Tiene's page

Organized Play Member. 68 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the OP's apparent opinion that the descriptions should have been changed to better match the mechanics. The descriptions and mechanics should be in harmony, or else verisimilitude can be harmed and confusion and at-table arguments ensue.

Maybe play up the sheriff's suspicions? And make the goblin cook less afraid of the adventurers?

Alternatively, turn the place into a hobgoblin settlement. Reskin a few humans/dwarves/elves as hobgoblins and bugbears and every halfling/gnome as goblins, and leave some as human slaves.

I’d also rule that non-piercing polearms or other unwieldy weapons would get a -2 circumstance penalty (bludgeoning from anything battering-ram like excepted)

I think that idea of one heritage per kind of dhampir is good, with a shared feat list among all of them. And an “ancestor-atavism” feat all of the “template” heritages can share to let you get a heritage from either the base ancestry or possibly even another template heritage, so you can have half-elf/half-human tiefling, an aasimar-dhampir or even a tiefling-aasimar.

Pastiche wrote:
Tiene wrote:
Thinking of action economy, another potential adjustment is just giving both of them two turns in the initiative order and doubling their HP and number of spell slots: effectively doubling the number of characters there are.

This is brilliant! I like this a lot! That way my players don't have to learn two different classes.

I'll probably still give them more skills, too.

Quick addendum: probably double the shield hp and bt for any shield wielded by a player with shield block as well.

EDIT: and of course double focus points and probably reactions as well

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Pastiche wrote:

Do people already have experience with what the best way is to run published material (specifically Fall of Plaguestone) with a party consisting of only two people?

I don't want my players or myself to deal with the cognitive load of running helper PCs, and starting the PCs out at a higher level is probably not ideal either.

So, this means reducing the challenge of each encounter. If there are multiple enemies, reducing their number so that the XP budget fits is relatively straightforward. However, I'm a bit confused on what to do with fights against a single boss. I couldn't find a weakened template for PF2, nor how that would affect the XP of the boss.

Finally, would it be a good idea to give extra skills to my players, to make up for the smaller party composition? How many extra skills?

I'd consider giving them Gestalt benefits. Basically, they pick two classes, take the better progressions and trained skills, as well as access to features of both classes. I'd give them double the feats and skill increases as appropriate as well to keep them feeling pretty powerful, since action economy will be a big factor here.

Thinking of action economy, another potential adjustment is just giving both of them two turns in the initiative order and doubling their HP and number of spell slots: effectively doubling the number of characters there are.

The Bestiary has weak and elite templates. The weak one effectively lowers the creature’s level by 1. You can look it up specifically, but generally you just decrease every number by 2 except for HP which gets adjusted depending on the creature’s level.

For a published adventure, I wouldn’t change the XP granted.

I think a helper NPC could be easy though. Just use a fighter (or maybe a ranger, paladin, or other easy-for-you class) but without any feats (especially skill feats) and with maybe only one or two skills.

EDIT: alternatively you could give them an NPC animal companion or two. Like a guard dog from the Bestiary. Basically instead of it being a minion it’s just another full creature.

Maybe someone here can sell me on the idea of fantasy androids; they just don't fit my sensibilities. I don't know why. I like leshies and other colorful critters as PCs, I like the IDEA of Spelljammer (never had a chance to play), gonzo settings in general are one of the kinds of settings I have a strong affinity for, but for some reason, "androids" just feel wrong to me. I think it's the "soul in a machine" aspect. For some reason "nature spirit in a plant/fungus" works for me but not "soul in a machine." Or maybe it's that they look human. Or maybe it's because I just can't think of a proper macroscopic niche for 'em in my settings where I try to make exotic ancestries as common as possible (a goblin-kin/orc/gnoll confederacy, a fishfolk kingdom, birdfolk who live like air nomads from Avatar). Maybe extraplanar or from a moon/space? Maybe experiments performed by ancient alchemists? I just feel like I can't make them "common."

But maybe if I can hear what people like about them, I can get a feel for how they should fit into my home-settings in such a way as to make players who are fans of them happy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the topic of “alchemists of a certain type are basically required to take certain feats,” I think that, in terms of future release material, one advantage of the alchemist is that in addition to feats, they can get new kinds of bombs, elixirs, mutagens, and potentially other alchemical items to get new toys that are different from “number goes up.”

