Kainite101's page

24 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Giant instinct has wrong raging resistance. Should be:

You resist bludgeoning damage and your choice of cold,
electricity, or fire, chosen when you gain raging resistance.

We are currently having the same conversation in my group... One of the ideas we were kicking around was introducing penalty mods to the rolls for divided attention. That way it was viable, less optimal, and still let the rogue and ranger shine when they could do 2 things without penalty. Currently we were bouncing around a -2 to primary task, and -4 to secondary task. The idea that yeah you can do that, but your odds are much lower. The side effect of course will be multiple rolls to see if someone succeeds. Which leads back to the "everyone searches for secret door" and with 5 people, chances are stacked that it will always be found. So in some ways I like the single action dedication (prevents the almost "auto-success" of something like detect/search), but does seem to hamper the stealth guy in front when it comes to traps and such...

My line of thinking was it was 2 actions to activate and lift, another action to throw (attack action), this would also help reduce shenanigans.

The problem with the feather analogy is the part that reads-

The object still has its full weight and Bulk for all other purposes—you just ignore that weight

It still has all its mass if you swung it and hit something (like say a telephone pole wielded like a staff), or toss it like a spear. The object is not weightless in itself in your possession, you simply ignore the weight...

I guess a fast rule off the cuff would be more like range 5 or 10 at best (throwing 2 handed sucks, unless you Olympic hammer toss I guess). Make the damage 1d6 per 15 pounds and the critter gets a basic reflex save vs the attack roll? Want to make it something, but not too good it becomes standard. Although I can see doing the whole Thor thing and setting it on something and saying "don't move!"...


This wide leather belt grants you a +1 item bonus to Athletics checks and increases the amount you can easily carry. You can carry Bulk equal to 6 + your Strength modifier before becoming encumbered, and you can hold and carry a total Bulk up to 11 + your Strength modifier.

Activate (Two Actions Interact) - Effect You lift an object of up to 8 Bulk as though it were weightless. This requires two hands, and if the object is locked or otherwise held in place, you can attempt to Force it Open using Athletics as part of this activation. The object still has its full weight and Bulk for all other purposes—you just ignore that weight. The effect lasts until the end of your next turn.

So can you throw the object? Let's say a bulk 8 rock (40 - 80 lbs, depending on how you rule it according to bulk rules if I read it right..) If you can throw it, 20 foot range? And then there would be damage?

Seems silly that it would lose all momentum after leaving your hand...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We found we always forgot to use them, and to hand them out. And when we did remember them, we hoarded them to save us from kill shots on ourselves... We changed it to a shared pool using poker chips on table in a pile next to the map and started "remembering" to use them and also make it likely someone would use it to do something heroic, rather than hoard that only point for a bad save roll or getting crit hit... And sometimes RNG is just nasty to someone all night, and the blessed player never needs them, so sharing the pool helps out on that for us anyways...

thenobledrake wrote:

size doesn't affect jumping distance.

there's also no reason for size to affect jumping distance, unless it's to reduce it for getting larger.

Seems a little ludicrous that a Huge giant has the same 3 foot vertical leap as a Medium sized human (heck he can probably get most the height simply by standing on tippy-toes)... even more silly when you say he could step over the 4 foot high wall, but has same chance to fail jumping over the same wall as the Human... The giant could fall face first farther than he could leap without a check...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Unicore wrote:

I was just looking over the errata today for other reasons, and realized that they did errata the Battle Medicine feat, and chose not to add in any wording about requiring healer's tools.

This makes it pretty clear that the developers chose to exclude the healer's tools as a requirement and didn't just accidentally leave them off, because if the feat was supposed to require them and work as is, that would have been a very easy fix that would have happened at the same time.

To be fair, one could also just as easily reasonably surmise from this that they were not ready to take an official position on the matter.

Thus, this does not strike me as evidencing either "side" of the issue, leaving us back to the original debate at hand.

I offered this up though as a counter to people who think the exclusion of text stating it requires healer's tools was a mistake in the first place. If it was just a mistake, and the wording should have specified that it did require them, and nothing else about the ability was going to be subject to change, then certainly they would have already added that text to the feat, because they made one simple change to it already.

