Sajan

Goldryno's page

Organized Play Member. 234 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 234 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would imagine they wanted to future proof a bit and avoid saying "any uncommon weapon". Possibly to avoid giving access to weapons specific to certain organizations.

I imagine most weapons we have available should be fair game. With the exception being things like Sawtooth Saber. That's how I'd rule it at least.

Horizon Hunters

I dont have the precise text in front of me but they do say that GrandMother Spider's worship isn't as common in the inner sea region.

I'm not certain however if that means her favored weapon is more common in the area where her worship is common. Personally if someone was investing the feat for unconventional weaponry I'd allow it, but that may not be what a PFS GM would say

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The bola was added in the Gods book and you can get access through these rules in the CRB:

From Cleric: Deity
As a cleric, you are a mortal servitor of a deity you revere above all others. The most common deities in Pathfinder appear on pages 437–440, along with their alignments, areas of concern, and the benefits you get for being a cleric of that deity. Your alignment must be one allowed by your deity, as listed in their entry. Your deity grants you the trained proficiency rank in one skill and with the deity’s favored weapon. If the favored weapon is uncommon, you also get access to that weapon.

And from Champion:You zealously bear your deity’s favored weapon. If it’s uncommon, you gain access to it. If it’s an unarmed attack with a d4 damage die or a simple weapon, increase the damage die by one step (d4 to d6, d6 to d8, d8 to d10, d10 to d12).

The bola is the favored weapon of Grandmother Spider.

Horizon Hunters

Under your interpretation would you also make an exception for a Barbarian with Fast Movement and Dragon Rage Wings? Or are they out of luck as far as finding synergy with those two feats?

(Apologies if you have answered earlier in this thread)

Horizon Hunters

Aratorin wrote:
Goldryno wrote:

It is a single instance in one spell which is fine but (in my opinion) shouldn't be the basis for every other spell.

While option 2 simply requires you observed that your speed is already being affected by a status bonus and apply the rules as normal. You could just as easily put +10 status bonus to speed in the notes as a temporary buff and just track your speeds as normal in the speed space.

Bypassing fundamental design principles? I would say on the other side you could be seen as throwing out design principles. I really don't see that as the simpler option but as you said earlier to each their own.

But that's the problem. Your Fly speed wouldn't have a status bonus, because Longstrider does not give a bonus to your Fly speed in any situation.

If you decide to base your Fly speed off of your total Land speed, including the bonus from Longstrider, then your base Fly speed simply is whatever that total adds up to. It doesn't have a status bonus, because Longstrider explicitly doesn't modify Fly speeds. This is why using the modified Land speed as the base is inherently abusable. It bypasses the stacking limits by laundering them through another spell.

This kind of thinking is how 3.5 ended up with PunPun.

This is exactly what I'm talking about as far as a rigid ruling. Yes if you are taking things as literal as possible you can have a logically sound argument for it being abusable. Which if you follow the logic wormhole down deep enough could lead you to just preventing the rules from interacting all together.

The alternative is taking an approach that allows the rules to interact and just simply not allowing status bonus that ultimately affects speed to stack with another status bonus.

But let's say we wanted to go really strict and logical RAW. That would only allow Longstrider to apply to your flight speed and that new flight speed could then be modified by more spells. Since a status bonus to land speed is unquestionably in effect you'd have to rely on another status bonus that specifies to either ALL Speeds or just Fly speeds to further stack effects. With the exception of triple time the spells that would work this way would seem to be few.

I mentioned before I could see my opinion shifting if it became problematic. The closer I look at how interpretation #3 would pan out the less worried I am about it breaking the game. Once again a matter of opinion but if my players want to throw together a bunch of resources for a special speed situation then I'd be tempted to say go for it! Maybe it's just my play group but I think the odds of this happening frequently are either low and if it did happen could make for a potential heroic/epic moment of the team working together when the time is right.

Just to be clear not advocating for ruling #3 but I suppose when it comes down to it I'd still take it over #1.

Horizon Hunters

It is a single instance in one spell which is fine but (in my opinion) shouldn't be the basis for every other spell.

While option 2 simply requires you observed that your speed is already being affected by a status bonus and apply the rules as normal. You could just as easily put +10 status bonus to speed in the notes as a temporary buff and just track your speeds as normal in the speed space.

Bypassing fundamental design principles? I would say on the other side you could be seen as throwing out design principles. I really don't see that as the simpler option but as you said earlier to each their own.

Horizon Hunters

beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:

Just a note about some of the specifics here. Don't forget the text to Fly is an "or" statement.

"The target can soar through the air, gaining a fly Speed equal to its Speed or 20 feet, whichever is greater."

Even with a -10 penalty you'd be at a 10 fly speed minimum.

A loss of mobility is a trade off from using heavy armor.

Hate to add to an off topic discussion, but even then you would end up with a fly speed of 10, as the penalty from plate mail would apply to the 20 just as much as it would apply to the 15 land speed based number.

That's exactly what I said.

At any rate another point of view of why what you have labeled as Scenario #2 isn't that crazy. As a GM you have 3 rulings you can possibly make.

#1 Create a new sweeping rule that distinguishes between normal speeds and derived speeds and dictates which spells can be used along with which, this is a distinction not made in the CRB, one that would come up many times throughout the rules,and would make some feats and spells not do what they appear to say they do. A rather rigid ruling which gets rid of a lot in order to avoid a possible error.

#2 make a ruling that a status bonus is meant to be treated as a status bonus even though the spell entry doesn't spell out every scenario. I would even argue seeming to go along with the intention of the spells effect and rewarding players in a limited capacity for clever use. This reading I think really is the most "human" ruling and I think is the most common or easy to explain ruling and makes understanding spells simpler.

