Personally I don't like the choice of Concentrate over Manipulate. I'm fine being in the minority on this opinion, but it's already quite impossible to create a Bloodrager that can do anything other than self-buff or can only use spells in exploration.
Class looks great and the analysis looks very in-depth. Just a bummer it's another caster-ish class that can't mix with Barbarian because of slapping the concentrate tag on everything.
It’s perfectly apt to answering your question. If the Fatal Die isn’t doubled(or halved) then it’s not affected by the penalties. Basically you roll the Fatal die after you’ve calculated all the normal damage for a crit; which means bonuses and penalties.
You do bring up a point that it might be affected if Grasping Reach isn’t considered a penalty; but we have yet to hear what kind of penalty it should be considered. I would lean towards untyped penalty at best, but I’m not looking to answer for anyone else.
Why is the additional dice not reduced? It's weapon damage dice that is equal to your weapon's adjusted die size that is added after the damage is multiplied. If your weapon's dice is reduced, so is the Fatal value by proxy, and others of your argument even claim as such.
We're not talking off-setting, we are talking about how two +1's or two -1's don't equal twice their value, respectively. You literally argued that they stack negative-wise but not positive-wise because the rules only outright called out positive stacking in that instance.
Then that's not a true mirrored inverse of the rule. The additive dice scaling rules state that multiple effects which adjust die steps up do not stack. If you want it to work the opposite way, the same restriction of die steps decreasing should not stack, either.
I will agree with most of this. There is a ruling in the book on extra dice that are added by specifically triggered abilities.
Doubling and Halving Damage CRB pg 451 wrote:
Sometimes you’ll need to halve or double an amount of damage, such as when the outcome of your Strike is a critical hit, or when you succeed at a basic Reflex save against a spell. When this happens, you roll the damage normally, adding all the normal modifiers, bonuses, and penalties. Then you double or halve the amount as appropriate (rounding down if you halved it). The GM might allow you to roll the dice twice and double the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties instead of doubling the entire result, but this usually works best for singletarget attacks or spells at low levels when you have a small number of damage dice to roll. Benefits you gain specifically from a critical hit, like the flaming weapon rune’s persistent fire damage or the extra damage die from the fatal weapon trait, aren’t doubled.
Oh, and the book also seems to call the Fatal Trait a specifically triggered ability and likens it to the Flaming Weapon Rune. Paizo’s words; not mine.
Let me put this as essentially as possible, cause I think all this nitty gritty about inferring rules is just obscuring the point.
According to you all, 1000 fatal crits with grasping reach and 1000 fatal crits without grasping reach will average out to the exact same damage. It sure sounds like grasping reach is doing nothing here except giving you reach. It's a relatively minor thing given the obscurity of the feat, but I file "gaining reach with no drawback" under too good to be true, given that the wording of grasping reach pretty much explicitly says that an attack with it is less effective than an attack without it.
By your ruling, fatal crits are equally as effective with or without grasping reach, which means its drawback is not being applied in those instances, even though its benefit is.
And miss me with "but then fatal isn't doing anything" because it's still adding a die.
Actually the example you gave is a hyperbolic one. Not incorrect, but also not a fair one; but i can work with it.
First let’s use 100 Strikes as a baseline.
With 100 Strikes a Fighter will Crit with 30 of them(statistically speaking). This would mean that Grasping Reach die reduction is being applied to 70 Strikes. Well that doesn’t seem like the die reduction is being ignored; it actually seems like it’s working as intended. Oh, that was also the initial Strike; meaning that’s before applying MAP.
So with 100 Strikes at -5 MAP a Fighter will Crit with 5 of them. At MAP -10 this ends up being the same 5%, or 5 Crits, because of the Nat 20. This is also with at level enemies and lower. Once you include higher level enemies and bosses the number of crits will tank even farther down.
So by the time we hit 1000 Crits we have swung somewhere around 3000 - 3500 Strikes at -0 MAP. This is also using Fighter as the assumed class. If we use Barbarian or Ranger, for example, you lower the expected results by and additional 10% at all Strikes(Flurry Hunter’s Edge will indeed fluctuate these numbers a bit).
One very real issue with saying Grasping Reach works over Fatal is no matter how it’s ruled, one of the rules will betray the other.
Fatal bumps the weapon up to d12 and gives you an additional d12 die. Grasping Reach reduces the weapon damage d12s to d10s.
There is no betrayal because both abilities function. They just happen to mitigate each other just like any other bonus and penalty applying simultaneously would.
I’m glad you brought up the Penalty part. Would you be able to show me where in Grasping Reach it says the ability is a Penalty? Is there anything in the ability that is italicized to indicate it should be considered a penalty by the standards listed in the CRB? Is it an Item penalty? Status penalty? Circumstance penalty? This has not been addressed as far as i am aware.
A more fair comparison of Deadly and Fatal, and how they would balance against each would be by comparing an Ogre Hook against the Greatpick.
The Damage on a crit will scale to :
Greatpick: 4d10 + 1d12 + bonus + penalty
Ogre Hook: 4d8 + 3d10 + bonus + penalty
This is if we assume Grasping Reach is affecting the Fatal die.
In this instance it’s fairly obvious that the Deadly trait is being favored over Fatal by a substantial amount. This is why i say it would be an unbalanced ruling.
As for the Two-Hand trait; it states that you are changing the weapon die, and specifically does not say it increases the weapon die; even if we could more easily explain it as such. The Two-Hand trait has been addressed before as a reasonable judgement call. To each their own on how they rule it, but i would say it works for two-hand trait just fine.
Namely, the extra dice from Deadly do not get reduced from Resistances, while the damage increase from Fatal does.
Uh, no. All damage you roll from Deadly and Fatal is applied to Resistances, as that part happens in Step 2 and Resistances are applied in Step 3. Also, as I said before the Greatpick is the only weapon to have Fatal only go up one die size because damage die can not exceed d12s.
If we assume there's a weapon with d8, Fatal d12 and we're applying the logic of Fatal applying after Grasping Reach, we are essentially increasing it three die sizes (from d6 to d12). Meanwhile, if we reduce the Fatal die by one step, we are still increasing it by 2 steps (d6 to d10). The second option is more in line with how Fatal normally works, and in line with how the ability says it works. Allowing Fatal to overwrite Grasping Reach just gives you all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
And people keep pointing to a Crit being more specific than Grasping Reach, remember that Fatal is the ability on the weapon that anyone using it can use, meanwhile Grasping Reach is an ability only Leshies with the feat can use, making it the more "specific" ability.
Hmm. . . I’ll have to find the ruling on if it bypasses resistance then. Possible I’m mixing it up with something else.
I would say you have a good point with a d8 weapon with d12 Fatal; but seeing as such a weapon does not currently exist it ends up being a moot point. Currently it’s how Grasping Reach works with current weapons.
One very real issue with saying Grasping Reach works over Fatal is no matter how it’s ruled, one of the rules will betray the other. That’s why i said Fatal will only have an average of 30% usage where it would over ride Grasping Reach; and only on the initial strike, and against equal or lower level enemies. This is something that hasn’t even bothered to be addressed. If Fatal was a more common trait, like say, the Two-Hand trait, i would be much more inclined to agree; but alas, it is not.
