Tallyn's page

Per the title... what is your absolutely favorite thing about 2nd edition?

If you can't decide, keep it to 2 or 3, but try not to go too much longer. Due to life stuff, I haven't had the opportunity to play yet, and I just want to learn a little more about why people are loving the new system :)

Hi JJ! Quick question for you... interpretation of a spell:

Question: Can you move upwards with the spell Bladed Dash? (Or variations thereof... up and to the north/east as long as it's no more than 30 feet)

Bladed Dash says: When you cast this spell, you immediately move up to 30 feet in a straight line any direction, momentarily leaving a multi-hued cascade of images behind you. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You may make a single melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against any one creature you are adjacent to at any point along this 30 feet. You gain a circumstance bonus on your attack roll equal to your Intelligence or Charisma modifier, whichever is higher. You must end the bonus movement granted by this spell in an unoccupied square. If no such space is available along the trajectory, the spell fails. Despite the name, the spell works with any melee weapon.

The same way you can see a Torch in the distance. It doesn't illuminate the area around you, but you can still see it.

I was more talking about something at a distance you can touch. The torch even at a distance illuminates things around it making them visible to you (at a distance) as well... at least to an extent.

Daylight wrote:

Daylight

School evocation [light]; Level bard 3, cleric/oracle 3, druid 3, inquisitor 3, magus 3, paladin 3, shaman 3, sorcerer/wizard 3; Subdomain day 3, light 3

CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S

EFFECT

Range touch
Target object touched
Duration 10 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

DESCRIPTION

You touch an object when you cast this spell, causing the object to shed bright light in a 60-foot radius. This illumination increases the light level for an additional 60 feet by one step (darkness becomes dim light, dim light becomes normal light, and normal light becomes bright light). Creatures that take penalties in bright light take them while within the 60-foot radius of this magical light.Despite its name, this spell is not the equivalent of daylight for the purposes of creatures that are damaged or destroyed by such light.

If daylight is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a light-proof covering, the spell’s effects are blocked until the covering is removed.

Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.

Daylight counters or dispels any darkness spell of equal or lower level, such as darkness.

Deeper Darkness wrote:

Deeper Darkness

School evocation [darkness]; Level antipaladin 3, cleric/oracle 3, inquisitor 3, shaman 3; Domain darkness 3

EFFECT

Duration 10 min./level (D)

DESCRIPTION

This spell functions as darkness, except that objects radiate darkness in a 60-foot radius and the light level is lowered by two steps. Bright light becomes dim light and normal light becomes darkness. Areas of dim light and darkness become supernaturally dark. This functions like darkness, but even creatures with

...

While technically, I think you may be correct, I am not going to play it that way for purpose of ease.

I know you can explain it away with "magic," but for physics purposes, answer me this... "How do you perceive a light that does not illuminate anything?" I honestly cannot think of being able to perceive a source of light that does not illuminate the area around it (even if it's only to a miniscule degree). *Shrug* I can understand if you want to play it the way you have described in your games, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around it... I would have to suspend disbelief and just say "magic" :)

Ryze Kuja wrote:

Claxon wrote:

I disagree, because light and darkness are both spells that affect an object or a point and they "radiate" light or darkness. The spell is not emanating through the wall. It create a magical point of light...which generates light, like a candle or torch, or whatever (depending on the spell).

But it specifically says in the Daylight and Deeper Darkness spells that it's a magical light and a supernatural dark (still magical). And Wall of Force blocks Line of Effect for all spells, and provides no exception in the spell description for anything except certain teleportation effects like D Door and Teleport (because they don't require line of sight or line of effect).

Th problem as I see it, is that line of effect isn't required for the light travel in this. Light is special in this case, because basically everything else requires line of effect, but light goes through glass.

A torch light would go through a wall of force.

And while it's not terribly clear, I think light from spells would go through a wall of force. Because while the source of the light is magic, I'm not sure the light itself is.

I don't think the rules are terribly clear in either case, I just happen to think this is the way to play it out.

Would you play darkness the same way? Would it also pass through, essentially as "anti-light"? :D

Personally I would play it the way Claxon is describing. The generation of the light itself is magic, but once the radiation from the source goes out it acts as normal light. So if you walked into an anti magic area the "lighted" source would go out, but if you were outside of it, then the light would radiate forth into the anti magic area normally.

These are some good ideas! The need for another level of proficiency is a good point, probably "godlike" or something along those lines that's 10+level.

I could also probably whip up some new skill feats to go along with that proficiency. Like a religion feat that requires godlike proficiency and that you are the champion of a deity, for instance (not champion in the class sense, might need a rewording, but the idea's there).

