Goblin

Pumpkinhead11's page

Organized Play Member. 562 posts (746 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 562 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

ClanPsi wrote:
Seriously, just make an errata page on your website and update it every week. There's absolutely no good reason to make us wait so long. It's 2019, not 1989.

I fail to see how mentioning the current year has anything to do with how a company operates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


If you look at table 6-19 it shows that tiny creatures have a bulk limit. Which means Tiny creatures have a Bulk Limit, but half as much as a Small or Medium creature; so 2.5 Bulk limit at minimum.

2.5 minimum? It's (5+Strength modifier)/2. 0 is the minimum. And familiars have no Strength, so I doubt people read it like 10 Strength.

I hadn't seen the rules for larger weapons. So, I agree with you that they should be able to operate a larger weapon.
I still think this ruling is quite far stretched, and that you can expect table variations.

Actually it doesn’t say weather you subtract or not with a negative strength score; if so then Fantasy Grounds didn’t get the memo. :p

Then assuming a carry capacity of 0 as a minimum, and w/o strength stats we can use the athletics modifier’s -4 to guess a minimum strength of 2. With that a tiny creature can be expected to manipulate 0.5~1 bulk at the most.

Familiar Modifiers and AC CRB pg 217 wrote:
Your familiar’s save modifiers and AC are equal to yours before applying circumstance or status bonuses or penalties. Its Perception, Acrobatics, and Stealth modifiers are equal to your level plus your spellcasting ability modifier (Charisma if you don’t have one, unless otherwise specified). If it attempts an attack roll or other skill check, it uses your level as its modifier. It doesn’t have or use its own ability modifiers and can never benefit from item bonuses.

With that i’d say it’s reasonable to assume any stats it would have are based on the PC it’s bound to; weather via Casting Stat or Charisma.


Mellored wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Mellored wrote:

My purposed errata/home rule.

Crossbow - d6, reload 1, simple, range 120', sniper.
Heavy crossbow - d12, reload 2, simple, range 160', sniper attribute.

Sniper attribute: You do not take a penalty when attacking while prone.

How would Heavy Crossbow work with things like Crossbow Ace that bump up the damage die?
I think that is the only crossbow feat. And just increasing the bonus to +3 be the same.
Crossbow Ace CRB pg 171 wrote:
If the crossbow is a simple crossbow, also increase the damage die size for that attack by one step (page 279).
Increasing Damage Die CRB pg 279 wrote:

When an effect calls on you to increase the size of your weapon damage dice, instead of using its normal weapon damage dice, use the next larger die, as listed below (so if you were using a d4, you’d use a d6, and so on). If you are already using a d12, the size is already at its maximum. You can’t increase your weapon damage die size more than once.

1d4➞1d6➞1d8➞1d10➞1d12

I’m more referencing this. From the looks of it Crossbow Ace would end up being more useless than useful. I could see the Sniper attribute being too powerful when coupled with Quick Draw and lining a few of them in a row. Takes a good amount of setup, but ends up being pretty simple to get multiple shots off with zero penalty and potentially very deadly; especially with that 40’ increase you gave to the range.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

So you expect a mechanic to work differently based on a given thematic or GM ruling. I never said anything against games running differently; matter of fact, to each their own. I’m just not going to try and pass off subjective interpretation of how a rule should work based on the preference of each individual person. There’s no consistent reason that a Magically bonded creature that is Magically/Alchemically gifted to manipulate objects like a humanoid, should be gated from activities based on the whimsy of each individual GM; unless it’s a houserule that is.

For curiosity sake, is there any information to suggest that it’s not allowable via RAI? Or is that just your interpretation based on your personal preference?

Yes. Giant Barbarian:

"You can use a weapon built for a Large creature if you are Small or Medium (both normally and when raging). If you’re not Small or Medium, you can use a weapon built for a creature one size larger than you."

Using a weapon 2 sizes category above yours is forbidden.
So, depending on the GM views of size of weapon compared to size of your familiar, he can prevent you from doing it. It's not a mechanic working differently, it's a GM houseruling because you ask him so. RAW, you just can't.

If you look at table 6-19 it shows that tiny creatures have a bulk limit. Which means Tiny creatures have a Bulk Limit, but half as much as a Small or Medium creature; so 2.5 Bulk limit at minimum. Hey! Enough to wield/hold a Heavy Crossbow! Look at that! That’s if that even mattered to begin with; which the rules of reload don’t specifically ask for to begin with.

CRB pg 295 wrote:
In most cases, Small or Medium creatures can wield a Large weapon, though it’s unwieldy, giving them the clumsy 1 condition, and the larger size is canceled by the difficulty of swinging the weapon, so it grants no special benefit.”

So there’s generally no issue with using a weapon 1 size category different. Small and Medium weapons are treated as the same size for most circumstances so a Tiny Creature can reasonably wield a Small/Medium sized weapon if we go with RAI; there’s just no example to base this with RAW.

So, let’s refresh:
1. Tiny creatures have the strength to hold a heavy crossbow (though there’s no reason they should need to)
2. Tiny creatures can wield weapons a size larger than themselves if we base it on the ruling of oversized weapons for small and medium creatures and going by the size chart small and medium creatures are only one size category larger (though there’s no reason they should need to)
3. Manuel Dexterity magically allows them to use the manipulate trait; one of which is the interact action, which the reload feature requires.
4. Interact allows for similar actions, so helping someone reload is reasonably a similar action to reloading a weapon yourself.

