PFS Merfolk do actually get Shore Gift for free, though, per official rulings.
Oh cool! I should have looked before posting hah. That's a good ruling though.
Search Posts
Yeah if you're doing this in Kingmaker, avoid the extra subsystems. Camping doesn't really add anything for very long, Kingdom Building is a slog with untested rules that don't work properly, and if you get far enough for army combat... well my group didn't make it that far but the players were not enthusiastic about learning what amounts to a strategy board game. But even in Kingmaker there are plots going on that take multiple sessions to work through and the parts that are more sandbox are exploration or events. Really, doing Pathfinder Society scenarios is probably better than an adventure path for this since they're built for that already. Each one is a mission, some of them have a plot that ties together, and they're meant to be wrapped up in a single game night.
It's officially suggested homebrew/a variant rule. It has whatever restrictions the GM sets (with some of the elf and Aiuvarin feats providing precedent).Yeah, custom mixed heritage, not adopted ancestry.That doesn't have the physiological restriction, IIRC? That can run into PFS issues though, as variant rules generally aren't allowed unless PFS says they are. Ditto with suggestions that are in the book. An example is Merfolk in Howl of the Wild: the book has a sidebar suggesting that a GM simply let a player have the level 9 feat that gives them legs early if its a land based campaign. A PFS GM can't follow that advice. In a home game a GM absolutely can choose to do that. I have one in my AV game and the party is convinced they're secretly a water elemental in disguise. It's awesome. Yeah, provided you're not trying to finangle some sort of mechanical advantage, PFS is reasonably tolerant of reflavoring in my experience. It's tricky because the rules can't spell everything out in terms of what's allowed without putting a lot of blanket bans on things, which they (rightfully) prefer not to do in a creative game. I remember years ago D&D had a whole controversy about if Tieflings can be certain colours or not. I never understood why it mattered. But this stuff does matter to some people's sense of world consistency and such. I think the best approach is to try to talk to a GM you haven't played this character with before the game and make clear what ancestry you are and that you're following all mechanics fully: what you're doing is narrative only. My experience is that the vast majority of GMs are going to be cool with that. If you get one of the other ones, unfortunately there isn't much you can really do except skip that stuff during that session and then not play with that GM again. But your character is legal so they have no grounds to disallow it. They weren't helpful at all when some Oracle characters were or could become basically broken because of Remaster implementation in PFS. Seriously. I don't know why Paizo decided to shoot themselves in the foot like that.
Ya i just think your thinking is wrong. why cant a legendary caster channel their spells into doing ok melee? then can do it at range with spells. this is what im talking about with the gatekeeping . They can do "ok melee", though. They can't do really good melee, which is the gap where Shifter can slot in. As was mentioned, we've seen in past editions what happens when Druids are just able to be top-shelf at everything at the same time. No single character should be so good at so many things simultaneously. (The Avatar spell on the Divine list has similar problems though people just don't bother taking it in my experience. I've seen it cast once and it was pretty underwhelming for a 10th level spell.)
I can't imagine it's intended to work, especially after the errata made clear that bombs can't benefit from runes and such. Holy Water isn't technically a bomb but it functions like one. You can probably make a case RAW because it is technically a simple weapon and technically the errata doesn't apply to it, but I think it's pretty clear none of that is intended to work.
Generally speaking things that require a free hand say they do, such as Battle Medicine. The manipulate trait doesn't do that, because if it did a spellcaster wouldn't be able to cast spells while doing things like using a shield and holding a scroll. LoH doesn't require a free hand because it's a spell, and spells don't require a free hand unless something says they do.
