Tripartite Mind says to use your spell DC as your counteract modifier, is this correct, or should it use your spellcasting counteract modifier as most other feats and abilities say?
Search Posts
This premium Foundry module just contains the adventure content; these two issues would be errors in the free Starfinder 2nd Edition Playtest module which contains the rules content for the playtest, so the best place to report them would be over on that module's GitHub page at https://github.com/TikaelSol/starfinder-field-test/issues Ah, thank you, didn't realize that. Will do!
I would like to report a couple bugs with the foundry pack. The Ysoki Ancestry does not have the Sharp Teeth trait that was added in FAQ that was added in the second Errata. The Icon Background bonus feat, Sparkling Performance is not liked like the other bonus feats in other Backgrounds do.
I guess, since it says to change alignment damage to spirit damage, that, with the exceptions of good and evil planar immortals (outsiders) is to give those with lawful and chaos weaknesses a weakness to spirit damage. The good and evil ones already get that weakness toward holy and unholy. Wish they had kept something of the lawful and chaotic side of the balance. That often was a more important dichotomy. Where good and evil fought often over 'who gets to rule' law and chaos fought over "rights to exist" with the far chaos leaning ones being "no thing" as their answer to that question. They could have used apoptotic to replace axiomatic, and nihilistic to replace anarchic if they felt they couldn't use them, and it wouldn't have ben that difficult to implement.
Is there, or will there be, a document or something that provides guidelines to use pre-Remastered creatures while we wait for Monster Core to be released? I know that most of the creatures will play pretty much the same, but with the dropping of alignment and sanctification, holy and unholy, and the like, there are weaknesses and resistances that might come in play that fiddle with certain monsters, specifically those of The Outer Sphere. Also, are such beings that are neither good or evil pre-remaster (such as aeons) which had weakness to chaos for example, going to have a different weakness to replace them, are they going to be susceptible to both? Or a stronger weakness toward what sort of material does more damage to them?
Advanced Player's Guide p.202 Concealing Legerdemain reads: Conceal an Object using Stealth instead of Thievery It should say: Conceal an Object using Thievery instead of Stealth
So by your reading the Bard is able to take this feat, but the Wizard can't. A Bard has a repertoire, so they can take the feat and get a munch of extra Bard spell slots, but a Wizard, who explicitly does not have a repertoire, doesn't get those spell slots. No, any spellcaster would be able to. The spellcasting feats do not require a repertoire. There are basically two benefits of the eldritch archer spellcasting feats. One is, you gain the benefit of basic/expert/master spellcasting. These benefits are spell slots of specific levels at a specific character level, and some other benefits if you have a repertoire. The second benefit is adding spells known to your repertoire. As I mentioned, you do not have to be able to benefit from a feat to take a feat...and you could gain only partial benefit from a feat you take. Cite a rule that states this. Beyond the initial dedication, the spellcasting feats do not contain any exception to the normal multiclass spellcasting rules.
Except the original poster.
Except again, as stated, in the cast of having previous spellcasting ability, your eldritc archer spellcasting ability is your previous spellcasting ability. There is no separate ability. And, nothing in the rules yet says that the eldritch archer spellcasting feats can only betaken if you have an 'eldritch archer spellcasting abiliy" only "The eldritch archer dedication." In reference to the quote from CR219 does not ally in the SECOND situation. In this situation, say you are a bard, you take eldritch archer. The eldritch archer dedication feat does not give you an eldritch archer spellcastring ability. It uses your bard spellcasting. "All spell slots you gain from spellcasting archetypes have restrictions depending on the archetype" In the second case, where a character already casts spells, the archtype applies to that prevous spellcasting ability, and so would the spellcasting feats. I do not argue that in most other cases, this is not an issue or in the first case of the eldritch archer, where it give you an eldritch archer spellcasting ability. BUT again, there is the second situation, completely separate from the first...the second is not dependent on the first. In this second situation, the archtype uses the previous spellcasting abiliy as the eldritch archer's spellcasting abiliy. There is not a separate one. There is no talk of a separate on in the second situation whatsoever.
