Weight Seller

Nifty Butterfinger's page

73 posts. Alias of frank whited.


RSS

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

I too am having this issue just today. I tried to call but only got a busy signal.

What gives?

Grand Lodge

Sorry to Necro this thread, but another thread on this topic stated that they had contacted Mark Seifter, one of the Lead Designers about this. He indicated that all creatures are assumed to have normal sight unless specifically noted otherwise. {Black Pudding is mentioned as an example: Perception +9; motion sense 60 feet, no vision}

I guess giving the creatures Tremorsense allows them to do their thing even in a zone of absolute darkness.

Thoughts?

Nifty

Grand Lodge

I hate to break in late to this topic peoples, but as I interpret the rules, a poison is not, strictly speaking, a "persistent damage condition".

I mean, I realize that it does persistent damage assuming it has a duration, but it is not a condition per se.

That said:

I think there is good cause to count poison as "ticking" at the end of the afflicted's turn due to the rest of the paragraph Sibelius Eos Own quoted from the CRB, pg. 455 about Durations:

CRB pg. 455 wrote:

For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect. This is common for beneficial effects that target you or your allies. Detrimental effects often last “until the end of the target’s next turn” or “through” a number of their turns (such as “through the target’s next 3 turns”), which means that the effect’s duration decreases at the end of the creature’s turn, rather than the start.

Nifty

Grand Lodge

Sorry for applying my necromancy to this thread, but I was curious about others' take on another "multiple exposure" of poisons.

For example:

If a creature walks into a poisonous cloud and fails the save starting the clock on the poison's activities [either the Onset and/or entering Stage 1 of the effect].

What are your opinions if the creature does not immediately move out of the poisonous cloud either by design or inability to do so and as a result is still inside the cloud at the beginning of its next turn? Does this in your collective opinion count as a multiple exposure by remaining in the cloud for another round?

Thank you all for your time.

Nifty

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please excuse me while I get my Somatic, Material and Verbal components correct to cast Raise Thread... lol

I wanted to point out that it is also possible to use the fast advancement speed (800xp) to level the group faster and possibly account for missing parts of the XP needed to hit the full 1,000xp.

Another thing I have noticed about my attempts to run this adventure is that the Hazards give a set of XP that does not look like they are accounted for completely in the write-up. For example:

Spoiler:

In Hallod's Hideout, we are given a 30xp award to give the group for bypassing two of the hazards early on, but nothing is said about more hazards encountered later on/

All-in-all, I think doing milestone levelling will be the easiest for DMs who are running this adventure.

YMMV

Nifty

Grand Lodge

I am looking back on my last game where we left off at the attack by the Bloodseekers [Stirges] and I am curious about how you ran it.

Spoiler:
This concerns the presence of the Mayor, Targen, for the fight.

Presumably the Mayor is out in front, being pushed by one of the PCs as they collectively approach the Old Shrine. Since the Bloodseekers attack as soon as they perceive the party they could reasonably reach Targen first.

My group split up and there were only two there for the fight so it was a target rich environment for the baddies.

Just curious...

thanks,

Nifty

Grand Lodge

casting Raise Thread here - please bear with me.....

Say I have a party together and we are sent to apprehend a known criminal and return him to justice. The criminal utters the ubiquitous "You'll never take me alive!!!"

We, the group, set to chastising the criminal but want to knock him out with non-lethal damage at the last. How can we know when he is on his last legs where the damage can be changed to non-lethal?

What are your collective ideas for making this happen?

Personally I like the idea that if any part of the damage a creature takes is non-lethal, and by assumption it is not immune to such, the final blow, regardless to weapon trait would knock them out and not kill them.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Nifty

Grand Lodge

logsig wrote:
Nifty Butterfinger wrote:
How did some of the rest of you handle the Riding Horses where the CRB says (pg 294 - under the Animals heading) that normal animals in combat become Frightened 4 and fleeing as long as they are Frightened?

