Search Posts
I had to manually push the retry button. I have the Multi pdf of SFGA but do not have the hellfire in my library. This is exactly the same thing I've had. The order went through, but the single file PDF of Galactic Ancestries is missing and there is nothing for Hellfire Dispatches.
Undead were never immune to sickened. Things like Divine Wrath always worked on them, too.
Sure, there have always been some niche benefits to inflicting sickened, like preventing Swallow Whole.
Where is all of this talk about other classes using Grudge Strike coming from? That feat can't be taken via multiclass archetype. None of the Wandering feats can.
This is really one of those "no, there isn't any kind of formal definition of exactly what qualifies and never will be" things. Just like how the answer to "what goods will take more than one day to sell?" is "use your best judgement as a GM".
No. There is a specific saying that animal companions cannot use itms like that which do not have the Companion trait. There is no errata removing that rule.
Yes, there is no free hand requirement written into that spell, and no general free hand requirement for spellcasting.
is Automatic Writing from dark archives remastered missing some traits? It used to have General and Skill tags, and now it has neither. Where do you see that missing, exactly? Is it the print version? In the PDF version, the traits are there.
That can be very good, but it's always important to remember that there's no such thing as a natural weapon, and the racket ability does not apply to unarmed attacks. They specifically need a decent Agile or Finesse Unarmed Attack.
If the GM doesn't let the player know what skills they could be using, or let them know that they are Untrained in everything relevant at step 4, that's the issue. Because the rules of RK explicitly say that they should be able to stop at this point and not spend the action after all. I know what that macro does and doesn't do. To try to be clear, I'm not saying that I think the macro is a problem, in itself. The way some people use it, and cut away important parts of the actual rules, is. The player agency that comes from that conversation is a part that often gets lost, for the sake of speed and convenience. Taking the few seconds to really think about what skills should be applicable for a subject is the other main one (and that problem happens other ways, too, like people looking at the example skills and DCs on a monster entry on AoN as though they were a real part of the stat block.)
The issue there is that if you go by the rules, you'd talk to the GM about what skills you might be able to use, they'd tell you that their ruling is that only these skills you're Untrained in will work, and you would then have the option (as explicitly stated in the RK rules) to not spend the action and not attempt the Recall. I think your second answer there is still missing the point. The concern isn't "GM sees that an applicable skill is Untrained and gives the crit fail result". The concern is:
If the GM doesn't let the player know what skills they could be using, or let them know that they are Untrained in everything relevant at step 4, that's the issue. Because the rules of RK explicitly say that they should be able to stop at this point and not spend the action after all.
That is not the scenario of any interest to me. The scenario of interest to me is that Arcana, Crafting and Golem Lore are ALL untrained. With my Int of -1 it isn't at all unlikely that I'll crit fail on all 3 even at low levels. At higher levels it is very, very likely that I'll crit fail on all 3. The issue there is that if you go by the rules, you'd talk to the GM about what skills you might be able to use, they'd tell you that their ruling is that only these skills you're Untrained in will work, and you would then have the option (as explicitly stated in the RK rules) to not spend the action and not attempt the Recall. Skipping that conversation and giving the crit fail from any one of those Untrained skills takes away the opportunity the player is supposed to have to not take the action if they don't like any of their options.
"By RAW, the skills you can use are largely fixed" is not actually true. The rules lay out what skills most commonly apply to different creature traits, but they explicitly state that this isn't a hard rule and the GM has leeway in what skills are appropriate for a specific creature. That's why it makes sense for there to be negotiation. The skill used to identify a creature usually depends on that creature's trait, as shown on the Creature Identification Skills table, but you have leeway on which skills apply. For instance, hags are humanoids but have a strong connection to occult spells and live outside society, so you might allow a character to use Occultism to identify them without any DC adjustment and make using Society harder. Lore skills can also be used to identify a specific creature. Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).
Eldritch Trickster is still completely legal. Not being reprinted doesn’t mean it's deleted. No need to rewrite anything.