DC adjustments are entirely within GM purview so strictly speaking yeah you could if you want adjust DCs for someone using a lore like monster or bardic... but the fact that they work so broadly kind of definitionally contradicts the idea that they're specific, doesn't it? I agree with you: The only things that Assurance will work on are very easy. A pack of a LOT of creatures? Assurance is likely to identify them. Want to know generic information about dragons? Assurance should work because that's such a generally known topic that the DC by RAW be easier (or even a simple DC). But against anything you'd really want to use it on, its not very useful on a generic lore like this. The only case I've seen it come in handy is as part of Gnome Obsession, because you can turn that into much more specific lores when you know what you're about to be doing and with the -5 applied Assurance is significantly more reliable. Also true for the oddball cases where you can use it to do something like Piloting/Sailing Lore or very specific research lores. But just as something thrown as part of the class feature? I mean, that's effectively flavour that you know basic stuff about monsters reliably and gives you a mechanic to back that up. Assuming your GM understands that basic knowledge about well known classes of monsters should be relatively easy. That or they need to clarify that broad lores still get a bare minimum lowered DC of -2. Or that they don't get it. A clarification would be nice either way, but it's not a slam dunk case that a "literally every possible subject lore" gets any DC reduction for being specific, since by definition that's not even remotely specific.
PFS itself doesn't care. Long as it doesn't change how it works you can describe your character largely however you want and it doesn't really matter. You can find individual GMs who are ridiculous about such things because that's just how things go with people, sometimes.
Since Avert Gaze ends at the start of turn and the Basilisk's reaction interrupts the "start of turn", the reaction should go first IMO. That makes sense, since the player spent an action on Avert Gaze and this is the only time where it would actually do something. The net result is the player spent an action and got the benefit of doing so, which just makes sense. For the Slowed 1 in this case, I'd rule that it applies this turn for the same reason that Avert Gaze works: the reaction is interrupting "start of turn" and everything else happens after the reaction is resolved.
I'm currently playing a 5-player game where 2 of us have Outflank. This means that of the 10 possible flanking pairs , 7 of them don't have to worry about being in the correct flanking position. It's also often possible for the 2 "Outflankers" to position ourselves so that the entire party can take advantage of this regardless of who they attack. So 2 players taking a feat allows for a LOT of flexibility for the whole party, allowing us to use reactions on one another and set up AoE effect areas on the enemy more easily. Is Outflank in PF2? I use it in PF1 on my Rogue (along with Butterfly's Sting) with a Warpriest that has a Scythe and it works great, but I wasn't aware it existed in PF2. Gang Up in PF1 was itself significantly weaker, needing 13 INT, Combat Expertise, and two allies threatening it just to give flanking to you (and Outflank existed as competition). In PF2 it's a single class feat that only needs one ally and also gives flanking to the ally. Being able to stand next to the Guardian while giving both yourself and the Guardian flanking is really good.
One other big thing I forgot to mention: NPCs do not use PC character building rules anymore. NPCs have their own character building rules that are greatly simplified. While you can build them with PC character rules, NPCs can do a lot of things PCs simply can't and there's a lot of stuff they don't need, so you'll mostly be wasting time and effort doing that. eg: in PF1 if you wanted a creature to have AC X, you'd give it dex/armor/etc and then add natural armor to get X. In PF2 you simply give it AC X and you're done, there's no need to figure out how to get the math to get there. There's tables for everything for this stuff and if you want a level 7 creature that has a low AC but very high HP, you can just use the tables to get appropriate values really fast. [TLDR] What do I need to “unlearn” as a PF 1E GM to be successful as a PF 2ER GM?A PF1 GM needs to change their expectations in PF2 at lot less than the PF1 players do. The general consensus is that PF1 battles are won by good character builds and PF2 battles are won by tactics. This is a very good point. PF2 is a much easier game for a GM to run once you get a handle on it than PF1 is. Stuff has changed, but stuff has largely changed towards eliminating edge case broken builds and one-shot mechanics. Players who are used to building god characters in PF1 that can solo encounters are in for a big adjustment to PF2.