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Glad to have playable koroks. As someone with preference for striking and colorful visuals (even if only in my head) I love leshies, kobolds, seafolk, lizardfolk, etc. and always make sure there’s places they fit in my settings (unless I’m deliberately going for an old school feel).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
so elderly looking people being great at magic is a perfectly reasonable assumption?

Sure, if they're the leader of a cult or otherwise notable. Like all assumptions it will be false sometimes, but assuming someone you know to be dangerous who's unimpressive physically is impressive in some other way is a pretty fair assumption as assumptions go.

Ten10 wrote:
Based upon what?

Reality? In real life, and frankly in basically all game worlds, most frail looking old people are not great at physical combat.

Ten10 wrote:
What about Monks? What about magic items?

I did specify it wouldn't always be a correct assumption, it won't. I said it wasn't metagaming, which it isn't.

Metagaming is using OOC knowledge to inform IC behavior. The assumption that frail looking older people are bad at physical combat may be incorrect sometimes, but is perfectly reasonable in character.

It's based upon a D&D trope. Not reality in any way.

The rogue player meta-gamed an assumption and then quit the game because it was a faulty assumption.

When was the last time you saw a frail old man best a younger person in physical combat in real life (not a buff old man a frail old man)? That’s like saying assuming a character described as being buff and muscular to be good in melee is meta-gaming. Using information apparent to the character to make decisions is not meta-gaming but role-playing. (not that meta-gaming is some great crime in the first place.)

NemoNoName wrote:

So I'm running Plaguestone and I was preparing for end of chapter 1. I have several questions; the adventure notes there is a general store with level 1 items and only a few magical items (no alchemical).

However, by end of chapter 1, PCs should have 50gp of alchemical ingredients, a at least one, maybe two +1 weapons none of them can use, and a Runestone with Shadow rune (again, none of them can use) to sell off. Will the general store have the required monetary resources to pay it off? Seems unlikely to me. And that's just by the end of first chapter!

I was planning to say that Tamli is taking over the caravan and is willing to buy stuff off them, which should suffice for that part, plus of course the store is willing to barter some stuff for the few magical items they do have. This still leaves PCs with a bunch of money and no way to spend it, aside from taking half a week to craft something if any of them took craft in first place.

However, it raised a different question. Is there anyone in the village who can transfer the runes? Going by the book seems no, but that's a bit unsatisfactory frankly. So I wanted to double-check what you people think how to handle it, if handle it at all.

If you're planning on continuing on with the same characters after running Fall of Plaguestone, I recommend just having them wait until they reach a larger settlement. It'll really help contrast the sleepy town of Etran's Folly with whatever larger settlement you come up with. Otherwise, having extra NPCs in the caravan would be your best bet I think.

N N 959 wrote:
Tiene wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
Thanks. That's what I expected. Is the same is true for the Cover Tracks mechanic?

Basically. Though obviously thinking of places where you’d need to cover tracks is a bit harder. How many modules have a stalker written into them? But if you want to sneak in and out of certain places without making your presence known it’s an activity that has the potential to make some impact depending on how your GM plays the villainous NPCs and how likely they are to let you sneak in effectively in the first place. I wouldn’t count on covering tracks to be a game changer.

N N 959 wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:

Glad to see people sharing their impressions too!

And yes we had a Gnome Ranger who picked the Kurkri, and he was a blast to play. Ta combo with his Hunter Quarry and the Agile kurkris made the three Attack viable. And he had an imprecise Scent and was a Bounty Hunter so strong roleplay and flavor too.

And god he tracked a lot. I don’t want to spoil, but he tracked a monster from the first encounter who fled, the boss of the part one, and a few strange creatures at the end. He used Survival a lot to start hunting prey before the fight, gaining some action economy.

Probably the strongest character of the group to be honest. And when he decided to pick animal companion, with the new mechanic that allow monsters to become pet, well I don’t want to spoil but I will just say if you play Plaguestone, have a nice DM and have animal companion, don’t pick one, just the feat, you will have good surprise ;)

First off, thanks for the response.

Perhaps I missed this in one of your posts, but were you the GM or a player?

1. I was actually asking slightly different question, I was wanting to know if it was necessary to track anything during the adventure? Did the scenario contemplate players tracking something? You mentioned tracking the Boss, was that part of the script or just a consequence of how the encounter played out?

Does the adventures say things like "And if someone successfully tracks the creature, then X happens..."?

