It doesn't say wield, it says use. Reloading is part of the weapon use.
Anyway, the only thing I say is that there is no RAW allowing a familiar to do so. It's houserule territory. As a DM, I would allow it in the current state of the rules as it's far from overpowered.
Yes. Giant Barbarian:"You can use a weapon built for a Large creature if you are Small or Medium (both normally and when raging). If you’re not Small or Medium, you can use a weapon built for a creature one size larger than you."
Using a weapon 2 sizes category above yours is forbidden.
This is actually what I’m asking. Reload only asks for two interact actions via RAW. Manual Dexterity allows Familiars to use actions with the Manipulate trait; one of which is the Interact action. 1 Command action telling the familiar to use two Interact actions to reload the crossbow. If there’s something else included in reloading somewhere in the CRB it doesn’t come to mind, and I’ve posted the rules on reload in a previous post; so it sounds like not allowing as much would be the houserule; unless there’s a piece of information I’m missing that you may know of.
Well, I can manipulate a door built for Huge creatures, but I'll certainly have to make a Strength check or something to do it. It's not an action that I should expect to perform automatically "because RAW".
Rules state that you save against inhaled poison only when entering the cloud. So, currently, it's useless to throw it as it doesn't affect the creatures in it when it spreads. It can only be used defensively. But I agree it's clearly ridiculous that way and should be rewritten.
Well, considering that you can only prepoison a few weapons and that enemies will succeed half of their saves, this question should not be raised often.In my opinion, the important part of poison is alpha strike: it greatly improves the damage of your party during the 2 first rounds. If, thanks to poison, you manage to drop a foe, you made a great impact on the fight. Optimizing damage in the long run is less important than scoring quick kills.
Another avenue of exploration would be multiple exposures against one creature VS poisoning two different creatures.
It's better to make multiple exposures against one creature. It can be calculated very easily. For example, if you take Wyvern Poison and 2 exposures:
Double exposure = 11d6 of damage on one creature.
In case of monsters making one save and failing the other:
In case of monsters failing all their saves:
So, as you can see, the only case where focusing on multiple creatures is roughly equivalent to poisoning one multiple times is if the monsters fail all their saves. So, unless the monsters you face have suboptimal Fortitude saves, it's better to poison multiple times the same creature (also, focus fire is a far better combat tactic than spreading damage).
Considering how movement is easy in PF2, AoE spells should be easier to land properly if your martials take a step back.
Also, Casters have Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma as main attribute. Most martials have Strength. There's one Strength-based skill, and 4 for each mental attributes. In terms of out of combat effectiveness, martials are still rolling less often. And many spells have out of combat utility when martial abilities with out of combat utility are the exception.
So, in my opinion, it's fair for martials to be stronger during combat than casters.
Hiruma Kai wrote:
More on topic, many tactics may become obvious to lower intelligence characters or monsters when they see others using them successfully, or simply through trial, error and experience. If they've successfully fought 10 battles, even a low int character is likely to have learned something about tactics, and what does and doesn't work for them.
Corrida bulls fight only once. A bull who already fought once is deadly danger to a matador.
Or not a allow a PC to move to flank because their INT was 6?
Got it around one of my tables. A Charisma-damaged character, getting under 5, forgetting to flank as he was not seeing the point of coordinating with other people.My 7 Intelligence Druid's spell list is full of Bull Strength and Barkskin, and rarely more "intelligent" spells unless someone points out that it could be useful.
My Paladin taking all the swarms on himself.
My CN Alchemist having other characters telling him to stop putting everything on fire (and him very reluctantly switching to cold damage).
Yesterday, my Mechanic lost his drone to lava. He fell on his knees doing nothing during one round until our Soldier took his action to get him back on his feet, telling him it was not the best moment to grieve.
Also, not sure what groups you guys play in, but my group plays in total mind-link level when we are planning our turns even if we are hundreds of feet apart in the dungeon.
Not in the games I play. If you are hundreds of feet appart you don't know anything of what happens, and I got situations where the DM was asking Perception checks to realize one of our comrades was crying for help.
I know, as a player, that I would not stay in a group where combat is only viewed from a tactical point of view.
My formulation was not ideal. I was trying to say it stops when it's back to your turn.
I see where the confusion may come from. Rounds are (like hours) both a measure of time and duration. So, there is round 1, round 2, round 3 (1PM, 2PM, 3PM) and there is 1 round, 2 rounds, 3 rounds (1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours).
When a fight breaks out, you are now playing a different game; now you are playing a miniatures games where the GM and the players are against each other and that is fun in its own right and perhaps a game that is much more fun for the GM. The GM plays his hardest even in an encounter that is designed to be stacked against him and both sides try their hardest to win. That can be rewarding for the player and the GM. I would say that 4e DnD works pretty well that way, actually.
