Thomas Keller's page

104 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Okaaaaay. Thanks for all the help!


Jason says at the end of the episodes that stats for the characters can be found at knightsofeverflame.com. Sorry, but they're not there. Are you waiting until the end of the season to post them?


And it's still awesome! Loved seeing a little of Tariel's home life, and the Knights reaction to a luxury inn!


I don't know how to do that, but if you watch episode one of season two they all have these nice big mugs in front of them. I need one!


Anyone?


Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Thomas Keller wrote:
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
As an rogue, he could also take Minor Magic to get 2 more cantrips.
Basic Blood Potency (Cantrip Expansion) is probably a better option (assuming you don't have other plans for Basic Blood Potency).
What's the difference, other than one being a second level class feat and the other being a fourth level class feat?
Quote:


You presumably already spent your level 2 class feat taking the dedication, so they are both effectively level 4+ feats.

Okay, that makes sense.

Quote:


The main advantage is if get any further sorcerer class features, they will definitely work with all of your cantrips instead of just the two you get from the dedication.

I can't make heads or tails of this. What "further...features"? And what do you mean "work with all your cantrips"?

Quote:


Also, you might want to keep the rogue feat available for taking cantrips from another tradition.


Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
As an rogue, he could also take Minor Magic to get 2 more cantrips.
Basic Blood Potency (Cantrip Expansion) is probably a better option (assuming you don't have other plans for Basic Blood Potency).

What's the difference, other than one being a second level class feat and the other being a fourth level class feat?


Seelah and Valeros should not have the armor check penalty, correct? And am I right in thinking that Valeros Athletics scores are transposed?


Please?


Good question! And, can Linneus weild it without penalties? As far as I know she's not proficient in martial weapons.


I don't have it on me, but isn't Lys original art in the Lost Omens Character Guide?

I think Tariel is on the cover of the NPC Codex.


From what I understand, they started at level 5 and were at level 6 by the end of season one.


And...the sword logo is not available on a hoodie. Awesome. Never mind.


Okay, I've decided. I'm going to get the hoodie with the sword icon. As for the character apparel, Omelette and Tariel are my favorite characters, but I love them all. So I'm going to get a shirt of each one!


CrystalSeas wrote:
Blog wrote:
Paizo is also pleased to announce that apparel and accessories for Knights of Everflame are being released on Amazon. You’ll find designs for each of the knights available here, including options for sweatshirts, tank tops, hoodies, Raglan baseball tees, and more.

Omelette fans Unite!!! Wear your Omelette t-shirt (or hoodie, or all those other amazing things) with pride!

Now all we need are bracelets that ask "What Would Omelette Do?"

Well, isn't the answer always "RAGE AND ATTACK!!!"

Seriously though, I love this show (and these characters) and hope it keeps going. Omelette is probably my favorite, but it's hard to tell if that's my fondness for Ms. Devivo from "Shield of Tomorrow" and "Calisto 6". I don't really know the other folks.


I'm pretty well set on PF rulebooks, Lost Omens, and Adventure Paths. What should my fourth be? I was originally thinking Adventures, but now I'm leaning towards Pawns.


Um, don't you only get one reaction per round?


Fumarole wrote:

I make lots of notes in my Adventure Paths when I GM, so I prefer to print out the PDF instead of marking up the physical book. I punch them with holes and place them into my campaign binder with everything else I need at my fingertips at the table.

Like NielsenE says, printing out a map page is easier than flipping back and forth during a game.

I also extract images from the PDFs to use as handouts for the players, or in creating item cards and things like that.

Bestiary pages for foes I expect the party to encounter are printed out and kept to hand during games also, though I suspect once the Battle Cards come out that will most likely stop.

Do you print stuff out at home or through some kind of service?


Would it be possible to take the PDF to, say, Staples and get them to print out a full size map suitable for play?


I'm considering becoming a subscriber and I noted that you get a lot of free PDFs with subscribing. My question is what do you do with them? How do you incorporate them into your games and what devices do you use?


