![]()
![]()
![]() SuperBidi wrote:
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? ![]()
![]() SuperBidi wrote:
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? ![]()
![]() SuperBidi wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() SuperBidi wrote:
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? ![]()
![]() SuperBidi wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() gesalt wrote: ] 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. ![]()
![]() Vali Nepjarson wrote: 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. ![]()
![]() Gaulin wrote: 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.) ![]()
![]() Cordell Kintner wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() Deriven Firelion wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() David knott 242 wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() 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. ![]()
![]() Kasoh wrote:
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? ![]()
![]() shroudb wrote:
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). ![]()
![]() Martialmasters wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() Decimus Drake wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() Ubertron_X wrote:
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. Deriven Firelion wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() Deriven Firelion wrote: 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. ![]()
![]() Deriven Firelion wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() caps wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
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 Explorer's Clothing said wrote: 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. ![]()
![]() Loreguard wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() AnimatedPaper wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() Captain Morgan wrote:
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. ![]()
![]() graystone wrote:
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.
Search Posts
![]()
![]() I'm using an Inquisitor with the chivalry inquisition, granting me a mount. I just obtained 4th level spellcasting, and noticed the spell "Flash Forward";
Flash Forward wrote:
Unsurprisingly, charging is a big part of my build (I'm on a mount afterall, why not use a lance?), so the spell could be usefull... except... it's not clear to me if this spell allows the mount to charge with you. Does anybody knows if casting flash forward while mounted allows you to charge mounted? ![]()
![]() Someone just pointed out to me a FAQ has errata'd a thing I thought was a given; I thought charging with a mount is a standard action (attack at the end of the mount's charge) for the rider. This suggests it is now a full-round (charge attack) for the rider.
Meanwhile, I see tons of threads in ancient history all widely still accepting it is still a standard action. Even some that came after this FAQ. Am I missing something here? Is it still a standard or is it a full round now? ![]()
![]() I'll put this out here just for the sake of example, as I'm pretty sure there are more feats that have this requirement... but I was looking at the guided hand feat.
Guided hand:
Your deity blesses any strike you make with that deity’s favored weapon.
Prerequisite: Channel energy class feature, Channel Smite, proficiency with your deity’s favored weapon. Benefit: With your deity’s favored weapon, you can use your Wisdom modifier instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier on attack rolls. Obviously, this is nice for clerics. They get all the requirements pretty quick and easily, and they can start wacking their opponents using their wise minds instead of their innate ability to wack things with their strength.
But what about non-clerics? There are quite a few classes that get channel energy, but the class ability of proficiency with your diety's favored weapon is a bit more rare.
For instance, a shaman with the life spirit gets channel energy. They're profficient with daggers... Could Pharasma as diety be an option to get guided hand to work? On top of that, a FAQ from paizo already claims the class ability can grant unarmed strike. Does anyone who follows Irori and has improved unarmed strike (and the other requirements for this feat) also qualify for guided hand? ![]()
![]() So, this is about the Baba Yaga Patron's Hex cantrip.
Spirit Object:
Cast Single Action or Two Actions somatic, verbal Range 30 feet; Targets 1 unattended object up to 1 Bulk Using a sliver of Baba Yaga's power, you briefly bring an object to life. The object gains a means of locomotion, such as sprouting chicken legs, and Strides up to 25 feet to a space you decide within range. If you spent 2 actions Casting the Spell, the object then attacks one creature of your choice adjacent to its new space. Make a melee spell attack roll against the creature. On a success, the creature takes bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage (as appropriate for the object) equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting ability modifier, and on a critical success, it takes double damage. Heightened (+1) Increase the maximum Bulk of the target by 1 and the damage by 1d4. Up till now, I assumed since no duration was stated, the hex was just instantanious; you can make an object walk (fun, I guess... or prevent some key item from falling in the wrong hands by making it walk towards you), and optionally, make it attack an enemy.
But I noticed something on the PFS options blog that suggests otherwise; PFS character options blog wrote: Per design team clarification, an item animated by the spirit object (page 32) hex uses the spellcaster’s spell DC as its AC. Its Hardness and Hit Points remain unchanged from their normal values as listed on page 577 of the Core Rulebook. Why are hardness, hit points and AC discussed for an object that does little more than move and hit? Or is that object actually going to stay around for longer? I could be wrong... maybe they are simply stating this for the purpose of oppertunity attacks (even though only fighters can make those now)?![]()
![]() I know Feral Combat training got errata'd to remove the wording that it also included getting unarmed strike augments on your natural attack... but let's look at these two feats... Feral Combat training:
You were taught a style of martial arts that relies on the natural weapons from your racial ability or class feature.
Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus with selected natural weapon. Benefit: Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite. Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature. Monastic Legacy:
Prerequisite: Still mind class feature, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: Add half the levels you have in classes other than monk to your monk level to determine your effective monk level for your base unarmed strike damage. This feat does not make levels in classes other than monk count toward any other monk class features. ML is a feat that has Improved unarmed strike as a prerequisite. So, Feral Combat Training will apply it's effects to a natural weapon...
Also... if you just stay monk... it's at full level... ![]()
![]() The ectoplasmic lashes from the extoplasmist get a lot explained, except what they exactly are. There is no weapon group or any trait on them... the only things defined are the type of damage (slashing or blungeoning), how many hands they take up and whenever or not they are light weapons. So my question is mainly... are they wielded? Or are they natural weapons? Unarmed strikes? And if they're wielded, what weapon group would they fit in?
It also says the lashes can perform tasks at their range with the same dexterity as the ectoplasmist's own hands. Does that mean they can be used to perform combat manouvres like grapples? Given they come with ghost touch later... you could grab ghosts? The last thing I'm wondering about is what happends when the lash is dropped... is that even possible? Or is it then automaticly dismissed? (meaning you could disarm the ectoplasmist and he'd have to spend a full round respawning his lashes, rather than just picking them back up)
![]()
![]() A while ago, I found myself in a questionable situation. It might be a bad example, but still up for debate as much as the whole principle. The situation was as follows;
Now, what's not up for debate is this situation; my GM ruled no, and that's that.
|