Azmur Kell

Noxobar's page

Organized Play Member. 57 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 4 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

So, am I right, that
1) a monk with ki strike and ki rush has two focus points?
2) a monk with ki strike and ki rush, druid dedication and order spell has two focus points?
3) a druid with monk dedication, ki strike and ki rush has three focus points?

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You cannot simultaneously and coherently argue that the force effect is completely separate from the bracers which is completely separate from the force field which is completely separate from the armor bonus but that the force field is connected to the armor bonus. What your argument, IF true, would lead to is a force field with no armor bonus because the force field is a separate entity.

Too many "which". I don't say they are all separate. The idea was simple. Bracers generate the force filled, the force field provides armor bonus. Just direct sequence. Bracers were thought to be "separated", if you want, only from armor bonus as armor bonus was thought to be the property of the force field. As if providing permanent mage armor (the descriptions are very close, almost word by word.) The force field is not an armor bonus, so it is not negated by polymorph, but it can give armor bonus if written to do so.

Scarab Sages

avr wrote:
Noxobar wrote:
So, if it is the bracers, that provide armor bonus, then they will not work. If it is the force field, that provide the armor bonus, it will work. I would say, it is not important, what the source of the force field is.
Unfortunately the reasoning and the distinction you're making simply aren't in the rules, and contradict the rules. Magic items which provide a shield bonus get turned off by polymorph effects (well, those which turn you into animal forms etc.) as cited earlier.

Magic items which provide a shield (or armor) bonus do not get turned off by polymorph effects. They only lose that armor or shield bonus. Their other bonuses remain functional. If the bracers of armor provided Mage Armor (as they do in 2nd edition test) they would work fine. The description of the bracers looks exactly as if they just cast permanent Mage Armor on you. But unfortunately there is a coma, that I kept missing for quite a long time, which makes a change. So that formally the bracers provides the bonus, not the field.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
That's not good, because the bracers meld and the force field does not.

And you know this because....?

"When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body."

Bracers are part of the gear. Force filled, created by them, is not an item and not a part of the gear.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
There is no distinction between the field and the armor bonus it provides.

Ordinary armor also provides armor bonus. Is there distinction between the armor and armor bonus it provides? One is the source and the other is an effect.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
So, if it is the bracers, that provide armor bonus, then they will not work. If it is the force field, that provide the armor bonus, it will work. I would say, it is not important, what the source of the force field is.
Absolutely nothing you're stating is stated, implied, or even logically follows from any of the games rules. It is the height of rules lawyering chicanery to deny the rules of english to avoid having your position disproven by the rules while just flat out making stuff up to support it.

I thought my first statement in the citation above coincides with your opinion and flows from the rules - the item provide armor bonus and loose it after polymorph.

The second statement on its own also flows from the rules, describing the way Mage Armor works under polymorph. As I remember, nobody argued with that. And the fact that melded items continue to generate bonuses other that armor and shield bonuses (including magic effects and force fields) is directly from the rules.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:

There is no reason to be that specific with things that work if everything that isn't on that list also work.

There is a reason. The list of remaining things can be not uniform. There can be some conditions. The next sentence could say that they all work under the full moon. You never know by default. It is always better to read the rules to the end. Everyone can miss something, and that's why we are here.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why would someone say that red and green lasers work if orange blue purple and yellow lasers also work? The sentence has no reason to say A B and C work unless it means that X Y and Z don't work.

Because he is concerned only about orange blue purple and yellow lasers, or does not know about them. They are all separate and independent.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Noxobar wrote:
Does "granting him an armor bonus" refer to the force field or to the bracers?
Raw there is no distinction.

That's not good, because the bracers meld and the force field does not. So the bracers will lose the armor bonus, but the force field will not. That is why the mage armor works - it is a force field that do not meld into body as it is not an item.

So, if it is the bracers, that provide armor bonus, then they will not work. If it is the force field, that provide the armor bonus, it will work. I would say, it is not important, what the source of the force field is.

Scarab Sages

Ferious Thune wrote:
Noxobar wrote:
For the Ring of Force Shield, the rules do not say that the ring has to be worn to provide the force wall (see the citation in my previous post). It is not said that the force shield disappears if you take it off. It is only written that to get the shield bonus you have to wield the wall as a shield (the wall, not the ring).

This was your previous statement. It is not correct. The shield can only be wielded by the wearer of the ring. It is in the text that you quoted, and that I quoted and bolded. Whether or not the shield disappears when you take the ring off is irrelevant. If you are not wearing the ring, you cannot wield the shield.

I do not really see what you disagree here. Maybe was not clear enough. I agree that you have to wield the shield to get the bonus. I agree that you have to wear the ring to wield the shield. Yes, most of the forms can't wield a shield, but some can.

Do you disagree that after melding you are still wearing a ring? This is reasonable, but following the rules you still benefit from the ring, so I assume it is considered to be worn.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Noxobar wrote:

Incorrect..Items that meld into the form lose shield bonuses.

That isn't the rule just because you want it to be.

Well the rules says so.

"Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function)."
If the item is not melded into the body all these rules do not work. Your citation also does not say that
the "item needs to be activated so it doesn't function."

However I really found the sentence I previously missed that you didn't include into citation.
" Items that require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form."
I thought that "use" here means "activate" (just not to repeat the same word, sinonyms are usually used). But it also can be read directly, that you can't use it in any way. So my conclusion for the ring - if it is melded into your body you can't use it by RAW.