When i mentioned Fatal increases by two die sizes, i was indeed referencing it as RAI. When Paizo publishes, i think, 8-9 weapons with the Fatal trait, and all but one of them work in the exact predictable way it would be reasonable to say that the pattern is beyond a reasonable doubt. If Paizo chooses to introduce a Fatal weapon or ability that directly contradicts this, i have no issue saying the circumstantial evidence becomes shaky at best. Until then, the evidence of how Paizo intends Fatal to be balanced is pretty rock solid.
Comparing Fatal to Deadly actually isn’t that accurate or fair a comparison as it would seem at first glance. While they both work incredibly similarly at early levels, it’s at later levels that their uniqueness comes to light. Namely, the extra dice from Deadly do not get reduced from Resistances, while the damage increase from Fatal does. This means there will be instances where one is clearly better than the other; meaning the comparison ends up skewed in Deadly’s favor.
When looking at the Fighter’s Weapon Prof. it seems i was accurate in saying it’s only about 20% chance to crit. This can change to 30-40% depending on weaker enemies but will always be a rather low chance against higher enemies. It’s also important to note that this is before applying MAP. Meaning in the event that Fatal would supersede Grasping Reach it would be in pretty rare, or at the very least uncommon, instances; and almost never on the third strike. This should be sufficient evidence that Grasping Reach applies as a General Rule; which the book points out that when rules conflict with one another that the Specific rule should always win out(unless a GM determines otherwise ofcourse).
Step 1: Roll d20 and Identify the Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties that Apply
Graspping reach triggers here
Step 2: Calculate the Result
Step 3: Compare the Result to the DC
Step 4: Determine the Degree of Success
Fatal Triggers here.
Increases to X will override the any reduction previously applied, including grasping reach.
Both Grasping Reach and Fatal actually apply at the same step, when you roll the Damage Die which is the first step of the Damage Rules. Fatal just looks at previous info to make the determination of whether or not to trigger.
I'm on the side of lowering the base damage die of the weapon to one under the Fatal value, BUT keeping the additional fatal die the same. This is more in line with how Deadly works too. So with a Striking Great Pick it would be 2d10*2+1d12. You aren't actually changing the Fatal trait in this way. You increase your base damage die and add a new one, as Fatal instructs, then you reduce your base damage die by one step, as Grasping Reach instructs.
I feel like this is the best compromise to this discussion.
Have to disagree with this. Two contradicting rulings can not apply simultaneously. One thing I’ve noticed that doesn’t get mentioned is that a weapon/unarmed with Fatal always goes up by two die sizes; the Greatpick is the only exception that I’m aware of; this was true with all the guns in the G&G playtest as well. In the event that Grasping Reach would lowers it to a d8, reason would dictate that a Fatal crit would still bump it up to a d12.
How are they contradictions? I am just stating that I believe the order of operations here is that Fatal applies first, and Grasping Reach after. By allowing Fatal to come after Grasping Reach you are basically just ignoring the penalty that Grasping Reach gives, and...
I was saying the two applying at the same step was contradictory. I still stand by that, but my interpretation could just be a little off.
The Greatpick indeed can't go above a d12; making it objectively the worst use of the Fatal Trait on a weapon to date. I don't see any issue with it essentially overriding the penalty from Grasping Reach, on a critical hit. Even using Fighter for Crit-fishing there is usually around a 20% chance to crit?(spit-balling my math on this one) Meaning against bosses this never becomes an issue. Die sizes will also only change the math by 1 average damage and 2 max damage per die.
There are plenty of interactions and rules that negate the penalty or downside of abilities all the time. Greatpick is literally the only weapon that is able to do this interaction.
Personally it just seems like penalizing players for being creative.
Step 1: Roll d20 and Identify the Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties that Apply
Graspping reach triggers here
Step 2: Calculate the Result
Step 3: Compare the Result to the DC
Step 4: Determine the Degree of Success
Fatal Triggers here.
Increases to X will override the any reduction previously applied, including grasping reach.
Both Grasping Reach and Fatal actually apply at the same step, when you roll the Damage Die which is the first step of the Damage Rules. Fatal just looks at previous info to make the determination of whether or not to trigger.
I'm on the side of lowering the base damage die of the weapon to one under the Fatal value, BUT keeping the additional fatal die the same. This is more in line with how Deadly works too. So with a Striking Great Pick it would be 2d10*2+1d12. You aren't actually changing the Fatal trait in this way. You increase your base damage die and add a new one, as Fatal instructs, then you reduce your base damage die by one step, as Grasping Reach instructs.
I feel like this is the best compromise to this discussion.
Have to disagree with this. Two contradicting rulings can not apply simultaneously. One thing I’ve noticed that doesn’t get mentioned is that a weapon/unarmed with Fatal always goes up by two die sizes; the Greatpick is the only exception that I’m aware of; this was true with all the guns in the G&G playtest as well. In the event that Grasping Reach would lowers it to a d8, reason would dictate that a Fatal crit would still bump it up to a d12.
Mutagens are absolutely great. The biggest thing is to use them to their strength and not to use them around their weakness.
My X-Bow Ranger would always keep about 3 or so of the highest level Quicksilver. A +1 to hit and a +2 to a handful of skills is incredibly underrated. Ranged DPS character 40+ feet away from enemies, that can take advantage of +2 to Stealth and Bonus to Movement for repositioning has always proven beneficial. The hit to HP isn't enough to make a difference unless you want to go a Melee Dex build.
Stone Body synergizes well for Swashbuckler and Monk tank builds or bonus survivability against larger groups of enemies.
Energy is a cheap and an amazing go to for elemental resistance and bonus damage.
Juggernaut scales at later levels to be more Temp HP than from Rage or Spells.
Bestial is good for Athletic Maneuver builds.
Stone Fist. . .
Cognitive for Lore Master/Monster Hunter Ranger or Investigator.
This is a Level 6 Fighter Feat and a Level 8 Rogue Feat. We already have abilities that do this very thing at this very level range.
No we don’t.
Throwing a weapon and it ricocheting back to you is not the issue with the feat.
That has been one of the most talked about issue with a number of posters; including this very thread. Ricochet Stance works very similar on a practical level as Rebounding Assault; the only exceptions i see are multiple range increments for RA as apposed to RS, the additional 1d6 to damage, and RA allows for piercing weapons.
So get rid of allowing Piercing Weapons and they end up being rather similar. Speaking practically, rather than literally of course.
If the problem is with the oddly loose, yet oddly specific wording, then i just haven’t seen many arguments of why that shouldn’t be, or isn’t expected to be, cleaned up. Maybe I’ve just missed them tho
@ Raven - you do have a point with RS being limited to Thrown Weapons specifically, but RA gives weapons w/o the thrown trait the thrown trait, limits them to 1-handed weapons, and half the range of normal Thrown Weapons; and all the 1-handed weapons in the CRB are 1 bulk or less(with two exceptions being Uncommon Advanced Weapons).