#3 Taking the vagueness of the rules and trying to push the limits. Taking a computer like reading and allowing multiple status bonuses that ultimately apply to fly speed to stack. The logic can be found to support this but only here do you run into too good to be true problems. That same logic that allows this is rigid and seem to disregard what I feel is the most likely intention, which would be to let status bonuses apply but not stack (as per normal). This may be the most mechanical way to rule this.

I can understand the line of thought behind all 3. Obviously my opinion is biased towards which is best. To state my opinion a different way: I don't think the abusable logic of 3 is a good reason to choose 1 over 2.

Horizon Hunters

Just a note about some of the specifics here. Don't forget the text to Fly is an "or" statement.

"The target can soar through the air, gaining a fly Speed equal to its Speed or 20 feet, whichever is greater."

Even with a -10 penalty you'd be at a 10 fly speed minimum.

A loss of mobility is a trade off from using heavy armor.

Horizon Hunters

beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Previous Posts here.

I went through and compiled a list of most of the effects that grant a character a speed that this ruling would effect. I'll go ahead and post them in spoilers to save space.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Note: This...

I guess that's where we difer.

I don't see the frequency of the rule interaction or there being several options for combos as being inherently problematic by itself or too good to be true.

Horizon Hunters

beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

For Organized Play, what you can do (and what I plan to do in case it ever comes up) is pull out the Core Rulebook and point to the spells Longstrider and Fly.

That should honestly solve your problem right there.

If whoever you're discussing this with mentions "base speed", "derived speed", or some other such made-up terminology presented in this thread, simply ask the other person where in the Core Rulebook those terms can be found.

I guarantee you one position is going to have much more support than the other.

I mean if you're going to be that kind of player, that's where the GM pulls out the book and points to the line "The GM Has the Final Say". That pretty much ends the argument.
It can certainly end the discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that one position is better supported than the other.

So how would you rule when there's double-buffing/penalizing when an effect changes both (land) speed & fly speed?

How about swim fins? I'm not making those up, they reduce your land speed, but doesn't it feel too wonky to have them reduce your fly speed?

What about effects applied after casting Fly?
Or when foot damage affects speed?
Again, I'm reading it like you are so far, but when more variables get added, the clarity wanes.

I am not seeing what's confusing about those scenarios. Fly spell is very clear that it does one thing or another. If something like swim find has a negative item bonus to speed just factor that in once as you would do any other bonus or penalty.

Any weird interaction with special affects simultaneously buffing and nerfing a speed used in another speeds calculation could happen but would be a weird scenario I think a GM could probably reasonably navigate. I don't think longstrider + fly is a scenario I'd consider weird and unusual however.

Rule lawyers can be annoying but I understand what you

...

True, it will have an effect but that's only because of the difference in having a Swim speed you automatically perform and the option to take a check to swim based on a calculation.

It will have no effect on an automatic swim speed and will have at most a +5 foot affect on the other (with the possibility of it having no effect). Kinda on the same note with flight. If you had a flight speed from using a broom of flying no effect, but those spells that use a calculation involving a land speed I don't see the need to alter, mostly because your burning more resources and not just receiving it for free.

Both involve spending more resources or taking a bit more risk. I'm sure you're familiar with the mechanics. I just wanted to highlight some of the ways in which it wouldn't always apply a bonus to other speeds or at the very least not a guaranteed bonus.

In my mind this is far from the too good to be true category but I could see reassessing that if it ever became a problem at the table. I will not deny that the combo can be strong especially with players who make the maximum use of their mobility.

Horizon Hunters

Castilliano wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

For Organized Play, what you can do (and what I plan to do in case it ever comes up) is pull out the Core Rulebook and point to the spells Longstrider and Fly.

That should honestly solve your problem right there.

If whoever you're discussing this with mentions "base speed", "derived speed", or some other such made-up terminology presented in this thread, simply ask the other person where in the Core Rulebook those terms can be found.

I guarantee you one position is going to have much more support than the other.

I mean if you're going to be that kind of player, that's where the GM pulls out the book and points to the line "The GM Has the Final Say". That pretty much ends the argument.
It can certainly end the discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that one position is better supported than the other.

So how would you rule when there's double-buffing/penalizing when an effect changes both (land) speed & fly speed?

How about swim fins? I'm not making those up, they reduce your land speed, but doesn't it feel too wonky to have them reduce your fly speed?

What about effects applied after casting Fly?
Or when foot damage affects speed?
Again, I'm reading it like you are so far, but when more variables get added, the clarity wanes.

I am not seeing what's confusing about those scenarios. Fly spell is very clear that it does one thing or another. If something like swim find has a negative item bonus to speed just factor that in once as you would do any other bonus or penalty.

Any weird interaction with special affects simultaneously buffing and nerfing a speed used in another speeds calculation could happen but would be a weird scenario I think a GM could probably reasonably navigate. I don't think longstrider + fly is a scenario I'd consider weird and unusual however.

Rule lawyers can be annoying but I understand what you mean.If I was in a game going as close to RAW as possible (PFS) I'd be very surprised if a GM informed me he was not allowing Longstrider and Fly rules to work together.

Horizon Hunters

I would agree with Zapp that Longstrider would affect your Fly speed from the Fly spell. Mostly because that's the simplest ruling (to me) and it seems overly restrictive to not allow the expenditure of a spell slot to increase your land speed to not convey its benefit to a spell that takes your land speed into account.

Without an errata entry or something similar I think it would be a rare circumstance where a GM would take on a restrictive interpretation especially when weird circumstances like the use of Triple Time spell increasing two different speed can be easily resolved by simply realizing that Fly calculation is an "or" statement and that Status bonuses shouldn't stack.

