Shain Edge's page

My Downloads needs a few updates.

First, the orgainization is atrocious-
I have several pages worth of downloads, and something like the 2nd edition bestiary (3 books) is separated by over three subjects all over the DL listing.

Next, the database needs to be cleaned up so the filters work properly. Again, something simple like checking "Pathfinder rulebooks" is a mess, and doesn't work correctly.

Last, having a filter based on search results would be nice. Any sort of search, using the website's search function, at best, just brings up the entire page of downloads, rather than the specific products.

A three year old necro, but this was actually errata'd already. You do not add your Dex bonus to Athletics maneuvers while using a finesse weapon.

You can feel free to houserule it, but letting you know that it's one heck of a necro to an already settled discussion.

As I said in my post, I can not see why there is a rule against it. This is a fantasy setting 'rule' that is less capable then the real world.

I didn't even think of it before running across this, and will house-rule it without a second thought now that it was brought to my attention.

It makes absolutely no sense to not allow dex to be used in trips or disarms, not even for game balance. Game balance, just for it to make sense for Rogues and Swashbucklers, demand that there should be the option to use Dex in the place of Strength for these actions.

I can't see how people are adamant on NOT allowing Dex to be used for things like disarm and trip. Anyone who has taken Judo, Juijutsu, Akido or Fencing knows for certain that Dexterity is far more important the Strength to perform these maneuvers. In fact, if you ARE using Strength to perform acts of Trips or Disarms using these disciplines, you are doing the maneuver COMPLETELY incorrect.

Having a character that is Dex based, where as they do less damage then strength based characters, shouldn't be penalized for activities that are obvious uses of Dexterity used in the place of Strength.

Besides it would be obviously thematic to have a Rogue trip an opponent. (or) Who thinks that it's a great idea to have a Swashbuckler suck at Tripping or Disarming? That would be the opposite of a good game mechanic.

Might also be interesting to let an Attack of Opportunity, if you have one, to Trip an Opponent that's trying to bypass them. That sounds very thematic for a Dex based Fighter.

I did consider giving the repitoir it's own slots separate from the regular sorcerer, but I thought that the additional spell slots would be a power creep.

As for Power creep, I didn't notice that there was a feat that did what I was talking about. It seems that it would be something that would be, similar to an ancestery, taken at a low level, if not first, to represent the mixed blood.

I like your feat. It makes sense within the game system mechanics. First level summons _should_, like first level attack spells, be able to scale up to some extent. Sure, a burning hands spell cast by a 9th level caster will still do the same damage as the spell cast by a 1st level caster, but the chances "to hit", as it were, scale.

It only makes sense that the summons scale in this way as well. Their base "proficiency bonus" should scale with the caster, though it's effects, like HP and damage, stay at it's slot level base.

While it doesn't make sense for MOST classes to take their own Class dedication, Sorcerers are an exception, and have facinating conceptual effects. (Though it might also be interesting to have a Cleric of two deities!)

There is one balance issue that does come up with the dedication feats, the ability to get additional repetoir AND spell slots. To make it balanced, the additional repetoir from dedication feats would not add additional spell slots to cast them. On the other hand, this additional repetoir would have full access to the normal Sorcerer Class feats and abilities.

Does anyone have additonal issues that I'm missing that should be resolved?

It's balanced a little better than perpetual bombs (probably due it requires 2-actions).

Bombs "may" require 2 actions if you don't already have one ready.

Also is this a stealth errata? The quoted spell at the start of this thread is different than what is quoted here. If so, this is a very strange change that does lend credibility to it having some kind of area of effect, but it is still not clear how.

Maybe? It's in the fourth Printing of the Core Book. If you have the PDF at Paizo, you can DL it.

Running Acid Splash as though it was a magically created Acid Flask with worse numbers is probably the most reasonable approach to take with the spell.

But it would still be nice if the spell actually has the Splash trait.

And if 'splash damage' was actually properly defined.

Considering a person with the Acid Splash spell can cast it unlimited times per day, vs the Alchemist's limits... It's lower value per instance makes sense.

Yea... no. It is definitely too good to be true that Acid Splash does its full damage to every creature within some arbitrary meaning of 'nearby'.

