Search Posts
The removal of the magical trait is likely an error that occurred when they removed its school of magic. However, you only need Magical Crafting to Craft a magic item, not to Repair it.
This paragraph? Statistics should be balanced overall. That means if you’re giving a creature an extreme statistic, it should have some low or terrible statistics to compensate. For example, if you were making a creature extremely hard to hit by giving it an extreme AC, you’d likely give it lower saving throws or low HP. If a creature is great at spellcasting, it might need several low statistics to be a balanced challenge. There’s no perfect system for making these decisions. If you’ve made a creature that has four high stats and nothing low, or vice-versa, take another look. A creature’s strengths and weaknesses change the PCs’ strategies for dealing with it, and that’s what makes playing the game fun! This paragraph is about balancing higher stats with lower stats, not using dangerous abilities in place of higher stats. The Strike Damage section does hint at this though, saying agile or ranged Strikes should deal lower damage.
Isn't there a point though? If we want to homebrew monsters at level 20 and up, this is useful stuff to know. Will the monster be a cakewalk without both the extreme increases and the improved action economy? Or will it turn into a TPK machine with both?
I was under the impression that higher level monsters were supposed to get both the extreme increases and the improved action economy. Or is the Grim Reaper the only higher level monster that has both, hence the complaints?
Hold up. The Vrolikai also does not have three or four extreme statistics. Its black flame knife Strike modifier is the only one. Unless you count Focused Flame, which is two actions and therefore warrants extreme damage. Are we supposed to count the damage of Focused Flame as an extreme statistic? Are the extreme increases not limited to its unaltered Strikes and other base abilities?
At the higher levels of the game, PCs have more tools at their disposal, so the creatures they face need to hit back harder! At higher levels, give each creature more extreme statistics. Having one extreme statistic becomes typical around 11th level. A creature of 15th level or higher typically has two extreme statistics, and one of 20th level or higher should have three or four. Keep in mind that these should be relevant to the encounters you expect them to have—extreme social skills aren’t much use to a combat-focused creature. Be careful about giving multiple extreme statistics that are closely linked: a creature with extreme damage and Fortitude saves is one thing, but having an extreme attack bonus and extreme damage allows the creature to apply both extreme statistics to each attack. According to this guidance in the monster building rules, a level 20 creature should have three or four extreme statistics, yet the ancient diabolic dragon doesn't have any. Why is that? Did a general lack of low/terrible stats lead the devs to decide it didn't need any extreme stats?
I'm talking about the doubling of rune damage on a crit in general. I don't know if or how Foundry handles the shock crit effect, but I assume Foundry expects you to manually reduce the HP of the secondary targets.
Mind Swap has the possession trait. How much of this trait actually applies? For instance, would half the damage dealt to one body be dealt as mental damage to the other body? Can the primary caster be immune to mental effects as long as they are not a target of the spell?
The more I read this and the texts of runes the more I think that runes' damage was never intended to double on crits and supposed to be just a bit of damage 'on top' plus additional specific effects on crits. Any basis for claiming that every player, GM, and VTT implementation has been wrong about this game for the past 6 years? The base damage added by the rune is explicitly not exclusive to a critical hit, which means a critical hit doubles it. As for the shock rune, the damage is also not exclusive to a critical hit. It's just that said damage is normally only dealt to the initial target, and now it's also being dealt to two other targets.
Normally, when a spell wants to use a die expression again for a different instance of damage, it actually prints out the die expression a second time because it's more readable and takes up less space than "equal amount of". For instance, Live Wire doesn't say, "The wire deals 1d4 piercing damage and an equal amount of electricity damage. On a critical hit, deal double damage and an equal amount of persistent electricity damage."
The playtest version did not claim the 1d6 to the other targets was equal to the 2*1d6 to the initial target. There's no reason to conclude that the up to date version is using "equal" as a substitute for 1d6, especially since "equal amount of" takes up a lot more space than "1d6." The whole point of the playtest was to see what needed fixing, as evidently this rune did.
If they actually wanted the other targets to take 1d6 damage, why not just write "deal 1d6 damage to up to 2 other targets?" It makes more sense that what the amount of damage dealt is meant to be equal to is an actual amount of damage dealt rather than a damage roll reference.
Yeah, otherwise, what is the electricity damage even equal to?
I agree that the already doubled electricity damage is what the damage to the other targets is equal to. If it was meant to deal the undoubled damage, the crit effect would likely say "deal electricity damage to up to two other creatures of your choice within 10 feet of the target. This damage is equal to the result of the electricity damage die you rolled."