Just limiting it to Slashing and Bludgeoning Weapons should be good enough. Otherwise trying to use this on someone that’s 20-60ft away is willingly taking a 10-50% additional miss chance. Guns themselves have a range of 10-30ft, so on average i don’t think many tables will come across throwing long swords at people 100+ ft away only to have it bounce magically back to your hand. Usual distance looks to be around 20ft at average with 30-40ft being the extreme ends before we get into specific builds.
Also, for similar abilities:
Ricochet Stance APG pg 126 wrote:
You adopt a stance designed to rebound your thrown weapons back toward you. While you are in this stance, any thrown weapons you use as part of a ranged Strike to deal bludgeoning or slashing damage immediately return to your hand, enabling you to use them for additional Strikes. You must be within the weapon’s listed range increment and have a hand free to catch the weapon. If you make a ranged Strike with a thrown weapon outside of its listed range increment, it instead flies back toward you a number of feet equal to its listed range increment and then falls to the ground.
This is a Level 6 Fighter Feat and a Level 8 Rogue Feat. We already have abilities that do this very thing at this very level range.
Honestly since Rebounding Assault is already on the Way of the Drifter (the melee Class), I think it might make more sense to just turn this into a gap closing ability that you can regrip the weapon as part of the attack.
Like the thing that's easy to visualize is:
- Throw weapon
- Shoot weapon faster
- Half your speed Stride to target
- Draw weapon from targets chest for free
And the above is something that we've seen a lot in popular culture/video games/etc.
It's easy to understand how it can be visualized and it follows along with the Drifter's already built kit (it kinda mirrors the level 1 and Sword and Pistol).
They are already the melee-ish Class, I see no reason to have the dang thing fly back to their hand when it could be used to close the distance and focus on the target.
That also alleviates weird attack cycle shenanigans where you are fighting someone in melee, you throw your weapon at someone else, and then you get your weapon back and make a Strike against someone else entirely.
At least that's my take. If it stays in its current form, I would really hope it goes to a Feat instead of mandatory because it is a little ridiculous.
So something like: ‘blah blah blah. . . You can move up to half your movement towards the target of your this ability. If you end your movement adjacent to your target you can Grab the weapon for free; otherwise the weapon falls into a square adjacent to the enemy that would be closest to you.’
Mechanic wise this would mean that thrown weapons with a range of 20+ Could put the player into a compromising position of losing their weapon since they may not be able to grab it afterwords.
If they include an option for the physics defying capabilities it currently has, I’d be pretty happy with that. Though i can only speak for myself on this.
I also think it would be mind bogglingly stupid to plan to throw your weapon and shoot it to get it to come back in a world where the Returning rune exists.
It's like handwaving long distance communication with tin cans on string in a setting where you can just buy cell phones.
Ricochet Stance APG pg 126 wrote:
You adopt a stance designed to rebound your thrown weapons back toward you. While you are in this stance, any thrown weapons you use as part of a ranged Strike to deal bludgeoning or slashing damage immediately return to your hand, enabling you to use them for additional Strikes. You must be within the weapon’s listed range increment and have a hand free to catch the weapon. If you make a ranged Strike with a thrown weapon outside of its listed range increment, it instead flies back toward you a number of feet equal to its listed range increment and then falls to the ground.
There is plenty of utility in not requiring the Returning Rune for thrown weapon builds. To clarify though, I’m not saying this as to invalidate any of your points, and will actually add that if Rebounding Assult excluded Piercing Weapons it could feel less polarizing in believability.
One thing that sounds like a real worry is that will people still view the feats with the same appreciation once the Glamour of cool wears off? As someone that personally loves the current over the top flavor; a little toning down i feel would be perfect for the long haul.
Straight up damage increases on every attack are pretty rare for feats unless you're an Alchemist. They become "mandatory" feat taxes. Look at Giant's Stature. It improves your reach, which is a big deal, but it doesn't increase your damage because then every giant barbarian would take it and some folks just want to swing a giant blade around, not actually become giant.
So Animal Form mostly giving mobility and sense improvements is actually pretty in line with that.
Edit: I think shark might be the best, actually. Not because you'll regularly use it but when you do need it being able to breath underwater is huge.
Damage increases don’t seem to be that rare just looking through the CRB. All of them seem to come at either a cost, or are subject to variety of some kind. Gaining the damage from Animal Form would come the cost of being Polymorphed.
The damage seems like it might still be lower than a Titan Mauler as well, but would have to check the math before i can say for certain.
I also don’t see anywhere that it says you don’t add your own strength to Battleform damage. The Form just gives the user untyped Bonus Damage and that all attacks are Strength Based. Can anyone source where this might not be the case?
The damage is also irregardless of the form taken. Should we also assume that the Barbarian doesn’t gain the Athletics Bonus in the event that they decide not to invest in it?
Yeah he does miss a few things that 5e has that would shift the analysis a bit. For example with the pf2e ranger losing more damage going into melee compared to the 5e ranger but a lot of 5e ranger spells only work on ranged weapons, or do something that favours ranged weapons, zephyr strike for example stops opportunity attacks against you which is much more useful for ranged attacks compared to melee ones. So just attacking with the weapons will produce better results for 5e but spellcasting is also standard for rangers in 5e so its feels important to include.
He also misses that his ‘Legolas’ Ranger could trip the wight just fine with assurance and just being Trained in Acrobatics; in spite of having an 8 strength for some reason. He also uses the Precision Hunter’s Edge(which he called the ‘Ranged’ Hunter’s Edge) in his example, but if your player is spamming ‘attack rotations’ then obviously the Flurry Edge will be better;
Turning : +12/ +7/ +2 into +12/ +9/ +6
But apparently pointing that out is considered arguing in bad faith to him.
This is basically a case of a #1 best seller having sales tank because Oprah criticized the book.
It is a serious and legitimate concern.
According to this paper: "This paper uses detailed weekly data on sales of hardcover fiction books to evaluate the impact of New York Times book reviews on sales. In order to weigh the relative propensity of reviews to inform and to persuade, the analysis utilizes a measure of review opinion obtained through a systematic reading of each review. The estimates indicate that in the case of book reviews, any publicity is good publicity: even negative reviews lead to increases in sales. We interpret this finding as evidence that book reviews serve largely to inform consumers about books' content and characteristics (including the books' existence). However, positive reviews have a larger impact on sales than negative reviews, suggesting that reviews also have a persuasive effect."
So, it seems way more complicated than just saying that bad reviews are bad. I won't say that bad reviews are necessarily good, but I think Cody's impact on PF2 sales is currently unknown and can be positive. I even think (but it's a personal opinion) that Cody made a mistake in attacking PF2. You always bash bigger, not smaller, as right now he has published 2 videos when there are already more than 2 times that number of videos pointing fingers at him. For most PF2 youtubers Cody just cast Hero's Feast as they have low notoriety and can now drain from Cody's fanbase thanks to the sudden spotlight he directed at them.
