Mellack's page

35 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


I am confused by how the monster ability Grab interacts with the Halfling feat Unfettered. The feat says "If a creature uses the Grab ability on you, it must succeed at an Athletics check to grab you instead of automatically grabbing you." What it does not say is what that check is. The closest I can guess is the Grapple action, which is against Fort, so would the DC be 10+Fort bonus? Since it is a differently named action I am not sure. It would be nice if they could be a bit more clear on this.

Thank you for any advice.


Interesting. So even if a mounted archer is riding away, they can still get the benefit by the rules.


Wheldrake wrote:

There are already special deleterious results for some attacks, like crit failing a trip attempt. Why shouldn't there be some chance (however small) of having a special crit fail effect for other combat rolls?

If you want it to be less common an occurence, you could grant a special saving throw against having to draw from the crit fail deck.

I know a lot of people hate critical fumble rules of any stripe. Obviously, its use is optional. But IMHO there should be some way to integrate it into PF2 without making its use too painful. And it *is* hilarious when the adversaries get crit fumbles.

You might consider it hilarious, but I would consider it rather anticlimactic if the BBEG moves to attack us and instead knocks himself unconscious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:

I think it's probably deliberately abstracted, sort of how in a movie you see the heroes light a torch once and it seems to last the whole dungeon.

I think its good for it to be a GM decision - some groups enjoy keeping track of how many torches they consume in a dungeon, while others just want to be "I light a torch" and be done with it.

There are a few different ways you could run it;

One torch per "room" (a room being defined as a distinct area of the dungeon, so corridors or storage closets don't count as a room on their own, and 3 small rooms linked together count as a room)this way you don't need to keep track of timing as much.

One torch per hour
One torch per half hour
One torch per dungeon
One torch per period in which person holds a torch (if they drop it they need a fresh one, so most encounters will need a fresh one)

You can also mix these with dramatic torch timing - if you want an atmosphere where the dark is impressive, you can have the lack of good air flow causing the torches to choke on the smoke or sputter out quite regularly in the deepest parts of the dungeon.

While I appreciate your opinion, I do not like that it has been totally left open. It came up for the first time last session, and if my players assumed a torch would last the entire dungeon when I assumed it would last only an hour, we would have a problem. I think such a basic thing should be given some guidance in the rules, especially since they did that for how long a lamp can burn. I think it was more likely an oversight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One hour does sound reasonable. Or perhaps they have no duration. That would explain movies that have torches still lighting up age-old crypts.


I see no listing on how long these light sources last. Is there any info on these I missed?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If there is initiative that means something has happened that now has those creatures on guard. That ends your automatic avoid notice.


Also there is a ranger feat called COMPANION’S CRY that allows a PC to spend two actions instead of one which gives the companion an extra action. That wouldn't make any sense to exist if you could just use the Command an Animal action instead.


"You might want to acquire items that benefit an animal or beast that assists you. These items have the companion trait, meaning they function only for animal companions, familiars, and similar creatures. If it’s unclear whether a creature can benefit from such an item, the GM decides."

I take that to say that companion items are only for companions, but that does not limit them from using other items. Companion items are a subset of magic items that are only usable for companions. Much like how consumables are a subset of items that also have specific rules relating to them. That doesn't mean those rules apply to the greater group of magic items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Mellack wrote:
Other games, including PF1, had this because it comes up fairly often. It is especially useful for if you want to try to block doors.

The frequency of this kind of thing coming up has nothing to do with it.

The majority of games out there on the market have solutions just like can be used with PF2 where the point of the rule can be put into place (read: "how difficult is it to move this object?" being answered) without bringing a specific weight value into the mix.

In fact, whenever you aren't just saying "if you have at least X strength you succeed, otherwise you fail" having a weight measurement doesn't actually help; a die result that determines success will still have to be devised.

So why not just skip to that step?

That is great if you only use premade adventures. Some of us make our own so would like some sort of guidance on how much a character of certain strength should be expected to lift.

Syries wrote:

Nah, lifting a heavy object is definitely an athletics check.

You really think weightlifting doesn't use athletics? c'mon.

As to it being an athletics check, since level adds more than stats or training, that produces the odd effect that a high level weak character with even just basic athletics training can lift much more than a max strength expert 1st level. (Extreme example, level 20 with trained athletics and str 8 = +21. Level 1 with expert athletics and a 20 str = +9)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

You could resort to using the PF1 rules for lifting, as those are written in terms of "maximum load" not specific weights.

