Search Posts
The Snicker-Snack reaction granted by the vorpal rune has the incapacitation trait, so creatures of a higher level use a degree of success one step better. Does the target's level only need to be higher than the vorpal rune's level (17), or does it need to beat the level of the weapon to which the rune is attached (19 for a +3 major striking vorpal weapon)?
Can a summon spell like summon animal summon the animal in mid-air and have it fall on someone?
I see. Would Counterspell be too powerful if it did work against cantrips? Having played with it enabled, I'm leaning toward "probably."
I agree that the RAW does not support Counterspelling cantrips. I'm asking if the developers have clarified their intent for Counterspell.
From what I can tell, the consensus on Counterspell is that the feat doesn't work on cantrips, because Counterspell requires you to "expend a spell slot as if you had cast the triggering spell," which is impossible to do for a cantrip. Some people argue that the feat only requires that the triggering spell be prepared, so cantrips should qualify because they are prepared, even though the language of the feat assumes a spell requiring a spell slot is being countered. The Dawnsbury Days video game (which runs a PF2e adventure from level 1 to 4) implemented the Counterspell feat in a patch, and the developer decided to use the latter interpretation, explicitly spelling out that countering a cantrip doesn't use a spell slot. You spend your reaction and make the counteract check as normal, and the cantrip remains prepared or in your repertoire. I used the feat repeatedly in this game on Insane difficulty (encounters are regularly extreme and beyond). Counterspell was added after my first playthrough, so I knew what cantrips and other spells to prepare. But I did just play through "The Strange Crash" mod, so I was taking Counterspell into that blind. I'm still not sure whether the feat is too powerful if allowed to counter cantrips. The added functionality against cantrips only came up against enemies that didn't have any worthwhile slotted spells to use. But when it did come up, it was usually against lower-level opponents whose cantrips were one rank below mine (because cantrips are automatically heightened to half your level rounded up). This meant that my counteract check would disrupt the cantrip on any result better than a critical failure. I was spending one reaction and none of my other resources to almost always delete two enemy actions. On the other hand, these enemies were two or sometimes even three levels below me, so dunking on them was somewhat expected. And since there were many of them, it wasn't possible to react to all the cantrips targeting me. Have the PF2e developers commented on Counterspell and whether or not it is intended to work on cantrips?
Perhaps you are remembering the flat check rules. If multiple flat checks apply, only a single flat check against the highest DC is made.
(the grabbed condition is removed if the grappler moves).Can you cite that? I can't find it in the rules. It's in the Grapple action, not the condition.
You are incapable of movement. You can't use any actions that have the move trait. If you're immobilized by something holding you in place and an external force would move you out of your space, the force must succeed at a check against either the DC of the effect holding you in place or the relevant defense (usually Fortitude DC) of the monster holding you in place. So if I wanted to Reposition an ally out of a monster's Grab, would I have to make an Athletics check against the ally's Fortitude DC and then a separate check against the monster's Escape/Fortitude DC? Or would only an Athletics check against the monster be needed? And suppose instead that I want to use a forced movement spell with a saving throw, such as Acid Grip, to move my ally. Does the ally make the saving throw and take the damage, then I roll a d20 and add my spellcasting attribute modifier and proficiency in my magic tradition, then I compare the result to the Escape/Fortitude DC of the monster to see if the ally gets moved?
The adventure I'm going to run has a lot of healing potions in it, and my players have identified plenty of those already. Should I just not require an attempt to Identify Magic if the players have already successfully identified another instance of the magic being identified?
I'm probably only going to have the crocodile use it with a good Avoid Notice either way. It seems like a lot of work to Stride back into the water, Hide, Sneak, then use Aquatic Ambush.
The adventure I'm planning to run has crocodiles in it, which have the Aquatic Ambush action. A monster with this action can move towards its target quickly and make a Strike against it (against which it is off-guard), but this requires the monster to be undetected by the target. How does the monster know that this requirement has been met? Avoid Notice is not a secret roll, but Hide and Sneak are. How does the monster know if it has succeeded on both Hide and Sneak? Does it just guess? What happens if it's wrong? Does Aquatic Ambush fail? Does the movement still happen but the Strike fails? Is the target simply not off-guard against the Strike? (As an aside, I noticed that this action doesn't have the move trait, and it technically doesn't rely on subordinate actions like Stride or Swim which do have the move trait. I'm pretty sure this is unintentional and the action still uses Swim and Stride. That way it still provokes Reactive Strike, is unusable while immobilized, etc.)
Double Slice says I combine the damage of both Strikes and only apply resistances and weaknesses once? How does this work if the two Strikes deal different damage types? I could use a battleaxe in one hand and a club in the other. If the monster has resistance 5 to slashing and resistance 2 to bludgeoning, what happens? Do the different damage types mean I have to reduce one by 5 then the other by 2? Do I just not worry about which attack does which type, so I just apply the biggest resistance?
The old monster Grab rules in the Bestiary said that the monster could not use the grabbing appendage to Strike creatures until the grab has ended. This language has been removed in Monster Core. Is it still assumed that the grabbing appendage cannot be used to Strike any creature (even the grabbed creature) until the Grab has ended?
It's that easy? Is that just how it works in PFS or just how it works in 2nd edition in general?
I just hit level 4, and I want to upgrade my +1 warhammer to a +1 striking warhammer. I know I can buy the striking rune formula then Craft the rune to etch it onto the weapon. But what if I don't want to Craft it? Do I have to buy a runestone with the striking rune etched on it and tell the specialist at the Grand Lodge to make the transfer for me?
It's PFS. Does the GM even have a say in this?
So for each of my spells that had its name changed in the remaster, I can't use that spell to Counterspell anything in an existing PFS scenario? Even if the effect of the two spells is exactly the same? Well, that means I need to retrain Counterspell, because I already rebuilt my character for the remaster rules and replaced every spell in my spellbook with the remastered spells (the only spell I prepare that still has it's old name is Fear). I really wanted to give this feat a chance, but I've played eight sessions and only faced one spellcaster in my entire career. And now, even if I face another, the feat is just going to be useless.
Despite all correlating sources including the Core Rulebook, Archives of Nethys and every other source not including the Manipulate keyword on the Raise a Shield action, my GM consulted chat GPT (which has been thus far infallible) and it maintains against all argument that Raise a Shield is a Manipulate action that would provoke attack of opportunity. I've been unable to find a source to directly refute the AI so we're stuck with that ruling for the time being. Is there any stated ruling that explicitly states the Raise a Shield action is not a Manipulate action or would logically demand this to be so? ChatGPT is a notorious liar. Its job is to mimic human behavior, not output truthful information.
I'm just afraid of preparing vision of death on my PFS character only to have the GM say "Unfortunately, the monsters in this scenario were made before the Remaster, so the spell the boss is casting is actually phantasmal killer." Enemy spellcasters are already rare enough that I haven't been able to use Counterspell once in the 4 sessions I've had it.
If I have force barrage and and vision of death prepared, would I be able to Counterspell against spells like magic missile and phantasmal killer? Are they still the same spells?
Another weird thing is that the shield rules mention that, with GM discretion, you can Raise a Shield with a buckler even if that hand is holding a light object that isn't a weapon. The specific rules for the buckler, however, allow that even without GM discretion.
Not bucklers. They can explicitly be used as long as the hand is free, or even if that hand is holding a Light non-weapon.
All shields must now be strapped to your arm and held in one hand. If you later fall unconscious, you can't drop the shield because it's strapped to your arm. If you regain consciousness, are you still able to Raise the Shield because it's still strapped to your arm, or must you first Interact with the shield to hold it once more? Is it possible to have a shield strapped to your arm but hold other things with that arm when you aren't using the shield? I thought that was the point of the buckler, but is the point of the buckler actually to allow Raise a Shield even when you aren't holding it?