Clearly they were willing to make a change to establish clarity that the ability did not remove the wounded condition, that doesn't seem like any simpler change then, "oh yeah, this ability is supposed to require healer's tools and we forgot to mention that."

It is possible that they are waiting to make some other change to the ability, but it seems pretty clear that the wording of this feat is deliberately different from other uses of the medicine skill, and the absence of a line requiring healer's tools was not a simple error.

Also they could have simply said "Allows you to use Treat Wounds as a single action instead of 10 min...". Instead of the long paragraph they use to say it uses the DC of Treat wound and cures the same amount, and saved on word count, which is also usually a big deal in the printing world.

I did a search but didn't find anything about size of a creature changing the jump height or distance. If I missed it, could you kindly point me towards it?

Otherwise... Does a large, huge, ect creature get a bonus to the height/distance? Or a bonus to the check? Our Barbarian is about to hit level 6 soon and wants to take the Giants Stature feat and we are trying to figure out how to handle it. A few of the ideas we have were either double the base distances for leap but felt the long jump might be too far... The other idea was bonus to the roll (maybe +2 or +4), but then the crit fail can be weird in certain situations for short jumps(crit fail a 4 foot high jump for example)... Ideas?

One final question:
Using then AOE (3 action) version, it states in under targets: "willing living creature", I assume that would not heal the enemy NPC's then since they would not be willing (unless they had some way to know the spell using a reaction ability to discern it) and vice versa for the PC's when an enemy casts it... That is correct? or does the weird caveat for the 3 action override "You disperse positive energy in a 30-foot emanation. This targets all living and undead creatures in the area."

One advantage is that it does not have the attack trait, so no MAP... But it does appear to be a subpar damage spell compared to most equal level spell slots when heightened, other then a few niche instances vs weakness creatures with resistance to most elements. But it also has more versatility I guess with the 1, 2, 3 action option.

If I read it correctly when using Harm (or Heal vs Undead). No matter which version you use (1,2, or 3 action), you only do 1d8 damage per spell level slot. The 2 action version specifically says (Harm says same for healing undead):

"If you’re healing a living creature, increase the Hit Points restored by 8."

Nothing about extra positive or negative, just flat out extra healing...

The same thing can be said about the 3 action version. It only does the base 1d8 per spell level slot (Healing or Damage)...

Is this correct?


Under companion types about halfway thru the paragraph, and the following section listing support action.

Requires a command action (1 action), and the companion can only move and provide the support action listed for it for that round during it's turn.

whew wrote:
When making a stern glance, what appendage is being used to Manipulate? Since you're clearly more interested in mocking the rules than interpreting them in a coherent manner, why should we take your opinion seriously?

I was using the same language people are using to "mock" the skill to begin with. Let's be "coherent" about what HP are first, see above book quotes from p459. People take issue with a non bandage type healing, by bringing up the hypothetical sword thru the chest scenario. Yet these grievous wounds do not affect the characters ability to run, fight, climb, swim, ect, in the slightest... In fact whether you have 1 hp or 250 hp, you function the same for performing all actions. Take it farther and lets say the "sword thru the chest", "crushed skull", "broken bones" only happens 0 hp and dying. Yet somehow slapping a bandage on makes you right back to "can perform anything at full functionality" That broken limb? splint and a bandaid, and your good to run the next tri-athalon. That dagger thru the chest? I stitched it up and all the muscle and tendons are back together again, that concussion is all better now...

As for the "that sounds like a charisma check". Maybe, one could also then argue Int and Wis just as easily, knowing what to do(knowledge), when to do it and how to do it(Wis). At the end of the day to keep it simple, they picked a stat that universally applied to keep it simple.

As for manipulate, I could go into that your head is an appendage (appendage is not just limbs/hands look it up), since I know your going to bring up the second half of manipulate, and your head is required for a gesture (the first sentence) such as a nod, wink, spoken word (the second sentence, defining the action):

"You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait. Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait. Manipulate actions often trigger reactions." p.633

I believe that meets the criteria for manipulate action (defined an appendage, and an action). But I will say that maybe they use manipulate action to keep it simple, as it is still a distracting action, especially when it comes to AoO and triggering reactions from enemies and allies alike (see Aid another if your wondering why I say ally). I could list a host of other examples, but I think all it will invite is more "what about -ism's" that frankly are not neccessarily relavant, but are more of an attempt to side-track, and disparage, rather than dialogue...

