Now that is a great point, if you inflict sickened before the creature swallows someone, it can't use swallow whole.
What are good ways to cause sickened?
Search Posts
This doesn't help in your current situation, but my table has taken to quickly Sickening any creature that is large enough to Swallow Whole or they dole out and consume Pucker Pickles.
... With item levels being relevant, players can't access stuff significantly above their level, so extra wealth isn't as problematic as it could have been in PF1 ... Item levels are only really relevant for crafting of them. Otherwise, their availability is entirely in the hands of the GM. Item Level (with emphasis): Each item has an item level, which represents the item’s complexity and any magic used in its construction. Simpler items with a lower level are easier to construct, and you can’t Craft items that have a higher level than your own (page 236). If an item’s level isn’t listed, its level is 0. While characters can use items of any level, GMs should keep in mind that allowing characters access to items far above their current level may have a negative impact on the game.
Completely off topic... Smurf it! Heh. hehe. heheheheee.
I think the issue is the phrase, "you can use," in Ready:In the original question, I don't get the distinction being made. Dirty Trick also is an attack just like Trip. So neither should be possible to Ready in that scenarioWhy not? Ready doesn't say it takes on the traits of the readied action. So "[1a finisher], 2a Ready" is not taking an attack action in your turn after the finisher action...
There are two ways to read that phrase with that sentence. 1. Choose a single action or free action your character knows how to perform. 2. Choose a single action or free action that is valid for your character to perform at this moment. If someone is reading as per #1, then there is no conflict. Attack actions made as the reaction defined by the trigger are not restricted by either the Finisher or Flourish Traits of actions used before readying. If someone is reading per #2, however, using a Finisher on the first action would prevent readying any action or one-action activity that has anything that includes the Attack trait. Similarly, using a Flourish on the first action would prevent readying anything with the Flourish trait.
While mounted with nimble reprisal some interesting things happen. normally you can reach the 24 squares around you with a 5'' step from nimble reprisal but now that your striking from any of the mounts squares you can reach 32 squares. Uhm. With context clues, I am guessing you are referring to a melee Champion taking a Step as part of Nimble Reprisal. As such, none of the GMs in my circle would allow a Step while Mounted:
Another problem that I can point about giant whirlwind barbarian is that they compete with casters for AoE space. When we have a sorcerer was common that the giant barbarian player preventing the caster to use AoE effects. . . Heh. The Sorcerer's answer at our table was, "Here's a Backfire Mantle and two healing potions."
2. Can a PC under the effect of disappearance do anything to make themselves easier for their allies to find? Does it have to involve interacting with physical material? Can they even really communicate with their allies at all anymore? When our table had someone using Disappearance, we got creative and made sure to cast Telepathic Bond and heightened Status. So, communication (telepathy) and location (known direction and distance to) were covered as neither of these rely on senses.
Like a Magus needs INT. That is debatable. I'm playing a remastered Magus in Gatewalkers and find myself doing just fine with the more limited number of Attack Roll spells. Ukang ignores Int for Str (for Athletics to Trip) and Dex as a Twisting Tree Magus. He only Spellstrikes with attack spells and, otherwise, only casts utility spells. His Spell Attack and Spell DC are irrelevant.
GMCore is full of passages and paragraphs on how to fit a rule or mechanic into a square hole...
My interpretation of RAW was inclusive of the section you bolded not excluding it. In fact I am relying very much on that bolded section to come to my conclusion that a GM can adjust the DC and must decide when an action is particularly hard. The issue arises when the GM rarely or never uses the typical 15 DC and defends that as RAW. If the DC is typically 15, then, more often then not, it should be 15. Combined with the typical DC and the reasons (particular hard or easy tasks), the call-out that the "GM might adjust the DC" is expressing a deviation from the standard that should not be standard. I believe some are reading "might" as "may" as in "the GM has permission to." However, the construction of the sentence suggests the reading of "might" should more translate to "it is possible that the GM would, in certain cases." Thus, when the GM decides that the DC 15 check is too easy or permissive and always replaces it they are, in fact, deviating into house rules territory. It's fine if they do, just don't argue that it isn't house rules territory.
And when you Aid an attack, what is supposed to be the preparation? You think: I gonna Aid this attack! How is that supposed to even take an action. Monica the Monk decides to Aid, with a shoulder-check to the BBEG, Barbara the Barbarian's Strike at the end of a Sudden Charge. GM: What are you doing as a prep action?
