Sajan

Goldryno's page

Organized Play Member. 240 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've seen a lot of interesting takes on the strengths, weaknesses, and abilities of the Thaumaturge and wanted to offer my own view of the Playtest class. I will be trying to touch on some subjects I haven't seen mentioned yet. Things that have been talked on at length I will not mention or will only mention briefly. I am going to put a greater emphasis on things I like or would like tweaked than on the things I dislike or would like removed as well as try to pay attention to both mechanics and flavor.

Summary: The class seems like it can be built a wide variety of different ways but also runs the risk of being ineffective due to being MAD and not the absolute best at the things it can do. In the right hands though I could see it fitting well into many parties.

KAS: I wanted to briefly mention than I love the fact that it is CHA and would not want that changed. Having the Choice between CHA and WIS would be nice as there are few WIS classes and WIS also closely fits the theme of connections and understandings. I actually really enjoy the fact INT isn't a KAS for this particular class. Keeps it more distinct from the Investigator.

Skills: It is tricky to understand where Esoteric Lore class feat becomes more useful when you start trained in the 4 main recall knowledge lore skills. Some advise or additional guidelines on recall knowledge have already been requested by many so I wont expand. Was it intentional that Additional Lore becomes a really attractive option on this class due to the specificity and automatic scaling? If so a tip from the designers could be useful! It may even be useful enough that Additional Lore may be a better starting pickup than Dubious Knowledge.

Find Flaws: I will not mention the DC but I will say that it does not make a lot of sense to me to have to do this for multiple creatures of the same type unlike Hunt Prey (unless the Monster is unique). What makes the most sense to me is if the recall knowledge is successful it should apply to all creatures of the same type or if the monster is unique enough (GM discretion) Thaumaturge get some additional knowledge on what makes it unique (to balance out the Find Flaws only applying to one creature.) Having this optionally Key off Wis could open a lot of new builds up.

Esoteric Antithesis: Since we are not the big brain INT smarty pants, we are the professional who sees connections, trusts his gut and knows the tools of his trade...so the name doesn't seem to fit the theme. Adverse/Occult Curio or something else may fit the flavor better. I enjoy the gigantic opportunity for players to add their own flavor to this and it really should bring a lot of fun and creativity to playing.

Implements: I love each and every option available thematically even if some are harder than others to fit into my playstyle. I would like some clarification though on the steps (if any) to replace or repair a destroyed or lost Implement. The implements are portrayed as almost having a will of their own. It may be cool to run with that concept for a familiar that is unique flavorwise (if not mechanics wise). Maybe a "Posessed Curio" or "Posessed Esoterica" familiar option similar to the leshy familiar or the alchemical familiar.

- Amulet: No changes to recommend. Seems like a solid choice.

- Chalice: Great flavor although seems mechanically weak. Marshall seems way better at distributing temp hp. Amulet better at protecting your team while your fighting. Good for you to keep temp hp topped off but the flavor text seems to imply that this is for caring for others and not focused on your self and your own health. In addition since you will already be building CHA and something for your strikes you do not have a ton of resources to use on WIS or Medicine to make yourself a good healer. No Doctor's Visitation equivalent where you can both move and use it. Adept benefit is very situational. You will most likely have to move yourself out of good flanking positions to get close enough to support allies. You don't have control of when it is sipped on or drained even though you are the one "administering" it. Having the WIS KAS option could help with this issue some by making them good at Treat Wounds and other conventional healing options.

- Lantern: Very cool especially but most builds will have precious little room for WIS. I can see many people in the playtest taking it later as the DCs scale, rather than early when they are more manageable. Having that kind of insight from level 1 is a tall order for casual players.

- Wand: I like the concept but what makes this different from the actual magic wands any caster can use? What makes this unique to the Thaumaturge? May want to consider something about it being an inert/damaged/flawed relic from a great caster or a remnant of a powerful magical phenomenon. Something that once had magic but shouldn't anymore and that only a trained thaumaturge can bridge those connections and activate once again. I think rather than looking at raw power/dmg I think there are a lot of ways to play off the wand theme and make it a useful implement. Maybe bonuses to finding flaws in magical creatures or other informational bonuses. Perhaps more options for different damage types, non damaging effects, or a greater ability to switch between types.