Now we should return to the OP question about the bracers of armor. It does not need to be activated, so this part of rule does not work. There, as I recall, were two problematic moments
1) Does "granting him an armor bonus" refer to the force field or to the bracers?
2) Does the force field meld into the body if you polymorph? Connected question "does Mage Armor force field meld into the body if you polymorph?

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:
ou miss the most important part of the citation. The subject.
Is irrelevant.

Great. Does it really matter, what we are speaking about? :- )

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Shield bonuses shut off when you polymorph into a critter.

Incorrect. Items that meld into the form lose shield bonuses. Others (laying on the ground, or hovering in the air) do not lose anything.

Everything else is OK.

So the question is "does the force field meld into the form?"

Ferious Thune wrote:


If you aren't wearing the ring, you can't wield the shield. That combined with rings only functioning when worn leads me to think that the shield bonus is coming from the ring.

Well, it looks like you are still wearing the items that are melded into you. At least because they still provide bonuses (except armor and shield). But I either didn't find that rings do not function if not worn. Most of them target the wearer, but this ring just generates a shield of force.

Ferious Thune wrote:


If it created a shield that was completely separate from the ring and lasted for a duration, then I might agree that it continues to function without the ring.

First of all, the ring does not disappear, just meld into the new form. And it continues to provide the force field. It is another question if you can wield the shield in a new form. And the most important question is if the force field meld into the body following the ring. I would say no. But I am not sure.

What about Mage Armor? Does it meld into body, if polymorphed after it was cast?

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Noxobar wrote:


Can you provide citation that the ring acts like shield? I did not find any.

The citation was already provided.

can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC)

You miss the most important part of the citation. The subject. What can be wielded as if it were a heavy shield? The complete citation:

"This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield"
Once more "wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded". Or "the ring generates and can be wielded"? How to prove, which one is right?

BigNorseWolf wrote:


You didn't find any because you put your hands over your eyes and go "la la la i can't hear you" any time you see data that goes against the answer you want and then pretend other people aren't sufficiently proving their point.

You are not doing better, do not flatter yourself. One incomplete citation that does not prove anything is not s good support of your point of view.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:


The ring acts like a heavy shield, the heavy shield oddly enough provides a SHIELD bonus. The ring provides a shield bonus.

Can you provide citation that the ring acts like shield? I did not find any. It is written only that the wall of force can be wielded as a shield. And then (if wielded) it provides the shield bonus.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


2) It is really, REALLY hard to follow a subjective argument you're making after you are making objective errors like its not a shield bonus (where both common sense and a simple A=A logic say it's a shield bonus) or worse that you say something isn't an armor bonus is flat out called an armor bonus.

I have never said that it is not a shield bonus. If I did, please provide citation.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


No one is going to believe you and not our own eyes. If you want to argue that the reasons armor and shield bonuses shut off when you wildshape don't apply here that's one thing. If you try to argue two obviously wrong things it undermines your ability to be believed with something less obvious.

Yes, I think that the reasons armor and shield bonuses shut off when you wildshape don't apply here and that, what I am speaking about. And I am waiting for you to say, what obviously wrong things I say. Supported with citations for simplicity.

Scarab Sages

Ferious Thune wrote:


There is a difference between that and the other items being discussed. Take the bracers off, no more armor bonus. Take a Ring of Force Shield off? No more shield bonus. If equipping the item provides the bonus, and removing the item removes the bonus, I feel confident saying that the item is providing the bonus, whatever the special effect for how that manifests in the game world.

The loss of armor bonus after taking the bracers off is because for the force field to be effective both bracers should be worn. Here is the rules citation: "Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective."

For the Ring of Force Shield, the rules do not say that the ring has to be worn to provide the force wall (see the citation in my previous post). It is not said that the force shield disappears if you take it off. It is only written that to get the shield bonus you have to wield the wall as a shield (the wall, not the ring).
The force wall is not a manifestation, it is the effect, like conjured animal. But the source is not a spell, but an item. And the duration is "until switched off" for the ring and "while worn" for the bracers.

Scarab Sages

LordKailas wrote:

I fail to see how that makes a difference. Yes, I "misspoke" and it's the bonuses themselves that stop functioning. Doesn't really change anything else I wrote...

Such as, not getting the bonus to ac from a force shield ring, or any of the other items listed.

I checked the items you suggested and they all are explicitly said to provide armor bonus. So, yes, their armor bonus is lost after polymorphing and melding.

However you are still wrong about the Ring of Force Shield as it is completely different. Here is the citation:
"This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action."
I already discussed this situation before in this thread and received no objections to what I said. First of all the ring does not provide any armor bonus or shield bonus. So, it is functional with the only exception that it can not be activated after it melds into new form. But the wall of force that is produced by the ring is not a part of the ring ant thus is not melded into the new form and can be wielded by the creature as any other shield.
Similar thing happens with the Bracers of armor. As it is written that they produce a force field and the force field is not melded, this field persists after polymorphing and provides the armor bonus as normal.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yes. It is that exact. Those are the exact words. It is an armor bonus. Those words are there objectively. Denying that is either an outright error or disingenuous.

I do not say that it is not an armor bonus. I say that it do not come directly from the bracers. And consequently this armor bonus is not the subject for the polymorph rules.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Noxobar wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

RAW the bracers shut off because they're an armor bonus.