Lifting and Dragging: A character can lift as much as his maximum load over his head. A character's maximum load is the highest amount of weight listed for a character's Strength in the heavy load column of Table: Carrying Capacity.

A character can lift as much as double his maximum load off the ground, but he or she can only stagger around with it. While overloaded in this way, the character loses any Dexterity bonus to AC and can move only 5 feet per round (as a full-round action).

So you could lift (10 + Str mod) Bulk over your head, or lift double that off the ground and stagger around. Change 10 to 12 if you have Hefty Hauler.

Why PF2 omitted a simple lifting rule I don't know, esp. when they did include a dragging rule.

This is probably what I will go with. Thanks for the advice.

thenobledrake wrote:

I am of the opinion that the only reason you're even looking for a weight suggestion is because that's how other d20 games handled "can you move this object?" challenges.

Setting a DC to the challenge is a way to set the odds to something that will feel worth a die roll - you can scale the DC to the party level if you want to minimize the impact of proficiency level on the roll. PF2 doesn't seem to do many non-skill-related ability checks though, so a strength-only check might be trickier to pick a DC for.

As for level 10 10 strength character vs. 20 strength character... the rules are not the laws of physics, and are not a simulation of the in-game world. As such they are only meant to be applied when their application actually makes sense - in this case, the lifting "contest" being resolved by saying "The 20 strength character clearly wins" instead of trying to roll athletics is a viable option. As is whichever one is a PC rolling against a DC to try and best their opponent, if you want there to be a chance that the opponent could actually win the contest at least.

Why PF2 "omitted" a lifting rule likely comes down to A) bulk including the awkwardness of a thing's size and shape doesn't mesh well with lifting because a large object often only needs to be tipped rather than completely lifted off the ground and B) coming up with a rule for just picking something up would likely end up being a waste of space for most groups because published adventures are going to list DCs to lift important to lift heavy objects (like portcullis or debris), not calculate how much force you need to apply to produce the appropriate height of lifting for a particular thing.

Even if they said something like how much a statue weighs or how much bulk the statue counts as, if said statue falls over and pins a character it doesn't have to be 100% of that measure counteracted in order for the character to get unpinned.

Other games, including PF1, had this because it comes up fairly often. It is especially useful for if you want to try to block doors.


Is there any standards of how much a character can lift? I know there are the bulk rules for carrying and dragging is half, but I am just thinking about getting something up. Like the stereotypical heavy beam or rock that is pinning somebody or something under it. I was thinking maybe a straight strength check, but not sure about setting a DC. Athletics seems odd, as anyone trained gets to add their level. That means a 10 strength level 10 character would be better than a 20 strength level 1 character at raw lifting, if both were trained. I was more hoping to find a straight amount you can lift with each strength sore, similar to carrying capacity.


It says nothing about being used up, so I would say it lasts forever. Otherwise you get into having to replace parts from tool kits, worn clothing, etc.


Ah, I see. It certainly looks like it works. Out of combat healing is fairly easy, so while it is quicker than others, since it only works on the alchemist it shouldn't be a problem. Paladins can Lay on Hands every 10 minutes and anyone with medicine skill can heal every hour.


I don't believe that works because Perpetual Infusions lists which infusions they can choose to use it with. Revivifying is not listed as a possible choice.


The caster needs to spend 3 actions to cast it, and another to sustain it every turn. It should give them some use for that. Also remember that they cannot hold the spell for more than 10 minutes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

Comparing Battle Medicine to, say, Dual Handed Assault, there is a very clear difference in language. That one states that a hand is added to a weapon and then made free.

Its a bit of a stretch that this feat would allow you to toss your weapon in the air, perform first aid and then catch your weapon and keep on trucking. Nothing in the feat suggests that. None of the text suggests that.

So, actually, there is PLENTY of basis for discarding the notion that the action for Battle Medicine *includes* making a hand free.

What evidence is there that a free hand is required? The only thing that it says is it has the manipulate trait, which explicitly says that can be done while holding something else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fallyna wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
No, there's no reason to think the lack of cost is an error. It was even stronger in the playtest.

Seems odd when the bonus and initial cost are identical to the earlier version, after the differences between editions are applied. I'll try the book version first and keep the use limitation in mind as an optional house rule, if I think its needed after that.

In my group, tactical intelligence is directly linked to available healing. The more healing is available, the more likely they are to charge in headlong and keep hitting until the enemy is dead as their only tactic, because they know they'll be always be back to full HP after each fight. Take away that option and they start playing smarter and with more caution, because the consequences are now much scarier.

