The Rot Grub wrote:
The white dragon absolutely destroys a Level 1 party, because its HP and damage are so much higher than the party's. It looks like the factor of the dragon being +Level is outweighed by other increases, at least for Level 1 parties. Conclusion: simply removing +Level for monsters is only a small part of what distinguishes low and high level monsters!
This is to be expected. Parts of the community seem to have latched on to the proficiency system as a numbers treadmill, but it's a little more complicated than that.
Higher level monsters have item bonuses factored into their skills and abilities.
Higher level monsters have higher ability scores.
Higher level monsters have much greater HP due to having more "hit dice."
Higher level monsters do more damage thanks to getting die increases similar to striking runes.
Subtracting level from everything is probably a fine houserule, but I suspect that correctly balancing the game around bounded accuracy would require completely rebalancing the core math.
Torrent is probably not a good choice, as noted. Unless the pirates have kidnapped someone.
Order of the Pike is likewise specialized in monster hunting, and unlikely to go raiding the high seas for mere pirates.
Of the orders, I'd say the most likely pirate hunters would be Chain (bounty hunters), Rack (disbanding nascent revolutions), or Coil (based in Sargava, now Vidrian).
You've been missing the point and continuing to argue with every single post anyone else makes for 5 pages now, so I don't expect that anything I say will get through to you.
Duergar are depicted as gray in the Bestiary, and have always been gray in Paizo products as far as I am aware.
Pure black is not a real life skin tone but it was used in blackface depictions - literally white people painting themselves pure black to mock black slaves. I shouldn't have to explain why this should be avoided.
The presence or absence of other problematic elements in the setting has no bearing on this singular change. Paizo chose to remove this problematic element. Perhaps they will remove others later on.
Besides, half the people on here are screaming dark is not evil, but I don't see them having a problem with how demons and drow have darkness as a spell like ability, amongst other evil races. Should we replace it with Daylight?
Darkness being evil is not the problem. Black skin being evil is a problem.
That is why Paizo changed it, because the concept of black skin being evil is tied to a lot of real-world racial history that is deeply offensive.
If you and your players do not find that offensive, go ahead and play whatever color drow you want. Nobody else cares. Paizo as a company cannot publish something as offensive as elven blackface in an official book. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
The D20 dice is the master of all things. If you got poor rolls, with bounded accuracy, you will be in a lot of pain. You can't maximize enough to protect you from bad rolls.
Oh boy is that the truth. 4 sessions in and all the players have been having a streak of bad luck, while the GM has been rolling hot. (Last night, nobody rolled above a 5 for at least an hour, while the GM rolled 3 critical attacks in a row.)
It was so demoralizing we had to stop the session halfway through.
The concept of "blue" doesn't even exist in some worldwide cultures. Some African languages call the sky white and the rivers black. The Ancient Greeks referred to the sea as wine colored.
Color based symbolism is not as objective as you think it is.
That salamander clearly has functional eyes.
You're looking for this one.
As an aside - I didn't see JJ say they would be shades - I saw him say 'lavendar over lilac they can't be both' - and I think.. why not both?
James Jacobs wrote:
There is no mistaking Drow complexion for real life complexion or their bone-structure/figures.
I find that argument awfully disingenuous, because the obvious real-life parallel is blackface, which did involve people literally painted pure black.
I'm all for avoiding the unfortunate implications of dark skin = bad and light skin = good. Cave dwelling creatures should be sickly pale anyway. And as noted, Drow likely come in a variety of blue or purple shades.
CRB Page 277 "Attacking with a Shield" wrote:
A shield can’t have runes added to it. You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon. These can be found on Table 6–7. These work like other weapons and can even be etched with runes.
You can put runes on your shield boss or shield spikes, which function just like a weapon.
Shields without a boss or spikes cannot have runes.
You could put runes on your weapon and copy them to your shield with doubling rings or vice versa.
The Fear Gem is a Talisman, though, which is a consumable.
