I've experienced an issue concerning the Will-o'Wisp a few times, and I would appreciate it if people could weight in. There is a strong disagreement, and I'm hoping this thread can be useful to settle the matter.
Will-o'-Wisp states that it has Natural invisibility in it's Defensive Abilities.
Stat block for it's Natural invisibility wrote:
Natural Invisibility (Ex) Will-o’-wisps have the ability to extinguish their natural glow as a move action, effectively becoming invisible, as per the spell.
Universal Monster rules
Natural Invisibility (Ex or Su) wrote:
I know there are many creatures that have things listed in their stat block that you can refer to the rules in the Universal Monster Rules, but in their stat block they write out unique things. Do you ignore what specific things are listed in their stat block and go with the Universal rule, or do you follow their specific text in their stat block?
In this matter specifically does the Will-o'-wisp
1. stay invisible for the end of time by never shining light once it uses its ability?
2. The creature is never visible in the first place because it is always invisible, and it is the glow that turns on and off by using a move action and on the conditions of the invisibility spell (hostile actions turn it visible again etc.) the glow will return?
3. The creature is visible and glows, but as a move action can turn invisible as per the spell (hostile actions turn it visible again etc.) while extinguishing it's light?
I appreciate you tracking that down.
The relevant places in my mind to look were under armor, magic armor, and the rules on how bonuses work. I would have never thought to look at the combat section for that.
I checked my book, and it is there, plus I went on the d20pfsrd in the combat section and found it.
This was making me feel like I was doing things wrong all this time. Thanks a bunch, Lost In Limbo!
I looked in the Core rule book FAQ to see if I could find something, but I didn't see anything. I always took it as the enhancement was exclusive to the item, then you applied it on as one thing, but I don't see language backing that up. At the same time I don't really see anything that elaborately explains armor/shield and armor/shield enhancement.
Let's say I have a +1 Buckler, and something that will grant me a shield bonus to my AC that is of a higher value of 1, and let's say it grants a +2 shield bonus specifically. What is my end result for my total shield bonus?
I know you wouldn't stack the buckler and the other thing giving a +2 shield bonus, but what about that +1 enhancement on the buckler? Take the higher shield bonus (+2 shield bonus), and then applying the shield enhancement bonus (+1 from the +1 buckler)?
I was trying to look how armor enhancement bonuses are figured out, and maybe I am just missing some language in the rules. Are there rules that clarify if the enhancement bonuses are exclusive to the item?
I would appreciate it if people could help me with the actual rules to better understand this. Thanks!
tarp wouldn't be heavy enough to matter I'd imagine.
Familiar would be invisible, and move action pick up tarp, and ready to cover you. Ready action from the familiar would be when you use a free action to say "Tarp me, little baby boi! I'm feeling lucky tonight, and I need your lovin' to get me through till tomorrow" and then it would standard toss it on you. Just repeat forever. And yes, you'd move action move the tarp off you on your turn.
I am thinking of using an Unseen servant to close a shower curtain that I'll affix onto my character with a harness. So on my turn I'll open it, and do my stuff, and as soon as I'm done with my standard action, the Unseen servant will close the thing. This will make it impossible for anything to do line or sight and line of effect on me unless they do a ready action.
This also protects me from melee and ranged projectile attacks with my total concealment. They'd have to attack my curtain.
I would use a transparent curtain too, so I can see through it.
If someone didn't do an action on their turn, I would prob not open the curtain.
I can also be immune to provoking AoOs too.
1. you just have the thing do the thing when the thing happens. It doesn't need to know what the thing is to do the thing, like specifically, but just that the thing was a thing so it does the thing.
2. you just have the thing do the thing whenever a spell seems to be cast.
3. A tarp will block line of sight, and line of effect. It will work.
So the fighter is the only one that starts with attacks of opportunity? does that mean AoO is a feat?
Looks like it's a class feature of the fighter, so you don't need to buy into it.
" Other classes can get this ability—and numerous monsters will as well—but only the fighter starts with it a core feature."
so it seems they'd get it level 1, where other classes might get it later on. Also that other creatures might have it too.
at the earliest, so I figure not many classes can do it by then.
