The grab monster ability requires no attack roll, it also doesn't have the attack tag. But it is very similar to the grapple action. So I think, RAW, its exempt for the multi attack penalty. But should it be?
Also the texts says 'The monster automatically Grabs the target'. But the action is Grapple and the condition is Grabbed. So does it want to refer to Grapple and infer the attack tag or not? Grabs doesn't seem to be a keyword.
Joey Cote wrote:
I don't see what is confusing about this. The arrow does 1d8 regular damage when it hits, and applies 1d6 persistant acid damage. All persistant damage only occurs at the end of the affected player's turn, before they do the flat 20 check to remove it.
Because its all on one line. When you hit you do x damage plus x persistent damage. On the hit. It doesn't say you do X damage and some persistent damage later.
I don't want to have post-it notes when its easy to add a few more numbers to the text.
The feat to become a half-orc or half-elf is hardly a feat tax as it both grants acces to twice as many ancestry feats but also gives bonuses on its own.
They already stated that they are only available to humans in the Golorian setting only. So if you want to have dwarven based half-orcs you can do so for your campaign as simply as saying dwarves can take the half-orc ancestry.
Which is the whole reason they are feats now and not their own ancestry. So you can easily do that without having to make a separate half-dwarf half-orc ancestry.
James Jacobs wrote:
Oh I am totally fine with Asmodeus being for strictly LE baseline as a design choice. He just needs better PR then in his Edicts and Anathema sections to make that a bit more clear. But you already mentioned this so I will wait for the new iteration of that and keep in mind for now what the intent for Asmodeus is.
And as always thanks for your hard work, I really love Golarion as a setting and I know I have you (and your team) to thank for that. Maybe my tone got a bit to criticising? If so my apologies, just trying to help make PF2 the best edition :)
The fixed that in the last errata. If you have the spell prepared or have it on your spells known list as a spont caster than you automatically recognise the spell.
I think you are missing the point. I am not writing this from a PC vs NPCs perspective where you optimise your spells and options.
I am saying these spells make it possible for a player to lose a PC with one bad dice roll or no roll at all.
So using your 7th level spell against a single NPC is indeed bad in that scenario but a NPC might cast it at PCs and they would die if they ever roll a 1. Same with Fatal Aria. As I said in my opening post a level 20 bard is an encounter that is considered 'appropriate' CR wise against a level 16 party (PC level +4). And it could take out 3 PCs in one round with it, no save.
Like I said in my previous post, these spells probably won't be an issue most of the time. But the fact that they have the possibility to really screw over a PC in a very anti climatic way just rubs me the wrong way.
James Jacobs wrote:
I have to say I am ok with this. I always got a strictly L slightly E vibe with Asmodeus because he is willing to work with others etc. If you want to profile him more as evil than LE followers only makes more sense. Though indeed making clear that he is capital EVIL might help with that.
What about other causes though? Like the neutral dawnflower followers of Sarenrae?
I am not really convinced on the whole uncommon part. Just because its uncommon doesn't mean it should never be used. And I think a big part of this is learning uncommon spells from enemies you defeat, so you would have to face them first. Granted it doesn't have to go that way, but it could and even if it doesn't it is still not unreasonable to give such an epic spell to a BBEG. Or if doing so is extremely cheesy then doesn't that prove my point that the spell is not fair?
For feeblemind I will concede that I misread the duration as instantaneous. But its permanent in the crit fail part. Though the NPC being under the GM's control from the failed save on is just so weird.
As to finger of death and death ward. Death ward has a duration of a measly minute. So chances are you cannot count on having that buff up. And even with it up you can still potentially crit fail it and get slain instantly.
As to counterspelling. Only the sorc and wizard have that ability. So that would be very limiting in design if those classes would be mandatory just to deal with it. In addition some of these are uncommon spells, so the PC might not even know (them all). While counterspell is a reaction now, you only get one and you cant use dispel magic anymore as a catch all try and negate the spell.
All in all in don't expect a ton of deaths from these spells but the fact that it could happen (a PC dying from one bad roll or no roll at all) is just bad design in my honest opinion.
I agree that the system is better than the one step but just think some gods went too restrictive. Asmodeus for example used to include NE which I think is odd because his main shtick seems to be about law. But now they made him LE only, whereas LN should also be an option in my opinion.
Should probably reference that page then don't you agree?
With PF1 you seemed to have made a point of removing a lot of save-or-die stuff. I liked that because losing a character with a single roll always seemed way too unfair to me. I hoped that with PF2 you would want to improve on this more but some spells still seem unfair.
Fatal aria: No save? 16th level or lower just insta-die no save? I mean I know its a rare level 10 spell, but still insta-kill mechanics are never fun. The rules for encounters list a scenario of CR being equal to PC levels +4. So a level 20 bard against a level 16 party could kill 3 PCs in a single turn with no defense?
Feeblemind: Losing a PC over one (critically) failed save seems way too harsh, not to mention on a level 6 spell. And unlike other spells it actually makes you a NPC so its not like you can ress the poor thing to fix it either.
Finger of death: Again dying to a single failed dice roll is lame.
Power word spells: The fact that they are level only, and offer no defense make them feel really unfun. Like fatal aria but less severe.
Any scrying spell sees, hears, smells, and otherwise detects whatever you wish within the area, rather than what is actually in the area. You can Concentrate on the Spell each round to change the illusion as you desire, including playing out a complex scene. If the scrying spell is of a higher level than false vision, you can attempt a Perception check to disbelieve the illusion, though even if you’re successful, you can’t learn what’s truly going on in the area.
Shouldn’t ‘you’ be the person trying the scrying?
Acid arrow (and other stuff): “On a hit, you deal acid damage equal to 1d8 plus your spellcasting ability modifier plus 1d6 persistent acid damage.”
Seems to indicate it happens on hit, but that seems to conflict with persistent damage. Maybe write ‘and x persistent damage’ instead of the ‘plus x persistent damage’?
David knott 242 wrote:
You would think retching would provoke. But I guess it doesn't right now.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
There isn't much in Asmodeus description that makes me feel like you definitely have to be LE though. A LN character would make sense. And as PCScipio pointed out the neutral dawnflower followers of Sarenrae also suddenly don't make sense anymore.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Because Asmodeus is about using lawful means to enslave, corrupt, and diminish others in order to enrich yourself which is decidedly not neutral. If you want someone who just believes in order and structure while not being a total malefactor Abadar is over that way.
I am going to have to disagree. You could totally be someone who sees that the laws a place like Cheliax provides are better than anarchy without being an Abadar follower or being an evil person yourself.
David knott 242 wrote:
True but that does beg the question, do you flee from where your character thinks the source is. Or do you use out of game knowledge (possible the GM determines this) to flee from the actual source.
The table 3–20, is labelled sorcerer spells per day. Emphasis on the sorcerer part. Yet it does not reflect how many spells per day they get because your bloodline gives you one extra spell per level. I could understand if these extra spells would be bloodline only spells but it says:
Page 129, Reading a Bloodline Entry wrote: