Karburtin Lightbrand

Kottin's page

Organized Play Member. 15 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS


thenobledrake wrote:
Kottin wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/f9JDZ.jpg
What's the source for that?

Found it on the PF reddit. Having trouble finding the true source. But it's the only template diagram I've found the actually follows the written rules and makes sense shape wise. Idk why Paizo still uses the weird 15 ft cone when they could have made the whole thing simpler and more uniform. Reason I posted it, was it was the closest thing I could find to illustrate my point about how I believe 15ft cones should be


http://i.imgur.com/f9JDZ.jpg


After looking over everything again. I think the 15ft is the one that makes the least sense. It's the only one that can't be recreated. Thanks @Ascalaphus for pointing that out. Why aren't 15ft cones shaped more like:

-xx-
xxxx
-xx-
-o--


I think I'm just used to 5e cones. They could be place from facing square or at a point. And they were much easier to math out. Also the part where 2e cones are always quarter circles helps with the interpretations. I'll just have to ignore my grievences and get used to it not always making sense. That even though it's starts at a facing square, it appears to be starting at a point. Thanks


That's the confusing part though. Per the rules orthogonal cones. They only set up by side. Not by corner


I guess one of my biggest gripes is how they go from single line start on the 15 footers to double on the 30, with no explanation on why that occurs in the CRB. Especially considering they start from a single facing side and not from a point. Of they started from a point like diagonals, I feel like it wouldn't be as confusing. I don't like the suggestions listed from both above though. I will keep them in mind when implementing them. Thanks to all involved


Am I missing something or are orthogonal cones very sloppily explained to the point that they don't make mathematical sense give their descriptions in the CRB. Coming from 5e I expected the spells descriptions for different template sizes to make mathematical and logical sense. yet for orthogonal cones, It makes no sense given the description and the template how they work or how to widen them. The 15ft cones is the only orthogonal that makes sense. Diagonal doesn't appear to have the same issues.


Why does it appear that Aberrant and Fey sorcs get the shaft with the way their blood magic effects work with their bloodline spells and focus abilities?


Rysky wrote:
Kottin24 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

What ambiguity?

Blood Magic says you or the target.

The ambiguity is the lies in that some use different wording than others some say THE target other just simply say you or A target. This has lead to a whole reddit thread where people are throughly convinced that the ones that say A target are free choice. Their logic is that the only place it says it has the be the target of the spell is in the AoE description under reading the bloodlines.

Also Aberrant doesn't have an option that would allow you to share their effect with an ally as all of their abilities are offensive. Fey isn't much better either. So why even include or the target for those bloodlines. Whole thing wreaks or overlook similar to Alchemist and Wizard 1st level feat.

It doesn’t matter if it says “a” or “one” or “any”, target still requires the person to be a target, it doesn’t mean any person you can think of, it means the target of the spell.

For the people arguing this, just ask what is the range on this “A target”.

For the record, I 100% agree with that interpretation.

The problem arose based on how bad Aberrant and Fey blood magic effects were because they're buff effects that say you can use them on target or self, but in the case of Aberrant ,and basically the same for Fey, there just is no option to use in such a way on anyone but self. So rather than believe that Paizo simply overlooked these, they started grasping for straws to fix these half balanced effects. Also there is no line that specifically says it's always target.
It would just be nice to hear that this a problem that is even being acknowledged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

What ambiguity?

Blood Magic says you or the target.

The ambiguity is the lies in that some use different wording than others some say THE target other just simply say you or A target. This has lead to a whole reddit thread where people are throughly convinced that the ones that say A target are free choice. Their logic is that the only place it says it has the be the target of the spell is in the AoE description under reading the bloodlines.

Also Aberrant doesn't have an option that would allow you to share their effect with an ally as all of their abilities are offensive. Fey isn't much better either. So why even include or the target for those bloodlines. Whole thing wreaks or overlook similar to Alchemist and Wizard 1st level feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Kottin24 wrote:
Darn I was really hoping we'd get some clarification on blood magic effects and how some have options that are impossible to use.
Your post is not especially clear to me, but in regards to hardcoded alignment traits as exemplified by some Devil BL focus spells:
Quote:
Pages 631–632: In the definition of the evil trait and the good trait, remove the last sentence. Creatures can use abilities of an opposing alignment, but they might be anathema or change a creature’s alignment over time with repeated use.

With that fixed, it seems like Demon BL focus spells should also have Evil trait, as Devil and (Good) Angelic focus spells do.

Although how to resolve spells whose variable effect references Deity alignment may still be unclear.
(e.g. Divine Lance/Decree/Aura/Wrath "choose an alignment your deity has")
I believe the Divine Bloodlines (since this seems Divine specific issue) need a clause stating effective "Deity Alignment" to use when their spell effects depend on Deity alignment, i.e. Demon:Chaotic Evil, Devil:Lawful Evil, Angelic: just Good, and Undead:just Evil. Similar issue for things like Favored Weapon/Spiritual Weapon.

Oracle would have similar issue, although in their case would probably tend to use caster's own alignment, in contrast to Bloodlines whose Alignment may be in contrast to caster's own personal Alignment.

My concerns are more for Blood Magic effects on options like Aberrant and Fey. Where there are little to no options to use the effects on allies even though they're written as such. Also the wording has lead many to believe that the target of your spell doesn't need to be the same as blood effect,due to weird ambiguity in the wording.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Darn I was really hoping we'd get some clarification on blood magic effects and how some have options that are impossible to use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

it would really be nice if a dev weighed in. theres a whole reddit thread with people insisting that you can choose targets other than spell target or self. This really one of those situations where vague wording should have been avoided. how hard would it have been to write "target of triggering spell" or list as any target with a range. sure we can kind of piece together that it should be based on spell target, but then I just seems they didn't proof read the bloodlines to makes sure they can actually be used as written. If Fey was meant to be used on allies, they left the pc no way to do, therefore it should be written to only use on self.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you read the entry for water skin. It holds a gallon which is the daily amount for small or medium creature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't find anywhere in CRB where it states how much food and water, per size PC, is required in a day.