Skeletal Technician

Squiggit's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 8,502 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,502 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Trip.H wrote:
It is a good example of a real flaw caused by a mismatch of system design, and one that does not need to be there.

I mean nothing really 'needs' to be there it's all an arbitrary combination of systems built to taste. The fact is though that a significant enough proportion of respondents preferred things this way that Paizo felt it better to do so.

It's also something that can be relatively easily mitigated (by becoming trained in the skill or taking untrained improvisation) if it's really something you're concerned about, so it's hard to really place this as some major thing.

Quote:
and then there is that contradiction where the stronger the PCs get, the *more* impossible it is to do actions they are untrained in.

That's somewhat of a mischaracterization. "more impossible the stronger the PCs get" implies that you're somehow getting worse at tasks as you level up... but that's not true. You just aren't improving. The character's ability to succeed at a task never changes. That's... not a contradiction at all, it's just not being good at something.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Trip.H wrote:
That is a serious and unnecessary system problem that apparently did not exist in the past rule-set.

Is it actually all that serious? The problem, as described, is that someone who puts absolutely no investment in a skill is not going to be able to pass leveled checks.

That doesn't seem all that serious, after all the person in question has not even taken the bare minimum of steps to give themselves any boosts in that skill.

Again, for a number of people during the playtest this was specifically a desirable outcome.

Like I agree it's kind of weird and maybe not as useful as some people think, but treating it like some major, fundamental flaw in the game rather than just a personal taste thing seems way off base.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
PF1 did swarms better.

PF1 swarms were goofy. Some of them were resistant to physical attacks (which makes some sense) while others were just mystically immune to physical harm entirely.

Meanwhile somehow having hundreds of an animal together would give them the ability to tank explosions that would incinerate them individually.

Oh and no matter how much you picked away at it, the swarm never lost effectiveness until hitting 0 and instantly dispersing.

... Despite that, a swarm of 300 rats actually only has four times the HP of a single individual rat. So even with damage halved someone stabbing the swarm would only need to deal enough damage to kill eight rats for the other 292 to evaporate.

... I'm not saying PF2 swarms are better, but it's weird to talk about PF1 swarms as if they made any kind of sense at all or had even a modicum of verisimilitude.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
On a related tangent, a related problem I run into is people with bad charisma skills wanting to participate in conversations with NPCs and then feeling punished when the GM asks them to make a roll.
Ah yes. The classic "INT is a dump stat, but I still want to participate in the dungeon's door puzzles."

This one is always really tricky because often times adventures have puzzles designed to be player facing, not character facing in the first place.

So all the normal concerns about roleplaying and character design are sort of just abruptly tossed aside to begin with... which can feel really bad if there's a mismatch.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sintog wrote:

I think there is a serious flaw. Bond Conservation notes the requirement that the "last action" was drain bonded item. Which means

Free action: Drain bonded item >
Cast a Spell Activity >
Can't use bond conservation because the last action you used was to Cast a spell.

Therefore, it has to go
Free Action: Drain Bonded Item >
1 Action: Bond Conservation >
Leaving you with 2 actions remaining to Cast a pair of spells.

Right?

Two things:

-Bond Conservation lasts until the end of your next turn, so by design you'll likely be using your free drain/extra cast on the subsequent turn.

-Remaster changed the requirements of Bond Conservation to work the way you describe in your first example (it now requires the last action to be Cast enabled by Drain)... though mechanically this change doesn't actually mean much.

Either way there isn't really a serious flaw, it's just something you have to spread out over multiple turns most of the time.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I hope they make the curse more dynamic early on too. The idea of ramping penalties and benefits is a pretty cool one, but there also isn't much of a ramp. For the first 10 levels of the game you're spending most of your time in minor or moderate, so there isn't really much of a build up.

And then it never progresses any further after getting your Major upgrade at 11 (since Extreme is more of a generic thing).

Having more of a progression from the get go would let the Oracle lean into that idea of ramping intensity, which is a theme the class kind of plays with but doesn't commit to enough to be satisfying (sort of a perennial pf2 problem though).

