like singing or using a power word without breaking from stealth? Whatever, who cares.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
siegfriedliner wrote:
and how easy is it on average to guess the right save and have an appropriate spell on hand to make use of it ?

usually it's a 50% guess. It's easy to determine the highest save (big -> fort, smart -> will, small -> ref), but there's no way to determine the smallest one among the remaining two. Eg, it's obvious the highest save of a white dragon is fort, but there's no way to know its smallest save is will.

Depending on your degree of metagame, you may have better results.


RexAliquid wrote:
graystone wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
What were you doing that your flame oracle had to deal with concealment?
I'll thank Cole for getting the quotes for me. It's part and parcel of playing a flame oracle that's used any revelation spells in the day.
Yes, but why did that impact you? It’s the easiest curse to mitigate

That's very strange since, as explained by Graystone, you can't mitigate the penalty.

Anyway, I guess the actual answer is "'mitigate' in the rules doesn't mean 'mitigate', it means 'remove or reduce'. Hence the rules state you can't 'mitigate or mitigate' the penalty and it makes perfect sense. And you can mitigate the penalty even though the rules say you can't because it doesn't mean the same thing".


tivadar27 wrote:
The only real advantage I know of is the ability to ride smaller mounts

It doesn't really work since a medium creature can't carry a fully equipped small creature - except if you assume a halfling with his equipment weights less than equipment (in which case, any smart PC will use halfling corpse to carry more equipment).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:
Or maybe you should actually read posts, instead of just scanning them to extrapolate one sentence you can use for your constant attacks (if not straight insults).

And What would I have discovered? Should I really quote every post explaining that since the PC should find some uncommon items, they should automatically find the exact uncommon items they want or the DM is a bad DM? Should I really explain how "finding only a few uncommon and rare items - but exactly those you want" is the same as "no rarity rules"?

Until now, I though it was simple to understand: each time someone says "you can use this uncommon stuff to be efficient", his argument is invalid because some PCs will get the appropriate uncommon item and others will get an elven curve blade, some useless mithril or a force bolt scroll. It seems the effect of rarity in game are very hard to understand to some people.


Vlorax wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Megistone wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Vlorax wrote:


It seems a lot of people have issues with using ranged weapons that aren't bombs when it's a pretty viable way to play it.

Well, yeah. People who want to play a bomber alchemist probably do so wanting to use bombs, not slings.

Quote:
There's also the Alchemical Crossbow which adds bomb damage to bolts and can have runes added to it as it's a weapon.
Definitely a cool weapon, but also uncommon so not something you can rely on having at all.
Well, you can't play a fireball wizard at level 1 either. Sometimes you just need a bit of patience and XP.

Could you please show us the rule allowing to trade patience and/or xp for uncommon items?

Tell your GM that your character is looking for a way to acquire those items. It's in the rules, and it won't even cost you xp.

If you play with bad GMs, it's not the game's fault.

Oh. So according to you, PCs should get any item/spell/etc they want - otherwise the GM is a bad GM.

Can you explain the purpose of the rarity system again ?

** spoiler omitted **

Yea pretty much, as the Gm of my table the rarity system is there as a guideline to how much something shows up in the world, and how disruptive it is to game play.

According to the CRB.

"Uncommon items are available only to those who have special training, grew up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world."

I have 0 issue in allowing an Alchemist to have the "special training" to be able to create/find/use an Alchemical Crossbow. I'm clearly crazy.

If a player wanted an Alchemical Crossbow to be part of that story and it's not incongruous there's absolutely no reason to not let them get one.

"The GM might alter the way rarity works or change the rarity of individual items"

Gives GM's carte blanche to change the rarity of anything they want, if one of the players...

Allowing an elf to have the "special training" to be able to create/find/use an elven curve blade sounds legit.

... And yet, this is not how the game works. An elf can't use an elven curve blade unless he takes a dedicated feat. Because this is how the game represent special training : feats.

I have no idea what is the feat allowing to create/find/use the alchemical crossbow; but I'm quite confident in one thing: there are too many feats, you don't remember each one of them in detail. Even if you say there isn't such a feat, this just means you don't know where this feat is - or you forgot it.

Anyway, it's really funny to see all those people explaining seriously that "uncommon" means nothing - everyone can access any uncommon items with no restriction, otherwise the DM is bad. Hey guys, maybe you should ask yourself why the rarity rule exist in the first place - is the intend to create more tags for no reason, or does those rules have some effects and consequences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Vlorax wrote:


It seems a lot of people have issues with using ranged weapons that aren't bombs when it's a pretty viable way to play it.

Well, yeah. People who want to play a bomber alchemist probably do so wanting to use bombs, not slings.