I was in Foundry and the question occurred to me when a PC was rolling recovery checks while inside an Aura of Misfortune. Foundry allows misfortune to be used manually in this case, but doesn't recognize the recovery check as applicable automatically.
Here's a section on the rules for making a check.
Other times, you might not know the DC right away. Swimming across a river would require an Athletics check, but it doesn’t have a specified DC—so how will you know if you succeed or fail? You call out your result to the GM and they will let you know if it is a success, failure, or otherwise. While you might learn the exact DC through trial and error, DCs sometimes change, so asking the GM whether a check is successful is the best way to determine whether or not you have met or exceeded the DC. If you don't know how well you did, you can just ask the GM even if the DC is hidden. It's public knowledge unless it's a secret check.
I ticked off one of my new players when I told him that flat checks are only affected by things that explicitly call out flat checks, so he couldn't reroll this attempt to target a hidden creature. Just today, though, I checked the rules for flat checks again. Archives of Nethys: Flat Checks
Modifers, bonuses, penalties, and DCs that don't call out flat checks are all disqualified, but I don't see anything here about fortune or misfortune. Do fortune and misfortune affect flat checks then?
Saying that getting through such walls requires downtime is a statement that hardness and HP is not the only difference.If that was true, they wouldn't then give stats for hardness and hp for said structures but they do: you can't say "Strong walls, such as well-maintained masonry or hewn stone, can’t be broken without dedicated work and proper tools" and have it make even a little sense when the chart then gives you stats like every other structure [Hewn stone hardness 14, hp 56 BT (28)]. If you allow a stone door to be destroyed, there is no reason to deny a hewn stone wall as they have the exact same stats. Once you give it stats, how can you say they are meaningless and unusable and you need some other method? Why are you acting like all stone walls are created equal? Some walls rely on the statistics in that Material Statistics table, some surpass those statistics, and still others flat out require downtime. It's that simple. As long as the GM decides what it takes to bring down a wall, giving Strike the ability to target unattended objects isn't some sort of slippery slope that will turn your game into Wrecking Crew.
2. "If characters could just attack any object, it would invalidate dungeon design because they'd go through the walls instead of dealing with expected encounters" with a side helping of "there is no mention of striking objects because you're not supposed to; therefore you can't, unless the object specifically allows it, like wall spells and traps with AC" The main issue I see with perspective 2 is that characters CAN attack any unattended object, provided that the attack being used is allowed to target unattended objects. Such attacks include the spells hydraulic push and disintegrate. If the GM doesn't permit Strike to target unattended objects, then that only prevents those lacking object-targeting attacks from attacking unattended objects. And seeing as there are rules for awarding XP for bypassing encounters, maybe bypassing some expected encounters isn't a big deal. If treasure is provided in enough encounters, there's still an incentive to explore the whole dungeon anyway. The other issue I have is that the second point just sounds blatantly wrong. The Damaging a Hazard rules don't say anything about the Strike action. In fact, hazards can't be targeted by anything that can't target objects, which is why Strike being able to target unattended objects is so important. I don't see any wall spells that talk about Strike either.
There's a reason PF2 doesn't have Sunder rules. We're not talking about attacking attended objects.
Not the dumbest at all: doors can have traps, guards ect. Tunnels through walls can bypass huge sections of an adventure and the obstacles there. They are also quite time consuming to make. By the time the tunnel is finished, any time-sensitive objective will likely have failed.
Do you mean that as long as a Strike doesn't damage an object with its maximum roll, it can never do so even in downtime? I think it's more that the damage that a single Strike does to an object whose Hardness is too high is just so small that even the loss of a single Hit Point would overstate the impact. But over a period of downtime, it adds up, and you've got yourself a nice tunnel.
What does Hardness have to do with downtime? Is there actually a defined downtime activity for tunneling through solid rock?
Why would letting Strike target unattended objects turn the world into wet cardboard? The Material Statistics section still says that sturdy structures are of higher Hardness and Hit Points than the table suggests, and it points to the Urban section saying that structures that are sturdier still require downtime to break down. If you down want your players to destroy the dungeon, just say the Hardness is too high. No, I'm talking about structures so reinforced that the values on the table won't suffice. Halving the Hardness of a reinforced stone wall won't do much good if the Hardness is only lowered to 100 or more. Only downtime will work against these.
Why would letting Strike target unattended objects turn the world into wet cardboard? The Material Statistics section still says that sturdy structures are of higher Hardness and Hit Points than the table suggests, and it points to the Urban section saying that structures that are sturdier still require downtime to break down. If you down want your players to destroy the dungeon, just say the Hardness is too high.
Yes Finoan, hazards can be attacked, but those rules also mention that "Hazards are immune to anything an object is immune to unless specifically noted otherwise, and they can’t be targeted by anything that can’t target objects."
Even if you can't Strike an object (w/o some of the special abilities others listed above)...What special abilities? The feats mentioned earlier don't grant you the ability to Strike unattended objects. They enhance your Strikes against unattended objects, which can only mean that Striking an unattended object is already supposed to be a base rule. I'm not arguing that Strike can target unattended objects RAW. I'm saying the developers wouldn't write the feats around the assumption that Strike can target unattended objects if Strike wasn't supposed to be able to target unattended objects. Because the developers would not deliberately write an effect that never works. The feats make the intent quite obvious.
How many enemies have shields at level 16+? Only if it's not possible to Strike unattended objects. And it's clear from the aforementioned feats that it's supposed to be possible.
Rather than limit one's adventuring environs, etc., Paizo (seems to) think it best to relegate that to a GM's call. And if they just said that (just like with every other thing left to GM discretion), it would be fine. Instead, we've had to look at Player Core, GM Core, the Advanced Player's Guide, and other books to try and reverse engineer what the intended mechanics are for swinging an axe at a door. I'm glad there are so few blind spots in the rules compared to 5e, but... Is mentioning something about unattended objects in the Strike description asking too much?
Even if you can't Strike an object (w/o some of the special abilities others listed above)... What special abilities? The feats mentioned earlier don't grant you the ability to Strike unattended objects. They enhance your Strikes against unattended objects, which can only mean that Striking an unattended object is already supposed to be a base rule.
Or, even better - put the rule in the General Rules about gamemastering so that the rule applies to more than just Strike actions.Paizo have clearly made an effort to keep that as an active GM call.I'd think that making every effort to keep Striking objects a GM call would include some text in the Strike action stating that Striking objects is a GM call. Just like every other rule that entails a GM call. We're not talking about a player's creative idea beyond what the rules provide. We're talking about swinging an axe at a door. The need to Strike an unattended object comes up so frequently that it should be mentioned in the actual Strike description. Imagine if by RAW, only player characters had their Hit Points lowered when they took damage. The GM could fix that with "Yes, But" by saying, "Swinging a greatsword at a kobold warrior? Surely that should have some effect!" But this is really something the rules should already cover.
Paizo have clearly made an effort to keep that as an active GM call. I'd think that making every effort to keep Striking objects a GM call would include some text in the Strike action stating that Striking objects is a GM call. Just like every other rule that entails a GM call.
The barbarian feat Shattering Blows, which allows your melee Strikes to ignore part of an object's hardness also seems like a pretty clear case of the system assuming it is possible to Strike objects. Yeah, that's pretty unambiguous. And if a damage type makes no sense against a given object, just give it resistance or immunity to that damage. Force Open is a good way to open doors that have high Hardness, though, and a crit success let's you avoid damaging the door. And Strike would be a good way to break doors that are difficult to Force Open.
There is no dramatic tension at all to having PCs essentially just rolling damage over and over again until an object is destroyed. If a thing is automatic, I will just say it happens. If there is the real possibility of consequence for failure, then a mechanic like force open is much better for representing that tension. The only consequence for failing to Force Open is that you have to try again, maybe with a -2 circumstance penalty. If time isn't an issue, and unless that penalty suddenly renders the door invincible, then Force Open can be spammed just as easily as Strike. And why is it weird to use weapons in this way? Stabbing a door, sure, but have you never heard of The Shining?