To determine intent with game balance, let's compare it to the flaming rune. It's the same level after all. Flaming causes the weapon to do an additional 1d6 fire on a hit, plus 1d10 persistent fire on a crit. So in terms of power, which interpretation is closer to 1d10 persistent fire? 1d6 electricity to two other creatures, or 2*1d6 electricity to two other creatures?
The word "flying" would only refer to the Fly action if it were capitalized, no? And I don't see what about the examples makes it clear that it's akin to Tumble Through. The examples are famously the most confusing part of the action, since they are all things the Fly action can already do.
The Fly action says you fall at the end of your turn if you didn't use a Fly action this round. Maneuver in Flight doesn't appear to use a subordinate Fly action, so does it not satisfy this requirement?
PFS ruleset mentions this. A number of deities died during 2024 as part of the War of Immortals event. Dead deities do not provide mechanical benefits. Any character using a character option that explicitly receives power from a deity who dies receives a free rebuild automatically, which does not expire.
Wait, I just realized something. If mythic characters count as mythic creatures for the purpose of overcoming mythic resistance, then what does Mythic Strike even do? You need to be a mythic character to take it, so overcoming mythic resistance isn't useful. And at level 10, nothing is going to have mythic immunity. So all that leaves us with is the ability to Strike with mythic proficiency. But if that's your goal, why not just Strike then Rewrite Fate if you miss? Edit: I'm an idiot. Rewrite Fate only works on skill checks and saving throws.
I haven't decided what side I'm taking here, but I will point out that spellcasters, especially late game casters, have numerous options that let them antagonize enemies without allowing a saving throw at all. But this is little comfort to spontaneous casters, who can't change their entire loadout after a rest.
When I couldn't consume the replay when reporting, the player insisted they had 6 replays available and had never played the scenario with this character before. So I sent out all the Chronicles, so that this apparent glitch wouldn't hold up other sessions my players were scheduled to attend. Then I contacted pfsreportingerrors@paizo.com for assistance in the matter. Alex Speidel eventually replied, stating that the player actually had zero replays and I should direct him to get one so I can click the box. The player had no idea they spent all 6 replays. Unfortunately, they don't have enough Achievement Points to get another, so they said they'd work on earning enough to get a replay then tell me so I can click the box. I sent Alex another email for more guidance. But can I even rescind a Chronicle I already awarded? Should I? I seem to recall that players aren't usually allowed to play without receiving Credit, unlike GMs.
One of my players replayed a scenario with the intent to spend a replay. They only realized afterward that they didn't have any left, and they don't have enough Achievement Points to buy another. Do I now need to wait for the player to save up enough points before I can properly report their results?
Oh, that's right. The Event Organizer is ultimately the one who reports the event and clicks the box. In my case, I was both the GM and the Event Organizer.
Your GM does need to click Consume Replay, yes. As far as I can tell, that player who didn't have any replays to consume still hasn't received the reputation he earned with the chosen or bonus factions.
If you told the GM you are consuming a replay, they should just be able to check the relevant box. If you are seeing that error message under Notes, the GM probably either hasn't clicked it yet or cannot click it. In my case, I the GM can't click the player's box because the player failed to purchase a replay with achievement points. And now I need to wait for them to earn enough points to buy a replay so I can actually finish reporting the scenario. It's also possible that replaying a scenario with the same character would prevent the GM from clicking it, since the same character usually can't play a given scenario twice even with a replay.
Claim undead is also uncommon, but players get access through the oracle's bones mystery, which is common.
A common level 20 bard spell grants Pied Piping, an AoE focus spell that inflicts controlled on a failure. Wait, actually it inflicts the minion trait. It might not be using the word controlled to refer to the condition.
Petrify has the added benefit that only the repeat saves have incapacitation.
My understanding is that adventure paths (i.e. Gatewalkers) come with a Player's Guide to advise the players' character creation and give an idea of what options will work very well for the campaign and what options will likely be unhelpful. Does Pathfinder Society have anything like that? Something to help players avoid dead options like Group Impression or Carryall? I think that would be very useful.
Profane Bargain, added in War of Immortals, gives a few methods of controlling someone remotely.
And I suppose I understand from a player perspective that you would much prefer to get a save on every attack you're forced to make against your allies, but I honestly can't abide that interpretation. Woah, I wasn't suggesting that a crit fail allows more saves. The crit fail locks the repeat saves behind an additional Boolean condition. The save still happens at the end of each of your turns. It's just that you also need to have received a new order, or else you get no save.
Anyway, the crit fail affect for Dominate adds an extra condition for making the repeat save, but doesn't change the timing. If we apply the "as failure" text... "You control the target. It gains the controlled condition, but it can attempt a Will save at the end of each of its turns. On a success, the spell ends. The target receives a new save only if you give it a new order that is against its nature, such as killing its allies." It says "if", not "when". So you'd give an antinatural order, the target would start complying, then save at the end of their turn. But after that, they don't get another save if you don't give them a new order against their nature, even if they haven't finished carrying out the first order.
Some controlling effects apply the minion trait to the target, while others state that they rely on orders. Here are some examples. Claim Undead: almost identical to Dominate, but with more harmful conditions and it only works on undead Specter's Spectral Corruption: "The creature is controlled by the specter, obeying the specter's telepathic or spoken orders, though a spectral thrall does not obey obviously self-destructive orders." Those are the only examples I was able to find. Spectral Corruption at least makes it clear that the control requires the specter to actually communicate with the target. But Dominate doesn't give us much guidance on how the control works. There's no auditory or linguistic traits, so it's possible the orders are being broadcast directly into the target's mind, as though the target were an extension of the caster's body. Then again, the controlled condition says the controller "dictates" how the target uses their actions. That's just a synonym for "order." Perhaps the spell doesn't need to say you control the target by ordering them since the condition already says that. Actually, I'm an idiot. The spell outright describes "killing its allies" as a possible order, so it only makes sense that a general order could be used to direct multiple actions. I guess the fact that there is one repeat save even for a crit fail does give at least some reason to pick other incap spells of the same rank. I was just worried that wasn't enough. But in my search for controlling effects, I actually found a lot of things that remove controlled, provide a bonus against it, or are just flat out immune, so maybe it's not as big a deal as I thought.
I disagree. As I've already stated, the difference in interpretations is also relevant for the crit fail effect. If the party is facing a spellcaster boss who casts dominate on the fighter, it's going to be extremely important. According to one interpretation, the fighter gets to repeat the save at the end of each turn if he's been ordered to Strike the wizard again. In the other interpretation, the fighter only gets one single repeat save, and the whole party dies if he fails. I think the latter is too broken. But I think something like an exploration activity would only require one order since it's one specific action, albeit a lengthy one. If the controller is knocked out, the order would probably still be completed unless the activity is interrupted.
Yes. Paizo got back to me. Apparently the player has zero replays and never checked because they bought six and didn't remember spending any, so I've directed them to purchase another replay. New problem. They don't have enough Achievement Points to buy one replay. They've promised to work on earning enough points to buy another replay, then message me so I can click Consume Replay. In the meantime, this isn't going to prevent other players from receiving credit, is it?
No. In fact, I was able to click Consume Replay for two players who also wanted to consume a replay.
For either spell, Sense Motive against the spell DC would reveal abnormal behavior on a success. On a critical success, you'd get a solid idea of what magics are affecting the creature. So possession wouldn't be more effective for such subterfuge. But I will concede that combining a creature's physical abilities with your own mental abilities probably opens up a lot of jank that warranted a higher rank spell slot. Additionally, dominate doesn't tell you what the target is sensing, so possession has that benefit, too. But I find the idea of a single order being enough to direct multiple actions (in the event of a dominate crit fail) to be too powerful. Try comparing the spell to other incapacitation spells of the same rank. Cursed Metamorphosis:
Never Mind:
Suffocate (sustained):
The crit fails are devastating, but dominate is different because it doesn't just make you lose actions. It gives them to the caster, which can seriously turn the tide against your entire party. If you allow one order (i.e. kill all my enemies whenever we're in combat) to encompass multiple actions, you end up with this: Dominate:
That's why I think every action the dominator forces the target to perform should count as an individual order. The alternative is just ridiculously powerful even for a rank 6 spell.
As far as comparing it to possession....yes possession is generally worse unless you specifically want to use the victim's body for a specific purposes (imitation, or perhaps their immense power). I don't actually think that's a problem, to me they're spells with different purposes. What purpose can possession fulfill that dominate can't do better? The latter belongs to every tradition except primal, lasts until your next daily preparations (or forever with a rank 10 slot), and lets you control someone with no actions spent. The former belongs only to occult, lasts 1 minute (10 minutes at rank 9), and requires you to give up all your actions to control someone. AND your unconscious body is still in the room for people to wail on (unless the spell is heightened to rank 9). The only benefit possession seems to have over dominate is that it doesn't allow repeat saves on a crit fail. But even that isn't much of an upside if a dominate crit fail just lets you control someone with a single order for an entire day with only one repeat save.
One of my players has 6 replays and wants to consume one, but the replay box is greyed out when I try to report the session. Any idea what would cause this?