Several spells have similar X foot radius, x foot high cylinder areas of effect. Each spell then states exactly how those inside the area are effected. There is no burst, but specific rules within the spell detailing, since the origin of the effects come from different places. Flame strike, the fire rains from above, so anyone under a roof may be able to get cover. Volcanic eruption, the eruption comes from below, and goes up. Whirlwind and a few others that do not state any 'origin' of the cylinder would effect everyone in the area as if that were the origin of the effect basically. The game doesn't define cylinder as an area of effect, because they are special cases that are dealt with in each particular case. At least that is how I read it. Whirlwind definitely does not have a burst.
Advanced Order Magic also says specifically Your connection to one of the great elemental aspects of nature deepens, allowing you further control over its powers. My emphasis. Pretty clear that you get one spell from one order.
CR219:. All spell slots you gain from spellcasting archetypes have restrictions depending on the archetype; for instance, the bard archetype grants you spell slots you can use only to cast occult spells from your bard repertoire, even if you are a sorcerer with occult spells in your sorcerer repertoire. And there are two different 'restrictions' here. The first condition is; You do not use spell slots: If this applies, you gain an eldritch spellcasting abilty, with its own spell dcs and attack. Taking the dedication's spellcasting feats adds spell slots to this spellcsating ability. The second condition is: You do use spell slots: If this applied, you do not gain the eldritch spellcasting ability, as it adds the cantrip to your current spellcasting ability, and uses its saves and attacks. The cantrip is added to your spells know/and can cast it per day, increasing a prepared casters cantrips perday, or is added to a spontanious casters repertoire. You do not gain an eldritch archer spellcasting ability. In this case, there is no dedication spellcasting ability, but the dedication uses the previous spellcasting ability. Now, there could be an argument that, since the spellcasting feat is "eldritch archer spellcasting" that the feat only applies to a eldritch archer that has its own separate spellcasting ability. However, there is nothing to imply this is the case. The requirement is having the dedication, not an eldritch archer spellcasting ability.
Indeed!
The spell does say in its first sentence: You splash a glob of acid that splatters your target and nearby creatures. I think this is the case of the specific overrulling general. It uses the splash rule, even though it is not a thrown weapon, since it does splash damage.
They don’t interact. One grants you something (basic archetype spellcasting in your existing tradition) that you already have. So you shouldn’t waste a feat on it. Except that the benefits of the basic/expert/master spellcasting says it grants a spell slot of x level. Not, it grants you a spell slot of x level if you do not already have one.
Spellcasting archetypes always grant the ability to cast cantrips in their dedication, and then they have a basic spellcasting feat, an expert spellcasting feat, and a master spellcasting feat. These feats share their name with the archetype; for instance, the witch’s master spellcasting feat is called Master Witch Spellcasting. All spell slots you gain from spellcasting archetypes are subject to the restrictions within the archetype. For instance, the eldritch archer archetype allows you to pick a spell list when you take its dedication feat. If you pick arcane spells, the archetype then grants you spell slots you can use only to cast arcane spells from your eldritch archer repertoire, even if you are a sorcerer with occult spells in your sorcerer repertoire. The highlighted part is the possible errata. It seems that this portion of the sentence needs to be rewritten, for clarity. The only situation this would apply is if you were a noncaster who took eldritch archer dedication then took the sorcerer deication. If you are already a sorcerer, then your eldritch archer dedication tradition is going to be the same as your sorcerer dedication after all.
Kelseus, thanks for your answer! Much appreciated and it was thought out and not a knee jerk, thanks! I'd wanna reiterate the way I read these dedication feats, in respect to spellcasters. You are a spellcaster that takes this feat, your spellcasting ability takes over as the dedications spellcasting. The cantrip being added to your cantrips known and your repertoire heavily implies this. I admit, I could be wrong! So I don't think that would negate the ability of spellcasters to take the spellcasting feat for these dedications. The requirement for the spellcasting feat is having the dedication feat, and not the dedication feats spellcasting ability. If you are a spellcaster, then the effects of the feat would be different if you were a prepared or spontaneous caster. My understanding is, you do not have to qualify for all the benefits of a feat. Also, the feat only says 'to your repertoire' and not "to your dedication repertoire." A prepared caster would still gain the first benefit, an addition spell slot of level 1-8, depending on the feat and your level. Since they do not have a repertoire, they would not gain the additional benefit, so I will concede that. Spontaneous casters, since they have a repertoire, would gain the slots, and the additional spell, as well as the signature spell as well.