In addition, you can only have one Talisman attached to a weapon at a time, and it's something that requires you to spend a few minutes and Craft to attach one. So not something that can be done in combat.
Though I suppose your NPC enemy could have a quiver of swords that each have a talisman on them and just drop them after they're used.
This would be awesome. I'd love to see the Alchemist get their weird/gross options back. Tumor familiars! Tentacles! Clones! Vestigial limbs! Drink a potion and peel your skin off and have it crawl under a door! Vomit spiders on your friends and enemies!
Vietnam: Kobold Boogaloo.
You have to use the Hide action before Sneaking. The Sneak action is used to move without being detected. The Hide action enters you into "stealth mode."
Edit: You could also use something like Invisibility to Sneak, as Invisibility automatically makes you Hidden.
It's from Fall of Plaguestone.
Yes, the Horse is currently the only creature with the Mount ability. I suspect that when we get camels and axe beaks and the like, they will have it as well.
The presence or absence of the Mount ability also doesn't prevent you from riding your animal companion, and it's honestly not that bad of a penalty.
Riding Animal Companions, CRB Page 214 wrote:
You or an ally can ride your animal companion as long as it is at least one size larger than the rider. If it is carrying a rider, the animal companion can use only its land Speed, and it can’t move and Support you on the same turn. However, if your companion has the mount special ability, it’s especially suited for riding and ignores both of these restrictions.
As for Bestiary monsters, it appears none of them have the Mount trait, including the Horse. It appears that the Mount trait only interacts with the Animal Companion rules. For Bestiary monsters, there's no restrictions as long as the creature is large enough to ride, is friendly enough towards you to allow you to ride it, and make your Handle Animal checks or have the Ride feat.
How does the ranger get to attack 6 times? I thought impossible flurry was a 3 action cost.
Impossible Flurry is 3 actions, but it allows you to make 3 Strikes with each of your weapons. The feat requires you to be wielding two weapons, so 2x3=6 attacks (at maximum MAP for all attacks).
If you're a Flurry Edge Ranger, your maximum MAP on your Hunted target is -2.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
That's correct. Double Slice is an excellent feat for dual-wielding characters.
It's too bad we didn't get the answer to whether or not Dex can be used in place of STR for Athletics checks when wielding a finesse weapon such as a Whip.
My group ruled that you could use Dex for Trip/Disarm/etc. with a Finesse weapon.
The Finesse trait says "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon."
A Trip, Grapple, or Disarm has the Attack trait, and is therefore a type of attack.
It could stand to be clarified, though.
Agreed! The PF2 books look wonderful and I love the art and layout work in them. The overall organization of the chapters and information is fairly good, too, which is one of the most difficult parts of designing an RPG book. (If you've ever played WoD or first edition 7th Sea, you'll see what I mean.)
I saw some analysis on Reddit of TWF damage, and a Barbarian (multiclassed several times) with two non-agile weapons won out.
This has gotten me wondering, since I thought the reduced rage damage for agile weapons was a balancing factor more than thematic enforcement.
Are agile weapons just not worth using for Barbarians?
Tengu are the same size as humans, and their babies are probably similar. Therefore, a Tengu would need to lay an egg large enough to contain a human newborn.
According to Wikipedia, the average infant is 14-20" measured from head to heel and weighs 6-10lbs... which means the 16" long egg is probably required!
Can't you retch your guts out for a single action and get a new save? Without any limits on the number of times you try?
There are some afflictions that cause a sickened condition that can't be reduced and last several days. Mostly diseases, I think. (Which makes sense, if you've ever had a nice bout of norovirus...)
Also, Mariner's Curse, as noted.
Chetna Wavari wrote:
This makes the most sense to me, as the intention is clearly to have a full round for your allies to conceivably rescue a dying character before they have to make dying saves.
My group is playing in the Warhammer Fantasy setting, since we've all been binging on Total War lately.
Honestly not a lot of houseruling went into it. We changed some languages and switched out a few weapons on Ancestry feats, and that's pretty much it.