I do sort of like the idea of separating them from focus spells. As is now I feel like half the oracles I run into will waste focus points just for the sake of activating their curse benefit, and the other half will avoid their cursebound spells entirely because their mystery's curses are garbage. Both seem like design issues.

... I also hope they look at individual mystery balance more, for that same reason, but that also seems like something Paizo has opted to skip for the Remaster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
But all indications point to that being the intent - from the name of the activity, to the subordinate actions rules, to listing out the Sustain a Spell action by name.

On the other hand, the ability very notably uses different (and otherwise both peculiar and needlessly verbose) phrasing than pretty much every other ability in the game with a subordinate action.

That seems like a pretty strong indication too, and I'm not sure it's reasonable to dismiss that out of hand.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the thing about "something only affects stealth when the rules specify that it does" is that it ignores that if a character were to affix bells to all their clothing, cover themself in glitter, then set their hat on fire that should make it somewhat difficult for that character to be inconspicuous even though there are no rules for hat fire or glitter.

At some level a GM has to make a call not on "what specifically the rules say" but on what makes sense in the story. Even if your kinetic aura is "a gentle breeze" that is still going to be abundantly obvious in "a library" but much less so in "an open meadow."

I mean, there's a difference between creating some specific scenario outside the normal bounds of the game and expecting the GM to make a call on it and claiming that it is an concrete feature that a certain ability prevents you from making stealth checks without anything like that even being mentioned.

No one's suggested GM's aren't allowed to make judgment calls about things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

IDK a discussion over how people run stealth seems like fair game for a thread about how people feel playing the kineticist.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Trip.H wrote:
I have no idea where specifically this willful delusion is rooted

Man this is an incredibly goofy way to take things after literally just complaining about 'bad faith' discussions.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
If the designers did not mean for that to interfere with skill actions like Stealth or Invis or what not, they should have made that pretty clear.

I mean, flip that around for a second.

If an ability was intended to wholesale prevent you from using certain actions, shouldn't it be important to mention that somewhere?

No one's assuming you can't concentrate while raging or cast spells in a battle form, stuff like that is written into the ability. Point of fact is that, outside some reminder text examples, abilities don't tell you when they don't prevent you from doing something.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
YuriP wrote:


About my disbelief it's not that I think they lied but that the OGL wasn't the main reason but a perfect justification to abandon the drow concept at once while avoid complains.

But it didn't avoid complaints.

And they also are filling that space with their own, new type of cavern elves... so clearly it's not a design space they wanted to just wholly abandon.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kaspyr2077 wrote:


The OGL is a licensing agreement. Paizo was, for many years, comfortable publishing material under that agreement. Quite recently, Hasbro made an ill-advised move to try to retroactively alter the agreement. Even after failure, Paizo was now aware that Hasbro was an unreliable partner and potentially treacherous partner to be in such an agreement with, and so they ended their participation in the agreement.

Unreliable and treacherous... but you don't assign any malice?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

None of the geniekin get a bonus language. If you need your Talos to speak Talican, consider finding a way to get 12 int, switching backgrounds to something that provides multilingual, or talking to your GM about your character's special circumstances.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I mean it says Step. It even uses the capital letter.

And Step says you can't Step into difficult terrain.

One point of clarification, Step prevents you from stepping into difficult terrain, not out of. So the most correct answer to your question is "Depends on what the square you're moving into looks like" since being within difficult terrain doesn't matter.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
The difference is in the desire for balance.

Maybe but it's still kind of shoddy design.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Puna'chong wrote:
I suppose we do disagree, because the action economy is inherent to the alchemical items. You can't separate the action economy from their use and say that, once you do, they're actually good.

Why can't I? When one of the core issues is action economy, it seems prudent to be able to say that.

Things like Quick Bomber or a Rogue's Poison Weapon feat make their respective items vastly more effective, so I'm not really sure why pointing that out should be off the table.

