![]()
![]()
![]() In pf1e, I had a PC who made a Thrallherd (psionic version of Leadership feat) and he wanted to set up a veritable sweatshop of mind-controlled Thralls crafting items to make money to start a Religion and build Temples all over the world. I agreed because it sounded rad as heck tbh, but we decided for game balance reasons to keep his "Religion Gold" separate from his "PC's Gold", because he was making a crapton of extra gold and we didn't want him showing up to a level 8 encounter with a +5 Brilliant Energy Greataxe and a Ring of Three Wishes. So I've seen what crafting looks like when it's done well and tbh it really did get out of hand, so keeping the two gold piles separate was an absolute must. TLDR: the reason PC's sell items at 50% is purely for WBL game balance ![]()
![]() Tbh, I think it works as written (but I agree it could've been written better). Undead are immune to death effects associated with the death trait, but they're not immune to weapons. I mean, imagine I enchanted one of those huge boulders from Wile E. Coyote Looney Tunes cartoons with a death trait, and then catapulted it at a ghoul. Does the boulder just bounce off the ghoul for 0 dmg? I certainly hope not. ![]()
![]() ElementalofCuteness wrote: 1) I do not see the Undead Trait is actually added to PC Undead using just Archetypes. So does this mean that they are not immune to other none-Positive (Vitality) healing effects? I.e Soothe and Elixirs of Life. Undead are immune to all healing, whether it comes from positive energy, non-positive energy (like alchemy), or mundane (like Medicine checks). They can only be healed by negative energy and special abilities/feats (like Stitch Flesh). ============================================================= ElementalofCuteness wrote: 2) Where does it say RAW (Rules as Written) that Undead PCs are not longer considered living? Right here. The undead trait specifically says that an Undead Creature was "once living" and "infused after death". So undead are definitely not living. Undead Trait wrote:
ElementalofCuteness wrote: 2) For the purposes of stuff like treat wounds or other living creatures only effects. Does a PC Undead for example NEED Stitch Flesh to use Medicine? Yes, you would need Stitch Flesh to perform medicine checks on Undead. ============================================================= ElementalofCuteness wrote: 3) Does it say we are treated as Undead for effects such as the Spell Searing Light? I do know RAI (Rules of intended) yes. Yes, if you have the undead trait, you're definitely undead. And if you get hit with a Searing Light spell, or any other spell that causes specific effects to undead, you would suffer any of these extra conditions/damage noted in the spell description. Quote:
![]()
![]() SuperParkourio wrote: Quick Recognition already makes Recognizing the Spell a free action. The problem is that you can't respond to the same trigger with two actions, even if one of them is a free action. You pretty much HAVE to allow your player to Recognize Spell as a free action during the same time as the Counterspell Reaction, otherwise Counterspell is worthless. Your PC's aren't going to have any fun when they Counterspell and then *guess* what school and level of the spell to use. Free Actions wrote:
Reactions wrote:
Actions with Triggers wrote:
I would talk to your DM about this verbiage: "If two triggers are similar, but not identical, the GM determines whether you can use one action in response to each or whether they’re effectively the same thing.", "You can use 1 reaction per round." and "A free action might have a trigger like a reaction does. If so, you can use it just like a reaction—even if it’s not your turn. However, you can use only one free action per trigger, so if you have multiple free actions with the same trigger, you have to decide which to use." You should be allowed to Recognize Spell and Counterspell in the same action, otherwise Counterspell is worthless. This is a no-brainer and your DM should agree, tbqf. ![]()
![]() You still have to choose an appropriate spell for the spell being casted, so you definitely have to Recognize the Spell first. Quote:
![]()
![]() Recognize the Spell as a Free Action
Tbqh though, Paizo screwed up when they wrote their Counterspell rules/feats, especially when they made Recognize Spell feat cost a Reaction. Identifying a Spell used to be a free action Knowledge Arcana/Religion check to identify a spell in PF1e. Personally, I use D&D 5E's Counterspell mechanics with PF2's Average DC's by Level to determine the Counterspell DC. It's so clean and uncomplicated and everyone is happy. ![]()
