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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
How would Heavy Crossbow work with things like Crossbow Ace that bump up the damage die?
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.
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, if it’s not a fully automatic shotgun with 1000ft range, 50ft burst, and persistent Frost damage for level 1 then why bother? /s
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. :)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reload CRB pg 279 wrote:
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.
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:
*relevant parts in bold
Ed Reppert wrote:
Refocus pg 300 CRB wrote:
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:
*bold for emphasis*
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.
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.
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:
^ 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
Standard Grade Cold Iron Shield Item 7
Standard Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden Item 10
And if we compare these stats to:
Moderate Sturdy Shield Item 10
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
Cold Iron Steel Shield Lv 2
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. :)
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.
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.’
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Captain Morgan 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 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).
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:
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.
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.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
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.
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:
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
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 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.
I ended up wanting to try out Cleric, for the very first time ever, during the first part of the PlayTest.
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.
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?
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.