First off, if my search foo is bad, and this question has already been answered, I apologize, please direct me to the answer! So my questions are 1) If I am Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard or similar class (a spellcaster that uses slots) and I take the Eldritch Archer or Cathartic Mage archetype, which by my reading, makes the cantrip I gain from the dedication feat a part of my spellcsting suite, can I take the archetype spellcasting feats as well? 2) Does this then mean, at the listed levels, I gain an additional slot and spell then, giving say a 20th level Wizard 6 cantrips, and 4 1st through 8th level spells if I take all three of the spellcasting feats? There is also one at the bottom, that is basically the ones above in one question. I ask a full read before answer these please. I put a lot of thought into this, as it kept me awake for a while! Below is my reasoning for asking and believing it might be so. So I was reading the Cathartic Mage, and realized it and eldritch archer have a little ambiguity about when you are a spellcaster that uses spell slots. If you do not cast spells with slots, there is no ambiguity, so I am not asking about that. Or if you are one of these, and later take a spellcasting dedication that uses slots. I only know of these two that have the same wording in the dedication feat at the moment, but there are likely others, or will be. The dedications state two specific circumstances when take the feat as follows (cathartic mage is identical):
Now, if you are not a spellcaster that uses slots, for instance a Crusader with focus spells or just a non-casting Fighter or Rogue or what not, you gain your own spellcasting suite all based on Charisma. All fine and dandy, no issues here. However, if you are a spellcaster that uses slots, the way I read it, you gain an additional cantrip that uses your spellcasting suite, and becomes a cantrip of your class. This cantrip also seems not to have the limits that the first circumstance requires: a spell attack roll. Now, before going to the root of my quandary, here is another tidbit from the Advanced Players Guide, as it is related to the issue:
The second sentence only applies if you are not a spellcaster that uses slot of course. The third sentence would only apply if you were a not a spellcaster that uses slots, say a fighter, who took eldritch archer, then later took the sorcerer archtype. Otherwise, the eldritch archer would be required to use the sorcerer tradition. But with the first sentence, there are two restrictions, depending on whether or not you are a spellcaster that uses slots. If you are not, no issues. But if you are, then, as stated, it implies that the cantrip becomes part of your previous spellcasting suite, and thus, when you gain spells from the spellcasting feats, so do they. So, can a spellcster uses slots that takes one of these archetype dedication feat take the spellcasting feats as well, and gain full benefits thereof? Or, even though it is heavily implied that the spells are part of that suite, do they have a separate suite still?
I would have them all roll Initiative. In this case,the enemy would definitely use Perception and the PCs should probably use Stealth, since they are trying to be stealthy. I would then use the Initiative of the enemy against the PCs Stealth DC, with any penalties that might apply due to door, cover, concealment or what not. If they do not notice them and act before the PCs, then they would act, but not proactively. That is, if they were walking for the door, or what not, that's what they do. If they are not in a hurry, they might only make one action moves as they talk and joke about. They'd be flat footed too. Of course, if the enemy does notice them, then they can do what they want if they go before the PCs.
The description of the Shield Block in the Ability Glossary does say you need to have a Shield Raised. It would be smart to put the Raise Shield in the Actions of any creature with a Shield. The put Shield Block in there, which anyone with a shield can do, so why not put in the Raise Shield? They do it like Shield Block, list it as an action, and then detail it in the Ability Glossary.
Also unlike yaks bags of holding "don't talk back" Or spit.
Hmmm I didn't have access to the Bestiary when I replied, but as I look at it now, every creature with a Shield Block does have in their AC Block two separate ACs, one with and one without shield ac bonuses. And while having Rasie Shield listed in the Actions might be a good reminder, the face that there is an AC listing (X with Raised Shield) should be a good reminder that, if they want that they need to use the action. But, a cheat sheet with all the actions anyone can take might be a good idea.
I think Eliphas means, like PCs, if an opponent wants to use Shield Block reaction, they also need to have the requisite "Raise Shield" Action on their sheet. The Shield Block reaction should also say it can only be used if the Raise Shield action has been used this turn. Otherwise, they get a free action every turn.