![]() Honestly you don't need a dedicated healer as a class anymore as long as at least one person in your group is going Legendary Medicine, so you don't "need" a cleric. They're nice to have, don't get me wrong, but you don't need one. I'm currently playing a level 8 gunslinger and this is my first character going full Medicine skill, and Battle Medicine is hands down one of the best feats in the game. My party doesn't have a healer, we have a Champion (ToC instead of LoH), Rogue, and myself, and so far we've had no issues with healing. We've used a grand total of 12 healing potions this entire campaign. As far as what caster you should play, any caster would fit well in a group like that, but I'm going to agree with Dr. Frank Funkelstein, a Bard would be amazing simply for the inspire courage bonus. ![]()
![]() Personally, I wouldn't require a Strength or Climb check unless you're trying to hold the rope for Andre the Giant or heaving/hauling up a grand piano or something. It bogs down the session with unneeded, easily fail-able checks, and if you fail, it leads to more nonsense and further derailing my sesh away from the important/fun stuff I have planned. That being said, if you're still wanting to make your players do a check for this, I would only require a climb check for the player who is climbing the rope (PC 2); the player who is holding the rope (PC 1) will be "Aiding" the climber, so PC1 would also make a climb check to Aid Another for a +1 circumstance bonus to PC2's Climb Check, or a +2, +3, or +4 circumstance bonus depending on the Athletics Proficiency of PC1 and if the Aid roll is a critical success. As far as setting a DC, if it's a flat wall with no grab-points or footholds (like a castle wall or a guard shack), that's probably a 30-35DC on a 20ft wall. If it's a wall with grab-points and footholds (like an unworked cavern wall), I would consider a 20ft climb as "Average", so I'd set the climb check at 15-20DC. Athletics - Climb wrote:
TLDR: GM sets the Climb DC at whatever his lil heart desires ![]()
![]() Currently playing a level 8 Gunslinger and this is my first character going full Medicine skill, and tbh if you want to be able to heal well, just get Battle Medicine and some Healer's Gloves and then a nice collection of healing potions. So far this entire campaign, we've used exactly 12 healing potions total. Current party is Champion (doesn't have Lay on Hands, has Touch of Corruption instead), Rogue, and myself (gunslinger), and so far we haven't had a single issue with healing because of how good Medicine skill + Battle Medicine feat are naturally. Also of note, my party is pretty handy with the Aid Action, and Aid is a godsend for the Medicine skill because critical heals are the bee's knees. ![]()
![]() Set wrote:
So fricken cool, nice ![]()
![]() Hey all, This is my first time playing a Gunslinger and we're starting at level 5. The GM is allowing items up to level 7 to start out with. We're using the Free Archetype rule, and I'm going as the Inventor Archetype and choosing the Construct Innovation. I was going to start off with a Pacifying Property Rune for the -2 Attack vs. anything I attack, as well as a +1 Striking rune. I was also thinking of Hat of Disguise, since my character is highly reliant upon stealth and blending into crowds. What are some of the go-to items for Snipers and Inventors? Thanks in advance. ![]()
![]() 88. The PC's are traveling through a forest on a trail that is not known/used by many, and they come across an old, abandoned library just as nightfall is approaching, and this is probably the easiest place to find shelter for the night-- despite being abandoned and in disrepair, the library's doors, windows, and roof don't leak. The mystery here is that the first 144 pages of every single book in this library have become blank, and seemingly no spell can restore the information or pictures these pages once had. The number twelve (12) seems to be a common "theme" throughout the library, such as 12 bookshelves per section, 12 tables per row, every clock shows 12pm and chimes 12 times at the top of every hour (regardless of the actual time), etc. The answer to whatever riddle at the end of this could be "L" for being the 12th letter of the alphabet, or the answer could be "Greataxe" for being a d12 weapon, etc. Each time the party guesses the answer to the riddle wrong, you hear the echo of a witch's sinister cackle gracefully fleeting and dancing its way across the ceilings and walls into your ears. ![]()