This is RAW:

"Bracers of armor surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor."
It is not said here that the bracers are armor bonus.
I get not liking a rule but epistemic nihlism is not the solution

Well, it is really not that exact. And it is you, who denies the force field and removes it from the rules :-) I just want to read this correctly. What if I use analogy and change the force field to fog cloud and armor bonus to concealment?

"Bracers of armor surround the wearer with a fog cloud, granting him concealment."
Would you still insist that it is the bracers, that provide the concealment? The bracers can not provide neither armor bonus nor concealment on their own, they need force field or fog cloud or whatsoever. That's how it is written. They could say "Bracers of armor grant a force armor bonus" and there would be no questions.

Scarab Sages

Louis IX wrote:


Sentence is "armor and shield bonus", not "armor bonus, and also shield bonus".
If I were to nitpicking rules, I'd say "armor" doesn't work anymore, and "shield bonus" doesn't work anymore... which means that "armor bonus" still works, as well as shields (without their AC bonus).

It would be funny, but the correct citation is "armor and shield bonuses". So your interpretation is much less possible :- )

Louis IX wrote:

If the "armor bonus" ceases to function, you lose the armor bonus... but not Shadow, Slick, etc. Right? Same for shields.

I do not see any (formal) problems here. This is RAW.

Scarab Sages

Diego Rossi wrote:
Noxobar wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


You are fixated on the "how it does it", but for the polymorph rules, what matters are two things: 1) "It is generated by an item" and 2) "what bonus is it".

But to apply those rules this item also should be a part of your gear that was melded into your body, isn't it? You just do not apply those rules to other things. For example you can put the bracers (or barding) on after you was polymorphed. And the items do not lose the armor bonus.
Yes, if you don the item after polymorphing it work without problems. You can even activate items that you have don after polymorphing if you can take the appropriate action.

So your "what matters 1" should be changed to "It is generated by an item that was in character gear and is melded into his new form."

Rule citation:
When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you ... all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function). Items that require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form..

Then, return to your example with the wall. Assume that the item generates the wall of force.
1) Is it the character's gear and is it melded into new form?
Yes.
2) What bonus is it?
It is a wall of force.
So the wall is in play. It is another item.
1) Is it the character's gear and is it melded into new form?
No.
2) Already doesn't matter, the rule is not about this item.
So, this wall would provide all it's bonuses, including armor bonus, if one is written in its rules.

The same should apply to the bracers.
"Bracers of armor surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8".
Bracers meld and produce a field. The field is not melded and gives the armor bonus. Everything is as written.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:

RAW the bracers shut off because they're an armor bonus.

This is RAW:

"Bracers of armor surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor."
It is not said here that the bracers are armor bonus. It is said that the bracers provide the force field. And the polymorph effect can't stop the bracers from this field generation.

Scarab Sages

Lelomenia wrote:

Full plate armor also doesn’t directly provide an armor bonus, but it does create an “invisible but tangible field of” electromagnetic force surrounding each of the iron atoms

Unfortunately, this is not written in the rules :- ) "Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class"

ShadowcatX wrote:
Noxobar wrote:
But to apply those rules this item also should be a part of your gear that was melded into your body, isn't it?

Nope. Literally the only thing that matters is bonus type and is it an item.

So, do you insist that this rule should be applied to all items, including those lying on the floor or at other players posession?

Here is the RAW: "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you ... all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function). Items that require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form."
So, 1) the things not from your gear are unaffected by melding 2) things that are not melded and do not require activation are not mentioned by the rule, thus function normally. 3) If the melded, non-activated thing provided armor bonus, it stops doing so (with other effects functioning).

ShadowcatX wrote:

You keep trying to interject "but" into it. There is no room for "but" that's raw.

I'm not inserting anything, I just provide citations and read them word by word.

ShadowcatX wrote:
The reason for this is because polymorph does it's thing when the spell is cast. After the spell is cast items no longer meld. Why? Because that's RAW.

That is exactly what I am saying. The rule refers only to the things that are melded. Items that are not melded are unaffected.

Scarab Sages

Diego Rossi wrote:


You are fixated on the "how it does it", but for the polymorph rules, what matters are two things: 1) "It is generated by an item" and 2) "what bonus is it".

But to apply those rules this item also should be a part of your gear that was melded into your body, isn't it? You just do not apply those rules to other things. For example you can put the bracers (or barding) on after you was polymorphed. And the items do not lose the armor bonus.

Scarab Sages

Diego Rossi wrote:
Even if it were to say "they conjure a 3 yards thick wall of polystyrene around you" it will be irrelevant for the polymorph rules. What matter is that it is an armor bonus.

I'm afraid that it does matter. In your example the conjured "3 yards thick wall of polystyrene around you" is not subject to the polymorph restrictions as it is not melded into the form. Only the bracers are melded and thus are subject to the polymorhp restriction, everything they conjure is not. That is why the Mage Armor works with the polymprph.

Diego Rossi wrote:
As you see the bracers description say a few times that they give an armor bonus.

This is more convincing, thanks. At least for the RAI.

Scarab Sages

ShadowcatX wrote:

No, it isn't. You're trying to make it complicated because if you don't then your point looks obviously ridiculous. The problem is it isn't complicated and your point is ridiculous.

What kind of bonus do bracers supply? Armor. Full stop right there. It doesn't matter that their armor bonus is force effect any more than it matters than your basic armor has fortification, they're both still providing an armor bonus and turn off.