If the party successfully uses Command an Animal, the horses don't flee -

CRB p 294 wrote:
If you successfully Command your Animal using Nature (page 249), you can keep it from fleeing, though this doesn’t remove its frightened condition.

Practically speaking, other than in Encounter A, where the "horses running away" mechanic is explicitly called for, as long as the PCs aren't using the horses as meatshields, I'd use a generous definition of when the horses are "in combat" and avoid having them go running off all the time.

I can see this point too logsig, but I seem to recall somewhere the adventure mentions that the animals specifically attack the wagon/cover to get at the items inside and the druids or their companions specifically attack the animals and wagon/cover.

I've also done some research concerning attacking objects and it appears they are tied to attacking Hazards. To that end I have squint-eyed some stats for the cover and wagon to facilitate the encounter at the end of this week. Have a look-see:

Cover Statistics:

AC: 13 Fort: +4 Ref: +4
Hardness: 2 HP: 8 (BT: 4) Immunities: critical hits, object immunities, & precision damage

Wagon Statistics:

AC: 14 Fort: +9 Ref: +5
Hardness: 5 HP: 20 (BT: 10) Immunities: critical hits, object immunities, & precision damage

Thanks,

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

Nifty Butterfinger wrote:
Pepor wrote:


Blinded, Confused, Clumsy, Dazzled.... neither. So?

I think these were left off inadvertently or maybe the list was not so long at the time it was created since Confused is clearly a Mental trait and Blinded/Dazzled only applies to creature/objects that "see" somehow. Clumsy applies the same except that most common objects do not move of their own accord.

On to other topics, I think the best way to handle this is to assign the object an AC like the Hazards they are often lumped in with when referencing damaging objects:

CRB wrote:


Damaging a mechanical trap or another physical hazard works like damaging objects: the hazard reduces the damage it takes by its Hardness.

(pg. 521)

A review of the sundry Hazards in that section of the book shows several different AC amounts given. The general rule seems to be that the AC DC goes up for Hazard Level and possibly adjusts for size

Thoughts?

Thanks NiftyB

On a secondary review of Hazards, it appears they indicate an immunity to critical hits as well as the normal Object Immunities and precision damage, so my thinking is that normal objects would too be immune to critical hits.

Other thoughts?

Thanks,

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

Pepor wrote:


Blinded, Confused, Clumsy, Dazzled.... neither. So?

I think these were left off inadvertently or maybe the list was not so long at the time it was created since Confused is clearly a Mental trait and Blinded/Dazzled only applies to creature/objects that "see" somehow. Clumsy applies the same except that most common objects do not move of their own accord.

On to other topics, I think the best way to handle this is to assign the object an AC like the Hazards they are often lumped in with when referencing damaging objects:

CRB wrote:


Damaging a mechanical trap or another physical hazard works like damaging objects: the hazard reduces the damage it takes by its Hardness.

(pg. 521)

A review of the sundry Hazards in that section of the book shows several different AC amounts given. The general rule seems to be that the AC DC goes up for Hazard Level and possibly adjusts for size

Thoughts?

Thanks NiftyB

Grand Lodge

How did some of the rest of you handle the Riding Horses where the CRB says (pg 294 - under the Animals heading) that normal animals in combat become Frightened 4 and fleeing as long as they are Frightened?

I'm planning on running this in a week or so and would like to hear some of your experiences.

Thanks,

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I cannot imagine that there are DM's out there who are so nit-picky as to rule that there are no items laying about that would not allow this cantrip to work every time.

The only situation where this might be a possibility is an area that is perpetually cleaned by a persnickety entity of a "Rain Man" OCD caliber and is described in such a way that a signal is given to the players that this cantrip may not work reliably.

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

Aratorin wrote:
TheHarangue wrote:
Nifty Butterfinger wrote:

From my perspective, Greater Cover would be akin to targeting someone standing behind an arrow slit or other equally small opening (i.e. sliding speakeasy door window, jailer's window, or very closely-spaced iron bars in a iron wall [about 1/2" apart])

Greater Cover should be difficult to obtain in normal circumstances, IMHO.