So far there’s no reason within the Core Rulebook to not allow such an action. Feel free to take another crack at it, but at this point i feel you’re not even looking at the actual rules and just going off of your subjective interpretation of otherwise clearly written rules.


Mellored wrote:

My purposed errata/home rule.

Crossbow - d6, reload 1, simple, range 120', sniper.
Heavy crossbow - d12, reload 2, simple, range 160', sniper attribute.

Sniper attribute: You do not take a penalty when attacking while prone.

How would Heavy Crossbow work with things like Crossbow Ace that bump up the damage die?


Squiggit wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


But why would someone with high dex want to get heavy armor while using a crossbow? A switch hitter build could be a good reason, but then medium armor would be better and cheaper than heavy armor.
I mean, heavy armor has a higher max AC than medium armor and if you're a ranged combatant the movement penalty is less impactful too. Unless you can't meet the strength requirement or bulk is a huge issue there's no reason not to wear half plate or splint if you have heavy armor proficiency.

Huh, i thought they capped out the same as medium armor. I still feel it would be less useful on a Ranged focused character; but decent on a switch hitter. Though like Cabbage said, seems like kind of a hard sell in most circumstances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mellored wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I imagine we're eventually going to get repeating crossbows as an advanced weapon, and the fighter is absolutely the best chassis to use any advanced weapon with. That's probably close enough. But with how armor works it's going to be a hard sell to combine "high dex, because you use a crossbow" with "wears heavy armor".
Getting both dex and str is not that hard.

But why would someone with high dex want to get heavy armor while using a crossbow? A switch hitter build could be a good reason, but then medium armor would be better and cheaper than heavy armor.


Zapp wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Is it really considered entitled to point out an issue with a simple weapon; and the only weapon on the weapons chart with an issue like this? I already recognize it’s slower than other weapons and chose it in spite of that. Acknowledging it as a slower weapon doesn’t magically solve the issues it still has; especially when compared to a lighter crossbow.

Well, one easy solution in that case is to pretend the heavy crossbow isn't on that chart.

Look, I know you want a cheap way to transform the heavy crossbow into a submachinegun.

I mean, if it’s not a fully automatic shotgun with 1000ft range, 50ft burst, and persistent Frost damage for level 1 then why bother? /s

Zapp wrote:

Fair enough, if you'd just drop the pretense that you're asking for something completely innocous, as if it was just a random typo that the Reload column says two, or that maybe they just forgot to include the feat you want.

What really I find reasonable, though, is Paizo including it without bothering to make it usefuloptimal for you.

This would be a good point. . . If i was the only one saying the Heavy Crossbow is just a bad choice every which way you look at it with the exception of Perfect Shot, which is an 18th level feat. As I’ve said, for the third time now, people don’t have to like the rule; can feel it’s not RAI; or can houserule it however they want. I’m just curious if there’s anything that actually stops it from working; and the answer seems to be that it works just fine, and as intended to work. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This is actually what I’m asking. Reload only asks for two interact actions via RAW. Manual Dexterity allows Familiars to use actions with the Manipulate trait; one of which is the Interact action. 1 Command action telling the familiar to use two Interact actions to reload the crossbow. If there’s something else included in reloading somewhere in the CRB it doesn’t come to mind, and I’ve posted the rules on reload in a previous post; so it sounds like not allowing as much would be the houserule; unless there’s a piece of information I’m missing that you may know of.
Well, I can manipulate a door built for Huge creatures, but I'll certainly have to make a Strength check or something to do it. It's not an action that I should expect to perform automatically "because RAW".

So you expect a mechanic to work differently based on a given thematic or GM ruling. I never said anything against games running differently; matter of fact, to each their own. I’m just not going to try and pass off subjective interpretation of how a rule should work based on the preference of each individual person. There’s no consistent reason that a Magically bonded creature that is Magically/Alchemically gifted to manipulate objects like a humanoid, should be gated from activities based on the whimsy of each individual GM; unless it’s a houserule that is.

For curiosity sake, is there any information to suggest that it’s not allowable via RAI? Or is that just your interpretation based on your personal preference?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


This is the real issue on the matter. The two action reload makes it too difficult to be used consistently. Certain feats like Penetrating shot and Deadly Aim make it good, but not a much better choice over a regular Crossbow.

Well, if we're honest, the real issue on the matter is you feeling entitled to a heavy crossbow as your main weapon.

If you acknowledge that the weapon is slower than others, and accept that you need a second weapon after firing it once (in cases where melee is imminent), your customer satisfaction might be greatly improved.

Careful on your high horse there; wouldn’t want you to slip off and chip a nail. Is it really considered entitled to point out an issue with a simple weapon; and the only weapon on the weapons chart with an issue like this? I already recognize it’s slower than other weapons and chose it in spite of that. Acknowledging it as a slower weapon doesn’t magically solve the issues it still has; especially when compared to a lighter crossbow.


Mechagamera wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I'm not sure we really need prepared any and to be honest the idea of just checking off every box for the sake of checking it off sounds.. not great. We don't really need ten flavors of 10th level spellcaster just to check off boxes.

Not to say that more casters aren't bad, but they should have some really strong thematic thing tying them into the game, not just exist to fill an arbitrary niche.

Like, Wizards and Arcane Sorcerers already feel really similar. Throwing a third caster in there feels like it would be pretty suffocating unless it has something really compelling to set it apart, which is in and of itself hard to do with how minimalist full caster class features actually are.