[/sarcasm] Yes, I know that I am deliberately misinterpreting the vague rule text in the spell.

I was considering the very same thing, that based on the specific text of the spell, 'Every creature' in the 5 foot range could take the full damage on a hit.

Of course, I'm reasonable and say that the creatures are struck based on splash damage only, as the trait expresses.

As a DM Houserule, I still like the idea that a creature would take additional damage based on the splash area. Maybe not the weakness more then once, but the additional damage based on more of the creature being covered.

For bombs and firearms, yeah that works fine.

Acid Splash - for some strange reason - doesn't actually have the Splash trait though.

So it does splash damage... -ish.

Now, if the GM rules that Acid Splash does do splash damage to creatures within 5 feet as though it had the Splash trait, an enemy would only take the splash damage once no matter how many affected squares it occupies.

But Unicore is pointing out that nothing actually requires the GM to rule that Acid Splash does its splash damage to anything other than the initial target of the spell.

Acid Splash (Core Book - page 316)

The real question here is how do you know that acid splash has any effect on any creature that is not the initial target of the spell. Assuming “splash damage” means the spell works like a bomb requires assuming the splash trait applies to the spell. By the closest reading of the rules possible, the spell would have to hit the target to do any splash damage, and then that extra damage could very well only affect the initial target. Splash itself is not a term defined in the core rulebook outside of being a trait. Having it exist as a type of damage and only a type of damage is something that has game meaning, since some creatures are weak to it. Assuming it does more is interpretation. A good interpretation if you ask me, but still an interpretation.

PF2 Core Book - page 636 - 4th Printing

As for whether the splash damage would hit anyone outside the initial target on a "miss", it makes perfect sense that it would still do the splash, especially on a miss. That is also the reading, assuming it's not a critical failure that everyone will still take splash damage, within the 5'.

Why would the spell "Acid Splash" use the specific word of "splash damage" if the spell didn't actually "splash", like the trait. It would make no sense to add the term specifically into the spell and not mean what it means as a trait. That would be especially sloppy of the creators, especially after 4 printings.

Besides it says right in the spell's description that it hits nearby creatures-

Acid Splash (Core Book - page 316)
"You splash a glob of acid that splatters your target and nearby creatures. Make a spell attack. If you hit, you deal 1d6 acid damage plus 1 splash acid damage. On a critical success, the target also takes 1 persistent acid damage."

If you attack a swarm with a splash weapon or an acid splash spell, the swarm is the target. One square is not the target. The swarm takes splash damage once.

I only ask because, based on everything else, if the swarm was "missed" or the target of the spell caused the swarm to be tangential to the Acid Splash and the 1 point of splash damage would still kick off the full weakness, right? It doesn't have to be the "target" to take splash damage.

So, here is a question involving swarms and splash damage:

If the swarm is a 10"x10" swarm and it gets hit by an Acid Splash, hitting one square as it's target, then three other squares in it's splash damage, does it take it's weakness once, or four times, or does the splash even hit multiple times on the same target?

You're lowering the value of feats like gang up with that, though that might be fine with you.

I did reduce the value of those who do not have a 180 degree flank.

Normal flanking is that you must be on exact opposite sides of an enemy to grant them flat-Footed status. A third party can not take advantage of it.

Home Brew consideration-
If three or more creatures threaten an enemy, and at least one of those threats is on the opposite half of the enemy, they get a minimum of Partial Flanking status on the enemy creature.

The reason for this is this. Once you have people on near opposite angles from you, any more attackers then that will degrade your ability to defend against them.

Partial Flanking is a -1 AC on the threatened individual, not stackable with the Flanked Status.

Example- ( O=Empty Space, E=Enemy, #=Threatening Creatures )

A__ B__ C__ D__
O1O 123 O1O 12O
OEO OEO OE2 OE3
2O3 OOO O3O OOO

A. In this case 1,2 & 3 get partial flanking
B. No flanking benefits.
C. 1 & 3 are flanking E. 2 gets Partial Flanking
D. Because 1 and 3 are on opposite halves (diagonally split) 1,2 & 3 all get Partial Flanking benefits.

