Joey Cote's page

370 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like the formula's for common items. Just say the characters know them. But having the characters search out/quest for formulas for uncommon/rare items? That seems very reasonable and can even be fun.

I think I would make working with uncommon/rare materials a formula in and of itself. I.E. you wouldn't need a formula to know how to make mithral chainmail and a different formula for a mithral breastplate. You would just need a formula to teach you how to forge mithral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A weapon that is +5 or better is considered all alignments for the purpose of bypassing aligned DR. The rule is in the Glossary section in the rules for Damage Reduction.

Also, the same section says
"Overcoming DR: Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment."

But the beastiary section on damage reduction also says

"Some monsters are vulnerable to good-, evil-, chaotically, or lawfully aligned weapons. When a cleric casts align weapon, affected weapons might gain one or more of these properties, and certain magic weapons have these properties as well. A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that matched the subtype(s) of the creature."

I don't think that an intelligent weapon having an alignment is the same thing as it being imbued with an alignment (such as it would have if it had the Holy ability) and it wouldn't have the alignment subtype automatically anymore then a player character would.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or you could pull off a Megamind ending. The party sees the heroes get killed. They go on doing whatever it was they need to do, and any attempts to bring the heroes back to life fail. At some point near the end of the campaign, the characters find out the heroes are actually alive and just decided they no longer wanted to be heroes so faked their own death.


I think one of my favorite things about 2nd edition is that combat maneuvers no longer provoke attacks of opportunity without having to purchase two feats. No more not bothering to try to overbear, overrun, trip, etc because the opponent was likely to hit you and make attempt almost impossible was boring. Buying feats that took that situation from pointless to nearly broken made it just worse.

I love the 3 action economy.

I really like the active shield blocking, just wish shield rules were better written to make non-sturdy shields something other then wet tissue paper. It seems like they can be made of special materials but the rules aren't very clear on that.

I like the massive damage spikes two handed weapon users got in PF1 is gone and dead.

While I like that you cannot make a dump stat by taking negative values at character creation, I also dislike it a bit from RP perspective. No stupid elves, weak humans, unwise dwarves, etc.


The only problem I ever had with spell casters in Pathfinder is I thought the DC of spells were low. Making the DC 1/2 the casting class round up would have enormously helped keep lower level spells relevant. But I always felt like the DC for spells should have been 1/2 the caster class level round up +10 as the base, like it is for most class based abilities.


"A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item’s weight. It always gives off light as a torch (20-foot radius). A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor and shield bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. (Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.) A brilliant energy weapon cannot harm undead, constructs, or objects."

So for the value of a +4 modifier to a weapon (48k minimum) you get to ignore manufactured armor/shield bonus to AC. Oh, and your weapon becomes completely useless at harming undead, constructs, and objects. And it doesn't even make the weapon weightless. By the time adventurers can afford this they aren't likely to be fighting people in manufactured armor, which makes this more of a curse then a benefit, for 48k minimum.


I seem to remember some people arguing that Press Against the Wall could be applied to the section of floor the person was standing on, as it could be considered a "wall". People were not arguing that if you were flying above the target, or there was some weird positioning.


Joey Cote wrote:

Objectively wrong. Boot blade says "You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon.", which proves beyond any doubt that you can make an off-hand attack without any physical hand involved. There is nothign in the armor spike description that says you need a free hand.

Armor spikes also says "(You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)" And by "free hand" I mean you had a hand that was not used to attack that round or was using a shield. And the rules for the to boot knife are a classic example of specific rule overriding a general.

Joey Cote wrote:
Swinging two two handed weapons isn't any additional attacks

Not for the number of attack rolls, but for the "hands of effort" thing, it is.

Basically, you have two units of attack per round, each hand involved in an attack spends one unit. You can use them for two individual attacks (TWF), or combine them for one two-handed attack. Vestigial Arm never grants additional units of attack. You might recognise the system from how you can combine your standard action and move action into a full round action.

Normally, you can't TWF a two-handed and a one-handed weapon. With vestigial...

Where does it talk anything about "hands of effort" in the FAQ. All it talks about is not giving additional attacks. It's extremely specific in how it works, both in combination of a tentacle and the extra arm. But I am not going to argue this any more.


Aren't bestiary rules only for monsters without explicit GM permission?

"If characters can somehow gain these subtypes or otherwise do meet all of the prerequisites please consult with your GM to see if such feats are allowed for PCs in his or her campaign."

