Gray Warden's page

If you want to break it up by lists

I actually want to break it up by names, like "Hex" stated in the feat, as opposed to "Major Hex".

If it preclude taking actions, the game term, yes, it will not preclude thing that aren't defined as actions, the game term.

Ok, so if something precludes taking actions, I can still perform AoOs, because they are not actions, no matter what. Correct?

In which case I'll leave this here, just as a reminder that sometimes it would be better not to be too confident, and to allow some doubt and flexibility here and there:

If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying.

A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions.

And I guess I'll stick with RAW that throwing shields=ranged shield slams

Except for the fact that that's not RAW, because there's no rule actually written that says so. It's an inference, or as often called, RAI, like any other one proposed in this thread, so feel free to pick the one you like the most.

Somehow people like to come in this forum and claim with great voice that their opinion is RAW, as if it was some sort of divine revelation, without realising that, if that was the case, they wouldn't be here asking the question in the first place...

Also, have you noticed how the Shield Trick

Hurl Shield (Throw Anything): You can throw your shield as a ranged improvised weapon. You must be holding (not wearing) your shield to perform this trick. If you are using a throwing shield, there is no reason to use this trick.

doesn't mention shield bash, but only generic ranged attacks, either? Just so you are aware...

Gray Warden wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Attacks of Opportunity aren't actions at all

So you agree they aren't move actions either. Cool beans.

Quote:

A laughing creature can only take a move action but can defend itself normally.

As you are trying to argue that taking only move action precludes all non-actions, do you want to explain what it means "can defend itself normally"?

By your logic, the target can't try to make saves as it isn't a move action.

Let's make a few things clear, since you seem to have taken this matter to heart and cannot really grasp subjects: I am not claiming, or trying to argue, anything here, I've simply proposed an alternative interpretation that I can realistically see coming, in an attempt to bridge RAW and someone's perceived RAI, that may have some merits, or it would at least be worth considering. In fact, I do, personally (see, this is my opinion) believe that AoOs should be allowed, if anything because of the deliberately vague "can defend itself normally" phrasing, rather than anything else.

I understand that we are on the rules forum, where people go deliberately out of their way to be as pedantic and obtuse as they can, but here, in the real world, when we happen to talk about an attack, we also imply that to be some sort of action, I don't know what kind, perhaps its own kind of action, and if not in straight game terms, at the very least because it is, for the character, a form of inter-action with the world around them, which is why I could, while disagreeing on the conclusion, understand someone arguing in this light. I don't personally feel this is the way rules were supposed to be intended, but I definitely acknowledge this as a legitimate way to intend them.

And so we are super clear, if you read "One could argue..." on a public forum, perhaps it would be better if you didn't reply with:

No, you can't.

because, unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure that one can argue whatever they want, and whether you disagree or not has literally no impact on what one can argue about. So I hope this has been clarified.

That being said, if you still feel so strongly about this matter, how would you handle an ability or effect that precluded the target from performing actions in general? Would you be of the opinion that they would still be able, beyond any reasonable doubt, to perform AoOs since they are, in fact, not actions?

Or you can look at it as the writer of the archetype made a mistake.

Why would anyone do that? That's literally the last hypothesis you should be testing when inferring a rule from published material, both because of Occam's Razor, and out of respect for the writers, who do this professionally.

Yes, they can make - and have made - mistakes, but you should only come to that conclusion when any other option has been exhausted. In this case, there is a much simpler interpretation that does not involve assuming me to know best that Paizo's authors, which is: throwing shield attacks are not shield slams. So I'll stick with that, thank you very much.

Attacks of Opportunity aren't actions at all

So you agree they aren't move actions either. Cool beans.

PB 20,
late middle-aged,
Forge-Master Cleric
Dwarf:

Str 15
Dex 7
Con 15
Int 15
Wis 15
Cha 7

the most satisfying, and yet at the same time the most stroke-inducing stat array I've ever played with. Of course, when factoring in everything else is becomes:

Str 14
Dex 6
Con 16
Int 16
Wis 18
Cha 6

Roleplaying him as an insufferable (6-Cha), arthritic (6-Dex), but wise, knowledgeable and resilient Dwarf has been one of the best experiences I've had in this game. Through a patchwork of classes and PrCs, he went all the way from 1st to 20th level in a Kingmaker campaign which took our group about 3 years to complete. He will be missed.

It limits the actions you can take, but it doesn't take away your ability to make a melee attack. So you threaten and can make a melee attack.

RAI probably you shouldn't be able to take an AoO, but RAW nothing stops you.