Gortle wrote:

[

These rules are clear. If people are unclear it then it is likely because they are talking slightly cross purposes.

Yes, the rules are clear:

CRB, p. 580 wrote:

A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).

I agree with Gortle. What you are reading is an specific indication of a more general rule. The Runes make something magical, a Potency Rune being an example of that. A Striking Rune's effect is no less magical, just because it's not used in the specified example.

So, the answer to the original post is yes, you can have a +0 magical weapon.

Quote:

Are +0 magical weapons possible?

Without a potency rune, a weapon isn't a magic weapon.

CRB, p. 580 wrote:

A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon (page 599) or armor magic armor (page 556).

Reading the book, Second Printing, there is no rule I can see that requires you to have Potency, to have Striking. Both properties are individual Fundamental Runes.

It's interesting that all the examples show Potency Runes leading the Striking Runes, but nothing in the rules prohibit Striking without Potency. Either added would make the Weapon a Magic Weapon.

My guess is there are Tattoos in the Absalom book and it being delayed by so much time threw off this archetype. That's all I've got, the only other explanation is Paizo let a giant mistake into their otherwise great book.

Welp, there are NO tattoos in the Absalom book.

It is official. They got us excited on something that was very interesting, made rules for it, then they provided NO substance of usefulness for the Tattoo magic.

It'd be a good space for a class Archetype, and same with the other two traditions.

Granted that runs into other issues with Class Archetypes (having the typical dedication clause seems unnecessary when they're sidegrades and already eat your 2nd-level feat).

I'm actually looking as the Wizard Tradition/Architype choice as the same as the Bloodline of a Sorcerer. No need to use up your 2nd level feat. The only alteration to the class, based on your Tradition, would be what skill you get for the class, Arcane/Nature/Occult/Religion.

Shain Edge wrote:

Seriously, there needs to be both a Wizard and/or Cleric versions that use Occult, so you get the full Ancient God Magic.

Apart from domains, what would mechanically differentiate a base Cleric from a base Wizard if they both had access to the same spell list? I specify "base," as the feats are obviously geared towards different playstyles.

I can imagine using the Wizard class for EACH of the 4 traditions, just as sorcerers do. A White Wizard, who isn't religious, but focuses on divine magic. An occultist wizard who focuses on the mysteries of the void. The offshoot of an Elementalist wizard, Naturalist who studies Nature/Primal. And traditionalist Wizard who uses Arcane.

The flavor of being a wizard is in how the wizards abilities and feats interact with the spells. Clerics are a very different flavor, even if a wizard type can use White Magic/Divine. Druids are even more diverse in their feeling even if a wizard is a Naturalist/Primal. Bards and Occult Sorcerers are also completely different from Wizards with an Occult bent.

I really don't see how giving a "Wizard" a choice up front on what magical art they use in any way steps on other casting classes, which have very different rules.

And reducing their decisions down to "bad planning" doesn't take into account any of the complications they would have had to face while copyfitting, editing, and laying out the book. If their best compromise for these issues was to introduce the rules and lore of the tattoos in this book, and then wait until The Grand Bazaar to have a fuller inventory follow-up of tattoos for most levels, I'd rather go with that than wait a year or longer for another potential opportunity to put magic tattoos into the game.

The Grand Bazaar Book has a total of 4 tattoos in it, and nothing of how to expand the tattoo rules for options. Still willing to defend their activity?

It is a matter of messed-up timetables. Not a deliberate choice

Just opened up my PDF of The Grand Bazaar... To the Tattoos.. One Tattoo of 3rd level.. 4 FOUR new tattoos TOTAL. No new rules implimenting tattoos..

I'm UNIMPRESSED.

Occult Witch.

Yea, witches use familiars. I'm still talking "book" learning and memorization.

wizard is the epitome of the character that went for arcane studies and wants to learn the secrets of magic in the 'classical' way

I think it is pretty good as it is - for only exchanging the class skill and the spell list the wizard would actually loose out in most matters

I'm considering on how many times you see in movies and books where the magic being learned is "occult" brand of magic. Yes, the Occult magic is "learned" through study and books, and not an innate magic. Ghoulies from 1984, Cthulhu mythos and etc. An occult wizard makes a lot of sense in that scenario, both as protagonists and antagonists.

