TR_Merc's page

Currently wondering how my post about DC for knowledge checks has turned into combat statistics against an advanced greater barghest and talks of holding breath in pathfinder 2e.

I know I can go back and read the progress, it is a rhetorical comment.

Yeah, it sure sounds like some key clues were missed, or maybe the new GM didn't emphasize some information. Really is too bad, that adventure is solid.

I did find out he is running the pre-updated version. So they might have added that information later.

So you -had- better weapons and chose not to use them? That is certainly going to make things harder.

If I hadn't looked the monster up before the game started because it was a particularly big discussion about what happened during a previous game I wouldn't have known it had DR 10/magic. My character wouldn't have known that. I like to role play, not roll play. I try not to use out-of-game information unless it makes sense.

Fighting skeletons? Why use a rapier that requires you to hit with a point when a club is not only easier to hit with (theoretically) but is also typically used to break bones?

Well, without getting into spoilers that fight is known as a very hard pinch point in that AP, but there are extenuating circumstances. If the GM misses certain facts or the party doesn't pick up on some clues it is brutal. But a fair number of tables have no issues. As for WBL, this group has somehow missed or misidentified a lot of stuff if they have that little and made it to the barghest.

Oh we had a lot of stuff, just all the magical weapons were all bladed weapons and my fighter was focused on using axes. We didn't get enough gold individually to get magic weapons we wanted leaving him with a +1 cold iron returning dagger that he allowed to side up to match the user as my character did use throwing weapons for ranged combat.

And until the GM gets you up to your WBL, start buying or making a lot of consumables. Potions, Scrolls and Wands, though they eat up actions to use, will give you +1 weapons, Bless, possibly even Divine Favor or Magic Stone for stonebows. If your GM isn't giving you +1 weapons but they're throwing such powerful bosses at you, every +1 helps

It is the rise of the time lords adventure path. The pdf I found was just the standard greater barghest, though he said it was an advanced greater barghest based on what he found on pfsrd.

While I'm here--I know the standards and mechanics of 2e hold little water around here, but for what it's worth the barghest is considered a Common creature in 2e, while the greater barghest has both the uncommon and mutant traits. It's a bit simpler since every monster has its rarity listed in the bestiary (default 'common') but the GM is still free to decide when those rarities differ by region.

That is something I like about 2e. I tried it, but didn't like how some feats became class specific abilities and some other rules, like holding your breath which lasts like 3 rounds. I can hold my breath for longer than 18 seconds and I'm out or shape.

The DPR does take into account the DR 10 (magic). Without the DR the barbarians DPR with the axe becomes 3.9. The 50% miss chance of the blink is what is dropping the DPR. Even if you got rid of the blink and gave the barbarian a magic axe his DPR only goes to 7.9. Assuming the rest of the party can deal similar damage it will take the party about 6.5 rounds to defeat it. That does not take into account the Barghest is probably killing on the average 1 character per round.

I actually made a mistake on the Barghest in that it cannot use enlarge person on itself. I did not take into account it is an outsider not a humanoid. This drops its DPR to 41. Which is still high enough probably take out 1 character per round. This also does not factor in the fact the Barghest gets 5 AoO per round from Combat Reflexes.

Ya, it is a difficult fight. Which is why I was upset that he was making the check to find out weaknesses of the Barghest harder. An advanced Barghest and a regular seem to have all the same abilities. The major differences seem to be AC, Stats, HD, and BAB. Not enough in my opinion to make it a completely different creature from the base creature that it would be considered rare.

By that logic leveling up would make any core race uncommon or rare depending on level and how many of that race go into that class.

Assuming an AC of 20 that puts his DPR to 48.51, compared to a barbarian with an 18 STR using a +1-dagger doing 2.4 DPR. The DPR with the battle axe is 1.9, which really is not that much different.

It was the monster in the AP. The pdf I found listed it as a standard greater Barhghest, but we were using the roll20 module which he said used the advanced one as the encounter.