Regarding Witches, while I don't think it's necessary for Patrons to define spell lists, I would still like to see them be a lot more meaningful than 1e Patrons. The fluff of the Patron is really neat, thematically... but in practice there just isn't much there.

I like Hexes as a combination of cantrips and focus spells like the Bard has... maybe we could even get a damage dealing one so I can snag a patron and a big nuke and pretend to be a D&D warlock.

Inquiring minds want to know: how is prepared occult any less "checking off boxes" than prepared any? You might be able to argue that it is a more important box, but ultimately it is just a box.

Currently there’s no prepared Occult, so the creative ground is fertile and full of potential. While it could be argued as ‘checking off a box’ there’s substantial reason and thematic potential for placing it there. Placing it as Prepared-any has less potential to be unique without stepping on the toes of other prepared Arcane/Primal/Divine; and will be under significant pressure to feel different, possibly stumbling the design process. This isn’t to say it’s not possible, or even the direction they might end up going; but with current information and speculation, Occult seems like the best fit for the time being.

As for my feelings on what i want from Witch: Familiar options, and few, if any, exclusive to the class itself. Which should have an options similar to the Wizard’s Familiar Thesis so they can get more Familiar/Master abilities. Then just dump a bunch of new Familiar/Master abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
I'm not trying to be difficult, but the ability of familiars to wind the crank of a heavy crossbow or carry an item of light bulk isn't specified in the familiar rules. Anything you allow a familiar to do beyond the listed capacities in the CRB is by necessity a houserule.

This is actually what I’m asking. Reload only asks for two interact actions via RAW. Manual Dexterity allows Familiars to use actions with the Manipulate trait; one of which is the Interact action. 1 Command action telling the familiar to use two Interact actions to reload the crossbow. If there’s something else included in reloading somewhere in the CRB it doesn’t come to mind, and I’ve posted the rules on reload in a previous post; so it sounds like not allowing as much would be the houserule; unless there’s a piece of information I’m missing that you may know of.

I’m not looking to convince you to like the ruling; but I currently am playing a Ranger with this tactic and if there’s some reason it shouldn’t work i would like to let my DM know. Weather he continues to allow it or not is secondary in this case.

PossibeCabbage wrote:
I feel like the feats that make the heavy crossbow viable just haven’t been printed yet.

This is the real issue on the matter. The two action reload makes it too difficult to be used consistently. Certain feats like Penetrating shot and Deadly Aim make it good, but not a much better choice over a regular Crossbow.


Wheldrake wrote:
It does sound like an awesome houserule, but it's very, very generous compared to the listed abilities of familiars in PF2. Note that its master would still need to spend an action to command it, in any event.

I’m curious where you’re getting that it’s a house rule and not allowable as is? As well as it doesn’t seem anymore generous than asking your familiar to feed you a potion from your bag; or some such similar act.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
What Zwordman says. Grab a familiar and give it the ‘Manual Dexterity’ ability. Turns the 2-action reload into a 1-action reload. This does mean you need to grab the Animal Accomplice Gnome Ancestry Feat or Multiclass into a caster for a Familiar though. If you don’t want to use the familiar for anything other than reloading, and aren’t planning to dip into casting, you can spend the other ability it can get on Scent or Darkvision for a bit more utility. Admittedly familiars are a bit lacking in the what they can give in a niche case like this.

There is nothing in the familiar rules suggesting that a familiar can reload its master's crossbow for him, and nothing in the ranged weapon rules suggesting someone other than the person wielding the weapon can spend the actions to reload a weapon.

So if your DM thinks it's cute to allow your familiar to pull a 150# bowstring back to the set position for you, that's great. But you should then also have your familiar carry your backpack and golf clubs for you.

FWIW I would play a heavy crossbow user as a switch hitter. Take one shot with your heavy crossbow then grab a melee weapon and wade into combat. Voilà! no reload problem.

Reload CRB pg 279 wrote:

While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.

An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.

The only part i see that would really bring into question about who reloads the crossbow is the part about switching grips. Otherwise it only requires two interact actions which a familiar can fulfill with ‘Manual Dexterity’. Is there something else in the rules that says it must be in the possession of the person reloading it?

Interact CRB pg 470 wrote:
You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect. You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.

The only thing in interact that would interfere with this would be the part where it says ‘unattended or stored object’, but it’s immediately followed by, ‘or produce some similar effect’. The familiar is clearly fulfilling the later of the two, so i’m not sure how this is a GM’s call on weather the ruling works or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What Zwordman says. Grab a familiar and give it the ‘Manual Dexterity’ ability. Turns the 2-action reload into a 1-action reload. This does mean you need to grab the Animal Accomplice Gnome Ancestry Feat or Multiclass into a caster for a Familiar though. If you don’t want to use the familiar for anything other than reloading, and aren’t planning to dip into casting, you can spend the other ability it can get on Scent or Darkvision for a bit more utility. Admittedly familiars are a bit lacking in the what they can give in a niche case like this.


Runes pg 585 CRB wrote:

SHIFTING

RUNE 6
MAGICAL
TRANSMUTATION
Price 225 gp

Usage etched onto a melee weapon

With a moment of manipulation, you can shift this weapon into a different weapon with a similar form.

Activate [one-action] Interact; Effect The weapon takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield. The weapon’s runes and any precious material it’s made of apply to the weapon’s new shape. Any property runes that can’t apply to the new form are suppressed until the item takes a shape to which they can apply.