Unless multiweapon fighting is out of something other then Bestiary?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:

There's also this FAQ that everyone seems to have forgotten about.

FAQ wrote:

Alchemist, Tentacle/Vestigial Arm: What does "extra attacks" mean for these discoveries?

It means "extra," as in "more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery."

For example, if you're low-level alchemist who uses two-weapon fighting, you can normally make two attacks per round (one with each weapon). If you take the tentacle discovery, on your turn you can make
* two weapon attacks but no tentacle attack,
* a weapon attack with your left hand plus a secondary tentacle attack, or
* a weapon attack with your right hand plus a secondary tentacle attack.
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a tentacle attack on the same turn because the tentacle discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round." This language is calling out that the tentacle is not a standard natural weapon and doesn't follow the standard rules for using natural weapons (which would normally allow you to make the natural weapon attack in addition to your other attacks).

Likewise, if you instead took the vestigial arm discovery and put a weapon in that arm's hand, on your turn you can make
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your right hand,
* a weapon attack with your right hand and one with your vestigial arm, or
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your vestigial arm,
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a vestigial hand weapon attack on the same turn because the vestigial arm discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round."
The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any

...

I don't agree with your interpretation. Swinging two two handed weapons isn't any additional attacks, which is all that FAQ talks about. It is giving potentially more powerful attacks, but not more. In the spirit of the FAQ, not making the alchemist more powerful in melee, that might be true. But just using the vestigial limb to hold a light weapon, and using a two handed weapon in your primary hands, would also make the alchemist more effective in melee, and that seems to be allowed. Even using a two handed weapon and a shield would also make the alchemist more effective, and it seems pretty unlikely that FAQ was intended to prevent that.


Derklord wrote:
Joey Cote wrote:
The reason given is that your offhand is being used to equip a two handed weapon and thus cannot be used to attack with as an offhand attack.
The reason given doesn't make sense if used literally, because armor spikes never need hands anyway (a double amputee could use them just fine). Which is why the FAQ is generally descriped as "methaphorical hands" or "hands of effort". Under the presumption that the FAQ actually does something, the only possible interpretation is that the limitation is not a physical one, but a technicality.

I disagree because armor spikes say,

Armor spikes deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)

Which indicates if you use them to strike, you need hand free to do so. As if you are doing a forearm bash. No, you don't use your hand, but you need an limb free to strike with. And in Pathfinder we strike with hands (excluding natural attacks and unarmed attacks, which armor spikes are not).


Derklord wrote:

The FAQ is this. When you wield a two-handed wepaon, you can't make off-hand attacks, period. You could have a million hands, doesn't do jack.

What Lelomenia quoted is from a forum post, and not relevant for RAW (obviously, as it talks about intent, i.e. RAI).

The reason given is that your offhand is being used to equip a two handed weapon and thus cannot be used to attack with as an offhand attack. It doesn't address if the person has 3 or more limbs.

I thought there was a rule/errata/faq that said something along the lines of you cannot wield two two-handed weapons (or at the very least that you didn't get the +50% on str/ power attack damage for using a weapon two handed) but I cannot find any links.


Minor point, a real stickler of a gm might not allow you to poison arrows/bolts since those aren't weapons, they are ammo. And the rules under poisons talks about poisoning weapons (page 550) in regards to injury poison.

But if they pull that you can always say you are poisoning the crossbow/bow and by the rules, that seems to work.


I think one of the biggest problem (other then record keeping which you seem willing to handle) might be characters gaining far higher or lower skill levels then class level which might create some real problems.

Let's take what is probably the most common skill roll in the game, Perception. If characters are rolling this all the time, then even when there isn't something for them to find (like a secret panel, clue, etc) then they are going to probably be a few levels higher in this skill then their class level. Which might trivialize something like an ambush or a series of traps you set up in your dungeon unless you give them a ridiculous high DC. Which you can do, of course, but then it just feels like you are punishing the adventures for being good at what they do. Which has been discussed quite a lot in these forums.

Let's also look at the other side of the example. Any skill that doesn't get used frequently. Sense motive might be a good one, but here is my favorite, knowledge - nobility. There probably won't be many opportunities for characters to actually roll this skill. So the only way they are going to be able to keep the skill advancing is my your training method. But if the training method is relatively quick, then it kind of removes much of the point of all this record keeping.