[TLDR] What do I need to “unlearn” as a PF 1E GM to be successful as a PF 2ER GM? 1. Look up terms. Experienced PF1 folks coming to PF2 trip on this a lot and thats why I find folks unfamiliar with Pathfinder at all have an easier time learning PF2. There's a lot of the same terms that do not mean the same thing anymore and it's easy to get tripped up. :) 2. Trust the encounter builder. PF1's encounter building system was bad, just like it's 3.5 parent. Building encounters was as much an art as it was anything else because of how wide power gaps were and how swingy some creatures are. PF2 is a LOT better at having the encounter building system actually work as intended. It's not 100% perfect because you can still find ways to throw something at your party that they don't have the tools to handle (and some creatures are outliers, like Leydroths vs a caster heavy party), but generally speaking if the system says its a moderate encounter, you can be pretty confident it's that. 3. That said... be careful with severe encounters at low level. PF2 is harder at low level than high level due to better defenses and more ability to deal with stuff. A severe encounter at level 1 can very easily one-shot people and the PCs have few tools to deal with it. It's better to have more low/moderate encounters at this level and build up to severe. 4. Don't over-use the Elite template. Elite and Weak are templates to adjust monsters to adapt them quickly. They work well, but Elite makes enemies significantly more dangerous because it increases their chances to hit and crit, while reducing PCs ability to crit them. Use this sparingly in the right situation to make one enemy more dangerous than others in a pack, and such. Don't overuse it for single target encounters, because constant single enemy encounters at high dificulty leads to every enemy feeling super tanky and PCs feeling weak. If you want to scale up an encounter, adding minion creatures that are weaker is usually the best way to do it just because it feels better for the players. How does a PC go about upgrading their weapons, armor, and gear with Property/Potency Runes (and their equivalent) if they have enough treasure to do so? Is 2ER magic treated as a commodity where you can find magical upgrades, consumables, and magical items as long as you have the cash, know the right people, get the correct licenses & permits, and are in a settlement with access to a trade network? Or is it more of the “magic is rare and hard to find” school of thought prevalent in many OSR TTRPG systems? Settlements have a level. If they want to add +1 rune to a weapon, that's a level 2 common item. It's assumed if they are in a level 2 settlement, they can find someone to do this. Flaming is level 8, so it's assumed they can do this in a level 8 settlement. If they don't have access to that kind of settlement, you can give them ways to do it anyway by being the GM by having a merchant be available, let them go find one, etc. A PC can also take the Crafting skill and the Magical Crafting feat, and then they can do it themselves. Uncommon/rare items are different and are not available by default. As the GM, you make those available if you want them in the game. I like to do it as treasure or as a quest reward personally, so the PCs have a reason to go actively seek something or do a thing for someone because that someone has a rare spell the PCs want to copy, etc. Is there a resource that shows on a map where raw materials are mined (like Iron, Copper, Gold, Silver…), refined, and tied into trade networks? I remember using such things back in my D&D 0E Mystara Gazetteer days, and they were extremely helpful for me to visualize trade in a way that text alone does not. There's no single source for this, no. The "Lost Omens" books are world/lore books and they cover settlements and regions and such. They talk about stuff like this for the areas they cover. If you're running an adventure path, it will generally cover it for settlements in the adventure path. Previously with 1E resources, I could figure out what Race/Class combinations most cultures would see used on a sliding scale form “Extremely Common to Unheard Of” with regards to Martial, Spellcasters, Skilled User, Warriors, Experts, and Adepts. Now with 25+ 2ER Classes (and counting), I have no idea how to apply these with the new/revised Ancestries, besides an overall Common, Uncommon, Rare scale by looking at the AON. Not something I have found good understanding from trying to search on these forums, Reddit, and Google. I don’t have a lot of 2E/2ER Lost Omen sourcebooks yet, so this might be something I learn with time? Same answer as above, this is covered in the Lost Omens books and adventure paths. Some ancestries also talk about it in their details. Shoony for example are seen on the Isle Kortos since that is where their home is, and are EXTREMELY rare anyone else. Folks on the island are more likely to at least know what they are than folks elsewhere in the world.
Fundamentally I was trying to solve a problem for a specific player who wanted to do a specific thing and found the class didn't support it well. But really, if it works off DEX and it's also buffing someone who isn't putting much effort into it, then it's not really setting apart the case of someone who is putting more effort into it. "Making forms better for caster druids that take untamed as a second order" not only isn't the point: doing that keeps the effective status quo where caster is still just better since if it uses a form it winds up in the same place as someone trying to be more dedicated to forms. The real answer to this problem is "Shifter", but I didn't want to make an entire class for one player. So "make forms better for a heavily form focused Druid" was the next option. "Make forms better for every Druid that might want them as a utility option" was not the goal, so I avoided doing that. It's a house rule, so YMMV.