![]() One other thing you can do is to document your encounters on an excel spreadsheet and then use it as a resource for customizing your monsters. The most important thing to document here is each action that your players use in every given round, how much damage they dealt (if any) with the attack/spell/effect, or whether it was crowd control (how many monsters saved/failed), as well as if there were any environmental factors, such as a Wide-open battlefield, was there a chokepoint that they abused, etc. This can help you understand your party's average Damage-per-Round, and this affects how many HP you should put on your monsters. If they're lacking in the DPR department and things aren't dying fast enough, then consider dropping the monster's HP or give the encounter a beneficial environmental effect that the players can abuse to their advantage, or w/e you feel is right for the encounter. After you have about 10-ish encounters documented, that's a reasonable amount of data you can pull from to help you create challenging encounters that won't kill the party. Last thing, some encounters that you design are going to be a little dicey on purpose, such as BBEG fights, and for these fights, you can incorporate some fun stuff as "contingencies" just in case the PC's start losing. Turn it into a 3-way fight. Mid-fight, a pair of drow assassins swoop in and steal the mcguffin! Oh my, plot twist! The assassins are getting away, meanwhile the BBEG and the party are fighting each other as well as trying to run down the drow! Spice it up even more? The assassins have commandeered a carriage and are now speeding down the crowded street like a bat outta hell while the BBEG and PC's steal some horses from a nearby stable! Now the BBEG is "mostly" distracted and will be spending some of his Action Economy on attacking the drow rather than 100% focused on the PC's, and who doesn't love a good ol' fashioned Indiana Jones chase scene. ![]()
![]() I use this----^ when customizing encounters and it works out great. If your PC's are struggling with the module's encounters, this tool can be used to calculate an appropriate CR for them. I'd take each encounter that they do and plug in the numbers here and gauge how they did with the encounter, and adjust the future encounters up or down accordingly, and if you're finding that the module's encounters are actually APL+1=CR or APL+2=CR, then try bringing them down to APL=CR or even APL-1=CR, if necessary. Any encounter that is APL=CR should use about 25% of the party's resources in a given battle, and PC's should have about 3-4 APL=CR encounters per day <--- this is your ideal target, you want them spending about 25% of their resources in a given encounter, so if they're struggling with APL=CR, then try removing one or even two of the monsters/NPC's from the encounter or simply nerf the level of the monsters by -1 and see how they do. This calculator tool cannot account for everything though, it's just a gauge. Some factors can't be calculated properly due to party composition. For example, if you have a group that doesn't have a lot of Cold damage options and you're facing creatures that are fire-based, they're obviously going to struggle with fire enemies-- similarly, if they're facing enemies that poison, disease, and curse, and if they don't have a lot of condition removal options, they're going to struggle with that as well. Vice-versa, your party might do exceedingly well vs large groups because you have a PC with Cleave-->Improved Cleaving Finish, or if you have a 2handed Paladin and you're facing a lot of undead or evil enemies. This is something the CR calculator cannot gauge, but you as the DM can. It's a pretty cool tool, but don't rely on it 100% because of the unaccounted variables like these --^. ![]()
![]() DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Yep absolutely :) ![]()
![]() Tbh, I don't see any actual rules violations with this, because the Tempered Champion and Mind Sword archetypes are not "technically" changing, modifying, or replacing different class abilities, even though they really are. Lay on Hands is getting modified in both archetypes, as well as spellcasting in both archetypes, but at the bottom of each ability in each archetype is replacing different class features. Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I would allow this, because per RAW there are no actual violations here. However with that being said, your GM might not agree. I would consult your GM and make sure this is all kosher with them, because these two archetypes ARE indeed modifying spellcasting as well as lay on hands. But, like I said, I'd allow it, but your GM may feel differently. ======================================================================== Next thing, to what end are we going here? What weapon did you have in mind, and do you have a build concept and/or playstyle concept that you're specifically looking for? Is there a specific reason that you're choosing to do this rather than just building a fighter who has a ton of feats and class features who could do the same equal concept, if not better? The reason why I ask is because "switch-hitting" can be done with other classes that might be more beneficial to the concept/playstyle you're looking for. So gimme the deets, and we can help you accomplish what you're looking for. After lay on hands, mercies, channel positive energy, and spellcasting have been removed/modified, you're left with aura of good, detect evil, smite evil, divine grace, aura of courage, divine health, aura of resolve, aura of justice, aura of faith, aura of righteousness, and holy