Are the battle axe numbers taking into account DR of 10/Magic?

I also had power attack which helped increase the damage output, but ya the thing dropped my fighter 1/2 HP round 1 because of invisibility.

At level 4, there can be a big difference between making the roll and not.

1d20+7+Int to make a DC 23 requires a 16 or higher, meaning a 25% chance of success vs a DC 17, which requires a 10. 50% chance of success.

Plus, at a 16 or higher, a DC 17 would allow 1 additional useful piece of information. I was trying to get an in-game reason why my character, who had been using an MW Battleaxe the entire campaign so far, would switch to a +1 dagger without metagaming.

I think this is one of the mismatches between Golarion and real life that gives you problems with this particular rule.

Golarion is a world where the printing press is something recent and available only in some places, paper is costly, and books are even more costly.
Average people in Sandpoint (to name a place in the setting) probably don't know anything about Anacondas. There is no Internet, no educational TV, no film set in the jungle, probably no book about jungle flora and fauna, and if there is one it is in a private collection.
So, anacondas would be a rare monster when you have lived all your life in Sandpoint and searched for information there.
If you instead lived in the Mwangi jungle they would be a common monster.

This is true, though teachers were often more prolific. Character classes that often have planes as a class skill are the educated ones, meaning they would have had teachers. Paladin orders would spread teachings on how to kill them, and clerics and wizards would learn from paladins, and information proliferated.

To others reading this, sorry in advance.

To Carrauntoohil

1. Been told how your DM rules it

2. Run to the internet in hopes of being supported against your DM
3. Not been supported the way you hoped

I came here for a rule clarification, not vindication. So far, the majority seems to be rule 0. GM is always right. I've met a lot of GMs who did that a lot, and a lot of them eventually ran out of players.

4. Argued again about what the rules as written mean

I have not argued against the rules as written. I've made statements about the classifications and how I view them, but I haven't argued that the rule as written is wrong. It didn't list a DC to identify that specific creature in the book or anywhere else I could find.

5. Belittled your DMs knowledge of the rules, despite it being evident that your own knowledge is no better

So you agree with his rule that you can't take 10 on a skill check you can potentially fail if you roll less than 10, that spells that state they give off the same light as a torch have less light than a torch, that charging into melee range of a creature with only a 5 ft reach provokes an attack of opportunity, bleed damage and normal damage are the same thing, and there are others, but I can't recall them at the moment. Guess I have a lot to learn about the rules.

What are you trying to prove?

Why are you trying to prove it?

Nothing, I asked a question which is to get an answer.

What can't you accept that your interpretation isn't widely accepted?

The only thing I've stated about responses is that frequency is a whole.

What do you hope to get out of this?

Knowledge and understanding.

Why are you playing with someone if you feel the need to pull this nonsense against them?

I'm not playing with them anymore, and how is asking a question for rule clarification nonsense?

Do you want to not be allowed to play anymore because your DM feels you're needlessly argumentative?

I don't care if I'm not allowed in his games anymore.

Is that worth continuing to argue a point that nobody supports you in?

Again, I'm not arguing agianst anyone here. I've posted 3 times since my initial post.

Considering it is for a Paizo published AP, and he is running it as such, the creature would be as common as it is in the Paizo standard campaign setting

Clarifying that this isn't a homebrew campaign setting. In fact he was very adiment about using the in book world requiring some of the traits and languages that are inside of it.

To a degree. It is about frequency of encounter, but as a whole. Knowledge isn't just first hand it is learned through verbal communication and books as well.

If you grew up in a cold environment you wouldn't have seen a kobold often probably, but they are very common in some areas so there would be a lot of books written about them or have them in it.

So if people could summon a barghhest often they could study it and write books about them, or people fighting them often would lead to them sharing what worked and what didn't.

Really wish a dev would chime in on this.