My son is playing one and it kind of depends in our experience:
In a more general sense:
If your goal is to do pure maximum DPS, it's not really a good class. But it can deliver decent damage while also being able to pull out all kinds of useful items that would cost a LOT of gold to stock, and there's definitely value there.
Why STR though? "Your" unarmed attack is finesse and can use DEX. 1. A lot of the form attacks you're using are not finesse so I don't think you should be able to use a finesse attack modifier on them. 2. DEX is already good for a caster so it's defeating the point of saying you should have to invest in it to key it off an ability score that you're probably going to invest in anyway because it's giving you AC in caster mode.It's a house rule so modify as you see fit, but since my goal is specifically "make forms better for characters that want to specialize in them" rather than "make forms better for casters that dabble in them", STR is a better fit.
I think it's genuinely kind of an accomplishment to manage to turn even a thread arguing about the benefits of adventuring with your coochie out into a back and forth rules minutia debate.It's one of my favorite aspects of the Pathfinder fanbase, at least as long as the debates don't get acrimonious or toxic. I'm not being facetious here; it's genuinely always fun to stumble into threads and conversations where those sorts of discussions are running in tandom. In the best way, lol.
Do I need a returning Rune on my weapon or can I just get a potion of flying and deal with threats in melee? I mean, flying is always good to have in pretty much every Pathfinder adventure. You want a way to get that. But it's also a good idea to have a backup weapon, and a ranged weapon makes a good backup weapon because it has high versatility. There's lots of options in this department, I just find returning cheap & convenient because having a 1h weapon you can use at range leaves your other hand available vs a bow. But any way you want to do it works. It's harder to get precision damage on ranged attacks unless you build specifically for it, so this will be most useful if someone else is tripping, the enemy is immune anyway, or it's something you actively do not want to be in melee with. Spore War: There's an enemy that has a reaction to disarm weapons. This can get REAL tedious, especially since on a critical success it actually absorbs the weapon. It can't use this reaction on ranged attacks. There's also enemies that do things like engulf/swallow whole, and enemies that explode on death. So in some cases being able to do damage at distance is actively beneficial.
Did that apply regardless of Str? While I quite like the idea I'd think that would mean that you're REALLY heavily incentivized to play a Str dumping ancestry in that case. It only applies if you're using your own attack modifier rather than the forms attack modifier (as usual). If you dump STR, your own attack modifier is getting dumped along with it so you're not going to get anything out of it. It was an incentive to make investing in STR & handwraps valuable, since while you can hardly ever exceed the form bonus, you can get within 1 of it and the +2 is letting you come out ahead. Which is what's nice about it: this doesn't do anything for a caster build that uses a form as a side thing, but it does help someone trying to focus in on forms.
It's Uncommon with no "access" entry, so its Uncommon for everyone. PFS has made it available to characters from Kyonin in general. That only applies to PFS. So yes, if you're playing PFS and your character is from Kyonin, you have access to it automatically. If you are not playing PFS, it's Uncommon, full stop. That means ask your GM if you can play it.
What about holy damage? I've got a fighter / mind smith who really wants to add it to his cold iron attacks for better demon slaying. Holy Rune/Champion Dedication/Get someone to cast Infuse Vitality. Simply being Sanctified doesn't add it to your strikes (ie: from the Tattoo).
Ally Orb is a great item in this AP if you don't have a cold iron weapon. It's a talisman so you affix it to the weapon, then when you want cold iron, spend an action to activate it. You won't need a lot of them, but for key fights it can really help. Astral and Holy are both awesome runes in this AP, and as gesalt mentioned Energy Mutagen for Fire will help and even the dirt cheap base ones will activate weakness which is what you really want it for. Also, have a ranged weapon that at least has basic runes (like a returning Chakram or something). I won't say why, just trust me, lol. You will want a non-melee option at times and throwing weapons are one handed which is nice.
