Pyrofool's page

Sorry for necro posting, but i recently encountered this problem in my group. Our bard did not know how to play his character, So I suggested maybe attempting to demoralize his foes. then we got into thinking about Fascinating Performance, the Perform action, and Versatile Performance... so here are my thoughts on it.

1. before for we even get to fascinating perfromance we have to look at the perform action. the perform action states it normally has no effect on it's own. Obviously, fascinating performance does actually give this action an effect. But this action also give the GM discretion as well.

2. Fascinating performance is worded horribly. it said "whenever you perform." What it should say is whenever you take the perform action. however, as it is written a player can easily get confused, (this happened to my bard) and think that it means that any time he makes a performance check. If this was the case, Versatile Performance would be insane, because every time you demoralize a single target, use group coercion, make an impression, or any other feat that versatile performance allows you to roll performance for instead of intimidation, you would be getting a free Fascinating performance. Now, i actually like this idea, making a purely social character who can actually effect combat just by being a social butterfly a viable character, but i do not believe that that was intended. but strictly speaking, because Fascinating Perfromance does not say "whenever you use the perform action" a GM could interpret it to be any time you roll performance.

3. Interpreting as a GM. I personally allow my players to use Fascinating Performance when they use the perform action. However i also, if they have versatile performance, allow them to use the perform action instead of the stated actions. They still have to critically succeed, and because most of these effects make people immune for 10 minutes afterwards, regardless of the effect it's okay. I allow players to use the perform action to attempt to get a specific effect, but I limit it based on the Mastery levels listed along with the perform action.

IO suggest using the Pathbuilder2 app, myself.

For pure damage, Dragon style is probably the best.

You can go full damage and use mobility as your defense (move/flurry/move) alongside defensive feats like Winding path and Guarded movement to be mostly safe from everything as you waltz back and forth.

A few ki powers, notably ki strike and either blast or the one that lets you pseudo-fly, and increased focus recovery. As well as "passive" stuff like brawling focus and stunning fists.

Personally, i think a little more well rounded build, maybe a Wolf style dex monk with some strength, is more universally useful because he can switch from a pure damage, to a "control" build in the blink of the eye, and his defences will naturally be higher (at least in the earlier levels) so he can stand his ground and maybe get more attacks in.

Wait, MC dead feat? Rage? Hunt? I don't agree.

For pure damage, Dragon style is probably the best.

You can go full damage and use mobility as your defense (move/flurry/move) alongside defensive feats like Winding path and Guarded movement to be mostly safe from everything as you waltz back and forth.

A few ki powers, notably ki strike and either blast or the one that lets you pseudo-fly, and increased focus recovery. As well as "passive" stuff like brawling focus and stunning fists.

Personally, i think a little more well rounded build, maybe a Wolf style dex monk with some strength, is more universally useful because he can switch from a pure damage, to a "control" build in the blink of the eye, and his defences will naturally be higher (at least in the earlier levels) so he can stand his ground and maybe get more attacks in.

Wait, MC dead feat? Rage? Hunt? I don't bagree.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Nothing. Anywhere. ANYWHERE. Suggests you have to transfer a rune from one item to another in order to upgrade it.

You. Simply. Upgrade. It.

Upgrading means you're just using the normal crafting process, which means it takes 4 days.

If you are the one crafting it? Yes, you are correct.

If you are not crafting it, then no, it doesn't take 4 days. You simply pay the difference, and walk away.

If you disagree, please cite where you're reading that.

You are wrong good sir. Yes, you pay the difference in order upgrade. However, the person you are paying to do the upgrade is playing the same game you are. And the game says that the process takes 4 days. So when you don't have to do the upgrade yourself. You don't just walk into a craftman's shop, lay down some gold and suddenly your item is upgraded. You hand over yourb item, the Craftsman looks it over, probably checking what sort of rune it is, gives you a price (btw those prices in the book don't seem to have markup). You pay the guy, he tells you how long it will take. You walk away, 4 days later (or however long the Craftsman says if there are story reasons) you get your upgraded item.

Now, what could happen is you go to a Craftsman, pay the difference and trade your item for an upgraded one if the Craftsman has one. That is easily something that could happen.