2. At any time during the adventure, did the AP contemplate someone needing to Cover Tracks? Was there any scripted or obvious benefit in doing so?


I also have the book

there's no point where a Tracking exploration activity is called for or covered explicitly, though a few places where a player could try to track and a reasonable GM could go along with it and ask for a check.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
They have more HP and access to other things because.... it's a game. It's about entertainment. I don't want to be at a table where someone memorized every possible combination and freaks out when something doesn't fall into those parameters. We are talking about a game that has walking skeletons and ice breathing dragons.
CyberMephit wrote:
My point is, it's not like there is no precedent in fiction and no possible in-world justification for a mage to use magic to augment his body - or to start with a strong body to begin with. These are not mutually exclusive.

To each his own.

But please understand that because it is a game there are rules. And if one side is strictly bound by those rules (players) and the other side is allowed to blatantly disregard these rules (GM) the former side can easily feel cheated. This is not about exceptions or bending or occasionally even breaking the rules, because everybody understands that sometimes a GM really needs to do this for everybody to have fun, but about playing fair, at least as fair as it gets.

One example to get my point about "bad" boss design across:

When 4e came out we played our first adventure where the final battle took place versus an evil cult leader. The cult leader was described as an elderly looking, tall and gaunt human, wearing plain robes and carrying a mace. Our rogue successfully snuck up to the leader and hit him with his strongest attack in an effort to behead the cult in one swift strike (or at least seriously cripple or hamper the cult leader). Unfortunately the cult leader did not only not flinch at the attack, but instead of conducting a tactical retreat, calling for reinforcments or actually using his necromantic powers just fought back in melee, where he hit like a truck and clobbered our rogue to death in just two rounds using to-hit and damage figures not even our strikers could match. The player of the rogue calmly explained that he considered this kind of game design as idiotic and never...

Sounds more like either the GM or adventure/monster designer (if it was a module or whatever) didn't do a good job of providing a physical description that could reasonably inform the players of that NPC's capabilities.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a fan of obsidian black drow for thematic-aesthetic reasons. Though I think a highly saturated purple, blue, or red, or bleached white might work too -- anything to evoke night, poison, or death (whether it's blood or bones). Without Lloth who usually looks like a black widow spider, drow have less of a connection to the color black specifically anyway.

I'm of the opinion that shadow = evil and light = good is not "unfortunate implications" but rather good thematic, archetypal stuff that resonates with most humans -- who are day-dwelling creatures prone to fear the hidden threats in the night. You don't have to have every instance of light be good and shadow be evil, but it is a good default that can then be played with.

No matter what, I think we can all agree though that the "literally just the darker end of natural human skin-tone" drow that sometimes(?) existed back in the AD&D 1e days are the weakest design choice (mostly for "unfortunate implications," but also because of how mundane it looks). To the point that it makes me sad that it's the default for dark elves in anime.

But overall, it's all whatever; I mean, in my head, kobolds will always look more like how they do in the Order of the Stick than in any official Pathfinder or D&D art just because that was my first introduction to them. It'll be the same for drow for me too: obsidian black with silver hair and brightly saturated eyes, with the occasional bleached-bone white drow or other variety.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
zimmerwald1915 wrote:
VerBeeker wrote:

The Bellflower "Virus"

That is a really...odd way to describe people fighting against slavery.

Isn't it? It's also be how slavemasters dealing with such a thing would describe it. And since we were discussing a slave society, ruled by slavemasters, whose terms and ideology would determine that society's discourse, I thought it apt.

As someone new to Golarion I thought you were talking about a literal virus and the impact it would have on hobgoblin society if introduced.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pencil and Paper to the point that I designed my own sheet to make adjusting proficiency upon leveling up more convenient.

I like bulk for the same reasons. Easier to estimate (and remember without having to look it up) as a GM and easier to calculate as a player. Honestly though I wish the numbers were just “half Strength score” and “Strength score” instead of 5 + mod and 10 + mod just to make it even easier to remember the thresholds.

I see how I misread that now. I suppose I shouldn’t try do reading comprehension on rulebooks when I just wake up. Thank you.

I’m trying to figure out how to make a fighter/alchemist after that hobgoblin preview. My assumption is that RAI is for your advanced alchemy level to be what you use to determine what level of items you can make at no cost during your daily preparations, but RAW it seems to only affect what items you can make two batches of from one batch of regents and what items you can make with quick alchemy.