Pages 316-407 and 573: Damaging spells and items meant to harm PCs do way too much damage for your gear to survive if it could be targeted, so such spells almost never are supposed to be able to damage objects. A few target lines slipped by with "creatures or objects." Remove the ability to target or damage objects from acid splash, acid arrow, eclipse burst, polar ray, sunburst, fire ray, moon beam, force bolt, and the horn of blasting. Limit hydraulic push to "creatures and unattended objects." Many effects had the words "or object" or "or unattended object" removed in an errata, with the developers explicitly saying it was to limit the number of ways that creatures can damage objects. I'm fairly certain Strike is intended to be able to target unattended objects, but I'm not interpreting that from the fact that it doesn't explicitly forbid it. It's more that an inability to swing an axe at a door is just too stupid to be true. The developers should amend the Strike description with "or unattended object" or perhaps "The GM may allow you to Strike an unattended object if your weapon or unarmed attack is appropriate for the task."
It's strong for its level, but most creatures of that type are. However, the absolute difference to the average power of monsters of its level would be higher if it was 5. I don't know of any reasonable criteria for level classification that would put it at 5 rather than 4. Yeah, I suppose I should put my analysis here. As a level 4 creature:
Actually, maybe I was downplaying the severity of the Tail's moderate attack bonus and low damage. I thought it wouldn't be enough to offset the Breath Weapon DC, but both Draconic Frenzy and Twisting Tail depend on this attack.
There's also a section in GM Core called Saying "Yes, But..." The advice there describes how to handle things outside the rules that should logically work. The example provided is casting ignition on an oil barrel.
An effect that says it can target objects would work. You can only target an attended object if an effect says so, like Grease. And if an area effect only describes its effect on creatures, the GM decides what happens to unattended objects in the area. Complicating things is that the Item Damage rules say you can attack objects, but most attacks can only target creatures by RAW. This is all well and good because a player character's power depends heavily on their items. But it veers into stupid territory when you realize that even the Strike action doesn't let you attack an unattended object.
Lines suck yes. Their why I don't actually use hexes despite preferring them, they're more common for players to deal with.This kind of s!~* is why I prefer hexes.Lines, though? And I'm ok with right angle corners on hexes, but not everyone is, it seems. Is there something wrong with line areas in hexes in particular? I find the line rules confusing even in squares.
Perhaps I would be able to Step twice in succession to enter a diagonally adjacent square?You can by making two successive orthogonal steps. Say, stepping west then north to end up in the northwest diagonal square. If you meant investing two actions to step directly diagonal, then no. I considered the possibility of using two Steps to move 10 feet diagonally because of this passage in GM Core.
The developers seem to be describing the extent to which the discrete nature of move actions can be violated without causing balance issues. A dragon Flying in range then using Breath Weapon then Flying away would be pretty devastating *cough* *cough* 5e *cough* *cough*. But seeing as a Leap mid-Stride might sometimes be allowed by the GM, I thought maybe combining 2 Steps to make it to an even diagonal square might be okay, too.
Because moving diagonally covers more ground, you count that movement differently. The first square of diagonal movement you make in a turn counts as 5 feet, but the second counts as 10 feet, and your count thereafter alternates between the two. For example, as you move across 4 squares diagonally, you would count 5 feet, then 10, then 5, and then 10, for a total of 30 feet. You track your total diagonal movement across all your movement during your turn, but reset your count at the end of your turn. With my Speed of 20 feet, I Stride 20 feet diagonally. That's 5 feet, then 10 feet, then 5 feet. The next time I move diagonally will require 10 feet of my movement. This means I can only Step into an orthogonally adjacent square, correct? Perhaps I would be able to Step twice in succession to enter a diagonally adjacent square?
|
