Tarrasque

SuperParkourio's page

Organized Play Member. 542 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 542 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The notable difference in action consumption is that the actions that stunned takes are consumed sooner than with slowed. Stunned frontloads its effect, denying the creature a chance to deal damage now, which is better than damage later. However, slowed might be nastier because you can only use an activity if you have enough actions, which frequently means the slowed creature does no damage at all. Getting stunned 4 is devastating with or without the can't act clause, but getting slowed 2 for 2 rounds is pretty nasty, too.


Bluemagetim wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
Lying in combat could also cause some metagaming debates. Suppose the enemy Lies to the PCs in combat. Even if the check succeeds, the enemy seemingly standing there doing nothing completely gives away to the real-life players that this is a Lie. Because if the enemy wasn't Lying, they'd have actions to do other things.

Interesting point but im thibking as a GM my players wouldnt assume its a lie for that reason. They might assume its a lie for other reasons though.

The bandit leader youve been fighting stops swinging his sword at you and begins to plead with you saying he was forced into this life and wants to a chance at redemption.
Hmmm im not sure lie is the only thing that could be happening here just cause he stopped attacking and started talking.

Combat might just end full stop if that happens, though I've had a player try to kill the surrendering enemy after combat ended. The enemy was telling the truth, btw.


Lying in combat could also cause some metagaming debates. Suppose the enemy Lies to the PCs in combat. Even if the check succeeds, the enemy seemingly standing there doing nothing completely gives away to the real-life players that this is a Lie. Because if the enemy wasn't Lying, they'd have actions to do other things.


shroudb wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
shroudb wrote:
did you miss the whole example why simply Strike CAN'T be the "raw" way to hit objects?

The example I relayed did not elude me. I just find "But what about lock picking!" to be a poor reason not to allow a Strike against a treasure chest.

shroudb wrote:
Too many variables in objects to properly adjudiacte without teh GMs hand, hence they simply leave it up to the GM to make a call.
Things that are written to be GM calls say so.

what does lockpicking has to do with anything.

the example was a simpl eone about specific weapons striking specific things, and it perfectly showcases why Strike can't give a proper answer to attacking said items.

also, once more, as it's written, it is a GM call.

Are we talking about the same example? What example are you talking about that perfectly showcases why Strike can't be the answer for attacking said items?

And it should say it's a GM call if it's supposed to be a GM call.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Stun could use a rewrite. I still think stunned should make you off-guard as well. Not sure how you're stunned and can't act, but somehow you can perfectly defend yourself without losing any AC. It seems like a condition they were overly careful in designing and ended up kind of putting it in this bad place that's a pain to adjudicate.

You say "overly careful" and I say "smart".

Putting all the reasonable things that one could infer from reality into game mechanics is a quick and easy way to end up with Stun, Paralysis, and Unconscious being akin to death sentences for a character, and thus entirely unfun as a game mechanic.

So it's definitely not a problem, even though you find it (somehow) to be a "pain to adjudicate", that the condition is written with a "you already lost actions and that's a big deal, you don't also need to be directly easier to kill." kind of attitude.

Stun has all kinds of limiters in place like the incap trait. Making you off-guard when stun wouldn't hurt much.

There are still non-incap effects that stun on a success. The condition itself doesn't have incap.


shroudb wrote:
did you miss the whole example why simply Strike CAN'T be the "raw" way to hit objects?

The example I relayed did not elude me. I just find "But what about lock picking!" to be a poor reason not to allow a Strike against a treasure chest.

shroudb wrote:
Too many variables in objects to properly adjudiacte without teh GMs hand, hence they simply leave it up to the GM to make a call.

Things that are written to be GM calls say so. They could have added a sentence to Strike saying you can target an unattended object if the GM decides that your weapon or unarmed attack is appropriate for the task. But instead, the Strike action says nothing on the matter. They could even have just added the words "or unattended object", and the object immunities and hardness rules would have covered everything, even the disqualification of using a bludgeoning attack against rope. Edit: actually scratch that. Object immunities covers the GM adding extra condition immunities, not damage immunities.

shroudb wrote:
I see absolutely no issue with having hardness rules, that tells you how much damage you do to an object, but still having to ask the GM IF and HOW you can actually "attack" said object.