Seriously, there needs to be both a Wizard and/or Cleric versions that use Occult, so you get the full Ancient God Magic.

Anyone think that Wizards should have an option in the class whether to be an Arcane Caster or an Occult Caster?

Should be pretty easily modded: Occult Casters would get Occult instead of Arcana as a class skill. We can leave the strange mutations to the Sorcerer class.

As already stated in this thread, Grand Bazaar will have an entire tattoo shop. Future-proofing is the opposite of bad writing.

Actually, I think it was clarified that the Grand Bazaar /may/ have rules for tattoos. There is nothing definite. Unless I missed it, there is nothing official on tattoos other then what we have in Secrets of Magic.

It seems to be a definite oversite on the designers to have the Feat allow for four 2nd level tattoos, and there being exactly ZERO tattoos less then 3rd level.

That is POOR writing, making the early levels of the Tattoo artist of ZERO effectiveness. There needs to be SOME remedy for this oversite. Maybe the designer(s) can publish a list of tattoos on the SRD site, or maybe an official way to convert spells to Tattoos.

Actually, volley is to give an object arc upward, and over. Like Volley ball. The bows volley effect, as a negative, assumes the weapon is best employed at a longer range, with that arc.

So, yea, Volley can make sense in that effect.

So, it doesn't make ANY sense that Fascinating Performance gives the Incapacitation trait, only in a combat setting, unless the target(s) are going to be incapacitated. If ALL of the definitions surrounding it are NOT ACTUALLY about incapacitating the target, then why use it? It would be far better that they NEVER add Incapacitation Trait to Fascinating Performance, and instead just add a few sentences stating that it is harder to affect someone who is in combat?

yes:

it can take someone out of the picture depending on said incapacitation ability.

Sleep does it by sleeping targets, Charm by charming them, Uncontrollable dance by making them waste their actions dancing, and etc.

every single "save or die/be disabled" ability is an incapacitation effect.

incapacitation trait is the limiter of said abilities.

again:

Fascinating performance:
The condition that "incapacitates" the target is Fascinate. There's no "incapacitate" condition.

Fascinate is a fine condition for a social encouter, but in a combat encounter not so much.

The very name of the trait doesn't sound like a limiter. The very first sentence of that the Trait does, is incapacitate the target.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/incapacitate
1. to deprive of ability, qualification, or strength; make incapable or unfit; disable.

Why would Pazio be using Incapacitation as a Trait name, and ignoring the meaning of the word? Except that they do indicate the meaning of incapacitate in the very first sentence.

MAYBE you can incapacitate for one round, which is the duration of the fascinate effect (having your jaw dropping and just staring). I was searching for the duration of incapacitation, with no results.

To my reading, Incapacitation, by itself is not a modifier based on level, but an actual result (of incapacitation) of being a target of what the trait affects. Within the Incapacitate trait, there is a modifier, of the difficulty of affecting targets higher level.

Incapacitation-
"An ability with this trait can take a character completely out of the fight or even kill them, and it’s harder to use on a more powerful character.

The very first sentence in Incapacitation states, without much difficulty in understanding, that the ability can take a person out of the fight... or kill them" The rest of the description is how that happens, and how difficult it is to affect higher level people.

Now if that is not how it is supposed to read, Pazio can make an errata for it. But reading it just in context of the three rules, absolutely, by not reading anything else into them, that: Incapacitation as a Trait can take out opponents. Fascinating Performance gives that Trait to the Perform action, while in something like combat. Focused Fascination lets you use it easier, against one target, while in combat.

Somebody fascinated with the swashbuckler is in no conceivable way "taken out" of the combat. Pretty much the BEST that you can hope for is that the opponent will concentrate on you. Much of the time the GM will essentially ignore the condition, or so says actual play experience with my swasher.

Just putting out there what is RAW. Maybe they just run away. Incapacitation is very vague on the actual reason why you are no longer in the battle. It's anything from Death, to stone, to.. whatever.