Locpicking: "I take out my own picks and get in position..." Surgery: "I scan the instruments, noting their layout, to more efficiently pick the right one when asked."
First, strike #3. That is a function of #2. Second, what we've taken to doing at our table to clean everything up is to rename #2 to "Field Vial." So then, Versatile Vials are vials that an Alchemist prepares each day. These vials can be used with Quick Alchemy to create any known, consumable Alchemical item on the fly. Used Versatile Vials replenish at a base rate of two every ten minutes. Field Vials are created by Quick Alchemy, do not consume Verstatile Vials, and have very limited application as defined by each field. By default, one application is that they can be thrown as a small bomb. Thinking of Versatile Vials as Alchemist focus points while Field Vials are Alchemist cantrips, we find, helps conceptualize their applicability.
Taken out of context. So irrelevant.I absolutely will block both diagonal movements... In the second case there's absolutely no difference between diagonal and linear, side to side arrangement of creatures in fiction...There is absolutely a difference between diagonal and linear on PF2E battle maps. The rules for Diagonal Movement spell it out, "Because moving diagonally covers more ground, you count that movement differently." If there was no difference then there would be no difference in diagonal movement. Refusing to acknowledge the game rules for counting diagonals, so sophistic. As for "more ground" - yes. Not a problem though unless somehow used as an exploit. Otherwise a 'diagonal' formation is still a continuous formation you still can't get through. Because it's 'diagonal' only on a square grid, not in fictional reality... The square grid is what we have to work with for the battle map. You can't just handwave it away because it does fit your idea of fictional reality. And even your fictional reality is incorrect. The linear arrangement is two dudes side-by-side spanning a 10-foot width. The diagonal arrangement is, two dudes, in a staggered formation with one 5 feet to the back and side of the other. Now, if they both turn 45 degrees to the right, without changing their center points, they are shoulder-to-shoulder spanning a distance of approximately 14.5 feet. PF2E simplifies that to 15 feet on the square battle map. The diagonal formation may be a continuous formation, but it is more spread out, meaning there is a larger gap which the movement rules allow movement through since it can be accomplished without entering an enemy's square.
... The GM is told to set the DC ... Aid tells the GM, "The typical DC is 15, but [you] might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks" (emphasis added). The GM is not told to set the DC. The GM is told that the DC is typically (meaning the baseline expectation is) 15 and instructed that they might want to adjust it based on the difficulty. GM Core gives guidance on Adjusting Difficulty:
. If the GM always adjusts the DC because they feel like the typical DC is too permissive, then they are diverting from RAW into houserules.
And not seeing the comparison with Ready which is the only other ability in the whole game I can think of that also has both an action and a reaction cost is crazy to me. Not seeing and acknowledging the clear contrasts with Ready is crazy to me. Not acknowledging that Aid is its own mechanic with its own rules that are different and distinct from the separate Ready mechanic with its rules is crazy to me. You apparently only accept the evidence that supports your bias, and invent further evidence conflating Ready with Aid to support your bias, while blithely ignoring every evidence to the contrary. That's crazy, man!
The bonus of the pc is not being lowered by MAP so the rule for reactions is being observed. I'm curious. Did you cut my quote after my bullets for not applying the MAP on purpose or was that the forums truncating longer quotes? The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally... So, you completely ignored everything I wrote (that was omitted in your quote). Got it. That's sloppy logic. Nothing in the Aid rules say that Aid is made "particularly hard" because the character was focused on something other than aiding an ally. By the logic implicit in, "The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally," then the DC can never be 15 unless the character spends all of their actions (i.e focusing on aiding) preparing to aid an ally. Erego, the base DC of Aiding an attack roll is 15. Adding the Attack trait to the prep action or the Aid reaction check doesn't change that whatsoever. ... If the monk wanted to give the big bonuses that a crit would yield their best bet would have been to use an action to aid with the attack trait first before using other actions that increase MAP. Now that's just plain silly. Absolutely nothing in the rules for Aid state or imply that the difficulty of the Aid reaction check is in any way based on the order of operations during the aiding players turn. Adjudicating Aid difficulty based on the order of operation (third action vs. first action) is absolutely a house rule. To be clear if a GM gives the attack trait to aid and the action is taken first that would raise MAP for subsequent attack actions and that is within the rules. I assume that you are referring the GM giving the Attack trait to the preparatory action taken to set up the Aid reaction. Sure. If someone is dumb enough to do that first, their subsequent attack actions, technically, will suffer the MAP. And there is no point in giving aid the attack trait at all... You're absolutely correct. ... if the GM is not increasing the DC of the aid check because players will always always use it with a last action so applying the attack trait has no consequence. Read the Aid Rules. Nothing... absolutely nothing... in the rules suggest that there should be consequences for preparing to Aid as a third action for any reason. Unlike Ready, Aid does not say anything about attack actions or the Attack trait making it any harder or applying at the time the character takes their reaction. So, the GM increasing the DC of the Aid check simply because it was the third action for prep and the GM gave it the Attack trait in order to apply a consequence to a third-action Aid prep is absolutely a house rule.