Other groups may differ. :)

The Healer's Tools no longer gives a bonus to making checks. Instead it is now required to attempt several actions such as Treat Wounds. And it costs 5 GP.


Saros Palanthios wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Exactly. Plus, some of us play PFS, which is RAW only. If the rules say something doesn't work, we can't just hand wave it away in PFS. And as far as I can tell, the rules say that small creatures riding medium mounts don't work in 2e.

The Gleeful Grognard already answered your original question about small creatures riding medium mounts-- as he said, the "Bulk of Creatures" table on pg 272 of the CRB gives the typical bulk for various size creatures, and the table is clearly referring to fully armed and armored creatures, since it's introduced with a line about being especially useful "if you need to carry someone off the battlefield".

Except it's not clear that it includes the bulk of their gear. That's just the bulk of their body. Maybe. That's the ruling we need from Paizo.

And until we get that ruling, anyone playing a small character on a medium mount in PFS is going to get screwed at some of their tables by GMs who don't agree with your interpretation of the rules. That's why I won't risk it. I'll save that build idea for when I'm 100% sure it'll work at every table.

What part of "carry someone off the battlefield" is not clear? Who is naked on the battlefield...?

Ask yourself, what's more likely: that Paizo's whole team of professional designers, writers, and editors are a bunch of incompetent fools who created a system that makes no sense... or that you made a mistake in your reading?

There is a big difference between a monk who might have nothing but clothes and a champion who is in full plate and has several weapons. One could just as easily ask did that professional team of designers really mean that both of those characters are equally easy to carry or did you make a mistake in assuming that also included all of the stuff they were wearing? You should also remember that the bulk of a character's equipment is a known quantity, so there is no reason to assume you would not add that to the bulk of the creature. It is definitely not a clear answer either way.

Also consider this scenario. Adam the halfling loads up on all the loot in the dungeon. He is encumbered and moves slowly. His halfling wizard buddy Bob has nothing but a robe and a staff. Does it make sense that Bob can pick up Adam with all his stuff and move at full speed fine?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Mellack wrote:
That would seem counter-intuitive. A fully armed and armored small creature has a total bulk of just 3? Even if that gnome is wearing plate (bulk 4) has a longsword (bulk 1), artisan's tools (bulk 2) and an adventurers pack (bulk 1 or 2)? So why is it harder for that gnome to carry all his stuff than it is for a halfling to come along and pick up the gnome, equipment and all? That just doesn't follow for me.
It's a lot harder to carry a bunch of loose sticks than the same sticks tied together in a bundle. Think of a kitted-out character as big bundle of gear.

Except on the gnome all those things are actually strapped on. It should be actually easier for them. The backpack is designed for carrying things in a certain way, not for another person. The armor is much easier to carry when it is distributed on the body. When would a bag of armor be easier to carry than having it spread across your body in a form-fit manner? I have never met any hikers who trek carrying their bag instead of wearing the backpack. It is much more efficient to wear things in the designed manner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Fromper wrote:
Exactly. Plus, some of us play PFS, which is RAW only. If the rules say something doesn't work, we can't just hand wave it away in PFS. And as far as I can tell, the rules say that small creatures riding medium mounts don't work in 2e.

The Gleeful Grognard already answered your original question about small creatures riding medium mounts-- as he said, the "Bulk of Creatures" table on pg 272 of the CRB gives the typical bulk for various size creatures, and the table is clearly referring to fully armed and armored creatures, since it's introduced with a line about being especially useful "if you need to carry someone off the battlefield".

A Young Wolf has a STR of +2, so it can carry 7 bulk. Per the Bulk of Creatures table, a typical Small creature has a bulk of 3. So a typical Small character can easily ride a Medium mount, with plenty of room left over for barding or saddlebags.

Bulk is not an additive quantity like weight. It's an abstraction-- just like HP or Spell Slots are abstractions. That's why Armor has different Bulk depending on whether you're wearing it or carrying it around. The Bulk of a creature is not the same as the sum of the Bulk of everything it's wearing or carrying. That's simply not how Bulk works.

There's no handwaving required-- the RAW tells you to use Bulk this way, not the way you seem to want to.

That would seem counter-intuitive. A fully armed and armored small creature has a total bulk of just 3? Even if that gnome is wearing plate (bulk 4) has a longsword (bulk 1), artisan's tools (bulk 2) and an adventurers pack (bulk 1 or 2)? So why is it harder for that gnome to carry all his stuff than it is for a halfling to come along and pick up the gnome, equipment and all? That just doesn't follow for me.


Somantic specifically says "You can use this component while holding something in your hand." Compare that to material components which say you must have a free hand. Sounds like it would work with both a bow and a two-handed sword.