Basically I see it as LongStrider adding 10 to your speed (assumed landspeed) which is used in the Fly Spell calculation. Triple Time adds 10 to your land speed and to your fly speed but since when comboing it with the Fly spell we are looking at it either being

A. Your land Speed +10 (so same benefit as casting Fly after Longstrider) Or....
B. Your newly gained Fly Speed of 20 + 10 (whichever of the two between A and B are greater)

Getting the same Status Bonus again from Triple Time would be double-dipping. I am sure there are those that disagree but this seems to be the most reasonable interpretation where each component is doing "something" but nothing is doing too much.

Horizon Hunters

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Strangest viral marketing campaign ever...

Horizon Hunters

I appreciate the honesty!

Yeah if we assume competency it seems pretty clear (but as we all know everyone is capable of making mistakes).

With the wording that is there I think it gives strong clues that the intention is that at least with polymorph effects the intention is to have them counteract each other. I am wondering if there are any other examples the community can think of that may interact weirdly?

Horizon Hunters

I see. That makes the expectation a bit more murky (unless they did it because Paizo wanted it that way).

Major props to you guys who search in the physical rule book for this info! I own one but I'd be lost without AON.

Horizon Hunters

Aratorin wrote:
Goldryno wrote:

"Mutagens

Source Core Rulebook pg. 546
These elixirs, indicated by the mutagen trait, temporarily transmogrify the subject’s body and alter its mind. Typically, only alchemists have the expertise to craft mutagens, and some say they are the only ones reckless enough to use them.

A mutagen always conveys one or more beneficial effects (listed in the Benefit entry) paired with one or more detrimental effects (shown in the Drawback entry). Mutagens are polymorph effects, and a subsequent polymorph effect attempts to counteract an existing effect; the counteract check for a mutagen uses the item’s level and a modifier equal to the that level’s DC – 10, as found on Table 10–5: DCs by Level.

The fact that they specifically point out this rule interaction and also do not specify any method to end the effect early or avoid the counteract attempt (without the feat) makes me seem that this is an intended consequence/limitation to using abilities/spells/items with a polymorph effect.

My book doesn't say that. I don't see it in the Errata either. Odd.

Quote:

Mutagens

These elixirs, indicated by the mutagen trait, temporarily transmogrify the subject’s body and alter its mind. Typically, only alchemists have the expertise to craft mutagens, and some say they are the only ones reckless enough to use them. A mutagen always conveys one or more beneficial effects (listed in the Benefit entry) paired with one or more detrimental effects (shown in the Drawback entry).Mutagens are polymorph effects, meaning you can benefit from only one at a time (see page 301 for more information about the polymorph trait).

Interesting. I found the quote in the Alchemical Items section on Nethys.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=702

Horizon Hunters

"Mutagens
Source Core Rulebook pg. 546
These elixirs, indicated by the mutagen trait, temporarily transmogrify the subject’s body and alter its mind. Typically, only alchemists have the expertise to craft mutagens, and some say they are the only ones reckless enough to use them.

A mutagen always conveys one or more beneficial effects (listed in the Benefit entry) paired with one or more detrimental effects (shown in the Drawback entry). Mutagens are polymorph effects, and a subsequent polymorph effect attempts to counteract an existing effect; the counteract check for a mutagen uses the item’s level and a modifier equal to the that level’s DC – 10, as found on Table 10–5: DCs by Level.

The fact that they specifically point out this rule interaction and also do not specify any method to end the effect early or avoid the counteract attempt (without the feat) makes me seem that this is an intended consequence/limitation to using abilities/spells/items with a polymorph effect.

Horizon Hunters

3 people marked this as a favorite.
curtnorthrup wrote:


If this were a made up game, they could “make up” any rules they want. But this is a game based on actual physics with layers on top. You can’t simply throw out physics to make a rule simpler. That’s just lazy game producing.

Thats a pretty wild statement. I think anytime we have Magic Raging Barbarian Druids we are pretty far into the realm of "made up". Almost everything about the setting is made up or fictional. This game has more rules to make game play more in depth but that's far from saying the game and the world of Golarion isn't fantasy and requiring some suspension of disbelief.

Also to address your issues with hitting I am wondering what kind of equipment/runes (striking runes should be available around level 4) and stat builds you are running? Combat strategies? Team synergy?

Horizon Hunters

Kennethray wrote:
Goldryno wrote:

Rather than think of it as a general rule on personal polymorph trait spells, my instinct is to look at the specific details for the spells in question.

Before we go any further I'd point you to a part lower in the Polymorph description:
"Unless otherwise noted, the battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands. (If there’s doubt about whether you can use an action, the GM decides.)"

Dragon form says you have hands and that you can take manipulate actions but not that you can cast a spell. That being said I could see a GM allowing this specifically for Dragon Form.

I think because you cannot control the duration of the spell Dragon Form (it just continues for a minute and does not have the concentrate trait) that yes directly casting pest form would be two separate spell effects counteracting one another.

You could still avoid this scenario all together by using an action to dismiss the Dragon Form spell since the spell's description specifically says you can do so.

Due to the restrictions normally on Polymorph, in most other scenarios another casting of a Polymorph spell on yourself by yourself won't be possible.

Except dragon form has a line of texts that says you can dismiss this spell. Unless Nethys has it wrong.

I specifically addressed that and recommended dismissing the spell in my original text that you quoted.

Horizon Hunters

Ubertron_X wrote:
Next time just use an easier example, like a cleric wanting to switch from Bless to Bane without dismissing bless first. Apart from that I would be equally interessted in the outcome of your question about mandatory or voluntary counteracting if both effects come from the same source.

Going with my gut on the core of Ravingdork question my instinct is that if it is a magical effect that just continues to happen until dismissed or until the duration runs out and it doesn't require you to maintain any kind of concentration or sustaining actions then it would still be competing magical effects that would try and counteract one another. Interested in what others opinions on this are.