Also, sometimes you are not looking to get a magical item. Sometimes you just want to make money. So for example, at level 1-3 magical items should be out of your budget. So you stockpile that extra gold for later. Then at level 4 or so, maybe a little earlier than other characters you can use bargain Hunter to get yourself a nice item because of the extra income and the deals.

Also, I'm running a dwarf right now who has specled heavily into crafting, bargain Hunter is a huge boon to him.

NielsenE wrote:

I think we can get the 'crafting check required' camp closer to the 'just pay the difference camp' on cost, and maybe somewhat on time. By invoking the acknowledgement from the devs that NPCs crafters use different rules than PCs. For people that caveat, I think the difference in cost in small-change enough to ignore, even without seeing (if we ever do in the GMG/later) the NPC crafting rules.

The NPC rule differences would also have to allow an NPC crafter to instantaneously create/transfer a rune to get rid of the 1 day crafting time. I think that's going to be a harder sell, while a reduction in time to a couple of hours rather than a day seems likely to be accepted.

All an NPC (or a PC for that matter) would need is the Assurance feat and a high enough proficiency modifier to bypass having to roll. I think it is safe to say that most people who craft as a full time job (as opposed to just in the downtime between much more lucrative adventuring) have taken Assurance.

So I think the settlement rules will probably have a market stat for the maximum item level a Craftsman (or the store they supply) can reliably produce.

The intricacies of who is what kind of player and the throwing of shade has no place in this thread.

Yes, a peasant gets paid peanuts, yes runestones are valuable. If I was a desperate peasant I'd have to fight the urge not to flip that rune on the black market.

But really, if you learned to craft magical items, and etch runes, are you really making your Mony enchanting items? Or would you make your Mony crafting freaking runestones and selling them to wizards, knights, and adventurers. No peasant with magical crafting would be your everyday commoner or even skilled laborer. They would be the freaking Macintosh of the adventuring world.

This a really complex thread, maybe someone needs the devs to answer it.

It also really lends back to my biggest problem with the book. Information about one aspect of the game is spread out over many chapters and pages. The playing the game section should have covered all of these interactions under mounted combat, bit instead we are seeing that you get the information piece by piece and some of the rules seem vague or outright contradict one another.

It's cool that so many people are working together to sort it out, but it really needs an errata.

Some actions are involuntary as well and do not use an action. Like the rules for shove, if you are shoved, you move without taking an action and do not trigger abilities which trigger off of a move action. But you still moved.

I'm not saying that dropping an item is always involuntary, but if you are falling off a cliff, I can easily see myself rulling it as such.

So, let's see:

Command an animal:

- Spend a command action, make a check, on success:
- Mount performs one action as ordered on its turn.

Ride feat:
"When you Command an Animal you’re mounted on to take a move action (such as Stride), you automatically succeed instead of needing to attempt a check."

That's pretty clear.

"Any animal you’re mounted on acts on your turn, like a minion."

Now here things get FAQ worthy.

Does this imply that with the mount feat you get two mount actions for one command action ("like a minion" modifies "act") or does it mean only that the mount acts on your turn ("like a minion" modifies "acts on your turn")?

I think it more plausible from the text itself, that the latter is the case. When mounted, you trade actions one for one. The Ride feat only helps you coordinate better and autosucceed.

So basically, being mounted let's you use the mounts speed, gives a -2 to reflex and "if the mount is in the way" +2 to AC. The latter seems dubious to me. Is the mount in way of an adjacent infantrist? They would have to fight upwards, but "in the way"? Not so much. So this is completely to GM interpretation.

Finally, a warhorse, being a level 2 creature is pretty soon going to be much more vulnerable than it's rider.

Thanks. I think you put all that much better than I could have. and I think that's probably the best answer this thread will get.

You seem to be reading "support" as any action other than stride when it is actually a specific action available to animal companions, the details of which depend on the type of animal.

that makes more sense. Thanks. still want to find the Mount special ability, but at least now i can easily tell my players. "no" when they try to make their animal companion get extra actions.