There is also the problem where high intel characters in a class that already gets quite a few skills (bard/rogue) might have a near impossible time keeping their slew of skills leveled, especially if they have a bunch of esoteric ones like linguistics, performance, medicine (really, how many times in PF1 have you actually made medicine checks?).

A lot of this will be effected by how varied the challenges you throw at your party and how much bonus xp you are willing to give the player for defeating the challenge through skills instead of combat. But even that has a downside that others in this thread have alluded to in that then the players might be fighting with each other to try to be the first one to use a skill to overcome a challenge. Imagine having to roll initiative in order to see who gets to try to talk to the orc first (in order to improve linguistics or knowledge - local) or disarm a lock/trap.

Certainly some of that might be mitigated by a group of mature/easy going gamers willing to step aside to allow others to take on a challenge, but there are a lot of gloryhounds/powergamers out there that might be willing to abuse the system/group. And then there is the flip side, the meekish player that doesn't put themselves forward.

No way for me to know what your group dynamic is or how you like handling in party conflict. I think it would be a very tough system to balance effectively. I commend you on your willingness to put out the effort if you do decide to try this however.

I do remember the old Call of Cthulhu game where all your skills where % based. If you succeeded in a check during the adventure you would check mark the skill. At the end of the adventure you would roll against all your check marked skills. If you rolled higher then the skill, you got a +5% increase to the skill. A much simpler system then tracking individual xp for each skill however.


Castilliano wrote:

You can build most of a Dragon Disciple now via Barbarian or Sorcerer, depending on which aspect you wanted to emphasize. I'm not sure what more Paizo could add that they would add, since we won't be seeing stat bumps.

Maybe Draconic Frenzy (like dragons have)? Senses? Longer durations?

I agree claws aren't meant to be primary for a full-caster, nor should they ever be comparable to full casting. So if you want a good dragon-claw PC, start w/ a martial chassis & take the Sorcerer MCD. Since the claws are finesse, a Rogue-Thief works great in this instance. The other martials need a bigger weapon die, but the Rogue's bonus damage is balanced for having a lower die.

I could see them getting a feat upgrading the character's unarmed to master but only with the claws. The flurry of blow ability but only with the claws. Upgrading the breath weapon DC or area of effect. Upgrading the claw damage to a d6 instead of d4. Maybe they get "scales" that upgrade their unarmored defense or upgrade their fortitude mastery.

My main problem with most of my suggestions is that they focuses almost exclusively on the archetype being for one specific class. Maybe you could shoehorn the barbarian dragon instinct in there, but that seems pretty much all.


Ravingdork wrote:
Sorcerers have their own version of the feat, and generally don't need to poach the bard's feat to have a similar effect. (Though I suppose they could try doubling up.)

Ah, haven't read sorcerer very much so I didn't know that. Good to find out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dragon Disciple, I always loved that class.

Mystic Theurge, no idea what they would do to make it work and either not break the magic system or make it worthless archetype, but I can hope.


I would be willing to bet when they come out wit the Dragon Disciple archetype they will get a feat very similar to flurry of blows that applies to their claw attacks. I wouldn't be surprised to see other feats that will make the claws a focus of combat for them either. Dragon Disciple always felt like an iconic prestige class, and one of the few early ones that worked well.

Yes, at the moment claws are not going to be a primary attack form for the Sorcerer. It seems to me they are more likely intended to be something the sorcerer can do as a third action then as the focus of the character's attacks. And with not getting expert in Unarmed until 11th, that seems intentional.

I can certainly understand some players being a bit disgruntled about that if they wanted to play a Dragon Sorcerer that rips their opponents to pieces with their claws.


Garretmander wrote:
If a sorcerer picks this feat up with MC, does it work with the sorcerer's repertoire, or only with the Bard MC spell repertoire?

Esoteric Polymath only applies to Occult spells but it doesn't specify. So if you had an occult based Sorcerer then Esoteric Polymath would effect their Sorcerer spells.


And there isn't any special rule about +3 weapons being considered silver/cold iron, +4 weapons being considered aligned, and +5 weapons considered adamantine for the purposes of overcoming DR anymore.

Not that there are any weapons with more then a +3 enchantment in the core rules anymore. But they did away with the entire concept.


Hmmm. Looking at the Handwraps of Mighty Blows which do effect unarmed attacks there is a line in there "For example, a property rune that must be applied to a slashing weapon wouldn't function when you attacked with a fist, but you would gain it's benefit if you attacked with a claw or or some other slashing unarmed attack."

