I'd argue that "throwing magical bolts of deadly energy at people to determine if they're a good person" isn't really a Good action. In fact, in terms of the laws of most civilized areas, I'd assume doing so would be considered at minimum assault and lead to the perpetrator being thrown in jail.
An act being criminal doesn’t necessarily correspond to its being evil. Sometimes people are thrown into jail for good acts.
I think the issue here is with the interpretation of the phrase "fail to strike down evil." and with assuming, as many have (in my opinion incorrectly done) for years, that doing 'bad things' is immediately excused if you are doing them to 'bad people'.
In the case of a follower of Sarenrae, it’s not a matter of being “excused” id if you do bad things to bad people, it’s literally your duty to do one particular bad thing to bad people, i.e. striking them down. If you fail to do so you fail Sarenrae.
And the the "but my deity says I have to!" line of thought: "strike down evil" is not necessarily synonymous with "kill evil."
Likewise “kill evil” is not necessarily synonymous with “end the life is evil beings. Putting on a really funny standup act before an evil-aligned audience is also killing evil.
Doug Hahn wrote:
I’m not sure I understand what the issue is. If Lini wants Groofami to flank with Merisiel, Lini has the action with which to give the command, and Droogami has sufficient movement to get there, Droogami will get into flanking. I don’t see what it matters whether that’s because Droogami understands the command “flank” (which doesn’t seem like such a huge stretch to me — real world animals can be highly trained and Animal Companions are at least a little bit fantastical) or because Lini picks the flanking square and Droogami goes.
People keep saying Droogami won’t act to maintain or reestablish flanking on her own, but that’s not necessarily because she doesn’t know how to flank so much as because she has the minion trait and so generally won’t act of her own volition.
If a player insists that he wants to have a weapon drawn during exploration mode, tell him he can. And that if he wants, he can also have his shield ready.
If I’ve given the impression that this is a matter of a player insisting I’ve been doing it wrong, let me clear that up. I’m the GM, I noticed that I’ve probably been doing it wrong, and I intend to fix it.
Behind the scenes, apply the Defend exploration activity.
I think Defend only applies if the PC wants to start with their shield raised. Having a weapon in hand seems to only matters if having a full hand impedes the selected exploration activity or, as mentioned before, there’s a social constraint in play.
My only gripe with exploration activities is the way it makes you choose either/or. Only at very high levels can you use both Stealth and Perception, for example.
That’s not an unreasonable gripe, but I don’t think I share it. Generally picking one activity per PC streamlines and regularizes Exploration Mode, which I appreciate.
During their turn taking watch a character might not have their weapon ready. That's prime narrative time to be having a snack or otherwise doing some self-entertaining activity to help keep them awake and aware.
You’re not wrong, but I’d feel pretty awful enforcing that after having needlessly rendered my PCs unarmed for months.
They do exist! They've been presented as a collective, likely to try and make sure that folks not familiar with riding animals themselves don't buy one or two of the needed implements and forget some others...
I totally missed that!
Details on p. 291, price of 4 gp.
I’ll definitely take a look. Knowing now that it even exists, I can more reasoably decide how to handle the hand use requirements for riding in Exploration Mode.
Now, exploration mode also happens in a city, too. And there may be a social impact if the heroes go around town with their swords drawn.
To be clear, even if I drop Unarmed Exploration as a general rule, there are situations in which it would clearly still apply, generally for social reasons, as you say.
We’re hex crawling in the wilderness, so encounters during sleep aren’t all that uncommon, and it seems obvious only the character on watch would be armed at the moment of initiative.
All the PCs are generally mounted when outdoors, as well, so I’m not sure I buy that they’d be riding with weapons drawn as a general rule, though considering that bridles, reins and saddles don’t exist in 2E, I suppose perhaps all riders use their knees to control their mounts, so hands are always available for weapons.
What I do know is this: the word "weapon" doesn't shop up within the sections of the rule book that talk about exploration mode, and the next best place I could think of to put a rule that you're assumed not to have weapons ready while exploring (unless they are shields) - the section "Wielding Items" in the equipment chapter - doesn't say anything about a restriction while exploring either.
I’m all but satisfied that this isn’t a thing. The only doubt that remains is on the basis that the CRB isn’t very well organized so I could have missed a rule somewhere else.
And when it comes to the feats you mention, they don't imply not being generally able to have a weapon ready either.
The Rogue in one of my campaigns has made great use of Quick Draw within Encounter Mode switching between bow and shortsword, in addition to using it every first round of combat because we’ve been using Unarmed Exploration, so I can see it’s a good feat even without what I’m fairly sure was a misunderstanding.