Quote:
There's also the Alchemical Crossbow which adds bomb damage to bolts and can have runes added to it as it's a weapon.
Definitely a cool weapon, but also uncommon so not something you can rely on having at all.
Well, you can't play a fireball wizard at level 1 either. Sometimes you just need a bit of patience and XP.

Could you please show us the rule allowing to trade patience and/or xp for uncommon items?

Tell your GM that your character is looking for a way to acquire those items. It's in the rules, and it won't even cost you xp.

If you play with bad GMs, it's not the game's fault.

Oh. So according to you, PCs should get any item/spell/etc they want - otherwise the GM is a bad GM.

Can you explain the purpose of the rarity system again ?

Spoiler:
According to my reading of the rules, uncommon items may make some stories harder to tell - so tje DM should disallow those items forever if he want to tell those kind of story


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Vlorax wrote:


It seems a lot of people have issues with using ranged weapons that aren't bombs when it's a pretty viable way to play it.

Well, yeah. People who want to play a bomber alchemist probably do so wanting to use bombs, not slings.

Quote:
There's also the Alchemical Crossbow which adds bomb damage to bolts and can have runes added to it as it's a weapon.
Definitely a cool weapon, but also uncommon so not something you can rely on having at all.
Well, you can't play a fireball wizard at level 1 either. Sometimes you just need a bit of patience and XP.

Could you please show us the rule allowing to trade patience and/or xp for uncommon items?


Rysky wrote:
Buying a magic sword requires being around someone who is selling a magic sword.

Buying a magic sword requires to be level 4. If the DM denies the level-appropriate magic sword, then the PCs can't handle the level-appropriate monsters, TPK, let's play something else.

Actually, according to the wbl rules, a martial can get a magic sword at level 3 - while it's not possible to craft it at that level.


Joana wrote:
Huh, so as soon as they enter the room, I say, Valeros, you're up; take your three actions. And if they don't touch the mimic and the mimic opts to stay in disguise, it's possible for them to leave the room and never figure out what was going on. That's ... definitely different.

You do that; and you come back in two weeks or so because there's a problem of metagaming with your players: each time you starts the encounter mode, the PCs start looking around and using 3 action per round - although they shouldn't know they're in encounter mode.

See you later! :)


thenobledrake wrote:
Gaterie wrote:

... Seriously guys... It is to much to ask for a tiny bit of consistency? According to CrystalSeas, "there were mistakes on the sheets", and according to Rysky, there's an errata in the CRB changing the bulk values of items.

Are you at least aware you're making contradictory statements?

The statements aren't contradictory.

There were errors on the sheets, some of them because errata hadn't been applied and some of them that were just a detail getting recorded incorrectly.

There are also some pieces of errata which affect the bulk of items, including one that makes some of the bulk you can store in a backpack not count toward your bulk limit, which happens to affect all those pregens since they have items in their backpacks.

Dislike the game, rail against it whenever you want... but maybe check your facts when doing so?

Wait; there were two layers of errors in the bulks values of the pregens?

"oh, I don't understand why people don't understand the abstraction of bulk, this is so simple! Designers themselves are so confused, they make mistakes over mistakes, but hey..."

Quote:
Dislike the game, rail against it whenever you want... but maybe check your facts when doing so?

Wow, you got me.

Wait, aren't you one of the guy who was pretending everything was perfect about bulk? I can't understand: why is there an errata if everything was already perfect? could it be... You were wrong the whole time, while I was right the whole time?

... no, of course you'll never admit you were wrong. You will continue to argue in bad faith - eg pretending this errata was totally dispensable because a lot of game make dispensable errata 3 month after release. or something like this. I don't really care, I already your opinion is worth nothing - and I already know the kind of cognitive dissonance the useless fanboys like you are capable of - like arguing everything's perfect before there's an errata, and arguing the game didn't work before the errata the day after.

Anyway, you want some fact checking? I'm the first guy who actually checked the pregen and saw the errors. One post I did at the time. Yes, it was before the release, since it was already a problem in the playtest - alchemist were unplayable with the bulk rules. At that time, useless fanboys like you were too busy pretending everything was perfect to check anything.

I've re-done the computation after the release. And again, the pregen didn't use the bulk rules and the bulk rules were unusable (especially for alchemists), and again, useless fanboys like you were too busy pretending everything was OK to check anything. And this time, I wasn't the only one to check - I guess some people were actually playing the game and actually seeing in play a level 1 alchemist was literaly unplayable (while useless fanboys like you were to busy pretending everything's OK).

No, I didn't check the new new pregen. Partly because I'm not paid for that. Partly because there's so few ad about the errata, it's hard as hell to find (googling "Pathfinder 2 errata" leads to ENworld, reddit, and other forums; the only link to a site related to paizo is a thread on this messageboard asking why it's so hard to find an errata). I won't try to argue the goal of the errata isn't to point error in the CRB - it's not made for actual players, it's just ammo for a few fanboys who know how to find it so they can answer some criticism.