My view on the rule that the DC should be based on how common the creature is in the world. I've never encoutnered an anaconda in real life, but I know a lot about them because of reading and videos I've watched. But should it be considered rare because I've never encountered one?

He is a new DM and doesn't know the rules that well.

I was responding to someone, not saying the rule is wrong or arguing agianst the person's point.

but I'm sure Carrauntoohil you're going to go on futher to belittle and berate me about how wrong I am seeing a rule clarification.

I just wanted to amplify this. It is what you are told it is.

Personally, I don't tell the players what the DC is they are trying to hit; only if they've made it or not.

He is a new DM and doesn't know the rules that well.

To a degree. It is about frequency of encounter, but as a whole. Knowledge isn't just first hand it is learned through verbal communication and books as well.

If you grew up in a cold environment you wouldn't have seen a kobold often probably, but they are very common in some areas so there would be a lot of books written about them or have them in it.

So if people could summon a barghhest often they could study it and write books about them, or people fighting them often would lead to them sharing what worked and what didn't.

Really wish a dev would chime in on this.

Considering it is for a Paizo published AP, and he is running it as such, the creature would be as common as it is in the Paizo standardcampaign setting

The problem, as usual for a lot of Knowledge checks, is what the player knows against what the character knows.

RAW, "A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."

So, with a successful check, you should get something like: "It is a barghest, a creature from Hell." In reality even that gives several useful information, not only one. As a minimum, it translates to: "It is a LE outsider." and those are 3 useful pieces of information.
Knowing its plane of origin you know that it is an outsider with the Lawful and Evil subtypes, and that allows you to know 2 kinds of bane weapons that work against it and that Anarchic and Holy weapons do extra damage.

Knowing that with a basic check can be acceptable, but a lot of players will know way more, as they read the different bestiaries. They will recall what type of DR it has, probably have some idea of its spells and attack routine, and other special abilities (if any).

The best solution I have found so far is to give out information without giving the name of the creature.
"It is one of the canine creatures from Hell."
The players still know that it is a LE outsider, but are unsure if it is a Hell Hound, Barghest, or some other creature.

I got into an argument with my DM about this.

We were playing Rise of the Rune Lords and fighting the Barghest. Since the Advanced Grater Barghest is being used and it is on the unique monster list on PFSRD20 his position is that the DC to identify the creature is 15+CR rare monsters.

My position is that even though it is on the unique monster list, it is still a Barghest and, therefore, 10+CR for uncommon monsters.

Just for comparison, here are some other creatures that are also on the unique monster list.

Human Cleric 4
Drow Ranger 16
Human Barbarian 3
Bugbear Ranger 1
Human Graveknight Antipaladin 17
Human Witch 20
Kobold Ranger 3

Sorry about the multiple post, didn't think it went through.

Is the Roll20 version the same as the book? I'm asking cause I have a GM who is running it, and after a heated argument about one of the encounters, I looked in the book and saw that he was changing things, more than I realized he was changing.

Unless your GM is deliberately throwing deceptive creatures at you, it shouldn't be too hard to guess the correct skill...

Maybe not deliberately, but he grabs obscure stuff to throw at us and sometimes, it can be confusing. Like spiders with special abilities. Is that Knowledge Arcana (Magical Creatures), or Knowledge Planes (Outsider), or Knowledge Dungeoneering (Aberration).

He also confuses things sometimes. Some of the few times he actually tells us to make a knowledge check, he asks for knowledge Geography to find something in a city which would be a knowledge local.

Okay, to be blunt your GM is being a tool. That said, it requires no action to make a knowledge check, so just ask to roll every one you have.

I would, but if you roll the wrong skill, he is not allowing you to roll a different skill. I came up with the idea of just rolling every knowledge already.

So I have this DM who is constantly asking us what Knowledge check we want to make to identify something, and if we use the wrong knowledge skill said, we fail to identify what we are fighting.