As Beowolf99 stated - "Head canon it as you will..."

Is that "coherant" (your words, not mine) enough? I am sorry that presenting a point of view and an example is "mocking" and not being "serious" enough for you. It was presented as a "food for thought" and also to re-iterate what the book defines HP as (not what we sometimes project it as, raw damage), they are more than just how "many times I can get stabbed thru the chest before I die".

**editing to add this point of clarification. I am focusing on the nod, whatever... to illustrate that particular action. You could expand that to the universal thumbs up pick me up, dance a jig to raise your spirits and make you smile, a physical gesture that is personal to you that conveys somehting (the trainer gesturing to the boxer)... and so on...


These sort of powers seem appropriate for high level martial characters. They have to be special and legendary at this sort of level.

But I do take your point, the caster using a high level spell should be doing more damage than this. Hit points have inflated again in this edition but spell damage has not. Magic needs to be awesome.

But one could argue, that while the individual spell damage might appear to be lower for higher level spells, it is also way easier to cast multiple spells, bringing the tally back up on a DPR basis?

Hiruma Kai wrote:

Personally, I like the stern glance viewpoint for battle medicine, since hit points are not just physical wounds.

Core Rule Book, page 459 wrote:
All creatures and objects have Hit Points (HP). Your maximum Hit Point value represents your health, wherewithal, and heroic drive when you are in good health and rested.

I feel a stern glance could be described as restoring your wherewithal and heroic drive.

A character can be at 0 hit points without a single physical wound on their body if its inflicted by mental damage for example. I presume treat wounds action in that case is more like counseling instead of binding up wounds to stop bleeding.

Out of curiosity, do people have similar issues with hero points that they do with the no-hand battle medicine? Thats is a case of no one taking an action, but the character stops dying or bleeding out on the floor or whatever. Why can't you flavor battle medicine in the same way? Some kind of heroic grit keeping you moving against all odds?

I think you hit the nail on the head, more eloquently then my earlier post. HP are abstract, and I think many get tripped up on that. They equate every sword hit as actual physical wounds, rather then an abstract depletion of resources (mental, physical, whatever...) "Healing" is simply replenishing those resources. Take the marathon runner, too tired to go on. But a "stern glance" of encouragement, or a "pep talk", can make them rise back up with a sense of renewed vigor... And before you try to say exhaustion is not the same, I can make the same case for MMA, boxing, ect... And any other physical sports, wartime experience from veterans, cancer patients... Sometimes all you need is a kind word, a gesture, a glance, to receive a renewed sense of vigor and shake off the pain and continue on...

Want an in-game example, compare it to Orc Ferocity. In a round about way, it is basically a free heal. Through force of will, stubborn, ect..., You healed yourself the amount of damage below 1 HP. And no one questions that for some reason...

The perception disconnect is saying every strike is a purely physical wound and requires medical bandages and such, in a game that states HP are a general state of everything (physical, mental, heroics, wherewithal, ect...). They are a "resource pool", and as such a mental boost can "replenish" that resource pool to. It isn't just a purely physical wound when someone rolls a successful hit with a sword. HP and damage are abstract, simplified way to express interaction between them.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One issue I see is what others here have brought up. The old tactics do not work like they used to. A few examples to think about (and these are my opinions...) and these are really simplified, but hope I get my point across...

PF, 5th, ect... The melee combat specialists would rush the enemy and get their full attack in ASAP (the rule of hit first and put them on defensive if able). The problem is the new action economy seems to punish that tactic most of the time. You used 1, possibly 2 actions to close, and maybe get one attack in. Meanwhile the mob retaliate can either try for 3 attacks, 2 action specials + attack, and so on. That can instantly turn the tide if they get 2 good hits sometimes vs your 1. Especially at lower levels.

AoO are rare now. No longer can the front line hold the enemy at bay by fear of guaranteed AoO and dictate where the combat line is. People are free to do drive by's now. This can prolong combat, something the blitzkrieg used to prevent (and made DPS better then healing that round most of the time), and giving PC and NPC breathing space to heal, potion, scroll, that they normally would avoid because of the AoO fears.