For clarity Uberton_X could you put some context to the scenario? Like you had been emanating bless and you wanted to immediately start emanating bane? They both have different targets. It says one can counteract the other but not that they have to. I am not sure I am seeing a reason why both can't be going at once?

Horizon Hunters

Rather than think of it as a general rule on personal polymorph trait spells, my instinct is to look at the specific details for the spells in question.

Before we go any further I'd point you to a part lower in the Polymorph description:
"Unless otherwise noted, the battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands. (If there’s doubt about whether you can use an action, the GM decides.)"

Dragon form says you have hands and that you can take manipulate actions but not that you can cast a spell. That being said I could see a GM allowing this specifically for Dragon Form.

I think because you cannot control the duration of the spell Dragon Form (it just continues for a minute and does not have the concentrate trait) that yes directly casting pest form would be two separate spell effects counteracting one another.

You could still avoid this scenario all together by using an action to dismiss the Dragon Form spell since the spell's description specifically says you can do so.

Due to the restrictions normally on Polymorph, in most other scenarios another casting of a Polymorph spell on yourself by yourself won't be possible.

Horizon Hunters

Great points and I can definitely understand these interpretations. Hammerjack brought up a great point about Skill Increases and Nefreet on different types of checks (I am used to most "checks" being shorthand for skill check but this may not be true in this game/edition). Only issue I see with these interpretation is that we run into things where the things that are actions but not skills are a bit inconsistent.

For instance even though Escape can use your Acrobatics modifier it does not seem to be a skill action. So does that mean you could never take Assurance Escape or would you rule that since you can use the skill modifiers it should then be counted as a skill check (even though it is mentioned in the skill section, it seems to be considered a basic action and not an untrained skill action)? And I would suppose Assurance Seek would not be a possibility either?

Horizon Hunters

HammerJack wrote:
Besides... the lack of an associated skill to take assurance in? There are enough interpretations in a new system without bringing in ones that hold no water.

The skill would be the one you have the training proficiency in. So it would be something along the lines of "Assurance: Simple Weapons". I don't really see the argument of "this holds no water" it may not be something you like but I think it is at least worth considering.

tivadar27 wrote:
So to clarify, the ability to "take 10" on an attack roll would likely be way overpowered. The ability to select "Assurance: Attacks" would likely be terrible. A 10 will hit enough, particularly for a fighter, that they're probably happy to have it on their first or second attack. Assurance does far less than this. While it lets you ignore penalties, you'd also be ignoring your stat bonus and item bonus, which is too big a penalty to matter for how tight AC math is.

I completely agree. Part of the reason it seems harmless to allow someone who really wanted it to take that feat is because of how bad it would be most of the time. To allow them to just take 10 on the roll with all the other bonuses would be very overpowered and would be a level 1 feat that is (in my opinion) way too close in power to the level 19 class feat.

Horizon Hunters

HammerJack wrote:
The whole question "Should attack rolls be treated as skill checks?" would be wrong. There are attack rolls that are ALSO skill checks. That's a Venn Diagram kind of question.

I am not sure if my wording was off but the very point has been argued in this forum often before. With people frequently pointing to the line:

"Source Core Rulebook pg. 446
When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll."

Which can lead to the interpretation that all attack rolls are in fact a special subset of Skill checks. If you follow that reasoning they should be fair game for Assurance unless you believe there are in fact implied exceptions that the designers haven't fully spelled out yet.

Horizon Hunters

Nefreet wrote:

At level 19?

Probably a 50% miss chance?

I still don't understand what you're asking. We know how the feature works.

I think the essence of his questions is does the ability Assurance let you take 10 on attack rolls. If we look at Assurance we see:

"Assurance
Feat 1
Fortune General Skill
Source Core Rulebook pg. 258
Prerequisites trained in at least one skill
Even in the worst circumstances, you can perform basic tasks. Choose a skill you’re trained in. You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus (do not apply any other bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).

Special You can select this feat multiple times. Each time, choose a different skill and gain the benefits for that skill."

So this kinda ties into a common topic we see here: "Should attack rolls be treated as a skill check and if so are there exceptions"

I personally don't see the harm of it because there is a big difference in treating the roll as if it were a 10 (the monk feature) and what assurance grants which is 10 + your proficiency without any other positive modifiers. High level I believe the chance to miss with just Assurance (10+Prof) will be wayyyyyy less than 55%. Also you do not get to roll and choose the better result you have to forego rolling entirely. I think these differences illustrate an appropriate power difference and only in weird special circumstances would you want to make an assurance strike.

Horizon Hunters

I guess my thing is the clarification is there. We know how it works normally and are empowered to make changes if that template doesn't fit for narrative reasons. Like the shieldblocking silver shurikens (try saying that 5 times fast!) example. That's as deep as it needs to be for me to be satisfied but like I said that's just my humble opinion.

And the fallacy I mention wasn't anything specific to damage calculations. It is the mentality of being quick to call for dev clarification or errata entries when discussing a rule. There are times when it is warranted but there are a good deal of what I would consider "false alarms". Ubertron was not doing that this thread so that wasn't a commentary on him. Just a trend that I had noticed lately while browsing the forum.

Horizon Hunters

Ubertron_X wrote:
Goldryno wrote:

Great find Rysky! I think a common fallacy I see often in this forum is where there isn't a clear cut answer there is a call for Dev clarification or for a Errata update when it seems like there are definitely some things that are intentionally left up to the GM, and that's a design decision.

I know some like clear cut black and white answers for every scenario but I for one am happy that Paizo attempts to empower their GMs (even to some extent for PFSociety play) to run the table in the way that makes sense for them and is consistent.