champion. Tbh, if you're looking to do a ranged playstyle, most of these class features are not going to benefit your party as much as you might think because you're not in the fray with a ranged build, so your auras are only going to function while you're very close to your ranged compatriots. Smite Evil and Aura of Justice are some of the best buffs in the entire game tho, and the rest of the paladin class chassis is pretty darn good too so if that's what you're after then I completely understand. TLDR: What's the endgame goal here? Tell me what/how/why you'd like to build a character like this. What's the playstyle you're looking for? Because "switch-hitting" can be done with a myriad of classes and build concepts, especially if you consider the multi-classing potential here. Why are you choosing the notoriously feat-starved paladin class as a chassis to accomplish this when rogues, slayers, brawlers, fighters, or possibly even monk might do it your playstyle goal better. ![]()
![]() I will re-flavor or custom create just about anything; races, archetypes, feats, spells, or special abilities, whatever a player wants. You should play whatever you want to play. Games should be fun. Honestly, if a player is asking for custom stuff, it means they're invested and imaginative, and I would do whatever it takes to make that spark never go out. ![]()
![]() I am highly inclined to agree with DeathlessOne, but then I came across the True Silvered Throne archetype. Ritual Hex is given as a bonus feat in the True Silvered Throne archetype, and the archetype makes no specific rules/exemptions that modifies or disallows being able to select Major/Grand Hexes from Witch Hexes while using the feat. Since Shaman don't have major/grand hexes, this leads me to believe that they indeed CAN select major/grand hexes, as well as normal hexes, from the witch hex list; and it leads me to believe this is meant to be a feature of the archetype. I would also say that this would be a feature when selecting the Ritual Hex feat normally, even without taking this archetype as well. Quote: Witch Hex: The shaman selects any one hex normally available through the witch’s hex class feature. She treats her shaman level as her witch level when determining the powers and abilities of the hex. She uses her Wisdom modifier in place of her Intelligence modifier for the hex. She cannot select major hexes or grand hexes using this ability. The shaman cannot select a witch hex that has the same name as a shaman hex. Shamans are only disallowed from selecting major/grand hexes while using the Witch Hex ability. Tbh, I could see this going either way. My advice: ask your GM. ![]()
![]() Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Check this build out one post up, it's pretty damn good tbh. ![]()
![]() This is the kind of Shattered Defenses Build nonsense I'm talking about. Tbh, this is one of the scariest, pivotal Slayer builds I've ever come up with. Not every enemy is going to be affected by fear, but for those that cannot be feared, you can use invisibility via Ring of Invis or a wand of Greater Invis. ![]()
![]() Chell Raighn wrote:
If you can justify getting Combat Expertise + Improved/Greater Feint, then you can certainly justify getting Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, and Shatter Defenses. Shatter Defenses allows for Full Attacks while Feint doesn't. It's going to cost you a Move Action every time you Feint. You could get Moonlight Stalker Feint to turn it into a Swift Action, but the pre-req list is substantially higher. Shatter Defenses is just far superior in almost every way you want to slice it compared to Feinting, both Action Economy-wise and Feat Cost-wise. But, you should always have multiple paths to SnAing, you can't expect every single enemy to be affected by Shatter Defenses (but a significant majority of creatures/monsters are). That's why you carry a Wand of Greater Invisibility for denying Dex vs enemies immune to Shatter Defenses. Coming across creatures with Uncanny Dodge is pretty rare anyway. Just go hit something else and let your party kill it. You'd have to be doing a Barbarian Lands campaign of some kind, or taking on a Rogue's Guild to see a lot of things with Uncanny Dodge. Then, sure, Feint would be worth it. Generally speaking though, Shatter Defenses > Feint. ![]()