A 4th Level PC wants to upgrade their +1 weapon to a +1 striking weapon. They are Untrained in Crafting.

A +1 weapon is 35gp.
A striking rune is 65gp.
A +1 striking weapon is 100gp.

Is upgrading as simple as paying the difference (65gp, in this case), or are there other hidden costs to upgrading?

Based on Table 11-6 Weapon upgrade prices on page 582. The cost to upgrade a +1 Weapon to +1 Striking is 65gp. That's all.

You are quite right. The grabbed condition says nothing about being in the same square, and grapple is very lacking in it's description. Hence why I run it the way I do.

That's just the way I run it, because otherwise you can Push, but not pull. which is weird to begin with. Also this way you are still in spirit in keeping with the rule that you loose your grab if you move away. It ensures that you can't just grab someone and push them across the map, but also ensures that you can if you so desire Shove them away from you or move them where you need to be as long as you are in control of the grab

Like what happens if you grab someone, and they grab you right back. You each stand toe to toe taking turns pushing each other away. or does it make more sense that you are both restrained, and that you both can move around on your turn but only by gaining the upper hand.

Like i said, this was not a rules as written scenario. it was the way i ruled it in my game because a player grabbed someone and needed to get that target over a cliff that was behind the player. he could not do it, because he had to make two steps to get onto the other side of the enemy, and because he moved "Away" he lost his grip. I house ruled at that point that when he grabbed the opponent they were sharing a contested space that was 5x5 (a square). The player grabbed his target moving into that targets square, Shoved him into the square he had just been standing in, then Shoved him again right off the cliff. It took three actions, and each required a test. It was balanced, and it worked. Had he failed any of those tests the target would have gotten away, but he didn't just loose his hard earned grab because he moved.

But rules as written, you are correct.

Ride checks aren't anywhere in the rules as far as I know. What you mean seems to be "you need the Ride feat if you play with this house rule I made up." Which is fine if you want to suggest a house rule but you're framing it as something else. Not sure if you are intending to.

Okay, I'm Home. Lets break this down starting with rules as writen. Also, the ride check is called "Command Animal" now. How did you misunderstand that? And if you mess up, your mount misbehaves in some manner which can cause you to make a check to stay on. Thats a ride chck, regardless what skill you actually use. you could use reflex, or athletics, or Nature, or Acrobatics. the end result will be the same. you fail to "ride" your mount.

Ride

When you Command an Animal you’re mounted on to take a move action (such as Stride), you automatically succeed instead of needing to attempt a check. Any animal you’re mounted on acts on your turn, like a minion. If you Mount an animal in the middle of an encounter, it skips its next turn and then acts on your next turn. Page 249 has more on Command an Animal.

You can already see where I get most of my rules from. Heck, here even tells you that the mount is treated like a minion when it comes for when it can move. It also states that when your mount makes a move action such as stride. So this also includes, Step, leap, Climb, and flight etc. All the move actions.

Now lets look at page 249

You issue an order to an animal. Attempt a Nature check against the animal’s Will DC. The GM might adjust the DC if the animal has a good attitude toward you, you suggest a course of action it was predisposed toward, or you offer it a treat.

You automatically fail if the animal is hostile or unfriendly to you. If the animal is helpful to you, increase your degree of success by one step. You might be able to Command an Animal more easily with a feat like Ride (page 266).

Most animals know the Leap, Seek, Stand, Stride, and Strike basic actions. If an animal knows an activity, such as a horse’s Gallop, you can Command the Animal to perform the activity, but you must spend as many actions on Command an Animal as the activity’s number of actions. You can also spend multiple actions to Command the Animal to perform that number of basic actions on its next turn; for instance, you could spend 3 actions to Command an Animal to Stride three times or to Stride twice and then Strike.

Success: The animal does as you command on its next turn.

Failure: The animal is hesitant or resistant, and it does nothing.

Critical Failure: The animal misbehaves or misunderstands, and it takes some other action determined by the GM.

So here you can see where my logic is going. If you want to have the mount move, you have to spend the action to command it. You have to roll, and you have to spend an action to command it. Ride allows you to succeed automatically, but you still need to take the action.

Now lets look at animal companions.