Maybe Epic and/or Mythic for a new tier (or possible two new tiers post 20)….

Personally I like Mythic, it lends itself to the flavor they had in Pathfinder 1.0 ;)

"CRB Pg. 230 wrote:

SORCERER DEDICATION FEAT 2

ARCHETYPE DEDICATION MULTICLASS
Prerequisites Charisma 14
Choose a bloodline. You become trained in the bloodline’s
two skills; for each of these skills in which you were already
trained, you become trained in a skill of your choice.
You cast spells like a sorcerer. You gain access to the Cast
a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with two common
cantrips from the spell list associated with your bloodline,
or any other cantrips you learn or discover. You’re trained
in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for your tradition’s spells.
Your key spellcasting ability for sorcerer archetype spells
is Charisma, and they are sorcerer spells of your bloodline’s
tradition. You don’t gain any other abilities from your choice
of bloodline.
Special You cannot select another dedication feat until you
have gained two other feats from the sorcerer archetype.

CRB Eratta wrote:

Page 230: In the Sorcerer Dedication feat, replace the

second sentence of the second paragraph with “You gain
a spell repertoire with two common cantrips from the spell
list associated with your bloodline, from the spells granted
by your bloodline, or any other cantrips of that tradition
you learn or discover.” This grants access to the bloodlinegranted
cantrips as well as those on the associated spell list.

I don't see anything that would grant Blood Magic.

A few solutions would be:
Steel Shield (+2 Circumstance Bonus when raised)
Parrying (+1 Circumstance Bonus)
Shield Cantrip (+1 Circumstance Bonus)
Taking Cover. This has the added bonus of enabling Sneak Attack by Hiding.

Also, not to be a downer, but Sneak Attack doesn't work with Spells at all, until the 4th Level Magical Trickster Feat. Spells aren't Strikes. Although I suppose it is possible to interpret Produce Flame that way, nothing in the Spell changes the fact that it is a Spell Attack, just either Ranged or Melee.

Did you post that to the right place?

Meirril wrote:

But all in all, a mundane item shouldn't be harder to locate than a magic item.

Normally, yes. But this isn't an item from some list of equipment. It is an extremely specific, extremely unusual example of it's type.

Those rules are only going to carry us so far. I mean, does a character really have a 75% chance of finding, say, a tapestry of their great aunt slaying a centaur ghost, woven from kelp and angel hair and dyed with the blood of 57,000,000 pixies? No. There is a 0% chance of finding this particular item. Just because you can imagine it does not mean that you can write it down in your inventory 75% of the time.

I agree with Quixote here. Extrapolating and adding a couple points of my own.

What if the creature they are trying to get a painting of is so rare, that only Sages, specializing in a particular field would have a chance of knowing what it was/recognizing one... are you going to tell me that a painting of that thing should be easy to find?

The bigger you go on paintings, also, I would figure would also increase the difficulty. I think if you wanted to do a Trompe L'Oeil (TLO) of a colossal creature, then you also need a colossal painting right? Not many artists work in mediums so large regularly, if at all.

1) Making the paintings yourself without Fabricate or some other magical means to hurry the production would add a lot of time. Finding an appropriate picture would be as easy as searching the market in any large sized city that has a market capable of producing items in the 2000 gp range. So any city, and you can get them more frequently than you'd be able to produce new Tromps.

I think it would be fairly easy to get a painting.. but a painting of a specific creature would probably have to be randomly rolled. The rarer the type of creature it is/was probably the harder to find a painting of one.

I don't have the book at hand... but since a Trompe is a template applied to a creature... does the painting have to be a specific individual (so that the painter either had to have the creature model for them, or have had direct interaction with the creature in hand, so they can paint them from memory)? Or can a painter just use their imagination and paint (what they believe to be) some generic efreeti, which isn't based on any specific creature, and that the Trompe would work fine in this instance?

Two reasons... game balance, and because Pathfinder (like D&D) is an abstract system.

In 3.5 certain classes, name Rogues (because sneak attack and critical hits were treated similarly), were completely neutered by certain monster types. This was one contribution that made Rogues very weak in 3.5. So in the name of fun and beefing up underpowered classes, they went away with a lot of monsters that were blanket immune to crits/sneak attacks.

Because Pathfinder is an abstract system, we don't go into what effect certain attacks would have. If you manage to do enough damage to a golem's legs, they would fall off, thus rendering it's mobility to nearly 0, and ceasing the threat. PF doesn't describe that, so they use the abstract system to just state you do more damage. Any construct/building/statue has structural points which are weaker than others. Ask someone who does demolition... they place those charges very carefully to destroy things.

