Qaianna's page

Nice guide, and useful for me pondering whether to try a rogue sometime.

I do have a thought on equipment, especially for a ruffian. Namely, is there a reason they shouldn't go in with a shield boss/spike and a flail to trip or a hatchet for agile and throwing, and dual wield that way? Aside from how that would suggest they're standing and fighting instead of getting away from their target of course.

Qaianna wrote:

If nothing else, it'd help me sort out which way to go: +4 Int +2 Dex or +3 in each since I'm making some suboptimal choices for ancestry.

That really depends on how you want to play it. One could easily play a drone or mine mechanic with a 0 bonus on dex. Probably inadvisable, but possible. If you want the most out of a turret mechanic, I'd suggest 4/3 or 3/3, int/dex respectively.

I didn't even think of the dex dump option for miners or droners. And, in hindsight, it looks like the drones available focus a bit on melee, although no-one's banning slapping a gun on one so there's that option.

Still, from what you say, the 3/3 is probably where this build will go. 4/3 is unattainable.

If nothing else, it'd help me sort out which way to go: +4 Int +2 Dex or +3 in each since I'm making some suboptimal choices for ancestry.

This was my first reading, too. I sort'a think the intent is that the Interact is there so you can do it with that gizmo you stored in a 'Surprise!' sense but still letting you switch the polarity or reverse the magazine or whatever. Changing that to 'You may Interact [et al]. You may then add ... ' might help. Or might go over the word limit, what do I know.

Basically, this. Imagine a mechanic deciding to pull out her trusty laser rifle and Modifying it. Is this actually feasible regarding the two-handed weapon and the needs of the custom rig? I'd like to think it is, but I might be over-optimistic ...

Qaianna wrote:

DeltaPangaea wrote:

"I am the mine guy" seems weirdly specific to me. Like why is it not a general explosives/grenades person, who then has the option to grab mines if they want?

I'd say there's a difference between them. Grenades are more active -- you throw them at an enemy to either destroy or at least move them from where they are. Mines are there to tell the enemy 'don't go here' or 'you moved here, now die'.

Still, an earlier question does need visiting: how visible are they? I'm going to assume 'very' since part of the point is to deny the area to an enemy.

Also now slightly worried about some smart-alec trying to use the mines as shields since they can't be damaged, but a good GM would put paid to that -- I assume the whole invulnerability thing is only to battlefield effects. They can already be disarmed anyway..

Yes, but mines is a much more niche field than bombs, and I'm betting you dollars to donuts that a lot of the time people will just throw them then detonate them immediately because you can't always assume setup, and doing damage NOW is better than "discourage an enemy from moving here" especially in a system more leaning towards ranged combat so they might not even NEED to move.

Probably. Some parts of this will rely on how the GM plays the enemies too, of course. I'm not quite sure I'd play a mine mechanic myself. I actually liked a little of the lore behind the 1E exocortex (and why my vesk had one), and not quite sure whether a robot buddy or a turret would be a 'better' option for how I'd want to do things.

"I am the mine guy" seems weirdly specific to me. Like why is it not a general explosives/grenades person, who then has the option to grab mines if they want?

I'd say there's a difference between them. Grenades are more active -- you throw them at an enemy to either destroy or at least move them from where they are. Mines are there to tell the enemy 'don't go here' or 'you moved here, now die'.

Still, an earlier question does need visiting: how visible are they? I'm going to assume 'very' since part of the point is to deny the area to an enemy.

Also now slightly worried about some smart-alec trying to use the mines as shields since they can't be damaged, but a good GM would put paid to that -- I assume the whole invulnerability thing is only to battlefield effects. They can already be disarmed anyway..

Qaianna wrote:

While trying to sort out how a ‘wheelman’ style character can fit a party, I looked over the driving rules. Badly explained, each action spent on Drive gets you the vehicle’s speed in movement, but greater risk for the twox and three-action versions. So what would stop someone from just using three single-action Drive actions? I didn’t see a once a turn limit on AoN.

>I didn’t see a once a turn limit on AoN.

Because it's not written in the Drive action

GMG p.175 and GMC p.212, Piloting a Vehicle

Quote:

In encounter mode, a vehicle moves on its pilot's turn, and the pilot must use their actions to control it. A vehicle can take part in only 1 move action each round, even if multiple creatures Take Control as pilots on the same round.

Thanks.

While trying to sort out how a ‘wheelman’ style character can fit a party, I looked over the driving rules. Badly explained, each action spent on Drive gets you the vehicle’s speed in movement, but greater risk for the twox and three-action versions. So what would stop someone from just using three single-action Drive actions? I didn’t see a once a turn limit on AoN.