I’m just posting to make sure I’m not making it harder on myself/any potential multiclassed alchemist PCs I GM for.

I thought it was a paddle-ball? Wooden handle and everything.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alenvire wrote:
Tikael wrote:

I'm not seeing where it says you can't cancel the flaw with a boost, in fact I see precisely the opposite:

Dwarves, for example, receive an ability boost to their Constitution score and their Wisdom score, as well as one free ability boost, which can be applied to any score other than Constitution or Wisdom.
I don't have my books with me but that's the wording from AoN https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=66

Ah, I see that now. I assumed that you could not just negate a flaw so did not pay attention to the actual wording as well as I should have.

However, I don't consider taking 2 flaws to get a ability boost as valid. Weakening the race in another way puts them back in the suboptimal position again. But, its still good to know.

It's useful if you have scores you don't care about or that you want to be bad at -- like a stereotypical barbarian; choose human or half-orc, put boosts in Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, and two flaws in two of Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can put the free boost in the score with the flaw. You can also take two separate flaws in exchange for an extra free boost. You can't put two boosts in the same score unless the score also has a flaw. Likewise, you can't put two flaws in the same score unless the score also has boost: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=66 (see the side bar near step 7 for voluntary flaws.)

So you can apply the two voluntary flaws to the two scores with natural boosts, and put the two free boosts in the score with a natural flaw. This way, a goblin can start with an 18 in Wisdom. Indeed, any character can start with an 18 in any stat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Avoid Notice can let you be unnoticed — it’s even in the name. If you’re not noticed you’re unnoticed. The problem is you’re assuming that if encounter mode is being used everyone must have noticed everyone else or at least something and/or that if two parties are near each other that you need to use encounter mode. You need to check if either side notices the other first.

Consider that there are no other downsides to Avert Gaze. This means you’re doing your best to keep aware of your surroundings while keeping the threat only in your peripheral vision or at the edge of your vision. If you want more protection, you could probably spend one action or perhaps a free action to close your eyes to blind yourself. (one action to reopen your eyes and reorient yourself.)

Bastress wrote:
Tiene wrote:
Teine is a human wizard specializing in evocation magic. Assisted by her rabbit familiar, her dream is to become the greatest stage magician. She also adventures because it pays the bills, helps her hone her magic, and often earns her the adoration and fame she desires. It's only a level one build, but I just love how magician-y she can get at just level 1, between her rabbit familiar, the ability to hold her breath, use her performance skills mid-combat, and her equipment (including manacles to use underwater along with her ability to hold her breath for 150 rounds!). I made her for 5e, but she feels like even more of a stage magician in PF2.

On your character sheet page 1, What is TEML?

I see it under each ability score with little boxes, can't figure out what it's for

"Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary." Instead of writing the proficiency bonus next to each skill and having to update them individually, I just update the proficiency bonus once for each rank at level up and write the rank's first letter next to each skill. (exceptions being made for perception and saves for no reason other than they feel special.) If untrained ever becomes different from the raw modifier, there's enough room in the box for the modifier for both. I designed the sheet this way because I prefer handwritten sheets, but I made this one electronic just for practice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Teine is a human wizard specializing in evocation magic. Assisted by her rabbit familiar, her dream is to become the greatest stage magician. She also adventures because it pays the bills, helps her hone her magic, and often earns her the adoration and fame she desires. It's only a level one build, but I just love how magician-y she can get at just level 1, between her rabbit familiar, the ability to hold her breath, use her performance skills mid-combat, and her equipment (including manacles to use underwater along with her ability to hold her breath for 150 rounds!). I made her for 5e, but she feels like even more of a stage magician in PF2.

"Printable Single Calculation Sheet"

List skills you have with their proficiency rank in the skills box, refer to the corresponding proficiency calculation listed in the ability score section. (If untrained is different from raw modifier, there's enough room in the modifier box to list both.)

non-fillable pdf version: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1N8ng-yTDHXPfu0LX1QZGpmY-AJz9AHCg

Is this an appropriate place to post our own custom sheets?

This is oh so very complicated. I can't just show up? I guess I'll try to register, but I'll probably end up sticking to private games.

Having some days where there’s one big encounter and the casters are amazing and some where there’s time pressure and a lot of smaller ones that the martials get to shine in adds to variety. Strict guidelines are impossible.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

If it is simply -level I am going to be very disappointed as there are already a variety of feats, spells and abilities that don't scale well with doing this.