NiftyB

I agree with you, it should not be easy to get. I think I will use greater cover to describe things that are military in design.

A hole is cover.
A fighting hole is greater cover.

A watch tower is cover.
A guard tower with merlons would be greater cover.

etc.

Greater Cover is not meant to be that difficult to get. If you have Standard Cover, and use an action to Take Cover, you get Greater Cover.

CRB 471 wrote:
TAKE COVER [one-action]Requirements You are benefiting from cover, are near a feature that allows you to take cover, or are prone.You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover (page 477). If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action.

Something like an arrow slit in a wall would effectively make you untargetable. That's kind of why arrow slits were invented. They let you attack from safety.

Successfully laying siege to a castle is in fact nigh impossible, which is why most historical armies chose to cut off supply lines and starve the occupants instead.

I was making my statements from the opinion that no "Take Cover" action was used by the creature seeking such elevated levels of protection such as the archer standing behind the arrow slit and plying their bows to great effect. they would benefit from Greater Cover automatically by virtue of the construction of their surroundings.

If they used the "take cover" action they would be effectively
not 'targetable'. This is likely not within RAW and possibly not within RAI, but it's how I would and will roll when running as a DM.

..I do what I want.. lol

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

lol... I like math, but you guys are making my head hurt!

Good on both of you!

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

I would think this term would mean "not held or touched by another creature. If an item is somehow in the possession of an inanimate creature or Hazard, then I would say it is not likely "unattended".

Why do you ask daresay?

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

From my perspective, Greater Cover would be akin to targeting someone standing behind an arrow slit or other equally small opening (i.e. sliding speakeasy door window, jailer's window, or very closely-spaced iron bars in a iron wall [about 1/2" apart])

Greater Cover should be difficult to obtain in normal circumstances, IMHO.

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

okay, I am now ready to receive this product. Paizo, feel free to press the "Release" button.

That will be all - Thank you,

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

Kelseus wrote:
my question is what damage does it deal? is it for the single action casting or double action casting? 3d8 vs 3d8+24 is a big difference and the feat language itself doesn't really say.

So this is a 3rd level of the spell being expended with the Channel Smite? So this is a 5th level character performing this action since only a 5th level character can cast 3rd level spells, correct?

I wouldn't think a 2-action feat would allow a single-action weapon Strike and a 2-action version spell to be expended. Barring some sort of official change to the RAW, I'd rule it was the single-action expenditure of the spell

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

Yeah, I'd say Forest = Jungle = Forest

If you read one or the other, understand that they are synonymous with each other.

Grand Lodge

Forests are defined in the CRB on pg. 513 and include jungles and other wooded areas.

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Zapp wrote:

It is very easy to understand the restriction.

Applying the spell's effects to an already-magic shield can effectively upgrade that shield by several thousands of gold.

It would make the spell useful to a far greater degree than intended.

A shield isn't a weapon, you could only apply it to a shield boss. And in that case it does the same thing as applying runes to a shield boss.

Again... The spell only does what it does for any other weapon.

I would gently remind you that a shield IS a weapon. It is listed in the weapons section along with a shield boss and shield spikes.

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goldryno wrote:
...One of these actions must be a successful command an animal check. The other two are then able to be used by the rider to tell the mount what to do or to act himself.

This is incorrect as I understand it - the rider of a normal mount must use Command an Animal each time he wants the mount to do something - want it to Stride three times, then use Command an Animal three times with no extra actions left for either the mount or the rider

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

It is my understanding that you have to issue as many commands to the non-minion animal as you want it to undertake as illustrated in the Command an Animal action as part of the Nature Skill:

Command an Animal wrote:

You issue an order to an animal. Attempt a Nature check against the animal’s Will DC. The GM might adjust the DC if the animal has a good attitude toward you, you suggest a course of action it was predisposed toward, or you offer it a treat.