Especially if he continues to make his points as flawed as he did with his second video. Calm and rational rebuttals will most likely be suggested to people who see the initial video and inform them that his arguments are more emotional then they are rational through examples and counter points.
It sort of seems like some sort of "inventor" or "artificer" is kind of squeezed between "the Alchemist, perhaps with a new research field" and "the ranger who specializes in snares."
I can’t see it as a Research Field while still having it claim to be an Alchemist.
I could see an alchemist research field devoted primarily to metallurgy and material engineering. You can use chemicals and process to get your materials to do what you want to do with them.
It sort of seems like some sort of "inventor" or "artificer" is kind of squeezed between "the Alchemist, perhaps with a new research field" and "the ranger who specializes in snares."
I can’t see it as a Research Field while still having it claim to be an Alchemist.
An Artificer would be the best concise way of imagining it before refining the idea further.
Castilliano wrote:
Now think whether that needs a full class, an Alchemist Research Field, or could be covered in a Dedication. Or maybe only skill feats & gear.
We have the Swashbuckler which has debilitations and precision damage almost identical to the Rogue with the movement capabilities of the Monk and some Fighter Feats thrown in for good measure. Investigator has the Precision Damage and Skill Feats of a Rogue with the ability to craft some Alchemical items like the Alchemist. Why isn’t that considered as eclipsing said classes? The only answer i can think of is because of Thematics and the Sum of the Class is greater then the individual Features being used.
The ‘Inventions’ could be more impactful and less numerous than Alchemist’s daily crafting. An invention for me could be as simple as creating Cover in an open plain with a Portable Wall; Spawning a turret is the most iconic interpretation of an inventor i have seen; Boxing Glove snares that force movement; or the ability to have some snares re-arm themselves. Put a limit on how many can be active at one time rather than number of uses would seem distinct enough from Alchemist to start from there.
Salamileg wrote:
If we get an inventor class, I want golems in some form. Even if it's just "you get an animal companion that's a construct".
I should try finishing the Effigy Master homebrew i was tinkering with. Just need to come up with more ways to distinguish them from every other AC Archetype out there.
Going from a mechanical guess at where the system is at, and what it could benefit from; it might get the same proficiency as Alchemist. If it does the kit would have to have strong advantages like the Alchemist’s ability to debuff. I would picture an inventor as adding onto things, like adding traits, and controlling the battle field better with ‘Inventions’ and snares. Daily Runes and buffs would also be unique niche, but i feel it would have to be different than the numerical bonuses of Mutagens. So more like Daily effect-type bonuses?
Currently playing a Ranger with an AC in AoA. Currently level 10, and the issues until now haven't been that many, but are pretty severe.
1. Hit disparity is too low. This wouldn't be too much of an issue if they could benefit from item bonuses, but since they can't and will remain with suboptimal stats till possibly end game, Hits tend to miss more often than they land; this tends to include flanking bonuses from personal experience. I chose a Badger for mid to late-game which only exaggerated this flaw since early levels.
2. AC(Armor) is surprisingly close to Rangers'. Magic Hide and/or Outwit should shore multiple Companions up to an Off-Tank role decently well against average enemies. Druid has access to a bunch of Heals, Focus and Regular Spells, which can keep them alive pretty well.
3. HP is 50/50. Only two battle has downed my companion thus far. The first one was against an Ooze that hit like a truck, and the second one was because a string of bad rolls. In a recent Battle i had to send my companion to safety halfway through because of too many hits. HP seems to be too low, but is actually proving to be just right more often than not. I will agree with Zapp in saying HP is too low to tank bosses; but more as an observation rather than as an issue.
4. I do feel AC and Mature AC should be consolidated into a single feat. 'Incredible' and 'Specialized' are fine being separate. Mature just doesn't feel like it adds enough to be a separate feat.
Animal Companions are definitely worth their investment, but could definitely use much needed improvements in certain areas that are brought out by how the PF2 system is intended to work. Rangers, from my experience, will feel the disparities the most.
Can we all appreciate the Healer’s Blessing change? Base additional healing from 1 to 2. Praise be the even number blessings; begone cursed odd numbers.
Seriously though, this was so satisfying to read. I always found it odd starting off at 1 then scaling by 2 for this particular spell.
Personally it's difficult to be satisfied with Healer's Blessing, which is an opt-in ability, getting buffed; while Angelic Halo, which isn't an opt-in ability, got nerfed hard.
any bonuses or penalty to "attack rolls" apply. If you are Blessed, you do get the bonus, since bless gives bonus to "attack rolls".
those are different than bonuses to "ranged attack rolls" though.
That's an assumption since there's no definitive ruling to the contrary.
Matter-of-fact, under attack rolls, it refers to Spell Attacks as a variable weapon for attack rolls.
Attack Rolls wrote:
When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.
shroudb wrote:
i get that it may not be as clear, since you obviously read it elsewise, but it makes no mention at all of it counting as a ranged attack roll.
Under the section of spells it clearly states that a Spell Attack roll is like any other attack roll.
A spell attack roll is like other attack rolls, so any bonuses or penalties that apply to all your attack rolls should be included in your calculation.
There's no mention that spells don't gain the bonuses when appropriate. There actually is wording that says they do.
shroudb wrote:
if anything it says that spell attack rolls are a different type of atttack roll and work differently than both ranged and melee attack rolls.
While there are some distinct differences between the rolls, Bonuses and Penalties are called out specifically as not being one of those differences.
shroudb wrote:
also, it's not "assumed" to be differnt.
they are clearly spelled out to be different.
There is no wording stating that a Ranged Attack Roll is default assumed to be a weapon. Ranged Unarmed Attacks are a thing, and was one of the correct interpretations for QS Mutagen. I believe your interpretation would strip Unarmed from qualifying as a default assumption.
That seems to me to not be consistent.
shroudb wrote:
the only way that's possible it would have to have a copletely separate type of attack roll, that's the "ranged spell attack roll that isn't a spell attack roll, nor a ranged atack roll, but the two of them combined"
To be fair, if Spells didn't use the terms Ranged and Melee in their descriptors i would very much agree with you; but Spells do use Ranged and Melee in their descriptors.
shroudb wrote:
since we know, that RAW, Ragned attack rolls are different than spell attack rolls (two different types using 2 different formulas) and the only way that the bonuses would apply it would have to have a 4th type of attack roll that counts as both (while being neither)
If you're going to continue to ignore the two separate and distinct paragraphs that say Spells gain the exact same Bonuses and Penalties as every other Attack Roll then i'm not sure who you're trying to convince.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I made a passing statement that you did not agree with. Cool, to each their own. Your case is flimsy for the very specific reasons that i have stated, and they have not been addressed aside from with more assumptions rather than very specific wording.
I never even found it as that much of an issue. This line of logic actually exists because of how the rules are laid out.
I'm much more interested in continuing on discussing the errata though personally speaking.
As someone else said, this is what comes from hard coding your terminology but then not cleaning up terms that can be used in multiple contexts.
I definitely agree with this. Not just in this particular instance either.