Just because you don't NEED one for everyday use doesn't mean you can't WANT it. It IS still useful (how can you rob dragons without one?) but it's no longer an unavoidable expense to actually do stuff. And what about loading said horde into the bag? You stow all the coin in nonmagical bags, on a small horde, that is probably going to be five or so items, each one requiring a RP to put in. THen when you want to distribute or sell, that's more...
Great to hear, would also be nice to know what type of interaction we'll be getting with the developers through the playtest!We will be posting here and sometimes in other forums as well as providing larger blog updates, Twitch Friday events, and so on. We will not be giving our or home phone numbers nor conducting home visits. ;) That you are a witch? :D
page 36: The example dragon does not have low-light form its base creature type (Dragon) from page 133
So a lot of the threads about this are somewhat dead, and I would rather not raise one in case no one is looking, So I will start my discussion here. A lot of powers like Arcane Surge, pre-FAQed Wild Arcana and the like say "As a swift action, expend one use of mythic power to (do something): A lot of people read that that means that you can (do something) as a swift action or a non-action, that it is part of the swift. But mulling it over and looking at it, it really seems to say: spend mythic as a swift, do something as normal action. For instance,Arcane Surge says: As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without expending a prepared spell or spell slot. This means, you spend the swift action and cast spell normally, except that you do not loose it as a prepared spell or loose a spell slot. If that is the proper reading, then Inspired Spell should be the power that is FAQed or Errata-ed, since by its reading, spending the mythic is a non-action.
And yet, the processes you are describing are chemical processes, which in the world of Pathfinder, are inherently alchemical in nature. You do not get 'pure' silver by melting, as that process still leaves certain trace elements in the silver to make it more of an alloy, as opposed to pure. Just like the smelting of gold does not get you 24 caret gold (99.96% gold or better) is produced though a process called parting. One of the methods was roasting the ore with salt, for 5 days. Later they started using electrolysis. But again, all this is done with a heavy understanding of chemical make up. I doubt the smelters of gold realized that the yellow stuff they were producing wasn't pure gold until someone told them "you know there is platinum and silver in that, and melting won't separate it, but guess what, i have a method to do it." I may be looking to much into it, maybe, but I think your not looking into it enough. By the book itself, you cant just walk up to a darkwood tree, ripe off some bark and use it. You cant just pull out a silver or gold coin, and use it, because I doubt that they are what one would consider 'pure' they are sure to be 18K or even 14. Someone is processing these 'pure' reagents. After all, I also doubt that your just taking black powder form any ol powder horn, and that is one of the reagents. A smelter does not have the time or inclination to make the gold, silver or other metals he is smelting to be 24 caret (or its equivalent). Each of those reagents have been processed in some way. Knowledge of alchemy (aka chemistry) is the logical methods used to do this processing.
But then, the question comes. WHO does make the silver. In the descriptions of the reagents, it states they are purified. One does not just take a lump of silver and use it in as a reagent. It is silver that has been processed to the point where it is as close to 100% silver as possible. And who would do that? A person versed in chemistry, or alchemy as it were. It seems to be a catch 22 there. If the alchemist can't make them, then they cannot be created.
Except that the statement about them say that "The following reagents are purified from their raw states" i would agree with that statement. But the statement about the reagents seems to say that it does go through some process above and beyond just cutting off some bark, or making some black powder (which I might add, is made by an alchemist, as it is an alchemical substance). As to a baker who makes his own flour (which is what I figured you meant), well, what is to stop him? He could go to the farmer, buy the grain needed, and powder it himself. Farmers might even do that in their own homes for their wives. They grow the wheat, they mill it, they turn it into flour.
Can a character with Craft (Alchemy) craft his own reagents? That is, using the normal Craft rules, create X doses of Y Reagent, which he then uses for his Spontaneous Alchemy later on. For instance, if Bob wasn't to create some Cold Iron reagent, could he spent 1 gp for materials, do his Craft checks and when complete, have 3 doses of Cold Iron? Or 10 gp for 30 doses or what not.
Sure, but I think the bigger question is "what can you conceivably do to get those mythical demi-gods out of the campaign world, before they wreck the setting?" :p Havn't they effectively already done so? They have closed the Worldwound and have killed at least two Demon Lords, if not more. This AP is a setting breaker. The very first AP, if the PCs failed, has the reemergence of a Runelord. Many of the APs are 'setting breaking' by their very nature. And Wrath is blatantly one.
