Sapient's page

Sapient wrote:

If the ammunition of Eldritch Shot is not the origin point of its released spell, why is a Spell Storing weapon the origin point of its release spell?

I've never said that. The origin of its released spell is the character using the command action to release the spell.

When you cast Vampiric Touch with a Spell Storing weapon, I hope you don't give the temporary hps to the original caster. It's as if the weapon wielder was casting the spell as they are the one making the command action that unleashes it. That's why for example there's a fix DC instead of the caster DC, because the caster has nothing to do with the spell anymore.

By the way, I answer to all your questions but none of you has answered to my single question: Why is there a wording about range on Ranged Spellstrike as according to you that wording is unnecessary?

Honestly, it is getting difficult to follow your ideas here. In the post I was responding to, you were suggesting that "range" was from caster to weapon rune. Now it is from character using the command action to the target?

Gisher wrote:

The Spell Storing Rune doesn't include the word 'range' anywhere in its text, either.

"Usage etched onto a melee weapon"

If you find a spell with a range shorter than touch, the question may be raised.

This doesn't follow. The weapon is not the "target" of the spell. The caster casts the spell into the weapon. The weapon later strikes a creature, an action is spent, and the spell is unleashed with the target of the strike being the target of the spell. There is no text that uses the word "range". The only "target" of the spell is the creature the spell is being released on.

If the ammunition of Eldritch Shot is not the origin point of its released spell, why is a Spell Storing weapon the origin point of its release spell?

First, Eldritch Shot doesn't have to work with touch-ranged spells.
Also, touch range is "in your reach" in terms of game. So I think one can easily apply it at 5 ft. (or more if you are enlarged). But anyway, touch range spells are not interesting with Eldritch shot as you can find long range ones with very close damage that you can at least use more than 5ft. away.

Touch range specifically says you have to have to touch your target. Since you believe "flies with the ammunition" doesn't affect range requirements, and you've written an analysis of Eldritch Shot and a touch range cantrip, I was just wondering how you saw that working. But OK. Back on topic.

Your spell flies with the ammunition. Then it hits a creature out of the spell range.
The rule "Spells with a range can affect targets, create areas, or make things appear only within that range." kicks in and the spell doesn't affect the target.

If there's nothing clearly indicating that the rule about range is overridden then the rule is still there. Flying with the ammunition doesn't change the spell range.

I disagree. While I understand what you are saying, reading through a half dozen discussions of Eldritch Shot and various touch spells, I didn't find anyone else interpreting "flies with the ammunition" the way you are. At most, RAW is ambiguous.

I did find a thread where you analyzed a Fighter with Eldritch Shot using Gouging Claw, where you found it to be suboptimal. https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43gdq&page=2?Arcane-Cascade-for-Starlit-Sp an#66

Which raises a question. If "flies with the ammunition" does not affect general range rules, how does Eldritch Shot work with touch-ranged spells? Touch spells require that you, not ammunition, touch the target. Are you casting the spell, imbuing it into the bow, sending it with the ammunition, then reaching out to touch the target? And your ranged attack roll determines if your ranged attack succeeds AND if your spell attack succeeds? What happens if you are using a crossbow, where both your hands are occupied?

You consider that the override is implied, implied doesn't mean RAW, but RAI. Per RAW, there's no override as there's nothing stating that the range has to be ignored.

Also, casting touch range spells at whatever range is the too good to be true rule, not the other way around. And there's no too bad to be true rule anyway.

It isn't implied. It is stated. "Your spell flies with the ammunition, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell." When a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule takes precedence. It does not have to declare it is overriding the general rule.

Under "Other Archetypes", Talisman Dabbler:

"I’m pretty sure even Grand Talisman Esoterica and Talismanic Sage stack, allowing 4 affixed talismans at once, since they are their own abilities."

I believe this is incorrect. Both abilities allow you to treat one item, allowing it to have two talismans. Using both on the same item item would be redundant. Having both abilities would allow you to apply two talismans to two different items, however.

Nonat1s' deep dive Class Guide is up.
Video link

Full Thaumaturges yes, but the post I was quoting was discussing archetype Thaumaturges.