The beginning of the skills chapter gives the background as the common example of how this can happen. It does not say that the rule is exclusive to background Training. Automation on Pathbuilder and Hero Lab aren't really relevant to anything.
You are missing something. It is a general rule that if you would become Trained in a skill and are already Trained or better in that skill, you choose a new skill to become Trained in. If the skill was a lore, the new skill must be a lore.
In many cases the answer is "none" or "just the ones you do anyway as this class" to get up to double or triple triggering, with more being optional. The reason so many people are so confused by this decision is that it doesn't take weird whiteroom setups for this to have a big impact.
This isn't even a rules change anymore. Before the remaster, it would have been, but after, it was perfectly by the book to take Additional Lore in your background lore.
Well, the meteor shield *does* say in the item description that it has Quick Release straps, at least. That should account for unstrapping to throw, but doesn't actually have the mechanical detail of the quick release straps of the throwing shield Adjustment. Strapping it back on is an issue, but it's largely compounding onto an existing issue. We already had to houserule a little bit to let them work with Returning runes (even though I genuinely think that was intended to work, but was just not cleanly written.) There just hasn't ever been a throwing shield version that worked well without houserules fixing it, this whole time. Not in Knights of Lastwall, not in Grand Bazaar, not in Treasure Vault, not in the remaster updates. They've all had weird issues with how they're written that you have to change as a GM for them to function as a main weapon the way people are looking for when they try ro build a character with one.
That's where it gets more into a judgement call. What level of investment are you talking about, and how low of a chance do you consider "non-existent:. The numbers I gave are A ceiling (not quite THE ceiling since I'm not including temporary buffs like consumables or Aid) but there's a whole spectrum between "maximized skill" and "I got Trained, never increased it, have+0 in the attribute and have no items to help". Points on that spectrum have very different success chances. If you feel that a given point on that spectrum of investment at a given level should be higher, that can be a valid judgement, but let's please not act like it's a binary. I have seen secondary skills hold up as useful into higher levels with moderate investment, but if they have no investment beyond Trained, they do definitely drop off.
Those 50/50 numbers aren't true. A character maxed out at a skill rolling a standard difficulty for their level starts at 65/35 (a +7 rolling against DC 15 at level 1) and slowly climbs, to 95% at level 20 if that investment includes an Item bonus (+38 against DC 40) or 80% if it doesn't (+35 against DC 40). Recall DCs can be very hard when rarity also comes into play. (It's also important to note that there are a lot more factors in setting RK DCs than people point at in these discussions, and it's a very squishy system, but it's true that hard RK DCs come up a lot, even accounting for all of that). But adding inaccurate numbers on top doesn't help. Unfortunately, Automatic Knowledge is still really bad in spite of that.
Hypercognition is more of a spell for "there are a lot of things going on here I want to know about" not "I'm going to expect this spell to surely let me know everything about that one creature."
I'm not saying you're wrong to ask. I'm following the answer. Part 1 (what you asked): No, there is no clarification or official ruling. Followup: One is unlikely, I would not count on ever getting one.
No. But because it isn't unclear, I wouldn't expect it to ever come up in a FAQ or something, either. Officual rulings aren't even common for things that DO need a clarification. That's the relevance of pointing out that it was never unclear. It makes it less likely that you'll ever get what you're looking for.
The answer was no before, it's still no now. Nothing has changed.
Inventor has got die increases in the Modification list already. No need for religion to make it weird.
Two-Hand and Fatal together would mainly just happen to weapon Inventors, who can end up with that combo.
Other stuff like Flurry of Blows, there's nothing that suggests you would be unable to use it. That isn't even one of the things that's ambiguous because of the unfinished polymorph rules refusing to define "Special statistics."
It is correct that there is no defined order. You have to talk to your GM about their ruling because there is no rule actually written, so no one (including me, of course) can give you the right answer, only their preferred answer.
Yes, they have stated that the updated PDF will be given for free on the street date.
"Before creating a character with a class archetype, a player needs to read how class archetypes work" is a reasonable expectation without specific text talking about it.