At the end of City of Lies, if the characters come out victorious, then well, the Worldwound is closed, and there is a communal cheer of 'huzzah' from the world; except with the possibility of Cheliax. True, they don't want the Worldwound to exist anymore than the rest of the world, but now, with it gone, Iomedae, or more specifically her Church and Heroes, can focus on them. It was even mentioned somewhere that the only reason the Church hasn't focused on Cheliax is because the Crusade. Now sure, there is still mop-up to be done, but with the threat gone, they can direct their gaze elsewhere. Has anyone else thought that this would not only be a great continuance of the AP but a natural progression?
Many many years ago, while running a game in my game world, I think it was AD&D or 2nd Ed, I don't recall exactly. The PCs were fairly moderate level, but at the time, the personification of Chaos was working at breaking the seal on its prison, and free itself into the world. It has numerous extremely powerful monsters under its thrall, including a number of ancient red dragons. The PCs are on an airship, minding their own business, when they see about six of these beasts coming toward them. Now, they didn't know, but the dragons were actually only there as transport for the air cavalry on their backs. Each dragon have like 6 fighters of mid-level with feather fall rings, and they were going to swoop down and jump off the backs onto the ship. Instead, the dwarf and fighter PCs strap themselves together, and jump off the ship, with the fighter using an item that gave him flight, and took the fight to the dragons! The wizard used a scroll he had gotten his hands on, prismatic spray. One dragon was stuck by two rays, failed its saves and was turned insane AND to stone (it fell to the ground and actually survived as there was a judicious use of feather fall to stop its impact form destroying it). The drawf was a rager (so i think it was 2nd ed) and he and the fighter tore one of the dragons up. And none of the paratroopers managed to touch the ship. Three dragons survived, and fled. Never expect players to do something!
Thanks, I'll have to look up savage species!
So I have a character in my game who wants to be able to keep some of his racial abilities while in wildshape (mainly such things as his swim speed and ability to breath underwater). I was thinking a feat that would allow it, but I am not sure if it would be to powerful for 1 Feat to let him do this, or if maybe require 1 Feat for each ability he wants to keep, and i am not sure if that is to restrictive. I am willing to let him do it, I have no issues with the ability to keep abilities, but i am just not sure how to go exactly. Any advice would be welcome! Additionally, if anyone knows of any feats that work similarly, it would be helpful. Thanks ahead of time!
Except that Inflict spells are necromancy, not conjuration.
Don't forget though, that using a mythic point in its 'base' ability (that is add 1d6 to a 1d12 to a d20 roll) is an immediate action, so if you used it during your turn, you have used your swift for your turn, and if you used it out of turn, then you used your next turns swift. If the use of a mythic doesn't say it takes a swift or immediate, then don't see why you cannot use more than one use in a round. But maybe limiting the number you can use to 1 per tier, or 1 + 1 per 2 turn, or even just one per 2 tier (min 1).
Of of the things that isn't pointed out is that when wielding a weapon two handed, be it a two handed weapon or a one handed wielded two, both hands are not constantly on the weapon, at least if you have ever seen some one wielding a great sword, they use that second hand to not only provide leverage, but sometimes counterbalance, and using that hand for anything else would interfere in proper wielding. Sometimes, for example, a long spear is thrust forward one handed, the body lunging, the second hand is behind to counterbalance. A cleave with the great sword, making a wide swipe over an area, held one handed, and yet again, that second hand is no where near the hilt. But if you believe that initiative is just a way for you to order things, and everything happens so fast in those 6 seconds, then suddenly using that had for something else will screw your attack up. I swing me sword at Orc, planning to slice him in two, suddenly an arrow fires, and my second hand releases an snaps the arrow out of its trajectory, but the sword doesn't bite as deep, since it missed its mark by a inch due to the loss of Make one handed and two handed wielding similar to a style feat. It's a swift to switch styles. You attack the Orc, kill it, then realize the other orc can shoot you, so you switch from two to one hand (swift). You now have to wait to switch back until your turn. This would then allow warrior to cut Orc in two with his two handed wield, then, concously drop the style to a one handed. Like the style feats. You gain only one style benicia at a time. Otherwise, you could use deflect arrows with impunity, releasing 'grip'p,' deflecting, then 'regripping.' why even have the requirement to have a hand free. Just say you can deflect it with your sword (there should be a feat for THAT :) and if there is,what's its name and what book?)