Please, read the sentence:

"When you put it on fire this substance surrounds you with dense smoke, granting everyoone inside concealment".
What does the substance do? It surrounds you with smoke. Does the substance provide concealment? No, the smoke does. It is ridiculous to say that the substance provides concealment, isn't it?

Now let's read another sentence:
"Bracers of armor surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8"
What do the bracers do? They surround the wearer with force field. Do the bracers provide armor bonus? No, the field does.
Does the polymorph effect interfere with the force field? No, because it is not melded into the new form.

This is how it is written. Do I miss something?

ShadowcatX wrote:
Ask your DM to change the rules for you if you want. I mean you're already playing one of the most powerful classes in the game, why shouldn't they make it stronger to suit you? Balance is over rated after all.

I am not speaking about power or balance here, I want to clarify the rules as they are written in the book. These rules are general for all polymorph spells, by the way.

Scarab Sages

Weables wrote:
was saying even if it did, doesnt matter, because armor bonuses dont apply.

False. The armor bonus does apply.

Items, providing armor bonus stop doing so. It even looks like other bonuses from that item still apply.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Lelomenia wrote:
If you had a “constant mage armor” magic item, wild shape would turn it off even though mage armor the spell is fine.

Why? The item provides the mage armor effect, not the ac bonus. So the Wild shape has nothing to do with it.

RAW: "Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function)." The effect is not an armor bonus, it is a force effect.

The problem here is if the bracers provide an armor bonus or a force effect.

Scarab Sages

Weables wrote:
mage armor provides an armor bonus. sorry mate, that line of reasoning doesnt pan out

As far as I know, mage armor does work with wild shape. Because mage armor is not an item.

Scarab Sages

LazarX wrote:
They provide an Armor Effect, which means they're treated as armor with regards to the wildshape rules.

Not true, as they provide force effect. They even are not ignored by incorporeal attacks, which is explicitly written in the attack entry.

blahpers wrote:
RAW says "armor and shield bonuses", not "worn armor or shields". Bracers of armor grant an armor bonus. They don't work when polymorphed, full stop. JJ discussed the "why", not the "what"; the "what" is right there in the Core Rulebook.

RAW says "Bracers of armor surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force". And then the field is "granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8". It more looks like they apply a mage armor on you, not provide an armor bonus...

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Tridus wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
To Mark and the other devs: Will the spellcasting classes still getting less feats than the other classes? This makes no sense. Everyone gets they proficiencies improving and still get feats, but when spellcasters do they need to "lost/give up" a feat? Too sad... :(
And why does it take until level 12 to get Expert proficiency in spells? They went way overboard on the nerf casters bandwagon and it really shows up in this type of thing.
Actually spellcasting proficiency is a nerf to everybody else except the casters.

Well, for wild druid, for example, the importance of spellcasting proficiency is doubtful. I would rather take more wild or other Druid's feats instead. I will probably not cast offensive spells at all.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good to see much improvement with wild shapes. The new Wild Morph looks very intriguing. However there are still some concerns.

First of all, the pest form. It still lacks utility, despite the big improvements, IMHO. The only thing you can use it for is to crawl and a bit of fly after 4 spell level. Why do not you give it more movement options and senses if it is supposed to be used only for movement and sensing? By the way, the range of scent is still unspecified.

Animal form. Is the shark still unable to breathe underwater? Is that really intended? :-)

I hope you don't mind me mentioning some other spells close to the druid question
Plant form 6 level (heightened) damage did not get more dice, while the damage bonus was reduced.

Balefull polymorph. Unclear, how exactly the target is changed. So I transform a fighter into a frog. Does it still have 20 strength and 22+ AC? What about medium size and speed 25? Can it move or only make will saves?

Shapechange. It is not clear what exactly do we get. I can guess that it just copy the effect of the form spells from before. What benefit does it provide, compared to previous versions (I mean, for 20 lvl Druid)?
So no Monstrocity Form, but what about heightened Dragon Form? Does heightenning to 8 spell level count against the restriction?

Scarab Sages

So, what is the final answer? Does it end after recovering below first stage? What about curses that do not have stages?

Scarab Sages

David knott 242 wrote:

The rules for a human with Int 14+ are indeed a more detailed version of the description of the second automatic language for humans:

"At 1st level, if your Intelligence score is 14 or higher, you can also select one of the languages from the list of common languages on page 40 or from other languages you have access to."

Well, apparently, this rule speaks about the human with int14+. To be strict it even does not say that you get that language, but only can select it from the particular table.

David knott 242 wrote:
If humans did not by default have access to common languages, then what would be the second language of a Taldan human?

Nothing. Yes, it happens.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, real talk, how many GMs are going to not let a Half-Orc/Elf take Orcish/Elvish with their 2nd language (after common) if a player asks if they can?

I know different ones. But the problem is the rules, not the suitable GM.

Data Lore wrote:
Doesn't getting the elf and orc traits qualify them somewhere in the rules for the languages? Weird that it wouldn't.

Traits do not convey any mechanical benefits, only influence on interactions with effects. It is written in the rules. I haven't seen traits in rules for languages.

Scarab Sages

David knott 242 wrote:
For humans (which would include half-elves and half-orcs), the automatic languages are Common and "One additional language, selected from those to which you have access." The bonus language for Int 14+ is basically chosen the same way.

Not really. The rules on Int 14+ are explicitly written at section Bonus Languages of each ancestry. The "... to which you have access" list is not specified anywhere so as there is no any sign that thay should work the same (if you know the citation, please provide).