One could argue that AoOs are not move actions, and since the affected creature "can only take a move action", then they cannot perform AoOs, the same way they cannot perform Free, Swift, or any other action that is not, specifically, a move action.

Maybe i'm interpreting Student of Philosophy wrong, but it seems to me like you can't influence attitude, You can only persuade. ''Persuading'' is not really a specific action in the diplomacy skill, but the way i understand it, i would only allow it to be used to make a request. The trait make you sound logical, not likable.

From my experience, that's the main use of the Diplomacy skill. If you need the NPC to do something, you simply want to persuade them into agreeing that that's, in fact, the right thing to do, not to befriend them.

You want the guard to look away because they're not paid enough to care; you want the bandits not to attack you because, in truth, you are both on the same side; you want the rallying mob to calm down because they're being manipulated by the ruling class. At the end of the day, most of the time you don't want NPCs to become your friends, you just need to persuade them to think what you want them to think (compatibly with their character, creed and priorities), so they help you/get out of your way and your party can progress.

Befriending NPCs comes with RP and kinship of ideas, and if you need to improve the attitude of someone on the spot, bribing is always an option, lol.

I could infer from reading that ability from Rondelero Swashbuckler that ALL characters cannot alternate between weapons while full attacking.

Quite the opposite: since Rondelero Flexibility clarifies that you cannot alternate between weapons, it is implied that you usually can, otherwise what would have been the point of clarifying it in the first place?

Same with Derklord's example:

The Shield Champion Brawler's Throw Shield ability says the thrown shield "deals the same damage as a shield bash" - why not simply call it a ranged shield bash if that's a thing?

Since the Throw Shield ability clarifies that throwing a shield deals the same damage as a shield bash, it is implied that throwing a shield is not a shield bash, otherwise what would have been the point of clarifying it in the first place?

I believe this is the rationale that Derklord was following. And, for what it's worth, I personally agree with it.

What separates a hex from a major hex?

The fact that they are two different class features, with two different names, defined in two different lists of options.

Ty. I really never thought about the "you must worship gozreh" part. That would make alot of sense.

Ok to the teleport part that says. Up to one additional medium creature, would they be considered creatures or objects?

Could I treat them as objects?

This sounds kinda morally bad, now that im typing it out. If I was evil could it work? asking for a friend.

No, you can't. Objects and creatures are different game terms that refer to different things. It's not a matter of moral relativism, it's just wrong. Don't be edgy to circumvent the rules.

When I eject them from my form; can I do so, in a way that flanks my enemies? Put one person in front and one behind?

I would simply treat it as them stepping off any other means of transportation, so yes, they can position themselves wherever they want. Of course, if this implies moving through an enemy space, the usual Acrobatics and AoO rules apply.

Would that use their turn or would they still get their full round action?

Again, I'd treat it as above, as I don't see any direct correlation with the standard turn-based system. If they act before you, they can delay their turn so they have all their actions when they pop-out. Of course this will change the initiative order in the following rounds as well.

I actually like the regional trait to make diplomacy a wis based skill. Makes a diplomatic druid easier to pull off

I personally find that trait, and others like it like Clever Wordplay or Bruising Intellect, much more acceptable than Student of Philosophy.

Mainly because they only affects one skill, instead of a whole role (yes, yes, with Student of Philosophy you cannot Gather Info or Feint, tell me how many times you Gathered Info via mundane means or fricking Feinted with your Wizard), but also because you don't see them so mindlessly used across all characters with a high non-Cha stat.

For example, you don't see almost all Clerics, Druids, or Shamans pick Empathic Diplomat. Some of them might, specifically those who want to focus on being the party's (honest) face, but in general they won't default to it. Those classes also have some use for Cha as well, so dumping Cha comes at a cost, unlike virtually all Wizards having 7 (or less) Cha with no drawback and defaulting to Student of Philosophy unless they specifically don't want to.

This single trait makes Skill Focus (Linguistics) + Orator, which I love, almost pathetic given the two feats investment. OK, rant's over.

I like Clever wordplay and Student of philosophy. I think they are great traits for the infuriating ''You know i'm right even though you hate me'' type of character.

More like the "I've dumped my Charisma as much as I could but I still want to be the best at doing Charisma things" type of character. It makes playing Cha-based characters who want to fill the party face role pointless, since the 20-Int Wizard with 7-Cha will be as good as they are in most social situations, while also having a shit-ton of skills.

They might be a tad too strong though, so maybe they should only work on creature with 13 intelligence or higher?

How would that make any difference, like, at all? Lol. These are already picked only by those characters with high Int anyway, it would be literally be a moot limitation.