My apologies!

] You get the implement at 6 according to the preview. The weapon provides a good AoO equivalent for anyone who wants it. My other choice would probably be mirror for the auto flank. Some parties might benefit from tome in the early game for an extra pair of skills but that falls off and would need to be retrained later.

The Tome skills are chosen daily, and eventually become Legendary. The Tome grants a circumstance bonus to attacks after a successful, free Recall Knowledge check. Using one or both of those skills for appropriate Lore skills could make the Recall Knowledge checks easier.

I think the value of the Tome depends a lot on your GM's style, how they handle Recall Knowledge checks, and how important skill checks are outside of combat. Being able to boost skills to fit your circumstances could be great. Need to know about smuggling? You're an expert! How do you sail that stolen ship? No problem.

I don't think it's that the aging is by a trivial amount. Rather, I think that the aging is normally temporary. You are effected by the curse, and it ages you into an elderly being, but then the curse ends and you de-age back into your normal self.....

I don't find that interpretation to be unreasonable. The text is rather unclear as to what is happening narratively. I see the spell as affecting living things differently than objects, but who knows. It does say "briefly ages", which would imply a short process of aging, not a short period of being old. But again, the intent is not clear.

I don't really agree with the idea of applying some aspects of aging (wrinkles, bad backs, etc) without other aspects (physical growth, hormonal changes, etc). I would argue that temporarily inflicting old age on an embryo inside an egg would kill it. It would be if had lived a long time, including getting large, and thus breaking the egg.

There is still the question as to whether the embryo can be targeted by a touch spell through the egg. I think it can. Touch attacks don't require skin-to-skin contact.

I'd rule that the embryo inside the egg is both alive and targetable by the spell Curse of Lost Time. Ravingdork makes a good point that we generally allow the caster to choose whether they are targetting the armor/clothing of a person or the actual person with a Touch spell.

However, the spell only ages the target "briefly", so that it becomes clumsy and enfeebled for a round, an hour, or indefinitely. Since there is no description of how much aging happens, I take that to mean that the aging is pretty trivial, but it throws off the target's system to make it weak for a time.

So I'd let them use the spell, make the egg age by less than a day, and give the creature within Enfeebled 1 and Clumsy 1. And those conditions are likely to last until the spell is dispelled, given that an embryo is going to have a fortitude save of zero.

With the Sanguine Mist and Cloudkill ideas, now I want to make a Bones Oracle with a Sylph Versatile Heritage with the Smokesoul and Cloud Gazer feats. I love the idea of a death-connected Oracle standing/walking around in constant fogs. I'm not sure how to expand on the idea though. Maybe some wands/scrolls to get a Obscuring Mist.

Oracles can get an advanced domain spell with domain fluency at 12th level. They start with an initial one based on the 2 domains the mystery gives

Ugh. Of course. Sorry for the stupid question.

I really like malignant sustenance for a bones Oracle too, fast healing along with temp HP and damage resistance is awesome.

The only way to get a Focus spell from another class is through a archetype dedication, right? (Sorry, been away from the game for a while, and my old brain is bad at remembering.)

The way I see it, when you're striking on the ground, you push against the floor to give yourself forward momentum for the strike. If you were instantaneously in mid air, you wouldn't really have time to adjust yourself to strike appropriately before you start falling. Meanwhile, with the feats mentioned earlier, you are explicitly jumping in order to strike, meaning not only are you adjusted, but you have practiced the maneuver enough to make use of it.

If it's a home game, ask your GM. It's definitely doable if your character has enough practice, but as a GM myself, if a player did it on the fly I would say it fails.

I basically agree with all of this. The reason I don't stray from RAW without a good deal of consideration is that stepping on other feats can ruin another player's plans.

Thanks all for the insights.

Ok. Makes sense. Thanks. I suspect a GM would want to make a determination based on circumstances. This was born from an idea of dimension dooring to a flying creature, striking, then using a fall mitigation feat. Not a very efficient way of doing things anyway, but I was curious if it was possible.