Paradozen wrote:
Paizo's GM screen for 2e is an amazing quick reference. Conditions, DCs, and quick rundown on exploration mode are all pretty nice to have right in front of you at all times. Easily one of my favorite references.

Yes, I have it. Thanks!


(I ran 'We Be Goblins' a couple years back.) Wanted to give our GM a chance to play, and I really wanted to play Second Edition, so I'm starting up my own group. Any general advice you can give or point me towards would be greatly appreciated.

I also think I'm going to dive into SubscriptionLand with Rulebooks, Lost Omens, AP and Adventures. Do you guys think it's worth it?


I can't find it anywhere.


Or do you let your players do their rolls to avoid arguments?


Oh, geez. Guess I need to read the core rulebook a lot closer. I'd just assumed it was similar to first edition when it came to XP.

Thanks very much for the reply.


(I also ran "We Be Goblins" for some of the same players) My question is about XP. I'll be running a 5 player party, and I'm confused about what XP I'm supposed to give out. For example, for the first encounter with the wolves, the book calls it "Severe 1". Severe is listed as 120 XP, but what's the 1 for? Is that for all 3 wolves and the caustic wolf? They're listed as "Creature -1" and "Creature 2" respectively, but I can't find a CR table anywhere here or in the Bestiary. I'm assuming that CR 2 is 60 and CR -1 is 20 each for a total of 60 for the three mangy wolves, 60 + 60 is 120.

Anyway, so the encounter is 120 XP for a four person party, I believe. So that's 30 each. With a fifth player do I just add another wolf for a total of 140 broken down to 28 each, or do I instead award 24 points each? Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magda Luckbender wrote:

Cast Obscuring Mist at one of the 8 intersections of the cube you occupy. By default we simplify this to the 4 corners at ground level. There can be advantages to casting OM 5' or 10' up in the air, rather than at ground level. It spreads out in a 20' from there. Squares at the edge of OM are only partly full of mist.

@Thomas Keller: You've been asking good questions. Thanks for pushing us all to come up with clear explanation of a complicated situation.

Thank you, Magda. Very nice thing to say. May I return the compliment and say that your explanations in the Advice subforum, once I was able to wrap my stubborn brain into shape, are very concise and easy to understand (for a young person, old fogies like me need a while to absorb the knowledge!)


If you're in a square completely full of mist, how is your sight not impeded?

Oh, and where does the radius begin? On my square or an intersection of squares immediately around me?


Can someone explain how you can see out of the Obscuring Mist spell without being seen? I'm not understanding the whole 'draw two lines from your square to the enemy square' business.


Okay, I'm finding this really confusing, but this is going into Rules Discussion territory, so I'm going to start a thread there. Thanks to everyone for their advice.


Quixote wrote:

I feel like focusing too much on these options to see through the mist might be missing the main point, in that obscuring mist is a great, versatile spell that can be used offensively or defensively, but needs to be used with careful consideration.

I mean, think about approaching a bandit camp with some minor fortifications. They want to keep you at a distance and wear you down with ranged attacks. But once obscuring mist later, suddenly they're the ones at the disadvantage, and you're the one wearing them down and forcing them to close. No weird tricks. No magic items or "dips" or traits. Just a level one spell and some bows.

I don't see how the party could be wearing the bandits down when they're blinded.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magda Luckbender wrote:
Thomas Keller wrote:
How would they be able to function within the Mist when they are blinded by it?

Note my earlier post in this same thread which provides one way. Scott provides others. Witches and Shamans get a hex that allows them to see through fog and smoke as if it's not there. If you're not a Smog-sighted half orc then a one level dip in Witch can accomplish this.

Furthermore, note that a character fully 5' inside Obscuring Mist can see out! Their targets have concealment, for a 20% miss chance, but they are not blinded. The Blindfighting Feat changes this to a 4% miss chance. Those outside can't see someone fully 5' inside Obscuring Mist at all.

I'm still not convinced that this is the correct interpretation.


Kayerloth wrote:
Thomas Keller wrote:
Wait. Are you saying that you can move out of the mist, attack, and then move back into the mist? That can't be right. You only get one move action.