Each oracle is cursed, but this curse comes with a benefit as well as a hindrance. This choice is made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed. The oracle's curse cannot be removed or dispelled without the aid of a deity.

Curses are supposed to matter and to always apply, no matter what. What happens in this specific case is up to debate, and probably only solvable via a GM call.

The curse itself may take precedence over Thunderstruck, since it cannot be removed without the aid of a deity. Alternatively the GM may RP the PrC ability as divine intervention, since to qualify for Storm Kindler you must worship Gozreh, and thus it would be through Gozreh itself that the curse of deafness is lifted. There is no way to objectively tell.

Also, if I am the 20' tornado form and pick up my party members. 4 medium creatures and use the teleport spell. Do all of them come with me without using more than one spell or dividing the movement between us all?

You use the normal rules for the Teleport spell:

You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent per three caster levels. A Large creature counts as two Medium creatures, a Huge creature counts as four Medium creatures, and so forth. All creatures to be transported must be in contact with one another, and at least one of those creatures must be in contact with you.

And if so, can I teleport on top of an enemy to catch him in middle of my party and my storm to jump him?

It depends if you roll the On target outcome; if so, sure, but the usual rules for movement apply, so you cannot teleport in a square where you wouldn't be able to move in anyway.

If I get dimensional dervish and janni style. Do I do double damage with my unarmed storm damage?

I guess you are referring to this part of Storm Shape:

The Storm Kindler can damage and trap Small or smaller creatures caught in her whirlwind, dealing lethal damage equal to her unarmed strike damage to each such creature that fails a Reflex save (DC = 10 + the Storm Kindler’s class level + the Storm Kindler’s Strength modifier) and lifting it into the air if it fails a second Reflex save.

in which case, no: this is not an unarmed strike. It's a specific effect that deals damage equal to your unarmed strike damage, it's not part of the unarmed strike action. Also:

A creature in whirlwind form cannot make its normal attacks and does not threaten the area around it.

If my party is in my stormform and i am carrying them do i have a weight limit or is it just based on the size of the object?

Can I fly with my party in my storm?

Can I fit into a keyhole in this form?

Size only, this is not a carry weight problem.

Yes, you can keep flying/swimming as usual. You might have to roll Fly/Swim checks (possibly with a penalty) if the GM adjudicates carrying creatures around as an hindrance.

I'd say no. Nowhere in the PrC or the Whirlwind universal monster rules is stated that you can pass through small openings unlike, say, the Fluid Form spell:

In addition, you can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with anything you were carrying at the time the spell was cast (except other creatures).

but I might be wrong in case there are more general rules covering this aspect.

I read of several people dissing over Adopted being a cheat, and I see their point. However it's also worth noting, in my opinion, that the cross-Racial trait doesn't really come for free, as you're locked out of Social traits due to Adopted, which, by itself, does nothing.

So yes, you can get a Racial trait from a different race, but in exchange you cannot pick any Social trait either. And, depending on the character's build, this may not be a trivial exchange, since there are quite a few notable Social traits, some of which may even be considered build-changing, namely: Student of Philosophy.

Which, incidentally, is one of the traits I hate the most since it's the Wayang Spellhunter equivalent for non-blasting Wizards. Curious how 20-Int and 7-Cha characters are all phenomenal party faces...

Like Diego said, the Iron Golem's Powerful Blows ability specifically increases crit range, but the base ability doesn't.

That being said, I find it more curious that the Coral Golem has the Powerful Blows (slam) ability, and yet no slam attacks in its attack entry, only claws. Given that the claws damage bonus is +10, and the Coral Golem's Str is +7, I guess the authors intended it to be Powerful Blows (claws) instead.

I've had a friend of mine gloat and boasting for half an hour straight, because his Psychic had cast Open(/Close) on a closed (not locked) door as a swift action using Quicken Spell, move past it, and then cast a spell on the bad guy who was otherwise going to fly away next turn.

Indeed, without Open/Close, he wouldn't have had line of sight to the target, and the use of Open/Close indeed gave him enough actions to change the outcome of the fight. Now, how many times would this happen again? How many other times the combined choices of your allies and GM will amount to you finding youself one closed door away from changing the fate of a fight? Likely, none.

I think this is the overall scope of Open/Close and similar situational cantrips: they exist to give you bragging rights if you manage to make them work that one time you really need them, not really to be used to systematically circumvent challenges.

No. It's just funny to use a 1st-level spell 1/day SLA to recharge all your SLA's of 1st-level or lower... infinite SLA's... however much use you can get out of that.