I actually tried that as a house rule and it felt better. Then I tried "if you're an Untamed Druid it always applies, full stop" and that felt a LOT better since it brings you into the vicinity of actual martial proficiency. It's still not great, but it doesn't feel like you're missing way more than everyone else at high level.
Welcome to the Instances of Damage playtest. Where we will examine the Resistances and Weaknesses of potential rules instances pertaining to the topic. :) *laugh* A page or two ago I had suggested something and we had a discussion going about it, but then it turned into people overcomplicating persistent damage, which as a condition really isn't that complicated. *sigh* Whatever they do with this probably does need some comments before becoming final, but people also need to accept that this far into the game there's probably no rule that perfectly covers every situation and the GM & players will have to apply what's rational at the time.
Fortunately the description for most heavy armor does specify that it comes with an underlayer of padded armor, as wearing plate with nothing underneath is… ill advised. Paladin in my Extinction Curse game had a backstory where he misheard his teacher saying he needed to be chaste as chafe. He didn't need no dang underpadding! That character was a lovable fool who wrestled dinosaurs and blocked absolutely obscene amounts of damage.
Did you play at high level? Because it's not viable at high level if your goal is "wild shape is my primary thing." The forms do NOT keep up enough for that to work. You actually need a heavy feat investment both in new forms and in archetype abilities to get reactions and other things that martials are expected to have. Like, if your goal is "make a caster who has forms they can use at times"? Yeah, that's perfectly viable. If your goal is "make a Druid that plays like an older edition or D&D druid where forms can be your primary thing"? That's not viable, and that's what the demand for Shifter is intended to address. (Also STR gets you shockingly little return on investment with higher level forms because you only get anything if you can get your attack bonus higher than the form's bonus, and its actually impossible to do that at a lot of levels. Giving Druid a +2 bonus that it almost never actually qualifies for is one of the stranger design choices here.)
The same thing that a Fighter or Oracle do when they're not doing their default thing? If you're a Shifter, your fighting style involves shifting. You'll almost always be shifting in combat. So the question doesn't really make sense because the answer is the same as it is for most classes. Untamed Druid is one of the exceptions because it's default thing is actually casting and all the shape changing is itself the secondary thing.
The simplest way to handle it is the way it would have been handled had they been stunned at the start of the turn. Pay an action and move on. If the action was already paid because they're slowed, then count that the same way you would have and move on. The whole idea of the errata is to not treat "stunned during your own turn" as a weird case that behaves drastically differently from getting stunned at any other time. Go with the spirit of that.
While we're on the topic, does precious material ammo need to be upgraded to match the Runes on the weapon? While my gut finds this silly, somebody made this point in the forums a few years back I don't recall any push back. I don't think it's ever been super clear. In theory the answer is yes because for higher level runes to apply you need higher level precious materials, but I don't think its explicitly spelled out for ammunition the way it is for the weapons themselves. That said: there's no reason for Precious Munitions to scale to high grade at level 15 unless this is a thing. Of course, doing that makes it so cost prohibitive that it's almost never worth doing. Like, a lot of the time it's hard to justify the cost of precious materials on a melee weapon where you can at least swing it infinitely. Let alone paying that every 10 attacks! If you divide the price by 10 (so it's the price per 100 pieces of ammunition) and you know you're going somewhere with a lot of relevant enemies, then it might be worth thinking about. But the current pricing is just not worth it most of the time.
A wallpaper would be great, though there might be financial considerations if it's Paizo distributing it. I know Wayne Reynolds posts a lot of his art like the book covers on his Facebook page and those can be used as the basis of a wallpaper since they're easy to download. Maybe this artist does something similar and you can get it that way?
How can my characters tease removing their clothes seductively if they don't have any on? Clearly the most essential piece of gear and no expense should be spared on it! (We do actually often keep rings and jewelry and such that we find as treasure because a character just wants to wear it, heh.)