The final boss of the last Equal Exchanges scenario, Tapestry of the Mind, is extremely difficult (in high tier), though my party did all survive. Spoiler: The final boss is a morrowkin named the Librarian. He has an AoE that inflicts mental damage and varying amounts of doomed (up to doomed 4 in high tier on a critical failure, which has roughly a 40 to 50% chance of happening due to the DC). He also has a whirlwind Strike ability with reach, and his Strikes force a saving throw against being doomed 1 or 2 and a curse that imposes misfortune on all checks. If the Librarian uses this whirlwind Strike first to dish out as much misfortune as possible, you'll have to spend a Hero Point to cancel out the misfortune just to get a survival probability slightly better than a coin toss.
Making it even worse is the maze leading up to the boss. We had to fight two encounters in a row without stopping to Treat Wounds, then we only had 10 minutes to heal and Refocus before entering the room. You can boost your odds of success by exploiting the Librarian's Disgust for Food, and there is a hint about this via a sign that says "no eating or drinking", but we mistook the hint for schmuck bait and didn't try it.
Let's say the players are in high tier. They explore a room that normally contains a certain item in low tier, but since this is high tier, the adventure replaces it with a greater version of the same item, which the players find. Does that mean I'm supposed to cross off the weaker item from the Chronicle since the players never technically encountered it? Or does it get to stay because it's not exclusive to high-tier and the players didn't "miss" it, per se?
I was under the impression that every action the target is forced to do is an individual order. If someone were able to keep following the same general order for a long period of time, then the crit fail effect of Dominate would seem to make the spell better than Possession (which is one rank higher and available to fewer traditions) in almost every way.
Dominate was the spell I had in mind, but it's the controlled condition that says the controlling usually requires none of the controller's actions. There are exceptions (ie possession), but this example isn't one of them.
Alice is controlled by Bob. Bob decides how Alice acts and controls all her actions without spending any of his own. Bob is controlled by Charlie. Charlie decides how Bob acts and controls all his actions without spending any of his own. Does Charlie control Alice's actions through his control over Bob? Or does Bob still control Alice's actions since it doesn't require any of the actions Charlie could force Bob to use?
Probably the best way of measuring a duration in rounds is to use initiative count. Basically the effect has a spot in the initiative order like the other participants in the combat. When the effect's initiative comes up, then the duration gets decreased. It just occurred to me that this would be a pain for casters with sustained spells. Normally, if the caster goes down, a healer can still get them back on their feet so they can Sustain the spell. But if the caster goes down and changes initiative while leaving the duration decrementation at their original initiative, they cannot Sustain the spell at all.
I would definitely prefer the proposed change. Perhaps: "For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature whose turn it was when the effect was created." I ran into the same problem when trying out the spell Cloak of Colors. If the enemy hits, they need to save against being blinded or stunned... for 1 round. This counterattack is almost useless if you go next. I think these effects can still be used with a bit of turn manipulation, though. You know how a caster might Delay before casting fear on an enemy so that the frightened condition lasts longer? So imagine you're in a solo PL+3 fight. You Delay until just before the boss's turn, then you take your turn. The boss goes and crits the Barbarian, who would certainly go down. You respond with Delay Consequence. The Barbarian will not suffer the crit until your next turn, so they will get to attack before they get crit.
Here's more food for thought. The wizard is grabbed by a hungry Cave Worm and tries twice to Escape. He crit fails the second time so he can't try again. For his third action, he attempts to Reposition the adjacent fighter. The wizard is untrained in Athletics and crit fails, allowing the fighter to move the wizard as though the fighter successfully Repositioned the wizard. Is the fighter an external force that can make a check versus immobilized? Or is the wizard the force and therefore not external because it's the wizard's action?
The tricky thing with PF2e casters is that any spell slots below their highest rank are meant to be much less useful than those of the highest rank. So the onus is on casters to prepare/Learn spells in those lower slots that don't become much less effective for being in those slots. For instance, an unheightened rank 2 spell that counteracts, incapacitates, or mostly just does damage will likely be useless by the time you have rank 5 slots. But a rank 1 spell that gives a bonus to your Speed, a penalty to the enemy's checks and DCs, or the ability to survive any fall could stay decent for the whole game.
You now need an Athletics check to Grab.Really? I was just looking at the ability on AoN and the description didn't mention it, but maybe it was an older version of the ability. It's surprising that anyone doesn't know about it at this point. It's one of the most famous changes made by the remaster. The Grab action now performs a subordinate, MAP-less Grapple. If the target is already grabbed or restrained, the action is instead used to automatically renew those conditions. Overall, it's a sidegrade. The monster can now restrain someone with a critical success, or they can fail or even fall prone or get grabbed themselves. The change was made so that players could benefit from bonuses to their Fort DC against being Grappled. There was controversy around this change because many Grabbing monsters have extreme Athletics, with some potentially having a 50% chance of restraining a PC.
When would a monster ever use its own Fortitude DC to immobilize a target?
|