Picking Recharge Innate Magic via a class feature wouldn't allow that to work. You'd need all your SLAs - Recharge Innate Magic AND the others - to come from racial traits, not class features, in order to have infinite uses:

You channel magic energy into your own aura, recharging your innate magic abilities. You regain one use of all 0-level and 1st-level spell-like abilities you can use as a result of a racial trait.

The only way I know to have infinite uses of racial SLAs is by going Gnome with Fey Magic (HotW), and pick Recharge Innate Magic as your 1st level Druid spell. Assuming you are in the chosen terrain, you can cast your racial Recharge Innate Magic SLA, recharging itself together with all other racial SLAs that have been already used.

In my opinion, this works well with Pyromaniac, as it would allow a reliable use of Produce Flame as a default weapon. Of course, the gimmick breaks as soon as you are not in the chosen terrain anymore, and can be easily substituted by a wand of Recharge Innate Magic past the first few levels.

avr wrote:

PFS rules are that a sworn of the Eldest can be of any race. Not a general rule but it may explain the belief that it works - because for some people it did.

Do you have a link to the PFS rules for the first edition? The more recent stuff I have is from 2012.

PFS information is reported by AoNPRD if you hover your mouse over the PFS symbol on the left of the title. Since it is circled in red, it means that PFS rules differ from the core rules, in this case: "The Sworn of the Eldest archetype is available to PCs of any race".

Now that I have said my opinion on this matter, we can close the thread, because we all know that my opinion is the correct one... you're welcome. Lol.

^ Who is this guy?

I'm currently playing an evoker wizard with the Varisian Tattoo feat. We recently came across a scroll of Fireball (CL:5) and I was wondering if the tattoo would enhance the scroll's caster level, thereby making it a CL:6 when I cast it or does the feat only count to spells that I've personally memorized for the day?

Scrolls' caster level (CL) depends on the crafter, and therefore the value of the scroll, not the user. So, unless the crafter decides to craft the scroll at a higher CL, increasing the price of the scroll accordingly (25 x 3 (spell level) x CL), it would stay at the minimum CL: 5 regardless of your feats and class features (unless they specifically apply to scrolls, of course).

For completeness' sake, the same is true for the scroll DC, being calculated over the minimum stat required for casting the spell. In the case of a 3rd level spell, the minimum spellcasting stat required is 13, so the DC would be 14, even if you have, say, Spell Focus (Evocation). Unlike the CL, the DC cannot be increased by the crafter.

A pity, as I really dislike the "it is flavor text" argument, as I feel that it is too prone to abuse.

Flavor text that gets abused and causes arguments at the table should be called spicy text.

RAW: Mage Armor counts as armor because it has "Armor" in the name.

/s

I dunno. Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Based on what? The alternative is to completely make up the clause that the illusion comes equipped with any illusory weaponry you want, including 1000ft long polearms able to flank with an ally at the opposite side of the 500ft radius area. As I said, the creature has a well defined Size and position, it can't affect targets anywhere/everywhere in the area.

Gray Warden wrote:

The bonus to hit and damage is always the same regardless of its appearance, so why are you expecting range, reach, abilities and so on to depend on the appearance?

No matter how you look at it, you are allowed to pick it's size based on the level of the spell and with size increases comes extended reach so if nothing else, you'd get that.

And even that (the increase of reach with Size) it's not a given. I still don't know if a Large bipedal animal companion gets 10ft reach or not (yes because it's usually the case for Large bipedal creatures? No because the animal companion rules don't explicitly say so?), how can I say whether a Large illusory bipedal creature gets it? This game is a mess.

Are you indicating that the illusion can only make Melee Strikes?

Strikes can be melee or ranged (and there are even spell Strikes). Illusory creature does not limit you to a particular kind of Strike insofar as I can tell.

Strikes can be melee or ranged depending on the weapon used. The illusion has no weapon. The default for no weapon is unarmed Strikes. Unarmed Strikes are melee.

If this weren't the case, and you accepted the possibility of an illusory creature shooting an illusory arrow 1000ft away, then you would have to accept the possibility of an illusory creature with an illusory 1000ft long polearm flanking from 1000ft away. Which is clearly (I hope) absurd.

Come on people, why would the spell allow ranged Strikes and not say so? The spell creates an illusion that takes the shape of a creature. It doesn't have weapons, it doesn't have spells, it doesn't have other abilities apart from attacking nearby creatures. The bonus to hit and damage is always the same regardless of its appearance, so why are you expecting range, reach, abilities and so on to depend on the appearance?