Critical success/failure being one of them.

I want it, but it requires a bit more thought than just "take away the level".

For on level foes it would be the same chance of a critical success or failure. The main difference would be for checks against simple DCs.Which, I feel that if you want to run a “bounded accuracy” game, there’s probably half a chance that you want things to be a bit less fantastic anyway. (Like there being very little chance, if any, of anyone climbing across a ceiling without handholds or up a sheer wall even at high levels.)

I think that whenever “you” appears alone in the rules it generally means just you and not your allies. However, for gameplay reasons and verisimilitude reasons I’d allow it, even if the name “trackless step” implies that you’re not covering tracks but not making them in the first place. But I would personally rule that in order to cover the whole party you need to be in the back of the group.

Normally you can't use one trigger for two different reactions (or free actions with triggers). But Shield of Reckoning essentially lets you get two reactions on one trigger.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I like rarity but don’t like how there are feats related to gaining access to items. I understand those feats also usually do something else too, but IMO if you want GMs to be in charge of rarity, let them be in charge of rarity. Have the default rarities in the book sure. But don’t make the weapon familiarity feats tie into it. As a GM, it makes me feel like I can’t give an elf PC access to elf weapons for free.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Zwordsman wrote:

It doesn't say how you hold them. Hermetically sealed square alumi covered military MRE's stack in nice squares and I could hold them in one hand stacked rather easily.

I always assumed that they meant it similar to that, That the weight is small. Not that they're like finger shaped. Though you could hold them all if you pinch the corners I guess. Or if you wrap them all together.

but it could also be something like Lambas Bread from LOTR.

Heck they could just be like power bars. Mealed grain+berries+renderd animal fat into a bar (like power bars). Wrapped in leaves or paper and tied in stacks of 7 like little bricks.

I'd be hard pressed to put 28 power bars in a belt pouch [large enough to hold 100–200 coins or two apples], but 4 weeks rations in one are the rules...

That's 999 coins isn't it? Since they're all negligible until you add the 1,000th coin. Or even 999 coins and 40 crossbow bolts.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

I personally wouldn't allow this.

"You can usually also play an instrument for spells requiring verbal components, instead of speaking."

It doesn't state what the "usually" exception is, but I don't think compositions count or it would make little sense for Unusual Composition to be a 10th level feat that costs you an extra action to swap verbal/somatic and audible/visual components for compositions.

But the game already doesn't allow it for another reason - playing an instrument is a use of the perform skill, once presumes, and perform actions have the concentrate trait. Page 250.

The sidebar from the Cast a Spell rules says bards casting occult spells while holding a musical instrument can replace “any” verbal component with a focus component. (And, when you do, the focus component gains the auditory trait and you can’t retrieve or stow the instrument.) The “usually” isn’t quite contradicted since if you don’t cast a spell from the occult tradition or don’t have a musical instrument in hand, you can’t replace the components.

I don’t think playing an instrument as a focus component is an instance of the Performance action because there’s no mention of the Perform action being used, and there’s no Performance check or Performance DC involved. My understanding is that it’s its own and completely separate action (and why then mention that the focus component gains the auditory trait without mention of the concentrate trait?)

To be clear, I’m not arguing it’s intended, just that’s it’s RAW as far as I can tell and pointing it out so that the designers can see and other users can either use this exploit or argue their own points as well. Thank you for your comments by the way.

EDIT: in regards to number of hands for an instrument that depends on whether it’s Heavy or one-handed. The bard entry also says that replacing the component requires that playing the instrument uses at least one of your hands. So a flute or a tambourine or maybe a small drum works one-handed. A two-handed instrument could potentially work with jaws attacks from the animal instinct.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it also feels more “real.” The target is the one that’s flat-footed, therefore its their number that should change instead of everyone else’s. It makes it feel connected to the world instead of arbitrary.

Colette Brunel wrote:
I believe Relentless Stalker (ranger feat 2nd) from Fall of Plaguestone can accomplish this as well, no multiclass needed, right at 4th level.

And this actually works because the initial move triggers Relentless Stalker while Disrupt Prey triggers on every square after the first (possibly even the first depending on interpretation). I believe Disrupt Prey is a free action because it otherwise is weaker than Attack of Opportunity despite being a 4th level feat (it only works on your prey).

