Kennethray's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 464 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 464 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What about using a ready action? Seems a bit silly but its possible?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with the whole, allow take backs only if the event was very recent, rounds to minutes. To be fair though, the person who forgot they had feather fall is less likely to forget it next time (or atleast actually check if they could save the pc right when they die) if there are actual consequences.

Twilight knight made a point that struck home with me. I forget things for the creatures they are fighting all the time. I hold the same standards for myself. It is very unlikely that a dragon wouldn't know when its breath weapon has recharged but it has happened. Even cool abilities I reminded myself to use the round before.

The ways that i handle this issue is established and consistent, and everyone still enjoys the games and comes back time after time. I guess that's all that matters.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This reminds me of the time the party used levitation, a rope and one good swimmer to try and cross a river. It was a good time for the giant dino birds to attack.

They had tried to do the whole "mage hand to push me while levitating" thing. I ruled that it would not work, so they found another way to do it within the rules.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Plus you can't be disarmed of handwraps. I guess you can be disarmed of your hands...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I use them as rewards or quest items. I just had a player sacrifice her character for her party and a good story. She has been asking to use the Blessed background, so she has been awarded that for her new character.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hi,

I have a player that was summoning a skunk that did a spray in a line. Now he is using a Giant Skunk. It says 15-foot cone, but then says creatures in the line... So should the giant skunk be a cone or a line? I think the text for the line is just pulled over from the regular skunk but want to make sure. (Skunk and Giant Skunk are in Beastiary 3.

Kenneth


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Blave wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Call it a rules oversight.

Skeletons and Ghosts are also not immune to Bleed effects by RAW, even though neither of them have blood, or require blood to function or stay alive.

That's not quite true. The rules for Bleeding damage say that nonliving creatures are immune to it.

Quote:
Another special type of physical damage is bleed damage. This is persistent damage that represents loss of blood. As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don't need blood to live.

Source.

It is weird that this immunity isn't listed anywhere else, though.

There was already a previous thread discussing this very thing, and there are plenty of things which don't have immunities to things and yet should be immune to those things in a realistic scenario.

After all, it might make sense for a skeleton or ghost to be immune to bleed effects, but maybe not a zombie or vampire, and all of those are non-living creatures. Vampires in particular, since they literally exist to feed off of the blood of the living to sustain themselves.

Plus, plenty of cases where Paizo chooses to be redundant and list exceptions and rules that traits or other listings already cover, so I find that if Paizo really intended for skeletons and ghosts to be immune to Bleed, they'd list it in their statblock, not unlike Golems or even other certain outsiders.

I wouldn't agree that vampires or zombies should be able to take bleed damage. Neither have a pulse and bleeding is from the heart beating and the blood leaving the body instead of cycling through, which neither of those creatures require, even if blood is something they feed on. Two different bodily systems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Call it a rules oversight.

Skeletons and Ghosts are also not immune to Bleed effects by RAW, even though neither of them have blood, or require blood to function or stay alive.

Ghost do have the incorporeal tag. It states that they typically are immune to things that requires a physical body.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Bard. The end.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
As for my proposed rewrite, other people have been saying that Arcana can be used if a skill action or feat requires a check (either Nature, Occultism, or Religion) that is related to a magical tradition. That is in fact two separate requirements.

Yes, that's the houserule some people have proposed, but saying "I want to change the feat to do this" is different than saying "the feat should say this for clarity purposes"

Yes, the feat kind of sucks. So just... change it. Not a big deal. Maybe Paizo will errata it to be more useful later. Or maybe they think it's fine and won't. Either way.

No, that's not a house rule that some people have proposed, it's how they (not I) interpret RAW. If UT is intended to apply to Identify Magic, Trick Magic Item and Recognize Spell only, then the text of UT should mention that explicitly.

This is a Rules Discussion thread, not a Homebrew and House Rules thread. So saying "Just change it" isn't meaningful, to be honest.