You automatically fail if the animal is hostile or unfriendly to you. If the animal is helpful to you, increase your degree of success by one step. You might be able to Command an Animal more easily with a feat like Ride (page 266).
Most animals know the Leap, Seek, Stand, Stride, and Strike basic actions. If an animal knows an activity, such as a horse’s Gallop, you can Command the Animal to perform the activity, but you must spend as many actions on Command an Animal as the activity’s number of actions. You can also spend multiple actions to Command the Animal to perform that number of basic actions on its next turn; for instance, you could spend 3 actions to Command an Animal to Stride three times or to Stride twice and then Strike.

Success The animal does as you command on its next turn.
Failure The animal is hesitant or resistant, and it does nothing.
Critical Failure The animal misbehaves or misunderstands, and it takes some other action determined by the GM.

This paragraph forms the basis of my understanding of how this is supposed to work.

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

From what I'm seeing in actual gameplay, shields are really popular for the AC and rarely used for blocking damage. Mainly, because a lot of characters are picking up shields who don't even have the Shield Block ability.

The most peculiar may be monks, because shield-bearing monks have never really been a thing before. But they work pretty well.

With the way the math stacks up in PFS scenarios, I'm starting to hear a lot of "well your monster hit me but didn't crit me because I had my shield raised". 2 AC is a lot in this game.

I can certainly see this, but definitely put me in the category of "uses shield to block".

My fighter [Tank] feels that it is worth 5 extra hp every time he is hit and his shield is not broken. I've considered carrying an extra steel shield for this very purpose.

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

Velisruna wrote:

I've got a couple questions from trying to make a ranger with an animal companion. First, specifically with the ranger, their animal companion also gains the benefits of their Hunter's Edge so if they had the Precision Edge (which does additional precision damage on the first attack you hit with in a round) can both the ranger and companion trigger it in the same round?

A second question, there seems to be an error with either heavy barding or the AC item bonus cap for companions. Under the rules for companions it states they can not get more than a +2 item bonus to AC, yet heavy barding gives a +3 bonus and the dex cap seems to be balanced around the whole bonus applying. Is there something I am missing here?

A recent errata changed the +2 bonus cap to +3

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anne Archer wrote:

The animal companion continues to support your attack without being commanded to do so every round. That is, as long as the enemy doesn't move away from the animal. This is quite effective for an archer ranger.

I don't think this is correct. The first paragraph of the Animal Companions & Familiars section (pg. 214) says that animal companions gain 2 actions when you expend one action to Command an Animal. Support is a single action activity and without the master/mistress expending the action to Command an Animal to begin with, the companion would not have the 2 actions to use at all.

If this is modified from another section of the book, I am not aware of it and encourage you to show me the error of my ways.

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

Unless I am missing something in the description given here the NPC rider would have to use Command an Animal to successfully control the mount and then he/she/it would have to give all of its action to having the mount Stride three times where the PC with a Horse Animal Companion would use one to activate the companion and would still have 2 more for other things [attacking the NPC, holding on for dear life, etc.] while the companion would gain 2 actions of its own to presumably Stride twice.

I realize this does not help with the sheer speed differential, but potentially the flubbing of a Command Animal check by the NPC could be the linchpin that pulls it all together?

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

beowulf99 wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

But... why does the DM call Ted a "dope"? <g>

I'm bringin it back man.

You two are funny..lol

back to the OP's question:

Keep in mind that there are shields and then there are SHIELDS!

Imagine, if you would, being strapped to the Supreme Sturdy Shield (Hardness: 20, HP: 160, BT: 80) [CRB pg. 588]

Also imagine, the possibility of creating a Supremely Indestructible Sturdy Shield at a later date in this game. This assumes more instances of adding two different magic items together (Indestructible Shield & Sturdy Shield) are allowed/house ruled.