In the Playtest it seemed to be generally assumed that PCs walked around unarmed in Exploration mode, and if they wanted a weapon in hand, they had to spend an action to draw that weapon once Encounter Mode began. I am almost certain that the first time I played “actual” 2E, in a demo at Origins 2019, my PC, Valeros, had to draw his sword at the beginning of the first encounter.
On the basis of the Playtest and that Origins experience, when my group began playing 2E we continued to assume that characters entered Encounter Mode unarmed. A comment made in another thread made me question that, and I went to the CRB looking for answers. My latest read doesn’t seem to support the notion that characters are assumed to be unarmed, but it’s sufficiently ingrained at this point that when I mentioned it to one of my players, he wasn’t quite sure either, pointing to feats such as Quick Draw or the new Swashbuckler feat Swaggering Initiative, which seem to be aimed at that rule. So we played yesterday’s session under the “Unarmed Exploration” convention, and I’m only just asking this now, so we’ll probably play that way today as well, but I’m less and less certain that it’s correct.
So, to wrap this all into a question, any insight?
N N 959 wrote:
All of these characters have perception above all else. What separates them from others is their ability to notice clues that others miss. It is decidedly not that they all have relentless intellects.
Part of the issue here is the question of what Perception represents in the clue-gathering context. Is it literally perceiving the existence of a clue or is it understanding the significance? Is there a difference between the two? If there is a difference, are they still both functions of Wisdom or is the latter a function of Intelligence?
Without discounting the fact that Holmes notices a lot that other people miss, a big part of what makes him memorable is that he already knows the significance of things that anyone would notice, but wouldn’t realize are significant.
“A Study in Scarlet” wrote:
After walks [Holmes] has shown me splashes upon his trouseres, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them.
What’s memorable here isn’t that Holmes noticed that his pants were muddy (Wis), it’s that he knows what each splash of mud means (Int).
This version of Nimble Move is better than having a Shield.
No, it’s really not, at least not for Fighters, who get Shield Block as a bonu feat, and has Attack of Opportunity as a reaction option, and that seems to be the concern - that Fighters would invariably spend two class feats to get this option.
With a shield, you use one action to get +2 to AC during one round.
No, with a shield you use one action to get +2 to AC for one round and the ability to shield block once in that round.
With this version of Nimble Move, you get +2 to AC for one reaction every 5 to 10 attacks.
I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. Are you suggesting that only one in five to ten attacks is going to hit?
He’s talking about contextually for two handed fighters especially if they can use it after they know the result of the attack (which nearly guarantees a loss of attack and damage every turn)
Still for one hit per round.
And a guaranteed reduction of damage after the fact (even downgrading a crit) is worth way more than any shield block (which could effectively destroy the shield)
Reactive Shield is triggered “when an enemy hits you with a melee strike” so it’s but as if this is some radical notion.
A two handed fighter effectively gets to have a shield for an extremely cheap cost, if the person goes the new Swashbuckler MCD when it comes out they could also get nimble dodge.
No, the two handed fighter gets part of the benefit of a shield because Nimble Dodge doesn’t have a block function, and I’m not sure that two class feats is “an extremely cheap cost.” The one handed Fighter get a better effect at the price of one feat in the form of Reactive Shield.
For that matter, Admittedly Rogue and Swashbuckler dedications are likely easier for a Fighter to great than Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, or Wizard, but the Shield cantrip is available with one feat in the form of those various Multiclass Dedication feats.
As a TH fighter not having to spend an action and effectively having a +2 to AC that I can exclusively use on attacks I want to miss or drop from a crit is nuts overpowered IMO, it’s certainly worth an MCD which comes with other goodies.
But an MCD wouldn’t give it to you. An MCD plus the Nimble Dodge feat would give it to you.
With your version, you should reduce it's AC bonus to +1, and even with that, it stays a very competitive and partially broken feat (but at least it doesn't invalidate shields).
Even at +2 it wouldn’t “invalidate” shields because it applies against only one attack and it doesn’t have the ability to soak damage. At +2 it doesn’t even equal shields.
Except as a fighter you: a. have to already have a shield, something taking a hand slot and bulk and can also break (if used to block),
The requirement of a shield is a disadvantage to Reactive Shield. The fact that the shield “can break” is immaterial because it doesn’t break as a result of using the reaction — in fact using Reactive Shield prevents the PC from using Shield Block. The option to use Shield Block when you raised your shield normally and didn’t use Reactive Shield is an advantage to shield use.
Again, I’m not exactly arguing that Nimble Dodge needs to work after the dice are rolled, but I also don’t think it’s such a big improvement that it would disrupt balance.