So the question came up if the DM is supposed to tell you what knowledge skill to make or any skill checks to make, and I can't seem to find a rule anywhere about that.

For me, the problem is in the vagueness of the ability Versatile Performance. It doesn't really give a hint at how it is supposed to work.

It seems to work more like a PC game mechanic than an RPG mechanic if it is just "Use X bonus on X skill." RPG mechanics are supposed to have some kinda theatric flair to them. Evasion is like you throw your cloak up in the way of a spell's blast to deflect it from hurting you. Uncanny Dodge is you have a sense of incoming danger and move unnaturally out of the way before you're hit.

Versatile Performance is just "You can use your skill in performance for either of these two skills. How do you do that? *Shrugs* You just do."

I had a situation come up where a player was using versatile performance (string instruments) and used it to pretend they were asleep.

They argued that the game mechanics allowed them to do it, and the PHB does not really give any flavor text as to how the ability works. I was wondering if there was any clarification of how the ability is supposed to work?

I had a situation come up where a player was using versatile performance (string instruments) and used it to pretend they were asleep.

They argued that the game mechanics allowed them to do it, and the PHB does not really give any flavor text as to how the ability works. I was wondering if there was any clarification of how the ability is supposed to work?

I have questions that both involve saves, an other spells that allow saves for half and resistance and blinking. The first is does a character that saves take 25% damage form a spell? Blinking states that Blinking characters take half damage from aoe spells, and saving deals half damage.

The other is if you save does resistance reduce the damage before or after the save?

Examples
Blinking Character in area for Fireball. Fireball deals 85 Damage and they save. Do they take 21 or 42 points of damage.

Character has resistance 30 fire. They save vs 85 damage fireball. Do they take 22 or 12 damage.

Last Examle. Bliniing, resistance 30, save. Do they take nothing or 11 points of damage?

thing is paizo has many source books and different writers.

Problem is the rule I'm referencing and the item you are referencing are both in the same book, which had the same writer, editor, and everything.

no so the faq tell you how the rules should be in this case. they left themselves an out in case a splat-book will show an int boosting item that didn't follow this.

The FAQ says that the language part of the headband of vast intelligence should work like the skill part. Not that Int items should work like that.

but saying the since rules say 'should' and 'technically' it's not a rule is like saying that taking 20d6 falling damage is not lethal because technically it should kill you...

Only if there is an ability/magic item in the game that turns fall damage into non-leather damage.

so how about this, op asked what the rules for int items are are?

the best i can say is that technically the rule should be that item crafted have a set skill\language that they grant.

Ya, that is the problem technically. Technically a cop should pull you over for speeding 1 mph over the limit. Most don't. So technically isn't a hard rule. Technically is "DM discretion."

as for spells and such, as Meirril mentioned temp int boost as far as i can tell do not grant skills or languages, probably because of the switcharoow thing.

if they last more then 24 hours go see a doc..no i mean if they last over 24 hours they count as permanent and as such the faq said you (should technically)gain skills\languages.

Temp boosts are technically listed as boosts that last for less than 24 hours. A Int item is technically always a temp boost because at any time the item can be taken off/depowered (beholder antimagic field) The only reason that it is 1 skill is they didn't want to get into X skill has Y points and A skill has B points for the item.

As far as using the item to switch between skills every 24 hours, it is a quick way to get a party of players mad at you, also time constraints can put a stop to it.

That's not correct - you would need to wear the headband for 24 hours first. Unlike for something like carrying capacity, skill ranks aren't re-calculated "on the fly", but only on level-up!

Gains from permanent effects are retroactive. Otherwise, you wouldn't get bonus HP from a Con item.

Thank you Derklord. I was about to say the same thing about the language FAQ entry.

There is no reference to specific skills outside of the headband of vast intelligence getting those points. All clarifications are clarifying how the headband of vast intelligence specifically works.

