That's a good point. Alright, thank you. I don't have a class, I'm just building characters for 1e for fun.
Search Posts
I was afraid that would be the case. Can anyone else present an argument to the contrary? (Shamelessly hoping we are wrong here and someone will be able to tell us so, because I want it to work)
I tried searching for this, as there seems to be many threads about heirloom weapon but I couldn't find precisely what I wanted to know... The consensus on the closest one I could find was that you could select heirloom weapon trait and then select weapon focus based on that trait. I thought I should confirm that is actually the case, and if so could I then use the weapon focus to qualify for the Sentinel prestige class? For example, heirloom weapon trait to get my father's longbow, then weapon focus longbow, then a level in the Sentinel Class (Erastil Deity)?
Luckily just about all spells that grant you wings (other than the ones that turn you into other things entirely) aren't actually polymorph spells, in fact only a handful are even transmutation. Some cause ghostly, divine or supernatural wings to manifest. Unfortunately my searching reveals that 0% of them are on the druid list, and the vast majority are personal self spells so I won't easily be able to rely on allies to get the wings. Phantom limb works if we have a mid-high level psychic though. Beaten to mentioning phantom limb by 1 minute. Typical!
Seems there are a whole load of spells that grant wings, but none of them are on the druid spell list. That's troublesome.
I'm pretty sure you lose physical traits when you polymorph. Which for a drow would be dark vision and anything else physical. I vaguely recall racial feats that adjust or add physical features of your base form being grouped together with racial features in at least one instance so you may also lose them. Things such as dragon / phoenix / infernal bloodline wings are supernatural activated abilities and therefore can manifest after you wild shape, but I'm hoping someone has a simpler solution than that as that's a lot of feats to get. Some options: Dragon Totem Wings rage power (req. 10th level), Wings Shaman hex (aviable at 1st but form 1 min/level per day), multiple Sorc bloodlines (require 9th level), multiple Bloodrager blood lines (require 12th level), Fiendflesh or Feyform Shifter, (require 5th level), Fiend Keeper Medium (requires 7th level), falconine Wildsoul Vigilante (requires 12th level), Evangelist's 10th level ability, Crimson Templar's 1st level ability, and Sphere Singer's 5th level performance. Those options seem to require some hefty multiclassing, deity changing or feat investment. Is there anything anyone can think of that's a little less taxing to get on a druid?
11th level aasimar? Do you not lose physical racial features (including racial feat wings) when you wild shape?
I'm looking for a way for my wild shaped druid to grow wings while in the shape of a bear. I'm not too concerned with flight specifically, but they have to be wings. Any advice on the various ways I can achieve this?
Absolutely pumped for the mwangi book and to see how they do at making entirely new ancestries. Similarly interested to find out more about gnolls, who have always been a staple in my games but have always lacked depth. Are lizardfolk as inherently devoid of empathy as the reptilian races always seemed to be in DND? I'm similarly interested in playing them but don't recall seeing much about them in pathfinder.
Lots to catch up on here! Very interesting hearing about the process they went through distinguishing 1e from 3.5dnd. Yes the kobold design change is one I love as well, definitely cooler now. I had forgotten about changelings too, never played one but it's good they get to be male now. Sorry I didn't know of other threads asking about new retcons and changes. I didn't realise there were 1e products that gave a more balanced view of the goblin race, I admit I usually just read the race entry and skim the rest for rules. Were there any other changes going into 2e?
I think you're missing out if you generalise like that. You've never had a character so lost in despair or guilt, giving up and choosing to throw their life away, perhaps only to be nursed back to health after, or otherwise torn back from the beyond by their party or loved ones? Then having that character follow a form of "redemption" arc, learning to accept their experiences, acknowledging their importance and attachments among the living and finding a renewed sense of purpose, now stronger in spite of the dark times they endured? (Of course they could equally be brought back in service to some eldritch abomination, deity or other outside force, so too could they be harrowed by their experience of their afterlife and grimly determined to avoid their fate, or any number of possibilities that open up as a result of that player's choice.) I mean, I'm not criticising the depth to which you personally enjoy roleplaying and the direction of stories you want to tell. I'm just pointing out that while it may be a sensitive subject, that doesn't mean it shouldnt be acknowledged as something thats possible in the mechanics of the game, even if you think its "just not cool". The responsibility for creating interesting and compelling stories relies on all the players after all, not just the GM, so preventing the players from making their own decisions for their character is counterproductive. Anyway, as far as rules go, as we all agree there's nothing that specifically says you can choose to neglect resisting or avoiding effects, for now the case by case evaluation suggested by TwilightKnight is probably the best approach and hopefully the one the Devs intended.
