Yes, the same Repair action is used for magical items.
Search Posts
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.
The fighter can pull ahead when Combat Reflexes multiple reaction Strike spam actually happens (but that doesn't exactly happen every round). The barbarian usually pulls further ahead, in a party that likes winning fights, because teamwork can do more to boost accuracy than to boost damage per hit, and accuracy buffs/target AC debuffs impact the average damage of the barbarian more than the average damage of the fighter. The fighter DOES remain better at applying other on hit or on crit rider effects, though. There's some texture to that simple comparison, if you're trying to make it well.
In Monastic Archer Stance, you specifically can't kick, or punch with the hand that isn't holding the bow, for that matter. That's the restriction the stance brings that doesn't apply to any bow wielder who isn't using that stance. As for the MAP
MAP maxes out and is the same for the 3rd attack and all subsequent attacks.
Eidolons are absolutely different than summoned creatures, animal companions, etc. Eidolons aren't Minions. You don't take a Command action to get them to do things.
That rule is there to cover some cases like "You've summoned something that you can't communicate with. It will fight your enemies, but you aren't going to be directing it precisely" or "You're trying to direct something in a way that is more elaborate than it would be capable of understanding, and it doesn't really make sense" or "you've come up with a plan so at odds with a creatures nature that it really doesn't make sense for it to follow the command." Only the first of those comes up that often, but it is a good safety valve. There's no general expectation of not reading the statblock of the creature you're summoning. It can certainly be how a given group does things, but it's not a universal.
If they hit, yes.
There's only weird edge case stuff, like if they get bit by the orichalcum head of a skymetal striker and make the fort save.
Your summoned creature is a Minion. If you go to the Minion rules, you'll see at the end that they do not normally get any reactions. A minion has only 2 actions and 0 reactions per turn, though certain conditions (such as slowed or quickened) or abilities might give them a reaction that they can use. Alterations to a minion's actions occur when they gain their actions for the round. A minion can't control other creatures.
So Summoners automatically heighten all their spells. Specifically it says if a Summoner knows a spell they can freely heighten it. It does not specify a spell known via the Summoner class. So if I take a multi-class archetype, let’s say sorcerer, are spells I learn through the spell casting feats freely heightened? Or do they stay the levels granted by the feat? Of course they aren't.
Cold Iron is still a distinct weakness from a weakness to Slashing hence why only the highest weakness applies. I cannot find anything in the core rules to supports the view that each damage type constitutes a separate instance of damage.Cold iron isn't a distinct damage type from the slashing. It's a modifier to it. See the rules for precious materials: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2308The example on page 408 has an attack with multiple types of damage exactly like the fire and slashing damage you mention here. In the case of the example cold iron and slashing rather than Fire and Slashing as you mentioned. The example specifically states that in these circumstances only the highest applies. Aside from what was already quoted, it's symmetrical with resistance, and how you'd resist both slashing and fire from a flaming longsword if you have Resist Fire and Resist Slashing or just have Resist All. And we did get official confirmation that yes, one Strike really can trigger multiple weaknesses that way all the way back in the PF2 playtest. That isn't a statement made under current core rules, but these specific rules about weakness and resistance were written the same back then. If the text hasn't changed, it would be strange to think the meaning has. It doesn't answer every question and edge case like a rigorous formal definition might, and you can find awkward interactions that you need to make a ruling on, but it answered the basic "are multiple damage types in one Strike multiple instances" simply and directly.
Intimidating Glare is also not compatible with remaining Undetected, of course. It makes your Demoralize Visual, so if they can't see you, you can't Demoralize them.
Roll Stealth for Initiative and then Battlecry? Sure. Obviously, you'll no longer be undetected if that stealth roll was good, since you're giving away your location with that not-at-all stealthy battle cry. If the enemies couldn't hear you, and you didn't give away your location, then the Demoralize wouldn't work, because it is Auditory. Spring From The Shadows requires you to be Hidden or Undetected to the target before you use it, so you could use it only if there was a reason for you to still be Hidden after giving away your location (like if you were in a place the target couldn't perceive with a precise sense, were invisible, etc).
I don't immediately recall a "the target cannot take reactions" result on a non-mental spell. But a target that is Stunned can't act, and therefore can't take reactions. So a target that critically failed against Stormburst, for example, which is not Mental. You "in other words" seems to not limit it to spells, though. If you include non-spell effects, there are some things that specifically prevent reactions without going through another condition, like Scoundrel Rogue's Tactical Debillitations, or a Marshal with Devrin's Cunning Stance.
Yes, or it suggests that you could climb in an emergency, just needing to fix your grip on the shield afterward, instead of needing to ditch it first. That's always seemed more like a feature of the change than a bug.
To be honest, I'd treat the "need to be strapped on" as flavor text and not rules, since the action to strap on a shield is undefined. It doesn't really make sense. If we look at the actual quote: Raise a Shield is the action most commonly used with shields. All shields, unless specifically noted or described otherwise, must be strapped to your arm and held in one hand, so you can’t hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield’s benefits if that hand is no longer free. A buckler, however, doesn’t take up your hand, so you can Raise a Shield with a buckler if the hand is free (or, at the GM’s discretion, if it’s holding a simple, lightweight object that’s not a weapon). Nothing about that is written like it's flavor text, and not rules.
Yes, the CRB always had an action cost for unstrapping shields, but adding a rule that ALL shields must be strapped is a big change. Before, they only ones that definitely always had to be strapped on were bucklers.
It's been a problem since Player Core added "must be strapped on" to all shields. They never defined the actions involved in strapping on shields, anywhere, making it a point of table variation how and if a lot of things even work. Things that end up in a limbo of table rulings include, but aren't limited to:
Second Shield, from Viking (which was strangely reprinted with no changes to account for the new rule) Every variation of throwing shields (some address having quick releases to unstrap them as part of throwing, none talk about strapping them back on when it's back in your hand) TLDR: Paizo never answered this, and you'll have to talk to your GM about a table ruling
Natural Weapons are only a separate category in 1E. Claws, Bites, Tail slaps and Laser Beam Eyes are all Unarmed Attacks in 2E.
|