*relevant parts in bold


Ed Reppert wrote:
The.Vortex wrote:
… Lay of Hands (which is refreshed if she uses treat wounds, since that is usually an act of faith for a follower of Sarenrae)…
Hm. Don't see this in the CRB. What am I missing?
Refocus pg 300 CRB wrote:

You spend 10 minutes performing deeds to restore your magical connection. This restores 1 Focus Point to your focus pool. The deeds you need to perform are specified in the class or ability that gives you your focus spells. These deeds can usually overlap with other tasks that relate to the source of your focus spells. For instance, a cleric with focus spells from a good deity can usually Refocus while tending the wounds of their allies, and a wizard of the illusionist school might be able to Refocus while attempting to Identify Magic

of the illusion school.
Champion Devotion Spells pg 108 CRB wrote:
You refill your focus pool during your daily preparations, and you regain 1 Focus Point by spending 10 minutes using the Refocus activity to pray to your deity or do service toward their causes.
Deities Sarenrae pg 439 wrote:

The Dawnflower is goddess of healing, honesty, redemption, and the sun. Once a powerful angel and empyreal lord, Sarenrae led the charge to imprison Rovagug. She seeks to redeem evil

where possible, or else destroy it swiftly.
Edicts destroy the Spawn of Rovagug, protect allies, provide
aid to the sick and wounded

*bold for emphasis*


Sapient wrote:
Justinian9 wrote:


I look at it differently... The deity weapon bonuses doesn't come from the god wanting you to use the weapon. It's comes because the god loves using that weapon and the boons just comes as it pleases the god that you also love using that weapon... Just my twist on this... in my head.

I think that is as good of a rationalization of any. But I still think it is odd that every god loves some certain weapon. Like, Shelyn wants you to be peaceful, perfect art, demonstrate goodness, never give up, and....fight with a glave? The gods have these broad philosophical and behavioral prerogatives, but are weirdly specific about weapons. Torag doesn't care what kind of forge or bellows or anvil you use. But make sure use a warhammer when you fight. Why does Nethys have a favorite weapon, but not a favorite spell? Why would a chaotic god like Cayden Cailean care what kind of weapon you use? Shouldn't he just want you to drink and help people in whatever way you think is fun?

It is hard for me to get excited about using favored weapons as a rule or a role playing motivation when the concept doesn't make much sense to me.

Favored weapons sometimes have symbolic importance. Shelyn has the Glaive because it was her brother’s weapon, so the importance is out of sympathy. It would make sense that she gives some favor to those who choose to use it out of some love she still has towards her brother.


Divine Ally pg 108 wrote:
Steed Ally: You gain a young animal companion as a mount (page 214). Ordinarily, your animal companion is one that has the mount special ability, such as a horse. You can select a different animal companion (GM’s discretion), but this ability doesn’t grant it the mount special ability.

Actually it looks like you can grab any animal companion with the ‘Steed’ Divine Ally; which makes this one more interesting than on first look. Makes me want to make a Dwarf Champion that goes into battle with his divine bear ally, Misha.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Strill wrote:
krazmuze wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
krazmuze wrote:

Then do the level simulation and prove me wrong. Every simulation I have seen says they calculated the fractional odds - which is only true for infinite simulation, or I simulated 50000 runs to get a precise average - which is not the reality of any players level.

The fact is that IF the variance is greater than the differences in average, then the build is not more important than the dice.

This is statistics 101

3.7+/-1 and 3.6+/-1.2

you cannot conclude that A is better than B, you instead must conclude that they are not significantly different because the range of averages have significant overlap.

3.7+/-0.1 and 3.4+/-0.15

You absolutely can conclude that A is better than B the averages do not overlap (to whatever confidence you calculated - usually 95% confidence is used) You cannot however conclude by how much as it could be 3.6 vs. 3.55 or it could be 3.8 vs. 3.25

It is this very gamblers fallacy that think the average odds apply to them that makes Vegas rich. The house can play the averages (because they make all the plays) - the player cannot (because they cannot play enough)

right so if you're going to be unlucky one way or unlucky another way, wouldn't you still want to know which is a better build if you're being unlucky?
Sure but my point is you cannot do that unless someone gives you the DPR+/-variance. It turns out for the specific medic example (I will post histograms later) that most people will not see the benefit of the +1. The thing to realize is that average means half the people do worse, half the people do better. The half the people that do worse with the +1 are not doing better than half the people doing better without the +1. That is the gamblers fallacy that people fall into when they think that if they follow DPR advice that they will always do better with the bonus option, that is simply not the case!
You're using deceptive ambiguous language. When you say "the half...

They’ve been rather clear this entire time; and the language has been anything but ambiguous. They have mostly been focusing on the ambiguous nature that DPR ends up being when put into practice, and that most people talking about about such things tend to gravitate towards how good something is in a vacuum rather than in practice. Two builds with little difference in numbers in practice aren’t any better than the other; but people will claim that there is a difference because the perfect whiteboard says there is, but in practice the difference doesn’t always show, if it shows at all. That’s why Kraz has been saying ‘gambler’s fallacy’ and ‘state the variance between competent builds’.

The variance bit would actually be much appreciated personally speaking.


DPR calculations seem like they’re most useful in figuring out how much leeway and breathing room you have for any given class or build.


Wait, wait, wait.

James Jacobs wrote:
To help focus questions a bit more—this stream will be about Age of Ashes Part 2: Cult of Cinders. So if you have questions about that adventure, that adventure path, or elements in the adventure like dragons, Ekujae elves, the Mwangi Expanse, building and running castles, tree lions, boggards, hexploration, map creation, aiudaras, and so on... THOSE will be the ones we'll be the most excited and eager to answer for this specific show.