Comparing the race entries for goblin from the 1st edition nethys site to the 2nd edition nethys site is interesting. The 1e site categorically states they're basically all insane flesh eating monsters that impulsively destroy and are easily manipulated and do nothing but hunger and war with everything, while having little to no redeeming qualities and never being part of society beyond surviving off refuse. It's not presented as opinion, though there is a small section about how they're views by other races (as psychotic parasites) which lines up with what was already established. The 2e site basically says they're just "eccentric, enthusiastic, and fun-loving" little goofs that love stories and are likely to "Lighten the heavy emotional burdens others carry" with playful antics. The 2e entry seems a far cry from the 1e goblins that crave the flesh of sentient beings (namely humans and gnomes apparently) among other irredeemable things. It does say that times have been changing for them recently but for me it feels more like goblins have been massively retconned with 2e due to their popularity. Now don't get me wrong, this isn't a complaint! I much prefer the 2e versions and have no problem with retcons, nor pathfinder focusing on what people like (they definitely should). But it got me wondering, are there other lore things that got largely retconned or overhauled in the transition to 2e like the goblins did?
TwilightKnight seems to have the best view on this. I agree that there a an awful lot of cases where choosing to fail doesn't make sense and other times where it clearly would make sense, generally for reflex saves. Case by case is the best approach for this issue. To those asking how I'm trying to break the game by choosing to fail saves, I didn't have any specific spell or ability in mind, just thinking about a broken, disheartened adventurer submitting to their fate and not putting up a fight. Though if I'm honest now someone has mentioned gravity well for quick repositioning I think that's creative and ingenious and want to try it.
Agreed, let's hope its omission was down to oversight though and saves eventually get similar wording to first edition. I would be very interested to know how choosing to critically fail your own saving throws would break the game too. Do you know the rules for AC and choosing to be hit by the way? For example a high level monk choosing to be struck down (to become more powerful than you can possibly imagine)?
It seems now that people are calling eachother melodramatic that somewhat proves the point that the subject is polarising people. Though I'd advise you calm down a little and avoid doing so as it sullies the discussion. What we have established is that there is no solid rule specifying either way, yet each opinion has good reason for viewing their viewpoint as correct, both using slightly different interpretations of saves and inferring information from different abilities to back up their claims (no cause for alarm/drugs/specific spells etc). As I say, The more restrictive opinions could be right, or they could not be. I don't know.
The rules also don't mention that dwarves have bones, but that doesn't mean you should assume they don't just because it isnt in the rules. As wonderful as the image of jelly puddles with beards is, a certain amount of the game is common sense. Restricting a players ability to choose to not avoid something because you decided that the rules should say "you are forced to make saving throws, even against your will" is an odd choice, but as I say, unless a Dev voices an opinion this subject will continue to polarised people. The more restrictive opinions could be right, or they could not be. I don't know.
That's fair, I don't agree entirely, but you're right that it only makes sense for some saves. Fortitude saves against poison for example, you shouldn't get a choice, your insides do their thing regardless of what you want. But reflex saves more often than not should be dependant on your decisions, if you know an effect is coming. The gravity well situation someone gave is a fantastic example, where if your allies are aware and prepared they should not be forced to resist against their will and it makes little sense to impose such a limitation. Dougseay's observation of the previous edition's elegance regarding saves is something a wholeheartedly agree with though, so unless the RAW specifically contradicts it or a Dev jumps in to say otherwise, I'm going to assume the designers still believe choosing to fail saves is logical and possible.
