Psychopomp, Shoki

SuperBidi's page

Organized Play Member. 730 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 730 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I'm with noble drake on that. Treat Wounds is not supposed to be able to put everyone to top between fights. It's just there to reduce the use of resources on healing.
Once you get Continual Recovery, it gets a bit better at treating between fights, but it still asks for quite some time that you won't have all the time.
So, in the case of your party, they need potions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:

Well I would note that in this case the familiar isn't wielding it. So not sure if its explicitly applicable.

(Unless there is a reload only whjile wielding clause somewhere I can't find. WHich wouldn't surprise me)

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.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

So you expect a mechanic to work differently based on a given thematic or GM ruling. I never said anything against games running differently; matter of fact, to each their own. I’m just not going to try and pass off subjective interpretation of how a rule should work based on the preference of each individual person. There’s no consistent reason that a Magically bonded creature that is Magically/Alchemically gifted to manipulate objects like a humanoid, should be gated from activities based on the whimsy of each individual GM; unless it’s a houserule that is.

For curiosity sake, is there any information to suggest that it’s not allowable via RAI? Or is that just your interpretation based on your personal preference?

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.
So, depending on the GM views of size of weapon compared to size of your familiar, he can prevent you from doing it. It's not a mechanic working differently, it's a GM houseruling because you ask him so. RAW, you just can't.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
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".

Zwordsman wrote:

I do really hope they expand in detail how to use inhaled poisons. I know they kind of skimpped on it because it wn't come up until higher level games generally.

but currently we have no real way of knowing (that I can findi) how to use it exactly.
Its an interact to spread... But does that mean you can only open it on yourself in your hand?
Or can you throw it as part of that interact? If so.. range? It would be nice if they simplified it and stated that throwing inhale poisons work the same way as a bomb. Interact+strike single action to prep and throw with the same ranges (and preferably the same benefits of feat improvals)

because in general, it feels like the best way to use poisons, other than sneaking and poisoning dinner, is to get a bunch in the small aoe poison cloud.

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.

BellyBeard wrote:

I agree with your findings in the general case. However, focusing fire means the enemy dies quicker, which could mean they die before the poison has full effect. So there still may be cases where you want to tag a lesser target with poison early in the fight to maximize damage I think, but I can't say when that might be because that probably requires a pretty detailed analysis comparing your party's damage and average HP for monsters. Even still, maximum damage probably won't be as valuable as eliminating a target.

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.

BellyBeard wrote:
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.
Single exposure on 2 creature = 5d6 damage on 2 creatures.

Subsequent rounds:
In case of monsters making all their saves:
Double exposure = 16d6 of damage on one creature.
Single exposure on 2 creatures = 5d6 on 2 creatures.

In case of monsters making one save and failing the other:
Double exposure = 22d6 or 25d6 on one creature, at stage 2 after 2 rounds.
Single exposure on 2 creatures = 5d6 on one creature, 11d6 on another one, at stage 2.

In case of monsters failing all their saves:
Double exposure = 19d6 on one creature, at stage 3 after one round.
Single exposure on 2 creatures = 11d6 on 2 creatures, both at stage 2.

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.
And martials need up to date weapons and armor to be fully efficient, when casters don't need weapons and can live with honorable armors. All these computations are always assuming the Fighter has a top of the notch rune, which may not happen all the time.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AsmodeusDM wrote:
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.

AsmodeusDM wrote:
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.

Fumarole wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
So, Fuzzy-Wuzzy answer is right, you can delay as long as it's not back to your turn, even if it means acting during the next round.
I don't see why not. If one of my players delayed and delayed all the way until their turn in the next round, then their character effectively did nothing for a round, skipping their turn. It would be the same result as if they "spent" all three actions to do nothing.

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 the rules say you can delay an entire round (hour), you don't stop it when you change round (hour) but when your are back at the very same moment in the next round (hour).
So, Fuzzy-Wuzzy answer is right, you can delay as long as it's not back to your turn, even if it means acting during the next round.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
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.

Haaaa, I missed that. I thought by "on guard" it was meaning guard duty (I'm not native english speaker, so sometimes I make interpretation mistakes).
And if you are the one generating the event that triggers the combat, like shooting with a Crossbow?

Vlorax wrote:
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.

And, as a side note, unless you're an Outwit Ranger, you are in general next to your Prey, so no need for it to do more than a Step to get to you.

"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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syries wrote:
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.

Ascalaphus wrote:
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 :-)

Hi everyone,

Terrain Stalker says that you can Stealth without attempting a Stealth check under certain circumstances.
What happens if you have to start a fight with a character hiding in such a way? On paper, he should have infinite initiative as he can't be detected at all. But Avoid Notice rules say you should roll a Stealth check both for your initiative and to determine who sees you... I'm a bit confused :-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Yes, I was answering to Ascalaphus considering that Disrupt Prey being a free action is an error. If you remove that from Disrupt Prey, it loses a lot of it's interest.