The shape your illusion take is irrelevant: you don't get to pick a creature from the Bestiary and use their abilities, weapon attacks, spells and what not. This is not PF1 Shadow Conjuration. Do you want to use it to create the illusion of an archer? Go for it, pretend it's shooting to make it realistic so that it doesn't trigger disbelief checks, but unless you are point-blank, it doesn't Strike anyone, because it has no actual bow to shoot from.

As per rules backing it up: there are none. There are no rules saying that the illusion has weapons or that it inherits the range, reach, or abilities of the creature it resembles. Since it has no weapons, it can only attack with unarmed strikes, thus the melee Strikes. Sure, you can always move the illusion within the 500ft and, essentially, Strike anyone within the area, but it comes with its limitations in terms of suspension of disbelief.

The reason why I think the spell cannot damage anyone within the 500ft radius area without actually moving the illusion is because the illusion has a well defined Size and a well defined position (since it can flank). This means that it is limited to a very specific space at any given time, it doesn't stretch across the 500ft radius area, and can therefore only interact with its surroundings.

If this weren't the case, and you accepted the possibility of an illusory creature shooting an illusory arrow 1000ft away, then you would have to accept the possibility of an illusory creature with an illusory 1000ft long polearm flanking from 1000ft away. Which is clearly (I hope) absurd.

The words themselves are insufficient, that's why Poe's Law exists.

Quote:

Avoid sarcasm and facetious remarks.

Without the voice inflection and body language of personal communication these are easily misinterpreted. A sideways smile, :-), has become widely accepted on the net as an indication that "I'm only kidding". If you submit a satiric item without this symbol, no matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if people take it seriously.

They are, if you can read the words within their context. Which is obviously something not many users of the Rules forum can do :-)

Sorry figured the Man's and Like's and fondue was enought.

Yeah, it was pretty clear. Please keep doing it. The Rules forum needs more mocking. Like, a lot.

If you would let an illusory dragon breath flames into the air, and people standing nearby could see the flames, hear the rush of hot air, feel the heat, then why couldn't the dragon convince those same people that they get burned when its not just throwing it up in the air, but over them?

Because that's what the spell says. You don't summon a dragon, you create al illusory effect that resembles a dragon, which is not a minion, and not even an actual creature. The only way this effect can interact with others - in terms of hostile actions - is just via Strikes.

If you get into spells, breathes, ect then you run into the questions on why you can't attack multiple creatures with a strike as the illusion could be covering multiple creatures so why is only one getting hit? What it the justification to only strike one? Single physical strikes are simple as it's JUST a creature actually getting hit with the illusion, not multiple people getting touched by the illusion but only one taking damage.

I don't think this has any real relevance in terms of actual mechanics, but it would be just a way to describe what's happening in RP.

Mechanically: the illusion Strikes a target for 5 mental damage. No other enemy is affected. Because of the very low damage compared to the expectations, the GM allows the target a free disbelieve roll. The others, however, don't.

RP: the enemies, all of which believe the dragon in front of them is real, are invested by a wave of illusory fire. All cower, instinctively dodging the heat, but one, who screams while enveloped in a cape of scorching flam- until he realizes he's not.

What happens in terms of game mechanics and the narrative used to describe it do not need to perfectly match. This is true both ways: do not expect that something that is described in a certain way (i.e. the illusory dragon spouting flames in the air simply as a way of "looking real") has a direct correlation in terms of game mechanics (Illusory Creature emulating abilities beside Strikes).

Not being able to see yourself when invisible, if you rule that way, is a particular for illusionist wizards under the 1 hour effect of Invisibility Cloak who want to pull out their spellbook to refocus while invisible.

Write your spells in braille then.

If the spell is a cantrip, it's at will unless it states a different number of times/day.

If the spell is not a cantrip, it's 1/day unless it states at will or a different number of times/day.

Example:

Primal Innate Spells DC 21, attack +11; 5th tree stride (x2); 4th charm (x3), suggestion; 3rd sleep; 2nd entangle (at will), tree shape (at will); Cantrips (2nd) tanglefoot; Constant (4th) speak with plants

Spells that follow the usual rules:

Spells that do not follow the usual rules:

Entangle, Tree Shape: at will non-cantrip spells.
Charm, Tree Strike: 3/day, 2/day non-cantrip spells, respectively.
Speak with Plants: constant non-cantrip spell.

Ah, so now you're going to invoke the slippery slope. Cool.

Pretty sure he's just mocking.

That's confusing? Give a look at this:

Trigger: You are attacked by a creature that you haven't yet acted hostile toward. You must use this reaction before the creature rolls its attack.

The way you cringe or use those puppydog eyes you've been practicing elicits an empathetic response in the attacker. Attempt a Diplomacy check against your attacker's Will DC.