You'd have to ask your GM if they can integrate it into the story and such, but that ability will definitely come up.
RAW, no. Maximum would be level 10. If you choose, you can allow the player to instead start with a lump sum of currency and buy whatever common items they want, with a maximum item level of 1 lower than the character's level. GMs are free to ignore that, of course.
So, a Small Daredevil has a big advantage on being able to proc Stunt damage by using his allies, or enemies, as props And a big disadvantage in terms of the number of class feats that simply won't function against ~40% of the bestiary. You can just not take those, but we're talking about a pretty substantial number of class feats that don't function an awful lot of the time. I kind of find with both of these playtest classes that they put onus on the GM to effectively run things a certain way so that they actually fully function.
It's pretty easy, thats for sure! It's not universally true, especially with archetypes and 10th level slots, but it generally holds.
For most spontaneous casters this table would be identical to the spell slots one (with class features that add extra ones not included). Bard, for example. Premaster Oracle also worked that way. Assuming Remaster Oracle just updates the numbers to match again, then it'll also be the same and a second table wouldn't be needed. Sorcerer is also technically that way, but one of the spells comes from your bloodline. 3.5/PF1 needed a second table because the spells known and spell slots were much more divergent and a table was more compact than trying to explain it in text (especially for the ones with more complex or weirder progressions).
The team does not usually look over charts like this, but thanks for making it and sharing it here! And yes, Tridus is right, the errata is coming soon! I think it's while I'll be out for my surgery next month, but a comment section will still be made so everyone can discuss! I hope that surgery goes well!
I think they can just say "everything works like X unless stated otherwise", and if some of them don't change, some of them don't change. I mean, the problem with the thing they tried is how easily it was to utterly break it with game-warping effect. The problem wasn't wanting a standardized rule. Wanting a standardized rule is literally something people have been asking for years. Some things won't follow that and those will have to be spelled out somehow, but that doesn't change that there needs to be a default. That's how everything else in the game works, after all: there's a default way things happen and then feats/spells/whatever have exceptions called out when it doesn't work that way.
Oh, the campaign we will be playing is Spore War. This was important I think. Still waiting on party composition though. Spoiler free based on the AP name & players guide: Expect demons and expect diseases. Plan appropriately. This is also an "Elf" AP, so if you are an Elf or have a strong connection to Kyonin, it's going to help tie you into the plot more easily. Some of the AP backgrounds are quite good. More info below speaking as a player in this AP right now, skip over if you don't want to learn anything not in the players guide. I won't spoil the plot, but it will spoil the kinds of threats you'll face. Spore War: Cold Iron weapons are actually good in this AP due to that weakness coming up a LOT. Astral is good due to all the ghosts. Holy is good due to all the demons.
Alchemy is REALLY good due to all the diseases and how many things have weaknesses. If someone can fit it in, Alchemist archetype and Advanced Alchemy will let you make things like Antiplague, which last all day and provide bonuses against some very nasty effects. (Antifungal Salves are also from this AP and they're likewise relevant for the same reasons.) A Medicine user is recommended for the same reasons. Robust Recovery is a good skill feat in this AP because what it treats comes up frequently and some of those are quite nasty. Something like Fungus Lore and Survival will come up frequently as well. It's a good idea for someone in the party to be good at that, speaking as someone in a party where no one is good at Survival.
Maya said Player Core 2 errata is coming this spring. It seems likely this will be addressed in that. As for why they don't make a table? Every other spellcaster uses the same format and there's no confusion with those. We just need to get the numbers consistent and then it'll be fine. :)
One of those two (whichever one shouldn't do whatever the default case is) would probably have to specify that it doesn't do the default case I think they can just say "everything works like X unless stated otherwise", and if some of them don't change, some of them don't change. Magus and Summoner are getting redone anyway so those two can be updated, and those are probably the biggest cases. If there's some spell somewhere that acts a bit odd because of it and never gets errata? That's not the end of the world I think. Certainly wouldn't be the first time there was something somewhere that was odd like that.
