Penthau's page

Organized Play Member. 86 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 3 wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I have a couple of characters who had the misfortune of encountering a clay golem and getting cursed with Curse Wound. The wording is clear that treat wounds or overnight rest isn't going to help and any spells will have to counteract the curse before being effective. One of the players is insisting that potions are both magic and not spells, so they should work without having to roll. Luckily we were at the end of the session anyway, so I have time to do some research.

I am leaning towards allowing it to bypass the roll, but it does seem to violate the spirit of the curse. Potions aren't clearly spells in a bottle anymore and there is no requirement to use a Heal spell to make a potion.

Cursed Wound (divine, curse, necromancy) A creature hit by the clay golem’s fist must succeed at a DC 29 Fortitude save or be cursed until healed to its maximum HP. The cursed creature can’t regain HP except via magic, and anyone casting a spell to heal the creature must succeed at a DC 29 counteract check or the healing has no effect. The golem’s counteract level is equal to its creature level.

Thanks, that's kind of what I was thinking it meant too. He could change a cantrip, not add more. I will point out Cantrip Expansion to him.

I have a player that has the sorcerer dedication on his rogue and he wants to learn more cantrips. He thinks that the errata allows him to do that, but it isn't clear to me that that is what it is allowing spontaneous dedication casters to do. Can he learn and add more cantrips to his repertoire and if so, how many?

"In the spellcasting dedication feats, you can prepare or add to your repertoire common cantrips of your spellcasting tradition, whether from this book or other
cantrips of that tradition you learn or discover"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When a spell has somatic components it gains the manipulate trait, so it would draw ops.

I am seeing this phrase all over the rules and it doesn't seem to fit what I think is the intent. It occurs in the Follow the Expert rules and the latest place I have seen it is the Veil spell.

" gives the targets a +4 status bonus to Deception checks to prevent others from seeing through their disguises, and add their level even if untrained."

What that means to me, if read literally, is that everyone gets to add their level to the deception skill whether they are trained or not. If it said "add their level, if they are untrained", it would say to me that only untrained people get to add their level.

Does everyone get to add their level to their Deception check, even if they are a level 20 master in Deception? Or do only untrained people add their level?

I was surprised to discover recently that I couldn't Shove someone with my Shield on a Champion. He is sword and board, so freeing up a hand to Shove is clumsy at best. It seems odd to me that a light mace is better at Shoving than a shield, when it feels like a shield should be among the best item for shoving.

Anguish wrote:
Typically I'd think an enemy would be unwilling unless they were able to identify the spell as it was being cast. Just because the player/DM knows it's heal and beneficial doesn't mean the NPC does.

That is a very good point I had never considered. Does the enemy get any idea of what the spell is when they have to decide if they are willing? Is the default stance "unwilling" to accept spells cast by the other side and you only change to willing if you recognize the spell? Do they have some idea of what is going on since no hostile spells require willing targets?

Of course a cleric can take the Selective Energy class feat (, which seems to imply that 3 action heals do heal enemies or there wouldn't be a feat to avoid it. I didn't see a similar class feat for druids though.

He can use ranged weapons if he isn't raging, but he is going to be hosed if he needs a ranged attack after he has already started. This happened to an animal barbarian player in my game. He raged at the beginning of the fight as usual, then the creatures flew up out of reach. He still had enemies in sight and couldn't end the rage voluntarily. All he could do is stand and watch helplessly, very frustrating.

The group is only 5th level now, so they don't have any means of grounding flying creatures for a while.

The last time I tested it, Fantasy Grounds was not rolling player initiative properly. I have my players roll manually. Also, they have the option of several kinds of skill rolls for initiative (stealth and perception primarily), which can change from combat to combat.

No more holding a charge for a melee touch attack spell.

I have a player that is convinced that because the casting times of spells appears to be based on the components of the spell, that removing the verbal component of a spell with the silent metamagic action would reduce the casting time of the following spell by 1 action. My ruling was that if the metamagic did so, it would explicitly state that it would, so no, you didn't get a silent spell that was the same casting activity as the regular spell. It would take the one action before in addition to the normal casting time.

He wasn't thrilled by my ruling so I promised I would ask here for the general consensus.

No more area of effect spreads. Stinking cloud won't slip around a corner anymore.

Bandw2 wrote:
Penthau wrote:

There is also nothing in the wording of Detect Magic that exempts it from line of effect rules, which apply to all spells unless otherwise stated. It is listed as simply an emanation with a 30' radius.

oh then you can cast it inside a cup and get a cone shaped detect magic. if the source is your hand or something just pull up your sleeve.

hell you can easily use any obstruction then, like casting it from behind an open doorway to easily determine location...