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

RealAlchemy wrote:
NielsenE wrote:
'Priests's of Razmir in 1e were always been stated as non-cleric casters. Often bards or wizards. The party line so far is that Razmir is not a deity(despite his claims) and can not grant spells, so his priests all fake it.
In 1E I understand there was a sorceror AT for being a "priest" of Razmir.

I have also checked the 1E Gods & Magic and it specifically states that Razmir is not a god so I suppose I should have checked first.

With that being definitively stated,I guess it stands to reason that his "priests" would not be actual Clerics

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

Project: J-ko wrote:

Waaaaaaaaitaminnit!

The Without Trace or Fail Team has a guy named Ostog. Is that *THE* Ostog? Or is he just named after a certain unslain Ostog of legend?

I'm sorry, I am not catching the reference, can you enlighten me please?

Thank you,

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

I am just now seeing this. Does the current Supply List mean that Snow Shoes/Skis and sled are not needed anymore or are they provided by the VC?

If they are not needed how is it justified that the group travels 200 miles in a 4-day span, on foot, in the snow and other rough terrain?

Thank you all for your advice.

NiftyB

Grand Lodge

The Dire GM wrote:
numbat1 wrote:

Also on Harsus - the T3-4 statblock does not include the Cleric Domain Spell - is this intentional?

I'm prepping this for tomorrow (most likely high tier) and just caught that too. Since the rest of his spells are arcane, I'm wondering if maybe the low tier stat block is the one with the error, or if at low tier Harsus was somehow given that domain spell from another source beyond his base class to help exfiltrate once/if things go wrong with his initial plan.

I'm also wondering if his cantrips should be heightened at the high tier, too.

You raise a good point with this but I wonder if Harsus was made the way he was in the new 2E mindset for creating bad guys. I am pretty sure Harsus is a priest of Razmir so him having the Domain spell is completely appropriate. Maybe it was left off accidentally?

I just checked a few of his other spells and it appears he has the spells of a Wizard, so maybe Priests of Razmir don't necessarily have to be Clerics and the inclusion of the Domain Spell is more confusing than I initially though.

I think the cantrips will need to be heightened like you mentioned but it would be nice to have a reminder for DM's to do that "math" as they are running the adventure. Maybe a superscript note or something to at least draw attention to that fact?

Grand Lodge

Allen Snyder wrote:

The Appendices are all over the place on giving incorrect names for the NPCs:

Web Stalkers vs Web Lurkers
High Tier Chops statblock refers to Brute
Rebel Brutes in High Tier Encounter C refer to Elite Rebel Brutes in their statblock

Low tier in the waterworks is especially bad where it calls out different tactics for Rebel Brutes and Rebels. Then, we have stats for only Waterworks Rebels.

This is a definite trend in PFS2 Appendices.

I think this is a copy/paste error, but you are correct there are no Rebel Brutes in low tier so I plan to ignore the tactics for the Brutes and have the Rebels try to get as high as possible to use their ranged attacks.

Since Harsus' plan is to escape in either tier, if things so south for him, I'll have him use Invisibility and his Stealth to get away and once he is safely out of the combat area, he will use Illusory Disguise to appear like a common soldier and walk calmly away. His future plans will involve spreading more "Peace & Prosperity" of the Razmiran faith.

In low tier, I guess he will have to rely on Sudden Shift to try to get away.

Grand Lodge

I'm a little confused about how the PC's are supposed to perceive the Quagmire/Treacherous Quagmire. Is is assumed that the hazards are hiding using their Stealth bonus and the PC's that are Seeking during Exploration Mode get a secret check to notice it?

This seems to be the best way to run it unless I am missing something.

If someone has spotted the Hazard, to what end would they go to the trouble to Disable it?

If a group were making their way through the area where this Hazard was located and the person(s) who were Seeking missed it on their secret checks would everyone fall victim to the Hazard or would the first person in marching order fall in and everyone else immediately stop moving [assumes a single file]? ...or would you use the marching order and arrange it so that the first in a line/area fell in?