Anyway, even if I didn't check the new pregen with the new errated rules, I'm quite confident about one fact: you didn't check anything either. You didn't check anything before the errata, you didn't check anything after, and actually you have no idea if the pregen are working as advertised - you simply repeat what you've heard. You're still too busy doing your useless fanboy stuff to actually check anything. You're too busy pretending the rules are simple and intuitive even though it's now an admitted fact the designers themselves made several layers of errors to make any useful contribution to anything.


Ascalaphus wrote:

Everyone has had to move house or help a friend move house. Remember that light, but big couch with no real handholds? And that small crate of heavy books but with good handholds?

That's why bulk isn't just about weight.

One of the convenient thing about gnomes and halflings are their handhold - this is why they are easier to carry than their armor.


Quandary wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I find it works better if you just think of it as inventory slots rather than encumberance.
Agreed, I think that should work for most people, and demonstrates abstract mechanics actually pose no problem at all when approached as such.
graystone wrote:
It's actually REALLY simple: you can put to piles of things next to each other that have the same bulk and it's 100% clear they aren't equal. The game is trying to tell me it's as easy to carry a knocked out person as it is 3 bo staffs.

So what? You can put two piles of things next to each other with the same weight, yet they can have other characteristics important to ease of carrying.

A weight based system tells you two objects are equally easy to carry simply because they have identical weight, when that clearly isn't realistic in the end.
In a game full of abstact mechanics, why is it problematic to use another abstract unit focused on player character functionality?

Let's see... Why is it harder to use an abstract unit that makes no sense than a number we can easily evaluate?

I guess we'll never get an answer to thsi question.

Anyway, bulk is so easy, it's not the kind of stuff that will be errated soon because the designers (the people who created this unit) had it wrong.

Oh, wait...

CrystalSeas wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
The rule is to sum up the bulk value given in the equipment chapter, not to chose some lower than the encumbrance threshold - and yet some pregen like Fumbus use the former rule instead of the official rule.

Have you actually looked at the revised pregen sheets?

They corrected a lot of errors.

It wasn't that they weren't using the rules. It was that there were mistakes on the sheets. Mistakes on a lot more things than just bulk. Mistakes that have been corrected.

Paizo uses the bulk rules on every single pregen. To say that "even its creator doesn't use it" is simply wrong. They've used it on every pregen since PF2 was released.

Rysky wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Paizo folks themselves don't use the bulk rules - eg see the pregen characters.
Every pregen sheet has a line for bulk. It's the first line in the Equipment section.

Yes, I can as well write "4B 7L no encumbrance" or some other random value on my character sheet. But this is not the rule. The rule is to sum up the bulk value given in the equipment chapter, not to chose some lower than the encumbrance threshold - and yet some pregen like Fumbus use the former rule instead of the official rule.

Check the errata for the Core Rulebook, they fixed some of the discrepancies.

Edit: ninjaed by CrystalSeas

???

... Seriously guys... It is to much to ask for a tiny bit of consistency? According to CrystalSeas, "there were mistakes on the sheets", and according to Rysky, there's an errata in the CRB changing the bulk values of items.

Are you at least aware you're making contradictory statements?

If the sheets use errated bulk values, then their computation aren't wrong. If they made mistakes when computing bulk, then the answer isn't in the CRB errata. It can't be both. At least one of you two is wrong, and yet it's very clear Rysky thinks his statement is confirmed by CrystalSeas. It's quite amazing how little sense you're able to make.

Bulk is so easy, there aren't two people giving the same explanation or using the same values.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Paizo folks themselves don't use the bulk rules - eg see the pregen characters.
Every pregen sheet has a line for bulk. It's the first line in the Equipment section.

Yes, I can as well write "4B 7L no encumbrance" or some other random value on my character sheet. But this is not the rule. The rule is to sum up the bulk value given in the equipment chapter, not to chose some lower than the encumbrance threshold - and yet some pregen like Fumbus use the former rule instead of the official rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
All I know is that it sounds like it's a perfect time to advertise my new line of tinfoil hats! On sale now! Perfect gifts for the other people in your bunker or militia! Ask about bulk rates!

Do they protect against mind reading through ttrpg forums? I'll buy one!

Do you sell the formula as well?


hyphz wrote:
how long are they going to stay in those defensive positions, assuming they're not guards on shift? Hours? Days?

9 minutes and 54 seconds - because they become fatigued after 10 minutes (assuming "defensive position" is a two-action-per-round-activity, like "prepare an action to attack").