We did handwave the whole winds of magic system though, and are using the Vancian system. Nobody in the party is a spellcaster, so it's not terribly important.
PF2 is probably not the system if you want a grim WHFRP style game, but we're playing elven pirates, so there's nary a ratcatcher in sight.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I'm rather confused about the rogue feat "Poison Weapon." Is this required simply to apply an injury poison to a weapon? That sounds like a terrible feat tax and class gating of a rather simple thing. Or is this just a way of doing it as a single action instead of more by default (then what does it normally take)? Or is the mention that when you hit apply the poison effect mean you just bypass the saving throw and start with stage one? And what are the stages and save DCs for the simple poison it allows you to make? Is it just an extra d4 of damage of the poison type and doesn't use the full poison rules?
Applying an injury poison to a weapon is usually 3 actions. The number of actions required is listed in each poison's stat block.
Bruno Breakbone wrote:
The lovely tqomins has done this already!
I prefer to spend my time playing the game instead of waiting half an hour while everyone pores over equipment lists and subtracts gold from their inventory.
If you have a land speed of at least 30ft, you can use the Leap basic action with no check.
Otherwise, you will have to make an Athletics check to Long Jump.
The DC is equal to the distance you're attempting to move. Per the rules for Leap, you have to jump 15ft to entirely clear a 10ft pit, so the DC is 15.
You could also Leap normally, then attempt to use the Grab an Edge reaction to catch and pull yourself up.
A TWF Ranger can probably get comparable damage, but will be picking different options. Probably even more damage, to compensate for the additional action cost and the probability of damage resistance.
The Precision Hunter's Edge (that +3d8 damage) only applies once per round, for example. As does Crossbow Ace (which increases the Heavy Crossbow to d12s).
The 6-attack build is probably taking the Flurry Edge instead, and a multitude of different feats.
All correct on Power Attack.
Twin feint, I can attack with both weapons. Assuming I am standing there, First attack is at full bab, second would be -5 for the multi attack penalty unless I am using an agile weapon then its only -3. If the first attack hits then the 2nd attack qualifies the target as 'flat footed' which means I would get sneak attack dmg added if I were a rogue. Is all this good so far?
Agile weapons are -4 on the second attack, and -8 on the third.
You don't need to hit with the first attack for the opponent to be flat-footed on the second. You do get Sneak Attack on the second attack, as the opponent is flat-footed.
Double slice: I attack with both weapons. Assuming I did not move & its my first attack, both attack at my current multi attack. Does this mean both rolls are without any multi attack penalty? I get that they count as two attacks so I essentially gave up two actions to get two full attacks without a penalty. Am I right so far?
You can move before attacking and still attack at full bonus. Only actions with the Attack trait increase your Multiple Attack penalty. You're correct on the rest - Double Slice gives 2 attacks at the same MAP, which is none if it's your first Attack action in the round.
I think it's more about changing the baseline assumptions.
If a GM restricts an option that the rules assume is freely available, the GM is taking something away. The PF1 rules assumed everything is an option for players. Restricting race or spell options, or saying something like "I want that item to be a special reward later" could end up with players rightly miffed for being denied an option that is supposed to be open.
If instead there are options that you have to ask to use, or get as important loot in a dungeon, or a special quest reward, they are fun bonuses that the GM gives out.
I personally find that a lot more compelling than just buying items.
It also has the aforementioned benefits of allowing easier setting and campaign customization by switching up the rarities of various items.
I would assume future-proofing, in case a later rule interacts with Focus powers. Or just marking them as not available to be taken as spell options, since they are technically "spells," even if they don't work the same way mechanically.
You quoted the exact rules text that allows you to use Focus powers already.
"Unless you decide otherwise, the players can choose from any common options they qualify for, plus any uncommon options granted by their character choices—primarily their ancestry and class"
Taking the class feat allows you to use the Uncommon Focus power. Your Class grants you access to it. There is no other way to gain a Focus power.
No, the exact opposite. Taking the class feat gives you automatic access to the Focus Power.