I was going to say because they are one shots like scrolls, but now that I look at the tattoos (if you mean the kind gained through inscribe magical tattoo( and they work as slotless wondrous items). The only reasons I could see that they could not, would be due to the restriction: must be an amulet, ring, staff, wand, and weapon. I think I would allow it, on the uniqueness and novelty alone! Varisian Tattoo is an ALMOST must in this case ;) And the tattoo would have to be of masterwork quality (of course that is free when you start with it). A pity a tattooed sorcerer can't get a bonded object......
Has anyone out there made a quick reference sheet for Ship Combat from Skull & Shackles that they are willing to share?
Both Rabies and Porphyria have been attributed to both vampiric and werewolf legends in the past, and what I have been reading, has supporteds and distractors.
not wanting to quote all of wynternites post :) so replying to it: I admit, a lot of my information comes form modern day horror fiction, and though I recall reading some things about lycanthropy being passed on from a biter to a bitten, I can't recall the specific legend, but those forms of passing on are very very rare, where as the 'natural' examples are more prolific in myth and legend. However, I would point out that the natural lychan's of myth NEVER passed on a curse. And since I cannot thnk of any myth/legends of a passed on curse, I will bow that out, however. The dnd/pathfinder lycanthropes are not based on them (since if they were, they would not pass on the curse). They are based mostly on modern horror. In modern horror, werewolves were feral monsters in wolf form that go on rampages and kill. Those that survive the attack (the rare) discover they are cursed with the same affliction. Only very reciently has the 'natural' lycanthrop entered into the picture of rpgs (as opposed to myth), and they in general do not pass on the curse. They are men that can turn into animals (and the occational animal that can turn into a human) and hybrid forms. They can be evil nasty people, or can be good and stalwart ones, but if they bit you, you did not turn into one of them. The dnd/pathfinder model is opposite that. If a person naturally has the ability to change shape, why is there a curse that is passed on? Think of it like this. If you get bit by a wolf, you don't get turned into a wolf. The animal an hybrid forms of a natural lycanthrope are JUST as natural to him as his human form. There should be no curse to pass on. As for the bit about why they did a natural and afflicted. Taking away the whole passing the curse. I would see the natural and afflicted like this: A natural lycanthrope isnt always born with it. As meantioned, there are numerous shapechangers out there that fit this bill: skinwalkers, the Úlfhednar and others. These have voluntary willing control over thier form. An afflicted of course has not control. And while they do not pass on the curse, they typically have no control over the form or what they do. People excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church in the as well as some cursed by the saints of said church were said to become werewolves. I think the distinction should be inherited/acquired (which would be the natural, without being able to pass the curse on) and of course cursed (which would be the afflicted). But back to the whole root is that, a natural shouldnt be able to pass somoething like that on. Where as with an afflicted one would pass it on, if that was part of the curse (the children of a afflicted/cursed should be afflicted/curse). Where as the children of a natural aught to depend on the way they got it. A divine bequethment should nbot be passed on, but if it really is a completly natural state (that is the character is born a lycan) then the children are too. That is, if the genetics are altered). I hope I am putting this out coherently.
Because of exponential growth laws.Exactly. If afflicted lycanthropes were contagious, the disease would very, very quickly overtake pretty much any community. Of course, the same could be said about shadows and spectres. Well, except that most communities are 1st level commoners, and usualy get killed and eaten by the rampaging lycanthrope.
I think Are is right, a spell isnt carried or touched by you, so the spell would be disjoined if you cast it with yourself in the area.
Ah, good. Because that would just be messed up.
PFS = WoW spell effects.
As the spell describes "All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined.T hat is, spells and spell-like effects are unraveled and destroyed completely (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item for the duration of this spell."
One thing though, the summoned moneters would be disjoined, unless you happen to be holding hands with them. Additionaly, I think the Time Stop would be disjoined as well ((maybe) the whole wording "are you carrying or touching the spell?) |