David knott 242" wrote:
So a half-elf or half-orc could select Elven or Orcish as his second language, since both are currently common languages.

Could you, please, provide a citation from rulebook that allow you to use common language as your second language?

The problem is that only ethnicities explicitly say that "you gain access to ___ language", nothing else. This makes me convinced that only those languages from ethnicities are available for the second human language.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's pretty clear in context that this is the Common Languages on p. 40

Unfortunately, it is not clear. Could you please provide a citation from the rules to support your statement?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
FYI, those *are* at least available "instead of ethnic one" (or regional) because Elven and Orcish are Common access languages for ALL Inner Sea characters...

Not by RAW as I understand. It is written that you can choose from the list of common languages only if your Intelligence score is

14 or higher:
p. 23 Languages and bonus languages wrote:

This tells you the languages that members of your character’s

ancestry speak at 1st level, as well as a list of additional
languages common among members of that ancestry. If
your character’s Intelligence score is 14 or higher at 1st
level, you can select one of the bonus languages from this
list for your character to speak in addition to her ancestry
language or languages.

In bonus languages for human we also have

Quote:

At 1st level, if your Intelligence score is

14 or higher, you can also select one of
the languages from the list of common
languages on page 40 or from other
languages you have access to.

Note that, dwarves and halflings, for example, are not able to get orcish even with 14 Intelligence as it is not on theri Bonus languages list.

And Multilingual needs Trained in Society. So, normal 10-Int half-orc can not learn its native language :- )

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It looks not logical that half-elf and half-orc can't get their language (elven or orcish) now. It should be made available at least to be taken instead the ethnical one.

Scarab Sages

Deadmanwalking wrote:


Counting as a member of an Order is precisely what gives you the benefits of that Order on Feats. So you get said bonus (which, on Wild Shape, is extra Wild Shape uses).

Oh, yes, you are right. I missed that it is the Wild Shape that gives you the extra uses, not the order. Thanks for clarification.

Scarab Sages

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:
For the Druid Archetype there should be dedication feats to gain their order abilities — like there is for the Barbarian Totems. Let me get Wildshape! (And also change it to function long enough to be useful outside combat, even if only for non-combat forms)
Uh...Wild Shape is a level 1 Druid Feat. It is thus readily available. You even get an Order and thus the extra uses per day (though what spell you can use it for will lag sharply behind).

You can take Wild Shape only using Basic Wilding.

It is written that the order only gives you skills and anathema:
Quote:
Choose an order as you would if you were a druid. You become bound by that order’s anathema and count as a member of the order. You become trained in Nature and your order’s associated skill; for each of these skills in which you were already trained, you become trained in a skill of your choice. You don’t gain any other abilities from your choice of order.

So you do not get extra uses per day either. Am I right?

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, Druid and Monk archetypes seem flawed.
1) All martial class archetypes provide training in new weapons and armor (the latter potentially gives +1 or +2 AC). Monk gives you only unarmed Attack proficiency - the thing you already have (wizard does not, but that do not count) and make it a weapon. However, to get the defence - unarmored expert - you have to spend a class feat. Is that +1 AC worth it? I doubt.
2) All caster class archetypes provide feats that enable their non-feat class features (cleric gives domain, wizard gives arcane school ect.). Druid gets nothing. Only Order skill and anathema.

Scarab Sages

houser2112 wrote:


Is it a different game, really?

Well, the rules are different, so yes, it is.

houser2112 wrote:

They're calling it Pathfinder 2, and they're not going to keep supporting Pathfinder 1, so comparisons are valid.

You can compare, but you shouldn't base your conclusions on the old rules, because you have new ones. Many terms are more ore less redefined.

houser2112 wrote:
So, despite being called "feats", class feats function like class features, because many of the things class feats do were features in 3.PF. They even said this was a consideration with class design, touting the benefits of modularity over the old hard-coded class features.

Class feats function like feats work now: you choose them from a specific list when your class tells you to do so. Note that in previous edition it was not your class that gave you feat in general, as I remember. Now gaining a feat is explicitly a class feature.

Class features are fixed as they were before.
Note that even archetypes do not change them as before, they just give you access to new class feats.

Scarab Sages

houser2112 wrote:
They printed powers separate from the (currently, only) class that gives them because they intend to allow multiple classes to get them in the future.

Well, the archetypes also allow multiple classes to get access to feats of particular class. Nothing different. By the way, there are even the same class feats that belong to different classes. So it would be logical to have them separated too.

But usually a particular class feat and particular power is referred to some base class. For me it seems to be more convenient to have both collected inside class description. But I am also OK with separation. I just do not like it when they are presented differently.

houser2112 wrote:
They explicitly didn't do this for class feats because class feats aren't really "feats" as we've come to know them (feats in 3.PF were, with very few exceptions, not class-gated), they're really class features.

The class feats are feats by the rules, so as ancestry feats, general feats and so on. They all are treated the same but having different traits. "3.PF" has nothing to do with it, this is a different game.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also want to note the contrary situation with powers. Now each of the powers belongs to only one class. However they all are moved to Spell Descriptions chapter, making it harder to read. It is the same as if all class feat desctiptions were moved to the Feats chapter. Very inconvenient if those things are not common for many classes.

The designers seem just not to follow the design rules they made.
I have to point out similar issue with polymorph spells. Most of them are ...form spells that share the rules with only numbers changing. Those rules could be generallized in the Polymorph section in spell traits, but the best solution is to combine all those spells into one (or three to distinguish utility form and arcane list form) as it was done for summon monster, heal and all other spells.