...

James Jacobs wrote:
TREE LIONS

^ this needs explaining

Would also love to hear about Map Creation.


Two Crafting Questions

1.) When crafting with Precious Materials, what happens with the original item’s Hardness and HP? Are they suppose to be replaced with the better of the two; or combined into a sum total?

2.) When crafting a batch of Consumables, is the time it takes to craft them determined by the price of a single consumable or the lump sum of the batch? (Noting that you still have to pay for the lump sum of the batch either way.)

Fumbus crafting a shield for Valeros with Precious Materials, and Ezren crafting a batch of Scrolls would be a perfect illustration.

EDIT: welp, posted before i saw the thing about specific questions. Oh well


This seems like an issue that’s already solved with Doubling Rings and the Shifting Weapon Rune. I could see a Runescarred Archetype Feat that gives 1 bonus weapon rune similar to how ‘Living Rune’ works; but short of that i’m not sure i agree with Multi-Weapon users being ‘penalized’ with the support already allowing such builds.


It’s actually pretty easy to figure out pricing for shields of different materials. For example a Cold Iron Forge Warden:

Forge Warden Item 10
Cost 975gp
Hardness 6
HP 24
BP 12

Standard Grade Cold Iron Shield Item 7
Cost 340gp
Hardness 7
HP 28
BP 14

into:

Standard Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden Item 10
Cost 1315gp (975 + 340)
Hardness 13 (6 + 7)
HP 52 (24 + 28)
BP 26 (12 + 14)

And if we compare these stats to:

Moderate Sturdy Shield Item 10
Cost 1000gp
Hardness 13
HP 104
BP 52


Pretty sure if Shields were meant to be viewed as expendable items they’d have the consumable tag. I do believe they’re meant to be viewed as potentially expendable though.

It was brought up in another thread that when crafting with Precious Materials a reasonable assumption would be to combine the stats of the Shield and the PM. It ends up making other Shields much more comparable; and when compared to a Sturdy Shield of the same level it ends up matching up well with the Sturdy Shield still being a reasonable alternative.

Sturdy Steel Shield Lv 4
Hardness - 8
HP - 64
Cost - 100gp

Cold Iron Steel Shield Lv 2
Hardness - 10
HP - 40
Cost - 36gp


graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

I’m going off of RAW where it describes them as ‘a Special Type’ of spell in the Chapter of Spells. When you look at spell descriptions it also lists spells as Cantrip; Focus; and Spell. With Cantrip and Focus Spells it also says they heighten to ‘half you level rounded up’, but Staves say, ‘the highest spell level you can cast.’

Feel free to try it in PFS, i just don’t think it works RAW.

Looking at the spel section, you'll note that it's 'spell slots, cantrips, focus and innate... there is no generic 'spells' so it's not really relevant to differentiate any one as a spell and the others not. Note the staff section about prepared/spontaneous casters: prepared gets you extra charges based on the SPELL SLOT you expend, while a spontaneous can spend a charge and a SPELL SLOT. If "gains charges when someone prepares it for the day" meant spells only from one of your spell slots it should have said "spell slots", as that's the spell you get from your Spellcasting class feature as per the spell/magic section. With the wording, cantrips qualify for a staff charge as they are "a special type of spell that doesn’t use spell slots." They are spells but not spell slot ones: The preparing staff section only asked about spell which covers every type and not limited to spell slot ones.

Cool, let me know how it works in a PFS game. Let me clarify for a second time, in my opinion the RAW doesn’t support it; and even with this info, that i’ve already read, i stand by my statement. If i’m wrong on the ruling i’d be just as eager to know for the implications this means as a whole; and not just with staves. :)


tivadar27 wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
HotSauceAssassin wrote:
Hiruma Kai wrote:


At 8th level, a staff would have 3 base charges (max 3rd level casting)
Shouldn't you have 4 charges? Since cantrips and focus spells heighten automatically.
It wouldn’t. Cantrips and Focus Spells are described as ‘a Special Type’ of spell. If they intended it to work off of Auto-Heightening they would word it with ‘Half your level rounded up.’

... but they are spells, explicitly. I don't disagree that this is RAI as I said, but to say "it wouldn't" you're implying RAW.

I end up playing a lot of PFS, so RAI gets effectively thrown out the window. My responses are what I think the rules as written actually are, and I'm finding it hard not to read this as anything but "I'm able to cast an 8th level spell (heightened cantrip" therefor I get 8 slots". Note that the spells actual level no longer really matters for these purposes.

I’m going off of RAW where it describes them as ‘a Special Type’ of spell in the Chapter of Spells. When you look at spell descriptions it also lists spells as Cantrip; Focus; and Spell. With Cantrip and Focus Spells it also says they heighten to ‘half you level rounded up’, but Staves say, ‘the highest spell level you can cast.’

Feel free to try it in PFS, i just don’t think it works RAW.


HotSauceAssassin wrote:
Hiruma Kai wrote:


At 8th level, a staff would have 3 base charges (max 3rd level casting)
Shouldn't you have 4 charges? Since cantrips and focus spells heighten automatically.

It wouldn’t. Cantrips and Focus Spells are described as ‘a Special Type’ of spell. If they intended it to work off of Auto-Heightening they would word it with ‘Half your level rounded up.’


tivadar27 wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Attacking with a Staff page 592 Core Rulebook wrote:
Staves are also staff weapons (page 280), included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.
I believe this would prove that it wouldn’t suppress or hinder their Spellcasting ability even when shifted.

I'm not sure it "proves", but it helps the case of. Etching them with runes wouldn't suppress or hinder their spellcasting ability, but the effects of individual runes might. For example, there may be a berserker rune that lets you rage when you activate it, and I think we'd all agree that that *would* suppress their spellcasting ability.

We're talking specifically about the Shifting rune here, and nothing in that rune says it suppresses other abilities of the weapons, but it also doesn't indicate they *are* allowed either. To me, this could use some developer clarification, but I'd lean heavily towards the intent indicating this is possible, even if RAW doesn't spell it out either way.

Specific magic Weapons are able to cast spells and there’s even a Spell Storing Rune. If there’s somewhere it says other weapon types can’t cast spells i don’t see why Shifting would randomly suppress a Staff. The wording in Shifting is clearly meant for contradictions like Shifting a Longsword with Keen, Wounding or Vorpal into a Warhammer; where the effects would be suppressed.


Attacking with a Staff page 592 Core Rulebook wrote:
Staves are also staff weapons (page 280), included in their Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff. This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.

I believe this would prove that it wouldn’t suppress or hinder their Spellcasting ability even when shifted.


puksone wrote:
shroudb wrote:
puksone wrote:
shroudb wrote:

I've built exactly a character like this:

Fighter/wizard miner.

He has his divination staff shifted to a pick, and goes crit fishing like crazy.

Access to heroism, even if limited times per day, helps keeping the pick crits consistent even against boss AC.

I was debating Bespell, but feats are kinda tight to pick it up as a mc feat.

True strike+Pick is <3

Don't forget that you can sacrifice a spell slot at daily prep for extra True Strikes.

And a Power attack crit from a Pick... Well, let's say it hurts.

Does the wiz gets something that a sorc doesn't get for teh build?

I am planing to play a fighter/sorc.

double charges on his Staff compared to sorc.

plus, better spellcasting for MC.

as written, spontaneous MC you only get 1 spell (per level) that you can cast. While with prepared MC you still cast only the one/two spells (per level), but you can switch them daily from all within your collection.

from arcane bond? but you don't get that from mc?

Prepared and Spontaneous casters get slightly different benefits from preparing staves. When a prepared caster prepares a staff they can expend a spell slot and gain that many additional charges in the staff for the day. If OP is looking for mostly True Strike spam then on average he’ll be able to use it with the staff 6 times. A spontaneous caster would not get this benefit.


shroudb wrote:

4.:

your choice of hitting with the "actual Claws" that deal the damage as per Sorc power OR hit with the monk unarmed attack that's merely called claws (but it's actually just fist/fingers) and do the monk damage.

Traits used for each attack are as gain for their respective attacks.

With Tiger Stance, or better yet Wolf Stance, you can’t actually hit them with ‘one or the other’ without using meta game logic/reasoning. The Claws will protrude from the fingers and inevitably conflict. Mountain or Crane stance specifically limit your attack pattern, and Dragon Stance could be reasoned as ‘one or the other’.


Fighter can get in at level 2 (Cleric will probably be the same)

Champion, Ranger, and Barbarian can get in at level 4 (Level 2 if Human)

And Everyone else (aside from Wizard) can get in at level 8 (Level 4 if Human)

For the most part this doesn’t seem that bad. I do feel there needs to be broader options available other than just through Human. Rogue seems to be left out in the cold by sheer chance though; technically Bard as well, but they’re also full caster now.

As for the RMA, I’d honestly expect them to mostly be Fighters or Rangers rather than Rogues. There’s not much about them that sounds like a Rogue unless you conflate assassin with sneaky backstabber.


Retraining wrote:
If you don’t remember whether you met the prerequisites at the time, ask your GM to make the call.

This is the one specific line that makes it seem much more restrictive than it needs to be. That said it also says it’s up to a GM to decide. Rogue does seem like the one specifically getting shafted for a Finesse Weapon path; so maybe a Rogue specific Feat allowing them to gain Proficiency in an Agile or Finesse Martial or Advanced Weapon of their choice would be an appropriate fix.

As for the retraining, unless you want to be a stickler, i’d say if you can meet the prerequisites with current class features or a feat chain it would be fine. An Example being Rogue would still have to take Aldori Dualist as early as a level 8 feat because of needing the two weapon training feats to access it.


mrspaghetti wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:


The loose wording is why i think it’s meant to be ‘Trigger’ rather than ‘Requirement’. It seems to be the only Free Action that i’ve seen with this amount of ambiguity on when you can/are supposed to use it.

As for stacking them; currently either have a Cleric grab Bespell via...

Again I point at Bond Conservation, which has similar wording and which we know to be usable at the start of one's turn.

I looked at Bond Conservation the first time you mentioned it. Aside from it being a Metamagic that costs an action as apposed to a Free Action; BC has specific wording that allows you to use it the following turn. Bespell Weapon not only lacks this specific wording, but when compared to the majority of other Free Actions, makes that interpretation seem like an outlier rather than an exception.

You may be right in your interpretation, but i’ll still hold skepticism until a Dev says otherwise.

Core Rule Book page 444 wrote:

Ambiguous Rules

Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Circling back to the Bespelling from a previous turn thing... Now I'm less sure that doesn't work. I'm comparing the text of Bespell Weapon and Divine Weapon.

Frequency once per turn
Requirements Your most recent action was to cast a non-cantrip spell.
You siphon the residual energy from the last spell you cast into one weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an extra 1d6 damage of a type depending on the school of the spell you just cast.

Frequency once per turn
Trigger You finish Casting a Spell using one of your divine spell slots on your turn.
You siphon residual spell energy into a weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an additional 1d4 force damage.

So first off, one is a trigger and the other is a requirement. Divine specifically triggers when you finish casting your spell, and lasts until the end of your turn. So there's no way you can have that carry over to the next turn.

Bespell weapon, on the other hand, is a requirement of what your last action was. It doesn't trigger when you cast the spell, it is activated whenever you want as long as your most recent action was casting. The two contrasted with each other support themostbrutal's reading.

That being said, there are plenty of places in the CRB where language wasn't consistently updated in different sections. So I am still positive on the intent here.

One interesting question: could a multiclass character use both feats at once? You can't have two free actions go off the same trigger, but Bespell doesn't have a set trigger... So the question would be if there is an opening to use another free action between finishing casting a spell and attacking.

The loose wording is why i think it’s meant to be ‘Trigger’ rather than ‘Requirement’. It seems to be the only Free Action that i’ve seen with this amount of ambiguity on when you can/are supposed to use it.

As for stacking them; currently either have a Cleric grab Bespell via MC or Divine Sorc grab Divine Weapon via MC. Divine specifies that it has to be a spell from a Divine Spell Slot and Bespell just needs a Spel that’s not a Cantrip. With the current wording use Divine Weapon’s trigger after the spell and use the Bespell Free Action right before you attack. Seems like it would work RAW (individual GMs may vary).


ChibiNyan wrote:

I don't agree that feats "shouldn't scale" when you level up. There's a lot of feats that improve your to-hit, reduce your MAP, allow you to hit multiple targets, increase damage of a spell by it's spell level, power up when proficiency increases, etc. Plenty of good stuff that will continue to get better as you level up so that it continues to be useful vs the greater enemies you will face.

As it is, it's decent if you get it asap and then you should be retraining it after a few levels. The 3.5 average damage it's giving you every couple of turns doesn't even account for 1 levels worth of HP gain. I know it's free, but it does have an opportunity cost of using up one of your valuable class feats - all of them should be putting work since they are an investment.

Also, this is a cool feat that fits in many character "concepts", so it's a shame that it's kinda irrelevant after a while.

It depends on what other feats it ends up competing against for the specific build. I agree the 3.5 damage would be worth retraining out of after some point; though some Flurry builds with Monk or Ranger and maybe even Fighter could make some good use out of it.


Captain Morgan wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

Thats... very interesting actually, its an unintuitive reading, but as far as I can tell it's actually correct unless there's some general rule that limits your last action last turn off from the current turn.

Would that break using a reaction in between?

Depends on the rule lawyer making the argument. A reaction could be considered to be a sub-type of action. Or action, free action, and reaction could all be considered as sibling types - so when the rule says 'your last action' it would ignore free actions and reactions that have been used since then.
I'd certainly not count reactions and free actions as actions for purposes of "your last action." But I'm still skeptical you can carry them over between turns. I dunno.

Taking a look at free actions in general, they seem to have either a ‘Trigger’ or specify when you’re suppose to use them during a turn. Divine Weapon works very similarly and uses a Trigger, and with how Free Actions tend to work in general, i’d say the wording for Bespell Weapon was meant to say ‘Trigger’ rather than ‘Requirement’. Even with the current wording it seems to suggest the ability is meant to work as a kicker effect after casting a spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
themostbrutal wrote:

Is everyone suggesting that you only receive the extra 1d6 damage for a single attack on your turn because you want to be casting a spell every round? I would not use the ability like that. If I was playing a gish I would make a weapon attack then cast a two action spell. The next turn I would use bespell weapon and make 3 attacks with +1d6 damage.

The requirement says your last action must have been to cast a non cantrip spell. It doesn't say it has to be on that turn. The spell also says the enhancement lasts until the end of the turn so would add to all 3 attacks.

I don’t believe the ability is intended to work that way, and would make sure your GM is okay with that interpretation.

As for the usefulness of Bespell Weapon, it can definitely synergies where it counts. A Sorc or Wizard at level 4 or 6 can cast magic weapon and use Bespell Weapon for a minimum of 3d6. If they plan to focus on the caster side of things, spells like Jump and True Strike will most likely be used often enough to keep bespell weapon reliable.

For the Martial aspect; Ranger has a bonus d8 with Precision Edge(which scales), and Flurry Edge with Twin Takedown meaning they can get that extra 1d6 on three attacks pretty reliably. Monk can use it with Ki Strike and FoB which ends up as a pure upgrade. Rogue can use it as a bonus d6 to Sneak Attack.

It really doesn’t seem like a Trap Option as much as a part of the system that takes time to get used to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Lol. Alright.

The best things I’ve seen people say about the archetypes in LOWG is that they’re a good start, teaser or freebie. You can consider those complete if you want. There are those who very clearly seem to disagree.

I mean, that should be fairly obvious. Archetypes, the way they are in this system, is fairly new territory; and a number of them, with how they’re designed, naturally get more valuable and powerful with additional content. It was also a chance to show unique themes of the lands and the unique flavors archetypes can express.

I doubt the 60 pages in APG will directly equate to 60 archetypes, but it does inevitably depend on what archetypes they want to explore.