And every time I hear this it is driving me a little mad and away from literally any role-playing system. Not that I am against GM empowerment per se but GM's call should really, really only be necessary in uncommon or rare (corner) cases and not for common cases like how to handle resistances and weaknesses. Not everybody is playing with his one and only GM all the time and what GM empowerment for common issues usually does in all other cases is allowing for unnecessary table variation (i.e. no consistency).

Also note that I am very well aware that some cases simply have too many possible outcomes to put into a fixed ruleset without inflating any CRB by manyfold and therefore always have to and should have to rely on GM's call. What I can not understand though is that if a 100% rule is not possible a 50% rule is included instead with the other 50% depending on GM's call without explicitly stating so apart from a general "and by the way anthing that does not make sense or adds up in the CRB is GM's call" statement.

tl;dr: I understand the underlaying design decision / concept but I find the execution lacking and therefore agree to disagree with its current implementation.

Yeah we will have to agree to disagree there.

I'd rather be playing a game where the system is flexible and not so rigid as to make it just a giant overcomplicated game of chess. Or where everything is so granular it is just plain difficult to play or for curious new players to try. Obviously rules exist for a reason and I don't advocate for crazy deviations...but as a sometimes GM it is good to know that if certain things don't make sense or are an exception to a rule that will work just fine most of the time I'm not stuck playing it in a weird way, especially if there's an obvious alternative solution that makes sense.

That's a subjective opinion though. I have to admit too, I also like games where the rules are the rules and there's no exceptions or GM to interpret and adapt. For me those tend to be mostly video games and things like Warhammer 40,000.

Horizon Hunters

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Great find Rysky! I think a common fallacy I see often in this forum is where there isn't a clear cut answer there is a call for Dev clarification or for a Errata update when it seems like there are definitely some things that are intentionally left up to the GM, and that's a design decision.

I know some like clear cut black and white answers for every scenario but I for one am happy that Paizo attempts to empower their GMs (even to some extent for PFSociety play) to run the table in the way that makes sense for them and is consistent.

Horizon Hunters

The Werewolf's curse is so dark and pervasive that it spreads to and corrupts even the equipment the Werewolf uses (including its shield)? A bit of a stretch but that's really all I got for that one.

Horizon Hunters

Yeah I probably could have phrased that better. What I was meaning to convey was that although you can still get 0 damage through shieldblock the damage otherwise should be a minimum of 1. I think gnoams hit the nail on the head with his order of operations here.

Thinking about it you could probably flip flop the first two steps without any real impact on the game though.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:

Sorry to bring this up again, but I have question adjacent to this. The OP's questions was indeed officially cleared up in the Core Rulebook Update 1.0 document. If you spend your Hero Points to remove dying condition, you stabilize at 0 hp.

My question is now, does that mean you remain unconscious after you spent your Hero Points until someone heals you? That's how I'd read it, but I'm not certain.

I believe you are correct Zaister. You would be unconscious and at 0 hp but stable and no longer dying.

Unconscious
Source Core Rulebook pg. 622
You’re sleeping, or you’ve been knocked out. You can’t act. You take a –4 status penalty to AC, Perception, and Reflex saves, and you have the blinded and flat-footed conditions. When you gain this condition, you fall prone and drop items you are wielding or holding unless the effect states otherwise or the GM determines you’re in a position in which you wouldn’t.

If you’re unconscious because you’re dying, you can’t wake up while you have 0 Hit Points. If you are restored to 1 Hit Point or more via healing, you lose the dying and unconscious conditions and can act normally on your next turn.

If you are unconscious and at 0 Hit Points, but not dying, you naturally return to 1 Hit Point and awaken after sufficient time passes. The GM determines how long you remain unconscious, from a minimum of 10 minutes to several hours. If you receive healing during this time, you lose the unconscious condition and can act normally on your next turn.

Hero Points remove the dying condition but while you are at 0 hp it doesn't really look like there is any way you can be considered awake.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a small exception to that rule that was in the errata that I thought I should mention.

"CHAPTER 9: PLAYING THE GAME
Page 451: Following the formulas for calculating damage
rolls, add the sentence “If the combined penalties on an
attack would reduce the damage to 0 or below, you still
deal 1 damage.”

So a 0 damage due to a Crit Success on a Save or Shield Block would not trigger a weakness. However if you achieve 0 damage due to other penalties you would still do 1 damage and potentially be able to trigger a weakness an enemy creature had.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find that prospect a bit unlikely though, from what I can tell the staff usually only gets directly involved if there is a lot of reasonable confusion on something they wish they had laid out better in their published materials or if the community as a whole is really misinterpreting something.

This discussion seems to have a consensus across most but there is a very vocal minority that do not support the same ruling. Hopefully it has generated enough attention though for them to consider adding additional ways to access Hand of the Apprentice in the future.

Horizon Hunters

Quote:


squiggit wrote:
The text defining the 'pick a school or be a universalist' choice is part of the Arcane School class feature.
It's actually not. The quote "Instead of specializing narrowly in an arcane school, you can become a universalist wizard" (pg 209) is in a section separate from the Arcane school class feature.

In Nethys it is actually in the Arcane School section but regardless of where it is you're looking for it, if you're not getting the ruling based on the benefits granted by the Archetype feat itself then claiming you have that benefit seems wrong to me.

Horizon Hunters

I believe you are correct in your understanding.

So with Distracting Feint some potential benefits are helping Hidden allies stay that way and setting up some of your blasters/big damage dealers for a better chance at having an enemy fail a reflex save against them.

This is in addition to being flat footed to you of course.

Horizon Hunters

Since even while doing another action you can detect basic traps we know the PCs always have some basic awareness of their surroundings. I'd also imagine people actively digging would be pretty distracted.