Would you allow such ambiguity in Striking enemies? Because hazards can also try to kill you, and they explicitly can't be targeted with things that don't target objects, which by RAW includes Strikes.

shroudb wrote:
p.s. not making it into the remaster, but also not specifically mentioning Strike in the remaster, is a moot point. CRB points towards intent at least, and them updating the text and not putting in Strike also points to that as well.

Couldn't the removal instead indicate that this isn't their intent? That they didn't want to insinuate some unattended objects just can't be attacked? As for Strike not being updated, it's still possible that the devs haven't noticed this issue, or they have but they're just too busy.


shroudb wrote:

From the rules:

Quote:
Damaging an unattended item usually requires attacking it directly, and can be difficult due to that item’s Hardness and immunities. You usually can’t attack an attended object (one on a creature’s person).

It's 100% up to the gm when and how you can attack an object.

"Usually" you can "attack".

It has nothing to do with Strike.

You could have told me where in the rules. It's here in CRB Chapter 9. It didn't make it into the remaster.

And the item damage rules having nothing to do with Strike is part of the problem. They tell you how attacks against objects work, and then there are just very few options for attacking objects outside of "Yes, But..." And Strike not being one such option is TBTBT, especially since there are abilities that help you overcome unattended objects' Hardness when making Strikes.


Bluemagetim wrote:

Ok but one thing i dont hear from anyone is wether it makes sense to actually change the you cant act to you can pay down the stunned condition immediately.

When I think of being stunned it sounds to me like the character is unable to do anything
If they thry have stunned 1 and two actions left they will get to shake off the condition for one action making it pretty much the same in effect as sickened 1.

Right? It wouldnt matter what the condition actually does at that point because the result is 1 action loss to remove it.
Stunned is a high value conditioned so it wouldnt make sense for it to result in the same end effect as something like sickened.

The same point was made earlier, but with slowed 1 for 1 round, which stunned 1 overrides.


shroudb wrote:

"Usually" makes the "when" up to GM.

"Attack" instead of Strike makes the "how" up to GM.
It's clear enough.

No, "it's up to the GM" makes it up to the GM. And where are you getting "You can usually attack unattended items" from anyway? You can always attack unattended items, provided that you have an actual attack that can target unattended items.

Is Strike one of those attacks? I should hope so! But I've met players who claim that Strike not being able to target objects is perfectly intentional because it stops people from bypassing puzzles and skill challenges by breaking down doors and such, even though that's encouraged in the item damage rules.

So no, it's not clear.


Powers128 wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
Did they actually remove the part about conditions not affecting your actions on the turn you gain the condition in? That's annoying
No, it's still there. The only thing they changed was some text that erroneously stated that being able to act was a prerequisite for regaining actions.
Which page was it? That aught to settle it honestly

According to AoN, it's in the Gaining and Losing Actions sidebar on page 442 in the Conditions Appendix.


Thezzaruz wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
Check Reposition's degrees of success. It's there.

Yes, Reposition very clearly says how far you can move the opponent if you succeed on that action. But that wasn't the question (I might have been unclear with my question though).

The claim was that the "you move" requirement for ending a Grapple was different (less stringent?) than "you make a move action". So my question then is, if you have another creature Grappled, just how much do you have to move to count as having fulfilled the "you move" requirement that would end the Grapple?

I was talking about the reach requirement. Each degree of success states not only how far the target moves but also that they must stay in your reach throughout the movement.


Powers128 wrote:
Did they actually remove the part about conditions not affecting your actions on the turn you gain the condition in? That's annoying

No, it's still there. The only thing they changed was some text that erroneously stated that being able to act was a prerequisite for regaining actions.


shroudb wrote:

No, it is the GM province because the book says so. There's no hole.

"You can usually attack unattended items" leaves it clearly on the GM side to decide both when and how to do so.

Firstly, that's not what "usually" means. It just means that exceptions exist, not necessarily that the GM must decide on every occasion. Secondly, that's not even what the rules say.

Item Damage wrote:
Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps. A creature that attacks you doesn't normally damage your armor or other gear, even if it hits you. However, the Shield Block reaction can cause your shield to take damage as you use it to prevent damage to yourself, and some monsters have exceptional abilities that can damage your items.

It's not saying you can often attack unattended objects. It's saying you can attack objects, but you often can't attack attended objects, then it spells out explicit exceptions already in the rules rather than saying "for instance, the GM might..."

shroudb wrote:
As for "but for the Strike action?" question. It makes exactly as much sense for a spell to damage an item as for a strike. And that sense is left up to the GM.