If the rider takes some action that would provoke, sure. That would be after the approach, though. With the mount moving up, the rider doesn't meet the trigger for Reactive Strike even without the problems of trying to use two reactions to one move action.
Yes, definitely A. An ability that doesn't slow you down while doing other stuff also doesn't have a reason to slow you down when doing nothing.
It's incomplete. You need something granting you an extra reactions to take two reactions in a round, yes. But you can't take two reactions to the same thing. And one thing meeting two differently written triggers doesn't change that.
Why am I being charged for this in my subscription? We get the updated PDF for free, don't we? You're being charged for a whole new book, not a PDF, because for some insane reason remaster-reprints and single-book AP reprints are set up as opt-out instead of opt-in on subscriptions. You have to use the Skip Order thing on subscriptions for all of that. If you think that change from the way they used to do it is unacceptable, you aren't wrong.
I think maybe my intent didn't come through properly. I'm saying that it is beyond weak. That the only argument to try to even try to make it work hinges on a misunderstanding of trigger rules.
Unclear? No, there's no way for the character to be legal. That's pretty clear.
Whether the triggers are written differently is never the standard for trying to take 2 Reactions to one thing, anyway. The triggers listed in the stat blocks of reactions and some free actions limit when you can use those actions. You can use only one action in response to a given trigger. For example, if you had a reaction and a free action that both had a trigger of “your turn begins,” you could use either of them at the start of your turn—but not both. If two triggers are similar, but not identical, the GM determines whether you can use one action in response to each or whether they're effectively the same thing. Usually, this decision will be based on what's happening in the narrative.
Reactive Strike never suffers from or contributes to MAP, even if it happens on your own turn. It has an exemption written into the Reaction.
Which spells require speech in the remaster is not about the Concentrate trait at all. The remaster rule is that all spells do EXCEPT when something like the Subtle trait removes the need to speak.
You can disagree all you like, that is not how the basic sequence of actions works. You yourself said it: your next action is Spellstrike. That is distinct from casting a psi cantrip, even if you cast a psi cantrip as a subordinate action of the Spellstrike. Once more, this is how spellshapes work for the purposes of determining what the next action is, and I don't see why we would make an exception here on top of this leap of logic. This is flatly incorrect. Both Cast A Spell and Strike are subordinate actions inside of Spellstrike.
Nope. That means the next action is cast. Not "begin an Activity that contains a subordinate action to cast". Your reading there is incorrect.
Not exactly true, no. Speaking to cast is "lose all air". However, if you can cast without speaking, like when you cast a Subtle spell, it still costs an extra round of air.
Those search links are including things that are Greater or Major versions of earlier items, which are not a new formula if you have the lower level version.
With the free formulas and a chunk of my gold always going into new formulas, I still feel like there are always more that I'd like to have on hand. This is the last thing I'd ever want, playing an alchemist, where building a big, versatile toolbox is the whole point of the class.
The latter. Nothing in that spell ever suggests that Slowed 2 would be an option. As normal for conditions, you can't read "Slowed 1" twice as adding to become "Slowed 2", so no way that you could try to parse this spell would ever get there.
A feat doing what it says isn't "stacking restrictions". If you want to houserule a feat you don't think is strong enough, to buff it for your table, that's fine and good. If it will make for a better game for you and your players, with the kind of game you all enjoy, absolutely do it. But framing the lack of a houserule like it's taking something away is pretty weird.
1. No it doesn't. 2. No, it isn't supposed to. Feats that affect Treat Wounds not affecting Battle Medicine is the norm, and there's no reason to assume an unwritten exception was intended. 3. No, it isn't a remaster difference, Shades of Blood was post-remaster. No premaster version of vasodilation ever existed.
Spontaneous Casters worry about having the spell known at specific levels. Prepared casters like wizards do not. As a wizard, if you have the spell, you have the spell. You can prepare it in any valid slot. You don't bother with learning heightened versions of spells at all.
|
