Search Posts
Can Illusion based hazards exist? Yes, of course. Can any of those spells create a hazard that deals damage directly? No, that is not part of what any of them are capable of. Could an illusion from one of those spells indirectly create a hazard, by doing something like putting an illusory floor over an actual pitfall? Sure, no reason they couldn't.
It's also not like the remaster version of the rule is specifically about Wandering Chef. There are a couple of vial-using archetypes in PC2 with the remastered alchemist and this rule, after all.
In specific cases, like a Dragon Throat Scale catalyst changing Magic Missle from Force to another damage type, yes. As a general ability that works on any damage you want, no.
This is no different than old questions about readying to Stride away. And they all come down to the same answer, that the idea of accepting "an action starts and is spent but hasn't resolved and done anything yet because I said 'they begin to X'" as a valid trigger is nonsense that no one should ever entertain.
Yes, that's correct. Being a Reaction doesn't change anything. Being outside of your turn does.
1. No, spells that affect you don't affect a companion. 2. Also no, your companion can't be made a part of you.
I suppose, but since that was never how Golem Antimagic worked, it isn't a meaningful edge case.
Spellstrike at least HAS some text addressing it, even if that text largely just makes clear that a lot of it is up to the GM: The spell takes effect after the Strike deals damage; if the Strike has other special effects, the GM determines whether they happen before or after the spell.
There is not a defined order of the effects. GM makes a ruling.
Not sure what your issue with Strength Strikes not working on ghosts is. Makes perfect sense to me. It's a curveball, but not an insurmountable one. "A rapier can damage a ghost, even if rhe wielder is unskilled and flailing but gets a lucky hit. So can a thrown rock but a thrust from a magical longsword, no matter how skillfully wielded never can" makes perfect sense to you? How?
As long as it doesn't have some other Precise sense that could still pick you up from that position, of course.
No, it applies to saves, not to the flat checks.
Well, the rules DO say that you can move through the spaces of willing creatures, not just the spaces of allies, for just that kind of situation. Not being able to walk through an invisible creature that wants to let you pass has never been a thing in PF2.
Well, it ISN'T a general rule, just an approach that is often a good idea. When PFS adopted it as a campaign standard rule, they put it in the PFS FAQ, but it would be on any individual GM choosing to make it their standard to communicate it to their players.
Honestly, I don't think there really is a way to optimize that. Meld Into Eidolon is mainly a utility trick that helps with things like noodle armed summoners making difficult traversals. As a combat plan, it can be safer for AoE rich environments (or especially for enemies with "make separate Strikes against many different creatures" abilities who can be horrendously dangerous to a summoner). As a full time combat plan, it's just drastically weaker than not using the feat. This thing isn't written to be the 2E coming of Synthesist.
1. The Attack trait does not in any way mean that it can't be used on an ally. 2. There isn't a default rule of allowing an ally to autosucceed attacks against you, or to autofail saves (aside from cases that specifically call it out like drugs). It is fairly popular to use the suggestion from the sidebar of the Gliminal (a monster that can fatally overheal people) as a general adjudication for cases where being able to not defend makes sense. That sidebar suggests allowing a willing target to adjust the degree of success by one (one better in a case like Reposition, one worse for a save).
Yes, this has always been answered by the definition of bleed. Because skeletons are not living creatures, they cannot bleed. There's no ambiguity, and they don't need to make any special mention. Poppets, however, are living creatures. So the clear rule that nonliving creatures don't bleed doesn't apply. That only leaves the "or living creatures that don't need blood to live". That clause is not tied to any mechanical trait and the system does leave it to the GM to arbitrate. I have not seen any campaign ruling to remove the legitimate table variation from that answer for any of the living creatures, PC or NPC, that seem to fall under it.
I think the font should include options for herorism and gizarjanes march because I don't like the fact it's a feature that should be giving them a a scaling resources but is instead giving them a first level spell slot from 1-20 Heroism would fit. For it to include an AP spell specifically practiced by the Terwa Lords would be surprising, though.