This seems to imply that natural attacks are considered unarmed attacks in general for the purposes of enhancement from items.

Either that or it's language they put in there by accident.

Or where you only talking about spells effecting natural attacks?

Also doesn't work with the combat polymorph spells since there those only allow for circumstance bonus, status bonus, and penalties. But the morph rules don't follow that so the handwraps should effect the sorcerer dragon claws


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paladin of Ababar multiclassing into ranger for crossbow feats?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This feat has a couple of important parts.

1)You keep a spell book with all your occult spells in it. This includes all your "repetoire" spells.
2)You can use the Occultism skill to learn occult spells. This means you can learn Occult spells that are not part of your normal spell "repertoire".
3) During daily preparations you can take any one spell in your book and add it to your repertoire. If this one of the spells already in your repertoire it becomes a signature spells, if it isn't then you treat as any other spell in your repertoire until you prepare spells again the next day.

It has two powerful effects. One it gives you potential access to additional occult spells if you can hunt them down and learn them. Two it gives you one extra spell a day that you can cast.

Example, a 6th lvl bard with esoteric polymath would have 5 cantrips, 3- 1st level spells, 3- 2nd level spells, and 3 -3rd level spells in their repertoire. The bard could then choose any one spell that they learned (which they have scribed in their spell book) and add it to that repertoire, so they might have 4- 3rd level spells that they could cast, but still would only be able to cast 3- 3rd level spells a day.

It gives the bard a bit of flexibility in that you can choose a spell to add to your repertoire each day which might give you an advantage in situations you know you are going to face.

At least, this is my understanding of how this feat works.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Joey Cote wrote:
None of the descriptions for crafting magic items except armor and weapons require masterwork items.

A Helm of the Mammoth Lord is a Helm. That's armor. But even conceding your point, and there are other magic items that grant natural attacks that are neither sword nor armor, I think my point stands that it is unlikely that any magic item acquired on the market in Golorion is not already Masterwork.

Joey Cote wrote:
I actually don't see any trouble with a player making a helm of the mammoth lords (or similar item) and adding the amulet of mighty fists enchantment, so long as you apply the x1.5 multiplier to the lesser of the item costs for adding an additional enchantment to the item.
Which is pretty much what I said.

Armor is very specific in Pathfinder, in Pathfinder, a helm does not count as armor as it does not give an armor bonus to AC.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
The Helm of the Mammoth Lord would be a Masterwork Item, just like just about every other magic item.

Only magic armor and weapons have to be masterwork to be enchanted.

Creating Magic Armor
To create magic armor, a character needs a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools. He also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the armor or the pieces of the armor to be assembled. Armor to be made into magic armor must be masterwork armor

Creating Magic Weapons
To create a magic weapon, a character needs a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the weapon or the pieces of the weapon to be assembled. Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon

Creating Wondrous Items
To create a wondrous item, a character usually needs some sort of equipment or tools to work on the item. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the item itself or the pieces of the item to be assembled. The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the item

None of the descriptions for crafting magic items except armor and weapons require masterwork items.

I actually don't see any trouble with a player making a helm of the mammoth lords (or similar item) and adding the amulet of mighty fists enchantment, so long as you apply the x1.5 multiplier to the lesser of the item costs for adding an additional enchantment to the item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's just a misprint. I would imagine they either meant for 1 day to be L or a week to be one bulk.

As written its pretty funny.


Cure Light/Moderate/Serious/Critical Wounds are harmless spells that allow a save. Barbarians with the Superstitious rage feat have to save vs them if a caster tries to use such a cure spell on them while a barbarian is raging.


avr wrote:
There's a discovery for using their extracts to craft items, material mastery. It makes the penalty for not having the spell -2 instead of -5 if they have the extract of the same name available. Without that (or promethean disciple) their extracts just don't count as spells at all when crafting magic items.

That is an interesting feat but just to be clear for the OP, it still doesn't make alchemists casters so they still wouldn't qualify for the craft magic item feats.