There are two specific issues i have with treating Ranged Attacks as weapon-first assumptions. The first is, it's a general interpretation. As Bardarok says, there is no specific wording that excludes the bonus in this instance; it is just assumed that they are exclusive with no bleed-over. Personally, i can not accept a handwaved interpretation as a hard-and-fast ruling; otherwise the rules mean little to nothing from table to table.
The second issue i have, is that, with only an assumption that Ranged Attacks default to Weapon Attacks and an actual rule that states that:
capital letters for emphasis
"Spell attack rolls benefit from ANY BONUSES or PENALTIES to attack rolls. . . but not any special benefits or penalties that apply ONLY to WEAPON or UNARMED attacks."
It states this rule twice in the spells section. This means there is a specific rule that is contradicting a general assumption/interpretation. That's just plain inconsistency if you are correct. Not to mention the rule that states Specific trumps General when rules contradict each other.
I agree with Shroud on this. Ranged Attack Roll is a defined thing, specifically stated to be separate from Spell Attacks.
Mind, I do understand your logic Pumpkin, and WANT to agree, but I think RAW comes down on Shroud's side.
Inevitably that’s just where i disagree; not to say i don’t understand where Shroud is coming from as well, i just find it as more a RAI ruling over a RAW one. In the end this is most likely why the change to QS Mutagen was changed either way, and it did end up in a clear buff for Finesse fighting styles, so it’s not a bad change. I just felt it was enough of one to state the difference.
_______________________
Healer’s Blessing got a tad buff, but Angelic Halo:
Angelic Halo wrote:
Page 403: Angelic halo should scale based on the level of the heal spell, not based on angelic halo's level. Remove the heightened entry and instead, replace the status bonus to healing from the spell with "Allies in your halo’s emanation who are healed by a heal spell gain a status bonus to Hit Points regained equal to double the heal spell’s level."
Angelic Halo just got a straight Nerf. I can understand that they probably didn’t want Halo stacking with Blessing for Uber Healz, but this seems like A really bad choice. I’d prefer they did this to Healer’s Blessing, since Cleric has Divine Font.
I think it was this thread where I saw a lot of talk about shifting runes on staves. Can someone explain to me what the problem was with that?
The big question was whether you could still activate the staff's spells while it was in the form of another weapon.
To expand on this a little bit; it was also the paragraph that goes on to explain that etching runes doesn’t alter spellcasting and that a Magical Staff works like a Simple Weapon Staff. Which, with the Errata, boils down to a whole lot of unique wording to eventually say, they are intended to work like Specific Magic Weapons when interacting with Runes.
Quicksilver changed from ‘Ranged Attack Rolls’ to ‘Dex-Based Attack Rolls’. Taking away any bonus to Ranged Spell Attacks in place for Finesse fighting styles.
Page 604: Under Companion Items wrote:
replace the third sentence with “Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items may qualify, at the GM’s discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item.” This makes the rules clearer than before, and allows the GM to opt into adding more items.
This is a nice clarification. This was my initial interpretation, but was unsure after multiple readings.
quicksilver didn't apply to spell attacks even before.
. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls.
so, a "ranged spell attack" isn't a ranged attack, but a spell attack (done in range).
that's even further clarified in the same page as it goes on how ranged attacks use Dex as it's governing stat and spell attacks use the casting stat.
Hmm. . . I’ll see your general rule interpretation, and raise you three specific rules that state otherwise.
CRB pg 298 Sidebar wrote:
A spell attack roll is like other attack rolls, so any bonuses or penalties that apply to all your attack rolls should be included in your calculation. For instance, the +1 status bonus from the bless spell would benefit your spell ray just like it could an arrow. However, note that the spell attack roll doesn’t gain any bonuses or penalties that apply specifically to weapon attacks or unarmed attacks. The multiple attack penalty applies to spell attacks, so it’s usually a bad idea to cast a spell that has a spell attack roll if you’ve already made an attack that turn.
States Ranged Spell Attack Rolls are considered the same as all other Ranged Attack Rolls for purposes of Bonuses and Penalties; with the exception that the bonus or penalty specifically call out Weapon (See Point Blank Shot Stance as an example)
CRB pg 447 Spell Attack Rolls wrote:
If you have the ability to cast spells, you’ll have a proficiency rank for your spell attack rolls, so you’ll always add a proficiency bonus. Like your ability modifier, this proficiency rank may vary from one spell to another if you have spells from multiple sources. Spell attack rolls can benefit from circumstance bonuses and status bonuses, though item bonuses to spell attack rolls are rare. Penalties affect spell attack rolls just like any other attack roll—including your multiple attack penalty.
Only states that item bonuses to Spell Attacks are rare, but not non-existent. Also, Spell Attack Rolls would indeed benefit from them.
CRB pg 305 Spell Attacks wrote:
Some spells require you to succeed at a spell attack roll to affect the target. This is usually because they require you to precisely aim a ray or otherwise make an accurate attack. A spell attack roll is compared to the target’s AC. Spell attack rolls benefit from any bonuses or penalties to attack rolls, including your multiple attack penalty, but not any special benefits or penalties that apply only to weapon or unarmed attacks. Spell attacks don’t deal any damage beyond what’s listed in the spell description.
Stating that Ranged/Melee Spell Attacks are, by the rules, to be considered the same as Ranged/Melee Weapon or Unarmed Attacks, with the exception of more specific requirement/s in the wording. (See Point Blank Shot Stance as an example)
In Conclusion, with Quicksilver previously being ’Ranged Attack Rolls’, and not specifying what kind of Ranged Attack Roll, Ranged Spell Attack Rolls benefited from it 100% via RAW.
Quicksilver changed from ‘Ranged Attack Rolls’ to ‘Dex-Based Attack Rolls’. Taking away any bonus to Ranged Spell Attacks in place for Finesse fighting styles.
Page 604: Under Companion Items wrote:
replace the third sentence with “Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items may qualify, at the GM’s discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item.” This makes the rules clearer than before, and allows the GM to opt into adding more items.
This is a nice clarification. This was my initial interpretation, but was unsure after multiple readings.
Staves: This seemed like an inelegant way to change it. They could have just gotten rid of the paragraph about runes and etchings and just said they work like all other Specific Magic Weapons. It’s also an odd ruling in general personally; so i can only guess they didn’t like the idea of Shifting Staves enough to nix all property runes in general. Though there’s still always Divine Ally for that niche.
Shields: Forge Warden was a good change. Arrow-Catcher was a bad change on a number of levels. It got a HP and Hardness buff, which was good; but the One Minute frequency was a bit of a nerf, and bumping the HP to 60 just further mucks up how they expect shields to work.
...whether or not 4-slot casters get full use out of magical staves.
Not sure how big of an issue this actually was though. It’s possible the surveys say something different, but not many people seemed to assume they worked any different for these classes than for any other spell-slot-casting class. It was also pretty unanimous that everyone was in favor of a clearer understanding one way or the other.
The post said it was addressing the main points/issues, in which it would seem the interpretation issue around Staves wasn’t an intended discussion point of the PT.