Quote:
The fact that the Alchemist can't use a bomb any better than anyone else without at least one feat that does nothing more than shore up a problem inherent to the bomb is just icing on the cake.

It's not 'icing on the cake' when it's the main thing holding the class back (and even then, only barely in the case of the dedicated bomber).

Like I'm just not sure what good it does to gnash our teeth about 'fundamental' problems and willfully ignore the specifics of the issues and how to fix them in favor of just pining after 1e.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Puna'chong wrote:


Really, ultimately, I think I just wish they'd push the design back towards the 1e approach of not having the Alchemist's power tied to items anyone else can buy. That's what makes this class so fundamentally difficult, in my mind, because it's not self-contained and is basically coming pre-nerfed because its abilities are items, and items (as Paizo designs them) need to be weaker than class abilities. I think we're too far gone at this point, though.

While I like the 1e spellcaster model, I sort of disagree here. There's some awkwardness from items, the biggest problem Alchemists have tend to come from utilization issues, not the items themselves. In terms of raw output, most alchemists have the potential to be pretty decent... but then they stumble over themselves with action economy, accuracy, and feat tax issues. In other words, it's the opposite. A lot of alchemical items are good, but the actual alchemist chassis is terrible at everything other than making those items accessible.

Alchemical items are somewhat broken, but mostly in the sense that they're a subsystem that's not really accessible to anyone else.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
If we are ignoring the activity and subordinate actions rules when looking backwards because that scenario wasn't in the list of examples, then why are we enforcing it when looking forwards? Why not allow 'your next action is...' abilities to trigger on the first subordinate action of an activity?

I think you're misunderstanding the position a bit, because in no case are we ignoring or enforcing subordinate action rules. They have nothing to do with this mechanic. Nor are you 'ignoring' activity rules if you use the paradigm that allows this to work. Characterizing it as enforcing/ignoring is missing the point and implicitly defining one side as fraudulent (which is fair if that's your position, everyone is going to have one, but it's important to understand where each argument is coming from, otherwise we don't really have an informed opinion).

... I was going to use your example as a starting point, but that's not how bond conservation works so I'm not sure what you were going for, so instead looking at the OP's

If you view an activity as a container with elements inside it, then you run into this: Everstand Strike > Devoted Guardian which obviously doesn't make sense, because Everstand Strike is not raising a shield.

But if you instead view an activity as part of a series of things you do, then you get Everstand Strike > Strike > Raise A Shield > Devoted Guardian, under which the combination makes perfect sense, because the last thing you did was raise a shield.

Quote:
Why not allow 'your next action is...' abilities to trigger on the first subordinate action of an activity?

From the former perspective, it doesn't make sense because the next thing in line is the container, from the latter perspective it's the same as asking why you can't Spellshape > Stride > Cast A Spell.

Part of the problem stems from people treating all these different triggers as identical when they clearly aren't. Regardless of perspective, it doesn't really make sense to argue that a certain ability should have certain restrictions because an entirely different ability that works in an entirely different way has certain restrictions.

Quote:
Again I have to point out that the examples illustrate the rules. The examples don't define the rules.

Right, but neither the examples nor the rules are particularly illuminating here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This is some really cool homebrew but I really hope whatever we get in PC2 looks nothing like it. Being so heavily silo'd into one research field kills a big part of the class.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:


And we're only given one of those frameworks in the book.

No we aren't, the book is completely silent on the topic. If anyone could actually point to a specific line that says "this is how this interaction works" or "this is how activities work" then there wouldn't be much of a discussion here.

I don't really get the posturing, tbh.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:


Having it work one way in one instance and another in another effectively identical instance isn't good game design, for one thing.

Consistency is generally a good thing.

Yeah, but there's only a consistency issue if we accept a certain premise on how activities work. That's part of the problem. Both conclusions make complete logical and consistent sense within their respective frameworks, while making zero sense in the other framework.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

As people here have helpfully illustrated, there's debate over whether activities function like a 'chain' or a 'container', with the rules providing no explicit guidance and the examples in the book missing this particular type of interaction.