-Weapon: The crowd favorite. I don't think many changes are needed. The ability to use two handed weapons for your weapon implement and still empower them could be a nice class feat (maybe with a negative built in like an AC penalty).

Feats: I will only talk about a few, and not all of them will be in detail
-Binding Oath: Awesome flavor
-Divine Disharmony: ^
-Root to life: Awesome two action effect but I wish it was usable if my ally were not dying. Would make an awesome support option.
-Draw Warding Circle: I wish there was more of an adverse effect on enemies if they fail or crit fail to cross.
-Know-It-All: Further info on how this affects your recall knowledge checks.
-Twin Weakness: Does this work if your just holding your weapon implement?
-Thaumaturge's Demesne: A portal or quick way back to the Demesne would be cool and make it more useful in campaigns with a lot of globetrotting. Love the choice although the late level you get to take it with you and the requirement to legitimately claim a large swath of land can be very restrictive.

Additional Notes: This class seems to gain a ton of power from the Free Archetype variant rule. Giving you easy access to things like Marshall, Loremaster, Talisman Dabbler, ScrollMaster, Champion and Fighter archetypes all of which help fill holes in the kit (like tankiness, combat maneuvers, etc) or open up class feat slots for other thematic options (since several early class feats mimic dedication benefits). I would be careful of the power jump being abnormally big between free archetype play and normal play for this class.

I would like to close by saying I am super excited by what I have seen thus far and that this is already a contender for one of my top favorite classes. Anyone who has taken the time to read this additional thoughts or comments are very welcome :-) I plan to follow up on this after spending more time on the class.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something odd that I found (and I have not seen this brought up anywhere else) is that the Character sheets

(at least through the link that I viewed:
https://paizo.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/PFBeginnerBox_CharacterSheet.pdf)

have the wrong calculation for a melee weapon attack roll.

Melee Weapon Attack rolls are entered in there as being affected by DEX and not STR. DEX affecting your melee to hit should only be an option that's available when you use a Finesse weapon.

Other than that they look beautiful and I wish there were versions this visually appealing that had additional bubbles to mark when you gained Master and Legendary proficiencies.

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

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Strangest viral marketing campaign ever...

Horizon Hunters

5 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

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

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

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

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.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Rules for how much damage a weapon does are on pages 280-282 of the CRB, Gortle.

That is not sufficient because of the core rule books own comment on why size medium creature don't get more damage from larger weapons. It explicitly creates the need to address this issue.

Then there is the history of the game and genre.

I'm going to approach this a few different ways because I really don't like to see personal attacks on this forum. We all like the discussion and are passionate about the game so sometimes things get a bit heated. You've been civil when defending yourself and making real arguments which is commendable. The negative comments don't really help nor do the calls to take this to another forum (not that this is the right place for every thread but do we really want to be driving people away from interacting?).

From my reading to the two entries we are quoting most there is no indication or expectation that I can see that the damage increase is coming from the weapon being bigger.

When you are Enlarged you become clumsy (presumably because you are not used to being that size) and your damage is increased but that damage does not appear to be connected in anyway to your weapon size.

Giant Instinct also states you get the raw size and power of a giant but more importantly the damage die only increases when you rage. If things worked how you propose wouldn't the damage bonus be constant? The clumsiness that comes from the weapon being unwieldy is constant. Your weapon isn't shifting size. It is the strength of a giant that you are generating combined with a suitable sized weapon to tap into that strength that is granting the power beyond what your size would normally dictate. You can write in your own rationalizations here but they just don't hold water with this rule set. (Let me know if there was a specific comment you are referring to that "creates the need to address this issue" that is stronger evidence than what I am outlining).

If we are talking about the history of the Genre and RPG games very rarely if ever do designers recommend applying the same logic to Player Character design that they do to Monster design. But I don't think we should really be looking at that at all. This is the whole point of a new edition. Things will change and that's not a bad thing and Paizo is certainly not stopping support of original Pathfinder if that's more your speed.