Critical Success: The creature pulls its attack, wasting its action, and can't use hostile actions against you until the beginning of its next turn.
Success: The creature takes a –2 circumstance penalty to damage on the triggering Strike and all its Strikes against you until the beginning of its next turn. The penalty is –4 if you're an expert in Diplomacy, –6 if you're a master, and –8 if you're legendary.
Failure: The creature's attack is unaffected, and the creature is temporarily immune to your Empathic Pleas for 24 hours.

The trigger only refers to an attack: the small "a" seems to imply it is not an actual keyword (unlike the Attack trait), so for now let's keep it generic and say it's any action causing damage for the purposes of this feat (since the benefits are about reducing damage).

The same syntax is used in the Critical Success and Failure sections.

But then in the Success paragraph, we are suddenly talking about Strikes. But not any Strike, the triggering Strike. This means that the attack found in the trigger not only is not just an action causing damage, it isn't even just an action with the Attack trait (such as a spell, or other Attack actions that are not specifically Strikes).

This mean that, in the case of the Empathetic Plea feat, attack is synonymous to Strike, but not to an action with the Attack trait (since spell attacks are not Strikes, and would not benefit from, nor trigger, the feat). How does this apply to the Sanctuary spell? Who knows?!

Clearly the rules have no consistency when using keywords, which is depressing since the whole PF2 ruleset is supposed to be based on the new traits/tag system.

** spoiler omitted **

Erm, so is it a minion or not? Does it still get three actions, or is it now a minion with only two actions in exchange for the better 1-for-2 trade-off? Can I still spend actions on a 1-for-1 basis if I so choose, such as when I want my mount to have three, or even four actions? Insofar as I can tell, the Ride feat doesn't necessarily take that away, though it's less than clear.

Whether it's an animal or not, I don't know. But as it is right now, it's not a minion. With the Ride feat, the mount acts in your turn like a minion, but it's still not a minion (I read it as a comparison to better explain the rules, whether it helps or not, it's up to debate), so you still have to spend actions with a 1:1 ratio, using the Command Animal (or other equivalent action if not an actual animal). If you have Ride, then you don't have to roll; if you don't, I wouldn't know: the simplest answer would be to use the spell DC (the stronger the steed, the more difficult it is to ride), but since the creature would count as helpful (I guess), then you would be stuck only on a critical fail, and your proficiency in the Command Animal skill is supposed to scale with levels anyway (if you're planning on using a mount in combat, that is).

Can a phantom steed use the Gallop activity?

Phantom Steed cannot use the Gallop activity because nowhere it says it inherits all properties of an actual horse.

How can we place any value on "strict RAW" if people in this thread can't even seem to agree on what the strict RAW actually is?

How about this definition?

Strict RAW (strɪkt rɔː): the interpretation of an excerpt of written rules that makes the least sense with respect to the overall ruleset and basic common sense. E.g.: You need a free hand to kick.

Also, size limitations specified in Athletics:

Requirements: You have at least one hand free. The target can’t be more than one size larger than you.

Size limitations on maneuvers performed through force spells don't make any real sense (spells do not depend on the caster's size). Any news on errata/clarifications?

[sorry for necroing, but there's no point in opening a new thread]

-2 to Will and Perception is absolutely devastating, especially at low level. If you were Trained in Will saves, well, now you’re effectively not. That -2 to Perception means that anyone coming at you from Stealth or anything that requires you to see it coming is going to hurt you, badly. Follow up Bon Mot with a Demoralize, and now you’ve effectively rendered their Will saves nonexistent for the first five levels of Pathfinder. Bon Mot is a wrecking ball of a Feat, especially on a Rogue, Sorceror, or, God forbid, a Bard.

Again, it's not any different from Demoralize. It's -1 more in Will and Perception, but has no effect on anything else. If anything, it's worse than Demoralize, because it has no effect when the target is surrounded by 3 melees. The fact that you can combine the two is neat but, again, it's in no way better than a Fear spell that you could cast with the same 2 actions (and targeting Will only once instead of twice, which in turn increases the chances of a critical success). You're clearly talking on a theoretical basis and have had no experience with it in the game (and I'm playing a Bard using the feat and Demoralize).

I’m not saying Bon Mot is OP, I’m using Darksol’s argument that it’s totally unrealistic to have such an effect happen in two seconds. Y’know, ignoring the fact that the Feat does exactly what it says it does

I'm not following. You said "Bon Mot, a Feat that utterly WRECKS an opponent with a single Action", but I would hardly call a foe with -2/-3 to Will and Perception, which can be removed automatically with a single action, "utterly WRECKED". Anyhow, I understand that you're trying to prove another point, so I will not engage further.