If a creature takes 2d4 persistent fire damage, the rules say you'll reroll that amount each time they take damage (averaging 5). What if a creature takes rolled persistent damage, but then also proceeds to take a flat value? Say another person then inflicted 4 persistent fire damage. Does the creature treat these as two separate conditions since they're the same damage type but are different potential values? Like rolling a save versus the 2d4 and then another save vs the 4 and taking each as individual damage values? Or are you supposed to treat the average on dice values as being the higher amount?
Has there been any official word on this? My inclination would be to treat the value of a rolled persistent damage effect as the average result for the purposes of determining whether new incoming damage overrides it, but I want to make sure nothing else has been officially clarified.
A practical example i can think of for your first example would be and Alchemist using Acid Splash + Sticky Bomb. Sticky Bomb states that you combine the two in this instance which should make it look something along the lines of Xd4 + Y-splash.
For the second example; someone being Crit by a Flaming Rune while they already have Persistent Fire from an Alch Fire. I think this is open to interpretation by each DM. You could use the average damage, but that could also lead to low rolling and prove to be the weaker outcome. Personally i might wait till the damage is rolled to determine which one is more powerful and apply it then.
The part about ’Gain’ in the description, I read it as, it’s only ever a single condition; regardless of ruling. This would mean that however you want to settle the result of the persistent damage, it will only ever take one Flat Check to remove that specific condition.
Grab Gravity Weapon and Far Shot as the main feats; with Hunted Shot as a sub for FoB at a greater range. Interestingly, Gravity Weapon will synergize with One-Inch Punch resulting in massive one-shots. You can also easily Segway it into a flurry build if you need/want to. Far Shot means you can OIP at 60-80 ft.
The simplicity of the build also gives plenty of room for other feat choices depending on player preference.
If it is the intent that familiars riding on you can reload a heavy crossbow for two of their actions when commanded, I sort of hope that they release some other character option that competes with or obsoletes it mechanically. "There's a gopher or whatever that clings to my weapon or forearm and uses its tiny hands to reload my crossbow every time I shoot it" is a pretty specific character concept. That's not to say that somebody can't have fun with a heavy crossbow wielding character that works this way, but it shouldn't be the case that the clear lowest-friction way to execute a concept like "Heavy Crossbow user" is to balance an unusually dexterous toad to your wrist.
I'm in no way adverse to offbeat character concepts, I'd just rather the game not be designed such that every character pursuing a particular fighting style is mechanically pushed toward the exact same offbeat character concept. (I had the same beef with the things that went into TWF with guns in 1e.)
I think the only clear consensus in this thread is that none of the options for reloading a heavy crossbow are actually efficient or net-beneficial to the character, in comparison to more mundane options (e.g., just sucking it up and reloading it yourself, or dropping it and using another weapon after one shot). So even with my poor Divination proficiency, I can predict with some certainty that we won't be seeing exotic, minion-reloading heavy crossbow builds cropping up all over the place.
Options that currently contend with Minion Reloading as a ruling directly, that are just as viable or better;
Cantrip Connection, Extra Reagents, Familiar Focus, Innate Surge, Spell Battery;
(Familiar Master)
Familiar Conduit
Having play experience with Minion Reloading, i still have no clue how anyone can think it's a cheese tactic unless they assume the option in bad faith.
Lets assume 1 interact -> 1 action. A player would need Manuel Dexterity and Valet for a normal Crossbow, and this would equal out to 2 attacks and a loaded Crossbow. Even if hasted that equals out to at most 3 attacks. With a Heavy Crossbow this equals two attacks a turn no matter how you slice it. Even hasted a Heavy Crossbow is currently limited to two attacks a turn period.
A longbow and shortbow can both make 3-4 attacks a turn with haste. In the cases of Ranger and Monastic Archer Monk, they can get up to 5 attacks a turn; but Ranger is going to be the one that can do this most often.
**Only applicable with Hunted Shot or Flurry of Blows & Monastic Archer Stance
The difference in damage isn't all that great. The crossbows have more burst, but the other Bows are going to get more benefit from runes and weaknesses, so they seem to balance out the same as 1-hand and 2-hand melee weapons. The only perceivable benefit is to a regular Crossbow and being Hasted actually gaining a net positive. Heavy Crossbow is just getting, at best, earlier access to what they already can do with haste; otherwise they gain zero net positive and even cap out in potential damage rather quickly.
The other idea, that you are somehow cheating the action economy and is thus an exploit, is just a blatant double standard. Here are 15 feats that cheat the action economy, the same complaint as minion reloading, by consolidating two actions into one; at the low low cost of a single feat.
Different strokes for different folks when it comes to play preference, but the only consistent critique against it, is Graystone's point about weight limitation; and even then there are no weight limitations to interact actions that i'm aware of. Maybe someone can point to where it suggests a bulk measurement for Interact Actions? Familiars, at least, do have a weight limit we can point to that was mentioned in the APG under the Valet ability where it mentions it can grab and hand the Player any item they are wearing of Light or Negligible Bulk.
EDIT: On second thought, debating you here is not worth the effort, especially since I already gave you the concrete info that was asked, and then you moved the goalpost.
What you point to as evidence is what’s bringing subjective views; so we can both point to it as evidence and end up nowhere. That’s why i asked if you can point to anything in any other published material that supports your view since i have not come across it. I haven’t moved the goalpost one inch. In fact I’m not even using the reddit post as an official source for my own point of view since it’s not in a rule book or errata as of yet.
Themetricsystem wrote:
I cannot help you if you won't actually read the rules and understand that you have to enforce them evenly across all classes unless special carveouts or rules are given to override the general ones.
Themetricsystem wrote:
You're not even reading the rules, you're injecting what you WANT it to mean over what the rules actually say.
Both of these are baseless accusations, and particularly insulting ones at that. Anyone can check my post history and note that i go to great lengths to source my information by book, page number and even quote the wording to the best that i can. I won’t say i am perfect, and my interpretation can still be mislead, but to so strongly suggest i not only haven’t but don’t bother to read the rules is well out of line and is the definition of libel.
Themetricsystem wrote:
. . . and leave slinging mud at each other to the children, I won't play the top-manning fallacy claim garbage which you picked up from somewhere along the way and thought sounded like a strong way to push back in defense of your feelings.
Themetricsystem wrote:
“I CAN cast the Spell, I just don't have slots yet, if I had a Scroll I could totally cast it... so I use Fireball as a 3rd Level Spell at Character Level 4 because I got my hands on it and it's on my Tradition List."
I never said, nor supported, such an idea. Claiming that was where i was arguing from is what i considered straw-manning. Personally i loathe using the term since personally it feels like more of a buzzword, but that’s the best way i can describe how it came across. If this seemed like mud slinging on my part then i have no issue apologizing that it came across that way.
Themetricsystem wrote:
How about we just both fill out our playtest surveys . . .
I absolutely 100% agree. Better wording is something i will always advocate for. I was only debating the idea and not the person. It still comes across as a rather wild interpretation of the rules to me; but we can agree to disagree and support each other for more clearly written rules.