If you inflict ghoul fever on something, either you or they flee, and the disease kills them, then they become a ghoul. That ghoul is not a minion under your control.
It’s statements like this that make me wish we had a Commoner stat block so I could figure out statistically how much trouble a third level CE Cleric could cause with that spell. Narratively, I know the answer is “A bunch.” But I have a ghoulish craving for numbers.
Would it break the game if you allowed the rogue to declare his Nimble Dodge *after* the DM said that he just got hit or criticalled?
I think this would improve the feat without overpowering it, though I’m not sure it’s so bad it needs improved. I think this would improve the flow of play, though, because as a GM I don’t always remember to pause to ask if my Rogue PC wants to Nimble Dodge, which means we basically play that way anyhow.
Plus, changing the outcome of a hit to a miss or crit to a hit 20% of the time is an enormous impact in comparison to other feats.
Nimble Dodge doesn’t change the outcome 20% of the time, it changes probability once per round if it’s used. That’s the point of the comparison to shield use — raising a shield has the exact same impact on probability of any given incoming attack, but lasts across the entire round.
I don’t think the feat is as bad as Alex thinks, but I don’t think it’s exactly good.
Higher AC means attacks are more likely to fail, intentionally provoking AoOs is a gamble this can play a part in, either for a chance at Riposte or to burn up their Reaction if they have one.
Or you can use a buckler and still get a higher AC without risking an AoO.
Or you can use a “regular” shield, get a higher AC without risking an AoO or spending a feat to bring your AC into parity with other shield users.
And in either case, the PC doesn’t provoke AoO, which is, in all bur niche situations, an advantage. It’s not as if it’s difficult to come up with useful ways to trigger opponents’ AoO. Weapons with the parry trait aren’t some sort of master key finally unlocks that hidden tactic. If you find yourself in some weird niche situation where you want to try to provoke an AoO, you have plenty of options.
Edit to add: If you’re talking about activating parry with the intent of drawing an AoO in hopes that it misses so that you can then Riposte, I don’t think know if it’s even clear that the Parry bonus applies to that AoO. What’s the order of operations there?
Also, parry is an interact, which means it’s a manipulate, which means that the AoO can disrupt it. Not only do you then not get to Riposte, you don’t get the AC bonus going forward.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Why would this be the case? Shields are for the most part a pain in the ass to wear everywhere, much more so than a majority of parrying weapons.
There is literally an exploration activity that allows you to enter combat with your shield raised, so the game clearly assumes you can wander around with your shield on.
If you are trekking through a dangerous area it makes FAR more sense to be fully prepared for battle as you walk through it than for some reason having your shield prepared but not having your weapon/s out.
This may be a holdover from the playtest, but I’ve been operating on the belief that By default characters don’t enter encounter mode with weapons drawn. Looking now I’m not sure I see a clear statement one way or the other.
It being a weak version of raise shield action without a reaction (shield block) is fine.
It’s a much weaker version of Raise a Shield.
You almost certainly enter combat with your shield on your arm; you almost certainly don’t enter combat with a parry weapon in hand, so you’re down an action.
Drawing your weapon triggers Attack of Opportunity; you generally don’t draw a shield.
You can Shield Block with a shield; you can’t shield block with a parry weapon.
You can attack with a shield; you can attack with a parry weapon.
If parry granted the riposte reaction on a fail rather than crit fail I could see it needing some kind of additional balance.
You don’t need a parry weapon to use Opportune Riposte. You can do that with your shield boss.
Being able to use double slice or other feats with similar requirements and still gain a circumstance bonus to AC seems reasonable to trigger a reaction
You can’t shield block with a parry weapon, though. And you don’t have to draw the shield, which both increases action economy and avoids the Attack of Opportunity that drawing the parry weapon ALSO provokes. Shields seem much better.
My initial read-though of the APG playtest made me look at the Parry weapon trait for the first time. It allows you, if Trained, to “spend an Interact action to position your weapon defensively, gaining a +1 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.” The Interact basic action has the Manipulate tag. The Attack of Opportunity reaction is triggered when a “ creature within your reach uses a manipulate action[.]”
It already struck me as weird that drawing a weapon triggers Attack of Opportunity, but it seems nuts that using a weapon “defensively to block attacks” provokes an attack.
Or am I missing something?
Once I notice the rules I don’t think there’s any confusion, but I don’t understand why that rule that applies specifically to bucklers, was in the section about Raise a Shield, rather than the section about bucklers. I love 2E, but if I have one serious complaint it’s that finding all the rules for a particular mechanic is often a scavenger hunt.