Suppose you find yourself in midair after an action or two. Could you use your remaining action(s) before dealing with falling and landing?

Could you, for example, Dimension Door 120 feet straight up for 2 actions, and then do a ranged strike?

No. It is good to have one more. Generally 2 is pretty ideal. Then you can open up with 4 to 6 actions to Scare to Death on equal or lower level mobs, which can be problematic when coupled with a boss. Over 2 though not super productive unless you're in some campaign with a lot of minions.

This would mean that half a typical party had pumped up Charisma and invested their skill points into Intimidation. So not only are they doubling up on abilities that will not always benefit from being doubled, they will not have invested in other things, which makes the party weaker.

Certainly one can imagine times when 2 characters could be using STD at the same time. But maybe one of them would have have liked to have more hit points, better saves, and Athletics though all those other battles.

STD has been fine in our game. I think between 15th and 18th level, it has killed 3 or 4 creatures that were not really that big of a threat anyway. Balfeful Polymorph has done more. The Rogue that has STD now can just walk through walls, and I kind of love the idea of an enemy anticipating the arrival of a party of demigod-like adventurers, suddenly a voice emerging from the wall behind them proclaiming their doom.

I think the major issue with pay to play GMing is that we don't really have a well established and accepted system for handling it. Organized play campaigns could provide that system, but they are currently set up strictly for amateur GMs. PFS GMs do get some perks (early access to some modules, extra XP credit for GMing rather than playing a scenario, and the like), but that is about it.

The reason some sort of organization would be needed is that it involves getting GMs and players who are strangers to each other together and providing a standard contract as to how much the GM would be paid, where and when the games would be played (and compensation for the host, if he is not also the GM), what happens if someone cancels the game or fails to show up, and so forth -- and many players would be reluctant to sign such a contract if they have no idea what a campaign with this paid GM would be like. It is a lot easier to work such things out informally if everyone already is acquainted with at least one other person in the gaming group and no money is changing hands.

All very good points. I think the situation would be easier for short term agreements. I can very much see a use-case for paid GM's who help new players for 1-4 sessions. I might very well pay to play in various RPG systems under that paradigm.

That all sounds very much like "get to the back of the bus, where you belong" to me.

Let's not compare social media sites regulating advertisements to segregation. Thanks.

There may be a "best choice" for an action with a given character in a given situation, if you are judging "best" as that which results in the least usage of resources (such as HP, spell slots, and consumables).

But, "best choice" and "good enough choice" are not significantly different in outcome. Obviously, there is essentially no difference in losing 10 more HP over the course of an adventuring day. But I'd argue there is little difference between ending an adventuring day with 100% HP and 1% HP. HP is easy to regenerate, and the game (especially APs) allows you to trade in-game time for in-game healing with little or no in-game consequences. Spell slots refill with time. Consumables should be provided by the GM so that they are sufficient for the flow of the adventure.

So even if you could measure what is "the best" action to take, it would not be important to take that action. "Good enough" is good enough.

Further, it is generally impossible for the player (or character) to know what "the best" action might be. How many spell slots will be used before rest? How much damage is incoming? Will another player turn a diplomatic encounter into a bloodbath? You don't know what resources to preserve and which can be spent freely.

So just be effective enough and play to have fun. There is lots of room for choice.

Thanks all. Very good advice here.

I'm not a fan of obscuring the names of creatures from the players, often because its too much trouble for me to keep them all straight in a multi-creature fight. So, I tell them that they see three Babau's, two schirr, and a succubus. Or "You see a bunch of demons."

If the creatures have proper names, I usually just say that instead. If its a creature they've fought before, I'll usually say so and remind the players if they learned anything about them already. "That's a Vrock, you've fought them before. They do that spore thing."

Successfully identifying a creature nets a PC the creature's type and common traits to that type. Then they get a specific piece of information about that specific creature. I usually ask if the PC would like something offensive, defensive, or just interesting about the creature. Otherwise I'll default to the CRB's guidelines and provide one useful piece of information.

I also enjoy reading the first paragraph of a creature's bestiary entry like David Attenborough upon a successful ID, but that's just for my amusement.