Personally I have found it more advantageous to close within 30 feet of melee mobs, toss my thrown weapon (and draw main and shield raise, depending on fighting style if needed). This allows me my one attack, and forces most NPC to use 2 actions to close to me to get one attack. Then my turn rolls around with fresh 3 actions (advantage to me since i get more actions directly to the mob instead of the mob getting 3 first), which can now be used to do things like trip, attack and move, or 3 full attacks first (which was kinda how the old systems worked, run up and get full attacks BEFORE the NPC did if able for advantage) This combo when it works, then forces the mob to waste an action getting up (forcing AoO from low level fighters and possibly mid-level others, makes the rogue get free sneak attack with melee or ranged without having to flank, and everyone else bonus to hit). The game seems to favor action denial tactics at low level (Have not played above 5th yet as we just started). Even if you only limit their actions once, it puts the advantage back in your hands, where as the go first charger from the first example is disadvantaged now (vs first to go usually had massive advantage) if he got hit hard, or some other action denial on round 1. Point being the mob is dictating your players pace, instead of vice versa, and controlling the battle (which is a new tactic moving away from the simple bash it tactics of old that worked due to OP optimization that created weird multiple synergies that were way above what the NPC could achieve unless the GM hyper specialized them too..) Now the NPC and PC are almost equals in HP, DMG, AC, Saves, and the like... Th player no longer has the built in 20% (just tossing a number out) advantage due to good optimization vs standard NPC.

That's my take anyways...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think what most people are saying is that this theoretical scenario, doesn't translate into the actual in this hypothetical. In a perfect world, where the barbarian materializes in a group of enemies who do nothing every round every time, then yes, he can "fireball" every round non stop. But to say this is how combats go this way at level 15, in my opinion, is ludicrous at best (open enough area, perfect grouping for rounds unending, starting in middle of the combatants, ect..).

But that aside, your also not allowing ANY tactics that a reasonable NPC would use. Let's say we meet all the requirements and the barbarian finds himself in the midst of his enemies, he swings and hits... And no one is dead at that level and damage. Now the enemies get to go. Why are they doing nothing? They are standing "in the fire" and doing nothing? The barb get's his A-HAH moment of surprise, wouldn't the enemy do something about that? Things that come to mind are trip, strike and stride away, grapple, ect... So I don't think it's reasonable that he can do that after his round of "shock and awe".

You also built a highly specialized, optimized PC (optimized to use whirlwind) using feats and magic items, but compare it to a no feat-non optimized caster with no magic items. Here is quick and dirty optimized elemental sorcerer - takes the 3 focus spell feats - gets Elemental Blast focus spell (and is heightened to level 8 automatically at level 15). Now slightly less area (but easily fixed with widen feat, and bringing it on par to 3 action vs 3 action move), but way more utility as it can be area, cone, or line. Does base 14d6+8 (avg 57 dmg). He can do this 3 times every combat (provided a 10-20 min rest depending on feats, not unreasonable while others search the room...), 4 times with a familiar. And not expend a single spell slot. And no magic items (although to be fair I am not sure what would help endlessly and am too lazy to look to be honest). And has an action left every round (so why not quickened heightened Fireball 6, for another 12d6+6 (avg 47)... and that's a poor use of a 6th level slot but simplest way to illustrate. can do that 4 times a day, and then when that runs out - lower to fireball 5, and so on...

There are more things to add that can further optimize this, but I don't see the need to demonstrate a counter example. I will also say the Sorcerer has greater utility in doing the damage via range, area, cone, or line. Especially after the NPC's should be doing SOMETHING to counter the tactic after round 1 (scatter, trip, mass damage to kill, grapple... ect). Also the sorcerer can sill try to cast while grappled, or tripped (and maybe not a good chance, but can at least get up from trip and blast or use 1 action to try escape). The whirlwind cannot as it is 3 actions to whirlwind...

My group, through sheer dumb luck, managed to bee-line to the encounter with Calmont. For those worried about the characters heading back to town right then and there and being under leveled for the following chapter, remind them that the goblins are worried about other cultists left that might be roaming the first floor. They can volunteer (or with Warbal outside) to watch the captured hafling while they "root out the cultists", even though there are none on the fist floor. Pull at the heartstrings (and personal greed for loot!)... As for Calmont spilling the beans about Voz, as others have said, he is a very disgruntled employee with an ax to grind, and at this point in the adventure there is no reason to suspect Voz as she is the victim and can easily play that card. Have townspeople vouch for her if need be...