Here's a quote from an earlier errata.

Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata wrote:
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."

A number of spells, including attack spells, had their ability to target objects at all completely taken away, but great care was taken to ensure that Hydraulic Push could still target unattended objects. It's clear that the developers wanted most but not all spells to be completely incapable of damaging objects. That's why Strike not being one of the attacks that works against unattended objects would be such a problem.


Thezzaruz wrote:
shroudb wrote:
"you move" is different than "you make a move action".

If that's true (which I probably could accept) then what is the definition of "you move"? Do you need to change square? Or is moving within your square enough?

Also I realized that Reposition doesn't mention anything about range or reach (like Strike does), that seems like quite a big miss tbh. I mean logically you need to be in physical contact with someone to move them but that isn't actually specified.

Check Reposition's degrees of success. It's there.


shroudb wrote:

It's not a hole when item damage is intentionally the GMs province.

Again, how a GM will adjudicate you hitting an object is purely, by design, up to him.

No reason to comlicate stuff with adding rules on the Strike and then having the players go "I Strike the item as per the written rules" when the GM wants to run it elsewise.

In short, there's nothign to "errata" about Item Damage to begin with, so your whole argument that it's somehow similar to Stun is moot.

It's only the GM's province insofar as any hole in the rules is the GM's province. If they wanted Striking objects to be purely GM fiat, there should have been a sentence like "The GM may allow you to Strike an unattended object." Instead, we have rules for attacking objects but alarmingly few attacks that can even target objects RAW. I'm okay with most spells not being able to damage objects, as it gives the ones that do more appeal. But... the Strike action? Seriously?


shroudb wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
And the Strike action still doesn't describe targeting unattended objects.

So?

Is there a reason why it should?

Item damage and how it occurs is strictly on the GMs rulings.

Some may call for a Strike, others may rule that it's automatic, and others will make their own judgement.

Item damage was moved to the GM very deliberately and for specific reasons.

The item damage rules weren't moved to GM Core. They are in Player Core where they belong, though material statistics can be found in GM Core. And Strike should specify that it can target unattended objects because there are multiple abilities that enhance Strikes against unattended objects, but none that actually let you perform them. Additionally, hazards are explicitly immune to anything that can't target objects, so not allowing Strikes to target unattended objects is too strict.

Yes, the GM can make a ruling, but this is a hole that should not exist in the first place after this many printings.


Grab in the Bestiary used to say it ended if the monster moved away. Now monsters use Grapple, which just says "you move."


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Thezzaruz wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I think the designers tend to know about things like this and build with it in mind myself. I can't be absolutely sure minus their input, but it feels that way.

Normally that might be true but the rules for Stunned have been a mess since PF2 first came out.

Remember that it took them until the 4th CRB errata to make Stunned X to be even workable. Before that stunned required you to pay actions at the start of your turn to reduce your Stunned value (same way it still works) but it also had a rule that said that you didn't regain any actions at the start of your turn if you couldn't act and thus you could never pay any actions and thus you could never reduce your Stunned value. Obviously that was a TBTBT situation that no one followed but it took years, and lots of pages of debate on here, for them to fix it.

And there is still language in the rules that shows that they just don't understand how Stunned actually works, just look at the Gaining and Losing Actions (page 442) section.

Quote:
Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can't act. When you can't act, you're unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don't change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately

I mean honestly, how do you write such a sentence. Stunned isn't unlike a condition that says you can't act, it is specifically a condition that does say you can't act.

Of course Stunned also changes the number of actions you regain and that might just be the source of the problem. Stunned both changes your number of actions and says you can't act and it seems the designers expect conditions to just do either of those.
there is an implication here and it
...

And the Strike action still doesn't describe targeting unattended objects.


A fellow Pathfinder was Grappled and I recommended he Reposition the Grappler to end the Grapple. All the other players and the GM retorted that the restriction on the Grappler moving only applied to move actions performed by them; forced movement didn't count. I thought this was only the case for reactions triggered by movement. Does forced movement against the Grappler end the Grapple?


Mathmuse wrote:
For example, Strike does not have a Targets line, even though it definitely targets a creature or object.

Side tangent, but Strike being able to target unattended objects has been the subject of many debates here and on Reddit. There are rules for attacking objects, but the Strike action RAW is not one of the attacks that can target objects. However, a lot of features break if Strike can't target unattended objects, so I'm of the opinion that it can.