7 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
As for why the change: weight based encumbrance has been the norm for 45 years... and encumbrance tracking has widely been entirely ignored. So the Paizo folks have decided to try a new thing and see if it means people will actually use encumbrance tracking rules when they used to not.

Paizo folks themselves don't use the bulk rules - eg see the pregen characters. That maybe the greatest accomplishment of Bulk: even its creator doesn't use it. Maybe they should create a rule there're willing to use themselves instead of something random?


Martialmasters wrote:
Only reason this thread is still here is due to the probably intentional timing of the Post itself to be during a holiday weekend.

The only question is: is this an illuminati conspiracy or a NASA conspiracy? Is it tied to the blue beam project? and what about the crop circles we saw last summer?


Gloom wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
This rule exist for balance reasons; it's one of the rules ensuring crafting is never profitable.

Crafting should be at least as profitable as working to earn an income using a lore skill. It shouldn't be less profitable simply because you're choosing to make something specific.

Saying that crafting should NEVER be profitable is just asinine.

I'm just talking about the rule as they are designed: they are designed to prevent craft from being profitable. Whether it's a good thing or not isn't my point.

Strangely enough, in the normal game craft can't be profitable, ever; but using PFS special rules, it's the most profitable activity ever. I don't know if there's a misunderstanding between the designer team and the PFS team, or if one of the team botched, or if there's a reason why craft should be profitable in PFS and not in the standard game. Anyway, some people are like you and think craft should be profitable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:
Completely support the idea of dropping the lead up time.

This rule exist for balance reasons; it's one of the rules ensuring crafting is never profitable.

Quote:

Though, I'm also against paying the rest of the item off to finish it after the 4 day timer.

If you can craft 50 arrows in a day then you can craft 50 arrows in a day.

Let's say you can craft 50 arrows per day, using log and arrow heads as raw material. How many arrows can you craft each day using arrow shaft and arrow head? How many arrows can you craft each day using trees and iron ore?

The price of the raw compound is supposed to answer this question: it takes 4 day to construct an arrow using arrow shaft and arrow head as raw material.

Gloom wrote:
Formulas serve as a realistic way for GMs to limit access to crafting items for both NPCs and Players. It also gives them something else that they can award players without giving them a direct source of power.

... this is the exact goal of the recipe mechanic in video games. And video game invented this mechanics long before ttrpg.

This is a very efficient mechanic in the context of video game, but it isn't realistic in any way: does anyone seriously think an awesome chef is awesome because he looted the best recipe? Does anyone seriously think looting a Stradivarius blueprint will allow a violinmaker to craft Stradivarius? This is not how the word works. The idea the blueprint "is a way to limit access to crafting items" doesn't comes from the real world, it comes from video games.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
making it obvious you are not actually looking for a debate but just to push your own biased agenda.

One person makes a complain, and he's instantly accused of pushing an hidden agenda - as if he w&s part of a big illuminati conspiracy. Because obviously Pathfinder is so important, several secret society are fighting to determine its destiny.

This is why this community is toxic - and why this forum is awesome. Discussing with people believing in those kind of conspiracy is awesome.


Rysky wrote:
Recipes and blueprints are not a video game dynamic.

Oh sorry. I guess I didn't see all those famous ttrpg using blueprint because I was too busy playing The Witcher and Warframe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orithilaen wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
You could use Flame Barrier to save the fighter’s life for a round so he can finish the fight. Or rebuke death to get him and the rogue both back into it.
Awesome. So the hail mary stuff works only if you multiclass to get some actual focus powers.
No need to multiclass--you can get rebuke death or flame barrier from Domain Fluency at level 12.

Awesome; so that's a level 1 ability that is useful during less than half of a campaign. And only if you take the appropriate feat.

HyperMissingno wrote:
To make things clear I was talking about the hail mary thing as if the oracle had an additional explosion when they went down, the focus spells are not and should not be the hail mary.

A divine class whose signature ability is an explosive belt... No, thanks.


Maelorn7 wrote:
Also the wizard already understood that his single target dmg will never ever get close to fighter and it is ok. The fighter will never be able to throw a nasty 6d6 fireball against 7 enemies at once, dealing ~140 dmg to them.

8 level-4 creature constitute a moderate encounter. 12 level-4 or 8 level-3 creature constitute a severe encounter - ie an encounter you're not supposed to do every day.

So:
- either this was an easy encounter with a lot of creature worth 0 xp, and you litterally accomplished nothing (there's a reason why level-5 creature are worth 0 xp).
- either it was a real encounter and the DM literally packed every enemy in a fireball area so you can insta-kill them with your wizard while the martials were elsewere.

So yeah... With some DM fiat, wizards are awesome... And they are awesome at accomplishing nothing...

1 to 50 of 372 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>