I absolutely will block both diagonal movements... In the second case there's absolutely no difference between diagonal and linear, side to side arrangement of creatures in fiction... There is absolutely a difference between diagonal and linear on PF2E battle maps. The rules for Diagonal Movement spell it out, "Because moving diagonally covers more ground, you count that movement differently." If there was no difference then there would be no difference in diagonal movement. Extrapolating from the Diagonal Movement rules, the linear configuration is 10 feet wide while the diagonal configuration is 15 feet wide. The diagonally arranged creatures are "cover[ing] more ground."
Since you followed up with your observation that a cross-topic was, "talking about using the attack form of aid such that the GM has decided it should have the attack trait," I've given thought to such an example. Monica the Monk Ki Rushes the BBEG and flurries with Flurry of Maneuvers, striking but failing to Trip the BBEG. Now, she knows that Barbara the Barbarian is going to Rage then Sudden Charge the BBEG. So, instead of stepping away or attempting to Trip the BBEG again, Monica the Monk prepares to shoulder-check the BBEG to knock him off balance to Aid Barbara the Barbarian's Strike at the end of the Sudden Charge. End turn. Barbara the Barbarian, predictably, Rages and Sudden Charges the BBEG. At the end of her movement when she is about to Strike, Monica the Monk takes her Aid reaction. The GM determines that the description "shoulder-check the BBEG to knock him off balance" is similar enough to the Shove action that he calls for an Athletics check with the Attack trait. Monica the Monk rolls Athletics and, between the die roll and proficiency, scores a 26. "Critical Success!" declares the GM, and, since Monica the Monk is a master in Athletics, Barbara the Barbarian gains a +3 circumstance bonus to her Strike. There is zero reason, in this example, following the Aid rules to apply MAP here.
Furthermore, there is no good reason, following the Aid rules, to increase the difficulty of the Aid check simply because it has the Attack trait and Monica the Monk made two Attack actions on her round. The base function of Aid is to "try to help your ally with a task" with the trigger "An ally is about to use an action that requires a skill check or attack roll" (bold emphasis mine). Since the base function is to help an ally with a skill check or attack roll, then the base DC is the base DC to Aid an ally's attack roll. Certainly other factors may make the task more difficult triggering "the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks." Such circumstances might include Monica the Monk trying the same trick next round getting into Repetition under Aid Details. Or, the BBEG is Gargantuan. But simply giving the Aid reaction the Attack trait doesn't suddenly make the task "particularly hard" nor does it justify ignoring the general rule regard the MAP when it isn't your turn, and it certainly doesn't justify invoking the MAP general rule exception explicitly stated in Ready since Monica the Monk didn't use Ready; she used Aid.
I personally wouldn't allow deception to aid an attack, as the general rule is you use the same skill to aid as the person is using... No, that is not the general rule. Please see my preceding post.
You would allow a deception roll to add to an ally's + to hit with a strike? Absolutely. As long as it is narratively appropriate, why not? I typically require a like action, like deception can be used to aid feint or create a diversion. Why? There's nothing in the Aid rules that require a like action. I'd let the Bard roll Performance to "draw attention" to himself to aid Create a Diversion in a heartbeat. All that the Aid rules really require is that the preparation be specific and relevant and that the character be in a proper position. Nothing in the Aid rules nor the Aid reaction require that the Aid roll be a like action.
The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP.There is no need to use any "closest rule" proxy to determine how Aid works, because Aid has it's own rules. Quoted b/c it bears repeating.