For the initial atribute/feat/etc. topic , I really miss a convenience table which would show those things everybody get. This can also include spells slots table it is totally the same for all casters. It would be a lot easier for class entries describing only differences from this general table.

Scarab Sages

Xenocrat wrote:
1) No. You just pick a deity and have to meet the alignment restrictions.

Then what is "as you would if you were a cleric" there for?

Xenocrat wrote:
2) Yes. Note that staves do have cantrips, so there is a possibility of using some of them.

What part of question does this yes refer to? :- )

A cantrip is a first level spell (at second character level), so formally you fulfill the requirement. Note that it does not speak about spell slots or spell list, just an ability to cast spells of certain level.

Scarab Sages

Some questions about cleric dedication feat that are not obvious from the rules.

1) Does the phrase "Choose a deity as you would if you were a cleric." mean that you gain the diety weapon, signature skill and spell access?

2) Does the phrase "You can use wands, scrolls, and staves, but only for spells of a spell level that you can cast" mean that you actually can't use those untill you get Bsic Spellcasting feat? Can you use only wands and the other with cantrips inside?
Or does the phrese "A cantrip is always automatically heightened to the highest level of spell you can cast in the class. This makes a cantrip a 1st-level spell if you can cast 1st-level spells, a 2nd-level spell if you can cast 2nd-level spells, and so on." (p. 193, Cantrips entry) allow you use wands and the other with even heigher level spells (like 3 spell level at 5 character level).

Scarab Sages

Why restrict Druids?
Because Wldshape, that's why. It is just irrational fear from the past.
Wildshape is your third spell and it gives you one or two skills. Formally
Unfortunately this is not true as it is optional (even order specific), comes online at 4 character level (utility form is noncombat) and it is nerfed with duration.
And it is very disappointing.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, the -form spell issue is not only the wild druid concern and probably should have a separate discussuin under spells topic.

Dalzarin wrote:

All the wild shape forms give 100% static stat blocks.

I think that Paizo made this to simplify the spells and let the player not to calculate the ststs. Why ther decided that the calculations are hard is unclear as we do them for the character itself. For me it would be best if the forms just tweaked the ability scores as it was before: let the animal form redefine the strength score to be 18 (22 for heightened) with magical +1 and it solves all problems:

You get the appropriate scaling formulas
You do not have strength 10 (+0) huge bears.
You do not have to dig through the whole book to find that all attacks of polymorphed creatures are magical.
You do not have to build complex tables to compare yourself with the fighter.

If you make a table, you will find that each level you are about the same as a fighter with 4 strength, some d8 weapon with level-matched potency rune, nonmagical dexterity-matched armor. All for free. This consideration neglects some other things like feats and magic. The fighter has his feats, but forms also give you Athletics, damage types, movement types and senses.
We have some problems with scaling at 18-19 levels, when the monstrosity form do not scale and is not included into wild shape.

What I do not understand is why all those forms-spells are separated into different spells, being effectively all the same. The differences are minimal. It could be just one spell, heightenning from 1 to 10 spell levels like "summom monster". Well 3 spells actually to separate utility form, battle form and probably magical form (for arcane spell list).

Taenia wrote:

Druid vestments are required for scaling from level 14 onward. This leads to investing in feats that ultimately become costumes rather actual abilities.

These costumes give quite good damage, movement types and senses. Probably, the price gap is too heigh: you need to buy all the gear in addition to the vestment to get those +4.

Scarab Sages

shroudb wrote:

we don't need commas

if you ADD commas you change what the feat does.
if you DON'T add a comma, and leave it as it is, it works as it does now: it allows double slice to be used with unarmed.

The problem is that without commas the feat becomes doubtfull.

Furthermore, to be strickt, the Graceful poise does not say that you can do an unarmed attack. It says "if you make an unarmed attack". It is out of concern if you are able to do that or not.
By the way I do not say that Double slice can not be used with unarmed attacks (feel free to use claws). It can not be used with weapons with "unarmed" trait.

shroudb wrote:
And unarmed attacks have no mention about traits whatsoever in their description.

Yes, because the trait is a different thing and that is what I am speaking about. Unarmed attack is a name of the paragraph that describes unarmed Strikes -- a way of attacking, a weapon, that uses the statistics of the fist. But every weapon have special traits, describing its properties. And among possible traits we find an "unarmed" trait, that is not related to unarmed attacks and Strikes.

shroudb wrote:
By your interpetation, you can't "unarmed attack" with your fist since it's a completely different thing. Which doesn't makes any sense.

The rules specifically say that you make unarmed attacks with your fists.

shroudb wrote:
What I get from the whole "unarmed" thing, is exactly like the old "Ally" issue: Unarmed counts as a wielded weapon WHEN it makes sense to do so.

Sounds the same as using commas :- ) It is all up to GM after all.

Scarab Sages

Taenia wrote:
So wild shape is always a level behind the caster except for animal form and Pest form.

I know and I am unhappy with this too. But you are a caster and actually it do not seem to reduce the combat capabilities. Only versality.

Taenia wrote:
Easier and what should be done is to make Intimidate a Strength or Charisma skill. This would give fighters and barbs a bigger role in social situations and let the wild order druid actually use their signature skill.

I totally agree. Note, however, that there are the following words in the skill rules:

"If the GM deems it appropriate, she may have you use a different ability modifier for a skill check or when determining your skill DC" (p 142.)
So this is not impossible as is.