Personally, I feel like there should be very few blanket immune creatures when it comes to crits/sneak attacks. Generally Oozes, Elementals, Incorporeal creatures...

However, I do think certain creatures should have baked in fortification (Golems included). While a Golem (as a constructed object) will have certain structural weaknesses, it would have much less in the way of those vulnerabilities, than say a humanoid creature. In general a humanoid creature has to worry about taking a hit to a specific joint, some pressure points, arteries, etc. A golem would only really be susceptible to structural weakpoints.

In old 3.5, I definitely disagreed with some of their crit immune monsters, namely the Vampire. In folklore/mythology, the very ways described needed to kill a Vampire, lent themselves to the descriptions of critical hits (beheading/stake through the heart).

Anyways, I'm probably rambling. I think the main focus was not really killing off the potential for certain classes/builds to participate meaningfully in certain combats, or to have less of it. So probably the best answer is game balance/game design.

Every save in any group I have played with has always been tie goes to defender. So yes Magic has to overcome just like martial has to overcome.

Why would they get a +1?

The reasoning behind confirmation of a fumble is an experienced Warrior is not going to automatically drop his weapon.

Because that's the actual rules?

The active party (which in this case is referring to the person rolling the die), needs to meet a threshold set by the other party (defender's AC, caster's DC for a saving throw, etc).

This is the way the game works... it's a minor thing if you decided to houserule it to work the way you guys currently do. Just realize the base game mechanics were not designed the way you're using them, although the effect is most likely minimal (usually just a 5% change in circumstances). Just realize that using the rules the way you are, is making casters utilizing save spells approx. 5% more effective, and melee characters rolling to hit 5% less effective.

Knowing this, if I were in your game, I would definitely be playing casters ;)

Edit: Didn't realize Derklord had already answered this pretty succinctly heh

Are you suggesting that a player seeking to play an elf or a human should have precisely the same reasonable expectation of having to negotiate with the GM for his character as another player seeking a so-called "uncommon" race? Because if there's one thing I can't fathom, it's the mentality of "all fantasy races are equal, but some fantasy races are more equal than others".

Depends! What are we taking about here? In general PFS play in the world or Golarion? Or are we talking about homebrew campaigns? If PFS I think it would be totally ok for a player to play an Elf, as the expectation for that race is already established by their campaign setting.

In my homebrew campaign, Elves are mostly xenophobic, and highly racist against pretty much all the other races... they view them as beneath them. The few races that are in their areas are kept as slaves. They have conquered a large region, and have wiped out some of the other races in those areas they have conquered.

So if I'm running a game in my own campaign, don't you think I would be within my rights to discuss with a player who wanted to play an Elf, what to expect and ask him what kind of character he's looking to play? (To see if it will fit in with the game I plan on running) While explaining the pitfalls he may encounter if we're playing outside Elven lands and Elves are looked upon by almost all other races as jerks/villains.

Just my two cents.

I have!

I played a Life Oracle, and it was the culmination of the campaign... We were trying to imprison a minor god (probably somewhere between demigod and lesser) on an outer plane. (One who had corrupted a large region of the campaign area we were playing in, and had caused all sorts of trouble)

At the culmination of the ritual to imprison it the GM advised, if a sacrifice were to be made of sufficient power, that due to the nature of the prison, we could permanently kill the god. I volunteered to sacrifice myself, and the GM ruled that due to my connection to my god and my "life" force, that the sacrifice was sufficient.

The other group members attempted to resurrect me, but I didn't come back. I figured it was the best ending for the character, and was happy to continue my afterlife in the divine halls of my deity.

Edit: Also, to mirror someone else's sentiments above, I feel it would not have been very much of a sacrifice if I had come back after the fact, and would have cheapened the last battle of that campaign a little bit.

If I might say this, I think you guys are getting hung up on things here.

Polymorph is mind affecting, in the sense that it physically reshapes the brain matter into the brain matter of whatever the creature is polymorphed into. E.g. a human polymorphed into a squirrel, ceases to have a human's brain, and now has a squirrel's brain.

Polymoprh is NOT mind affecting in the "game definition" sense. That is usually reserved for spells like Suggestion... which alter thoughts/impulses. Yes, for English definitions, it would probably make more sense that a spell like suggestion be labeled as "thought affecting", but the game designers chose the moniker "mind affecting," so we get to deal with it :)

Well Dragonstriker, I think you've ended the thread ;)

I think I would play it similarly to how you would play it theNobleDrake, but I think your definition of agency is not aligning with other peoples here. Looking through some searches of agency vs freedom:

- freedom is (uncountable) the state of being free, of not being imprisoned or enslaved while agency is the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power; action or activity; operation.