Source Core Rulebook pg. 214

An animal companion is a loyal comrade who follows your orders without you needing to use Handle an Animal on it. Your animal companion has the minion trait, and it gains 2 actions during your turn if you use the Command an Animal action to command it; this is in place of the usual effects of Command an Animal. If your companion dies, you can spend a week of downtime to replace it at no cost. You can have only one animal companion at a time.

Riding Animal Companions
Source Core Rulebook pg. 214
You or an ally can ride your animal companion as long as it is at least one size larger than the rider. If it is carrying a rider, the animal companion can use only its land Speed, and it can’t move and Support you on the same turn. However, if your companion has the mount special ability, it’s especially suited for riding and ignores both of these restrictions.

Now, I'm gonna be honest here. I completely forgot about the mount special ability. So I was slightly wrong about the final rules. Your mount can only take actions if it has the mount special ability. It can only move on your turn otherwise. So assuming that you are riding an animal companion with this special ability, the animal can still attack on it's turn. (it gets two actions, so one is stride, the other is something else (usually strike

Now, I made a couple mistakes.

1) I gave the animal companion three actions. It's supposed to be two.

2) I said that if you fail the check you fall off. That's not true. if you fail the animal just does not do what you tell it to. Only if you critically fail does it have a CHANCE of you falling off if the animal misbehaves heck, the animal might just step left when you tell it to step right. or it may try and buck you off. Or it might "slip and dip" which is where the horse drops one shoulder then steps the opposite direction while at the same time changing it's speed suddenly. At that point you MIGHT have to roll your athletics or Acrobatics to stay on if your GM is, well, me. :P

I normally simplify to the least amount of rolls required for an action. So when I run it I just have the players roll either athletics if they are strong arming the animal, or Acrobatics, if they are trying to finesse the animal. Sure, you could roll nature as well if you are riding through your understanding of how to command an animal beneath you. (and IRL, this is definitely a thing, there are commands, and hand grips, and leg presses, and all sorts of tricks to let your horse know what you want it to do.) This is the part I house rule in order to streamline the game. Sorry if that offends you.

Now lets look at mounted combat.

Mounted Combat

Source Core Rulebook pg. 478
You can ride some creatures into combat. As noted in the Mount specialty basic action (page 472), your mount needs to be at least one size larger than you and willing. Your mount acts on your initiative. You must use the Command an Animal action to get your mount to spend its actions. If you don’t, the animal wastes its actions. If you have the Ride general feat, you succeed automatically when you Command an Animal that’s your mount.

For example, if you are mounted on a horse and you make three attacks, your horse would remain stationary since you didn’t command it. If you instead spent your first action to Command an Animal and succeeded, you could get your mount to Stride. You could spend your next action to attack or to command the horse to attack, but not both.

Mounted Attacks
Source Core Rulebook pg. 478
You and your mount fight as a unit. Consequently, you share a multiple attack penalty. For example, if you Strike and then Command an Animal to have your mount Strike, your mount’s attack takes a –5 multiple attack penalty.

You occupy every square of your mount’s space for the purpose of making your attacks. If you were Medium and on a Large mount, you could attack a creature on one side of your mount, then attack on the opposite side with your next action. If you have a longer reach, the distance depends partly on the size of your mount. On a Medium or smaller mount, use your normal reach. On a Large or Huge mount, you can attack any square adjacent to the mount if you have 5- or 10-foot reach, or any square within 10 feet of the mount (including diagonally) if you have 15-foot reach.

Mounted Defenses
Source Core Rulebook pg. 478
When you’re mounted, attackers can target either you or your mount. Anything that affects multiple creatures (such as an area) affects both of you as long as you’re both in the area. You are in an attacker’s reach or range if any square of your mount is within reach or range. Because your mount is larger than you and you share its space, you have lesser cover against attacks targeting you when you’re mounted if the mount would be in the way.

Because you can’t move your body as freely while you’re riding a mount, you take a –2 circumstance penalty to Reflex saves while mounted. Additionally, the only move action you can use is the Mount action to dismount.

Well I think that is pretty clear.