![]() Shamans typically dump Str, so I'd get a Bag of Holding or Handy Haversack. Ring of Spell Storing is also really handy, keep a Get Out of Jail Free spell in it so you always have an ace up your sleeve. If you have a friendly neighborhood wiz/sorc/bard in the party, dimension door, gaseous form, greater invisibility, or freedom of movement are great spells to keep in your Ring of Spell Storing for emergencies. Frigid Touch or Frostbite in Spell Storing Armor is also a nice defense mechanism. Reach Metamagic Rod is really handy, because most of your core healing spells are touch range, and sometimes that can force you down AoO Alley to get to your near-dead compatriot-- turning a touch-range Cure Wounds spell into a close-range spell 3x day can save your own life as well as your ally's life, and it's only 3,000gp. Alternatively, use an offensive Touch spell from close-range so you don't have to wade into melee. An absolute bargain if I ever sawed one. Persistent Metamagic Rods are nice for your Save or Die spells. Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, and Cloak of Resistance are always welcome for shoring up defense. Headband of Wisdom is also nice for offense and extra spell slots. Shamans have a diverse, fantastic spell list and some spells you'll definitely want to cast more than once but don't want to prep two of the same spells, so Pearls of Power can really come in handy. Runestones of Power can help you with your spontaneous spell slots. Rather than spending gold on flying (like a magic carpet or flying broom), I would definitely take the Wings Hex (x2 @ lvl 8). That's 16 minutes of flying per day right out of the gate at level 8, so you can stay out of range of melee enemies every encounter of the day plus have roughly 8-12ish minutes left for utility/scouting. This can save you quite a bit of money. Since you're Wisdom-based, Gloves of Reconnaissance and Eyes of the Eagle is a nice little combo for 1) nailing all your perc checks, and 2) making perc checks through doors and walls up to 5ft thick. Perception is the most rolled skill in the game and knowledge is power, so you might as well capitalize on Wis being your primary ability score. Quick Runner's Shirt is handy to have for the times you need to use Chant Hex and still perform a Move Action. Amulet of the Spirits (Life) is 12,000gp but it's worth every penny for a Life Shaman, because when you Life Link you'll be taking damage almost every single battle. ![]()
![]() Well, if you're cornered and disarmed, and all you have left is your buckler, I'd unbuckle it, hold it from the strap, and start swinging it like it was a light flail. It beats taking an AoO for each unarmed strike you make. <--- I'd allow AoO's in this scenario Chell Raighn wrote: if they do threaten then any character wielding a ranged weapon would threaten without the need of snapshot I wouldn't allow a Bow user to make an AoO with the Bow unless they were specifically wielding like a baseball bat or something, but if they were, I'd let them take AoO's (albeit -4 penalty). If you're wielding the bow appropriately because you're firing arrows, then I wouldn't allow it. But if you're out of arrows and cornered/outnumbered, you gotta fight back somehow-- choke up on that thing and start swinging for the bleachers <--- I'd also allow AoO's in that scenario. ![]()
![]() Improvised Weapons can be used to threaten AoO's. If you can convince your DM that you're "wielding" the buckler as an Improvised Weapon (and take a -4 penalty to the AoO), then you could threaten. In a tavern brawl, there's a difference between "holding" a chair and "wielding a chair as an improvised weapon" though, so ymmv at different tables with regards to a buckler that is equipped for defense and not actively being used as an improvised weapon. It all depends on what your definitions of a "weapon" and "wielding" are. Your DM may rule that your buckler is not being used as a weapon, and he wouldn't be wrong to rule it that way either. Personally, I wouldn't allow it if you're using it as a shield though, but if it's unbuckled from your forearm and you're actively swinging it around as an improvised weapon then I'd allow it. ![]()
![]() Chell, there's no use arguing about this. This is bad writing, there are logical inconsistencies everywhere, and it's honestly not worth any of our time, effort, or patience to argue about it. You're getting worked up trying to prove something that is impossible to prove due to BAD WRITING by the developers. Common Terms wrote:
Dazzling Blade will break one of these two quoted above rules whether it's a Mind-affecting spell or whether it's not a Mind-affecting spell. - If it is NOT a mind-affecting spell, then it breaks this rule: "All enchantments, illusion (patterns), and illusion (phantasms) are mind-affecting." - If it IS a mind-affecting spell, then it breaks this rule: "A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher." Therefore, it is not possible for this spell to be in compliance with the general rules one way or another, and it's because it's a Pattern spell that targets an object. The same ----^ is true for Apparent Master, Draconic Malice, Business Booms, and Prosperous Room. It's not possible for any of these spells to comply with the general rules. So, since we're dealing with Bad Writing, the best way to handle this is to go back to Specific Rules of the Spell > General Rules of the School/Sub-School of Magic, and then house rule as you see fit. This isn't worth arguing about anymore. Your list of poorly written spells blows every argument in this thread out of the water, including your own. ![]()