Ahh, I do not have that book and don't know anything that is in it. Thank you.

ofMars wrote:
I mean, it's still once per battle, so I guess it's not too powerful, just seemed like an overlooked interaction. The first time it came up, I compromised and let him do the treat wounds DC and action but only have the administer first aid success

If you are talking about Battle Medicine, it's 1/day per recipient.

The target is then temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 day." CRB p.259

Not once per battle...

It was more of a thematic looking choice, not a max optimization idea. We came across a bear, and got a nat 20 on the nature handle animal check. Wasn't looking for it to be a front line tank by any means. A flanking buddy/harasser maybe. But I am somewhat confused by the commands.

Do you have to issue a command every round for it to get it's 2 actions (until mature, where it get's 1 if not commanded), even if the command was something like kill that enemy? Wouldn't it be smart enough to continue attacking that enemy round to round? And then have to issue a a new command after that?

Thank you, completely missed it in both classes and is a lot higher level then I thought it would be. So you can't multiclass into it, must be either ranger or druid to begin with. Was toying with idea of Barbarian multiclass into Druid or Ranger for animal companion...

I am probably missing something somewhere, but how do animal companions gain a specialization? p217 CRB. Is it a class feat I am just not seeing from Ranger or Druid? Is it a natural thing that happens at a certain level? Thanks in advance...

oholoko wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

Giant Instinct is a really thematically cool idea implemented in an asinine way. Forget Clumsy, the real issue is all your abilities come from wielding a special large size weapon. You only get one of these, so if you lose it, you might be boned.

There's no other class out there whose abilities are linked to one specific weapon. It's extremely poorly conceived and designed.

What they should've done is tied your abilities to being bigger and stronger than anyone else. You know, like a giant. Instead of wielding some stupid special weapon.

You can get other large weapons, or make them yourself in downtime.
I understand that. However, that doesn't fix the core problem that without one of these uncommon weapons, you have no class abilities.
I can see your point, if you are locked without a way to craft and only 'regular' shops it can be annoying. But it's not that bad for such a damage bonus.

I guess I have not lost my weapons very often, even less often lose my main magic weapon at higher levels. But everyone's game is different (usually do AP and pre-gen's). So in my experience, losing weapons is very rare at best. Personally if it happening so much that it affect's your character as more than a temp inconvenience, that's on the GM (because ultimately he has control, and doing that often enough to cause a problem to someone is going out of your way to hinder a specific character). But again, each person's playstyle is different. But ask your self how often your character has lost their main magic weapon thru-out a campaign and for how long until they could replace it (couple days? That's not very long in most campaigns).

You partially lose a single class ability. You can still rage for the base damage with a regular weapon (+2). While definately not optimal, still functional. The giant sized feats still work normal (Giant Stature and Titan Stature) as they have no weapon size restrictions (you simply lose out on the base bonus damage beyond +2 from the original rage ability), and outside RAW, make a case that you get the +2 bonus damage (since your not attempting to stack size bonuses like the shenanigans of PF1) like regular enlarge. Not peak performance, but again, not crippling. Especially for short term day or two. There is also improvised weapons (again sub-optimal, but large tree branch as a large staff for example). Piece of dungeon furniture, bones of a large/Huge critter as club... ect - If you really want that bonus damage).

All the above, and no one complains about how often the wizard loses their spellbook (and that is far more devastating) as a counter reference to losing class ability (once you use up your spells... and far harder to replace and regain all those spells)

Stating "you have no class abilities" without the one weapon is grossly overstating it. Your still have ALL your other class abilities(only Rage ability affected, and at reduced functionality), and all your class feats function fully regardless of the weapon size...

And the argument about "clumsy" is saying that the difference between a 10 and a 12 stat (or any 2 point change, same bonus difference of -1 to overall chack) will make or break a character feels a little silly and seems to smack of munchkin-ism to me, especially when you can use a ranged weapon, sneak, so long as you are not wielding it at same time (1 action is wasted total per combat length to draw it IF you go that route to dodge a -1 check). You get a huge bonus to damage that scales with level (no other instinct does - without additional feats) as a trade off (that doubles on a crit).