More importantly the company heavily encourages you to play your own way but when you dig in your heels on a need for something to be addressed when the question is pretty clear for the majority (and is kind of a non-issue because Large Character races don't exist, we already know what happens when a player is Enlarged, and what happens when they try to use a weapon that is so large as to be unwieldly). It mostly seems the need exists within you and not something that is plaguing the majority of Paizo's audience.

Changing things that bothers you doesn't make you a bad GM. Neither does creating house rules. If we are here to discuss the rules of P2 lets discuss them how they are and not with the weight of expectation from other games and other editions ruining our fun.

(By the way If confronted with my characters wanting to use a giant weapon on the fly, I think it would be fun to have them use it as part of a hazard/trap they set up. Dropping it from a great height or some other shenanigans. Maybe attempt to use it in a pinch with penalties until they find something manageable. There are 1,000 fun and interesting ways to play with the concept but I think most of us are in agreement that the size of the weapon alone does not grant any inherent bonuses in the current P2 rule set for any of the characters possible to play)

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Circumstance bonuses do not stack so you would only be able to benefit from the highest bonus.

"Source Core Rulebook pg. 444
...There are three other types of bonus that frequently appear: circumstance bonuses, item bonuses, and status bonuses. If you have different types of bonus that would apply to the same roll, you’ll add them all. But if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you can use only the highest bonus on a given roll—in other words, they don’t “stack.” For instance, if you have both a proficiency bonus and an item bonus, you add both to your d20 result, but if you have two item bonuses that could apply to the same check, you add only the higher of the two."

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand for Unarmed Strikes we have the old familiar statement.

"However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so." So I can see the healer glove example go down the toilet with that.

But quick thought experiment here, would you say that means if someone has a +1 Longbow, runs out of arrows, and decides to hit the boss monster with it. It's an improvised weapon at that point so negatives to the attack roll and the GM determines damage, but does that damage ignore resistance to non-magical weapons?

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree it's important to know how it works and the way to use it correctly.

I would say though that in addition to making it less consistent with the other spells and wording, that if it took 9 rounds for the spell to take effect, I would expect them to have built the spells entry differently.

I would have expected them to list a cast time of 1 minute with no duration listing. Plus with the limitation in the spell that you must do it in an unbroken space with such a long delay means that it would be almost unusuable in any combat.

On the other hand I wouldn't be mad if Paizo wanted to give you the ability to grow permanent hedge maze defenses for any home-base you might have. Just mechanics that tricky to use seems to be something they have steered away from.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The wording is confusing but if you look at the other wall spells you can see that Wall of Stone (which remains afterwards) doesn't have a duration while the other more magical walls (like wind and fire) that are assumed to fade do have a listed duration. I do not think that Duration they list is the same amount of time needed for you to grow the wall (despite the very reasonable way you are interpreting that beginning flavor text).

So I would probably rule that this creates an instant Thorn Wall to your desired specifications which lasts for a little while (1 minute) before magically fading/dying as suddenly as it grew after 1 minute.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As of right now I cannot see any specific interactions with the Shadow trait. My guess is that the current state of the "Shadow" trait is future proofing so that they can at some point in time introduce creatures/hazards/mechanics that can interact with Shadow spells in a certain way.

As the GM it is ultimately up to you how you would like them to work at your table but I think introducing a blanket restriction/nerf to how they are currently in the book probably wouldn't be the best way to go. I would leave as is. Maybe if I was feeling creative add some shadow resistances/weaknesses to appropriate creatures or special interactions if your group were to be doing any delving into/messing with the Shadow Plane.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

The impression I get from various snippets here and there is that Exploration Tactics semi-assume you're not precisely positioned on the grid. As in, the Scout role says you're constantly moving around the party, and Avoid Notice has you sort of skulking to the side. Defend and Search tend to put you near the front. So it also carries some implications of a marching order.

So if a fight breaks out for Ravingdork's party, I would put the monk on the map a bit to the side of the fighter, hiding behind a rock or something. If his Avoid Notice roll is good enough, at the start of combat enemies will be looking at the party and won't know yet that there's also a monk in the game.

If you are moving precisely on the grid, you should probably move your mini in accord with the flavor of your tactic, and it'll work better.