Thebazilly wrote:
Tiene wrote:
Mostly just because I think it's a shame that it takes more effort for a raging barbarian to Demoralize someone than a flimsier but more charismatic character.

As a note, there is a 1st level Barbarian feat that allows you to Intimidate while raging - it even nets you some free Intimidate skill feats, too!

But that's an interesting synergy. The Skald lives!

I had missed that! Thanks for pointing that out! (my problem was just hitting control f and searching for “demoralize” on the barbarian feat list page)

So when you Rage as a barbarian, you can't use any actions with the Concentrate trait (Moment of Clarity feat notwithstanding). This means a barbarian can't Command an Animal or Demoralize (even with the Intimidating Glare feat) in a single action. However, the Cast a Spell activity doesn't have the concentrate trait unless a verbal component is used. This means a barbarian is fully capable of casting as long as the actions needed to cast those spells don't have verbal components.

Enter the Bardbarian. If you're a bard, you can replace verbal components with focus components (which don't have the concentrate trait) by playing your instrument. As far as I can tell, this works whether you're a bard multiclassing into barbarian or a barbarian multiclassing into bard, because the bard dedication feat says "you cast spells like a bard."

I haven't dove into the occult spell list or higher level barbarian abilities deep enough to see if there's anything particularly great about this besides how cheesy it feels. But I just thought everyone should know that this exists and I'm not sure how I feel about it. (Mostly just because I think it's a shame that it takes more effort for a raging barbarian to Demoralize someone than a flimsier but more charismatic character.)

I'm using Archives of Nethys and can't find how to use an animal companion's Support Benefit. There's one line where it calls it a Support action but I can't find the description for that action. Is the process: Command an Animal -> grants the companion 2 Actions, the companion uses 1 action to Support and I gain the benefit? Are there any other requirements (besides the "you can't be mounted unless it has the mount trait" restriction)?

Also, under the horse entry it says:

"Your horse adds momentum to your charge. Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice. If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead."

(By the way, I find it weird that it doesn't say I have to be mounted.)

Does this mean I can do this as a ranger using a shortbow while mounted on a horse companion with the hunted shot feat?:

Spend 1st action to Hunt Prey, Spend 2nd action to Command an Animal, spend horse's 1st action to Support me, spend horse's 2nd action to Stride at least 10 feet, spend 3rd action to Hunted Shot, potentially dealing 2d6+4 damage?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crexis wrote:

Wow, thanks for that response!

If 15 damage is done to me and I have a raise a shield reaction with a steel shield (hardness of 5). Does that mean the hardness cuts off 5 damage and then the shield take 10 damage (hitting the BT and thus breaking it) and I also take 10 damage?

Is that correct?

The math is correct but the action economy isn't quite right. You need to use 1 Action on your turn to Raise a Shield. This enables you to use your Reaction in response to getting hit by a physical attack to use a Shield Block (assuming you have the feat). The Raise a Shield action is also what grants the Circumstance Bonus -- you can't just hold your shield to get the bonus.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The section under "targets" here says that if you, for example, target a vampire that you erroneously thought was a living creature and the spell requires a living creature, it fails to target the creature. But what does that mean? Is the spell slot used? Is the action spent?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Verbal components add the Concentrate trait to the Cast a Spell action. (And all other components add the Manipulate trait.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you hold a steel shield and use an action to Raise a Shield, it will give you a +2 Circumstance Bonus to AC for one round (this is the same kind of bonus that Cover grants so they don't stack).

If you have the Shield Block feat and you have your shield raised, you can use your Reaction to block a physical attack that hits you with your shield. This reduces the damage from the attack by its hardness and then both you and the shield take the remaining damage. This only happens if you Block with your shield. Some classes, like Champions and Fighters, get the Shield Block general feat for free at level 1.

A Broken Shield can't be used for its normal functions until its HP is above its BT. You can restore HP to an item by repairing it. This requires a repair kit, and it takes 10 minutes and a successful or critically successful Crafting check (restoring variable amounts of HP).

I'm not super familiar with 1E, but in the context of 2E, to my understanding, low light vision means creatures aren't Concealed from you just for being in Dim Light (which means you can bypass the DC 5 flat check needed to hit them with an attack and they can't use the Dim Light to become Hidden from you.)

Maybe waive the penalty for attacks and effects that have the water trait (and count all unarmed attacks by elementals as having their own trait). But I think it still makes some sense. Afterall, waterfalls are supposed to be above water.

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>