My understanding from the FAQ is that alchemist's are not considered actual spell casters and thus cannot gain the regular craft item feats. If the class gives it to them specifically (like the brew potion or promethean disciple feat) then they can use that feat, but that doesn't qualify them for other feats. There is the feat Master Craftsman that would allow him to get those feats but Master Craftsman requires you to pick one crafting skill to apply it to when you choose it. So he could take Master Craftsman for weaponsmithing, then take Craft Arms and Armor, but only be able to make weapons that weaponsmithing covers but wouldn't be able to make magic armor without also taking the feat Master Craftsman again applying it to armor.

https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qdH

Having said that, it's your game. You want to let the player craft magic items, then just let him take the feats. Treat his alchemist level as his caster level. If he doesn't have a formula that matches the spell required he can use the +5 to the DC rule to get around the requirement. But you probably shouldn't allow them to craft items like wands or staves which would give him access to all kinds of spell casting.


If your the GM Aservan you could always make a ranger/druid feat that gives the animal companion the mount trait and reduce the negative for MAP by 5 for the mount for one action. That doesn't seem too powerful to me.


Just my opinion, but I think a reason why they choose to say you cannot poison ammunition is to prevent someone from claiming they could poison 10 objects at a time, since all ammunition comes in batches of 10.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I was looking at the 11th level bombs and just not understanding the design here. Needing an attack roll they basically do 3 dice of damage, do 3 persistent damage, and get a +2 to hit. But an 11th wizard using their electrical cantrip does 5d4 on up to two targets with a reflex save. The damage seems pretty much the same. And the cantrip damage actually goes up far faster then the bomb damage. The bomb's splash damage is pretty insignificant, even with feat that using their int modifier instead of the normal splash damage. At 11th level that is probably only +2 more damage then the base, +3 if the GM is generous and gave the player a +2 int modifying magic item. The bombs do have secondary effects, but only the lightning bomb's causing the target to become flat footed seems very significant.

Nothing about the alchemist makes me even vaguely want to play one. The extracts are basically weak spells and there isn't enough variety. Moderate healers so long as whatever your fighting doesn't have attacks of opportunity or your people aren't weapon and shield fighters. Mutagens .... are not impressive and have drawbacks which I just don't understand the need for. Poisons could be good but as others have said, monster fortitude saves are probably going to be their best save and if you go that route you're going to want to poison your buddy's weapons since they are going to be more likely to hit then you are. And they need to run for multiple rounds to do much.


Isn't the cost of the spells equal to the cost of the spell's formula level? So whatever the cost of the book would be plus the value of all the formula?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Unfortunately it can’t be helped. The playtest is over and the book is published. We have what we have. Further threads won’t really change the book to the degree you want it changed.

Considering the number of problems that were brought up in numerous threads (alchemist fast alchemy needing a free hand but also needing an alchemist kit, which requires two hand as an example) I am rather disappointed in this aspect of 2E.


This is from D20

"Natural Attacks
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks)."

Does that mean if you have and eidolon with two tails which can be used to attack and no other natural attacks that the tail attacks don't have the -5 to hit for being secondary attacks?


It seems by RAW that those would only last until the end of the character's turn, which would make poisons utterly useless and most other things pretty useless without the Enduring Alchemy feat. And even with it they would be near useless.

But what I think they meant in the use of the word "potency" was that an unused alchemical item would become useless after the specified period but any effects of a used item would continue. With the caveat that if you did your daily prep while a nonpermanent effect was active the effect would immediately end.

If you look through this forum I am sure you will find a few more threads with people talking about this issue (and a lot of others involving the alchemist that should have been fixed from Playtest considering I know they were brought up multiple times in forums/feedback).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Could the tank spend feats on Quick Repair until he can repair the shield in one action?

Quick Repair itself answers you question. It requires you to be Legendary in Crafting to change the repair time to one action (although you would still have to have the repair kit in hand, which takes two hands, which means you have to remove the shield at some point). But Quick Repair doesn't reduce the time it takes to do something, it changes the time, so even if you could take it multiple times, it would have no effect.


A good point about taking the shield block action after the save, I had not considered that rule. Considering the dragon in question has a DC 28 (9+ (expert)4 + (shield)2 + resistance 1 + Dex 3 + heroism 1=20) gives them a pretty good chance to reduce the damage by half. The +2 from the shield is a big bonus on that save.


In combat healing seemed very needed back in Playtest and the rules don't seem different enough for me to think it will be any different in 2nd. But I suppose that can depend a lot on how tough what the GM throws at you.

But I also felt the divine spell list was extremely weak back in playtest and the domain abilities in no way made up for that weakness.