The interpretation you are presenting though is implicit in the idea that "-" means "can not". Can you point to this idea being implied anywhere else in the published materials? If not then your conjecture is only valid...
Yes, easy peasy.
Every Level of Spell that is higher than your Slot Progressions lists "-" in all Spellcasting Class Tables. If you want to argue that "-" DOESN'T mean that they're unable to Cast Spells of that Level (bear in mind the Staff rules fail to state "from your own Spell Slots" but it absolutely DOES mean that otherwise the " are able to cast spells of the appropriate level" bit is totally meaningless because you an use the Cast a Spell Action with Activated Items like Scrolls and other items that do NOT have this rule baked into it) then they are in no way limited on what Level Spells they can discharge from the Staff because of justifications like:
"I CAN cast the Spell, I just don't have slots yet, if I had a Scroll I could totally cast it... so I use Fireball as a 3rd Level Spell at Character Level 4 because I got my hands on it and it's on my Tradition List."
That's a pure fallacy and straw-manning. The rules are very clear when you gain the ability to cast a higher level of spell. With both of our viewpoints of equal weight then, please point me to the page/paragraph/sentence that says the Magus loses the ability to cast a spell level without inserting your personal interpretation. It should be easy peasy right?
And getting Continual Recovery benefits your party MUCH more at level 4 than a measly +2 to Religion.
You're speaking utility. Some players increase Religion (or Athletics, or whatever) before Medicine because they play a Cleric (or Barbarian or whatever).
And buying Wands because you don't have a Medic in your party doesn't sound preposterous to me. If you lack one important thing, using a part of your gold to completely remove the need is a nice use of your gold.
I'll add, buying wands even with a medic in the party is a reasonable idea. Battle Medicine is a niche use, and not guaranteed to bring the desired results, while wands have more flexibility and better consistency in the short term.
Depending on context, a +2 to Religion can be vastly more beneficial than Continual Recovery.
When you preapare a fleet feet as an example in a 2nd level slot, you heighten the spell to the second level.
The - in Spell levels ALWAYS symbolises an absense of said level spellslot, not merely that you have 0 of that spellslots, but that you lack the spell level at all.
My interpetation is also irrelevant of the fact that you can cast a 1st level spell using a higher level spell as a spontaneous caster without heightening, something very specific.
My interpetation was based on "appropriate spell slot" meaning "spell slot of that level", "appropriate" lacks ANY rule goverining it and it is a valid way to use the word.
RAI may be that you can use a staff, but the RAW even at this point, is just a CONJECTURE that lacks any sort of rule language to support it and hinges on a completely seperate and different issue answered on reddit.
While it may be unintended it needs to be addressed in some form in the release.
The second part isn't irrelevant unless you're cherry-picking your information for your conjecture. Fleet-Foot is a First Level spell. If you can cast it in a Second level slot you are casting a first level spell in a higher slot. The reason i chose those spells in particular is because they gain no benefit from being heightened, so you aren't actually heightening them unless you're talking about it in the context of counterspell; which would be cherry-picking.
Currently going off the chart you could say they lose the ability to cast that level of spell; which is causing the misinterpretation. You could also say they are just being limited to a select number of slots rather than losing the ability to cast that specific level. Both points hold equal weight if the ruling doesn't favor one or the other. The interpretation you are presenting though is implicit in the idea that "-" means "can not". Can you point to this idea being implied anywhere else in the published materials? If not then your conjecture is only valid by adding context the game does not specifically express. This is where i find fault with your point of view.
For having more specific wording for Staves in general i can agree. Personally i find it somewhat confusing for how Staves are intended to work with Innate Spellcasting like the Runescarred Archetype. I've come to a personal conclusion with it, but it still lacks an explanation in favor or against.
That a pretty severe step from 'not allowing a ruling/option' to 'punitive actions for what the player finds exciting/fun'.
I am all about fun and am very open to bending rules and straight up homebrewing to help a player realize reasonable PC concepts and have a good time at the table. However, when a player's fun is wholly rooted in power gaming to the nth degree, then I will absolutely have a sit down with that player.
If they don't like it, they can walk away and that may best best for all parties. Ideally though, they see that making munchkin PCs that exploit game mechanics is not all there is to this game and that that sort of selfish play hurts the narrative and the experience when taken to irrational extremes.
I think anyone would share that same view. Which is why such a reaction to a straight forward build as this one seems rather harsh; especially if more than just the one player is looking forward to the implementation of the idea. I have had players build combo concepts that heavily lean on mechanics as just inspirations for fleshing out their characters.
I also happen to be a player that finds the mechanics as the most fun part about the game. Basic levels of creativity such as this one are ways of making an investment into narrative settings where it may be difficult to find an initial buy-in.
It also helps to be able to know the difference between Munchkin concepts and Niche concepts. This one, and the one someone suggested about a Marshal using an Arboreal Sapling to trigger Target of Opportunity are more along the lines of just Niche concepts.
I just read that, and I still can't be sure he's addressing the specific scenario at hand (i.e., being able to cast a 1st-level spell by expending a 2nd-level or higher spell slot and gaining absolutely none of the benefits of being heightened, or in other words, being able to downgrade a 2nd-level slot to a 1st-level slot).
In any case, I'm glad you provided the link, but this is not something that should be left to some obscure 3-word reply on an entirely different forum. We've been asking this since P2E launched, and if there is an answer one way or the other, it should be explained exhaustively and then be stickied at the top of the Rules forum, the Advice forum, and the General Discussion forum at bare minimum.
Question: Can you cast a 1st level spell using a 2nd level slot without the benefits?
Reply: Yes you can.
You can't really get confused or find it obscure unless you add context that isn't currently there. The question is very specific and the answer is very direct.
I will agree that searching reddit should not be a common way of finding intended interpretations to otherwise subjective rule interpretations since this is maybe the second time i've heard of this as the designers intent since release. It is at least an insight that will hopefully be remedied much more officially.
____________________________________
About Magus and Staves in general; there's nothing to support Shoudb's interpretation. There's actually evidence to support the opposite in the wording of the Martial Caster feat.
Martial Caster wrote:
You’ve strengthened your spellcasting to power you in combat.
You gain two 1st-level spell slots, but you can prepare only certain
spells in them: fleet step, jump, mage armor, magic weapon, and
true strike. Automatically add these spells to your spellbook.
When you can cast 4th-level magus spells, the extra slots
increase to 2nd level and you add the spells resist energy,
spider climb, and water breathing. When you can cast 5th-level
magus spells, the extra slots increase to 3rd level and you add
the spells feet to fins and haste. When you can cast 6th-level
magus spells, the extra slots increase to 4th level and you add
the spells fly and freedom of movement.
Specifically when regarding the spells Fleet Step, Magic Weapon and True Strike. There's no wording to suggest that when these spell slots turn into 2nd Level that you can no longer cast those spells just because they are 1st level spells that can not be heightened. This would imply the Player is always assumed to have the capability to cast these spells. This would naturally mean it's also true for grabbing a Staff of Divination and using the Staff to cast True Strike as a 10th level Magus.