I'm sorry, but there are differences between playing harshly and making hit and run tactics with zombies. Monsters have to be played according to their respective intelligence and mindset.Also, if you play like a wargame, then why bother rolling Recall Knowledge checks? Just take the Bestiary and check the monsters' statistics.
Playing harshly is not playing badly. It's putting a high difficulty level to combats by playing monsters to the best of their abilities, without crossing the boundary of realism.
If something else alerts them to the rest of your party, and the GM calls for everyone to roll initiative, you roll stealth for initiative just as you would normally, and remain unnoticed unless your stealth check fails to beat the enemy Perception DC.
You don't see the issue with your ruling? The enemies can't see me, and then because they roll initiative they can see me. And only by rolling initiative as if we were in combat they would not see me either. I don't think rolling initiative is a way to see invisible things.
"Select one type of difficult terrain from the following list: rubble, snow, or underbrush. While undetected by all non-allies in that type of terrain, you can Sneak without attempting a Stealth check as long as you move no more than 5 feet and do not move within 10 feet of an enemy at any point during your movement. This also allows you to automatically approach creatures to within 15 feet while Avoiding Notice during exploration as long as they aren’t actively Searching or on guard."
Well, it's pretty clear that I don't roll anything while Avoiding Notice. I'm automatically hidden, and stay hidden. Hence my problem.
The only different between AoO and Disrupt Prey is that you must have already used Hunt Prey and ranged attacks don’t trigger it. Reach based rangers still get plenty of use out of Disrupt Prey, even if it is slightly weaker
Rangers are in general using one handed weapons. So it's either a non-lethal Whip or a ridiculous (unless you're a Gnome) Flickmace.It gets pretty limited for a feat to work with only one single uncommon advanced weapon or non-classical builds.
But if you really think it should be a free action, can you explain how rangers are supposed to use Snap Shot?
If you look at the rules about Step, you'll see that they don't speak about free actions. But then, they say somewhere else that free actions and reactions have the same behavior regarding triggers and they quote specifically Step. It looks to me that they forgot to speak about free actions in quite a few places.So, you can consider that the error is with Disrupt Prey, or you can consider the error is on Snap Shot :-)
Terrain Stalker says that you can Stealth without attempting a Stealth check under certain circumstances.
I have the same point of view: In my opinion, there's a flaw in your party making it very weak against hit and run strategies, and enemies tend to use and abuse it as they are supposed to challenge you.
On the other hand, as a DM, I would avoid using all the time the same strategy, as it's no fun for my players.
I don't see orcs acting that way, unless there's a very clear advantage compared to move and 2 times Strike. If it's a choke point, as pointed above, it's the best tactic. But on an open field, orcs will certainly jump into melee and stay there. It's a tactic I would use with more nimble enemies, elves for example.
I'm curious about the trigger "leaves a square during a move action". I've seen rules to avoid triggering multiple actions with the same trigger, but no rules to avoid triggering multiple triggers with the same action. So, with actions like Disrupt Prey, am I right to assume that this trigger will be triggered at each square, leading to a potentially crazy number of attacks?
One nice thing about using the system this way is that I can make a secret roll against one of their skills without their knowledge that a check is even happening, such as when they approach a hazard, so that they are not tipped off that something may be about to happen.
How do you handle conditional and temporal bonuses (and penalties)?It's always what annoys me (as a player) with secret checks. I have to remind the GM all bonuses and penalties I have. And if he does them completely secretly, I'm certainly screwed of a part of them.
I really hate to roll my player's checks.
It makes critical failures absolutely invisible and very nasty as the player is g@~ d$$n sure he rolled high enough. So, it's very close to having someone g+% d*#n sure White Dragons are fire resistant.
Or... just limit speed disparities so 3xDwarfMove >= 2xElfMove. The stated problem doesn't exist for 25 vs 35 speed, nor for 20 vs 25, nor for 20 vs 30 (which was 3.x/P1E ratio).
You just need 5 more feet of movement to make double move shoot while the enemy can't do anything (unless he has Attack of Opportunity or Sudden Charge).The new system is very different on movement. Now, moving is an extremely powerfull action, move speed bonuses are extremely important and having a ranged option is both very viable and nearly mandatory.
I'm with BellyBeard on that. I would clearly house-rule that a Chirurgeon Alchemist can use his ranks in Crafting instead of his ranks in Medicine for feats prerequisites and Medicine uses but I would not do it for Natural Medicine. Being able to replace one skill for another on the most common Medicine use would be way overpowered for a first level feat.