I'd probably try running it like a hazard. Roll perception checks to see if the party notices the tunnelers before blundering into them and starting an encounter. Perhaps only letting the head of the marching order roll depending on the type of tunnel. If an encounter does start the avoid notice character could roll stealth as usual.

Horizon Hunters

I will also say I know the Pathbuilder resource isn't official (not sure what level of affiliation they have with Paizo, if at all) but they do not count choosing not to make a Arcane School choice as selecting Universalist by default nor do they present it as an option from the Arcane School listing.

So in that highly rated and reviewed app doing as some have suggested and trying to become a Universalist by default through not selecting a school does not in fact grant you any ability to access Hand of the Apprentice.

I wouldn't say this is definitive evidence but it is worth considering in my opinion.

I personally favor the reading of the rules that since the Archetype tells you to pick a school and we all know what the "Schools of Magic" are (Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation) the Main Wizard Class option Universalist really shouldn't be an option for someone who just has the Wizard Archetype feat.

I would also say the Wizard Archetype feat text itself is a bit at odds with the Universalist option.

"Wizard
Source Core Rulebook pg. 231
You have dabbled in the arcane arts and, through discipline and academic study, learned how to cast a few spells."

"Universalist
Source Core Rulebook pg. 210
Instead of specializing narrowly in an arcane school, you can become a universalist wizard—by studying all the schools equally, you devote yourself to understanding the full breadth of the arcane arts. For each level of spell you can cast, you can use Drain Bonded item once per day to recall a spell of that level (instead of using it only once per day in total). You gain an extra wizard class feat, and you add one 1st-level spell of your choice to your spellbook."

Some could dismiss it a s flavor text but it doesn't really make a lot of sense of my mind to merely dabble in devoting yourself to the full breadth of the arcane arts.

Horizon Hunters

If we go with the rule of "Specific overrides general" then I would say that you would ignore the normal rules for alignment damage as the spell explicitly tells you how it is intended to function.

Also from my reading of Divine Decree the only difference from the two spells is one line that reads "of the alignment you chose" but the end result is the same because both tell you exactly how to treat creatures of each alignment when you use the spell against them.

My guess is that the slight difference in wording is the result of editors not catching something precisely because the text tells you how the damage should interact with different alignment types. This may be something they errata just to make it more consistent but I think the intention is clear on how the spell would work in a game.

Horizon Hunters

YuriP wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Lycar wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

So to collect a few things -

Shield Block works fairly well if you know the damage before deciding whether to block. That at least lets you decide whether you want to block a blow that would break or destroy the shield. Circumstantial evidence points to this being the designer intent.

It may offend some peoples' sense of plausibility, but I think we've also been able to swallow other practical implausibilities. For example, a barbarian with 1 HP left hits just as hard as one that's still got 100. The 1HP one isn't collapsing from the pain or anything. Playing a "death spiral" wounding system wouldn't really be fun in Pathfinder, so we sacrifice some realism for a game that runs better.

Thank you! This should really answer the original question of this thread.

Also, nice summary.

That is, the shields will never break (except in cases of extreme extremity), they will only be useless to block when opponents start to appear that cause a minimum damage equal to hardness.
nope shields will break. They just wont be destroyed

I think you don't understand the irony behind.

None player will choose to broke the shield if they know the damage. Why someone will do this and loose the shield AC if they know that all attacks will broke the shield? It's much easier to heal themselves than repair a broken shield, specially during an encounter.

That's just not true in every situation. Yes they will choose to avoid negative consequences like having an item break when they are relatively safe or have alternatives available. But in a dire situation that is far from the worst set of circumstances that can happen (especially when character death is a possibility).

Horizon Hunters

After frequently considering myself to be on the wrong side of this issue and needing to change my position I have given this one a lot of thought. The best and most consistent conclusion I can really come up with is something that can be inferred but is never explicitly stated in the rules (so I'm sure some will still disagree) which is this: Any animal that is trained to serve (allies or enemies) or fulfill a specific function should be granted the minion trait (by the GMs discretion).

Source Core Rulebook pg. 634
Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions. Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands. For an animal companion, you Command an Animal; for a minion that’s a spell or magic item effect, like a summoned minion, you Sustain a Spell or Sustain an Activation; if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command, a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits. If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don’t act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please.

This makes having a horse animal companion a bit more consistent whether mounted or unmounted and also addresses the problem of how you should treat enemy or friendly mounts.

Minions don't automatically listen to animal commands so the Ride feat is still necessary for a guaranteed success, when commanding a non animal companion mount. There could be some weirdness if say a druid manages to talk a hostile/wild creature into allowing hin to mount it temporarily and that druid also had the ride feat (does it still gain the minion trait? Or does it get 3 actions to use) but that's an edge case that I would feel ok letting a DM handle situationally. The rest turns out pretty smoothe in my humble opinion.

(It still doesn't address the vagueness of the wording in mounted combat rules and in the example but that's a whole separate can of worms)

Horizon Hunters

Shisumo wrote:
Is it possible that the existence of the shield divine ally for champions is distorting the design space somewhat? Because a lot of shields, even ones that seem weirdly designed like the forge warden, become much more usable for blocking against on-level enemies if you give them +2 Hardness and +50% HP/BT.

I was thinking of this too but didnt mention it because of how specific it was.

My biggest issue with all the proposed changes to Shield is yes it makes them usable more often and later into the game, so it solves that "problem". However, I am pretty concerned about the overall balance implications of being able to reliably mitigate damage as well as boost AC and gain some of these major benefits over and over. Especially since the enemy creature often has no opportunity to mitigate the effects.

Maybe it would not be a problem but perhaps it would make a level 1 General feat a lot stronger than intended. At any rate that is just a thought that keeps coming too mind.