![]() I'd say Business Booms and Prosperous Room can also be added to your list of exceptions. These spells increase production and cash flow, and it's not a requisite to have a "mind" in the room/building for these spells to function. You could have a crew of undead, constructs, and permanent unseen servants or unseen crew, or simply no crew at all if you're creative enough with your business idea. For example, you could cast Business Booms on an import/export business and your customers across the ocean would never even see the building, but you'd still benefit from the increased influx of activity that the spell provides. Likewise, Prosperous Room could be cast on an underground ore refinement or smithy manned by nothing but constructs, and the spell would still cause it to produce more labor/materials even though no minds are present. Necromancers could similarly use undead for their manpower for any business they could conceive and still benefit from these spells even though no minds are actually involved. The physical presence of customers isn't even required, because what if you're shipping your products via courier/mail or overseas to customers who put in their orders for your product via magical or mundane correspondence. ![]()
![]() Tbh, most of those on your list probably could and should be mind-affecting. When I was going thru your list, I was just looking at the mechanics and fluff text of each spell and trying to understand from the developers' point of view as to why they might rationalize each of these spells as not mind-affecting. And in this list, there were at least 7 that were undeniably mind-affecting (mechanics and/or fluff) that didn't have the mind-affecting descriptor. This is just bad writing, and it's not worth anyone's time arguing about bad writing. If it makes more sense for you to house rule [mind-affecting] descriptors on each and every one of these, including keep watch, the construct spell, or building/room/area spells, then you do you at your table. ![]()
![]() Java Man wrote:
Sounds fair. Please refrain from insinuating that I'm stupid. ![]()
![]() Chell Raighn wrote:
Honestly this is the best, most-compelling argument against mine thus far. But enchantment spells can affect other things other than just minds. They can affect objects, bodies, weapons, armor, constructs, and even buildings, however there are quite a few in this list that don't have the [mind-affecting] descriptor but really ought to. Alluring Light - creates an emanation of light that compels others, this probably should have a [mind-affecting] descriptor, but I could understand if the developers felt this targeted their bodies. This one is iffy.
Tbh, after going thru this list, I'm just going to chalk this up as bad writing or at least bad rationalization for why some of these wouldn't be mind-affecting. ![]()
![]() Okay, I'll start. Common Terms wrote:
Dazzling Blade will break one of these two bolded rules whether it's a Mind-affecting spell or whether it's not a Mind-affecting spell. If it is not a mind-affecting spell, then it breaks this rule: "All enchantments, illusion (patterns), and illusion (phantasms) are mind-affecting." If it is a mind-affecting spell, then it breaks this rule: "A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher." ================================== It is not possible for this spell to be in compliance with the general rules one way or another, and it's because it's a Pattern spell that targets an object. Frankly, they should've made this spell a Glamer spell. ![]()
![]() Melkiador wrote:
Want to re-start this conversation politely? I'm down if you're down. ![]()
![]() Melkiador wrote:
That's because I'm not calm and collected. You can't be overtly rude saying stuff like "Dude. Just Stop." "You're blatantly wrong" and "you're embarrassing yourself" and then expect me to just be like "oh yeah, this disrespect is just peachy, lemme just make a polite rebuttal." If you want to get down in the mud and start flinging crap my way, you can expect artillery fire from me every time. I was perfectly respectful before you said that. ![]()
![]() Melkiador wrote:
That's because we're posting back and forth to each other at neck-break speeds. It would be easy to make single posts at a time if we were posting 1+ hour apart. ![]()
![]() Common Terms wrote:
^----- Look. They break both of these general rules with the same spell. ![]()
![]() You can't just add spell descriptors to whatever you feel should have that descriptor because of a general rule. That spell targets an object, and Mind-Affecting Spells can only affect creatures with 1 Int or higher. An object has an Int score of "-". That's why they dropped the [Mind-affecting] descriptor for this particular spell. It breaks the rule of "all patterns must be mind-affecting."
|