No I was upfront about my intent behind asking the question by saying what I thought would be the common response to it. So it was not an attempt at a gotcha or disingenuous. Fair enough. Also Im a bit confused there is your pc using create a distraction (I meant diversion I get that name mixed up all the time) instead of aid? Mea culpa. I wasn't clear in presenting my, "example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike." So, let me clarify it. On my turn, I declare my intention (prep action) to Aid an ally's attack describing my assistance as distracting the enemy's attention. Then on my ally's turn, as my reaction I roll a Deception Check to Aid. I clear the DC 15, narratively distract the enemy enough that my ally's strike is easier to land. Thus, mechanically, my ally gains a +1 circumstance bonus to his attack. Were talking about using the attack form of aid such that the GM has decided it should have the attack trait. You asked for "an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike." I gave you an example. You did not specify that you wanted an example that the GM might grant the preparatory action or Aid reaction the Attack trait.
Deception Check to distract the target a la Create a Diversion's flavor text, "With a gesture, a trick, or some distracting words, you can create a diversion that draws creatures' attention elsewhere." Regardless, you're trying to get me into an "Ah ha! See!" moment regarding my distinction between a Readied action directly affecting an enemy and an Aid reaction that does not. It won't work. (Whether it is a disingenuous effort remains to be seen.) A Readied attack action has a direct, mechanical effect on an enemy. It does damage, grabs/trips/shoves, etc an enemy. A Readied attack action against an enemy has no direct, mechanical effect on an ally. Regardless of what the Aid action is describing it does to the enemy, it has no direct, mechanical effect on the enemy. The direct, mechanical effect is on the ally. That is a huge distinction.
As they are two distinct and separate actions, with their own rules, it is not logical to assume that the intent is that they follow the same rules.Aid specifically indicates that you can add any trait you want to the preparation or the reaction. That is irrelevant. Adding the Attack trait to an Aid reaction does not change the Aid reaction into a Readied Action. An Aid to attack does not perform a Strike. It is an attack roll that may grant a bonus to a willing ally's Strike. Conversely, a Readied Strike is a Strike. If the attack rolls is successful, it will deal Strike damage to the target, but, otherwise, has no direct benefit to an ally. The only similarity between Aid and Ready is that the player is exchanging one or more actions on their turn to gain a custom reaction. That's why I use this rule, because I feel an intent that Aid should work like Ready. Key words: "I feel." Also, I love when some of you use the argument that Aid should work like "other reaction attacks" but then you bring the argument that it shouldn't work like Ready (which is the closest reaction attack to Aid in the game). /sigh Ready has specific language -- heck, a specific paragraph to that point -- that overrides the general rule for MAP. Aid does not have any such language. It is illogical to infer intent when one dedicates a paragraph to highlight the exception to the general rule while the other has no hint of such. Furthermore, a Readied reaction attack is not close to a reaction attack to Aid. The former targets an enemy with either a Strike, a one-action Attack Spell, or an Athletics maneuver. It will have a direct impact on an enemy. The latter does nothing to an enemy directly. Instead, it grants a bonus to an ally. These two things are not remotely close to each other.
Why is Bob the fighter aiding by a reaction 'attack' (which does no damage) harder than Bob the fighter striking by a reaction attack?It's not harder. The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP. Ready has specific language to apply the MAP to a Readied Strike. Aid lacks any such language. It is entirely houserule land to read a rule from one mechanic (Ready) into another mechanic (Aid) lacking that rule simply because they are similar.
Aid looks exactly like Ready: ... No, it doesn't. If it did, there'd be no reason to separate them. Aid:
Ready:
So I consider that it should have the same behavior: If you use an Attack to Aid then you should suffer from MAP. Different mechanics. Different behavior. That is standard.
And there's an RAI logic to it: It follows the rules for Ready. Aid != Ready As they are two distinct and separate actions, with their own rules, it is not logical to assume that the intent is that they follow the same rules.
Long Tasks: For a task that takes longer than a round, you often need to spend more than one action preparing to help, as determined by the GM. As the GM, I would certainly require the preparation every round. The prep action for the Aid reaction is a trade-off. You are sacrificing an action to literally grant yourself a unique reaction. I would not allow one prep to grant 1+X reactions. Now, I might be convinced to allow a character to spend an entire round setting up three rounds of Aid reactions, but not for the example of Aiding the Fighter hacking an enemy. That gets into the next salient part of the Aid Details...
Repetition: Aiding the same creature multiple times can have diminishing returns. In particular, if you try to repeatedly Aid attacks or skill checks against a creature, the GM will usually increase the DC each time as your foe gets more savvy. This isn't the case if there's no reason the task would be less likely to work if repeated, such as Aiding someone who's climbing a wall or picking a lock.
Wait, you don't eat soap? You misspelled cilantro.