Horizon Hunters

Kennethray wrote:
How would this work if there was a curse that made it one degree worst. There is an item in a published adventure that makes saves against any sleep type spells one degree worst. The pc that has this curse is a cleric with resolve. This is coming up soon that I will need to know the interactions with the curse, resolve and possible incapacitation trait.

Would you mind giving us the details of the item (with spoiler tags if necessary) so we could take a look at the specific wording of the item?

Horizon Hunters

Draco18s wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
I am not saying your points are totally invalid about these shield being easier to break at high levels but I will say that these items do grant options and benefits that are the easiest to take advantage of if you know the incoming damage.

Arrow Catching is before the attack roll is even made, so no, it does not have that advantage.

Forge Warden, on the other hand, is utterly obliterated by the minimum damage possible by an on-level enemy. So "knowing that damage value before hand" becomes increasingly moot.

It is a one off and I already talked about its unique advantages.

Also for the Forge Warden thats simply not true. I just went to a random level 10 enemy (I actually cherrypicked a bit because the first thing I picked was a brontosaurus which I though some might see as too much of a pushover compared to some other options)

So lets look at a T-Rex. Most would agree a scaryish foe. It's Foot attack is 2d10+12= So we're looking of average damage of 22. Shields hardness is 6= So on average we're looking at 16 damage getting through. With a HP of 24 and a BT of 12, it becomes broken but not destroyed. Still with no other Damage Reduction at play it is a losing gamble to block (especially if your GM does not allow you to raise a broken shield, but that's a matter that has been discussed in a different thread in depth) because you dont wanna lose that +2 AC. But say you know the instances where a GM has poor rolls and the total damage coming through. You would know exactly when a GM Rolls a 14-19 for damage and avoid it becoming Broken if you so choose while still getting to use the activated ability which the monster has no chance to avoid. It may not happen every battle but you have the choice of when to use it and when not to.

Horizon Hunters

Ubertron_X wrote:

If this game is all about options, can I please opt out of the shield block class feature and chose another? Maybe one that is not hampered by item design?

All that these special shields do sound like a talisman that you can attach to a normal shield...

It's a first level general feat....so yes you can do exactly that! Only Champion, War Cleric, Druid, and Fighter get it by default and that's just a free benefit at level 1 when they would be most useful.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
It does not seem to me as if the Shield itself represents some huge unnoticed flaw.

Because it works once and then is immediately destroyed?

But sure, it has some other features, fine. Maybe you want those instead.

But how about Arrow Catching? Its sole function is to intercept ranged attacks that you are required to Shield Block and has the same hardness and HP, does nothing else (besides the +2 AC you can get for buying a non-magical shield, so we can't consider that to be part of its benefits, because if you want that, buy a non-magical steel shield).

I'm not sure how "DR 6, once" is worth 900 or 1300 gp. Aren't there potions that are better and cheaper?

I would not assume all parties would make the same decision or have the same priorities. Different Adventuring groups will have different needs and capabilities. Different IRL Players will make very different choices on what they want to invest in for mechanical or RP reasons. It is fine to sell or not use it if it doesn't fit a particular parties makeup or playstyle.

I am not saying your points are totally invalid about these shield being easier to break at high levels but I will say that these items do grant options and benefits that are the easiest to take advantage of if you know the incoming damage.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Quote:
Imagine a tanky paladin using this to help protect a squishy caster especially with his enhanced AC if he chooses to raise the shield.

There's a type of paladin that can already do that (I don't remember which of the alignments, I think its LN). You want to do that, then be that paladin. I was that paladin during the playtest.

Sure it's not quite the same, but it's still way better because you know what the attack roll and damage was before you do it. And you can use any shield, like a Sturdy Shield, that might actually survive.

Quote:
The Shield Block is the risk you take by using this shield. However with that risk comes some big potential benefits.

Is it worth risking 1300 gold to interpose your shield against an attack that you don't yet know might be a crit?

No, I don't think it is. You're puffing up the benefits to make it look valuable and I'm saying, "No, that is not valuable, because the shield--if the attack hits--is going to utterly obliterate the shield and then I won't have it."

I believe what you are referring to is the Glimpse of Redemption. But that puts a debuff on the enemy and grants some DR to an ally. What it does not do is redirect the attack in its entirety to you. The benefit the feat grants is very different from forcing an attack to target you and your AC.

Additionally, just because a specific class choice can do something better than an item, does not mean that the item isn't a valid option for another class (or the same class that does not want to take that feat/feat combination). Just because it is not the all around best option does not mean no one could benefit from the option or incorporate it into the gear they want for their character. This game seems to put a lot of emphasis on granting options and it seems (in my mind) more restrictive to say "If you want to do x then be y class" rather than saying "If you can already do x then your character probably doesn't need y item". One requires intricate planning from the moment of character creation, the other can be decided during any downtime or shopping trip that your group manages to get.

Because there is risk involved there is the possibility it breaks and it is not worth it but at the same time it could be utterly game changing. Especially considering that even if it hits and the shield happens to be broken or destroyed, none of that damage is going to that ally. What if they were a squishy caster with 10 hp left? What if it was an unconscious ally already at dying 3? You could always enjoy the AC bonus to this shield fairly safety while having that Ace in the Hole for the right moment.

I am not puffing up anything, after all nothing is requiring you to take the shield, but it seems clear by the way it is designed that blocking is not the only benefit of this shield if you choose to use its trigger.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
It does not seem to me as if the Shield itself represents some huge unnoticed flaw.

Because it works once and then is immediately destroyed?

But sure, it has some other features, fine. Maybe you want those instead.