If this doesn’t bother you, and you admit that Bon Mot, a Feat that utterly WRECKS an opponent with a single Action isn’t OP, or somehow impossible to understand, then why in the blue Hell is Battle Medicine somehow breaking your verisimilitude, when Hit Points as a whole are a load of crap simulationist mumbo jumbo?

Why are you saying that Bon Mot is OP though? It's -2/-3 to Will and Perception. It's not that different from Demoralize, since it can impart Frightened 1/2, that is -1/-2 to everything, Will and Perception included, but also to Ref, Fort, hit, AC, skills and literally any other DC. Granted, Frightened lasts only 1/2 rounds, but Bon Mot can also be removed earlier if really necessary. Plus, Bon Mot requires the target to understand what you're saying, so not applicable to animals and many other creatures; Demoralize works against anyone who is not mindless, and for a feat it doesn't even have a malus to the Intimidation roll.

Overall, they are both mental actions targeting Will DC that take 1 action to perform.

Consider: The Loremaster Archetype gives a player Loremaster Lore, which is virtually identical to Bardic Lore.

The same archetype has a feat called Quick Study, which lets the player become trained in a specific lore each day.

If Bardic / Loremaster Lore granted the benefits of a decreased DC, that would significantly limit the effectiveness of selecting a more specific trained lore.

That would, to me, suggest that the Bardic / Loremaster lore is applicable in any scenario, but not considered specific for the purposes of decreased DC. And that's probably okay given that it takes a single 1st or 2nd level feat to access it. In at least a few scenarios I've been in, there are checks that can only be made by a Lore skill.

You could use the daily trained Lore to be even more on point and get a very easy DC, if you know what you are going to encounter that day.

Whether the DC for an applicable Lore is easy or very easy, it's up to the GM, with the only constraint being that it should be usually, at least, easy. A GM might rule that Bardic Lore can't give you more than the easy DC. But if that day you are expecting to inspect a Thassilonian artifact, then selecting Thassilonian Artifacts Lore as your daily trained Lore will get you very easy DC.

Additionally, if we are talking about coming out from orbit, re-entering the atmosphere means you'd be a charred corpse before hitting a solid surface, so I would rule that unless you are immune (or extremely resistant) to fire for the duration of the fall, you'd probably be dead before impact. I could be extrapolating here, but astronauts are in special suits and giant element-resistant metallic housing for a reason, and it isn't particularly because hitting the ground hurts.

Fool, just use your Legendary Acrobatics to dodge air molecules.

Clearly what for you is overpowered, game-breaking, unbalanced etc, is not for me. Gliding over the fact that you're the one who's being changing things (e.g. you are the one who started comparing Bard vs Wizard), I've stated my opinions, and unless we are talking about rules, there is no point in discussing it any further.

But look, a snake!

I have got Snakes Lore. Snakes Lore can be used to identify snakes. Snakes Lore is an applicable lore to identify snakes.

Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).

>> The DC for identifying this snake using Snakes Lore should be at least easy.

Meanwhile, the Bard:

I have got Bardic Lore. Bardic Lore can be used to identify snakes. Bardic Lore is an applicable lore to identify snakes.

Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).

>> The DC for identifying this snake using Bardic Lore should be at least easy.

And the character will be also able to drop wis and increase 2 more skills that he wants to legendary.

And the Wizard will be also able to drop Cha and increase 2 more skills that he wants to legendary (since I've always only talked about Arcana...I don't know why you keep believing otherwise)

On the other hand, the other character will have to

- invest all its skills in knowledges ( while remaining not able to cover for all 4 ).

Arcana is free; Society, Occult, Nature, Religion are enough to cover the rest; this leaves 2 free skills + those from Background. More than enough.

[On the other hand, the other character will have to]

- increasing both Int and Wis ( instead of having the possibility to use Wis points for something else )

On the other hand, the Bard will have to increase both Int and Cha (instead of having the possibility to use Int points for something else)

- Remain with no skill points for other stuff ( while with bardic/gossip/loremaster lore the character will have 2 skills the character wants to legendary ).

You're repeating yourself. Wrong on both accounts as explained above: you still have skill points and there is only 1 Legendary skill involved.

You fail to realize that 2 class feats (choosing Enigma at 1st level is a class feat) and 1 legendary skill (that is not at all given for granted in a typical Bard build) is more than enough to justify a meek -2 DCs on Recall Knowledge and be better at that than non-specialized characters. And this is without even looking at the fact that Bardic Lore is, indeed, a Lore skill.