I would also have a sit down with the player who brought this to my table about the shared narrative we are trying to create and how this sort of thing can hinder that.
This is one of the major negatives of games that allow high degrees of customization. Some players get so lost in the chargen minigame that they forget about everything else.
That a pretty severe step from 'not allowing a ruling/option' to 'punitive actions for what the player finds exciting/fun'.
The note about 'having a sit down about shared narrative' sounds rather demeaning as well. Just off the top of my head, having a player using Penetrating Ammunition with a Monk behind the enemy being shot at will produce the exact same results with huge narrative and team building impact. Especially if others at the table are not being pressed into the tactic then there's very little to oppose about the idea aside from personal taste; and in that regard to each their own.
From a Narrative sense, there are plenty of examples of shooting past the enemy as an intended result.
Example:
1) Player shoots normal arrow at their Monk ally that is hidden from the enemy.
2) Enemy scoffs at player's poor aim.
3) Too late realizes it was a setup for their blind spot.
Assuming you don't have special insight into what/how your GM is going to run and how many combats per day you will have it is a prudent and wise decision that at least one character have the medicine skill and skill feats.
To put it mildly, yes.
There are tons of ways to avoid Medicine. Mostly focus spells, but some healers can put the party up to full without much resource expenditure. Also, at high level, you can only rely on Wands like in PF1 as their price drop faster than hp pools increase.
I would summarize by saying that you need a way to get your hps back between fights and Medicine is the most accessible way.
Focus spells really only work if you're going to have a lot of time between fights, which is unrealistic to me.
In any sort of dungeon situation you're likely not going to have hours between fights to expend focus spells, refocus, and continue expending.
As a GM I would give you 10 minutes to use medicine once you have Continual Recoverey and Ward Medic. Any longer than that and any enemies that are near enough that you would conceivably fight them the same day and they're going to start running into you (because it makes sense, especially if they were close enough to hear the fight or do semi-regular patrols).
It would really depend on the dungeon in question. One that’s like the end of book 2 in AoA, regular patrols would make sense. There are also places like the collapsed house in Plaguestone that you can take as long as you like and the enemy can’t really do anything to stop you from taking an hour or two to rest. Then there’s the first book in Extinction Curse that has two dungeons where a party that’s cunning enough can take hour long breaks without raising too much suspicion.
A number of the enemies in a dungeon are written with tasks that are currently preoccupying their attention, so a missing patrol won’t really raise suspicion depending on the context. Would it seem odd if a co-worker said they had to run an errand and just didn’t come back swiftly? After awhile sure; but not immediately (again, depending on the situation).
Sorry but you're ignoring the elephant in the room.
How on earth can you think the designers intended cold iron arrows to be impossibly expensive (4 gp) at low level but trivially cheap (4 gp) at high level?
Every other weapon user is required to upgrade his weapon's material grade twice to keep enjoying state of the art runes on his attacks.
There’s also the elephant that Ammunition has to keep getting purchased and consumed, where as any martial can grab a low-grade dagger and stab the Balor while the Archer is arbitrarily stuck with finding High-Grade ammunition. I could see using higher purity with Magical Ammunition, but there’s nothing really suggesting ammunition is forced into the same situation because it’s being launched from a Bow.
_____________________
Precious Material Ammunition ends up depending on your build and weapon. For example, playing an X-bow Precision Ranger, I bought 100 bolts at the beginning of book 1 or 2 of AoA (our group started with Plaguestone and segwayed into AoA) and by the end of Book 2 I’ve used maybe just under 50 bolts? On a trip to town i grabbed 10 Cold Iron and 10 Silver Bolts just in case and have only used 3 Cold Iron.
I can easily see Bow users coming across issues if they spam the ammunition too much; but a couple of ranged abilities combine damage and only exploit weaknesses once. This means Bow users can either switch to X-bow for some encounters or mix Precious Ammo with Regular Ammo when they need to use it.
In an AoA game my Gnome Ranger took up Lore Traps. My GM and I have been using it in the knowledge sense, so can’t disarm with it, but allowing it to include magical traps for identifying general capabilities and appropriate skills to disarm said traps with.
I think using Maneuvers would break the Stance with the given limitation. Maybe someone else has a more detailed insight though.
Currently looking to build an Archer Monk, and Eldritch Archer has synergy with Human, Elf and Gnome Ancestries that have easy access to multiple Cantrips. Ranger seems really good to Archetype into.
Ranger Dedication - Hunt Prey for 2nd range increment w/o penalty
Gravity Weapon - Good consistent damage and insane synergy with One-Inch-Punch
Far Shot - Can shoot farther and use Monk Abilities at initial range; i.e. OIP from 60-100 feet away rather than 30-50 feet away
Maneuvers aren't Strikes.
The limitation of the stances (in general) are strictly for Strikes. Or else you couldn't even Stride without breaking them.
I think using Maneuvers would break the Stance with the given limitation. Maybe someone else has a more detailed insight though.
Currently looking to build an Archer Monk, and Eldritch Archer has synergy with Human, Elf and Gnome Ancestries that have easy access to multiple Cantrips. Ranger seems really good to Archetype into.
Ranger Dedication - Hunt Prey for 2nd range increment w/o penalty
Gravity Weapon - Good consistent damage and insane synergy with One-Inch-Punch
Far Shot - Can shoot farther and use Monk Abilities at initial range; i.e. OIP from 60-100 feet away rather than 30-50 feet away
I'm saying that if an item needs a entry in the magic items section of the book, its a Specific Magic item. 'Generic' magic weapons are mundane (or special materials) iitems from the equipment chapter that have had runes added to them. Items in the staff appear like a subset of items in the specific magic items section -- they all have rules above and beyond runes added to a mundane item.
Okay; I’ll say that’s a fair, if subjective, interpretation. Then that would mean that Handwraps are Specific Magic Items as well; since they do not appear in the general Weapons List, and appear in the subset of Worn Items. I would assume that Handwraps are to be held to the same restrictions and thus can not have Property Runes applied to them either.
Would this be a correct assumption given the limitations you have set?
Even without a darkwood sturdy shield, you can still use a regular darkwood shield to block a non-critical attack 1/encounter. (Assuming you have crafting to repair it).
That is still like getting an extra HP per level. That is not nothing.
Shielding Salve is a good option as well. It’s a level 1 item that can reduce Damage by 5 for 1 hit. In this case, a Leshy Familiar can apply it to your shield with, Valet and Independent Familiar Abilities; and Fortifying Pebble for an additional 10 less damage.
Though it’s coming in at a slow rate, Shields are certainly getting more content.
A Shillelagh build is also pretty powerful all around.
Because every spellcaster staff listed is a named item -- e.g. a 'Staff of Fire'. There's not a nameless staff that casts spells.
If that is the only criteria, then it would also seem fair to say that as soon as a Longsword becomes +1 that is becomes a Specific Magic Weapon; it fits the criteria of 1) being magical and 2) having a name (Longsword).
Is this interpretation an accurate representation of your interpretation or can you further define your reasoning?