Do your PCs get a free recall knowledge check, or do they have to use an action to ID a creature?

We've been giving every character a free Recall Knowledge check at initiative to learn the name and some common fact about creatures. I don't think this is in accordance with the rules. I'm wondering what other GMs do. Do you just describe the creature? Does it matter how common they are? Surely everyone would recognize a bear or a skeleton, but maybe not the specific type.

What do you share with subsequent recall knowledge checks? Do the PC's request some specific bit of info?

One per hour is actually the recommended rate in the book.

This has been unclear to me. Is this per person or per group?

The Ancestor Oracle looks like it could be the most fun and frustrating character to play. I imagine trying to step in to melee combat, only to have Grandpa start whispering the finer points of woodworking in your ear.

Kind of a YMMV thing, but Volley is really, really bad. If you expect to ever have to fight within 30 ft of your target you want to use a shortbow.

Oh, that's embarrassing. I didn't bother to look up the Volley tag. I'm dumb.

Thanks.

I'm sure it is obvious, but why choose a shortbow instead of longbow?

I think that 6 grabs over 17 levels is way too low, so that seems to be much more of the outlier.

It's one of the more common abilities of monsters overall (alongside fearful aura i think they should be the top 2?)

That said, I used it on my ranged halfing rogue, and the step has been amazing, basically a free action every time they grab me. And until level 7, i've been grabbed a dozen of times already, but as you said it's dependent on what you fight.

I would put it as "situational" as well, but not at all "highly". Something that you wont be using every fight, but you will be using a few times every few levels.

More like other abilities like those that upgrade Saving throws vs Mental to crit success. And i value those as "good Ancestral feats" myself.

I suspect that the commonness of grabbing is also dependent on GM style. I don't think I've seen 10 grabs for our party, total, over 16 levels.

I generally dislike awarding Hero Points for impressive play. It is so subjective, and my experience is that GM's tend to be wildly inconsistent (myself included). I also don't like how it excludes shyer players.

I tend to be louder, taking my full share plus of table time. That is reward enough in itself. I don't think I should get an extra reward for doing more in the game.

I prefer an even distribution of HPs, with extra being awarded for table support (brining treats, managing the loot list, hosting the game, etc).

That's a bad faith argument if I ever saw one. Comparing a single weapon to the myriad of ever expanding dedications you can take.

I agree talk about it beforehand. But I also agree if you don't want to use it you don't have to. Those slots can sit right there until you decide to use them. No reason to give them something else.

It is an entirely appropriate comparison. The GM is granting a bonus that player may not feel fits their character vision. Granted, a whole bunch of free feats is much more valuable than a singe weapon, and as such a player who does not partake would be at a larger disadvantage.

Here is the reason to give players something else if they don't want the Free Archetype. It makes the game more fun, keeps the characters more balanced, and costs literally nothing. I play with friends, and when I GM, my goal is for everyone at the table to enjoy themselves. I'm not going to presume that a player should want to use archetypes just like I'm not going to presume that a player should want to use swords. If I'm going to give one character a boost towards their vision, I want to give the others an equivalent boost, even if it is not identical. Someone might want a staff instead of a sword. Someone might prefer the Ancestry Paragon variant to the Free Archetype variant. They are similar enough in value and power, and cost me nothing.

Oh absolutely. Turning around to the GM who is kindly offering everyone a free archetype, throwing back in their face and demanding special treatment is definitely a recipe for hurt feelings.

Now that would be a GM to avoid at all costs.

It is perfectly reasonable for players to want to fulfil their vision for their players AND have similar advantages that were granted to others. If a GM declared everyone was getting a +1 sword at character creation, it would be completely appropriate for a player designing a wizard to ask for something else. No competent GM would consider the sword as a gift in the first place, much less one that could be thrown back in their face. No competent GM would consider it "special treatment" to give boosts based on character design rather than GM whim.

This is the sort of thing that a GM and players should discuss before the game starts, because they all should be working together to make a game that is fun for everyone.