"Character Placement

Source Core Rulebook pg. 499
When calling for initiative for a combat encounter, you’ll need to decide where the participants in the encounter go on the battle map. Use the party’s order, described on page 497, as a base. You can move forward characters who are using Stealth to get into position, putting them in a place they could reasonably have moved up to before having a chance to be detected. Consult with each player to make sure their position makes sense to both of you."

I agree with your interpretation on that and furthermore it seems to be directly supported by the CRB.

Horizon Hunters

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

I've observed some of those same issues, Ascalaphus.

Our group has so far fallen into:

Fighter raises shield
Cleric detects magic
Monk avoids notice
Ranger scouts

The result?

Traps eat us alive.
Fighter is often hit anyways.
We never find the crucial clue.
Enemies regularly ambush us despite our scout.
Monk never gets the drop on anybody because the rest of the party doesn't even bother.

None of it makes sense and it completely kills immersion for us.

Fighter Raising Shield is one thing only he can benefit from at the cost of an action that could be benefiting the group

Shouldn't Cleric detecting magic help detect some magical traps? Or he may be able to specify this as an Improvised Exploration Activity?

Monk Avoiding Notice by himself is another thing that helps him at the cost of an action that could be helping the group. Also shouldn't he still potentially get the benefit of starting combat undetected?

If the Ranger's Scouting isn't giving you benefit maybe that person would be better off Seeking Traps especially if traps are eating you alive

This doesn't directly answer any of your concerns from a rules standpoint of "why can't we do more" but it seems to me that the issues your group is experiencing are avoidable with a change in strategy.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Source Core Rulebook pg. 520
"...During exploration, determine whether the party detects a hazard when the PCs first enter the general area If the hazard doesn’t list a minimum proficiency rank, roll a secret Perception check against the hazard’s Stealth DC for each PC. For hazards with a minimum proficiency rank, roll only if someone is actively searching (using the Search activity while exploring or the Seek action in an encounter), and only if they have the listed proficiency rank or higher. Anyone who succeeds becomes aware of the hazard, and you can describe what they notice."

This may be a side point but it seems like even if all they are doing is avoiding notice or following the expert they can still detect some traps. Just not those with a proficiency requirement. This may have been hyperbole but if they are running into every single trap even those without a listed proficiency you may be doing things different than how the rules intended.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Doug H wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Quotes liberal rulings that not all gms will abide by, in order to justify the argument.

Here's a larger question for you: do you honestly think that this deity of illusions is more or less thematically interesting with a blanket embargo on all illusions that "harm" all creatures? (This is addition to her other strict anathema of never divulging secrets.)

To my mind, it's not: it's too broad-reaching because it includes all illusions that subjectively "harm" all creatures without exception. It conflicts with the deity's theme (delirium is a form of harm; it's a bad thing), and leaves the player vulnerable to GM fiat at worst — or depends on a lenient one at best. (Or just ignoring the anathema when a player breaks it often, which has been suggested in this thread — if this is the best solution to your anathema, it's also not well-designed).

To my mind, any deity that places such far-reaching bans on the way you use their own theme is badly designed. I don't see why the writer couldn't have put in an "except in self-defense" clause or something more nuanced than straight-up intolerance for a common way to use a school of spells.

And you're right: I don't like the theme. When I build illusionists I want to use the spells in weird and creative ways. Unfortunately, Sivanah seems to have transitioned from 1E to 2E as a very unimaginative and repressive deity. Odd choice for a deity of trickery and mental dysfunction.

It's subjective but here is where I disagree with you the most. Dealing direct harm seems to me the least weird or creative way to use an illusion.

You would think that theme would point more towards actual trickery, deception, altering perception, insanity etc. Dealing direct harm with an illusion seems more of what an Arcane or Occult Illusionist may pursue.

Horizon Hunters

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
It's a little confusing because object hardness, by my read, should apply to all damage. So a hardness 15 means your flaming weapon should do no fire damage no matter how much physical damage you do. But I'm not sure shield block works with normal hardness mechanics by RAW. Fire might bypass the shield and hit you, and I'm not sure if the shield also takes fire damage.

https://youtu.be/oe0eJrrAlUE at 44:07.

It looks like Paizo has stated that in the case that an attack does multiple types of damage their intention was to leave it up to GM's discretion.

