Mavaro

Gisher's page

6,815 posts (7,068 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 74 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,972 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd really like them to flesh out the culture of the Land of the Linnorm Kings the way that they did with the Mwangi Expanse (my favorite Lost Omens book so far). In PF1 it was pretty much left as a caricature of ancient Scandinavian culture where everyone is a Viking warrior.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:

...

That's not to say that I can't be moved by a new ancestry. I had no real interest in the idea of a "toy person ancestry" and then Poppet hit, and that thing grabbed me by the freaking heartstrings and dragged me across the room.
...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Gisher wrote:
1.) It definitively ends the claims that it is possible to qualify for Universalist feats through the archetype.
I don't see that it's any clearer or more defined as far as this goes: you are allowed universalist when you pick for your Arcane School feature for the wizard class, so the argument is still there for doing the same for the multiclass.

The way I read it, Universalist isn't a school, it's the result of not choosing a school.

CRB, p. 205 wrote:
If you don’t choose a school, you’re a universalist,...

That's why Universalist isn't listed in the Arcane Schools section. (CRB, p. 207-208)

And the new wording for the Wizard Multiclass Dedication forces you to select a school.

CRB, p. 231 wrote:
Select one arcane school of magic;...

I don't see how you can take the dedication and still not have a school.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Humans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

.
.
.
.
.
.
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️ = Medium Caster
⬛ = Affected Empty Square
⚫ = Affected Enemy Square
⬜ = Unaffected Empty Square
⭕ = Unaffected Enemy Square

30' Line
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⭕
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜

30' Cone
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⭕
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜

30' Emanation
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⭕
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜

So with six squares between the caster and the enemy, all three effects fall just short of the enemy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Does the Psychic class have a broader psychic lore chapter wrapped around it, or is it just the class? I’d love to hear a little on their place in the setting beyond the broad strokes (big in Vudra, tied to aberrations, etc).
Know Direction will do a deep-dive int the psychic on Monday.

Yay! It's been a while since I was this excited about a book!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

...

I’ve never really been a fan of dwarves in fantasy, but Garund has changed that - and it rules!
...

It's funny how such things can make a big difference when it comes to taste, isn't it?

I loved the D&D 1st edition 'earthy' gnomes, but I've never had any interest in the Pathfinder 'troll doll' version. But now that PF2 has introduced keenspark gnomes, gnomes are back on my favorites list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Blake's Tiger, I think you missed my point. If free hand trips are unarmed attacks, then there is absolutely no additional benefit to using wolf jaw unarmed attacks to trip instead of just performing the trip free-handed.

My point was that there may be no point; they just got carried away with the concept of traits and added in things that were redundant (and that their presence isn't proof that your hand unarmed attack as an object rather than an action is or isn't what Effortless Reach was referring to).

...

It's possible that it doesn't have a point. But it did have a point under the prior interpretation of 'unarmed attack.' I'm trying to see whether this newly proposed definition makes more or less sense than the old one when we apply it to other game elements.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Blake's Tiger, I think you missed my point. If free hand trips are unarmed attacks, then there is absolutely no additional benefit to using wolf jaw unarmed attacks to trip instead of just performing the trip free-handed.
The benefit is that you get to add your item bonus from hand wraps to trips.
Gisher noted above that, if we use the difference between unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes to make our decision, the item bonus from handwraps would apply to free-handed trips too.
Nope. Handwraps of Mighty Blows give only bonuses to attack rolls and as such it doesn't apply to Trip (which asks for an Athletics check and not an attack roll) whatever your interpreation.

Please cite the text stating that Handwraps only apply rune bonuses to attack rolls. I can't find it anywhere in the Handwraps entry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
If the unarmed attack has the trip trait, it should work like a weapon and give you the item bonus. I don't see how it would work any differently.

I think everyone agrees that a trip attack made with an unarmed attack with the trip trait gets the Handwraps bonus.

As I stated before, that has been the longstanding explanation for why wolf jaw attacks benefit from gaining the trip trait.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BloodandDust wrote:

Perhaps not thought police, but certainly "speech police", and for little benefit. In-game "race" and "ancestry" represent *exactly the same concept*. Using one vs the other is not a point of substance. It does not matter in the least which is used.

This is not Paizo's House. This is Paizo's House Party. They've invited everyone who wants to play Pathfinder to come hang out.

All this trivial picking at language is pointless and exclusionary. Save the corrections for someone who is being intentionally aggro.