Best you can do is gather the available information and ask your GM.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm sort of befuddled by this idea that they're just dead weight at low levels. Even at the absolute worst baseline, an EB throwing kineticist is basically a ranged martial who also happens to probably have some free AoE damage or healing or battlefield control (or maybe all three) in their kit.

They're certainly not perfect and definitely want to scale into everything they need, but the hyperbole here is kind of goofy.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aenigma wrote:
After all, where's the fun in adventuring in a world devoid of ethical dilemmas?

I haven't seen anyone at Paizo or in this thread suggest this, so I'm not really sure who you're replying to.

Quote:
There ought to be monsters, slavers, and criminals who revel in all manner of evil deeds

There are. Not so much slavers and rapists, because Paizo doesn't really want to write about them, but that hasn't really precluded Pathfinder (or D&D in general) from including lots of villains for PCs to fight.

Quote:
If goblins and kobolds are now portrayed as allies rather than murderous and deranged creatures who think nothing of enslaving and butchering humans, it begs the question of why they exist at all.

Well, presumably because a writer thinks they're interesting and wants to tell stories about them. This feels kind of non-sequitur.

Quote:
Imagine if Tolkien had suddenly decided, 'Oh, I believe orcs are depicted as too malevolent in my book. It's clearly discriminatory and detrimental to readers' mental well-being. I'll revise this aspect. Henceforth, orcs in Middle-earth are a proud warrior race who vehemently oppose slavery and rape.' If he had really done that, I highly doubt his legendarium would have become as famous and masterful as it is.

So you postulate that Tolkien's success doesn't have to do with his worldbuilding or storytelling ability, but specifically because it had orcs that behaved in a certain way?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

TBH I think Paizo unfortunately kind of wrote themselves into a corner. Everyone is so weak at a baseline in PF2 that it's really hard to add cool and interesting features without breaking the balance, because there's so little wiggle room.

I get where they were coming from with new ancestry system, but in practice it ends up getting in the way of a lot of concept spaces just because the power budget ends up being so limited.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
Leon Arcilla wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
1) My horse is slower in combat than most PCs (2 x 40 is less than 3x30)

The math seems to hold here. Based on a quick check through the Player Core, most ancestries have Speeds of 25 feet (only exceptions were the dwarves with 20 feet and elves with 30 feet).

3x25=75 is slower than the horse mount's 2x40=80. Dwarves get even left further behind (3 x 20 = 60) but Elves can outrun them (3 x 30 = 90).

At first level, sure.

But fleet is a pretty common choice, grabbing a wand of tailwind is pretty common, quite a few classes have speed increases either baked in or readily available, boots of speed are available, etc.

In my experience by about level 8 or so most characters (Even the ones in plate mail) are going substantially faster than 25 feet a round. The biggest exceptions likely spell casters who just don't really need the speed as much

Okay but now we're dealing with a superhuman being enhanced by magic, which kind of changes the context a lot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Only if you skip over the perception rules, which specifically call out being obscured by the environment as a potential impediment to precise senses.

So the 'pedantic RAW' is more that this is entirely within the GM's purview, because 'obscured by the environment' has no strict rules definition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:


Not really.

By RAW, only solid barriers block line of sight.

The section you linked mentions two conditions, why are you saying there is only one?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think Mr. Sayre's post was the reflection of the internal standard regarding adventure design, not any sort of actual rule or guideline. Since the number of adventures in a day might differ from whatever standard they set for narrative reasons- like if you're on an ocean voyage and are beset by pirates you don't need that to happen multiple times per day. If you're rescuing a hostage from a castle, the GM doesn't need to scale back the number of different guard posts in order to fit whatever standard.

Narrative reasons are important, but it does kind of suck to have an internal baseline that people are up in the air about, because it can matter a lot for certain classes.