I'm giving my players the choice of Free Archetype, Ancestry Paragon, or some in game narrative advantage. I don't want a player to feel like they are missing out, but some may not want the additional complexity of the FA.

While I usually agree that averages are a very, very good meter for almost everything they usually do not take into consideration other circumstances because averages by their very nature tend to not take into account the specific effects of burst or range.

Sure, I agree with your entire post. I was trying, maybe poorly, to get at that with my Shove example. This rough models should compare abilities with similar application. But given similar applicability across typical encounters, as a common damage spell and Scare to Death have, looking at average damage levels tells you a lot about balance, where as the specific results of a specific encounter for one single group does not.

I do not believe that is comparable. A situation next to a cliff is rare...

Agreed that it is rare. The point I was trying to make is that the results of a specific singular encounter can't be treated as representative. My Heroism encounter was notable for having a series of rolls that made heroism basically perfect for the encounter. But that is not representative of the actual utility of the spell. Your Calikang had the right rolls against the right opponents as well. Lots of abilities are incredible when rolls and circumstances are right. But that is not predicative of future utility.

Anyway, I don't think you and I are actually all that far apart. I do think Scare to Death is strong, and is comparable to other strong options. Add Legendary Linguist to the mix, and you can get around the language barrier penalty (for creatures with language).

It is certainly among the more appealing of the Legendary Skill Feats.

Averaging what an ability can do on its own leads to a skewed idea of strength or weakness. Whereas looking at abilities in finite short-term fights in groups provides better data points for analysis of the strength and weakness of abilities.

It is, of course, important to consider how abilities interact, and the outer bounds of abilities in addition to averages. But averages give you the best point of reference when considering balance.

When I consider the value of Heroism, I consider its expected utility over time, not that one time when it was perfect. Likewise, that one specific example of Scare to Death with the Calikangs is not illustrative of whether the ability is actually balanced. Unless you expect the typical usage to be against those same opponents in the same situation using the same dice rolls.

In our current campaign, my fellow adventurer killed a level-1 creature by pushing it off a cliff using a weapon with the Shove trait. It would have taken at LEAST 4 successful hits with the same weapon to kill the creature. Do we conclude that the shove trait on a weapon is way over-powered, since it essentially caused 4-6 times the damage as the weapon itself? How can the game proceed if he can 1-shot creatures like that? Well, we don't worry about it, because on average, Shove doesn't do much damage at all. In fact, it rarely has enough apparent value to even be used. The average value of having the shove trait on the weapon is actually quite low. And that is FAR more useful to consider in terms of balance than a singular event.

Your use of averages tends to skew what happens in real play. Averages are what occur over a long time, not in finite short-term combats with lots of d20s getting rolled with shifting modifiers.

Honestly, looking at averages is FAR more useful than considering one specific run of one specific encounter at one specific table.

In my table's last session, our cleric cast Heroism on our Rogue. By happenstance, this turned each of 5 hits into crits, nearly doubling the amount of damage the character did. This additional damage was also more than was done by any other character in the party. So a 2-action spell resulted in more damage than all the actions of a Druid across 2 fights. Should Heroism be nerfed because it was so effective with the specific rolls in this specific example? Or was this case just an extreme case?

Averages help us understand the actual strength and balance of various options.

Just for completeness, Air Walk should also be considered. It is the same level as Fly, and does not require hover at all.

When I am the GM (or when I propose the Free Archetype rule as a player) I like to propose that PCs who want to opt out of it can get a free class feat at odd levels (starting at level 3). It is 1 less feat by the end and is always 1 level later than Free Archetype, which I feel makes up for it letting the PC focus more on their concept (i.e. potentially they are more powerful than if they took Free Archetype).

This one and Ancestry Paragon, another favorite of mine, feel like rules that should be voted on by the group collectively, rather than decided by GM fiat. They are practically no impact to the GM.

Have you seen Ancestry Paragon in play? How does it compare to Free Archetype in terms of power and/or versatility? I'd guess they are similar enough.

You think monks shouldn't be able to wear it freely? 'Cause anything that is armor screws with monk abilities.

