Search Posts
It's quite obviously definition A. Another rule that would be impacted (to ridiculous degree) by definition B being true is dying. If you're dying 1 and you get hit by a flaming shocking sword that would be 3 instances and bring you to dying 4 (or dying 7 if it was a crit). Who is seriously arguing for definition B? It seems ridiculous.
Hi, Im curious about a potential combo I found but for it to work, I need a ruling on the title question. When I critically hit with a corrosive rune, the targets armor (or raised shield) takes damage. My by reading, this is me "doing damage to an object with my weapon" so it should trigger the Razing property. That 4(+) extra damage will make a big difference in breaking and destroying items so im excited for it, but I want to see if its legal, RAW. I think it should be because property runes merely "add special abilities to armor or a weapon", so it is still the weapon inflicting the damage (even if its not "weapon damage", which is irrelevant to this case.) Also just the plain English meaning of "doing damage (to an object) with the weapon." But what do you think, denizens of paizo forums? Edit: Separate question but in the case of a blocking shield crit by a corrosive weapon, does hardness apply once (combined damage) or twice (Separate instances of damage) Razing: https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=784
Hey gamers,
Suppose I want to have my character (who just so happens to be a blind fight having fighter) to be able to close his eyes to ignore his enemy's mirror image. How can I accomplish this? Or is it impossible within the simulation. Don't even mention avert gaze to me, which has no downside except it's action cost - this isn't the same thing. My suggestion would be to allow you to close your eyes or open them as a free action at the start of your turn, to prevent cheese while also respecting the simplicity of an action like blinking, which imo shouldn't take up any of your time.
Interesting arguement. The "effect" (grapple) is clearly the thing that imposed the immobilized condition. The grabbed condition itself is not an effect, and so I say this arguement works. Though I do agree its clearly not the way the flavor text was written, but they didn't specify that its only magical effects you are resistant to.
Necroing this because with tbe new animation class having an aura of confusion focus spell it's suddenly much more relevant to me. Is the intent that i can drink this if I'm fighting an animist who lands confusion on me?
Why would the dedication for a rare class not also be rare? I actually do like the idea of banning the archetype for narrative reasons and not the base class. Because a new character created to be an exemplar is going to be written in a way that justifies the class fantasy, but an existing character not written with this in mind will not. And casual demigod-hood should not be a thing. Separately, it's also strong enough to be banned for gamist reasons, but if it were nerfed to be less OP then I would allow players to kill and diablerize exemplars in the world to steal their divine spark, to get access to the archetype.
Total Immanance Removal! It's the only way.
I've noticed a disturbing trend in recent paizo publications that is power creeping other melee options to exceed my beloved Double Slice. Gleaming Blade is officially beyond the pale. Now, without investing in a second weapon, a fighter or barbarian or anything really can pick up exemplar dedication, and absolutely destroy doubleslice in a dpr race (d12 weapon vs d8, +2 spirit dmg per hit). For the same cost (1 class feat/dedication feat for games with free archetype). Remove the imminence ability from the Archetype entirely and it would still be a valid pickup. Paizo pls nerf! |