- Agency is the ability to choose an action, whereas Freedom is the capability to DO and action.

- Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment.

I think looking at it, agency doesn't have to do with impact. It has to do with choice. And looking at it that way, Luke's way does give more agency, even if it may give the player the ability to fail. (I still probably would not play it his way, as an aside)

This seems really semantic at this point. Let other people play and run the games how they want to, with the caveat that the GM isn't actively trying to sabotage his/her players through "clever" manipulation of the rules

I'm going to avoid the bait here and just say, you saw a black lady that turns into a snake and immediately jumped to gorilla and chimp? Try Mystery Woman of the Jungle and see if that jogs your memory.

Fantomah? Not sure if you already answered that one in this thread

Would a definition help?

ableism noun
able·​ism | \ ˈā-bə-ˌli-zəm

\
Definition of ableism
: discrimination or prejudice against individuals with disabilities

Continue on... ;)

All this talk about stealing player agency and GMs having too much power to shut down build ideas feels bizarre given that a GM could and did do the exact same thing whenever they wanted.

The only real difference is that Paizo now has a way to mark which spells and items are considered normal and which are considered esoteric, instead of the GM having to guess.

If anything this will probably lead to less arbitrary banning, which means more consistency.

Sorry, I have to disagree. I hate "magic item shops" or the feel that magic items, except for those at a base level, can be bought easily.

But if that's the game you and your players enjoy, more power to you! As long as you're having fun :)

Just adding that I like rarity, but it should be used to reward players, rather than punish, if used correctly IMO

Slightly off topic, but I love how I came into this thread expecting the original poster to be very offended with something in the new edition, and was pleasantly surprised when he just wants to figure out how to slap people in the face for massive damage in PF2E ;)

I agree with a lot of the posts here, but also wanted to offer another possible definition of a feat tax.

If a feat is so ubiquitous as to have every character of certain parameters/archetypes always have them, then I would think it's a feat tax.

Example: In PF1, nearly every strength based melee took Power Attack. Our group considered this a feat tax, in essence. (We actually played with the White Elephant rules)

Just as added thought

Zepheri wrote:

So why I can make a critical heal to a friend?

Would you really want to have to make an attack roll to heal a friend? Not only would you have to hit their touch AC (usually fairly easy... but not always), but a natural 1 would be an auto-miss. Usually, I'd prefer a somewhat more reliable healing spell rather than one with those drawbacks.

Well if they are aware of your "attack" they can always choose to lower their defenses, which would probably lower most people to only miss on a 1. However, if for some reason they weren't aware that you were attempting to heal them, then you would definitely have to hit their touch AC, but this is usually a fairly rare circumstance.

Joshua, I think you're getting a little too into the arguments of what other classes can do. You're not going to convince the people on the other side (myself included) that it's ok. I think it's neat, but I wouldn't allow it, personally.

Also, while the Aether Kineticist can do that... can they cast wish? Can they create their own demiplane? Can they create simulacrums/clones? Wizards and other full progression arcane casters get a LOT of power. Near universally, the Wizard is considered the most powerful class in the game. You're adding a little bit of power to a class that really doesn't need it (IMO).

While you aren't abusing it, I can see many who would try, and if I were an unscrupulous GM and used it, could have a single Wizard with an army of summons at his disposal that lasted long enough to wreak havoc on cities/settlements/armies/etc.

I think this is just one of those situations where we're going to have to agree to disagree. But definitely be polite in doing so. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this to forum for the discussion even though I won't allow it in my games :)

Derklord wrote:

No. The original wording of the feat did include "effects that augment an unarmed strike", which did give the option to use the unarmed damage instead of the normal damage, but that part was removed in the second printing of Ultimate Combat. The current wording only applies the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite.

So am I right in assuming that a lot of things that ki lets you do won't apply to natural attacks either?

By RAW, probably not. But I'd talk to your GM about it. It feels in flavor with the particular build you're playing and if I were the GM I'd allow it.

I'm currently playing a Druid 7 (Lion Shaman)/Monk 1 (Sohei) .. I'll probably take another level of the monk soon. Not sure if I'll go for 4 monk or not, I may take another 2 levels in a different class if I find an appropriate one. I have Feral Combat Training and Shaping Focus among the feats I have. It's a lot of fun to charge, pounce and (when the rolls are good or the monsters ACs are low enough) do over 200 points of damage in a round. But I also have 2 different flavors of Skalds in my group right now ;)

When I'm running, if you want an animal companion/or other type of companion, they are easy enough to get through archetypes. You've got your answer, and you're free to do it in your campaign (and in your GM's campaign if you're the player), but don't expect us to accept it because you like it.