Mathmuse wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
I mean, the hidden creature is the target of Point Out. Point Out is literally targeting the creature. And I don't think there are any single target effects that have a reminder to make the flat check due to hidden/undetected, because that's the default for everything that isn't an area effect.
Nope, Point Out is not literally targeting the creature. It does literally say, "target," but that is a misnomer. The writer used the wrong word probably due to thinking of the undetected creature as a future target for the allies. But that creature is not being targeted by Point Out.

Fair point. I could see that mistake being made by the author.

Mathmuse wrote:
If SuperParkourio insists on following the poorly-worded phrase, then take a closer look at Hidden: "A creature you're hidden from is off-guard to you, and it must succeed at a DC 11 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect or it fails to affect you." The target is not affected by Point Out, so failing a DC 11 flat check would have the same result as succeeding at the DC 11 flat check. So why make the flat check?

Well, the target is being affected. The conditions may be relative to the observer, but it's still the hidden/undetected creature who has those conditions. But I agree that the manner in which the hidden creature is affected doesn't really have anything to do with where they are within their square.

Mathmuse wrote:
Likewise, a character could make a Recall Knowledge check against a hidden creature ("While my allies are trying to find the hidden Will-o'-Wisp, I try to remember my school lessons about it."). Though the Recall Knowledge action lacks the word "target." Likewise, the Seek action can be used against a hidden or undetected creature, though it also carefully avoids the word "target."

I don't think Recall Knowledge is even targeting the creature. The knowledge is presumably already in your brain, so you could do it from anywhere. Also, Seek does target, but it does so as an area effect, so it would ignore the hidden condition anyway.

Mathmuse wrote:
I remember back in PF1, we roleplayed pointing out an invisible creature as a free action. "My character yells, 'The invisible creature is 10 feet left of the northeast corner.'" The Point Out action formalizes that roleplaying but made it take a single action. Even in PF2 I sometimes allow my players to skip the Point Out action. "The ranger successfully hit the invisible creature with an arrow. You all now know which square it is in. It is only hidden to you."

If you hit a hidden creature despite the flat check, the rules say you are still off-guard to the hidden creature, which I guess means they're still hidden, and their Stealth state is unaffected. No such clarification is provided for hitting an undetected creature, though you're probably supposed to know that both secret rolls succeeded. Maybe they didn't want to get into it because of the possibility of a Large invisible creature? If you successfully attacked a square occupied by such a creature, that wouldn't reveal all the squares the creature occupies, or maybe it should for simplicity's sake? But if the creature is Medium or smaller, that should probably lower it to hidden for everyone who witnessed the attack.


Finoan wrote:

To answer the title question: No.

SuperParkourio wrote:
I mean, the hidden creature is the target of Point Out. Point Out is literally targeting the creature.

To continue the discussion:

Point Out doesn't actually target the hidden creature. It doesn't actually list any target at all. The implied targets would be either or both of: your allies, or the square(s) that the creature is in.

The requirement that the allies could 'potentially target the creature' doesn't make the creature the target of your action.

What do you mean by "listing" a target? It says "the target." Why isn't that enough? The allies could be implied targets due to the awareness they gain, but the hidden creature is rather explicitly the target, and that creature is being affected because their undetected condition is being downgraded to hidden. Although, I suppose Castilliano made a good point that the word "target" could be a mistake, since the word "target" only appears there and not at the start of the description.

And there's no requirement that the allies can target the creature. They just need to be able to detect the creature.


Trip.H wrote:

Hmm, seems I failed to communicate that Point Out is not at all targeting the (possibly) hidden foe.

Point Out is cleverly written to effect the allies that you are trying to communicate with. There is a requirement of awareness to perform the action, but there is 0 mention anywhere within Point Out that would invoke the flat check of hidden.

Just because something affects a foe, or the foe's undetected condition, does not mean that foe was targeted in a way that would require a flat check.

=====================

Again, the imagined "squares, not target-based" context example:

You have imprecise scent, you know what square an invisible foe occupies. This foe is undetected to your allies, and hidden to you.

Point Out's requirements are met.

You can Point Out and tell your allies "There's a ___ just beside that tree!" and all allies will convert the undetected into hidden. They know what square, but cannot see the foe. There is no need for a flat check to be invoked for this to make sense.