Was it just said it would be easier, or was there something solid to give you actual reason that you'd be able to jump up from the ground to a flying magic man who is extremely high in the air? I feel my assumption was absolutely reasonable, but your reply ends with you saying that you're hoping it can be done, which seems like you too are making an assumption with your original statement.
Are you hinting that the fighter will indeed be able to jump extremely high? I feel foolish for making such an assumption that they wouldn't be able to jump so high on their own.
AoO's seem like they'll rarely be triggered, the rules seem to be more restrictive on what triggers them than in 1e, you get an attack penalty, and you'll have to spend a resource of your reaction. I don't think most classes will have the hint of jealously over this class feature, and people will normally forget it exists from how irrelevant it right now seems it'll be. If there isn't going to be some grand AOO feats coming out, then this feature will be a small annoyance to enemies.
If this thing is supposed to be a special fighter thing, then make it unlimited, and remove the -2 penalty. If it's important to have limits on it, then do 1 + Dex bonus, or maybe even after a few levels it improves.
I do feel this is going to end up like 1e where they think they're balancing out the fighter, but they're really not considering other classes, and how the game is usually played. Even though we don't have spell information now, comparing the fighters features and feat options with a spell of that level I feel will really put things into perspective.
This blog post actually has nothing I'm thrilled about at all, other than me going, "I'll probably take sudden charge". Looking like a life of class features that try and fool you into thinking they're acceptable, and buying "exclusive" feats that do underwhelming things. I predict that ranged combat will dominate, especially with everyone spending all their actions putting up shields, pulling out their weapons, and running around. Flying magic man in the sky rains down fire death, while if I put up my shield as an action, I get a bonus to reflex saves.
My quick impressions on what I just read.
"good at taking damage and even better at dealing damage."
The class feature to do attacks of opportunity. A feature that triggers IF you're in reach, with a -2 penalty, costs your reaction, I imagine you'll need to have a weapon that threatens (unless you can punch it), and is conditional if they do a thing that will allow you to do it. I actually don't like this, because even in normal pathfinder, having a reach weapon, and combat reflexes, AOO's don't happen too often unless you create them, or the creatures move through threatened squares. I see the language of "move away from you", which makes me feel it'll be more 5e where they move out of your reach to provoke. AOO's being more rare I suppose would make people more reckless with their actions, but once they figure out you can do AOO's, I figure they'll wise up. This seems to be like, "Hey, look at this cool thing we're giving fighters that is rare", when it in my opinion extremely underwhelming, and reminds me of "Hey, look at this Bravery class feature. Pretty cool, right?". Oh, and lastly I'd like to point out the -2 penalty for the thing you'll rarely do is disappointing.
Next you write about the proficiency rank increasing, and I hope that all other classes are WAY slower than the fighter with these increases, and not just the later ones. I hate to be the guy who wants things and others not to, but Pathfinder 1e has quite often pretended to give fighters special exclusive things while actually not. The good old, "Why be a fighter, when all this stuff exists", and by how proficentcies sound including opening up other options from having it increased, I sure hope their speed increasing it isn't matched.
Here is another thing I feel people will not realize until it's pointed out. Fighters have long been without perception as a class skill, which is one of the many things that confuses and upsets people when seeing the fighter is a class to pick. So from what I'm seeing, first I am happy with having perception be good, but it seems there is a caveat that it only applies to when rolling for initiative? Like I guess I appreciate it because the usual argument for why fighters should have perception as a class skill is related to spotting combat, which it looks like what you're going for, but this seems like it'll be another one of those underwhelming things where people go, "Hey, look at this Bravery class feature. Pretty cool, right?"
Sudden Charge is something I would most likely take for my character, especially when the game lets you make multiple attacks if you have the actions. What I'm curious about is if it's exclusive to melee attacks, or if someone with ranged weapons can maneuver so there is a better shot (no cover etc). If it is exclusive to melee attacks, then I think this is a neat feat that people will use a lot.