Your perception of what is balanced or unbalanced is not as accurate as you think it is.

just 2 feats and 1 legendary skill

Just you say? And that would still not be enough to rightfully outshine other non-specialized characters in what concerns the very core of your specialization, you say? I see...

Gray, you are assuming that a wizard would like to increase either arcana or society.

I'm only assuming max proficiency in Arcana, which is what any Wizard needs to learn new spells, and which is a staple for every typical Wizard build (since we are comparing to a typical Wizard build). The rest of the knowledge skills (or at least Nature, Religion, Society, Occult) are only trained, which is very easy to achieve on an Int-based class.

At the end of the day, we have a character specialized into knowledge, who has spent a class feature, who rolls with a +18 but only to Recall knowledge.

vs

A non-specialized character who rolls with +16/+17/+22 to Recall Knowledge, but also identify magic items, learn spells and any other use the skills might have.

Your concerns about game balance are ridiculous and unfounded.

I don't know how you can't see it: the Wizard who was not meant to be a knowledge expert, still manages to roll with +17 on knowledge skills he's only trained in, with a peak of +22 on his class-related knowledge. And this applies not only to Recall Knowledge, but also to identify items and learn new spells.

The Bard, who has spent a class feature and put points in Int to specialize into knowledge, only manages to roll with a +18, so +1 higher than the unspecialized Wizard, and only to Recall Knowledge (+21 is a stretch and only applicable in the rarest cases, i.e. when rolling knowledge about Bards).

And you are here saying that it's unfair? Indeed it is, but for the Bard! It's depressing! The only real edge the Bard gets on the Wizard is on rolls using Nature or Religion, since they rely on Wis rather than Int. But even then, if you're assuming that a Bard has 18 Int, then you have to take into consideration the possibility that the Wizard has 18 Wis, in which case he would be rolling them still with a +16. Not bad for a character who literally happened to be a know-it-all.

I find 2 second medical treatment more implausible than tool-less medical treatment... :P

You just need the right band aid

Lanathar wrote:

Can someone clarify what the point of bardic/Loremaster/gossip lore is if not lower DCs?

Is it about giving you a trained lore skill that you can use for most checks if you don’t have the right lore or knowledge skill? Which is better than having to roll untrained ?

Depends how much do you invest and how is meant to be the lower dc.

For an instance, A bard with bardic lore ( and just trained in occultism ), will have a check on any knowledge stuff or job equal to

Level + Int ( +1 circ with loremaster lore )

And a DC discount, if you allow it, which goes from -2 to -5

If we consider even just a -2

a lvl 5 bard will have

5(Level)+2(Trained)+1(Circ)+2(DC-2)+2(Int) = +12 on any lore check

A wizard could have Arcana or Craft
5(Level)+4(Expert)+4(Int) = 13

There's really no comparison if you allow lower DC on knowitall lores.

And by lvl 15 it's even worse ( since a know it all character will become Expert with the lore, and eventually he could catch up with int ).

The advantage of such skills would imo be being able to roll a check regardless the situation, while expending a skill feat out of 10 to get a specific lore would mean dedication and need to have a "lower dc" when needed.

I don't think your comparison is fair.

Bardic Lore is a Lore skill, it should benefit from the lowered DC typical of Lore.

It's fairly easy for a Bard to be trained in almost all knowledge skills (my Bard is not at all focused on knowledge checks or Int skills and he's trained in Occult, Arcana, Society, Religion and Nature with no effort). Without using the lower Lore DC, being stuck at trained in Bardic Lore gives you nothing in exchange for the class feature or a class feat you have spent.

Gray Warden wrote:

HammerJack wrote:

Gray Warden wrote:

If something is so heavily dependent on GM fiat that you will more often than not feel you have no agency on your character's actions, then don't use it.

Feeling like you have no agency when rules involve the GM making a judgement call is a long, long way from a universal assumption.

And in fact that's not what I've written.

Do you mind clarifying what you were trying to say if that's the case?

I too got the same impression that HammerJack did based on what you wrote and am having a hard time parsing your message is it wasn't meant to convey: "Don't use features/rules/spells that require GM fiat that the player cannot control."

1) I didn't make any assumption (what would an universal assumption mean, I don't know), I made a suggestion.

2) My suggestion was based on an if statement. If statements define two forks:

Fork 1: if you feel represented by that statement, then feel free to follow my suggestion (or not, it's fine either way).

Fork 2: otherwise, my suggestion clearly doesn't apply to you, and I'm not here to convince you to change your mind on anything.

EDIT: Wow, @graystone, that's uncanny :D