So if you've been houseruling odds are you are still doing things correctly.

Their words do seem to indicate that it can apply towards any type of damage which kinda leads me towards the viewpoint that it blocks the physical and then from it's remaining hardness or item hp (if any) it blocks the energy damage.

So 5 slashing and 5 fire damage against a 6 hardness shield would block 6 total damage and 4 remaining fire damage would go through.

Same for the question of in what order resistances would be applied. Totally up to the GM it seems. I would lean towards the option that had players not having to damage their shield in order to take advantage of their resistances but seems like even if you do it the other way neither is wrong.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is what I was missing or at least a peice of it.

Been doing some looking myself because it felt wrong despite what seemed to be clear instructions on how it should work. It was really difficult to find counterpoints given the wording they used (to me at least, I know some night disagree!).

It also didn't feel right with how Nethys tables summarized the feat and how Pathbuilder treated it. I even checked the leveling up rules to see if there was something I missed there.

Thanks for finding this. Feel like I've been tieing my brain in knots.

Horizon Hunters

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell’s emanation radiates 5 or more feet outward from the caster. Because the sides of a target’s space are used as the starting point for the emanation, an emanation from a Large or larger creature affects a greater overall area than that of a Medium or smaller creature. An emanation effect includes the target of the emanation, but the creature creating the effect can exclude the target if desired."

Also the target for Bane's emanation is specifically enemies in the area.

I think given the level of control Paizo let's you have with emanations coupled with Bane's own targeting wording means its pretty clear you don't have to worry about ruining your allies bless.

This however gets more complicated when you check the opposing wording listed on appendix 7 subsection b which reads... Nah just pulling your leg :-) Hope this helps and happy gaming!

Horizon Hunters

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Source Core Rulebook pg. 472
"Your reactions let you respond immediately to what’s happening around you. The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens."

Looks like it is explicitly spelled out in the CRB that this is entirely up to GM's discretion on whether you have your reaction available or not.

For me personally as long as they weren't taken completely unawares (attacked by an undetected enemy) I would probably allow it most of the time.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe that is correct unless there is anything specific to the affliction that modifies the way it works.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if the Barbarian themselves were there own worst enemy?

On a serious note though, I do find it interesting that they state enemy and not enemy creature. As in illusions or other perceived threat that were not creatures could be the target of rage.

I also do find it interesting that they dictate how long rage lasts/when it would end but they don't give any conditions for starting the rage action besides you aren't fatigued or already raging. Are we assuming if you start to Rage without an enemy around it immediately ends before you even take a single action?

I personally would allow a Barbarian to rage as long as their was something in his way/impeding him from his goal that he wanted to destroy, kill, or break.

In the burning building scenario that locked door is the enemy. It is indirectly putting your ally or companion in danger.

In a friendly wrestling match, if you choose to start Raging you would not be able to stop raging/attacking until that opponent was incapacitated which is not within the normal bounds of a friendly match.

Climbing a cliff scenario unless you can hear or perceive an enemy attacking/doing something bad from the bottom I would not allow you to Rage climb to the top.

I also would not allow Rage fleeing from battle....I mean ...really?

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dimrswitch wrote:

Reading the rules for somatic casting on pg. 196 and then emblazon weapon on pg. 122 got me thinking about action economy.

If I strike a foe with a weapon that has the emblazon weapon effect on it, does this fulfill the somatic component of a touch spell, such as harm? If so then could it then be cast as part of the melee attack without consuming an action? It would need a separate attack using spell attack to hit I imagine.

I'm not sure if this combo is intended or not, or if I have missed another rule to prevent a 0 action spell cast.

I would rule that they do not as the "Strike" action is distinct and separate from the actions used to cast a spell. Think of the difference in stabbing someone versus waggling your fingers like every spellcaster does in popular media.

What the Emblazon Spell is doing is making an object (in this case a weapon) into a focus for spellcasting so that you do not need another focus or a component pouch (and thus would not need a free hand). Its also giving you a small status bonus buff.