Fascinating Performance-
"When you Perform, compare your result to the Will DC of one observer. If you succeed, the target is fascinated by you for 1 round. If the observer is in a situation that demands immediate attention, such as combat, you must critically succeed to fascinate it and the Perform action gains the incapacitation trait. You must choose which creature you’re trying to fascinate before you roll your check, and the target is then temporarily immune for 1 hour. If you’re an expert in Performance, you can fascinate up to four observers; if you’re a master, you can fascinate up to 10 observers; and if you’re legendary, you can fascinate any number of observers at the same time."

""If the observer is in a situation that demands immediate attention, such as combat, you must critically succeed to fascinate it and the Perform action __gains the incapacitation trait__.""

Incapacitation-
"An ability with this trait can take a character completely out of the fight or even kill them, and it’s harder to use on a more powerful character. If a spell has the incapacitation trait, any creature of more than twice the spell’s level treats the result of their check to prevent being incapacitated by the spell as one degree of success better, or the result of any check the spellcaster made to incapacitate them as one degree of success worse. If any other effect has the incapacitation trait, a creature of higher level than the item, creature, or hazard generating the effect gains the same benefits."

Focused Fascination-
"When you use Fascinating Performance in a combat encounter, you need only a success, rather than a critical success, to fascinate your target. This works only if you're attempting to fascinate one target. For example, if you were an expert in Performance, you could choose to target multiple creatures normally or target one creature and fascinate it on a success."

I think there is a "quirk" in the Feat lines for Focused Fascination that people have not taken into account, and it is INSANELY powerful.

In fact, a Battledancer can effectively remove up to 3 opponents from the combat each turn, and none of them count as "attacks", no multi-attack penalty.

The Feat "Fascinating Performance", free to the Battledancer, adds the Trait "Incapacitate" to the Perform action. Normally, in combat, it requires a Critical Success. With Focused Fascination, a first level Swashbuckler feat, it only requires a Normal success. Performance, is a one action skill use.

Assuming you are only targeting equal or lower level creatures then you, you are built decent Charisma, you have a better than 50% chance to take out weak willed opponents, no matter their HP.

In my last week's game, the party saved, what they discovered as being a young Osiron Prince. The prince and his guardian were being hunted by a Gnoll mercenary party. The prince's guardian was killed in the battle, and the prince honestly doesn't know what was expected of him, or where he was going to be protected from his evil regent uncle.

Fortunately, for game purposes, the players have latched on to taking the prince under their protection, and getting him to his throne in the next year's time.

The party is in Andoran, and just entered the city of Agustana, where the Caravan master dismissed the rest of the caravan, since he was taking hardwoods and wines to Absolom, so the characters are released from his service.

While I had a great idea that a teen prince, who no longer had the watchful eye of his guardian no longer on him would get into some sort of mischief in a strange city, I have ran into a mental block of what would be a good session of what to involve the players in. The chracters are a rogue, wizard, cleric, and ranger, who just recently made second level.

Ideas would be welcome!

I don't see any balance issues with sorcerers casting a high level slot using a lower spell slot, with lower level results.

Here is a question to expand the idea of crafting-

Where Crafting starts at a person having to spend half the money for the components of the creation, is it reasonable to use other skills to build up those components?

For example, using Nature or Survival to get the materials for arrows, and then crafting the arrows, at effectively 0 coin cost. I'd probably make the arrows -1 damage because they don't have metal arrow heads, but a character can survive making bows and arrows in the wilderness now.

On the other hand, that doesn't work for trying to make a sword, since you would probably have to do a whole lot more processing of materials, such as mine and smelt iron. In a survival situation, you'd have to have a source of iron, probably use Lore (mining) to get the ore and smelt it in a forge that was created.

Would be nice if Paizo would make a public statement on how it is supposed to work.

I actually brought this stuff up during playtest, and it never got handled.

So...

Question becomes, can you use Quick Alchemy to poison a Hobgoblin's stew pot, or does the poison evaporate by the beginning of your next round?

By the same token, If you quick alchemy a sunrod, can you use it for it's own duration, or is it 'poof' after a few moments?

Yes, whatever logic the designers had for this rule is weird.

A nice house rule would be: your 6hp ancestries grant +1hp [per level after the first, 8hp grants +2 per level, and the 10hp ancestries grant +3 hp per level.

Just throwing that out there for conversation purposes.

