Search Posts
The only problem I can see with this is the name. "Exposed" is already an armor trait. They try not to overlap terms to avoid confusion (see the change from spell levels to spell ranks) Oh! I didn't realise. I hadn't run across that trait before. By all means, I'm sure there are plenty of terms that would work just as well. Off the top of my head, I can think of unprotected, uncovered, and vulnerable. Thanks for the info. :)
Reading the playtest PDF, I noticed that the Operative's Overwhelming Strike ability (p89) can cause three different debuffs. Two of them are standard conditions but the third is "The target can’t Take Cover or benefit from cover." What would people think of replacing it with a new standard condition, perhaps called Exposed, which either steps down the target's level of cover or just negates it entirely. This then frees it up to be caused by other effects, such as sniping from elevation or damaging cover with a heavy weapon. By default, I would suggest you get rid of Exposed by using the Take Cover action again or moving into a different piece of cover, though of course Overwhelming Strike would prevent you from getting rid of the condition until the end of the operative's next turn. Generally, this would be one of those conditions that applies to specific enemies, like how flanking makes you off-guard only to the folks flanking you. That way they can keep their current cover benefits against everyone except the one who made them Exposed. Flavour-wise, I would describe it as something like "The cover you are relying on is ineffective at protecting you from incoming attacks. You gain no benefits from cover until you either use the Take Cover action again or move into a different piece of cover." What do folks think? I should add that I have only been reading the PDF and haven't had a chance to play yet.
Okay I got it to work. I'll tell you what they haven't, on the same page as your code submission scroll down past all the other redeemed codes and you'll find the address update and shipping, you complete it there and not in the cart.Thanks, that worked for me, too. I tried that this morning but didn't think to try it again the second time. THANKYOU!!! This was the answer I needed.
I was able to enter the code, but I don't see where to go to complete the process. My cart is empty. What do you do after redeeming the code? Same here. it told me the code was redeemed but didn't put anything in my cart or link to a page where I could complete the process. Edit to add: Incidentally, I gave up on ever receiving these minis years ago, so it's a nice surprise to finally get this notification. Hope you can get the technical issues sorted soon so we can finalise our orders. :)
I love my PF1 slayer, such a fun hybrid class that cherry picks cool stuff from half a dozen other classes. If you're unfamiliar, it's a sort of rogue-assassin-ranger-ninja with options that allow massive archery buffs and melee glass cannon. Mine is a sylph and I love her. I hope the slayer gets revived and refreshed in PF2.
My first ever Paizo forum post! Yay! Anyway, I'm reading the playtest rulebook and I think there's a repated copied-and-pasted error in several alchemist feats. Smoke Bomb has it right: it says it is a reaction triggered when you make an alchemical bomb. Several others seem to have the same incorrect text pasted in repeatedly: Debilitating Bomb and Sticky Bomb both say they are triggered by creating an elixir rather than a bomb. The exploitative Bomb goes back to being triggered by the creation of an alchemical bomb. :) The wording seems to have been copied and pasted from the triggering condition for Combine Elixirs. Anyway, another couple of things for the inevitable errata. :D |