Rules as Writen, you and your mount fight together. you share your multi-attack penalty and you cannot attack or move with your mount without spending an action to command the animal. But lets look back at animal companions real quick. Lets make sure that the mount special ability works the way i said it does. Well, that's weird. it looks like the only mention of it is in "Riding Animal Companions" let me know if you find it.

It looks like if the animal companion does not have the mount trait special ability, you can only have it move on your turn by spending an action. but if it has the mount trait it works like any other mount.

EDIT: I went to the Bestiary as well and could not find "Mount" as a special ability. It was not even in the ability glossary. However i did notice that you could also interpret the Riding an Animal companion rules to imply that the Animal companion with the mount special ability can take it's own actions to support you. So in a weird way, I guess you could command your animal to move (make a check because you are riding it and auto succeed if you have the ride feat) Make your strikes, then your animal companion could use an action to support you, such as step or strike. again let me know if you find the mount special ability to clarify this.

Related question. Is there any way to craft a tune and if so does it require a feat. One of my players wants to do it, he's a ranger who has specled heavily into crafting, he does have the feats...or will when he levels up. But I can't find rules for crafting a rune, though the flavor text makes it sound like they are specially crafted stones intended to take runes.

Pyrofool wrote:

You do indeed need the feat if the mount is you animal companion. Just because you companion can move on its own does not mean you can stay on without making a ride check if you are not trained in riding. So in combat it would be this.

Companion action: move

Rider action without feat: command animal...I use athletics in combat, but technically you would make the command animal action. On a fail you fall off. Why wisdom is important for this is unknown, hence I use the athletics skill. I also only make the player make a check if the animal strides or steps.

Companion action: strike, strike

Rider action: strike, strike (do not share multi attack, because it is a companion)

Companion actions With feat: stride, attack, attack

Rider action with feat: strike, strike, strike. You could also, strike, cast a spell or cast a spell, strike, or strike, dismount, stride.

Ride checks aren't anywhere in the rules as far as I know. What you mean seems to be "you need the Ride feat if you play with this house rule I made up." Which is fine if you want to suggest a house rule but you're framing it as something else. Not sure if you are intending to.

Interpreting loose rules is the job of a GM. In the absence of rules I only wished to give an option for how to interpret the rules. When I get home I'll update you with citation if you'd like.

You do indeed need the feat if the mount is you animal companion. Just because you companion can move on its own does not mean you can stay on without making a ride check if you are not trained in riding. So in combat it would be this.

Companion action: move

Rider action without feat: command animal...I use athletics in combat, but technically you would make the command animal action. On a fail you fall off. Why wisdom is important for this is unknown, hence I use the athletics skill. I also only make the player make a check if the animal strides or steps.

Companion action: strike, strike

Rider action: strike, strike (do not share multi attack, because it is a companion)

Companion actions With feat: stride, attack, attack

Rider action with feat: strike, strike, strike. You could also, strike, cast a spell or cast a spell, strike, or strike, dismount, stride.

As a GM I would rule it thusly. If you are grappling, you shake the square with the target. Therefore "pushing" with the shove action would in fact be in any direction because any square the target end up in is "away" from you.

In addition to this, if you are grappling, you need to take the step action in order to remain in grappling range of the target. Unless you have the ability that lets you give chase if a target moves away from you. This effectively fixes the problem of pulling and dragging an unwilling target.

Round looks like this:
Action: grab
Action: shove in any direction
Action or reaction with the feat: step or move up to your movement speed

Or if not grabbing

Action: shove away from you, you can push at an angle.
Action or reaction with feat: step. You could step at an angle
Action: shove in another direction

Etc.

I don't know about premades as I don't run them, but if the encounters are writen for two different CR parties try subtracting the difference in car from the higher encounter. If the DC is similar it is likely that CR was taken into account when designing the DC.

For example, in my current adventure I'm running I have an NPC that can permanently charm a male character. The DC I set at 10+Chaisma mod+CR. So at level 5 the DC is 20. But at level 1 the CR is 16.

That is bad. It takes 0 concentration to put your free hand on the pommul of the sword. Otherwise half the moves in martial arts would not work. How did they mess that up, along with making us go back and forth in the book to find all this.