But how about Arrow Catching? Its sole function is to intercept ranged attacks that you are required to Shield Block and has the same hardness and HP, does nothing else (besides the +2 AC you can get for buying a non-magical shield, so we can't consider that to be part of its benefits, because if you want that, buy a non-magical steel shield).

I'm not sure how "DR 6, once" is worth 900 or 1300 gp. Aren't there potions that are better and cheaper?

I think you are misinterpreting the main benefit of this shield.

What is nice about this shield in particular is not the fact that you want to block with it but that you want to use it's trigger. This trigger is worded a very specific way.

"Trigger: A ranged weapon Strike targets a creature within 15 feet of you when you have this shield raised, and the attacker has not yet rolled their attack; Effect The triggering Strike targets you instead of its normal target. If it hits, you gain the effects of the Shield Block reaction."

So first and foremost it is different from every other shield in the fact that you decide to use its ability before the attack roll is even made. You then get to redirect attacks towards you that may not even hit your AC, no save it just happens. Imagine a tanky paladin using this to help protect a squishy caster especially with his enhanced AC if he chooses to raise the shield.

The Shield Block is the risk you take by using this shield. However with that risk comes some big potential benefits.

Horizon Hunters

Draco18s wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:

One of the guys (Cabbage, maybe?) pointed out that there are shields made of better materials you can get that soak up more damage. So at level 7 or 8, you'd have the option of an adamantine shield or something. So your shield is not always in danger of breaking.

And I feel like the break mechanic is just so that the character doesn't end up with a permanent damage reduction. Makes crafting useful, etc.

I'm going to keep chiming in with this every time someone forgets that it exists.

Forge Warden.

Draco maybe I am being dense but I am really not sure of the point you are trying to make when you bring up Forge Warden.

Is it that it is an expensive level 10 shield that requires to be damaged for it's activated ability to work? Because it still serves as a shield to raise AC and grants you and your allies fire resistance without putting it at risk. It also is a religious symbol for Torag Clerics.

Yes it has to take damage to be used but if you do want to use it (which in order to use it intelligently you'd need to know the incoming damage) that is guaranteed fire damage. Their is no hit roll or ability to save from it.

It does not seem to me as if the Shield itself represents some huge unnoticed flaw.

Horizon Hunters

GM Doug H wrote:
Goldryno wrote:

This may not be the best basis for an answer in a Rule Discussion forum but given what we know/what is shown as far as the lore of the Prophecies the CRBs listing seems to make more sense than the G&M entry.

Neutral Evil seems a bit too dark from what I understand the Prophecies to represent and would a Neutral Evil character really care about following a bunch of rules about purity? In Pathfinder this is the same alignment that Daemons have.

I agree. Unfortunately, this is for a concept for PFS. There's so little on Kalistocrasyout there, I also am also a little concerned about lore.

Gotcha! Well I think that since there is two sets of conflicting information, we are at the mercy of the GM you get. But I think if you present your reasoning most would agree with us? At least until we get some official clarification, I'd recommend posting to an Errata thread because this (to me) seems like a definite candidate for clarification.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:

OK, I understand your point but I think you are abstracting too much.

Using your logic when a char receive an attack from an enemy strong (STR 18) with a rapier, at it hit but roll only 5 (1 + 4) damage and a player chose to block it with a shield with 5 Hardness and 10BT. In role play the player just like managed to block the enemy.
But when this enemy roll max dice (8 + 4) and take 12 dmg and the player decides to no block it because this would do much damage to the shield and takes all damage. In role play now the player was unable to block!

In practice you are giving the GM golden ability to partially rule what's happen to the game. Is like the same if the GM rolled a big damage against a player and after thinks "ok, this way I will kill this char" an decides to diminish it or attack other char instead because it doesn't like to kill that player.

I know I'm exaggerating the example, but it's to show how this rule works and when I read "forget, this rule is cool just abstract it" for a rule that if it wasn't made officially by Paizo and instead was homebrew rule made by someone in this forum, probably such rule would be ignored, criticized and many people will throwing stones against it but no one was saying "wow, this is a cool rule, we just need to abstract it".

To know the damage before or after block is just one of the problems with it. This rule has many others! Even knowing the damage before block, the block will become useless at high-levels as the damages increases unless you waste many gold pieces buying sturdy magical shields and basically obligating the player to use such shields and ignore all other options, there's several feats and even items that depend of this block to work, but that you receive at high levels when the blocks are already useless.

I cannot stop think that this rule was not just poorly designed. I like to see some GMs that's trying to solve it's problems and strangness, and discussing it not just accepting it.

There are several points I disagree with you on:

1.) The "Combat RolePlay" has always been an abstraction of the dice you roll. No sane system could truly replicate the chaos of combat in a turned base game. Having different outcomes result in different role play interpretations or narrative entertainment isn't a flaw in my eyes. An attack being too overwhelming (dealing too much damage) to block is certainly a concept a creative DM could narrate.

2.) In most games the GM always has the ability to change the outcome in one way or another. Pathfinder Society GMs are bound a bit more by the rules that home game GMs but there is always a way for them to influence outcomes if they want to or feel it is merited.

3.)Sturdy shields are a great option if you want to block often but that is just one option for your reaction. It is up to the player which options they want to use and how often. Even a basic shield can be far from useless if it is the difference between dropping due to a lucky crit or not (Dying 2 is no joke).

4.) I think almost every rule discussed on this section of the site falls into the category of "If Paizo didn't put it in their game, the game Rules forum would probably not like it" :-D

5.) Later levels you also have access to more gold and more options for crafting interesting things.

Lastly if your primary concerns are altering a rule set that we know is functional but you don't like it, the Homebrew/House Rule discussion forum may be a great resource for you. Just from the standpoint of putting you in contact with like minded individuals who would have similar end goals in altering the play-style of the game.

1 to 50 of 234 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>