Thanks for the advice in advance!

Nifty

Grand Lodge

Keep in mind that creatures with the "Minion" trait only have 2 actions

Grand Lodge

The Concealed condition (CRB, pg. 618) indicates that you can still be observed [seen] but are harder to target. To do so requires a DC 5 Flat Check.

The condition does not indicate that Precision damage is affected one way or another and this leads me to think it works normally - other than have a Flat Check to see if you hit them at all or not.

Thoughts?

Nifty

Grand Lodge

Yoshua wrote:
Franz Lunzer wrote:
Yoshua wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
What would the point of the pdf of this product be?

I'd have many uses. Being able to incorporate the official stat blocks in my electronic notes without taking a crappy cell phone pic would be first and foremost.

I can snag them from the bestiary, but I guarantee that these are going to be much better formatted for individual use.

Out of interest: Why not look up the monster on 2e.aonprd.com and copy from there?

No doubt, lots of ways of doing this. I use a digital organizer to create all of my dialogue and notes. I like to have all of the information I can in one spot. I've even been known to almost rewrite entire adventures using the source material.

I can definitely hop out and even link to other sources, but when I am in the middle of a game it breaks immersion for me and it's a personal preference to have all of the information in one spot. For example while writing I will put the note for a monster

Name of Monster
Initiative +##
PF2eB1 pg###

Then later as I prep I will go in and fill in stat blocks or copy and paste from the Bestiary. When I get the cards I'll be using them, but for reference sake I'd still like to put them in my notes if possible.

Way back in the day I'd photo copy and put stat blocks in that way....

Remember, you were curious :D

Yoshua,

What digital organizer do you use? I use Realm Works for mine and being able to post a picture to my players of the monster/map/what-have-you has been great

Grand Lodge

Unikatze wrote:

I was making my own cards for 1E and am glad they're making these :D

I also agree that the AP ones were pointless though.

Unikatze, can you give me a description of how you would use these cards? I'm having difficulty in envisioning the purpose you would put them to and I assume this is just a deficiency on my part.

Thanks,

Nifty

Grand Lodge

Vic Wertz wrote:
We don't offer PDFs of our card products.

What is the thinking behind this business decision? I would think that if you priced the PDF near the price point of the cards themselves, you would likely be ahead.

Myself, I buy the PDF as a cheaper way to see if I can actually use the product and if I find I can use it, I buy the hardcopy product too.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Any likelihood of getting a picture of what the cards actually look like?

Grand Lodge

Laran wrote:

(all weights reference males)

Light Horse (think Light cav/Mongol horse archer) weight 880 - 1,100 lbs
Brown bears weight 440 - 1,200 lbs
Bengal Tiger weight 440 - 660 lbs
Draft Horse (wagon puller) about 1,600 - 2,200 lbs (Some hvy cav units will use draft horses but the normal medieval heavy cav were likely closer to light horse around 1,100 - 1,200 lbs)

You are not the only one able to post random facts :)

Laran, thanks for these, but to my american eyes the weights don't mean much without conversion. I went ahead and did the maths for those of us who need it.

Nifty

Grand Lodge

There may also be some descriptive differences between the two.

Imagine standing there like a pole-axed ox, eyes all a bewildered as you are stunned vs. actually moving and doing things just very, very slowly.

Grand Lodge

Saros Palanthios wrote:

per pg 295 of the CRB, a "Pack Animal" can be rented for 2cp per day, or purchased for 2gp.

horses are Large size, so they double their bulk limit. a Riding Horse has STR +4, so that means they can carry (5+4)*2 = 18 Bulk unencumbered, or 36 Bulk max. (having the Encumbered condition isn't a big deal for a pack animal that won't be involved in combat.)

donkeys are pretty small irl, i'd make them Medium size in game terms, with stats similar to a Riding Pony. that would give them STR +3, which would let them carry 8 Bulk unencumbered, or 16 Bulk max.

mules are the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse, and they tend to be halfway between donkeys and horses in terms of size, strength, and temperament. personally i'd lean toward calling them Large size, but with the stats of a Riding Pony. that would give them Bulk limits of 16 unencumbered, 32 max.