Good point. I do not think that. I guess I'm trying to say that they had a rough time trying to describe when it acted as armor and when it didn't. They probably should just have added another armor category to cover clothing, bracers, and whatever might come in the future that fits into that group.

Explorer's Clothing also has the "Comfort" trait, which states

The armor is so comfortable that you can rest normally while wearing it.

I feel that RAI, Explorer's Clothing is meant to be "armor" in all ways, except that it uses unarmored proficiency. I think the editing just failed to clean up all the language.

I never noticed that Explorer's Clothing is not listed as armor for purposes of talismans. I wonder if that was an intentional design decision. It is hard for me to imagine that you can etch runes into clothes, but can't attach a small item.

Some of the armor talismans are literally pins. The Sneaky Key "can be pinned to armor or a sleeve."

I suspect RAI is that Explorer's Clothing can accept talismans.

Really, this seems much easier handled with, yes that spell Whirling Scarves in gods in magic sounds like something you would have taught you, so yes you can have that in your spells known for free.

Isn't that exactly what the "Uncommon" tag is for?

Uncommon: Something of uncommon rarity requires special training or comes from a particular culture or part of the world. Some character choices give access to uncommon options, and the GM can choose to allow access for anyone.

Check with your GM. Maybe you can have it as just one of your standard options. Maybe you can buy it. Maybe you haven't made the right choices to have or buy it. Maybe the whole party can get access to it because of that thing they did. That's "Uncommon".

Calling a spell "common", but then saying you need to access it in a different way, though maybe for free if you ask your GM is clunky, and again doesn't fit well with lore.

Definitely seems like a PFS type of rule, given their "You must have the book physically/electronically to use that" philosophy. It is too bad they aren't somehow working more closely with the rules side so that the printed books are mostly aligned with PFS as they come off the press, but that could simply be impractical (certainly sounds tough).

Even with PFS, there isn't typically an extra in-game cost to access materials from a non-core book. Fighters don't have to pay 16 gold to then be able to buy a 3rd level splat-book shield at the regular price.

I personally don't care about the extra costs, or the lack of immediate access for new spells for Clerics. I just hate the inelegance of the mechanics and the lore. Rarity tags have little value if you still have to look up other factors to determine how accessible something is. And how does the lore explain this? Deities grant their clerics the ability to cast certain spells. But some smaller number of spells are only available to those clerics who both please their gods AND have exchanged money with the proprietor of Midtown Spell Shack.

Most players who don't want a free archetype simply don't want the added complexity. Offering them a different path to that level of complexity is unlikely to entice them.

Luckily, in my experience those players are also less likely to care about things like power parity or wringing every last drop of performance out of their build. So this doesn't seem like it will likely bother them.

If you really feel like they need something, just assigning them an archetype that fits their concept will probably be acceptable. Bonus points if you can tie it into in game events as you play.

Fair enough, though to my mind the Ancestry Paragon variant doesn't add much complexity. Players don't have to find an extra ancestry to fit their vision. They don't have to worry too much about feat choice efficiency. They just get a handful of extra ancestry feats tacked on to their otherwise normally created character.

I've got a new, crazy plan. I'm going to talk to my players.

Sapient wrote:

the rule need be implemented in home games?

Lots of people play RAW or as close as they can, even in 'home' games so needed might not be a factor. Even is they are up for changing it, it'd be nice to know what the actual rule means so you're at least on the same page if you change tables. If it's up in the air, you can sit at 2 tables using RAW reading it differently.

I get that, and agree that clarity is valuable. I also like to keep pretty close to RAW, unless I'm making a deliberate diversion. No player enjoys designing the mechanics of their characters, only to find the GM has different ideas on how the rules work.

But this one seems like a hassle for my players, having to keep track of the books individual spells come from. I suspect no one would notice any power differential from keeping or ignoring the rule in our home game, given the spell lists that currently exist.

I basically understand the power balance issue Paizo is trying to prevent with this ruling, where Clerics and Druids would get better access to growing spell lists than Wizards and Witches.

But, do people think that enough new spells have been introduces that the problem is real now, and the rule need be implemented in home games?