I mean, why be Mr. or Ms. Whingeytoff with all that "it's Vaahz, not Vayce" crap? Just be good-guy Greg and roll on. Save the callouts for the person that throws up on the couch.

/gentle suggestion

On-topic >>
IMO the backstory to be a good-aligned undead champion is pretty convoluted, but if your GM will go for it, then why not?
OTOH, Duskwalkers are explicitly NOT undead. So no.

IMHO, YMMV, IANAL, etc.

Once again I feel the need to point out that there is a logical inconsistency in telling people what they shouldn't post while simultaneously complaining that they are policing speech.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TheMonkeyFish wrote:

...

Anyway, thanks for the discussion guys. I don't think I'll play 2e anymore, it's clear that accidentally saying one wrong word in a full paragraph is enough to fill a thread full of anger. Have fun all. <3

One person corrected your use of an out of date term. How is that "filling a thread full of anger?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Timothy Ferdinand wrote:

Is the price an error - splint mail and half plate are both cheaper (13gp and 18gp, respectively). That seems very odd - I am wondering if its supposed to be 20sp (ie 2gp) which would be more in line with other light armor?

That was the exact error that they made with the Aldori dueling sword in the World Guide.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Maybe because it was disguised as a mysterious floating orb?

Now I want an Aeon Stone that can transform into kitchen implements. :)


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
keftiu wrote:
TheMonkeyFish wrote:
Book of the Dead isn't available on the Additional Resources list yet, but so far all races have been made available through boon purchases (basically, play enough society games and you can buy boons for new character slots). I'm guessing it'll end up being 160 Points, if available at all, because that is how much the rare ancestries cost. Then again, Book of the Dead hasn't been added to Additional Resources yet so no way to tell.
Ancestries, not races - they made the change for a reason!

Don't start that nonsense again. You are neither admin nor thought police.

If something someone says bothers you, either flag it and move on, or PM the author about it.

Umm.

You do see the logical inconsistency here, don't you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB, p. 160 wrote:
If you’re flanking a target while in Wolf Stance, your wolf jaw unarmed attacks also gain the trip trait.

Now your hand has to be free to make wolf jaw unarmed attacks anyway, so whether you are flanking or not you could just use that free hand, rather than a wolf jaw unarmed attack to trip. So what is the point of sometimes gaining the trip trait on wolf jaw unarmed attacks?

The argument has always been that it helps you because Handwraps of Mighty Blows don't grant their item bonuses to athletics attacks made with your free hand, but they do grant their item bonuses to athletics attacks made with unarmed attacks possessing the trip trait.

CRB, p. 283 wrote:
Trip: You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand. This uses the weapon’s reach (if different from your own) and adds the weapon’s item bonus to attack rolls as an item bonus to the Athletics check.

Although unarmed attacks are explicitly not weapons, they benefit from weapon traits as if they were. If you are wearing Handwraps with potency runes, trip attacks made with wolf jaw unarmed attacks get that item bonus while trip attacks made with your free hand do not. So there is a benefit to wolf jaw unarmed attacks gaining the trip trait.

But now we have the argument that athletics attacks made with body parts are unarmed attacks.

If that were true then Handwraps would grant item bonuses to athletics attacks made with a free hand because the Handwraps entry uses the phrase 'unarmed attacks' rather than limiting itself to 'unarmed strikes.'

So what would be the point of getting the trip trait on wolf jaw unarmed attacks?

-----

Side Note: Magic Fang also uses the phrase 'unarmed attack' rather than 'unarmed strike' so the arguments made for Handwraps also apply to that spell.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a gladiatorial arena in the city of Arena in the Shackles.

Taldor has a gladiatorial arena in Oppara.

Varisia has Zincher's Arena in Riddleport and the Bloodworks in Urglin.

The Song'os have a stick-fighting arena in Estad de Bomaye, but that doesn't sound like what you are looking for.

Casmaron has the Hanging Coliseum.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Gisher wrote:
A Lucerne hammer would be nice.
It may need a new name, however, as there's no Switzerland on Golarion and therefore no city of Lucerne to name it after...unless they somehow got smuggled into Baba Yaga's dancing hut and wound up in Irrisen along with the Stasian Coils! :P

PF1 had the Lucerne hammer, so I guess Baba Yaga already brought some. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
John R. wrote:

Here's the conscious minds and what I understood to be their "thing":

Distant Grasp - telekinesis
Silent Whisper - telepathy
Infinite Eye - clairvoyance
Tangible Dream - manifesting your imagination into reality
Oscillating Wave - energy manipulation (heating/cooling things)
Unbound Step - teleportation

And the four Subconscious Minds: Emotional Acceptance and Wandering Reverie for Cha, Precise Discipline and Gathered Lore for Int.

