Sinnyil's page

Sinnyil wrote:

John R. wrote:

I wrote a guide for the Thaumaturge. Apologies for typos and minor misunderstandings of the rules. I'll try my best to keep it updated and correct any errors people find and add any suggestions I'm in favor of - I'm sure there will be plenty once more people get real play experience and after errata. I'll try my best to remember to give credit where it's due.

Also, I believe VampByDay is putting out a guide soon as well so keep your eyes out for theirs as well.

Here is the link.

One thing I would like to point out:

You can't actually stop someone from getting up from prone with a reaction like AoO. It happens after the standing is complete. You still get the attack, but they aren't prone during it (so not Flatfooted) and don't fall back down if you disrupt it...because it can't be disrupted, it's already done.

Also, have you considered ancestry breakdowns for the guide? At least like "these have good no-hand unarmed attacks, these have innate spells that you may be interested in" type of thing.

With Attack of Opportunity, yes, it does not disrupt move actions. Implement's Interruption on the other hand disrupts any action that triggered the reaction, move actions included, and standing is a move action.

I apologize that my usage of the AoO term led to this misunderstanding. I tend to use it as a blanket term, and I shouldn't. AoO is not stand still, nor is it implement's interruption, as you pointed out.

However...

You still can't stop someone from standing up with a reaction.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=446

If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.

Since you aren't moving out of the square, it happens at the end of the action, after standing up is completed. There is no longer anything to disrupt.

They added this due to lessons from 1e and the "stand up go immediately prone" shenanigans that would take place.

My monk was very sad to learn this.

Ravingdork wrote:

But would you allow someone to cast a heightened spell with lesser effect? (That is, it still counts as the increased heighten level, but has a lower level effect.)

For example, casting an 8th-level heightened invisibility, but opting to have the 2nd-level effect so that you can benefit from the longer duration AND counteract resistance (though it would pop upon attack).

For many characters, I would not. If a Wizard deliberately prepares invisibility in an 8th level spell slot, then they are getting the 4th level effects. Similarly if a Druid prepares Animal Form in a 5th level spell slot, they are getting the 5th level version with no adjustments available.

The reason is because those types of characters have an option when preparing spells or putting spells in repertoire to do it at specific levels.

For focus spells such as Wild Shape, cantrips such as Light, and Wave casters such as Summoner I am willing to be more flexible. Because they otherwise don't have any choice in the matter and that doesn't make sense. You shouldn't lose abilities to do things when you level up. Including the ability to cast a lower level version of a spell than your maximum.

Since you're so keen on not changing the heightening rules, it should be pointed out that nothing in the heightened rules says that spells that get benefits at specific levels continue to get those benefits at levels the spell is heightened to beyond that. It only says you get the benefits if it is cast at that level.

In addition, many spells have additional specific benefits when they are heightened, such as increased damage. These extra benefits are described at the end of the spell’s stat block. Some heightened entries specify one or more levels at which the spell must be prepared or cast to gain these extra advantages. Each of these heightened entries states specifically which aspects of the spell change at the given level. Read the heightened entry only for the spell level you’re using or preparing; if its benefits are meant to include any of the effects of a lower-level heightened entry, those benefits will be included in the entry.

It doesn't say read read the highest heightened entry for the spell you're using or preparing, but instead to read it just for the specific level. It also says that if it were to use the effects of a lower heightened entry, it'd say so. Since invisibility only says 4th, technically if you're going to stick with exactly what the rules say on heightening, your argument should instead be that "you can't cast invisibility at 8th level with the 4th level benefits, it'd have to be at the base benefits"

Which is of course ridiculous. I doubt anyone actually adheres strictly to what the heightening rules say about this. Gotta make those GM judgment calls since the rules aren't perfect!

Castilliano wrote:

To me it does seem intended

Given how it's written I can't agree with this.

There's no weapon only restriction in the basic feature of the flurry edge. It works on any attack. Weapon is only mentioned in regards to the agile property and the level 17 upgrade.

So if this is on purpose, Flurry works fine with unarmed strikes... unless those unarmed strike are agile... and then abruptly stops working at 17?

That's kinda jank. I have trouble believing that was the design intent.

Also consider that the other two ranger edges have absolutely no restriction regarding unarmed or weapons either. Why Flurry in particular?

Captain Morgan wrote:

Flurry Edge doesn't work on combat maneuvers post errata, right?