The duration is the game breaker, and we basically have to create another house rule to deal with it, because otherwise you could summon armies that would last for hours. It nearly makes trivial any other classes with abilities to summon, or animal companion features (without summoning).

I can't describe to you exactly why I would tell you no, but it sets off something in my gut--my GM intuition sense (from 30 years personal experience) where it breaks my feeling of cohesive immersion with what is there in the game world, as I interpret as what is intended.

Anyways, you do you... feel free to use it, I just wouldn't allow it personally. It's an interesting tactic though.

I will say, I am very much looking forward to seeing what possible innovation Paizo might bring to the game with 2.0. I feel like Pathfinder is a bit stagnant at a ruleset level.

If I don't like 2.0, I may take a few of the rules I do like and incorporate them into 1.0 to make something of a bastardized 1.5 amalgam. Just my two coppers :D

Tallyn,
I'd allow it. If a player decides to abuse it and it starts hurting the enjoyment of the other players, then I ask that person to rein it in...

No pun intended? ;)

Your ability scores do not change, you get the bonuses listed in the appropriate as outlined in the Beast Shape spell for the size of animal you turn into. Example: Beast Shape 1, turning into a medium animal you get +2 size bonus to Strength and +2 natural armor bonus. (10 Str druid would become 12 strength)

You get the base damage and attacks that the animal gets.

You don't gain any special attacks, UNLESS the appropriate Beast Shape spell outlines that it is one you get. Example, Beast Shape 1 only gives you Climb 30, Fly 30 (average), Swim 30, Darkvision 60, low-light vision, and scent.. IF the animal you transform into has it.

You don't gain any feats.

The Bestiary would probably be the best place to look up animals?

I think you can, but the rules in the SRD on spells specifically point out ability damage or drain. So I'm not 100% on this

So out of curiosity, which GMs that are in this thread would allow this? It's basically a 2nd level spell modifying the appropriately heightened mount spell to become a 2 hour/level Summon Monster.

It effectively makes the base level Summon Monster/Nature's Ally obsolete in most ways.

Anyone saying mounts can’t fight clearly hasn’t played certain classes recently, like all the classes that have a class feature called “mount” with the mount being able to fight. Yes this is a spell and not an animal companion, but it is a spell that summons a creature that can serve as a mount, and Paizo’s stance is clearly that mounts can fight.

That's totally your prerogative, and a ruling you can clearly make when GMing games. But when you're playing at someone else's table, be prepared if the GM disagrees with your stance (regarding the Mount spell specifically) and does not allow what is being proposed in this thread. Just saying.

Also please note the way that it is worded for classes with a special mount. Below is the description of the Paladin "Divine Bond" ability:

"The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a medium paladin) or a pony (for a small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an intelligence of at least 6."

AS a GM, I would apologize to the player, but I would houserule that it would not work. It may be ok RAW, but I believe it subverts the purpose of the Mount spell, as it was intended to be used.

If you look at the duration of nearly any spell that summons things in game (other than the planar ally/binding spells), 2 hours/level is well beyond the scope of anything that is intended for combat (IIRC). I agree with Meirril above.. the Mount spell's intention is for just a mount. I would clarify with the player, that in my campaign, that is all it would be useable for, it would not be able to be used in combat.

I don't get to play high levels often.. so far, as of recent, it's been around 240 damage in a round with my currently level 8 wildshaping lion shaman druid (with a dip of 1 monk so I can flurry on a pounce). It'll definitely go up quite a bit, as we have 2 Skalds in the party (one gives Str with his song, the other does magic weapons)... and as I get access to a few more powerful magic items (currently only have an amulet of mighty fists +1 that gives 1d6 Acid damage).

Also, is it too much to ask for streamlined, intuitive, and flexible grappling rules? ;)

Will Miss: The customized archetype system. The pf2-feat-based-archetype system doesn't please me at all.

Do you know if they pruned the "feat tax" feats? I haven't been keeping up with 2.0 at all

Loved: Customizability

Wanted: No real big wants... other than possibly an amalgamation of wildshaping druid, with synthesist summoner, with a few monk abilities added in ;)

Hated: Too many required feats/feat prerequistes. I know the later campaigns I played with used the White Elephant (may be misremembering title) rules for feats.

Will Miss: Customizability, if they take too much of it away