Two Int options? Very cool. I'm really getting excited about having our first Int-based spontaneous caster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A Lucerne hammer would be nice.

And I've always liked the flavor of the nine-section whip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The wording can be a bit difficult to follow at first.

You only have one mechanically relevant draconic exemplar, and you choose it. Your character might, or might not, view that exemplar in spiritual terms. Your draconic exemplar might, or might not, be the same as your community's exemplar.

-----

If you are considering the Dracomancer feat line, you might find my little guide useful.

Kobold Exemplars


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Gisher wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

Does your Goblin have to be a Rogue? Because both Swashbuckler and Investigator gives you access to the Spiked Chain.

...
Investigators have proficiency with the Spiked Chain, but since it is uncommon I don't see how they automatically get access.
Uncommon is not an issue per se, unless your GM doesn't allow any Uncommon thing in the game or if you play PFS. I feel the OP issue is not with access but with proficiency.

Oh, I was confused. I thought you meant access because you said 'access.' My mistake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

Does your Goblin have to be a Rogue? Because both Swashbuckler and Investigator gives you access to the Spiked Chain.

...

Investigators have proficiency with the Spiked Chain, but since it is uncommon I don't see how they automatically get access.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ly'ualdre wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Maybe we'll get a occult/psychic methodology for investigators in dark archives.
I really really hope so. I miss Psychic Detective. Granted, you could play a psychic with the detective background but that's not the same.
Why not just an Investigator/Psychic MC, or vice-versa?

That's my plan. Investigator/Psychic MC to make a PF1-style psychic detective.

I'm really hoping that Psychics still have the Ancestral Mind feat. Using ancestries to get Cha-based Arcane or Primal cantrips like Electric Arc, and then casting them as Int-based Occult cantrips would be really nice for an Investigator/Psychic MC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Runes already don't quite make sense when you think too much about them; they're etched into an item (thus removing material) but can be transferred to another item (so you're moving an absence of something?).

...

I've come to think of them as magical constructs that don't require the removal of any material.

Rather, they etch symbols into the item by converting that part of the original material into a different material: silver, mahogany, weirdly glowing red gemstone, etc. When the runes are removed, the sigil converts back to the original material.

Thinking of it this way doesn't make any mechanical difference, but it helps me visualize things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Wiki has a nice article on the Shory Empire with a lot of references listed at the bottom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Gisher wrote:
It's identified as a magic item, but I don't see where it is identified as a magic weapon.

Look at Nethys under specific magic weapons: it's the first one.

specific magic weapons

I don't see anything in the book that supports that designation, so I'm going to assume that Archives of Nethys simply made a mistake in placing it there.

It's easy to see how they could have missed the rule that I cited and simply assumed that any magic item that is a weapon would automatically be a magic weapon.

But even if the scrollstaff is a specific exception to the rule, the general rule remains: a potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon.

So a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon if you remove it's potency rune. From what I recall from various comments by Paizo staff, the striking rune would still function, though.

You could, of course, use the magic weapon spell or doubling rings to temporarily give the sword a potency rune and make it a magic weapon again (and also "wake up" the property rune).

-----

Edit:

It's also possible that this is another case of Paizo having two different meanings for the same phrase. It's possible that the categories of 'magic weapons' and 'specific magic weapons' contain items which are not 'magic weapons.'

After all, in PF2 all actions are actions, but not every action is an action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Are +0 magical weapons possible?

Without a potency rune, a weapon isn't a magic weapon.

A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
That's what Anathemas are for. And the custom restricted alignments. And both are something we didn't even have in PF1.
Arazni allowing exactly one adjacent alignment, two that are two steps away, and 1 that is three steps away is really the only thing I needed to see to sell me on this system.
Fun fact : Divine Lance cast by a CG Cleric of Arazni will deal Evil damage.
Why check for non-Evil w/ a Good blast when you can check for Good w/ an Evil blast? :-) Neutrals waver too much anyway.
Yeah. With enemies you know where they stand. With neutrals? Who knows.

It sickens me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Gisher wrote:
I've always been suspicious that the Starstone has its own nefarious agenda. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that it caused the death of Aroden by taking its power back at a crucial moment. Perhaps it needed prophecy to fail in order to break free of its own destiny.