The whole Int items have specific skills assigned to them ruling is based on "All int items work like this one." but nowhere does it state that outside of items, and items always have "this effect works like X" like the ring of regeneration which states that lost limbs regrow as Regenerate. Which to me says "Magic items follow the rules for other features/items/spells not set them."

Magic items are exceptions to the rules, not the rules themselves.

If the rule is that items that modify Int have the creator assign those skill points and languages during construction, it is an unwritten rule.

I can't find that rule anywhere in any of the books that I have or any resources that I've looked through online. The rule seems to be extrapolated from the headband of vast intelligence. If that item didn't exist I believe we would be having a very different conversation, which is why it is the bane of my question because it is 1 item that appears to be over-riding a core rule with 0 support from text outside of the item description.

I have seen other magic items that do something similar, but I can't remember them at the moment. But the magic item breaks the standard rule, but only for that one specific magic item, non-artifact.

I've seen a few mostly while trying to figure out what the cost of non-standard item enhancements, like the Belt of the Weasel's compression ability, because I was trying to make new magical items.

*Support i.e. additional rules written in supplemental books, CLEARLY written F.A.Q. documents, or even forum posts from devs.

Also the language "technically" and "Should" mean that it doesn't always behave that way and even then it was only in reference to how the headband of vast intelligence works.

I already answered you in the first post. Regardless of the text on page 555, the fox's cunning spell trumps it by stating outright that it does not give you bonus skill points. It does not say anything to the effect of "Does not grant bonus skill points unless the duration is increased to beyond 24 hours"

The specific wording on the spell trumps the general ruling about ability bonuses. I not 100% certain what the answer would be if you had a different spell, although I'd imagine it would still be no. But in this case foxes cunning cannot grant skill points, period.

No, you just said "Fox's Cunning doesn't grant bonus skill points." you didn't answer if a non-headband of vast intelligence item grant you skill points that can be spent on whatever skills the player wants.

I was just using Fox cunning as an example so people didn't say "Well headband of vast intelligence says this." I know what the headband of vast intelligence says, I'm trying to get an answer that ISN'T headband of vast intelligence.

Those FAQs don't really clarify. The Language one seems to imply that the item only gives a specific language if it works like a headband of vast intelligence. The skill one is just asking about the headband of vast intelligence.

The problem is I can't get an answer that answers my question without "See Headband of vast intelligence." and magic items don't always function as a specific spell or even always mimic an ability that another magic item has in the same way.

An answer that isn't "See headband of vast intelligence" would answer this, but every source has "See headband of vast intelligence" even the headband of mental prowess has see headband of vast intelligence

It is more the entry on page 555 that states
Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics as appropriate. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.

With the "this might cause you to gain skill points" being the focus of this question.

I know the headband of Vast Intelligence state that a specific skill is associated with it, but if a different item or spell that lasts longer than 24 hours grant skill points that the player can assign to any skill they like?

Like if someone somehow casts Fox's cunning with a duration of 25 hours, does the rule of extra skill points kick in, and does the player get to pick what skills get those extra skill points?

One of the abilities that ghosts have is gaining a deflection bonus equal to their Cha modifier.

I was wondering that considering that most of the time magic items stack with innate creature abilities (such as a creature's natural armor with magical natural armor) would the magical deflection bonuses stack with the ghosts natural deflection bonus?

Recently had this come up in a discussion. Is it possible to have a +1 weapon with +9 in other abilities?

Like a +1 Vorpal (+5), Corrosive (+1), Ghost Touch (+1), Holy (+2) Longsword?

It was large reduced to medium.

Hello

I'm in a group where I'm playing a large character. To make things easier I got a item that has the effects of reduce person. If the character puts on Medium armor while small, and takes the item off what happens to Mundane Armor and Large Armor?

I think this has probably been brought up before, but why are there skill feats that are level 2 that require you to be an expert in a skill, when you can only become an expert at a skill at level 3?