Scarab Sages

Horselord wrote:
I really don't like the idea of particular magical items being essential for certain builds, and druid's vestments are looking that way. The problem with these items is they are fundamental enough that characters are assumed to acquire them, thus those types of characters are assumed to possess these items when determining powers/abilities. Magical items should not make up for a class's shortcomings - the class should be fixed.

Is the vestment so essential? The forms give you attack no worse then Str +3 including levelled potency (though only trained proficiency) and average damage better then Str +5 longsword including potency. The AC is no worse then dexterity-matched +1 potency armor (trained proficiency). And you get all these for free.

So we can say that the vestment is no more essential for druid than a +5 potency sword with +1 potency armor for a fighter.

Scarab Sages

shroudb wrote:

your double slice break down makes no sense whatsoever.

I did not say anything about Double slice. We are speaking about Graceful poise, which is ill-worded.

shroudb wrote:

you can't willy nilly put brackets and commas into sentences, that changes their whole meaning.

Yes and this is exaclly the problem. There are no brackets commas or whatsoever when we need them so badly. We both see the problem and I suggest a solution that do not break the logic of the rules.

shroudb wrote:

hence, for double slice, "unarmed" is a wielded melee weapon.

there's no refuting that as RAW.

I say the same, but not only for Double slice. An unarmed attack is a weilded melee weapon. If it do not have "unarmed" trait in its entry.

shroudb wrote:
But "fist" weapon refers to atatcks "with any part of your body" and that includes claws, teeth and the like.

Yes, unless this part of the body explicitely has an entry with its own damage and traits. Just read further "Some ancestry feats, class features, class feats, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks". After that you get something like "claw 1d6(agile, finesse)", nothing in common with fist. Note that no "inherence" is in the rules, but "substitution" is everywhere (IMHO).

shroudb wrote:
Furthermore, we can clearly see every single "animal" companion having his "natural attacks (for lack of better term) be labelled as Unarmed attack.

They are said to be unarmed for the purpose of proficiency, but they do not have "unarmed" in traits.

shroudb wrote:
So, you want to tell me that "monster" lion's claws are treated like Wielded weapons and "Animal companion" lion's claws are treated as unarmed?

Again no. They both do not have "unarmed" traits so they are both weapons. There were even some issues if you do not treat the animal companion armed with weapon. I do not remember where exactly.

Scarab Sages

shroudb wrote:
and all natural weapons inherit all the "unarmed" traits, including.. "unarmed".

Doubtfull.

1) Fist is a fist 1d4 B (Agile, finesse, nonlethal, unarmed) and claw is a claw 1d6 slashing (agile, finesse).
2) There is no term "natural weapons" and no inherit trait rules.
3) Barbarian totem forms have "unarmed" trait explicitely, others do not.

shroudb wrote:

double slice explicitly states 2 wielded melee weapons.

graceful poise (double strike's enhancement) explictly states "if the 2nd double slice attack was with an unarmed attack"

Not exactly. It says

"While in this stance, if you make your second Strike from Double Slice with an agile weapon or agile unarmed attack..."
It does not say that agile unarmed attack comes from Double slice as I understand. Let me use brackets: "While in this stance, if you make your second Strike from (Double Slice with an agile weapon) or (agile unarmed attack)..."

shroudb wrote:
as an example, savage slice, which should be a wild druid feat, works on a melee weapon... well, is the claw, which is "unarmed" a melee weapon? no one knows.

As I said, claw do not have "unarmed" trait. So it is a weapon, and can be used with this feat.

But that is my interpretation and FAQ from the designers would be appreciated :- )

Scarab Sages

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

The rules are contradictory on the subject and need clarification.

page 183 wrote:
Unarmed An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon tables and weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Because it’s a part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

OTOH,

page 178 wrote:

UNARMED ATTACKS

You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. This counts as a simple weapon, so almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. Use the statistics for a fist even if you’re kicking, kneeing, or attacking with another part of your body. Some ancestry feats, class features, class feats, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks.

I tend to believe the first one because they go out of their way to say "weapon or unarmed attack" all over the place, which would be pagespace-eating redundancy if unarmed attacks were weapons. But YMMV.

I would say that the citations are just speaking about different things with the same name (Breaking the law of identity? That's a shame!).

The page 183 is a definition of a weapon trait, named "unarmed". Some weapons have this trait and some do not. Note that all the animals have their attacks without "unarmed" trait (bug or feature?).

The page 178 speaks about an unarmed attack as an option of attacking with the "noncombat" parts of your body, e.g. weapon. So that you technically treat them as fists (which has an "unarmed" trait).

So an unarmed attack without an "unarmed" trait is technically a weapon. The only issue (or feature?) is that without the "unarmed" trait a creature can be disarmed. Break the claws and knock out teeth! Sounds reasonable.

Scarab Sages

Taenia wrote:
... and base wild shape uses on Charisma instead of Strength. A druid in melee would wild shape and not use strength but the provided stats and Charisma works well with Wild Empathy and Intimidate.

It is an interesting idea to make heigh charisma druid. Maybe I evel like it. However I do not think that locking the core ability of melee offensive character to noncombat mental ability is a good idea. First of all, basing the wild shape on charisma will restrict those who want strength-based melee builds. As you said they need Strength constitution, dexterity, wisdom. And they are MAD :- ) Do not forget also the druid vestment.