I mean, the hidden creature is the target of Point Out. Point Out is literally targeting the creature. And I don't think there are any single target effects that have a reminder to make the flat check due to hidden/undetected, because that's the default for everything that isn't an area effect.

I do see what you're getting at, though. If Point Out was considered to be affecting the hidden creature in a way that would require a flat check, then the visual and auditory traits would probably stop people from Pointing Out blind or deaf creatures, which is too bad to be true.


Trip.H wrote:
I don't see anything specifically saying you are targeting a creature in Point Out, not sure where that's coming from.

Check my post again. I bolded the word target.


Point Out wrote:
You indicate a creature that you can see to one or more allies, gesturing in a direction and describing the distance verbally. That creature is hidden to your allies, rather than undetected. This works only for allies who can see you and are in a position where they could potentially detect the target. If your allies can't hear or understand you, they must succeed at a Perception check against the creature's Stealth DC or they misunderstand and believe the target is in a different location.
Hidden wrote:
While you're hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you're in but can't tell precisely where you are. You typically become hidden by using Stealth to Hide. When Seeking a creature using only imprecise senses, it remains hidden, rather than observed. A creature you're hidden from is off-guard to you, and it must succeed at a DC 11 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect or it fails to affect you. Area effects aren't subject to this flat check.

Should Point Out require a flat check from the user? On the one hand, Point Out is an effect that explicitly targets the hidden creature and isn't an area effect. On the other hand, Point Out only reveals what square the target occupies, so nothing in the effect has anything to do with where the hidden creature is within their square, which is the only reason why the flat check would be necessary in the first place.


Ascalaphus wrote:

My personal gripes with the scenario

** spoiler omitted **

Those last issues also apply to Hogwarts, so maybe it was a deliberate riff? I remember playing the Harry Potter video game adaptations, and all the professors were like, "Today we will be learning the Expelliarmus spell. Harry, please crawl through this small hole in the wall, go through the obstacle course full of giant swinging axe blades and rabid monsters, and retrieve the Expelliarmus spellbook. And then duel Malfoy when you're done." And then no one else has to do it and class is dismissed.


I've heard that the most cost effective use of Crafting is to Craft items of your level. But the amount of the item's Price that you shave off with every additional day scales with your own level, not the item's level, so I would think that items of a lower level would be preferable because there's a higher chance of getting a critical success. But then I considered the 4 days that need to be invested to attempt the check in the first place. Those days aren't spent towards lowering the Price, so I guess the idea is to lessen the frequency of needing to invest those days so that more days can be spent lowering the remaining Price of the Crafted item.

However, the remaster buffed Crafting by now requiring only 2 days of investment, or a measly 1 if you have the formula, which isn't even necessary anymore. Does this change the math significantly? Is it better to Craft items of my level or lower level items?


I've made similar errors with an adventure I'm running despite having read the adventure beforehand. Sometimes the formatting tricks you into reading aloud things you're not supposed to read aloud yet, I guess. And since it was Roll20, the formatting was likely even harder to parse.


Errenor wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
shroudb wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
I've seen it show up in Pathfinder Society forum. Seems like it should be on all the forums.

It was intentionally not a thing for pf2 because pf2 uses a different protocol to handle errata.

How does pf2 errata work then?
https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq

How does it get flagged in the first place, though?


We ran away from the boss and just let him beat the snot out of the thieves. Then we got chewed out for failing to repair the Open Road.

I was under the impression that we only missed out on the Reputation gained (there were two players with Treasure Bundle insurance). But after three days, the session isn't showing up in my Organized Play session list, which is keeping me from getting Farah's Sword. It's supposed to show up, right?


shroudb wrote:
SuperParkourio wrote:
I've seen it show up in Pathfinder Society forum. Seems like it should be on all the forums.

It was intentionally not a thing for pf2 because pf2 uses a different protocol to handle errata.

How does pf2 errata work then?


Talon Stormwarden wrote:
However, I will say that the variety and frequency of skill challenges is why I prioritize INT higher on PFS characters than I would otherwise, for more skills. And for non-CHA based characters I always have a diplomacy hireling.

I decided against getting a hireling because I already have all the Recall Knowledge skills, and a hireling only helps with one skill, so it didn't seem like it would be much of a life saver. Is there a reason you pick Diplomacy in particular? I considered getting a Diplomacy hireling after this scenario, but it sounds like this crummy skill challenge has never happened before and will never happen again.


I've seen it show up in Pathfinder Society forum. Seems like it should be on all the forums.