Except the source isn't your hand, the spell is an emanation, which emanates from your square in all directions. Find a single rule that exempts detection spells or emanations from line of effect. Maybe there can be some disagreement on what constitutes a barrier to line of effect, but if it's a barrier, Detect Magic isn't going through it. So yes, you could stand in the hallway past an open door and restrict the area of effect into the room, assuming the wall is a barrier, which it would be in the vast majority of cases.

So would being in a chest be a barrier to line of effect? How about in a drawer of a desk or a secret compartment in the wall? The rules say that an opening of an square foot stops something from being a barrier to line of effect, none of which would apply to any of the examples above.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
Penthau wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

detect magic isn't stopped by lead anymore only locate is as far as i can tell, its also stopped by running water o-o...

in fact locate, other than lead lined drawers probably does exactly what people want "locate magic item not in my possession" *shrug* i don't see where it outlines what kind of criteria you can and cannot sort by, but it'll probably be up to your GM.

As far as I can tell, protections against detect magic are as simple as the drawer itself. The +1 dagger is out of line of effect in the drawer, so it wouldn't be detected inside it. So putting it under a thin false bottom should protect it from detection. You would have to find it by searching.
There's nothing in the wording to denote light of sight required for DM, it's just a true/false state that's only fooled by an illusion school spell of a spell level higher than that of DM. So if it's in the next room on the bed in the hotel, it'll ding as long as it's close enough. So if you enchant the drawer with some hiding spell, that should do the trick as long as it's not an archmage trying to find it

There is also nothing in the wording of Detect Magic that exempts it from line of effect rules, which apply to all spells unless otherwise stated. It is listed as simply an emanation with a 30' radius.

Bandw2 wrote:

detect magic isn't stopped by lead anymore only locate is as far as i can tell, its also stopped by running water o-o...

in fact locate, other than lead lined drawers probably does exactly what people want "locate magic item not in my possession" *shrug* i don't see where it outlines what kind of criteria you can and cannot sort by, but it'll probably be up to your GM.

As far as I can tell, protections against detect magic are as simple as the drawer itself. The +1 dagger is out of line of effect in the drawer, so it wouldn't be detected inside it. So putting it under a thin false bottom should protect it from detection. You would have to find it by searching.

I don't think you share the space with the grappled target. Two medium creatures can't share a space and I haven't seen any exception for grappling. Therefore there should always be a preferred direction for "away" from the pusher who is grabbing someone.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My interpretation is that if they meant you could only push someone directly back they would have used different language. First, they say "push away" not directly back. Then they say the pusher must go the same distance and the same direction. That is also unusual language if they meant directly back only. My main restriction would be that each square must be farther away from the pusher than the previous, limiting you to the 3 squares you mentioned.

There are other pushing effects that I wouldn't allow that with, like hydraulic push, since it would have less control at range.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The big weakness in the Detect Magic spell is that it just tells you if something magical is somewhere in the 30' radius of the spell. In 1e, you could just concentrate for a few rounds and the items in the area became obvious to the caster.

For example, the characters walk into the wizard's research lab and there are 30 scrolls sitting in little shelves around the room. The GM knows that 3 of them are magic scrolls and the other 27 are not. He tells the players after they cast Detect Magic "You detect magic in the room". Now what? How do they find the magic ones, because they are not going to stop once they know there is magic of some kind in the room?

Do you send the caster out in the hallway, bring out 1 scroll at a time and recast the spell 30 times? Do you have him cast Read Aura 30 times over the course of 30 minutes?

Even if you just hand wave it and say they find them over the course of a 10 minute search, the process for the characters is just ridiculously tedious. I agree that the spell needed to be nerfed, it revealed too much, especially working through materials and spotting high level illusions, and ruined encounters unless you explicitly planned around it. I feel that they nerfed it too far.

I was in my first couple of serious fights last night and it seemed to me that the offensive capabilities of monsters/NPCs is quite high. I am playing a Champion with heavy armor and a shield and they were not struggling to hit me. Most of them had hunter's mark so the damage was quite high also.

In PF1, it seemed like players tended to ignore minions and punks and headed straight for the boss or most dangerous looking opponent. Usually the riff raff had trouble hitting and doing enough damage to worry about.

Now in PF2, it seems like it is dangerous to leave them active longer than necessary. If you have to spend a long time beating on a boss while the punks are stabbing you in the back successfully, you could be in trouble. Even a goblin warrior level -1 has a better to hit than everyone but a fighter at level 1.