In my opinion, as long as all characters are doing the same thing, I'll apply Follow the Expert. So, it works if all characters are sneaking, telling the same lie, singing the same song or making good impression to the same person or group of person.
That's not the way people are reading it. It doesn't remove an action, just a component. So you end up increasing the number of actions by one.
I call BS on that. That +1 is exactly one number on the d20, that means everyone at the table has to be rolling that exact number multiple times over every encounter in order for the (as you call them) 'feel the difference'.
Multiple times over every encounter? That's not feeling the difference, that's rolling a d3 for your attack rolls.A +1 to hit is nearly equivalent to 15% overall damage. That's the level of difference you can feel without having to roll dice for ages. You can tell me you can't feel a 15% difference in damage, and I would agree that it's around the lowest difference a human can feel. But it's also the smallest bonus you can get, a +2 to hit is felt at each and every combat (+25% damage is equivalent to power attacking in PF1, you clearly feel the difference). So, you don't need big differences in DPR to have immediate and clear effects.
Your ruling seems to be the proper one, by RAW. Spells have a certain number of action that is independant from their spell component.
I really think a group of such age can handle most adventures. I'll obviously avoid any evil characters at the table, and will paint most of the adventure in bright colors. As long as you avoid sexual expliciy content (I've rarely faced any) and don't go into details about the bad guys wrongdoings, it should be fine. I watched Terminator at 8 and didn't make nightmares out of it.
I think the biggest issues you will face are concentration and level of play.
1. Tell that to DPR optimizers who have long ignored that the encounter is over before they achieved their average damage with reliability.
I think you don't understand that DPR optimizers (as you call them) don't care about achieving their average damage. What they do care about, on the other hand, is that their DPR difference actually influence battle. You don't need more than 3 fights to feel a difference of +1 on a d20 (which is the smallest difference you can get in PF2 system). So, optimizing DPR has immediate and visible impact.
He compared:1) first
-first attack > power attack +36 hit
-first attack > Normal attack +36hit
You rarely have a third action to attack. But you're right that in that case, Power Attack may end up being better than not power attacking.
Spontaneous casters are the obvious choice when you want to cast many times the same spell.
There is a difference in description between bucklers and larger shields. Bucklers say they are strapped, others don't (even if, at first, I would tend to assume it, but as they occupy a hand they may not need to be strapped).
Also, if there isn't a "strap" action, how many actions does it cost to strap my shield?
I think something's missing.
How did you end up with noone having Crafting? In a standard party of four, you have 2 trained characters per skill on average. And that's without any kind of skill monkey. Having all skills around a table is now the basic situation that most balanced parties should achieve.
Hi everyone, it's me again for a whole new batch of questions. Shields up!
I haven't found in the rules the "strap a shield" and "unstrap a shield" actions, so I assume I just need one action to retrieve a shield and strap it, and it's a free action to let go a shield?
Can you etch runes on shield bosses and shield spikes?
I think it makes a good number of questions!
Hiruma Kai wrote:
There are two different questions being asked, which have different statistical answers.
That's it. And that's why I say Krazmuze is not "calculating the proper thing". When you calculate your DPR, you want to assess your own build efficiency. You don't want to compare it to anyone else's.
Also, this story of "someone else looking at your efficiency and determining your DPR" is kind of flawed. Around a table, everyone sees what you roll. If you always roll over 15, people won't think that your dagger build is overpowered, everyone will think you're plain lucky. On the other side, if you never roll over 5, people won't blame your build. It's very easy to assess the efficiency of a character when you see what he rolls.
I agree, the same distance and same direction give the information that you can choose different directions. I'll keep this reading as long as there are no erratas on Shove.
I must admit, Bull Rush was not excellent in PF1, Shove is far better. With Assurance and three actions, you can push whoever you want 2 or 3 squares. Fights next to a cliff will completely change.
Bardic Dave wrote:
I think you’re misreading my post; I’m not suggesting that variance can help you determine the relative value of increased DPR vs improved decpetion. I’m saying that if variance can show that within a projected number of sessions a +1 bonus will not be statistically significant, you might feel more inclined to invest that +1 based solely on personal preference. This isn’t a non-sequitur, it’s my entire point.
Very easy to calculate. You need 22 d20 rolls for a +1 to be statistically significant 90% of the time, and 11 for a +2.If it's an attack roll, if we consider 2 attacks per round, and 4 rounds of combat, you have it statistically significant after 3 fights with 90% chance. So, just one session.
All the variance calculation in this thread is just plain wrong. The 5000 rolls are just a maths mistake. A +1 is very quickly significant.