No, not in the sense of leaving their space i.e. use a Move Action.

But remember or envision this as a static portrayal of a dynamic situation. The bandit has no area within his space with cover or concealment (or he would have those bonuses). He only has his ability to move about within the space protected by his deflection bonuses, armor, ability bonuses etc.. The defender within the OM however has areas within their space which put more or less mist between him and his foe in addition to the above. He's assumed to take advantage of these areas when attacks are incoming and likewise assumed to take advantage of the areas within his space with less mist between them to launch his attacks at the bandit. Neither creature/character is thought to stay motionless through out the entire Round. If there were then other modifiers would come into play ... loss of Dex bonus, Dodge bonuses etc. right up till he would be consider "helpless" as his situation deteriorated defensively.

Can you tell me where this assumption of constant motion by the character is referenced?


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Thomas Keller wrote:
I see this spell recommended in all the build guides, but I just don't understand how it's useful. A spell that blinds my party (12 people) seems self-defeating.

Many normal tactics simply wouldn't apply to your party. Average group sizes are 3 - 6 player characters.

Obscuring mist can be a really great tactic for a group that plans around it.

But in such a large group, and if there is a lack of coordination yes it could be more of an impediment.

If you can work out a way for the party to function within the Mist, then the Obsuring Mist is absolutely devastating. When they are Blind and you are not, then you are probably going to win.

How would they be able to function within the Mist when they are blinded by it?


Magda Luckbender wrote:
Thomas Keller wrote:
It seems to me that the concealment should work both ways. A character in a square with fog should be partially concealed and partially blinded.

Concealment does work both ways. Cover and Concealment rules account for someone e.g. ducking out of cover to attack, then back behind cover. That's what's going on here. This rule set also covers other situations e.g. ducking around a corner (which proves cover) to attack then back out of sight. This is similar to ducking out of the mist to attack, then back into concealment.

Key point: Pathfinder line-of-sight is determined from 5' square corners, not from the 5' squares themselves. When you're in a square on the edge of Obscuring Mist that means two of your corners are outside OM and the other two squares are inside OM. Thus, your square provides both concealment and the opportunity for a clear attack. It's assumed that combatants use available terrain to best effect for both attack and defense.

You're welcome to house rule it to work differently, but it involves changing the base Pathfnder rules about Concealment, not Obscuring Mist. Changing this will alter a lot of situations beyond just Obscuring Mist, often in a way that's not rational. It's actually a well thought out rule that's been lifted from war-gaming convention. It may not be ideal, but other methods are worse.

Pathfinder concealment rules provide both attacker and defender with best available tactics. Both attacker and defender choose the optimal corner of their square from which to attack/defend. The attacker may choose the optimal attack while the defender must choose the optimal defense.

Attackers get to choose which corner of their square they attack from. If you're on the edge of mist this emulates the attacker ducking out of the mist to attack then back into the mist to foil counterattacks.

Defenders always defend from the best corner of their square....

Wait. Are you saying that you can move out of the mist, attack, and then move back into the mist? That can't be right. You only get one move action.


It seems to me that the concealment should work both ways. A character in a square with fog should be partially concealed and partially blinded.


Magda Luckbender wrote:


Everything else I said about Obscuring Mist above seems to be correct. In particular:
* Obscurement is not symmetrical. Those inside the mist can see out better than they can be seen.

Where does it say this?

Quote:


* A person on the outer edge of OM can see out perfectly but has concealment from those outside.
* Those on the outside have concealment from a person fully 5' inside OM. The person inside has total concealment from those outside.
* Those 10' or more inside the mist can neither see nor be seen. Everyone not adjacent has total concealment from everyone else. Exceptions for those able to see through mist.