I think the phrasing of "Select three ikons from the list on pages 43–47," with the list being a menu of single options, indicates that the intent, at least, is clearly three different ikons. It's like when you answer an online survey that says select three of the fifteen options that best answer the question. There's only one of, and only one check-box for, each option. You simply cannot select one option multiple times. Or, like a used car dealership offering you a deal. There are twenty-five cars on the lot, all different makes and models, and you can choose three. It is simply not possible to choose two, or more, of the same make and model because none are duplicated. Now, the problem with the phrasing, a la the used car lot scenario if the dealership has five units of each of the twenty-five makes and models, you may then select three units of the same make and model. While I believe the intent is clear, the verbiage is not. Lacking any sort of "you may pick one ikon multiple times" or "you must select a different ikon each time" or, simply, "[s]elect three different ikons from the list..." language, it is ambiguous. Therefore, expect table variation.
I think I found my answer: you can't Take 20 on a Flat check because it represents chance, not skill or technique. Flat Checks replaced percentiles. Instead of rolling percentile for, say, a 50% chance at something, Paizo leaned into d20 and created Flat Check 11 for 50%. For skill checks, PF2E replaced taking 20 with Assurance
My poor, poor conrasu avenger of Monad, charged with destroying unnatural imbalances in the world, yet forced to use his fists to use his abilities, and therefore wholly unable to harm those abominations he seeks to destroy without first taking a -2 to attack. Just deal non-lethal 'til the beastie is unconscious, then take the -2 when their AC is -6 (prone: -2 circumstance penalty; unconscious: -4 status penalty).
Stop feeding the troll.
Interesting bit of information! Thanks for that!
I think the lack of the attack trait on the Archive's of Nethys entry is an error on AoN. The Demiplane Nexus entry shows it with the attack trait.
*(Vexing Vapor finally mentioned. ugh, that item seems like an outright print error, so I've tried to ignore it for this discussion. It's possible it was intended to have a lingering cloud impose the debuff on those inside, but forgot a mechanical sentence. Main "evidence" is the crit hit time of 1 min matches cloud linger time.) Vexing Vapor does appear to be a misprint. While it has the Inhaled trait it does not have the affliction mechanics characteristic of alchemical poisons. It does not have a saving throw, maximum duration, and stages entries of alchemical poisons.
Dude, please. The poison trait is a multi-function trait . . . Expanding on this. The Poison trait confusion is very similar to the problems with the Attack trait. Not all actions with the Attack trait are attacks. Some are athletics checks. The poison trait, alone, merely indicates that an item is poisonous (adjective). For an item to be a poison (noun), it must also have one of the four method of delivery traits. An effect with this trait delivers a poison or deals poison damage. An item with this trait is poisonous and might cause an affliction. (Emphasis added) Alchemical Poisons, Method of Exposure: Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison. . Not all items with the poison trait cause afflictions. Those items are merely poisonous (e.g.: Skunk Bomb), but are not poisons. The items with the poison trait that do cause afflictions also have a method of exposure trait and are poisons.In other words, poisons (noun) are substances that cause afflictions. If something with the poison trait does not cause an affliction, it is merely poisonous and not a poison.
. . . /heavy sigh In deep-diving the rules and formulating my rebuttal to prove that you are wrong and I am right, I must confess... I have discovered the reverse. The underlying cause of the disconnect, I believe, is Paizo's unfortunate use of one word, particularly as a trait, in multiple and dissimilar ways. Sort of like the old question of whether an attack is an attack or an athletics check. The Poison trait says, "An effect with this trait delivers a poison or deals poison damage. An item with this trait is poisonous and might cause an affliction." The poison trait on an item simply indicates that the item is poisonous. It is the presence of a Method of Exposure trait (Contact, Ingested, Inhaled, or Injury) that defines an item as a poison. So an item can be poisonous (adjective) without being a poison (noun). Example: Skunk Bomb. While it has the poison trait it lacks a method of exposure trait. It is not a poison; it is a poisonous bomb. Therefore, I must agree and similarly conclude that Paizo's use of the word "poison" as a noun (singular or plural), modified or unmodified, must indeed refer to items that have a method of exposure trait. This included toxicologists' "infused poisons" thereby limiting their field benefit to alchemical items they create with Advanced or Quick Alchemy (and thus "infused") and have a method of exposure trait. In other words, the Tox. Field Benefit only applies to the items called Alchemical Poisons.