Flurry Edge works with attacks, which combat maneuver checks are. The errata made it so that maneuvers aren't attack rolls, which is important for things like the Finesse trait.

With the caveat that if we take this language as "intentional" the level 17 upgrade to flurry will only work if the maneuver is made using a weapon.

IMO, this is running into the same language issue as unarmed attacks not counting as weapons, but still having a "weapon damage die."

A potential answer for "why flurry in particular" is the same as it is for many things when it comes to unarmed attacks: there are unarmed attacks that straight up break the weapon budget math. D8 agile attacks and such.

Now that's not to say I think it's intended here, but just saying that it "could" be intended. There have been plenty of examples of Paizo just forgetting to put "and unarmed attacks" in abilities and fixing it later (the first one that always comes to my mind is rogue weapon tricks) but without official clarification/errata, there's no real reason to assume this has been missed in all 3 of the erratas unless Paizo says it has (good luck).

Or in short, it's not too bad to be true and could be to hedge against monk stances, but as a GM you can always say "oh no you can flurry's edge with non-stance attacks" or something. Unless you're a PFS GM of course.

Hm, yes. Yes, I knew that. Yesterday was mentally exhausting.

Plus I'm sure they didn't want full plate to turn off IE. I imagine that when the choice came down to "banning all free hand weapons" vs "allowing two weapons only in the case of free hand weapons" vs "banning plate" that they shrugged and picked the 2nd option. It's the least restrictive and a GM can still say no if they really want.

Though I still want to see a juggler thaum. To really break the intent :D

So the argument is that it's in the hand for double-slice, but not in the hand for implement's empowerment?

Does that not ring loudly of "hey look at me trying to circumvent intent!" to anyone else?

Claxon wrote:

so that description is from the Way of Pistolero, not a specific feat right? To be honest, it doesn't bother me then that Raconteir's Reload doesn't stipulate anything about not needing a free hand to reload. Dual Weapon reload is a level 1 feat freely available.

The fact that this way mentions it's compatible with dual pistols to me doesn't mean that you should expect it for free. The solution is already easily available.

It is from the way of pistolero indeed.

As for the lvl 1 feat, we both know it's an easily available solution, but since it's a game concerning a limited pool of feats the character can choose among, knowing whether it's intended to work with either two one handed ranged weapons or not ( especially when the class itself assumes you can choose either ways ) feels legit.

And I want to underline I am not saying it's one way or the other ( but just that I feel doubts legit given the context ).

I dunno, the context is a line that says you might "cultivate the ambidexterity for twin weapons". Cultivate here means essentially "develop", since you're not doing anything with actual plants.

Sounds exactly like taking a feat to "cultivate the ambidexterity" to me. Pretty unambiguous.

I wrote a guide for the Thaumaturge. Apologies for typos and minor misunderstandings of the rules. I'll try my best to keep it updated and correct any errors people find and add any suggestions I'm in favor of - I'm sure there will be plenty once more people get real play experience and after errata. I'll try my best to remember to give credit where it's due.

Also, I believe VampByDay is putting out a guide soon as well so keep your eyes out for theirs as well.

Here is the link.

One thing I would like to point out:

You can't actually stop someone from getting up from prone with a reaction like AoO. It happens after the standing is complete. You still get the attack, but they aren't prone during it (so not Flatfooted) and don't fall back down if you disrupt it...because it can't be disrupted, it's already done.

Also, have you considered ancestry breakdowns for the guide? At least like "these have good no-hand unarmed attacks, these have innate spells that you may be interested in" type of thing.

Came here curious about this. Double feats *felt* TGtbT, but I wasn't certain. "can also select" could mean "can also select from" and "can additionally select". Glad to see it clarified so quickly!

Ah, but what about a one-handed weapon without the two-handed trait that you use with the fighter feat dual-handed assault!

Even with the updated encounter, last night as the GM I had my first player death, followed shortly by my first TPK.

LoreMaster GM wrote:

How important are the Pregens to this adventure? I know with the pirate one, their stories were important to the story

Is it the same here? I am considering giving my players the choice of building their own or using a pregen.

Well pregens are less important here(any sort of famous hunter group works), but for purpose of being society legal for sanctioning, while you can alter the adventure a bit you HAVE to use the pregens as written if you want to give them society chronicles.

Surprised no one has said this yet, but this is untrue. The one shots are flagged as "pregens recommended" and the sanctioning document reiterates that.

So not required.