Looking at the dragonslayer's shield and comparing it to lvl 8/9 dragons(young dragons) since its a lvl 9 item it seems as if the average damage from one of these would give the shield the broken condition. A lvl 9 shield specific to fighting two types of dragons doesn't seem like it should be wrecked by the breath weapon of the youngest dragons of that type. At that age the dragons are immune to the specific element of their breath weapon, why isn't the shield far more resistant to that element?


This exact rules question came up with the Playtest and I know it was posted in the forums ... and it still made it to 2nd?


I don't know if it translated across from Playtest to 2nd edition, but do crafters still need a formula to follow to make magic items? I seem to remember that you could craft the formula (but needed a crafting feat?) which took even more time and money. I could understand the rule role play wise, but it always felt really annoying to have to have the formula. Especially if (as many people have mentioned) your are not located near a large settlement and might not have access to any magic item formulas.


Claxon wrote:

That is perhaps a fair argument.

Though if it was allowed it would need to be limited to maneuvers that use weapons, such as trip, disarm, and sunder. I think reposition gets a special allowance as it also specifically mentions using a weapon.

I think there is an FAQ about which maneuvers use weapons.

This one https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lcom?Combat-Maneuvers-and-Weapon- Special-Features

But it does mention that weapons with the trip property can be use to drag and reposition.


Yeah, I see I misread the success now, even on a straight success if it is 4 levels lower you can make it a minion. There doesn't seem to be any difference between a critical success and a regular success except what happens if you don't make the critter a minion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Confusion probably comes from in the Playtest it cost a certain amount of points equal to the ability's rank (or whatever they called it). I know I was looking at this section today and was asking myself that question.


Am I misunderstanding something in these rules or is it very difficult to use these two ritual to create a minion that is near your spell level cap?

Example, animate object to make an alchemical golem, a lvl 9 monster. According to table 7-1 the animate object spell to create a lvl 9 construct needs a lvl 6 spell, so the caster needs to be 11/12th minimum, lets go with 13. A maxed out lvl 13 wizard with a 22 int (18 base, 2 from level increase, 2 from item), mastery in Arcana (13 lvl + 6 for mastery) and a Greater Hat of the Magi (+2 item bonus) would have an Arcana base of 27. The rules for rituals say that the DC is treated as a level twice the spell level and is very hard as well. So the ritual is treated as a lvl 6 spell, which makes it a lvl 12 challenge, making it a base 30 + 5 for very hard (table 10-5 and 10-6). Now, according to the rituals in order to create a minion it must be 4 levels lower then you and you need to make a critical success. So the lvl 13 wizard above needs to roll a 18+ and spend days and 2100gp, for a 15% chance at creating a minion. If they succeed (animate object version) but don't get a critical success the construct created can be given one order, which it obeys and thereafter ignores all other commands from the creator. In the case of create undead the undead is friendly (unless it is unintelligent in which case it ignores the creator but goes on a rampage) , so it might choose to follow the creator's instructions.

15% chance after spending thousands of gold and days of work seems pretty bad. If the wizard had gotten a critical success on the secondary roll (which is only a standard DC twice the spell level as level) the wizard gets a +2 to the Arcana roll. But that means the wizard (assuming the same base for the skill) needs to roll a 13+. And that means the wizard has a 25% chance to make a minion. I don't see any spell or ability that will give the wizard a better chance. And 2100gp is pretty huge even at level 13, 1/3rd the starting wealth of such a character.

Now, the alchemical golem does appear to be a tough guy with good damage and hp even considering it is four levels lower then its creator, so maybe my problem is I need to expect less? But if you go much lower then that, the minion becomes significantly less useful in combat.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
There are a lot of performances that don’t require and instrument or singing. The only class ability that you may have problems with is countersong. The list of perform skills that it can use other than singing all use instruments. As several people have suggested percussion instruments may work.

It's true that you technically cannot countersong without an instrument based performance skill or performance sing. But considering how the ability works oratory or comedy or maybe even acting should be usable by a gm that is the least bit lenient. Especially considering how rarely that ability comes into play.


Thanks, that seems a reasonable way to interpret the rules.


Lets take a situation where Combatant A has Come and Get Me and has activated it. Combatant B uses (for example) trip combat maneuver (and has the improved trip feat).

Is the trip considered an attack for the purposes of triggering Come and Get Me?

If it is (and I think it would be), if the attack of opportunity Combatant A gets hits, is the damage caused by the attack subtracted from Combatant B's roll to trip Combatant A?

1 to 50 of 370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>