I don’t see any reason it couldn’t make ranged attacks, but I also don’t see why ranged attacks wouldn’t interact the same way melee attacks would, so if melee attacks trigger a save, I think ranged would too. Until I read your post, though, I hadn’t interpreted “touch” as passive. But instead as active. So I didn’t think the Illusory Creature’s melee attacks would trigger the save, but that the enemy’s own melee attacks against the Illusory Creature would.
And if you read the original post, OP comes to the conclusion that even after falling unconscious, his character would still have his shield raised and be benefiting from it.
I’m the GM, this came up in a session I ran today. My ruling at the table was that the PC in question lost the benefit, but my practice when I make a ruling that I don’t know I have backing for in the rules is to do a little research and if I am not completely convinced, to seek input.
I generally prefer on-point rules backing over “that’s just common sense” because a lot of the game doesn’t comport with common sense. If, in the end, I am stuck with something that’s ambiguous and offends common sense I’ll go with common sense. I’m on the fence on this one.
That is certainly one of the more ridiculous interpretations of the rules I've read on here, to the point that I'm almost wondering if you're just trolling...
No, I’m not trolling, I’m trying to decide how to rule, but feel free not to participate in the discussion if you don’t find it worth your while.
Similarly, if you raise your shield with your first action, then as your second action interact with it to take if off and with your third action you run away, even though after raising your shield it "remains raised until the start of your next turn”, you're still not getting the AC-bonus for it by the end of your turn.
I think the Ambiguous Rules convention on CRB p. 444 covers that situation, but doesn’t cover unconsciousness because I don’t believe you actually drop your shield when you fall unconscious.
Odd, I can't actually find a specific rule where it states that you must meet the requirements of an action for the duration.
I honestly don’t know if that’s odd or not — it might be intended that requirements are there to control when you take the action and not when you benefit from the action. As in my admittedly goofy example of the Step action.
I will say that any stance feat from Monk or Fighter end if they ever fail to meet said requirements,
If that’s explicitly stated for those it may be an indication that it’s not the general rule.
Like Fly. If you no longer have a flight speed, you won't be able to fly. So you fall.
I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. The Fly action has a requirement “You have a Fly speed.” It also states that “If you’re airborne at the end of your turn and didn’t use a Fly action this round, you fall.” So if you are airborne and lose your fly speed before your turn, you won’t fall until the end of your turn, and technically you don’t fall because you lack a Fly speed, you fall because your lack of a fly speed prevented you from taking a Fly action.
Incidentally, the Fly action has the Move trait, which means it provokes Attacks of Opportunity. That means that if two Fighters are hovering next to one another in melee, then when each uses the Fly action to hover, the other might get a free swing.
Not all shields are actually attached to you after all.
Do you have any citation for that? The rules on shields are a bit spread out, so I could easily have missed something. I haven’t found a general rule that treats equipping a shield any differently from drawing your sword, but getting rid of a shield takes an Interact action, while dropping your sword is Release, which is a free action without the Manipulate trait.
I would also point out that once knocked unconscious you are no longer "wielding" a shield, so would no longer satisfy the requirements of the Raise a Shield action.
I’m not sure that the requirement of the action is relevant at that point. I think the requirements of the action only matter when you take the action. For instance, the Step action on CRB p. 471 has the requirement “Your Speed is at least 10 feet.” If you take the Step action and later in the round your Speed decreases you don’t lose the effect of your Step.
Even if the shield is still physically attached to you, you wouldn't be wielding it.
CRB p. 277 states that “A shield grants a circumstance bonus to AC, but only when it is raised.” The bonus is dependent on the shield being raised, not on whether it’s wielded. The Raise a Shield action, on CRB p. 472 states that “Your shield remains raised until the start of your next turn.” There are no conditions placed on that.
The rules for the Unconscious condition state that “When you gain this condition, you fall prone and drop items you are wielding or holding unless the effect states otherwise or the GM determines you’re in a position in which you wouldn’t.”
Table 6-2: Changing Equipment draws a distinction between “Drop an item to the ground” and “Detach a shield.” I take that to mean that your shield isn’t going to fall to the ground when you fall unconscious, effectively that for an equipped shield “you’re in a position in which you wouldn’t” drop it, and I’m satisfied with that.
But if you use the Raise a Shield action, and fall unconscious, then are healed, do you continue to benefit from the shield? For that matter, while you’re unconscious do you benefit from the shield? The description of the Raise a Shield action states that “Your shield remains raised until the start of your next turn.” Nothing there states that you must remain conscious to continue to enjoy the benefit, and as I said before, I am satisfied that you don’t drop your shield when you fall unconscious.