People arguing for the idea that you can't choose to fail a saving throw baffle me. The idea that a character trying to end themselves by stepping into harm's way can't because they are forced to dodge every time is hilarious. I think it's important to consider RAI as well as RAW, to consider what makes sense and to acknowledge that the design team think (or at least used to think) that being able to choose to fail a saving throw was perfectly acceptable as it was even written into the rules for first edition. The fact that effects like no cause for alarm being deliberately written to not use saves and instead have alternate wording when a fail would be more beneficial than a pass may well lean towards this idea too. Arbitrarily limiting player freedom and the possibilities of what can occur in the game when the rules do not say to do so somewhat flies in the face of the point of these games, especially when doing so goes against common sense. I can only hope that this issue is cleared up by Devs or something, because clearly people have quite polarised opinions about it and that's not good for the game. Everyone likes to have a good firm footing when it comes to rules (especially when it comes to forcing players to do things like make saving throws when they'd prefer to not resist), and this is not the case in this instance.
People arguing for the idea that you can't choose to fail a saving throw baffle me. The idea that a character trying to end themselves by stepping into harm's way can't because they are forced to dodge every time as if in a comedy routine is hilarious though.
The fireball example is a little less like the others, in that a reflex save (generally with a comparatively lower modifier) is rolled even for inanimate objects when your wizard tries to blast a hazard apart. And bulwark is a bonus to reflex saves that has nothing to do with getting out of the way. So you could logically conclude that lowering your save bonus should be the best you can do, instead of choosing to fail or crit fail, if you try to go by what's logically consistent, instead of what's in the rules. Perhaps, but I'd expect a pretty MASSIVE penalty if my character deliberately tries to jump in the way of something that requires a reflex save, at which point the difference between auto failing and having a big penalty is trivial. Even so, taking away the players choice for how to react to things by forcing them to dodge is fairly petty and goes against common sense, so it'd make more sense to simply let a character trying to step out Infront of a bus (or fireball) do so and suffer the consequences for it.
Humblegamer beat my edit by a minute, but yeah, no cause for alarm seems to be written in a way that avoids them making a save, instead using their will DC. The only reason I can think for them writing it that way is if that was an important distinction to make because of a reason such as being able to choose to forgo saves like the last edition. So no slapstick trying to step into traffic while your legs have other ideas as per the bus example. I hope they get around to writing the rules like they did for the last edition! If only to prevent people siding against common sense. I'd hate to get a GM that was like that.
That's an interesting case. Well found! Does that mean using that as a precedent and applying it to my stepping out in front of a bus example, trying to "end oneself" would result in you involuntarily jumping out of the way every single time? If so that's comically brilliant and stupid at the same time and I love how ridiculous it is. Edit:
being stunned you shouldn't be able to react at all. That's why reactions are turned off. Reactions and actions are things that require a certain amount of skill, competence, readiness or training to pull off though, most are reserved for feats that you have to be experienced enough to know (levels, classes, skills etc), not the same as choosing to twist out of the way as a reflex save. Stunned just means you're stunned by something, and can't act as effectively (represented as lost actions) not that you can't do anything at all. Let's say you are crossing the street without looking, suddenly a very loud truck horn goes off and you are stunned. Now depending on your real life reflex save, you might still be able to lurch out of the way to avoid being hit by said truck, but in game terms you wouldnt have your wits about you enough to react by kicking it as it sped past you. Equating being stunned with choosing to deliberately step out in front of a bus isnt the best example. In any case the pathfinder people likely would rule that you can choose to forgo leaping out of the way if your characters intention is to get hit, as established by the written rule of the previous edition. I think we're all just remarking on how odd it is that it's not (yet) been written one way or the other in this edition considering it's supposed to be a standalone product in terms of rules.
I was surprised to find out that being stunned still let you make reflex saves. So even saying I won't dodge/move you'd have to make a save. Well stunned doesn't mean completely paralyzed from the neck down, it just means you are stunned. So that's probably not the best argument for or against anything. All we have for choosing to fail/get hit is common sense, the choice established in the previous edition, and possibly a couple of niche cases in spells, whereas all we have against is that it's not written down (Yet). It's a shame it isn't clarified in the rules, but this is the kind of thing that's overlooked until it comes up, so maybe they forgot it or maybe they wanted it left to the GM? Seems like an odd thing to leave to the GM but who knows, paizo works in mysterious ways. I'll just take comfort in the thought of Vader wailing about nerfing Jedi AC while Obi-wan checks his watch. (Until pathfinder people let us know otherwise)
So no way to deliberately fail a save and no way to deliberately be hit by an attack either? Does this mean, for example, if you were to re-enact obi-wan's sacrifice in pathfinder 2e then it's possible Darth Vader would flail wildly, missing repeatedly? Because that's a happy thought.