Where are the rules for gripping a hands:2 weapon taking an action. i just read the Hands section in the book and then i searched the actions section, and then i searched the appendix, and could not find anything. I seems to me that you can just hold the weapon in one hand, cast a spell, then regrip the weapon without taking an action. (especially if you have quick draw) I don't see any limitation ion the CRB.

Sorry, previous post quoted the wrong person. Thanks the the link to the sheet , Joana.

This character sheet has an entry for just about everything, including class and spell save DCs.

I think you are misunderstanding. Yes there are traditional saves that are rolled vs various DCs. But in Pathfinder 2e, there are also Save DCs which are equal to 10+your Proficiency+attribute+any modifiers. So a Character with a +11 to fortitude has a Fortitude DC of 21. Like if a player tries to grab you they roll Athletics Vs. your Fortitude DC.

bobrossw wrote:

Sorry to resurrect this post. My GM seems to still believe it's -0,-0,-5,-10 despite multiple posts to the contrary. Wouldn't bother me much except it's the reason he's houseruling in a fairly punitive fumble system on attacks, arguing that two attacks per round for monks/rangers is plenty. I'm wondering if someone can direct me to an official ruling somewhere?

Why would there need to be an official ruling? the abilities are clear and your GM is wrong, and is using it as an excuse to add a probably terrible "fumble" system

Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally.

It's not even remotely confusing.

0, -5, -10, -10

With most of a monk's stances your attacks would be -0/-4/-8/-8 because those attacks are agile.

So yeah, I get that. It makes it hard for my new players when they need it and then have to ask where it is on the sheet. Then I have to explain that, yeah there is no spot that's easy to view it because it's so easy. To which, they reply, yeah, no it's not. To which I reply, yeah you are right. It is a huge oversight on the character sheet.

So It came up in my game. and i was like, wait, why is there no place to put my save DCs. Seems like an oversight.

The ranger in my group right now has been breaking the class wide open with a pure archery, monster hunting build. His MAB is on par with the duel welding ranger, but it takes a single turn to set up. So the first round on combat he has a lower MAB, but after that it is similar if not better.

Dragorine wrote:

Leaf order also get a 2nd focus point at 1st level.

I have a problem with Goodberry taking a hour to cast. Everyone just waits around for a 1st level druid magically make 1 berry that heal 1d8+5 and save on one ration. Not to mention at level one they can only use their 2nd point to make 1 more goodberry if they have another hour to spend.

It lasts a day so if you make one during your rest period for the day it works but chances of you ever making a second one on a normal adventuring day is probably not great. Basically their ability to use focus is pretty much non existent until they pick some other focus spell up. If you can wait an hour for the berries you can wait an hour and 10 minutes for them to recover the focus.

Historically wild shape has been a very unbalanced ability. Limiting it's uses at earlier levels allows the ability to be useful when you need it in combat without causing problems, while at later levels the multi class system and the druid its self can get more than enough focus points to do all that cool stuff. And the druid can still use wild shape multiple times per day.

Ah, so not at cool as I was hoping unless you are rolling initiative every round. Oh well.

Favored enemy says to pick a creature type, and creatures of that type are easier to notice, identify and marking them as prey is a free action. When I saw this I was like, " bleh"

But then I remembered what hunt did and looked at the playtest bestiary. Loads of creatures have multiple types, so I guess as long as at least one of those types is your creature type then you are good to go. I like how this makes favored enemy more useful, but still have a question.

Since hunting is a free action, let's say my archer makes multiple attacks. Can I markbbeast 1, attack beast 1, mark beast 2, attack beast 2?

Also, there need to be more spells that are good for casting on yourself, so my limited spell pool as an arcane archer can help me out more.

I'm not sure that is the point he was trying to make. In this current iteration every wizard will simply wear half plate for the AC. Not that battle mages don't exist, but that there is no point to not wearing armor. There used to be massive drawbacks for wearing armor as an arcane spellcaster, you could take feats and archetypes to mitigate it, but here you don't need to. That is not build diversity, that is broken.

I wholly agree here.

Could i get a copy of that? draigonsi23@hotmail.com