Yes, the same Repair action is used for magical items.
Would a Centaur moving 10' or more with a Lance (Jousting trait) receive all of these bonuses to damage? No, centaur has no special mechanics like that for jousting weapons.
Right. The class doesn't qualify for that archetype, so no errata is needed.
If spells used to try to blast creatures are on the table for the narrative leading up to this fire, any indiscriminate AoE also fits. Burning Hands/Breathe Fire may only describe the damage they do to creatures, but the written rules for that sort of spell are "GM determines how they impact the environment" not "only creatures are affected".
Or very specific cases like Slashing Gust caring whether you have one or two free hands.
Well, Pathfinder Agent Dedication could make your Crafting Expert at 2 instead of 3, I suppose. Other than that, inventors already automatically raise their Crafting proficiency at the earliest possible level, anyway. You don't need to look for ways to raise it. Feats aren't going to give you a bonus to the skills modifier that isn't limited to specific uses of the skill. A Crafter's Eyepiece would be the first thing that comes to mind to look at for a constant, all purpose Item Bonus. Cognitive Mutagens are the biggest cmCrafting bonus, but their drawback makes them ill-suited to combat use.
If it's about Horse Animal Companion support, it isn't a +2 Circumstance Bonus and a +1 Circumstance bonus. It is an effect that specifically says to increase the +1 Circumstance bonus by 2. So 1+2=3 would be the correct math.
Honestly, that is exactly the sort of scene-specific thing where making an ad hoc ruling on it as an Activity not listed in a book instead of looking for the most RAW combination of Basic Actions would be called for. But if the way you ruled it worked for the flow of the scene (it sounds like it did), take the W.
"You point out vulnerabilities present in your hunted prey, granting the benefits listed in Hunt Prey and your hunter’s edge to an ally until the end of their next turn. Depending on whether you call out or use gestures, this action gains either the auditory or visual trait." Since you don't have a Hunter's Edge, that just gives the benefits listed in Hunt Prey: "You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Perception checks when you Seek your prey and a +2 circumstance bonus to Survival checks when you Track your prey. You also ignore the penalty for making ranged attacks within your second range increment against the prey you're hunting."
You could pick up Warden's Boon eventually, at level 16. You can't ever get a Hunter's Edge like Flurry though, and you can't share one that you don't have.
What basis in reality? It's always been a core part of the rules that reasonable things that don't have a written action are adjudicated by the GM, not impossible. That is a written rule (for anyone who needs it to be), not just common sense. See the Other Actions heading in the Playing The Game chapter of either Core Rulebook or Player Core.
There is no such penalty in 2e, so you don't need anything to avoid it.
Nothing in the way Liturgist is written would make it not trigger off of subordinate actions.
"3d6 damage before hardness" is like "$250,000 before taxes". Nothing in there implies that the hardness won't apply.
Honestly, if that was the intent, this is a case where some clarifying text like "or Tumble Through (even if you do not attempt to pass through a creature during this Tumble)" should have been used. Just saying Tumble Through is an option and leaving it to people to assume that the intent was to support Tumbling without any actual attempt to Tumble Through anyone is wildly unintuitive.
You can take Basic Wizard Spellcasting. If the nexus character builder doesn't allow it, then the nexus character builder is wrong. You might file a bug report with nexus, through whatever method they have, or simply not use their tool.
Some else to help balance Ikona nd the additional Spirit damage is, how residence works. If you fight a Dread Wraith for exemplar it has Resistance 10 all except (Force, ghost-=touch rune, and Positive/Vitality) No matter how much bonus damage you add of different types, like the damaging runes which deal a D6 or the Additional Spirit Damage from the Ikons all get Negated. I'd note that if you look at anything with that ghost-style resistance entry that was published post-remaster, Spirit is a type they don't resist. Generally running older ones as resistant to spirit damage because they were published before it existed as a damage type isn't great practice. Constructs will be immune to spirit damage, unless they're a special case, but very little else resists that damage type.