How nefarious could it be? 2/3 gods it helped ascend are Good.

I don't see any inherent reason why creating good deities couldn't serve an evil, long-term plan if one was clever enough.

For example, creating such deities might lead people to believe that you don't have any nefarious plans. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always been suspicious that the Starstone has its own nefarious agenda. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that it caused the death of Aroden by taking its power back at a crucial moment. Perhaps it needed prophecy to fail in order to break free of its own destiny.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

...

No class is named mage, so I mean the question is about a primary spellcaster such as sorcerer or wizard.
...

It occurs to me that the OP might have meant Magus when they used the term 'mage.' It seems like the sort of alteration that autocorrect might produce.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

...

The Sekmin are the analogues to the Illithids, which Paizo doesn't have the license for but wanted something to fill the same niche as, and I'd be pretty iffy about playable Illithids.
...

I would characterize Sekmin more as the analogies of the Yuan-ti.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

Does anyone actually want to do trigonometry or conic section math while trying to play a game?

...

I do, I do!

(But I'm a retired math professor.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
What about a cone you fire at enemies on the ground while flying above them ?

If you are aiming straight down, it's simple. The cross-section is circular. Firing at an angle from vertical produces an elliptical cross-section so that's a bit trickier.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
PaizoCon 2022: Declassifying The Dark Archive will premier on YouTube at 9 AM Pacific on June 1.

That was very informative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I need to update my guide with Book of the Dead options, but here's what I have now.

Acquiring Darkvision


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah. News about psychics. I thought this thread was about news that was delivered psychically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:
Is it an oversight that the Throwing Shield has no legal way to have Weapon runes, or intended?

I think it does.

Quote:
When thrown in this way, the shield is a martial thrown weapon...

So I don't see why those modified shields can't have weapon runes just like a javelin or chakram can.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm currently trying very hard to figure out the reason that an animate skeleton joined the Knights of Lastwall. Absolutely no memory of their previous existence, but wanted to join based on the argument "You folks do good, right? Good seems like the thing one ought to be doing, what with it being called 'good' and all."

Apparently they take anybody!

I like how Geb, despite his vast expertise regarding the undead, somehow doesn't realize that his inability to travel is tied to his ghosthood.

In that spirit, I was thinking of making a skeleton who was completely in denial that he was a skeleton. For example, he'd try to eat food and then complain about how full he was while the food just fell out of his torso.

(And I want to have him take the medic archetype then say things like "Damn it! I'm a doctor, not a skeleton!")


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I updated my Armor Tables by adding the new Armored Coat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

...

My second largest, after only Planar Adventures.
...

I loved your Chronicler of Worlds Bard soooooo much!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Look at it from a different angle: what's stopping writers from adding new, interesting armors? It's pretty clear how the balance of existing armors is set up, so adding new ones that are in line with that should be straightforward.

You want to keep the AC value (Dex + Item) in line with the weight class, and the strength/speed in proportion too. But you can certainly come up with new good and bad traits, material options, and specializations.

I view the CRB armors as a basis to work from, not as a closed off set that can't be extended.

I think the Armored Skirt was an interesting addition. You can basically create new styles of armor by combining it with the allowed armors. I wouldn't be averse to more options like that. Sets of greaves, for example.

Just for fun, I made armor tables that include the armored skirt options.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Losonti wrote:
I think a swarm type creature, like Starfinder's Spathinae, would be pretty cool.

Million Ants?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Look at it from a different angle: what's stopping writers from adding new, interesting armors? It's pretty clear how the balance of existing armors is set up, so adding new ones that are in line with that should be straightforward.

You want to keep the AC value (Dex + Item) in line with the weight class, and the strength/speed in proportion too. But you can certainly come up with new good and bad traits, material options, and specializations.

I view the CRB armors as a basis to work from, not as a closed off set that can't be extended.

I think the Armored Skirt was an interesting addition. You can basically create new styles of armor by combining it with the allowed armors. I wouldn't be averse to more options like that. Sets of greaves, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashanderai wrote:
James Case wrote:
All shall be revealed... next week!

He said "All"! You guys saw that too, right?!?!? Now, we get to know everything about the Dark Archive and "all" its mysteries in 10 days!!! Woohoo!

;) :P

Just kiddin', James! I would never hold you to that!

They will be revealing everything... psychically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since we are getting pretty far into the details on this topic, I thought it might be helpful to have a quick reference for the exact wording of the main elements we are relying on. I've included both the Bestiary and Book of the Dead versions of Negative Healing.
.

healing (trait)

A healing effect restores a creature's body, typically by restoring Hit Points, but sometimes by removing diseases or other debilitating effects.