Is it a viable tactic to focus fire the rabble down early to reduce the number of attacks each round and wait to go after the boss until the numbers are more manageable?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for all the good suggestions. I was getting too far in the weeds and treating their search as more of an encounter and less as exploration. I ran Sunday and just had the default search take 10 min, so that people could also be doing treat wounds, etc. at the same time, and assumed that detect magic would be cast at the opportune times.

It does seem odd that a wizard would have designed the Detect Magic spell to work this way. Why make it so hard on yourself when you could have just made the magic auras visible?

In 1e detect magic, and most other detection spells "can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it." I am glad they got rid of that.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

When I first read Detect Magic, I thought it was going to be a cool change. Players wouldn't be using it to automatically see through illusions, find hidden magic items behind loose stones in the wall, etc. Now they would have to rely on their skills and more specialized spells.

What has actually happened is that everything grinds to a halt as soon as Detect Magic pings positive. Now they have to go through an elaborate search algorithm to discover which of the 20 items they can see is magical. This involves a combination of moving around the room and moving items around so they are out of line of effect or outside the 30' radius. Then you hide the found magic item and repeat the process to see if there are more.

I am torn about how I want to treat this. One would be to just fast forward through the search process and tell them what is magical and tick off some time. I thought about treating Detect Magic as an imprecise sense and letting them know what square the item is in on an easy perception check. I am reluctant to just make the item glow for the caster, but it does have its attractions. Now they know that the third sword from the left in the rack of eight is the magical one and we can move on without the search routine.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Adding the shove trait to shields seems like the way to go. It is more logical than the shove trait on a light mace. I'll have to see of my GM will buy it.

I am playing a sword and board champion with a good athletics check. I realize that I won't be able to grapple or perform most other maneuvers because I have a shield in my hand, but I thought I might be able to shove using a shield. I have looked everywhere I can think of to find a feat or something that would allow me to shove with a shield to no avail. Any suggestions on how to accomplish this?

Claxon wrote:

That's an interesting take. I'm warm to the idea, but not sure if it would be unbalanced or not.

I think your method makes staves a lot less attractive.

Personally I look at staves at the new spell in a stick alternative.

Good point, I didn't think about how they compare to staves. Maybe instead of giving them a chance to cast more than 1 extra time, they deactivate either way, but a good roll lets you cast once more.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not particularly fond of the idea of destroying a wand just because it was used twice in one day. My change would be to make the overcharge roll before you try to cast the spell each extra time per day after the first. Success allows the spell to be cast and failure doesn't cast the spell and deactivates the wand until daily preparations.

The downside of trying to use a wand more than once per day is that you may waste the spell casting actions in combat and deactivate the wand. A nuisance, but not as negative and extreme as total destruction. The upside is that you may get 1 or more extra uses from the wand before it is deactivated. I thought about making it broken, but that can be fixed in 10 minutes and I figured that was too many potential uses.

22 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the way that Mutants and Masterminds handles complications. They don't give any abilities in return for the flaw. You can take all you want. When the complication causes issues for the character in the game, you get the equivalent of a hero point. If your feeble Aunt June never gets kidnapped, you get nothing.

They explained that allowing people to front load complications with character advantages just gets them avoided or ignored. By having the complication arise during play to give an in game advantage means that if you want the resource, you have to play the complication. Great design move, IMO.

Does Detect Magic work through materials (such as wood and stone) or is it limited by line of effect? I don't see any language about emanations or detection spells ignoring line of effect.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lay on Hands heightens too. At 10th level you would be healing 30.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that they mean you are not fatigued if the spell lists a maximum duration. Some spells are just "sustained" and you would be fatigued if you sustained them for 10 minutes. If it was "sustained 1 minute", you can't go 10 mins. If it were "sustained 1 hour", you can go that long without becoming fatigued.

Caster goes outside of the room. Group throws out one item at a time and the caster casts Detect Magic. Nothing detected, throw it in the normal pile. Something detected, throw it in your bag for later ID. For finding the hidden stuff, you are stuck with searching, I guess. Since the Line of effect doesn't go into the room, you are just detecting the stuff in the hallway. Tedious, but who said adventuring was exciting?

Also, it just occurred to me, wouldn't most magic armor and weapons have runes on them? I assume they are visible and where they can be easily seen.

I was thinking that this could have huge implications on the way that people search for things in PF2 vs PF1. No more scanning the room to find the magic item behind a hidden panel. No more detect evil through the door to find undead. In my games I am getting rid of the penetrating detection until I hear about it to the contrary. My players are going to miss so much more treasure now.