I was under the impression that you aren't able to wear Handwraps of mighty blows and healer's gloves at the same time, as they are both "worn gloves"

graystone wrote:

Gortle wrote:

All Rogues can sneak attack with agile or finese unarmed strikes.

I think that's the point being made: the strength rogue option can pick non-agile/finesse but doesn't get to do that with unarmed attacks which Enchanter Tim sees as thematically off.

Read it carefully. Ruffian only adds weapons. It never removes anything from the base Rogue. A Ruffian Rogue clearly can still sneak attack with an Unarmed Strike.

What is doesn't do is enable the critical specialization effect, for any thing other than a simple weapon.

Weapon trick expands this at level 5 for all Rogues, but never for any Rogue to include Unarmed Attacks.

I don't see why this is an issue for the Ruffian. Its an issue for the Rogue, the Monk, and the Martial Artist. They all have to take a feat to get access to the critical specialization effects of unarmed strikes.

I feel like a quote.

Exact verbiage. Words are important, and how we use them is important

But I won't as I'm sure its going to bite me.

It came back to bite you :) Specifically they were talking about non-finesse or agile unarmed attacks, from the direct thing you quoted.

Also, I should point out that weapon tricks does, in fact, apply to finesse/agile unarmed attacks. It was updated in the errata.

Weapon tricks:

You have become thoroughly familiar with the tools of your
trade. You gain expert proficiency in simple weapons as
well as the rapier, sap, shortbow, shortsword, and unarmed
attacks. When you critically succeed at an attack roll against
a flat-footed creature while using an agile or finesse simple
weapon or unarmed attack, or when using any of the listed
weapons, you apply the critical specialization effect for that
weapon or unarmed attack.

The corgi familiar comes with scent, which counts towards its max abilities. So you cannot take fast movement and independent from just the ancestry feat. You'd have to get enhanced familiar somehow.

It's the point of the class itself.

Though you won't probably be able to trip and shove normally with a staff, with this dedication you can if you are "wielding" one.

I mean, reading this

Quote:

You can Shove and Trip even if you don’t have a free hand, provided you are wielding your staff.

What you understand is not that you'll be able to trip and shove enemies wielding your staff? It's the only logical interpretation to me.

I don't expect, nor I read in the description, that a staff acobat would be able to trip or shove enemies by kicking or biting them. The character is now competenet enought with a staff ( or polearm ) to trip or shove enemies within his reach ( Though I have nothing against the visual effect of a bouncing projectile which trips 2 enemies, apart from the reloading stuff before, during and after ).

I admit that the sling staff is in a strange spot, but that's it.

No, the point of the staff acrobat staff is that you're staff acrobat. It doesn't let you shove or trip with the "staff" using it's weapon statistics (pertinent for say, having reach on the staff) as it doesn't give the weapon those traits, or say you treat it as if it has those traits, or something like that. It also means that potency runes on the weapon wouldn't apply to those maneuvers, since it doesn't say that it does.

It just says you can trip or shove without a free hand provided you're wielding your staff, which means yeah, you can do it with a sling staff. Or heck, a cooking utensil (filcher's fork) and a shield.

The issue is: For creatures that already have reach makes no sense if ALL creatures have reach.

Also instead of only adjacent doesn’t work for tiny either.

Colloquial I understand the meaning. But correct would be to say “creatures that have reach different to 5 feet“ as that is the actual meaning.

So there is an implied reach of 5 throughout the CRB and reach 10 in many cases means x+5 with x assumed to be 5.

Take a gander at the demilich.

Or if you really want to some fun, a gorilla.

I do wish though that there was more stuff to spend AcP on for existing characters. It's hard to justify, at least for me, spending 80-240+ AcP on a character that I can only play in repeatable or unreleased low-level content at this point.

Or basically, I have these high-level (for society) characters that are always going to be what I consider my "main" characters, the ones I'm most excited about when there's new content out they can participate in, and I'd like to spend AcP on them, as they are my focus. But I don't actually have good ideas for what that would look like. More uncommon access stuff? That's really all I got.

I played this at PaizoCon...

** spoiler omitted **
This seems like it will be another adventure where depending on the players, it will either be too hard or too easy...

I was excited to run this for my group after enjoying SW so much, but after playing it, no way, not without some major adjustments. The encounter balance was way out of whack. The story was...mostly ok, but overshadowed by the ugh of the combat.

The characters are OK but not nearly as flavorful as the SW characters. Ah well, maybe the next one.

Yup, all the polearms have that I think...or reach weapons rather