Like idk I totally get that this is a storytelling vehicle first and foremost but god it's kind of dull to be on hour 4 of casting electric arc because "it doesn't fit the narrative" to take a rest and you ran out of spell slots a session and a half ago.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It feels kind of weird to even talk about a pendulum swinging when we're just talking about one feat being slightly worse than another feat. That's a weird thing to try to extrapolate a trend from.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wand and Lantern I think are the ones that struggle the most. Wand's damage and action economy are tragically bad. It makes for a decent backup option, but given that implements are a core class feature, investing that heavily in something that you would prefer to never actually use is a pretty bad deal. It's genuinely kind of terrible.

Lantern similarly suffers from being a bit awkwardly niche. It has the potential to be very good in a campaign that heavily relies on invisibility and stealth for enemies, but against enemies that don't a lot of your benefits simply go away. Passive implements in general suffer from not benefiting from free implement swapping, which imo hurts the lantern doubly because it's best used in response to something.

The others are more of a mixed bag, and I think arguments can be made for all of them (though fwiw I've never seen someone use the Bell).

I like Tome in part because it does something even if you never find time to pull it out, which helps mitigate the biggest downside of passive implements.

Weapon is cool on paper, but having your AoO only work on one target makes it a lot more limited than it looks, and the intensify bonus being a status bonus means a lot of typical party setups undercut it.

Chalice is surprisingly decent survivability, but it kind of has poor scaling and the later benefits can feel a bit awkward. That said, it's been one that I've seen perform better in play than it looks.

Regalia I really like in general, though it has a bit of a slower ramp up, which might make me less interested in using it in slower or low level only campaigns... plus it's a passive implement so that's an innate downside.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
I gotta say, I don't love that rule and ignore it for my own games.

If Recall Knowledge had a slogan...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
YuriP wrote:

I don't think at any point the designers wanted to make the kineticist archetype work different from now.

Blast would have been much better back when it was a weapon attack that used handwraps. The number of feats you need to invest in it and the proficiency scaling absolutely brutalizes it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Finoan wrote:

The name of the Attack trait. And the Errata that explicitly says that actions with the Attack trait are attacks.

Which causes the strange interaction of Escape having the Attack trait and therefore being an attack ... but probably not a Hostile Action (hard to determine for certain because Hostile Action is not well defined). But many spells don't have the Attack trait and therefore are not an attack...

I once got my GM to accept that the invisible bad guy trying to escape my grapple lost his invisibility thanks to this Attack tag. Because Attack = Hostile.
I assume that neither of you followed that ruling to its conclusion. That since Electric Arc doesn't have the Attack trait it is therefore not an attack and therefore not a Hostile Action and so casting it doesn't break low level Invisibility.

I'm not sure how you really argue that electric arc is not an action that harms or damages a creature.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hostile actions in general, imo. I don't think it's that bad in practice but there were a lot of interesting and weird discussions about how many degrees of separation an action needed to count as or not count as 'hostile' a few years ago.

The fact that the rule both applies to indirect actions but is also concerned with your character's understanding of their actions makes adjudicating low level invisibility kind of interesting.

Finoan wrote:
The name of the Attack trait. And the Errata that explicitly says that actions with the Attack trait are attacks.

As an addendum here. That errata specifying that "attack roll" and "roll to make an attack" are distinct concepts. Lots of weird linguistic baggage just to make finesse characters worse at tripping.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cereal wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

That aside, I think people get too fixated on the necessity of runes arriving at exactly the point players want them and on the items players want them on.

That was really a strange side effect of the ABP table. If you automatically get the bonuses in ABP, then you _must_ get them at the same time without it.

It seems odd to blame ABP for this. The game's own math is built that way. Enemies get AC and HP buffs at roughly the same time runes come online, so it can feel kind of bad when you don't have that gear at the levels the game says you should. Trying to pass it off as some psychological issue is missing the mark.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Psychic dedication is good and satisfying and gives access to some very neat tools. Wouldn't really call that a problem.

exequiel759 wrote:
Fair, but I think comparing the kineticist dedication to the fighter dedication is like comparing a Mustang with with a gas-powered car from the early 1900s; its been a while since those were a thing and we clearly improved upon that

Strictly speaking among all the options you mentioned, Fighter Dedication is the one with the most recent printing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah this came up like a weak ago.