Actually the Pest Form spell forces you into a ‘Battle-Form’ of a tiny creature. For Humanoid form since it doesn’t say you take on a ‘battle-form’ my understanding is that you can cast spells and use items like normal. Same would apply with Enlarge and Shrink i would imagine.


I think the ‘14 in a stat’ got a lot more focus than it was intended to. No one has really denied that a 16-18 key stat will be most common; and yes, to ‘suboptimaize’ takes either slipping through a crack or deliberate sabotage to achieve so far in 2e. Even the experience i mentioned is chalked up to me being too experimental before getting my bearing on the new system in action, and the PT just happened to expose them all the more.

Sometimes it legitimately gets difficult to tell where some people are coming from though with just the sheer amount of threads and information that gets passed around regularly, resulting in people using a shorthand that gets misunderstood at first glance. Just something that happens.

@DMW - I’m not sure how helpful it is to dig into someone that explicitly expressed having bad experiences with players causing them to become sour towards the concept themselves. Kinda just perpetuates it ya know?


Captain Morgan wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
I’m curious if there’s anything stoping multiple shield types, like making a Sturdy Adamantine Forge Warden of Greater Floating, aside from the estimated price of 58,775g?
Aside from common sense? I'd probably look at the rules on property runes vs named magic weapons. Inherent unique abilities can't stack with property runes, so I'd assume they can't stack with themselves. Much as you couldn't make a Flametongue that was also a Frostbrand, but you could make an Adamantine Flametongue.

That would make sense. Then the appeal i see between an Adamantine Forge Warden and a Supreme Sturdy Adamantine Shield would be the latter is insanely more expensive, but will take forever to break.

Common sense is overrated anyway. :P


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Well, like one of the neatest things the Magus did was the archetypes that were like "soulbound to an intelligent weapon" or "can create a weapon out of their mind". If we create an actual Magus class we can create space for things like "Black Blade support via a feat chain" (a la the Champion's radiant weapon) which would be really hard to do with most or your feats already spoken for to fulfill the basic concept.

I agree and would love a Black Blade; either as a Magus path or chain of feats like you suggest. So, if i’m correct, it sounds like you’re suggesting at the very least, support for where half-casters left their mark in 1e. I would say that’s the best reason to fight for their return since flavor tends to be just as important to some when it comes to making characters.


I’m curious if there’s anything stoping multiple shield types, like making a Sturdy Adamantine Forge Warden of Greater Floating, aside from the estimated price of 58,775g?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
You brought up the Thematic demand of half-casters.
What I mean is that there's a lot of demand for things like Inquisitors, Maguses, Occultists, etc. and there's a fair bit of ground between "all the spells" and "no spells" in which we could fit something else. By having the class have limited spellcasting, but all of its feats we create more space to explore the thematic spaces of those classes, something we can't do with "a fighter with 5/10 class feats spoken for."

I wasn’t intending that to sound insulting, so my apologies on that; I was honestly curious to hear from your viewpoint. I’m not interested in pegging all casters as full or focus with no middle ground. I was just having issue imagining how to place them. You’ve expressed an interest behind the lore and thematics before so I thought it best to ask than assume.


Aristophanes wrote:
Data Lore wrote:

Honestly, the amount of number crunching some players employ really suck me out of the game. It gets worse when the powergamers start trying to advise other folks - sort of backseat driving another player's charop.

I wish folks would just be happy with "effective" without going down the rabbit hole of "optimized." As soon as folks go for optimized, the game changes in a fundamental way that affects others at the table and can be detrimental to the campaign as a whole, IMO.

IMHO, in PF2, It is much harder to make an ineffective character. I mean, you really have to work at it! It takes real system mastery to create a substandard character. Unless the character is being created by committee, like "Dr. Heckle" on the recent "Twitch Stream" game.

I ended up wanting to try out Cleric, for the very first time ever, during the first part of the PlayTest.

18 wis
16 cha
14 str
14 dex

I wanted to try out Healing and use a Reach Weapon. Fair to say i messed up with placing my stats, and as punishing as the PT was there wasn’t much way to lessen the gap; leaving me to Heal and spam Cantrips. Summon Monster helped flank with flanking. :P

That’s why i personally looked to see how it was balanced at 14’s. It’ll be the most common number you’ll average on any tertiary stats. With the numbers more balanced in the final CRB i can feel comfortable that a 14 isn’t a death sentence like it was for me in the PT.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

A fighter can have really awesome fighting and some quality casting by giving up a huge number of their feats.

A wizard can have really awesome spellcasting, and some okay fighting by giving up a noticeable portion of their feats.

What we need is someone who can have useful spellcasting and useful fighting which gets to keep their feats. Since spending 5 feats on the wizard archetype leaves you fewer feats to spend on any other archetype, and you might have wanted to be one of those for story/theme reasons.

Actually, with Martial Flexibility, it puts Fighters in a better spot than others; and gives more of a buffer than other classes might feel. It’s also possible to grab Animal Accomplace from Gnomes with a General Feat and an Ancestry Feat.

With that said, I’m personally rather pleased with what the mechanics currently allow.

You brought up the Thematic demand of half-casters. Could you elaborate more on this idea? What would make them differ thematically from either extreme of Bards or Champions?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why are all of these examples being compared to the Sturdy Shield? It’s coming off like a comparison between a Luxury and a Tank. At the moment i do feel you’re right about the Forge Warden being a bit too fragile for what it’s suppose to do though. It almost looks like the only real use it’s for is with a Shield Ally or against low level fodder.

1 to 50 of 562 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>