I'm having a hard time justifying the anti-stacking for poisons.

From what I can get out of it:
Let us say you get hit by Giant Centipede venom-
It has a maximum duration of 6 rounds. If you get hit by another dose of this venom at or near the end of its duration, I would expect it to restart the duration over. Except, that it specifically states in the rules (p458 under Multiple Exposures) that it's the old duration that counts. The only effect of the new dosage is a single initial saving throw that may increase the stage, assuming that the stage isn't already at max value.

For poison to make sense, I'd rather have the new effect restart the maximum duration.

I was just wondering about this!! Awesome!

I'm so happy you can make a complete judgment on what I find worthy or unworthy Karnak. Because I'd rather play with someone who takes agency and the reigns of the game in hand has no bearing on whether I find some one worthy to play with me. What does that even mean, worthy to play with? Good conversation derail, though. Why would you even want to play a game without knowing the rules? I wouldn't even want to play Battleship without knowing the rules.

You /litterally/ stated-

Wow!!! I didn't realise so many players would so adversely affect their own agency in game. Glad I don't play with them.

"Glad I don't play with them."

Rather then scaring a person off by handing them the Core Rule Book and saying, "Here, read this before you get into my game.", the equivalent to a college text book, wouldn't it be better to give them a much smaller book and say, "Follow the steps here, and you can make a character to play in my game. We will get into how to play when you are at my table."?

(What are you talking about 'Karnak'?)

Wow!!! I didn't realise so many players would so adversely affect their own agency in game. Glad I don't play with them.

They aren't bad players, just more casual then you are seemingly willing to give a chance to play. They don't care about making every little detail the optimal damage/effect per round. They just want to hang out.

In fact, it is more likely that it is the 'GM' that will buy one or two of the books so that their Core Rules isn't the bottleneck of chargen. I actually do that in my games. I'm the one who buys, at least the initial, books. Usually two of the main rules. I'm the one who reads the rules, and helps the others learn them as we play.

I sort of know the type of players who would need this sort of book to get off the ground in gaming. You seem to be under the impression that any person who is unwilling to read 300+ pages of rules is unworthy to game at your table.

If it’s for people who don’t want to read the rules, why would they buy a rulebook in the first place/why should Paizo make a book for them?

They might read the rules just enough to make a character, but not the rules on how to play the character with the game mechanics. In fact they might need help in making a character. Having just enough rules to make a character is this balance point of a 'Strategy Guide' which step by step shows the player how to make the character is all this sort of information this style of player wants.

To play pathfinder sure but PF2? If all I'm going on is pathfinder and character creation rules and concise rundown of the three modes of play, rather than the actual rules, I'm going to try to take an attack of opportunity when someone moves out of a threatened square. If PF2 holds true to playtest not everyone can do that. How's a transitioning player to know that with their creation rules and concise rundown of three modes of play, not ruleset? Relying on 3.5 and Pathfinder knowledge tripped up every player I playtested with, more than once. How did we correct that? By looking up the rules. Rules that would not be thoroughly provided in character creation rules and concise run down of the three modes of play which you said is all transitioning players would need.

A handbook for players is for players who don't even want to read the rules for play. I don't think I've ever been at a game where at least one or two of the players don't even want to read the rules. They just want to play, and trust the other players to tell them how the game is played.

Maybe this is a better idea: A paperback or PDF of each class, including, a character or two already completed, and probably a character sheet devoted to the needs of that class?

This way it is small. It could be bundeled up later. It is an expandable supplement when new splat books come out. A set of them can be distributed among the table when chargen is being done.

Another marketing ploy would be to add a (short) solo adventure dedicated to that class, if pages permit.

I'm looking at 'The Strategy Guide' as being an extremely slimmed down version of the Core book, that only has the material needed to create characters. Something that would allow the table to have Two or Three of them for the cost of a single Core book.

Yes, I can see a smaller book being created for each new class/race book.

I recommend that Paizo should do a character generation book earlier then the last edition. 640 pages for a player is a bit much to digest.

A book that has only what a player needs to create their character would be a very nice option.

Heck! I wouldn't mind taking on the effort to build such a book, if the Paizo gods are willing.