As a quick work around, I suggest changing those measurements from inches to centimeters. An 11 cm by 16 cm egg would be large, but I think within the realm of possibility.


Is there any duration listed for poisoned weapons? Couldn't any character purchase some poison and put it on a dagger or some bolts and just store them for use whenever they want?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't believe throw items have a reload. You are not holding anything to load into, unlike a sling or bow. You would need an action to draw a new one.


I think as long as you spend the action you can change it all you want. Just remember that you lose it on the old target when you designate a new prey.


RangerWickett wrote:

The chain ends if anyone critically succeeds their save.

Your DC is probably, what, 26 or something? So a nat 20 for a low-level grunt probably won't be a critical success.

Yeah, that kills a lot of people. It'll also kill your electric bill.

It would have to be even higher than that. Even a level-1 kobold warrior has a +7 reflex save. So the DC for them would have to be 28+ before somebody couldn't get a critical success.


Can someone point out where is says you can't have an animal companion and a pet? I can't see where it says that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eltacolibre wrote:

With the devs saying people trying to over-read or find an explanation for everything...sometimes the simplest solution is actually what's going on.

Only magic items make stuff easier to carry. A bag of holding is basically what you need if you want to carry stuffs with less weight as an example.

The backpack is just what it reads:

It's a container that can hold 4 bulk worth of items, if you put the backpack on your back its weight becomes negligible instead of light.

I think people are over-reading because it is about the only way the bulk system makes sense. Take a ranger. If he has Leather Armor, a longbow, a rapier, adventurer's pack, and a snare kit, they are full even with a 16 strength. And they are not carrying any arrows. Just what I listed is already 8 bulk. That is a fairly basic load and it is too much. Seems something is off with the encumbrance system.


Thanks for sharing your experience.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
stevelabny wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
I think Erik Mona said that Adventure's Pack is just 1 Bulk.

Which is the only logical explanation for most of the math. But does anyone have a source for this?

But now it just means the bard can pick up 5 Light items and 1 shortsword before hitting the encumbered penalty. Which still seems too little.

It was said, however don't take his word for it just weigh out the gear. Also ignore ALLLLLLLL of the class kits too, I don't know what went wrong but their costs and weight are all off.

As for bulk, I personally prefer not having stupid amounts of stuff strapped to characters and then some how they fight.

Donkeys, hirelings, carts, bags of holding, spells. :)

A full wizard's kit (which is a lot of stuff btw) is 1 bulk 8 light, yet it is listed as 2 bulk 2 light in the CRB?
It is also worth 3 gold, 6 silver, 3 copper... yet is listed as 1gp 2sp.... and says that 1gp and 2sp from 15gp results in... 11gp 8sp?

Seriously, it is incredibly dumb.

But that kit is what

Staff, Backpack, Bedroll, Writing set, Component Pouch, Two belt pouches, 10 pieces of chalk, flint and steel, TWO WEEKS of rations, 5 torches, 50ft of rope, soap and waterskin.

That is a lot covered by 1.8 bulk (and yes I know the spellbook goes on top of that, but still)

So an adventurer's kit is 6L unless they are counting each torch as L, in which case then it is 1B and it needs to be clearer. And since we have so little consistency in numbers I am not willing to make the assumption that they are meant to be L per torch given how weird things are.

If they count the waterskin as full, that is 1 bulk just for that. Adding in all the rest I come up with 1.9 bulk for the adventurer's pack, counting each torch separately.

It does seem overly strict on the carrying limit. I was reading another post on how fighters would want to have a couple of different weapons so they can use the special effects that match their opponent. It seems that will not be possible.


I anyone has tried using snares and has some feedback to give, I would love to hear it.


Thanks for the information, depressing as it is. I find it irritating that I would need to spend my 2nd level skill feat to get snare crafting, and my 3rd level expert training in crafting just to still not even afford to use snares. Seems like the resource cost might be too high for me to bother with.


Then before Snare Specialist at level 4 you would have to pay the full cost of each snare? At a few gold each? That would seem to make it pretty costly for the early levels.


I am very confused about snares. Can some kind people please help explain them to me?

For example, Snare Specialist 4 says you can now craft snares in 3 interact actions instead of one minute. Then Quick Snares 6 lets you craft snares in 3 interact actions instead of one minute. IS the difference now that you don't need to decide at the start of the day which snares you have and can choose as you set them? Do both of those now mean you can set the snares in combat in one round, using all your actions?
The whole thing seems very feat intensive for what it does.