I doubt they would put that it just effects those specific things since that would prevent it from being able to be used in future additions. For future proofing some of it has to be let vague/broad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Under consumables in core rulebook. Activated ammunition: you use an action to "launch" it and additional actions to activate it. It all happens when you fire it. So no casting and storing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Founder of Wolfburg wrote:

The Post from "Rocnaw" is mine, the default is messing up. But, to prove my point a little bit further here are two very logical things you can do with climbing kits:

1.) don't buy the solitary rope. Buy climbing kits (the same price as a single 50 ft rope) and leave everything but the rope home.

2.) buy climbing kits. Keep the rope, sell every thing else. Free money.

There is no point to the single rope and the climbing kit to be the same price.

I'm not sure how others run it but I run it where buying and selling takes time. Normally a day of downtime unless its like a single specific item. With this it would take at least a day to buy climbing kits, take them apart and then find someone to buy the parts with a chance of noone wanting to buy, you would make more with earn income.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cordell Kintner wrote:
Exton Land wrote:
For Medicine checks Pg 248 holds for ending the persistent bleed. Pg 621's GM decides only comes into play when "there's not a specific action that applies". Here we do have a specific action, Administer First Aid. If you're doing something else, like cauterizing the wound with produce flame (ouch!), then you could do the DC 10 to end the bleed.
On top of taking some fire damage. Might be worth it for a particularly nasty bleed effect though.

Or to prevent a creature from gaining a benefit they may have for there being a bleeding pc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If I am reading it right, the argument is the number of items that can be retrieved with a single interact action is equal to the number of limbs/arms/hands?? This is one of those arguments I can not even sorta see as being possibly correct.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah I think its a legacy thing and some people just don't want to use it. I don't think a reason should be demanded to explain someone else's fun.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just as a side note, if you play pathfinder society the feat would be lost.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I know this is not an answer, but, can you clarify on the Klaus/Bruce banner part? I'm not seeing that with the description. I loved Klaus btw, was wondering if its his ghost abilities or his love of drugzzz.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Breastplate of command is armor with bonus to diplomacy.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My bad, was thinking concealed. No reason for me to get any of those conditions mixed up.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

More like undetected then hidden, hidden can still be targeted.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

It's always nice to take a little bit of a break from a discussion and come back at it with a fresh set of eyes.

How would people feel about this?

In the Core Rulebook we're given guidance that Lore DCs should be lower than the corresponding Arcana/Crafting/Nature/Occultism/Religion/Society check to Recall Knowledge, representing that character's specialized training. But I think (hope?) most people would agree that having access to ALL Lore subcategories is obviously more generalistic. Therefore, when calculating DCs for Clever Improviser, don't use the lower Lore DC. Go with the standard DC instead to represent their non-specific training.

It rewards people who have Clever Improviser while still leaving room for actual Lore specialists to shine.

Hmm, are there any questions one might answer with Lore but not with any of Arcana/Crafting/Nature/etc? If so, this rewards the Clever Improviser as you say. If not, it seems to me to be effectively the same as "Clever Improviser does not apply to Lore." That is, if your improv'd Vampire Lore gets the same DC as Religion, there's no advantage to not just using Religion instead, either trained or improv'd.
The advantage is using Intelligence for Lore and not investing in multiple skills.

I agree with this. The advantage being you don't have to invest lots into all the skills that use recall.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The tick swarm has a very similar effect and I used it to great effect.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Seems to me that nothing changes mechanically just flavor. The wizard rolls their intimidation to intimidate a creature. I guess the range could be a factor but not necessarily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Similar to the spell phantasmal killer only has one part that is subject to incapacitation and not the whole spell/ability there is just the text and not the tag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Unless there is something like fatal involved which changes the original roll.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Interesting, falling is under the movement rules, trip cause someone to fall, would grapple then trip get weird?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
YogoZuno wrote:
Given that Secret Checks are now explicitly a thing...then all non-Secret checks should be non-secret by default, right?