Magda Luckbender wrote:


First, a bit about the non-obvious mechanics of how Obscuring Mist works in Pathfinder. Line-of-sight is traced on a grid from 5' square vertex to vertex. The LOOKER chooses the starting vertex and the DEFENDER chooses the end vertex. This means anyone standing on the outer edge of Obscuring mist can see out clearly but is obscured (20% miss chance) to those outside looking in. Anyone fully 5' inside Obscuring Mist can't be seen at all from outside but can see out, although everything is obscured (20% miss chance). Anyone in the mist can see anyone adjacent in the mist, but there's a 20% miss chance.

I don't think that's right.


Watery Soup wrote:
Thomas Keller wrote:
Afraid there is no druid in the party.
Is there room for a 13th?

We had, I think, fourteen at one time. Recently started a new game with new(ish) characters. 3 rogues (one is building to a Duelist), one fighter, one shifter, one oracle, one summoner, one slayer, one witch, one barbarian, one paladin, and me.


Watery Soup wrote:


This is tangential to the thread, but 12 people is a solid player pool. A few other people should learn to GM so that you can do two tables of 6 (and so the GM gets the option to play once in a while).

I'm going to be "attempting" to run a Pathfinder 2e game so that he can play a PC. My group will probably only be four people, though.


JiaYou wrote:

What everyone said is exactly right. And generally at level 1 it may not be a good spell choice, especially if everyone else is still feeling out their characters and learning how to work together. And then at higher levels when you can afford equipment or gain abilities to see through smoke, fog or gas, it can be a game changer.

There are two druid archetypes, for instance, that starting at level 4 can see through 10 feet of magical fog, and at higher levels that distance increases. So you could cast Obscuring Mist right next to the druid and he/she can still direct Flaming Spheres or Call Lightning while counterattacks are difficult. Heck, the druid could stand there with a longspear and wait for someone who charges in. That person would be flat footed without Uncanny Dodge and your chances of connecting with the attack of opportunity goes up potentially a lot.

Afraid there is no druid in the party.


I'm confused. My core rulebook says for Effect "cloud spreads in 20-ft. radius from you." I thought that meant it was centered on me and goes out 20 feet in all directions. How can I not be in it?

Sorry if I seem thick, but this is my first time playing a caster in Pathfinder. At our last session, we were surrounded by bandits and I thought about casting this spell, but then I thought "but that'll be just as bad for us as for them. We'll just run around bouncing into each other for a minute, then the spell will end and we'll get slaughtered anyhow."

And I'm afraid I don't know either of those magic items. We've just started, so we don't have any magic items anyhow.


But, how do you do emergency heals or apply buffs if you can't see anything? And darkvision can't see through it, if I'm reading correctly, so none of us can see anything, so how is it good for retreating? And doesn't the enemy just have to wait for the spell to end, and then attack? Or, if they have area attacks, just target the center of the mist and kill me? Maybe if I could cast it at range it would have some use, but just following me around doesn't seem very helpful, especially when I can't see where I'm going if I'm trying to move it into the enemy.

Maybe I should have said that I'm running a first level cleric, so this is one of my two spells for the day.


I see this spell recommended in all the build guides, but I just don't understand how it's useful. A spell that blinds my party (12 people) seems self-defeating.


Quote:
Learn a Spell is an exploration activity. How does a character add (or swap) spells during downtime? I would assume the same way, but Learn a Spell does explicitly have the exploration trait.

If I could just beg indulgence and put this forward for discussion.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Thomas Keller wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to answer, but I'm looking for something official here.
You won't get it. They rarely and slowly answered FAQs in the PF1 era, they never answered and explicitly disfavored specific "hey, devs, answer me!" threads, and they never answered easy questions like this. The unfortunately reality is that with a wide, diverse fan base there are a lot of people who have a hard time understanding pretty simple rules, and they trust the rest of the fans to set them straight. They don't have the time to lay out the obvious and noncontroversial stuff to the Pathfinder fan equivalents of flat worlders.

I'm getting a little tired of your constant insults.


graystone wrote:
Thomas Keller wrote:
Sorry, as I said, I thought this was the place to request a ruling.

It's not that this is the wrong place: it's probably the best place we currently have right on site right now. The fact is there isn't an official 'get you official answer here' place to post. Even in the old FAQ days, clicking FAQ was never a guarantee of an timely answer or any answer at all.