.

negative (trait)

Effects with this trait heal undead creatures with negative energy, deal negative damage to living creatures, or manipulate negative energy.

.

positive (trait)

Effects with this trait heal living creatures with positive energy, deal positive energy damage to undead, or manipulate positive energy.


.

undead (trait)

Once living, these creatures were infused after death with negative energy and soul-corrupting evil magic. When reduced to 0 Hit Points, an undead creature is destroyed. Undead creatures are damaged by positive energy, are healed by negative energy, and don't benefit from healing effects.

.

Negative Healing

A creature with negative healing draws health from negative energy rather than positive energy. It is damaged by positive damage and is not healed by positive healing effects. It does not take negative damage, and it is healed by negative effects that heal undead.

.

Negative Healing:

You are damaged by positive damage and aren’t healed by positive healing effects. You don’t take negative damage and are healed by negative effects that heal undead.

.

Healing Undead

Because of negative healing many typical means of healing don’t work on undead. The heal spell can’t heal undead, but harm and soothe can. Healing potions and elixirs of life are no use, but an oil of unlife can heal undead. In addition, a character can take the Stitch Flesh skill feat to heal undead with Treat Wounds.

.

Negative Survival:

Unlike normal undead, you aren’t destroyed when reduced to 0 Hit Points. Instead, powerful negative energy attempts to keep you from being destroyed even in dire straits. You are knocked out and begin dying when reduced to 0 Hit Points (Core Rulebook 459). Because you’re undead, many methods of bringing someone back from dying, such as stabilize, don’t benefit you. When you would die, you’re destroyed rather than dead, just like other undead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I came across another rules contradiction. The Undead Trait states that Undead "don't benefit from healing effects."

Yet Spirit Link, which has the Healing Trait, states...

CRB, p. 371 wrote:
Since this effect doesn't involve positive or negative energy, spirit link works even if you or the target is undead.

So here we have a Healing effect that explicitly can benefit an undead target because it doesn't have the Positive or Negative traits.

----

Also Soothing Spring, which has both the Healing and Positive Traits, includes this line...

Secrets of Magic, p. 129 wrote:
Any creature that spends the full hour soaking in the hot spring or basking in the mud from the bottom of the pit regains 10d8 Hit Points and feels refreshed, losing the fatigued condition.

Undead are certainly part of the class of "creatures." Would this specific rule would override any restrictions on undead benefitting from Healing and Positive effects?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:

Sorry to bring this up again. But there are more complications.

The rules here state Soothe works on player undead options. But this is an explicit contradiction of the rules as Soothe requires a living target.

Because of negative healing many typical means of healing don’t work on undead. The heal spell can’t heal undead, but harm and soothe can. Healing potions and elixirs of life are no use, but an oil of unlife can heal undead. In addition, a character can take the Stitch Flesh skill feat to heal undead with Treat Wounds.
and Soothe
Targets 1 willing living creature

I'm deeply disapointed with the rules standards in the new book. This is a simple contradiction and they don't even note an errata at the same time.

Of course by the Negative Healing trait Elixirs of Life do work, it is Healing Potions that have the Positive trait which don't work.

Clearly Soothe needs errata now, as apparently it is supposed to work. But I am just going to be deleting this little rules section as it is just wrong. Traits have to mean something or the rules are just rubbish.

So Soothe, Elixir of Life, and Treat Wounds all lack the positive and negative traits, have the healing trait, and state that they only work on living creatures.

But the sidebar states that Soothe works on undead PCs while Elixir of Life doesn't. So there must be some hidden criteria that is being used to determine which effects heal undead PCs.

Without knowing what those criteria are, there isn't any way to determine whether Treat Wounds (sans Stitch Flesh) works on undead PCs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BandobrasBrandytook wrote:

...

Another thought I had was at level 9 through adopted ancestry I could take multi-talented to “multi class” into the wild shape order, but I’m not sure if it’s legit to use an archetype for the class I already have.
...

Druids can't take Druid Multiclass.

CRB, p. 219 wrote:

Multiclass Archetypes

Archetypes with the multiclass trait represent diversifying your training into another class’s specialties. You can’t select a multiclass archetype’s dedication feat if you are a member of the class of the same name (for instance, a fighter can’t select the Fighter Dedication feat).

1 to 50 of 1,972 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>