My big issue with d4 damage weapons is their competition: Fist. It’s why I can’t even take the old dagger seriously even though it has advantages (damage types, throwable). Whip has reach and trip at least but still hard to think of d4 as ‘worth it’.

Errenor wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

How does that work exactly?

How do you like it to work?

But "it plays for only you". Even in non-traditional manner "it plays for only you". Whatever you or others do, "it plays for only you".

In that case what is a good sturdy instrument that our barbarian can use to rhymically and soundlessly batter down the door or break the interrogated prisoner?

Sorry, per the Townshend precedent, that counts as playing. Doesn’t work as intended.

Is this meant to be a combat encounter?

The baseball thing worked for me, tho maybe simplify just a bit for others. Maybe ‘You’re not here to hit home runs. Base hits add up’ or something similar?

Also curious what you think of cantrip plinking.

Awakened animals get one fitting unarmed strike from whatever they were, and our good friend Fist is on the table. So an awakened skunk could use Bite, for this example. If our stripefriend became a monk, they’d ger Powerful Fist. Which … modifies the fist attack.

So, should awakened animals be assumed to get Fist regardless of origin, or is my skunkmonk out of luck when it comes to nonbiting attacks?

I’d say you need some kind of exposure. More than just seeing it, too. Still a GM judgment call but looting one from an enemy who was hitting you with it definitely counts as enough to use shifting.

Those d6 finesse attacks can be useful for rogues and swashbucklers.

My group is a monk, investigator, druid, wizard. We’ve struggled at first. You might need to watch things on the fly as they unfold.

Here’s a thought … 20 to 1 is what I remember silver to gold coin in the real world being. I could be wrong there. However … in games, we see 10 to 1.

Maybe inflation is already understood.

To roll back around to the first question, you typically would throw your base VV if you don't really have anything else to do, since you can use the Quick Vial option of Quick Alchemy to make one out of thin air and then chuck it.

There's also an argument to be made that they're actually better acid bombs once you've already confirmed a hit with an acid flask since it actually deals real upfront acid damage, meaning you save VVs on potentially other useful things.

They're also kinda your only bomb option if you just haven't picked up the formulae for other bombs, which could realistically happen in a campaign where you're, say, a chirurgeon who is the only one handing out utility via elixirs and stuff.

It basically gives all alchemists a free bomb choice.

As well as pseudo-alchemists. The archetype grants Quick Alchemy too. It’s not a great vomb but if you need acid damage now and forgot to prep any acid spells …

My wizard is going to enjoy having a few spontaneous options. Especially when her turn as party healer comes up. Raw quantity is nice but she did have to scrap many old elixirs pre-remaster.

In the time spent playing, how often do you see players inte tnionally taking 1d4 damage weapons and using them? And how often are they OK with this? I’m trying to get past the feels-bad of d4 things on lighter martials, or wondering if I should cheese up to d6 stuff anytime able. (Main goal at the moment is a swashgrappler.)

The Godbreaker level 20 feat looks fun at first, but one worry … it mentions you make three Strikes at a foe. If one fails, Godbreaker falls apart. The feat makes no mention of MAP. Does it apply? (I think it does, which makes the feat less cool as it’s embarrasing to drop your mid-air combo … )

I wonder how this applies to the caster classes. Or if magic itself is that much of a game changer. How does Strength of Thousands handle levels for students?

I also remember PF1e and its predecessor using ‘NPC’ classes. Level two aristocrats, level three commoners, et cetera. Good or bad idea?

Why does 'Automatic' cause a weapon to be ... so short-ranged? I understand not wanting the cone to extend to the full first range increment, but must it cause me to have problems past ten yards with regular aimed shots?

Thanks for the update. A minor issue though … Oversized Throw says your chunk of landscape is a simple ranged weapon. This looks like it overrides improvised, so yeeting a table shouldn’t take the -2 unless somehow your simple profici ncy lags behind.

So I have a query with regards a crossbow and reloading...

Ok let's assume the crossbow is loaded for the following scenario...

1st Action - Ranged Attack
2nd Action - Reload
3rd Action - Regrip or can PC Attack again

3rd action here can be an attack. Reload also includes regrip.

About the only advantage in early levels for light armour I can see are the lower Strength requirement and lower Bulk. Granted, that can be huge at level one.

‘Uncommon’ on gear means in the Circle Sea area. For one, katanas are not uncommon in katana-infested areas of Tian Xia. Kholoville should have mambeles.

Or just go mundane. What’s wrong with an illusory humanoid? Especially one that the enemy hates?