Unless specifically stated generally you cannot double dip into the action economy to make any type of defined physical action (like a Strike) into a somatic spell action.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Allow a super annyoing bard to join your party, problem solved. ;)

I love this. The idea of a Barbarian deciding to temporarily turn on his party or view the most annoying member as a personal enemy to gain the mechanical advantages and then just privately forgives them later makes me chuckle.

"I'll totally make so and so pay as soon as I get to the top of this cliff!.....Eh.... actually he's not THAT bad of a guy"

Horizon Hunters

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the wording in the Golem Antimagic entry points pretty strongly to applying specifically towards magic effects only.

So in the first example yes it would take normal lightning damage and not be slowed (unless the storm was created through any type of magic).

An adamantine golem is actually immune to fire but he would not be getting healed by a natural forest fire.

At my table I would personally shut down most arguments with a statement that states all rune effect are magical and all offensive attacks originating from spells are magical (and if there seems to be exceptions I would address the one offs as they came up). I think if we're being precise we can actually see if a monster's technique is magical or not (for instance a dragons breathe weapon has the arcane trait).

For the last point, that is one of the perks of being an alchemist. I believe by most standards they are still considered underpowered so I wouldn't mind giving them this advantage. Them being better able to take down a golem also seems to fit their theme.

Edit: I would also point to the adamantine golem being healed by fire in their Antimagic entry and also having a listed immunity to fire is a good indication that there is supposed to be a distinction.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:

No, you won't benefit from a broken shield.

Yes, shields can be totally worthwhile.

Additionally, you should know the incoming damage and whether it would break your shield BEFORE you choose whether to block.

Why would you expect a PC to know what the damage is before deciding to use shield block?

If I know a player has a shield raised (and am actually on top of my game and remembering things) I tell them they will be hit and will take damage and ask if they want to use their reaction to reduce it before announcing the damage amount.

Retroactively allowing them to shield block after the damage amount is known does not make as much sense to me.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

"These purposes" refers to the ability to attach Runes and Talismans to it, that's all.

While I agree that this is less than ideal and something of an unneeded restriction for characters which use Unarmed Attacks, in general, the Handwraps are specifically worded in such a way as to indicate that they are NOT actually Weapons in their own right which the Doubling rings require. The Doubling Rings effect is entirely separate from actual Rune application or transference and the same goes for Talismans.

Doubling Rings are neither Runes nor Talismans. The same thing goes for Oils, they cannot be applied to Unarmed Attacks or Handwraps.

We may have to agree to disagree on this point. It seems to me they specifically spell out a scenario where they can be counted as weapons.

Oils I would agree would not work though as they are not mentioned in the scenario listed where a Handwrap may count as a weapon.

Horizon Hunters

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

No, you cannot ever use Doubling Rings with ANY Unarmed Attacks wholesale period. They really botched how Unarmed Attacks work when they had every chance to avoid the troublesome wording of the past.

You need the Handwraps of Mighty Blows to enchant your Unarmed Attacks and those Handwraps are not a valid choice for Doubling Rings either as they are ALSO not Weapons.

From what I can see in the CRB I can agree with your first point but I disagree with the other.

to the first point: "Source Core Rulebook pg. 278
Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so."

Pretty clear here they don't work with unarmed strikes normally.

However as to the second point when we look at Handwraps of Mighty Blows we see: "Source Core Rulebook pg. 611
Usage worn gloves
As you invest these embroidered strips of cloth, you must meditate and slowly wrap them around your hands. These handwraps have weapon runes etched into them to give your unarmed attacks the benefits of those runes, making your unarmed attacks work like magic weapons. For example, +1 striking handwraps of mighty blows would give you a +1 item bonus to attack rolls with your unarmed attacks and increase the damage of your unarmed attacks from one weapon die to two (normally 2d4 instead of 1d4, but if your fists have a different weapon damage die or you have other unarmed attacks, use two of that die size instead).

You can upgrade, add, and transfer runes to and from the handwraps just as you would for a weapon, and you can attach talismans to the handwraps. Treat the handwraps as melee weapons of the brawling group with light Bulk for these purposes. Property runes apply only when they would be applicable to the unarmed attack you’re using. For example, a property that must be applied to a slashing weapon wouldn’t function when you attacked with a fist, but you would gain its benefits if you attacked with a claw or some other slashing unarmed attack."

it seems to me that while the rings of doubling are not mentioned it would fall into this category of transfers (the actual text for handwraps says replicated but I do not think their is a big meaningful difference in the word choice) and having the appropriate runes transferred to your handwraps through a Ring of Doubling is most likely RAI.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even basic zip ties are difficult to break out of. If manacles are easy to slip off is their even a point?