Complicating things is that your questions seem fairly straight forward from a RAW standpoint: where a questionable rule would spur debate on how it should be read, everyone here is reading them the same way so the debate instead goes to 'what's confusing?' As such, you might have to manage your expectation on replies.

IMO
#1 "Learn a Spell" is ONLY for gaining access to spells outside of normal leveling. This would normally be uncommon+ spells.
#2 Hard Limit. The spell section makes it clear spell repertoire is "determined by your character level and class." "Learn a spell" confirms this by saying "if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells." This means it JUST adds it to your options and not directly to your spell repertoire: you have to take it as your spell you gain from leveling, either your new spell or your swap.
#3 100% none. Nothing in ability scores, spells or any of the spell casting classes makes any mention of bonus spells. There is only 3 mentions of bonus spell in the entire book and it's with the Spell Blending thesis and even then, it's in reference to Bonus spell SLOTS. [I did a search of the entire PDF for 'bonus spell']

Okay, thanks. So, if I could consolidate what I think everyone is saying:

1. Wizards use Learn a Spell to learn spells (and write them in their spellbook, which brings up another question) above and beyond the two common spells they get at level up; these can be common, uncommon, or rare spells. Clerics and Druids use Learn a Spell solely to add uncommon and rare spells to the list they choose their spells from every day. Bards and Sorcerers use Learn a Spell to "unlock" uncommon and rare spells so that when they level up they can add the spell to their repertoire. They can also use it to swap a spell in their repertoire for another spell while in exploration mode. If I understand correctly, they can swap one spell for free when leveling up; they can also swap spells during downtime for free, other than the time expenditure. It only costs to swap spells during exploration. To swap out a spell for an uncommon or rare spell apparently would entail two uses of the Learn a Spell activity with double the costs of gold and time. This brings up a point: Learn a Spell is an exploration activity. How does a character add spells during downtime? I would assume the same way, but Learn a Spell does explicitly have the exploration trait. Anyway, Champions now get devotion spells, which use the Focus system, which is separate from all of this, and Rangers, err, don't get any spells anymore.

2. Everyone seems to confirm that the spell repertoire is a hard limit. This was my thought as well, someone on another forum had said differently.

3. No bonus spells. Okay. So the only reason to have a high key ability, mechanically, is to increase spell DC and certain skill modifiers.

Thanks everyone for their posts and please correct any false notions I've had here.

Oh, the other question about Wizards was this: does adding a spell to their spellbook, other than the two free on level up, cost them extra money, for the special inks and what-have-you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Thomas Keller wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
You do realize that if Devs would answer every time somebody asks for an official ruling, they wouldn't have any time for any rules design, let alone sleep or private life, right?
What would you suggest? There is no FAQ button in the second edition forums, and, to my knowledge, Paizo has no equivalent of Sage Advice. How else are we to get official answers to our questions other than asking them?

There’s nothing wrong with asking them, I just wouldn’t necessarily expect an answer in this case (I mean, I accept you find the rules vague, but most people don’t seem to).

Consider someone asking for an “official ruling” on how stat boosts work. Do you think the devs should give one?

FWIW, I think the closest equivalent to sage advice might be Arcane Mark - Mark Seifter runs a regular spot on twitch. He’s pretty good at answering any question and whilst it’s not technically “official”, an answer from one of the designers of PF2 will probably get you the answer you want in this sort of situation (ie how they meant it to work).

One of the great things about Mark’s answers is that he’ll often discuss why they settled on a particular rule or sketch out some alternatives they passed through as the rules went through their various iterations.

Thank you for your kindness and for giving actual usable advice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

"Official ruling for 3 questions please" ...What a thread title.

I guess it beats "Authoritarian Attention for Thomas Keller".

Ah well, who actually needed "Rules Discussion".

Sorry, as I said, I thought this was the place to request a ruling. At least I was polite, unlike most of the "answers" I'm getting here.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>