I’m imagining a particular wizard from Razmiran perking up at Wish granting divinity. Honestly, I’d rather that be a story event than a ritual.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

Finoan wrote:

You could possibly use Will save bonus. It is on the same scale and guaranteed to be at least trained.

this is the best fit imo. It matches the narrative of trying, and possibly failing, to control oneself when provoked. And it would be affected by penalties to one's Will save, which usually represent a reduction in wits and self control, like from stupefied or Bon Mot

But rolling a high will save would mean they are maintaining control and NOT attacking, which is the opposite of what the op wants.

Not necessarily.

Your Will defense is to stay true to yourself. To avoid being controlled by someone else through means magical or mundane.

Now, there certainly is an argument that someone saying something to you that puts you into an unthinking state and causes you to attack would be protected by a Will save, and that doing well at the Will save means that you keep control of yourself and don't rise to the bait.

However, if what the person says combined with your own personality and life experiences causes you to feel that the best course of action is to attack them, then your Will isn't a defense to prevent that. Your Will bonus is representing how quickly you come to that realization, stay true to your self, and begin the attack.

So depending on the circumstances, a Will save for initiative can make sense.

I don’t see it, mainlt because saves are defense. You could use it maybe to get the will to attack if an exterior source was trying to suppress it, but not for initiative. I’m thinking of the fight between Biff Tannen and George McFly toward the end of Back to the Future there.

The pricing of magic weapons includes the cost of the base weapon. So all +1 weapons are 35gp regardless of what the base weapon is.

“Magic Weapon” wrote:

The Prices here are for all types of weapons. You don't need to adjust the Price from a club to a greataxe or the like. These weapons are made of standard materials, not precious materials such as cold iron.

I’m surprised this didn’t update. Exquisite sword canes are now cheaper as +1s than stock, 35 vs 90 gold. I can see this in the first printing, neither sword canes nor macuahuitls were in core, but at this point? I’d flex GM fiat of ‘ridiculous consequences’ to override that.

I always thought non-composite bows let you keep your Strength penalty to damage, too.

I know this is emant to be a wizard thing, but should archetypes be brought up? I know Alchemist is popular, and I was sorely tempted to try Cleric.

Hm.

I do get the ‘feels bad’. I’m in Abomination Vaults with a wizard. I’m generally trying to be support, and to my annoyance I keep remembering all the times that monsters save against Grease.

And then remember when it worked as intended. Or when Illusory Creature was great. I almost want to not have Fireball taking up a slot, especially as I’ve cast it twice. On one enemy each. You know, optimal.

Of course I worry about both running out of Grease and not pulling my weight in DPS …

Are there any Step-Strike actions? That’s the only case I see. Step-Stride or Stride-Step resolve by just Striding five feet less.

‘Flee screaming’ is a valid response to combat. If they’re carrying important stuff, that’s a problem.

Honestly, I wouldn’t rely on a hireling past level one. These people aren’t on a suicide mission.

I’d lean towards the minion can help but not lead. The wolf companion can help track game but can’t hunt for money by themself. The fox familiar can take notes for you while you experiment but isn’t a scribe for hire. You’ll need a really good explanation for why they’re doing something profitable solo while you wander off doing something else.

It may be best to compare it tomodern mobility scooters. Those I would say push over the line toLarge, especially ones that need the space to manoeuvre. You don’t have to fill all of your space to need it, as most gnomes are not five feet wide.

I’m now imagining the cliche of a familiar being smarter than their master. Or even responsible for them. ‘I’m Fluffy. This is my wizard, Argent. He’s a nice enough lad but a bit odd so I try to keep him on a steady keel. Put that down, younknow better than drinking anything Fijit the Mad has in her pack!’

Qaianna wrote:

The ‘charge in with a greatsword and a tanktop’s worth of armour’ fantasy sounds like another class, honestly. An unarmoured barbarian build sounds nice (as...

Best Monk build in PF1E though -- Aesthetic Style with a Wave Blade or a Sansetsukuon did exactly that.

True. Or not, I never built many 1e monks.

As far as ‘monk’ weapons go … I still like the thought of not pigeonholing ‘eastern’ ones that way. What would the real difference be between a kama and a sickle? Or a sai and some examples of mains-gauche? And could some other more common weapons be ‘monk’ weapons? It is odd that a monk can learn to flurry with a bo but not the lighter staff.

exequiel759 wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Especially when you start looking at all the other monks stances we would be mixing d12 weapons

I don't know how many times I said that I would want a Monastic Weaponry Stance, not just plain allow monk to use martial weapons with their stances. The benefits a monk with a weapon would have are the same as those a monk without a weapon has. Both would require a stance, but unlike a regular unarmed monk, the monk would have to use a martial weapon which requires their hands. Its clear that Paizo values traits much more than raw damage (which I don't entirely agree, but that's a different discussion) and yet the only "problematic" weapon so far has been the ogree hook (which I also said you guys are overblowing here).