The GM told us after the session what the combat boons were. They sound like they would have actually helped with the fight. Especially the one designed to defend against Rank 3 spells.


That wouldn't have helped because only one person was trained in Diplomacy, so there was only time to use two of the five boons. Someone else had a Diplomacy hireling, which is ineligible to receive circumstance bonuses.


I've seen an FAQ button appear on some posts. What causes it to appear?


I've seen an FAQ button appear on some posts but not others. What determines whether it appears?


So in a scenario where the environment is susceptible to Fireball, I can use Nonlethal Spell to protect the environment from my Fireball?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

5-13:
My party was comprised of three level 5's, two level 6's, and one level 8. I don't think I'll be playing this travesty again, so I found the stat blocks of the boss and his two minions.

Average party level is 5.8333336, approximately 6.
Jann Shuyookh; Level 9 = 120 XP
Living Waterfall; Level 5 = 30 XP
Living Waterfall; Level 5 = 30 XP
Total = 180 XP
Severe threshold = 120 + 30 + 30 = 180 XP

So I guess it was a severe encounter for us, not helped by our horrible party synergy. Many of us were pure-melee martials that normally used countermeasures to deal with Flying monsters, but those were thwarted because the boss was Flying over a bottomless pit. And despite being a wizard, I was out of spells that could get around elemental resistance 10 by the time the living waterfalls were dead. The underwater encounter earlier was impossible to prepare for, so we had no fight left by the end. We had no idea the skill challenge would be so strict and the MacGuffins so useless.


I just checked the monsters in Monster Core. None just list "nonlethal" under Immunities. The term "nonlethal attacks" is always used. Even object immunities still lists "nonlethal attacks" instead of just "nonlethal."

So that's why I'm wondering if immunity to nonlethal attacks means immunity to all nonlethal effects or only things with the attack and nonlethal trait.


There are also various threads here and on Reddit debating how to Strike objects and whether it's possible. Responses range from "disallowing Strikes from targeting objects is too bad to be true" to "allowing Strikes to target objects is too good to be true." There's no consensus on that, but the Saying Yes And rules do provide some vague support for targeting objects with things that explicitly don't work on objects yet absolutely should.


Immunity to Nonlethal Legacy wrote:
Another exception is immunity to nonlethal attacks. If you are immune to nonlethal attacks, you are immune to all damage from attacks with the nonlethal trait, no matter what other type the damage has. For instance, a stone golem has immunity to nonlethal attacks. This means that no matter how hard you hit it with your fist, you're not going to damage it—unless your fists don't have the nonlethal trait, such as if you're a monk.
Immunity to Nonlethal Remaster wrote:
Another exception is immunity to the nonlethal trait. If you’re immune to nonlethal, you’re immune to all damage from attacks and effects with the nonlethal trait, no matter what other type the damage has. For instance, a typical construct has immunity to nonlethal attacks. No matter how hard you hit it with your fist, you’re not going to damage it. However, you can take a penalty to remove the nonlethal trait from your fist (page 282), and some abilities give you unarmed attacks without the nonlethal trait.

These rules used to only mention actual attacks, and now they are clarified to refer to all nonlethal effects. But when the rules provide an example, they just call it immunity to nonlethal attacks again. Is there any difference between "immunity to nonlethal" and "immunity to nonlethal attacks?"


What if being untrained is intentional? After being constantly screwed over by PFS skill challenges that only allow the handful of skills I'm not trained in, it'd be nice to see at least one high level monster be screwed over the same way. Perhaps the shinigami just avoids direct interactions to rely on the auto success, but things go wrong for the shinigami the instant they arouse suspicion.


Another weird problem I keep having with Recall Knowledge is that every GM always forgets the question I asked and just answers a completely unrelated one. I'll ask what the monster's most notable offensive ability is, and the GM will tell me it's weak to fire or some lore or something else unrelated to my question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:

I thought I knew which scenario this is but your description of an end boss with unlimited breath weapons totally doesn't match.

So, to answer your question, apparently at least 2. Because there is another scenario where the end challenge basically just allows the diplomacy skill and whatever else the GM would allow (the scenario explicitly considers any attempt to bluff or to demoralize an instant fail - move to combat)

In its defence, throughout the scenario it has been extremely obvious (at least at the player level, not clear that the characters would know) that the end of the scenario was EITHER going to be an interaction challenge OR a fight (or, presumably, an interaction challenge that when failed would lead to a fight).