It's very strange that they removed the line about repairing construct familiars. It feels like an error, yet cutting that much text almost feels like it has to be on purpose too.

Unfortunately there are only a tiny handful of abilities that simultaneously target creatures and restore hit points without being healing... Focused Rejuvenation is the easiest and most reliable option I could find.

Resting is ambiguous, because the glossary definition of healing includes restoring hit points via rest, but resting lacks references to being a healing effect. So there have been back and forth arguments on whether it counts as healing or not.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You're completely correct, it's a neat combination, though in practice somewhat awkward to take full advantage of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
If I have learned anything from being on this forum, it is that if a GM doesn't like something they will nerf it - whether the rules allow that or not.

But the GM isn't nerfing anything. They're following the rules, which provide vague guidance on what's reasonable in any given situation.

"There's no point in having a specific rule because a GM might change it" is kind of just an argument against tabletop systems in general.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
Because that isn't a problem that can be fixed with rules.

I don't see why not, considering it's one created by a change in the rules in the first place.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:


My point is that a) I disagree, they *are* actually basic actions - most of them really don’t need “very specific training” to accomplish (which is why I categorise things like Double Slice, Exacting Strike or Point Blank Stance as “something I don’t think *only* fighters need to be able to do, and nor should it require a feat”) and b) I really am not concerned about “merging” or “distinct playstyles”. Whacking stuff to death is *the* oldest profession.

This is why I think Fighter is kind of a bad idea for a class. Because it has no identity beyond 'fighting', which is something literally every class in the game is expected to be good at, it doesn't really have a lot of room for growth and development on its own.

What ends up inevitably happening is that in order to make the Fighter stand out, the rest of the martial ecosystem is eroded in order to artificially create a niche for them. Things that could just be an aspect of being a martial instead become 'cool fighter things' because what else is a fighter, and everyone else sucks a little more.

PF2 does a slightly better job of not letting the fighter ruin the game than PF1, but echoes of this show up in basically every system adjacent to modern D&D.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
John R. wrote:
Who has even ever seen a player character in this system wield two weapons in 1 hand without houserulimg?

Literally the premise of the bayonet/reinforced stock.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jacob Jett wrote:
Unfortunately, my interpretation of your diatribe is that the "correct" fighter build is "sword and board," to which I say, piffle.

What a weird thing to say when that's literally nowhere in their post.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You also have proficiency with longspears that you'll probably never use, so what? If you don't want to use shields that's fine, just don't.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HammerJack wrote:


You wouldn't expect to see them not trigger Reactions in PFS, either. The campaign rules do not, in fact, have people run the game by tortured "technically, there isn't a formal enough description of how this obvious thing (with clear intent) works, so jump to wild consequences, instead" logic instead of by their honest understanding of how the rules are supposed to work.

I mean I get where you're coming from abut RAI, but pointing out that the compatibility errata has no commentary on components and traits is neither a small thing nor is it some egregious act of malice to suggest the rules should have more clarity here.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Paco_Laburantes wrote:


Tome (plus the already talked about diverse lore) completely eats the Investigator's lunch.

That would require the Investigator to have a lunch to eat.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The ability doesn't even say "this last X rounds" so it's not 'every other' in the first place.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ElementalofCuteness wrote:
Is this one of those Erratas that need to happen solely based on the fact it is impossible to heal a construct Familiar?

The wild thing is that this is the errata.

Ravingdork wrote:
So how are we to know where the line was intended to be drawn? It literally just says "The familiar is immune to ... healing, ..." not "healing effects." Seems pretty all encompassing to me.

Not really an issue mechanically. "Immune to healing" is the standardized terminology used for this kind of effect, and healing is a keyword.

It's stupid, but restoring hit points and healing are not the same thing (in the same way that hostile actions and attacks are different).

1 to 50 of 8,502 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>