Drawing a weapon triggers attacks of opportunity.

Disrupt Prey has so many limitations: Only against prey, not against ranged attacks. If it's only advantage over Attack of Opportunity is that you get it 2 levels earlier and that it disrupts movements, it's not worth taking.

Thanks a lot. I was really puzzled not finding this rule.

Hi everyone,

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?

Fumarole wrote:
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.
So, what I do when I want to make critical failures secret is using the critical failure die. As most critical failures happen on only one result on the d20 (natural 1, if the player is properly skilled), I secretly roll a d20 on my side, which is the critical failure value.
When a player announces me a result which is equal to the critical failure die or 20 more than it, I consider his roll to be a critical failure.

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.

Quandary wrote:
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.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Your Dwarf can just hide behind a wall. Your Dwarf can draw a bow. Your Dwarf can do tons of things other than running after an Elf. If he doesn't have a range weapon and if he's on an open field, then I think he gets what he earns.

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.
I won't apply it if all characters are speaking to different persons or saying very distinct things, if they are playing different instruments or climbing through different trails.
If they can imitate the expert, I apply it. If they have to make their own task, I don't.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:

By RAW, it removes a verbal component, but then it adds it's own action. So you use less actions, then use more and end up the same.

Theoretically if there was a spell with 2 (or 3) explicit verbal actions, then it would reduce the casting time to 1 action I guess.

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.

Well, on paper, it can apply, but very hardly. Anyway, axe critical specialization is very hard to trigger. Certainly one of the worst specializations you can get unless you play a character with a very good ability at attracting attention.

Ten10 wrote:
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.
It's true that they have in general as many actions as they have components, but I don't think it's stated anywhere that removing a component should remove an action.

I've looked at high level monsters, and it looks like this maneuver stops working at some point. At level 10, there are extremely few monsters that could get tripped thanks to assurance. Even if you face a level 8 one.

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.
I would avoid anything really complex, like puzzles or long investigation or tight diplomacy. I'll also make fights quite easy, and avoid anything like deaths or crippling fights.
And I'll stick to short sessions, no more than two hours, with very quick actions (no long duration fights, very quick switches between exploration, roleplay and fight). This last point is the toughest as you may lose everyone in a matter of minutes. The hardest being fights, as waiting between rounds can take ages, especialy if you are incapacitated. I don't know how big your table will be, the smallest the better. And if some adults play, ask them to play very quickly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You no more need to charge in straight line.

krazmuze wrote:
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.

K1 wrote:

I am just trying to understand.

About the calcolation you made, it is ok to say that power attack uses 2 actions, but we can say tha if we compare 2 scenarios

1) first

-first attack > power attack +36 hit
-second attack > attack + 31 hit

2) second

-first attack > Normal attack +36hit
-second attack > Normal attack + 31 hit
-third attack > Normal attack + 26 hit

He compared:

1) first

-first attack > power attack +36 hit

2) second

-first attack > Normal attack +36hit
-second attack > Normal attack + 31 hit

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.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorcerer, definitely.
With a prepared caster, you'll have to memorize blast spells as many times as you need them, and if you make a mistake, you'll either lose the versatility of your class or end up with no more blast spell.
With a spontaneous caster, you don't lose the versatility of your class because of your blast spells, especially if you tend to like a small subset of them. And you can't end up with no more blasts left unless you have no more spells at all.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

So at least given RAW, all of the ways to make a weapon beyond a +1 weapon require explicit crafting checks. This includes transferring runes. If your party doesn't have someone with the Craft skill, how exactly would you get these items?

Sure, you can potentially sell your +2 sword and then buy a +3 sword in its place, but the rules around runes seem to be structured so as to avoid this cost overhead. You could also pay someone to do it.... but the only hirelings you can hire are at best +4 in a skill, which isn't going to get the job done.

Seems like more concrete rules for this are needed. For a home game, it's fine to rule that there's some base cost for a blacksmith to transfer a rune. For Society play, it seems like this is going to create big headaches...

Did I miss something here?

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?
If yes, how do they interact with a doubling ring (one way or another, can a doubling ring "enchant" shield spikes and can a doubling ring "enchant" the weapon in your other hand with the shield spikes runes).
How do they react to a shifting rune? Can I just change them into any other one-handed weapon, automatically removing them from the shield?

I think it makes a good number of questions!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

So, noone has an answer to my question?

I haven't found the place where Push is defined in the rules.
Do I have to Push an enemy exactly in the opposite direction from me.
Or can I push it diagonaly?

For example:
Y is exactly in the opposite direction, while Xs are in diagonal.

1 to 50 of 730 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>