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always used anathema to give guidelines on how someone of this calling would normally act. Not a penalty I am always waiting for the first opportunity to slap someone with. Unless something was particularly flagrant (in this example something along the lines of refusing to participate in a duel or test of strength at all because you were scared, or the task look difficult, or your important seemed too buff) I would almost never invoke the anathema rules to rob someone of their powers.

If a druid fights a rampaging monster that happens to be also classified as an animal they are not violating their anathema.

If a cleric of Shelyn fights a handsome vampire they are not violating their anathema.

Making people lose their powers or be railroaded is generally not fun for the party and in my opinion should be used only in rare cases.... or if someone is claiming to be something completely at odds with the lore like a worshiper of Pharasma who is also a Necromancer.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So not sure if this is 100% correct but I've taken my queue from the text in Detecting A Hazard (Source Core Rulebook pg. 520):

"During exploration, determine whether the party detects a hazard when the PCs first enter the general area in which it appears. If the hazard doesn’t list a minimum proficiency rank, roll a secret Perception check against the hazard’s Stealth DC for each PC. For hazards with a minimum proficiency rank, roll only if someone is actively searching (using the Search activity while exploring or the Seek action in an encounter), and only if they have the listed proficiency rank or higher."

Which is to say we basically assume that the party is always some level of aware and searching even when not taking the more in depth search action. Their "passive perception" essentially amounts to the rolling of Secret Perception checks that you would make when they enter the vicinity of something important. Of course for anything especially well hidden or disguised they'd need to actually be taking the search action to find it just like hazards that require a proficiency.

I would then use the guidelines for Search to determine what they find and whether they miss what is important. Also to determine if you only give them a jumping off point to search for things closer (ie you may tell them they find a strange important looking cabinet if they roll high enough but it is up to them to decide whether or not they spend time to further search it for documents). You may have to make some judgement calls yourself in regards to DC as I am not sure every important but hard to find item will have a Stealth DC listed.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Curgyr wrote:
Intuitively, this is how my formula brain is breaking down the structure of the spell, but I can't find anything that states this. Do I have the wrong idea, or is it important to keep the +8 the way it is?

It is always in the GMs realm to make adjustments as they feel appropriate but I think this is not a place where we need to change or interpret is anything. Nothing is contradicting, vague in the wording, or open to vastly different interpretations. For the 2 action version you just add an 8 meaning the two action version is consistent whether or not you have healing hands instead of scaling with the feat. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.

We don't want to reinvent the wheel, and generally if I am assuming a formula that isn't stated in the rules I have to take a long look at what I am doing and wondering if I am complicating something needlessly.

Horizon Hunters

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

In the errata they make this change:

Errata 1.0 wrote:

Changes to Greater Juggernaut , Greater Resolve, Improved Evasion, and Third Path to Perfection

All four of these abilities grant a two-tier benefit on a failed saving throw of the specified type, but (as always) no ability will ever change your degree of success by more than one step. To clarify, we’re making the following clarification to all four abilities. Change the beginning of the last sentence from “When you fail” the listed saving throw to “When you roll a failure on” the listed saving throw.

They illustrate a significant difference between "getting a failure" and "rolling a failure"

With that in mind, I'm not so sure Stealth Savant would be intended to combo with Assurance.

I am interpreting this entry in the errata differently from you are. This seems to me to be clarification to distinguish a critical failure from a failure in order for a class feature to not improve a roll by two steps. This does not seem at all to be addressing a distinction between rolling or taking an assurance value. The wording "when you fail" was deemed to be too ambiguous because it seemed to encompass both failure and critical failure.