Quick reversal is something I don't think I would ever take unless there are details that are missing, like if you'll reroll for both the 2nd attack miss, and the 3rd attack miss etc. This honestly seems to be a trap feat, and if feat taxes exist, then I am feel this'll be one of them. For you to make use out of it you'll need to first have at least two creatures within your reach, flanking you, and for you to use your actions to make more than 1 attack, but miss with the later attacks. There doesn't seem to be any incentive to create this situation on your own, but you'd want to try and avoid it, so you have this feat that you hope you'll never use. Unless the fighter will be the "I can't hold all these feats" meme, then this doesn't sound appealing to me at all. I imagine it also needs to have you spend your reaction, but if it didn't use a resource, and triggered for any of your attacks past the first, then maybe I'd consider taking this. Overall, I'd rather take a feat that helps me hit the thing, assuming there are any.
"We've talked before about how fun and tactical shields are in the game."
I passed power attack, and it seems to be vital strike in a way. I'm not sure if the damage die is some set dice depending on the size/amount of hands of the weapon, or if it doubles the weapon damage like vital strike, but this feat doesn't sound good. I'm assuming whatever ability score mod you have doesn't get added in again, so what you're looking at is spending 2 actions for a chance to roll another die into the damage, which could end up being a 1. I saw a dev talk about situations where you're fighting things that are hard to hit, and how you'd rather want to power attack than just do another swing, but I disagree entirely. You have to buy the feat in the first place if you want to use it, and if I'm attacking something with high AC, then I think I rather take the multiple attacks because if it's likely I'll be missing even with that first swing, I still have that natural 20 (5% chance) if it really is that bad (assuming natural 20's auto hit in 2e). Seems like a trap feat to me unless there are details they left out, and again, I rather spend my feat on something that'll let me hit better instead of power attack.
I would have really loved to have heard more about the ranged feats, or at least more about the one that was mentioned. An attack that causes an enemy to lose an action seems like it's actually pretty cool, especially for someone who wants a more tactical fight. Not that I want to take away from the ranged feat ideas, but if this included melee attacks too I'd definitely take it even more. Speaking of melee and ranged feats, I am curious if power attack will be inclusive as a replacement for like a Deadly Aim, especially since it sounds like vital strike, and vital strike could be used with either.
I would have loved to have read an example of a fighter archetype, and how to implement it, but I do appreciate the post and especially that fighter was first up. I am trying to be optimistic with how fighters will turn out in 2e, and if my name didn't give it away, I do have a strong passion for the class. I feel that fighters haven't gotten a fair shake, and this will solely be what I judge paizo on.
Also, I need to mention the world of fighters in regards to their options over time from what is published. I'm unsure if fighters will continue their path of bonus feats as their class feature, but if they do, PLEASE put in plenty of content for them, or at least for those of us that have spent so much money on random materials just to have access to the combat feats inside, PLEASE include like a list of what in the past can be used, and how it can be converted into 2e. Again, all I really care about are fighters, so if fighters get a fair shake, then I'll be happy.
I ignored some of the other conversation about the Lore Warden, and I see that people think the weapon training applies to the CMBs. Not to make this a rules thread, but the weapon training will only apply to the weapons in the given weapon group, and to only certain few Combat maneuvers, such as Trip, Sunder, Disarm, and with the right weapons Push and Drag. Lore Warden I admit does help out a lot with a +2 to your CM's, but CM's sometimes can't do anything against certain enemies, plus if you don't get the improved, then you're going to be provoking. Lore Warden wasn't the best archetype, but rather was barely something decent. I'll reserve full judgement until I see the rules myself, but it sounds like this is awful.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
So given my name, I am a fan of the fighter, and as you have maybe seen on the paizo forums, there are many who believe the Fighter gets the short end of the stick. The Lore Warden had its ups and downs before, and it's sounding like it got pretty screwed. Many took the archetype so they could get combat expertise, because they hate the feat, and all the awful pre-reqs to do certain combat maneuvers. So all I'm getting is it got nerfed, and I find this to be upsetting, but you think it's better. Can you give me some details on why you think this, especially since I don't have access to the reprint.
Also, I've been excited over this book for awhile, and I have been a subscriber of companions in the past, but I have been disappointed. Hearing a hardcover has reprints, and especially a Lore Warden nerf as one of the archetypes really upsets me. Alone that I was excited for some fighter love and instead am hearing that it's kinda the opposite saddens me deeply.
The only change is that it got nerfed?