So, if you have a group with only one character with decent diplomacy then you should really have been gearing up for the fight (literally)

And in that scenario the fight looks hard (it is listed as severe) but winnable to me. Certainly nothing even remotely resembling a dragon with infinite breath weapons

The scenario I'm talking about is
** spoiler omitted **

Edit: Just took a look at the reviews for this scenario and this one IS the one the OP was talking about. I have no clue why he considered the end boss the equivalent of a dragon with infinite breath weapons. It isn't even close to that (I've looked at both tiers and at all possibilities wrt challenge points).

Yeah, that's the one. The boss had a highly powerful AoE at will and was Flying over a bottomless pit. I described it as dragon with infinite breath weapons because the strategy is the same. Due to the random players we ended up with, only 2 out of 6 could even damage him, and the odds of doing so were horrible because we had to fight the high tier version even though we were low tier.

We didn't learn until the preceding skill challenge that the benefits of the diplomacy boons didn't stack, so half of them went unused because we only had one Diplomacy player and one Diplomacy hireling. We thought the boons would give cumulative DC decreases or something. And most social skill challenges I've had to this point have allowed other mental skills, sometimes at higher DCs.

We also wanted to opt out of the fight because the boss was the one wronged here and the culprits we were supposed to protect are rather unlikable.


My GM wasn't able to hide that I failed because he said "You've never seen it before" having forgot I had Dubious Knowledge. Also, since the remaster, every GM I've had uses the new critical success rule, where instead of 2 info, you get 1 info and a follow-up question.


My PFS character has Dubious Knowledge, and my GM ruled that I believed both answers. The insinuation that the user doesn't even know that one of the two pieces of information is false seems to fly in the face of the dilemma it presents in its description.

Dubious Knowledge wrote:
You’re a treasure trove of information, but not all of it comes from reputable sources. When you fail (but don’t critically fail) a Recall Knowledge check using any skill, you learn the correct answer and an erroneous answer, but you don’t have any way to differentiate which is which. This can occur as not knowing something is significant, but not whether it’s good or bad.

For there to be a question of which information is wrong, isn't it necessary to know that wrong information exists? Even with just Recall Knowledge, I'm not mind controlled on a crit fail, right? If I Recall that the headsman's axe will fully restore my Hit Points, shouldn't I find my knowledge to be dubious?


I just played a scenario that concluded with a skill challenge. We had 2 rounds to accrue 4 successes. The only allowed skill was Diplomacy. I even tried to Aid by calling upon my knowledge of Society, but I was only allowed to use Diplomacy even to Aid. Literally nothing worked other than Diplomacy. Not even at a higher DC. Not even Intimidation. Of course, we failed. The DC was high, and only one player was trained in Diplomacy while another happened to have a hireling for Diplomacy. Since we failed, we were thrown into an unwinnable boss fight with the equivalent of a dragon with infinite Breath Weapons.

How often does this happen? Not the unwinnable boss, just the skill challenges where only one skill works with absolutely no exceptions?


I'm not really arguing anything at this point. I agree that disintegrate not working against zero Hit Point creatures is too silly to be true. I'm just curious.

So essentially, you need to have more than 0 HP to be reduced to 0 HP, because that's what reduce means. Despite this, damage at 0 HP without dying should grant the dying condition without bumping initiative, and disintegrate should still kill creatures with 0 HP, because that is presumably RAI. Do I understand correctly?


You can't have and keep dying 0. If you had dying 0, the condition would end immediately, leaving you with 0 Hit Points but not dying.

There are rules that say what happens when you take damage that reduces you to zero Hit Points. There are rules that say what happens when you take damage while dying. I'm guessing now that the intent was for the latter rules to override the former rules when you're dying, so maybe initiative wouldn't get bumped if you're already dying after all.

As for damage while at 0 but not dying, this is a weird blind spot in the rules unless damage at zero counts as reducing to 0. I'm guessing such damage is at least intended to add the dying condition, but I don't know whether it would cause an initiative bump. If so, you could stabilize a downed troll then damage it to delay its turn. However, the same result can already be accomplished by healing then damaging the troll. Readying for the troll to heal would also keep the troll from ever doing anything, though it's initiative wouldn't be changing.

In any case, I just think it's weird to count damage at zero as reducing to zero only sometimes.

1 to 50 of 542 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>