Even if you want to stretch your imagination a bit, when you choose to take an assurance value a critical failure is still possible just not from rolling a 1. One could make an argument that a literal interpretation necessitates you rolling but the logic they spell out in the change itself is not related at all to the scenario we are worried about. I would still follow up with having Assurance work with it is RAI even if not RAW. Preventing a 1 failure for the easier checks is precisely what Assurance is for.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something I recently thought of as a very obvious work around that we may be overlooking and how characters would probably respond to this in a realistic scenario.

I want to jump down from a roof and even though the roof isn't super high up it still feels a bit dangerous for me. I would intentionally grab an edge and dangle off. The actual distance I am falling (depending on my height) generally is decreasing by about 5 or 6ft and giving me a much safer distance to drop down.

If I choose to just leap that same drop and wind up getting hurt I have no one to blame but myself.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't completely count it out. Not everyone will be bad at avoiding notice. Even having 1 or 2 members of your party who are good at sneaking having that benefit for free and allowing them to use other actions can be huge....the hulking barbarian may still want to follow the expert during a stealth mission though.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have always interpreted this as being flatfooted to someone rather than being flatfooted to the world.

By focusing on one of the opponents flanking you are putting another opponent entirely in your blind spot and thus you receive that circumstantial penalty.

I would say Flanking itself is neither a debuff or a buff. Instead I think of it as there are rules that dictate when something is flanked, and these rules are not dependent on a specific skill/class or ability but rather their positioning and ability to be a threat. There is no save. If the conditions are filled an enemy is automatically flatfooted to the creatures who managed to flank it.

Remember that while we're not moving models or tokens in between turns in the narrative that enemy isn't staying perfectly still and looking in one direction. Only constant threat(s) to the blind spot presents more of a combat disadvantage than normal.

I would argue against changes to flanking because the way they make it work seems especially deliberate and specific. It's always the GMs right to house rule but the fact that they are clear in how they want it to work is why I'd hesitate to implement one here.

If I were to do so I would make sure it worked both ways, if the whole party is going to reap the benefits of two people flanking then I would make sure that applies to every enemy on the map when they flank one of the players.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For your first question: I would allow it based on the fact that the text of shield spell and the other feats that shield spell interacts with.

For the second I would treat it as moving at half speed. Given the narrative text description, it would seem strange for it to deactivate mid stride or for a player to declare which feet in his single movement action are shielded strides and which are normal strides.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So we've established that Powerful Leap is no longer a part of the equation here as Leap and Long Jump are different.

*** (This got brought back up while I was writing this reply. I'd argue Powerful Leap wouldn't go into your long jump calculations simply because the text for Leap describes states "You take a careful, short jump" which seems very different from what we are going for with maxing this Long Jump. Either way it wont make much difference. If you are going with the jump distance capped by speed it will have no effect, if you are going with an uncapped jump distance then your jump is already so ridiculous it probably wont matter at all. I am also of the opinion that even though you Stride and Leap as part of the Long Jump action that action is still distinct from taking the Leap action by itself.)

Looking at the text for Long Jump "The DC of the Athletics check is equal to the total distance in feet you’re attempting to move during your Leap (so you’d need to succeed at a DC 20 check to Leap 20 feet)You can’t Leap farther than your Speed."

and Cloud Jump "Your unparalleled athletic skill allows you to jump impossible distances. Triple the distance you Long Jump (so you could jump 60 feet on a successful DC 20 check). When you High Jump, use the calculation for a Long Jump but don’t triple the distance."

Then things boil down to whether, as the GM, you go with a RAW or a RAI interpretation for your game.

RAW Assurance is only granting you a default check and default jump distance of 38ft. Cloud Jump has no text in it that states the Long Jump rule of not being able to jump further than your move speed (the wording makes it apparent that this limitation is no longer in effect for 2 or 3 action jumps). In this case your 38 tripled gets capped at 45ft. With options to jump 90 or 135 ft for additional actions.

If you want to go with the argument that Cloud Jump breaks that initial restriction then you have a 114 ft Long Jump with options to go 159ft or 204ft.

I would most likely go with the 1st interpretation as jumping 45 feet already stretches the imagination and fits better within the normal rules and boundaries of the game. A brief look at some other mobility based skills and I couldn't find anything that comes close to accomplishing this without using any magic or focus whatsoever. Jumping 114 feet with sheer muscle kinda jumps the shark for me.