I'm not sure the logic applies. The secret tag means the gm can choose to roll for the pc then inform them of what happens however they deem appropriate. They already do that for all npc's by default.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

EMS use to use ABC's for Airway, Breathing and Circulation. They added D before I moved on from ems to stand for Defibrillator. It was easy enough to say/remember but that may be due to it being drilled into us for 8 hours once every few years.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Then the npc with the same feat throws that arrow at your squishy. big ole game of hot potato.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
Kennethray wrote:
I am pretty sure Mark said in an interview that steel weapons were 100% steel so counted as high grade for rune purposes.

That would work.

You could absolutely say weapons made out of wood etc are high grade already from the start.

It would mean ignoring the single sentence in the rulebook that implies you start out with low-grade wood... but there would be zero difference in practical play, so go for it.

What line is that sir? CRB says that the materials with the precious trait are the only ones with the limitations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with mrspaghetti.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Loreguard wrote:

Well, technically, the Balrog (or whatever was being discussed) isn't weak against High-grade cold-iron. It is just weak to Cold-iron. But if the claimed restriction for ammunition is true, low grade cold-iron ammunition (or other weapons) may be unable to carry -strong enchantments- conferred to their ammunition from their magical ranged weapon.

So in such a case, the peasant throwing the simple cold iron dagger and getting a 20 (so they narrowly hit) will do dagger damage +20 for the weakness.

If an archer with a +3 major striking bow, puts a low grade arrow in their bow and shoots it off, I think the bow will still cause a +20 damage for the weakness, but will either not be considered magical, or might be scaled back to +1 regular striking arrow (based on those being the highest form of those runes the arrow could hold). A standard-grade silver arrow would potentially act like a +2 greater striking arrow, as it would be the highest enchantment it cold hold. Note it wouldn't do extra damage due to it not being the type of material that they are weak against. It seems reasonable that it would scale back to the highest version of the rune that would work, since they sort of imply that runes are additive. (that a +2 rune includes a +1 rune as a part of it as a starting point)

Oh... well... should have used a regular arrow, I knew there was a reason I kept that quiver on the left side.

Now do such arrows have to be that expensive, that is a reasonable question, but I don't think it makes using special materials unusable, it just makes the choice a little more dynamic if it impacts your item bonus and raw damage you do, if you use them. (and yes, makes calculating those facts more complicated at higher levels)

Depends on the Balrogs ac. I'm not sure where to find that creature. A nat 20 only increases the success by one step, so if it would normally be a critical miss the nat 20 is still a miss.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am pretty sure Mark said in an interview that steel weapons were 100% steel so counted as high grade for rune purposes.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think that is a unfair comparison. Maybe more like a back draft would be a closer example.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I would avoid treating it as a shield since shields have different rules for applying damage and when.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm fine with the current rules in our game. it works out well.. I just don't like that one skill covers all the different crafting types.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Red Griffyn wrote:

#5 x a Million.

The best run scenarios feel like the whole thing goes off super smoothly and with great pacing. There is no single or multiple 30 minute delays while the GM catches up (i.e., drawing maps, reading monster abilities, figuring out scenario mechanics, etc.), the GM has an answer to most questions or can re-direct to keep things moving, and ultimately the session carries its momentum throughout. A combination of just enough prep AND good improv to adjust when PCs do something unscripted/unexpected.

The worst run scenarios have frequent pauses, fights over mechanics/rules, multiple GM ret-cons because they don't actually know how the scenario ends and the story/mechanical continuity gets broken by one of their decisions earlier on in the session. These are more often then not the GMs who didn't even read it once or 'lightly skimmed it' and rely on improving their way through 4-5 hours. Unless your the GM equivalent of a "Who's Line is it Anyways" improv actor with a correct encyclopedic knowledge of bestiary, you shouldn't be relying on just improving through 4+ hours of GMing.