Maybe a sack was a bad example. I included it because it keeps you from seeing the item inside of it. But let's just say inside a chest with 1 inch thick wooden sides or behind a thin wooden door in another room. 1e gave examples of what detect spells could penetrate (3 feet of wood in this case), but I haven't seen anything like that in 2e. Does 2e Detect Magic sense through an inch of wood? Right now, it seems like to me the answer would be no.

In 1e, there were rules for detect spells that would work through certain amounts of wood, stone, etc. I haven't seen any mention of that in 2e. There don't appear to be any exceptions to Line of Effect for emanations or detect spells. Does that mean that a magic item in a sack or a chest would not be detected by Detect Magic?

Could a sturdy shield be made of adamantine instead of steel?

I would probably leave out the durations, since Frightened has its own built in duration, which are close to the ones you are setting. With the bay, consider adding fleeing while frightened, since the original creature panicked targets.

It just says "spend a hero point to reroll a check". If some bruiser just crit me, could I force him to make a reroll?

What is necessary for a rogue to be able to snipe with a ranged attack? Can he spend 1 action to duck behind the rock he is standing near and make a hide roll, then strike with his bow as his next action and get a sneak attack? I also don't see any requirements for being within 30 feet in sneak attack.

If I am interpreting this right, it seems like it makes sniper rogues fairly viable. Their rate of fire would be cut in half, but they would get more damage per shot. Also, some percentage of their shots wouldn't be sneak attacks if they fail their secret hide check.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the intention is that the first attack by every attacker in their round until the beginning of the caster's next turn gets the benefit. There is no way that this would be a 7th level spell when all it is is a True Strike usable by one other person on one attack. Even with my interpretation, I don't see this as a 7th level spell.

It appears from the wording in the spell that 2 people outside the cloud and on opposite sides of it can see through it without concealment.

"You call forth a cloud of mist. All creatures within the mist become concealed, and all creatures outside the mist become concealed to creatures within it."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's say that I am an expert crafting a level 5 magic item worth 160 gp. My work per day is 1 gp. After 4 days I spend 160 gp worth of materials and I have an item worth 160 gp. If I sell it for the "market price", I make no profit and I have spent 4 gp worth of labor. If I set out for another 4 days to reduce my costs by 4gp, I can sell it at market price without losing money. But now I have spent another 4gp worth of labor just to lower the price of materials. I have invested 156 gp in materials and 8 gp of labor, still 4 more than the market price of the item.

If I am a crafter trying to make a living making magic items (or anything using the default crafting rules) I don't see that I have any option other than to charge the market price + my labor for those first 4 days. Am I missing something? Do I make sure I only work on easy stuff far below my level so that I happen to have a few crits and no chances of failure to make up the lost 4 days of work?

OK, thanks, I missed that. So much to digest. :-)

I can't find anything that says that a good divine lance, for example, only harms evil creatures. I thought the good trait was so that it would do more damage against things that were vulnerable to good. Otherwise it would be worthless for fighting animals, etc.

I was pretty surprised when I saw the goblin warrior's dogslicer was +8 to hit. It is 1 higher than a first level Champion with 18 str and only 1 level lower than a first level fighter with an 18 str and an expert in his weapon. The goblin is a level -1 creature with a 16 dex and an agile weapon. It also seems odd that is the same as a goblin commando which is a level 1 creature, two levels higher.

I am hesitant to use a throwaway punk that actually has decent chance to hit even a heavily armored character and a serious chance to crit a back row caster type. With few opp attacks and their scuttle ability, it will be fairly hard for the characters to stop them from getting into the backfield.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For adding monsters for homebrews and non Paizo material into Fantasy Grounds, there is a Green Ronin product, the Advanced Bestiary, that you can use to import and edit creatures.

A question we had a few games ago is can the trampling creature do a double move or just a single move as part of a trample?

I can't find any rules to support the idea that entering the square of a tiny creature provokes an attack of opportunity. You are not leaving a threatened square as you enter. You are also allowed to occupy a square with a tiny creature, unlike a medium or small creature. You are not required to do a combat maneuver to enter, so I can't see why it would provoke.

Total cover wouldn't protect against a fireball, because it is a spread and goes around corners and through air holes. The satchel would have to block line of effect to do that. I would give him a +4 to reflex though personally and they usually have some form of evasion.

Also, like any gear carried by the target, it normally wouldn't have to make saves unless he failed his by rolling a 1. I would probably put it about 6th on the list of possible check, about the same as a stowed weapon.

1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>