Field Benefit You can apply an injury poison you’re holding to a weapon or piece of ammunition you’re wielding as a single action, rather than as a 2-action activity. In addition, you flexibly mix acidic and poisonous alchemical compounds. Your infused poisons can affect creatures immune to poison. A creature takes acid damage instead of poison damage from your infused poisons if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature (as determined by the GM). Typically, this benefit applies when the creature has an immunity, resistance, or weakness to one of the damage types. Since the Toxicologist Field Benefit does not limit the benefit to Alchemical Poisons (only poisons that have a trait identifying the exposure method), but, instead, applies it to infused poisons (any item with both the Poison and Infused traits), any alchemical item with the poison and infused traits are modified by the Toxicologists' Field Benefit. Thus, a Toxicologist using Advanced Alchemy or Quick Alchemy to make, say, a Skunk Bomb, which has the Poison trait natively and gains the Infused trait from being made by the Toxicologist with Advanced Alchemy or Quick Alchemy, gains the benefits of "affect[ing] creatures immune to poison" and "[dealing] acid damage instead of poison damage... if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature" with said Skunk Bomb. Suggesting that "infused poisons" is somehow shorthand for "infused alchemical poisons" is spurious, at best. Paizo is pretty specific when they mean "alchemical poison." See: Poison Concentrator*. This compression apparatus can reduce two poisons into a more concentrated dose. As a 10-minute activity that has the manipulate trait, you can use a poison concentrator to combine two doses of the same alchemical poison, creating a single concentrated poison with a +1 item bonus to its DC.
Again: nothing, absolutely NOTHING says that only things with exposure are poisons. That is correct. Not all poisons (generic category of items that behave a certain way) have an exposure trait. However, all Alchemical Poisons (a specific subset of poisons) do have an exposure trait. The salient line in the Alchemical Poisons definition is under the "Method of Exposure" heading: "Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits..." It then lists and describes the traits: Contact, Ingested, Inhaled, and Injury. The powerhouse in that sentence is the word, "Each." It is an exclusive term; if each item in a category has certain characteristics, then by definition, items lacking those characteristics do not belong in that category. Ergo, if a poison lacks a trait describing the exposure method then it is not an Alchemical Poison. Thus, items with the "Alchemical" and "Poison" traits, but lacking an exposure method, are Alchemical Items and are poisons. However, they are not Alchemical Poisons.
Except that alchemical ammo deactivates it it is not fired by the dnd of the turn that it is activated. My reflexive response was, "nuh uh! that's TBTBT!!", but I stemmed my reflexes and went looking. I had to dig for it because none of the Alchemical Ammunition traits (ooze ammo is Acid, Alchemical, and Consummable, for example) mention it. I found it under "Momentary Magic" > Activated Ammunition. /sigh Looks like we've been playing that wrong for a while. I suspect we'll houserule it to work as we've been playing it b/c, otherwise, it
Thanks for pointing that out!
As our table has read Quick Alchemy, the short-lived alchemical item must be activated before the end of your turn. Poisons would also be similarly problematic unless they are permanent(ish) until used once applied. So, in your scenario, based on our reading, it would be Quick Alchemy > Activate > Load, and next turn Shoot Ooze Ammunition.
I am looking for a way to escape grapples as a Bard without a high acrobatics or athletics score. Does anyone have any ideas?
My game group loves the Ancestry Paragon and Gradual Ability Boost variant rules alongside Free Archetype.
Ooh! Neat! My Vanara has some new items to add to his wishlist! I'm not concerned about High Jump or Long Jump in the slightest... My Vanara finds Quick Jump > Long Jump to be a great method for ignoring difficult terrain :)
Wizards get spellbooksI react to that: If the Wizard didn't get a spellbook then it wouldn't start with any spell (as they are in their spellbook), making the class non functional at first level even if you buy a Spellbook. So it's slightly different than the Alchemist case. As a side note, the Alchemist has a Formula Book, for the same reason the Wizard has a Spellbook... I deleted the original while you were replying, mainly because I didn't feel that my posts added anything of positive value to the conversation.
There is the Hefty Hauler Level 1 Skill Feat and Laborer Background (which grants Hefty Hauler as a free/background feat). There are also some Ancestry Feats (like Beast of Burden for Minotaur).
The only modifications that the Air Cartridge Firing System makes to the affixed weapon are:
So, a Clan Pistol would have its range reduced to 70 feet and would be able to fire underwater. It would still have Reload 1.
|