That's a logical conclusion, but this kind of thing really should be made clear in the rules somewhere. Maybe they didn't feel they had to as it was already spelled out in the previous edition that you could, but it was my understanding that pathfinder 2e was supposed to be a standalone thing, from a rules perspective anyway.
If I have the "lead the pack" feat, can I transport my character and both of his dogs with the Terrain Transposition feat because each one is an animal companion?
I'm of the same opinion of humblegamer, but can't find where it says so in rules.
And Blave, I wasn't suggesting you could take a failure to avoid a critical failure, I was suggesting you could take a critical failure. (The worst possible option) Side question: Are there rules that say you can purposely get hit by an attack, resulting in a hit or critical hit against you? Not that I want to play some kind of masochist or something, just curious.
Can you choose to critically fail a saving throw? I know you can choose to fail in first edition pathfinder, and it makes sense to choose not to resist an effect, but I can't find where the rule is.
Let's say I'm a wizard with a 2 level dip into fighter and the magical Knack trait to offset it a little. If I later gain the spell penetration feat, does it do anything? I'm guessing it does, because spell penetration affects caster level checks not caster level itself, just looking for confirmation I guess.
Is heightened invisibility useful past a few levels, or does every monster end up with some way of detecting invisibility? I'd also like to know.
Thanks for the suggestions! Some spells are jumping out at me that I recognise from first edition or just have a good name. Are any of these particularly useful this edition, and if so which ones do you think would benefit a divine Sorcerer most and why? Black Tentacles
The 8th+ level spells are higher level than i'll likely see on this character so factor that in to your considerations... If you can rate them all that would be even better, but I understand that's probably asking too much!
I'm building a divine Sorcerer for a secondary game when my normal DM can't make it or we are down too many players. I plan on taking champion dedication to get decent armor and hit points. I don't plan on being massively front line, just not fragile. Help me out, with blessed blood and/or crossblooded, what arcane, primal or occult spells should I consider at each level? Due to grabbing early champion feats I won't be picking up either blessed blood or crossblooded until 8th level, so don't recommend anything that only scales well before then! I'm totally lost with all the choices. What do you think would work well?
The DM says we're basically all getting the cavalier dedication and archetype feats for free as we level, so that means the animal companion will become mature. He says that per rules I'll need to dismount if I want to move and rage still. He is being cagey about the details so I wouldn't be surprised if eventually the horses will end up being/becoming special in some way. Fingers crossed it's in a way I can use. I can almost guarantee pathfinder Devs are planning a mad dog / mounted Barbarian feat or instinct at some point, I just wish they'd thought to have it in core or close to it. For those asking, I'm dragon instinct but it's not built into my backstory more than "dragons are big and strong, I am big and strong too!". Other instincts looked weak compared to dragon, except giant.
DM gave all our party mounts. I'm a Barbarian. Huge battle ensues revolving around mounted combat on our shiny new steeds, so I (not wanting to be ineffective for the session) do the one thing I'm good at and enter a rage. But... Command an animal has the concentrate trait. I can't use concentrate traits when in a rage. So my main class feature makes it so I can't move or do anything with the mount? Am I missing something here? The last edition have multiple archetypes like burn rider, mounted fury and mad dog that emphasised that barbarians are supposed to be really effective alongside (or mounted on) animals. I don't have the moment of clarity feat. I don't want to retrain and lose out on my other feats to get it just to spend an action more than the rest of the party every turn spamming it to be able to move while raging, so I'm really hoping I've overlooked something really obvious here! (I am new to second edition so I'm still learning all the rules)
A ranger can use impossible flurry to make 6 attacks a turn. Can any other classes make 6 attacks a turn against a single target? If not what is the closest another class can get? (Not factoring in being quickened, but if you are familiar with official playtest classes that come close I would like to hear about them too) |