I believe there is a mischaracterization there of this discussion. A die increase matters, every step, it is not inconsequential. It is one key lever of weapon balance.

Putting all martial weapons in a single stance has issues of its own. I dont find it interesting or balanced for monks. Its an amorphous blob where other martial classes use multiple feats to distinguish into styles of fighting. Monk has all of these already distinguished stances and probably wouldn't have the room to have distinguished weapon based feats in addition. I think its a better approach to use the existing framework and incorporate weapons that fit the existing stance themes while keeping the balance each stance is going for. That may mean that not all weapons get included for the monk and that is ok with me. If they do make a new stance to fill the idea of a unarmored greatsword user It would have to have more limitations in stance to make it balanced against other stances. I am not sure monk is the right class to theme it under. Cloud sounds more like a fighter.

The ‘charge in with a greatsword and a tanktop’s worth of armour’ fantasy sounds like another class, honestly. An unarmoured barbarian build sounds nice (as opposed to animal instinct, whicn is inarmoured and unarmed).

Honestly, I don't like the mental image of someone using Flurry of Blows with bigger weaponry. I do like the image of a sword twirling as its user strikes, but not to the extent of Flurry, and it's even worse to imagine with a maul or greataxe.

I also like the idea of breaking away from the 'Eastern' style weapons. Especially when there are significant overlaps. I think the only reason we have bo staff as well as staff is to make sure wizards don't get good weapons, which makes game design sense but not much else. And while there are some outliers, eventually a sword is a sword and an axe is an axe.

I can imagine the whole thing with flurry being tied to agile and/or finesse weapons ... except that rogues and swashbucklers are in theory supposed to excel at them too. (I'll leave out fighters because they excel with anything.) And that would leave out other potential items like the kusarigama. Or even just kusari.

I can agree that a bespoke class list of weapons is off but I can't think of any other way of simulating 'martial arts'.

And now I'm imagining a monk in Tian Xia who practices using such exotica as guisarmes, quarterstaves, and main-gauches, mysterious weapons found in lands far away ...

Squiggit wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Gobhaggo wrote:

IMO Monks should get Monk weapon proficiancy by default and be able to use Flurry with them, and Monastery Weapon would instead become 'Can use Flurry and gain prof on all martial weapon'

This cannot and should not happen.

Monk should not be able to flurry with D12 weapons or pick any with high quality traits. They have too much on the chassis already.

You say that like it'd be some tremendous upgrade.

d10 0-hand backswing attacks are already an option. d12 two-handers are barely an upgrade damage wise and probably worse overall given how little you're gaining for the vastly worse hand economy.

Most of the fears over monk weapon choices are just wildly misplaced given what they already have.

Given what a monk has overall, yes, it is a concern.

I've seen a level 20 monk. They are absolutely brutal and perhaps the strongest martial in the game. Their damage potential with higher end weapons with better critical specializations, deadly, and fatal and such need not be improved unless you take something away.

(snip)

I understand issues about level twenty performance. How about in earlier levels? Is it so bad to give the features at level one, or five, or ten?

What’s the definition of ‘chunk’ again?

Interesting treatise, and not a bad way to organise the information. As mentioned earlier, I'd advise switching 'level' to 'rank' for spell levels too though. That said, the idea of tucking a spare Fireball or other third-rank spell in my pocket for the unexpected final battle is an idea..

So, other ancestries can be half-elf or aiuvarin. And ‘elf atavism’ is still a thing. And it calls out that you can’t use it to grab Ancient Elf unless your base ancestry can be centuries old. So … a dwarf could pick it up, right? Asking for some theorybuilding cheese that’s been fermenting (and also trying to imagine a player trying to do this with a goblin aiuvarin) …

I'd probably go with the specialist categories listed with a healthy sense of 'close enough'. Shipbuilding and woodworking I can see sharing quite a few (assuming 'woodworking' is also carpentry), as well as some between tailoring and weaving. Now, asking to use your bookbinding tools to reforge a sword? That's a bit different.

Was the main purpose of 1d6 typed damage more to proc weaknesses?

Snaring Anadi could be fun. Fangs gain grab and trip, and add that to handwraps … and maybe even ki spells instead of stances?