You quickly assess your prey and apply what you know. As part of the action used to Hunt your Prey, you can attempt a check to Recall Knowledge about your prey. When you critically succeed at identifying your hunted prey with Recall Knowledge, you note a weakness in the creature’s defenses in addition to any other benefits. You and allies you tell gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next attack roll against that prey. You can give bonuses from Monster Hunter only once per day against a particular creature. The bolded sentences are clearly a pair. You would have to pick apart the wording of the feat so far that it was out of context with itself instead of reading normally to claim that they are unrelated. The bonus is on a critical success.
"Power level that wouldn't be ok is ok because of Rarity" is EXACTLY how Rarity is NOT supposed to be used.
Its still a valid legacy feat so a cleric could get it via the sorcerer archetype. DANGEROUS SORCERY is a legacy feat. SORCEROUS POTENCY, which improves heals as well, and which Darksol was talking about, is not a feat. The two aren't the same thing.
What you're talking about in Remaster isn't Dangerous Sorcery, it's Sorcerous Potency. It also isn't something that you can have at the same time as a Harm Font, outside of a dual-class game.
So, the question is pretty incomplete and unclear, since you're talking about a class that isn't released yet without describing the relevant interaction. But it sounds a bit like the pre-errata talk about using Quick Spring as a double speed Stride without actually trying to go through any enemy's space. The answer to that one was pretty much "yes, it is super strong if you allow that, but it's so obviously counter to how it's intended to work that only a truly silly GM would ever allow it to work that way in a real game" until it got fixed in text. I can't say if the same answer applies without the question being finished, though. The answer part that definitely applies is that you can't use Tumble Through instead of Stride when the Stride is a subordinate action of something else, instead of you simply taking the Stride action.
I think it's also VERY important to have classes that are more point-and-shoot. But I think we have enough of them for their to be room for some "this class is for the weirdo who enjoys all of the extra fiddling and some people may bounce off of it" entries to the lineup.
Extra cards and sheets was what I did for medium in 1E, and what I'd expect to do for Animist, but I haven't gotten my hands on the final version yet. Did a bit of that in other systems to help with organization, too (like for Champions characters built around a multiple form schtick). It isn't too hard once you've played the character for a few sessions.
I notice one other minor detail in that last post, which I don't think would have changed your larger problems (the extra level disparity is THE largest possible thing that causes skill actions, attacks, etc to be unreliable and if your game keeps running PCs underlevelled for their opposition there's no way around that), but which you should probably be aware of. You seem to be using an outdated version of how Panache works. If you Fail, but don't Critically Fail a Bravado action (one that can give you Panache, it is now a trait), you gain Panache that will only last until the end of your next turn.
Is it an extra-large group of PCs? I've run Age of Ashes, and I know that the general encounters in that area would go from Moderate to "each is a TPK-risk" with a party of 4 level 7 PCs. It makes me wonder if the GM has kept a very large party underlevelled, instead of levelling them at the expected rate and adjusting encounters for the party size, or something. (It isn't an approach I'd advise someone to take, but I could see how someone might think it was a good idea.) The way Knockdown was being run was definitely an error, though. That NPC doesn't have Improved Knockdown.
In the playtest, all of the juggling and bookkeeping was the selling point if the class to me. It would be pretty disappointing if it wasn't there.
Yes, you can.
No. There is nothing in the rules that allows for making a nonlethal ignition attack, with or without the penalty, without a special ability like the Nonlethal Spell feat. Someone could choose to allow it at their table, but that is something the GM is adding, not something the rules already allowed for.
That should work as well as the old Toxicologist tricks like using Quick Draw and Doubling Rings to keep pulling new poisoned weapons, but be slightly more cost effective. The changes to alchemist do make it a lot harder to have nearly as deep of a supply of pre-poisoned weapons, though.
|