What do you folks think?
This is PF1 thinking that is no longer valid. It's not common so it might not exist at all, as the rules leaves the decision up to the GM.
Okay, but what makes you feel that’s any more or less the case for uncommon items than common items? Why is this something “special” and not just another plain old example of the GM’s ordinary prerogative to disallow something?
You're making a strawman argument.
No, that’s just as reasonable as a GM requiring a skill check to reload a crossbow. Each is an interact action described in the rules with no skill check required. It would arguably be more reasonable for a GM to require an Acrobatics check for a PC to use a fork to move food from his plate to his mouth because at least that isn’t already a defined action in the rules describe without requiring a check.
The fact that the DM can ask for a check doesn't mean he has to or that it's always relevant.
Exactly right. The GM can call for a check, but if the GM calls for checks on activities that are already described in the rules and don’t require checks, that’s a house rule.
In this discussion, many people have pointed out that they find it hardly possible for a Familiar to reload a Heavy Crossbow.
Sure, and I find it hardly possible for a human being to wave his hands around, mutter some incantations and call forth a fireball. But in both cases the rules of this fantasy game say that if a character has made the relevant investment in resources, it happens because magic. If the GM wants to change that, it’s a house rule.
These people will certainly ask you for a check if they are DMing.
Sure. It’s their prerogative as GMs to use house rules to invalidate the choices characters make when they build from options marked common in the Core Rulebook. If they do, I hope they tell me before I spend time building a perfectly legal character.
Table variations have to be expected.
For clear rules regarding common choices. It’s not unreasonable to expect that the Core Rulebook can be trusted.
You're making up a rule. The DM can ask a check for any Interact action per RAW.
Player: I unsheath my sword.GM: Athletics check!
Player: Why would I need to make an Athletics check to unsheath my sword?
GM: The rules state that I can ask a check any Interact action, and I haven’t found a line saying it doesn’t apply to unsheathing a sword.
By default, there is no skill check involved in loading a weapon, but even if you choose to impose one, as a house rule, that doesn’t mean a familiar couldn’t try. CRB p 217 “If it attempts an attack roll or other skill check, it uses your level as its modifier.”
Oh, I agree that it’s house rule territory to require a skill check for an activity that the rules as written don’t.
The difference, the key difference that the rules regulate, is that an uncommon spell can't be assumed to exist at all. You can't rely on it existing, because that requires GM buy-in.
That isn’t my understanding of the rarity system. I’ve understood it to be entirely about availability, but unless the GM says otherwise, the options in the CRB, at least, can reasonably be assumed to exist.
pA low level party does not have enough treasure to stock on potions so they can't reliably heal on a timely manner.
I understand how that might bug you. Though I’m okay with lower level parties being a little more brittle, I know this doesn’t feel sufficiently heroic to everyone.
If you’re the GM, you might address this by peppering the world with some extra healing potions. I doubt that will hurt anything. You also might drop a set of Expanded Healer’s Tools to shore up the Medicine checks.
Second, how do you explain in-world spending 10 minutes for no results at all? Also followed by a 1-hour "cooldown". This bugs me the worst.
I don’t really get why you’re bugged that failure is one of four possible outcomes. I’ve had experiences in my life where I’ve worked on some task for ten minutes and neither accomplished anything or screwed up so badly that I set myself back. The one hour cooldown is a little trickier, though, and I’ll grant it feels a little odd.
But can your little monkey friend reload your crossbow while you are holding/wielding it or do one or both of you need to use your actions to hand the cross bow back and forth?
In the absence of a rule stating that the interact actions to reload a weapon must come from the creature holding the weapon I don’t see any reason to assume they must.
Well, the creature attempting to move the grabbed character in this scenario would be performing a shove maneuver against the grabber. In which case both characters would be moved IMO.
I don’t think it is a Shove maneuver, though. Not only is the shove maneuver not referenced in connection to an outside force, the rules don’t quite match up.
Just because a spell is uncommon doesn't mean it's harder to learn or find.
I don’t think commonality has any impact on the difficulty of learning a spell once you find it, but “harder to . . . find” seems almost the definition of uncommon, because you’ll only “find” it if you make a mechanical choice that gives you access or if the GM makes the intentional decision to let you find it.
If an outside force moves the grabbed character out of the reach of the grabbing creature, then, it’s your position that the outside force drags the grabbing creature along with it?
What happens when a mounted character is grabbed? A grabbed character is immobilized, but when the rider is grabbed but the horse isn’t, can the horse move without breaking the grab? If so, does the rider stay behind or can the horse simply carry him outside the reach of the creature that grabbed him?