How does a large animal have such a high max bulk limit? Am I missing something? I know in PF1 quadrupeds had a scaling factor for having 4 legs, but I have not seen anything like that in PF2 yet.

The bulk limits (CRB pg 272) lists the maximum Bulk as 10 + Str Mod. Adding the multiplier for Large creatures (i.e. x2) would bring the riding horse to a max of (10+4)*2 = 28 Bulk. Granted: this is a lot, but short of the 36 you mention which makes me think I am missing some part of this.

Thanks for the help clarifying this for my feeble brain.

Nifty

Grand Lodge

Good evening everyone,

I found an item that was troubling me and thought this was likely a holdover for PF1. On pg. 8 in the "Undermining the Opposition" section the wording calls for...
"..A PC who describes a sufficiently disruptive
activity and succeeds at a DC 15 Bluff check (DC 18 in
Subtier 3–4) causes enough trouble.."

Should this actually be a Deception check or is there a Bluff check in PF2?

Thank you all for your attention.

Nifty

Grand Lodge

I just discovered these iconics. can anyone tell me if there is an Amiri mini in any of these packs?

Grand Lodge

Rysky wrote:

The only difference Lethal/Nonlethal means in P2 (aside from Resistances and Immunties) is whether it's the final hit to take someone down. You don't track 2 different HP tracks like in P1.

Nonlethal is a modifier to the damage, Mental is the type of dammage.

I have searched and searched but cannot find where the rules say only the last strike/hit which is non-lethal counts. Can you give me chapter and verse of where that idea/rule is presented in the game please?

Thanks

Nifty

Grand Lodge

Titandagger wrote:
well your wrong for 2e. "In most cases, Small or Medium creatures can wield a Large weapon, though it’s unwieldy, giving them the clumsy 1 condition, and the larger size is canceled by the difficulty of swinging the weapon, so it grants no special benefit. Large armor is simply too large for Small and Medium creatures." pg. 295 core which is why I don't understand titan mauler in 2e.

It's my understanding that the benefit for Giant Instinct Barbarians is that their rage provides greater damage (i.e. +6 vs. +2) while using the over-sized weapon

My question is does the weapon not gain a damage increase for being a large-sized variety of the base? From the rules in the equipment section of the CRB ("Increasing Die Size", pg. 279) it appears that there is a maximum damage type for any weapon, that being a d12.

I thought I had found an inconsistency because there are some giants in the MM1 (2nd Ed Bestiary - but MM1 resonates with my brain better - stick with me here - lol) whose large-sized weapon used 2d12 as opposed to the 1d12 but then I had to remember these pesky new-fangled "striking" runes do just that - they double the damage dice.

Does anyone have any information where the size increases to weapon damage actually goes above the d12?

Thanks,

Nifty

Grand Lodge

Where is the best place to post errors in the product (like referenced page numbers in the 2E CRB being off)? I realize this is a published product but maybe an errata sheet or changes to the PDF to limit the confusion this might create.

Also, one of the monsters is referencing the PF Bestiary 6. Is this an error or should we have to have 1E books to run this AP?

Grand Lodge

I'm playing at being a necromancer today and do hereby resurrect this thread from the dead in order to ask the following questions:

1. What is the current [Aug 2018] state of using Realm Works/Hero Lab with the various VTTs out there?

2. Where does Paizo stand on selling content for Realm Works?

I ask these here because I just recently re-discovered my Realm Works program and am not up to speed on the most current developments

Thanks guys!

NB

Grand Lodge

After reading all of this... I'm looking for the rules to make the Rat a PC class...lol

Call him "Boss Rat"!

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>