The 'bare-scrape-the-bottom-of-the-barrel-minimum' prep as a GM is to:
1.) Read the whole PFS scenario, module, or AP ONCE.

A good level of prep is:
1.) Read the whole PFS scenario, module, or AP TWICE (once before and once for the section you're going to run the day of or day before so it is fresh in your mind)

2.) Think about the parts of the scenario that will be awkward, less engaging, bog down play/lose momentum,etc. and prep something to make it go faster.

[e.g. 1] example, if there is a race mechanic think of some descriptions of what successful checks do, create an excel table to add up the 6 teams race progress BEFORE the session so you aren't spending 30 mins calculating it at the end and ret-con your PC's team losing (though knowing their position during the race might have made them take different actions).

[e.g. 2] highlight or make a 1 pager of weird in...

Wayyyyyy to much. Both as a post and the point.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Brew Bird wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
A Crit from a Level 4 Fighter Power Attacking with a Striking Weapon is indeed beautiful to behold, but often ends up being overkill for anything other than the Boss.
It's about sending a message.

Violence is not the answer. Violence is how you get the answer.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm not sure who luke the Golden robot is, but as far as the spell, it seems they would call out that you can not carry people of that was the case. Similar to floating disk spell. But there have been things that don't match at times, so who knows.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thenimblebanana wrote:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1368

Could someone give me a quick explanation of this variant rule? I'm a little confused by the Property Rune Slots and Item level for the different tiers.

Is item level just what level the characters are supposed to be able to have that gear?
Does the Property Rune Slot mean it has the effects of one of the potency runes?

Item level is the same for every item. It determines several things, dc to craft, when it should show up in treasure, where it can be sold etc. The property rune slots shows how many they can hold, since magic weapon/armor have those limited by fundamental runes and high-quality weapons/armor are not able to hold fundamental runes.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with thenobledrake. I run the hardness that way cause shields. Not 100% sure if that is the way it was intended to work.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I feel like the exploding shield in the APG should be considered as a consumable item based on its price and what it does. This is solely for the purposes of filling out treasure for a level appropriate party.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
Unless we're suggesting not that the writer made an accidental inclusion of a bunch of words, and instead assuming when they wrote this section they somehow forgot that magic healing that isn't a spell even exists.

Er, more like the writer forgetting that elixers of life are (a) magical and (b) aren't a spell.

Which is a very believable thing, given that different people work on different parts of the rules all the time.

Elixirs of life are not magical. Healing potions are.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I run a table of 7. I tried different methods, upping the creature level for a solo monster ended in disaster. Now I jut make two encounters, 1 for 4 players and 1 for 3 players and then combine them. Works well enough, just takes more time to play.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In pfs you can not have your character take anything from another character past the current scenario so I would doubt that would work.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Schreckstoff wrote:

So I saw the RAI that makes that no longer an option for human half elves because they don't live long enough but with the optional half elf heritage for other ancestors something like a dwarven half elf should be be an option.

The other thing is more theoretical since I don't believe I'll start a character at 14th level maybe ever but monks get a feat that makes them stop aging which should also theoretically enable human half elves.to live long enough to be ancient.

So is it pointless to theorize around dwarf/elves gnome/elves or too much trying to powergame? Because it's not intended by RAW and would a starting lvl 14 monk be able take a lvl 14 feat before a lvl 1 heritage feat?

About the feats, it calls out you are only able to take feats at a level if you were able to take it at the time of the specific level. So no you could not base the prerequisites of a feat for 1st level off a feat that will happen at later levels. To take a first level feat as a level 1 feat you must have been able to take it at level 1.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I find it works great as is.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There is one in age of ashes.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Do they know they crit failed?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wow I just had a vision of a game where the pc's find a mad scientist bad guy who has been draining sorcerer's for their blood so that he can make potions that allow you to regain focus like sorcerer's do.

1 to 50 of 464 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>