I would recommend to use constitution for wild shape as a secondary druid ability important for any build. So we have both options (charisma or strength) avaliable. Furthermore you benefit from constitution every time everywhere.

Scarab Sages

Taenia wrote:

First, pre level 4 you don't wild shape unless you want to die. Pest Form should be an option but there should be an option to give you a small animal form with AC 17, +4 to attack, 1d8+3 damage.

Well, the pest form was not intended for battle. So it should not have top AC and attacks. 17 would be reasonable for level 3 character, when the Pest form is obtained. However, this probably also should be scaled with heighten. For the damage, I think it should be animal form that starts earlier with some inferior form for battle. Pest form is for avoiding fighting with sneak, which should probably also scale with heightening.

Taenia wrote:

For example as it stands right now a wild shaping druid can't attack ghosts or incorporeal critters. Either the spells need to count as magic attacks or the Wild Claws power should let all your attacks while Wild Shaped count as magical.

That is a good point. Maybe not to just make it count as magical, but at least allow to spend a use (spellpoint ) for magical +1.

Taenia wrote:

In addition, there is no difference between a Sorcerer casting Elemental form versus a Wild druid assuming that form with the exception that the Druid is a level behind.

Actually, Druid gets all form spells at the same time as everybody to cast through spell slots. So you can't say it is behind. The feats just allow you to cast them with wild points and without preparation. In fact this already makes you better then the sorcerer as you do not have to choose the exact form in the morning. This is also the reason, why the shapechange is useless for druids.

Taenia wrote:

Additionally the fact that dragon form shows up at level 14 means that when the druid accesses it is is a spell level behind making it less useful initially until level 15 when it becomes the only scales option to 8th and with stats not in line with that level.

Well, it is actually avaliable from character level 11 as all other 6 spell level spells. And regarding blindsence, resistance fly 100 and breath weapon up to 11d6 is quite comparable to other forms. It is a pity that it is not included in wildshape till 14.

Scarab Sages

The form spells (polymorph) have some issues and typos.

1) Some of the spells speak about "natural attacks" that are not described anywhewe, while all animals usually have unarmed attacks. Furthermore none of them has "unarmed" trait. This is important as some feats require a weapon attack (such as Savage Slice), so that its use with attacks with "unarmed" trait is prohibited.

2) There is no scent range specified anywhere, while scent rule p. 302 implies it does.

3) It looks strange that while being in the form you preserve old racial traits. I turn into an insect, but I am still human and humanoid by traits. Same for statistics: a huge tyrannosaurus with strength 10 (+0).

4) Plant form 6 level (heightened) damage did not get more dice, while the damage bonus was reduced.

5) Balefull polymorph. Unclear, how exactly the target is changed. So I transform a fighter into a frog. Does it still have 20 strength and 22+ AC? What about medium size and speed 25? Can it move or only make will saves?

6) Shapechange. It is not clear what exactly do we get. I can guess that it just copy the effect of the form spells from before.
So no Monstrocity Form, but what about heightened Dragon Form? Does heightenning to 8 spell level count against the restriction?

7) Animal form. All forms listed to have scent, it could be moved to the bullet with low-light vision. However a bull probably shouldn't have one (compared to shark and canine).
A shark without water brething is also strange.
Attack seems a bit low. While all other forms looks better than strength +6 attack, the animal form is less effective at class levels 5-6 (until heightened).

8) It is strange to see so many different spells with the same effect when others fully use heightening system. All of the form spells have the same text and only the numbers differ. All of them can be easily reduced to three spells:
Animal form (pest sounds rude and negative, all Druids hate you for this :-)) : harmless utility forms here.
Natural battle form (all those spells refer to battle form by the way) : all the animals without much magic here + plants
Supernatural battle form (this is for arcane spellcasters as they do get them) : dragons, elementals, monstrosity.
The two 10-level form spells remain separate as having heigher rarity, however I would also include Nature Incarnate into Natural battle form.

9) The Pest form. Note it is a level 2 spell and do not forget it. It is ridiculous now and looks more like debuff. Like balefull polymorpf. I would rather use it as debuff with all that speed 10, Athletics -4, weakness 5 and AC 13 (any level 1 through 20!), 1 attack damage and no ability to manipulate things.
So effectively you are restricted to only move actions. Then what about climbing (lvl 2 spell), swimming (lvl 3 spell), water breathing (lvl 2 spell for 1 hour, lvl 3 spell 8 hours and lvl 4 spell 24 houts!)? Note that all the normal spells can be used not only by yourself (water breathing even for 5 targets) and everybody remain fully functional.
Can we be glad that we still have senses? Yes you get low-light vision, but Darkvision is lvl 2 spell and lasts 1 hour. Scent could be good, but the range is not specified. I couldn't find any sign of the scent range value except in Shifting Form spell.
So, do we need 10 Stealth that badly (sneaking with speed 5 ft)? Not really. Furthermore, invisibility is level 2 spell. It has less duration, but do not need checks and you are not restricted to only move.
The duration is ok for 2-lvl spell. But even fly has 1 hour variant (and the speed is better). Yes the druid has a feat (!) that allows you to spend 2 (!) form uses to have 1 hour duration. But the spell is avaliable for other classes! Not every druid will take this feat and not every druid even has 2 wild shape uses at 10 level.
So the spell needs more movement types (restrict their use in wild form entry for 1-2 class levels), speed, more duration (at least 1 hour at 7 spell level to match fly).

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>