One of those two (whichever one shouldn't do whatever the default case is) would probably have to specify that it doesn't do the default case. But the Summoner/Eidolon are making two different attacks and the Magus isn't: the Magus is making a single combined attack where they infused a weapon with the power of a spell. The Summoner is literally doing two different things at the same time (hence Act Together). But yeah, if we're splitting it by action then Act Together would have to be explicit in how to handle it, and if we're splitting it by attack roll/save/etc then Spellstrike would have to be explicit in how to handle it. You end up in the right place either way in that case, but I don't think there is a general rule that can cover every case and doesn't allow double dipping where we don't want it. Something is going to have to say in its own text "this combines" or "these are separate instances." But at least in this setup we have a default framework and the terminology to say that a given ability works differently.
An action with the press trait can be used only if you are currently affected by a multiple attack penalty. Are you "affected by MAP" even if you're not taking the penalty? It's a good question and I don't know what the RAW answer is. Given assurance doesn't tend to work on anything on-level, I don't think its a big problem to allow it.
No, but when I saw the rules I decided I definitely would if it ever came up. I think in general "1 army = 1 troop" makes sense. If you bring multiple armies into an area each PC can command a troop and they can be of different types, based on the kind of army. So you could have 2 infantry troops, a skirmisher troop, and a kobold troop for example. You'll have to invent the stats and such yourself and create battlefields, but for ones you want to actually run combat for this will be a lot of fun because the PCs get to actually be in the thick of it with their soldiers instead of rolling totally unrelated kingdom skills. (For battles you don't want to run, just let the PCs roll Warfare Lore or some other relevant skill and resolve it narratively.)
17 slashing + 5 holy + 6 fire - 5 fire resist = 23. So, lumped under my proposal. Everything that does damage as a result of the strike is applied as a single set of damage. The Kineticist is a different character using a different action. So no, their own Elemental Blast doesn't stack into the first attack: it's its own distinct attack. Flame wisps are a buff on the character already making the attack that happen as part of the attacking action. Reactions are distinct actions. If Flame Wisp required a reaction after you strike to activate, then you could make a case its a separate thing under this proposal and someone would have to make a ruling. Unfortunately its hard to hit every edge case. :)
Yep, that makes sense to me. :) Seperate actions would also work. Something like Oracle's Foretell Harm is a free action with no roll but it's a distinct damage application that can trigger IWR again (retroactively trying to apply it to the attack that happened the turn before would be pretty wild!). But then consider a Magus spellstriking with +1 flaming weapon and fireball spell. Separate rolls, so separate instances? For Spellstrike with spell attacks, I'd combine them since one roll covers both results and I think that works pretty well. For save ones, I'd probably still combine them by default since that's the "normal" way of doing it in this proposal and you'd need to resolve the save before applying damage anyway. Or you could treat them distinct in that case. Expansive Spellstrike (or Spellstrike itself) would have to spell that out if you wanted it to work this way, I think. But there's no reason why it couldn't work that way as long as it said "the strike and spell are resolved as separate instances of damage." By spelling that out, the design intent is explicit that this can trigger IWR twice and there's no ambiguity. It's been useful to work through this with you. :)
It does not make a difference*, no. You hit with one attack, you do IWR once for everything on the attack. 17 slashing + 5 holy + 6 fire - 5 fire resist = 23. So, lumped under my proposal. Everything that does damage as a result of the strike is applied as a single set of damage. That's specifically to avoid this kind of inconsistency and double dipping of both weaknesses and resistances. It does mean potentially ignoring some text in the spell. Some folks may not find that appealing, and that's an absolutely legit criticism of the approach. :) Personally I just value a straightforward, easy to apply process that results in predictable outcomes without double dipping, and I'm willing to make the trade in the case of the spell to get it. It's still a good spell if you don't have fire on your weapon and hit something with fire weakness (or someone creates that weakness for you) since the damage add is significant, and even in general it's more damage which is always nice.
I'm pretty sure what they mean is that if you are doing a 2 action Relentless activity, On the Hunt's quickened action can be one of the actions you use. So you'd use it and a "normal" action, and have 2 "normal" actions left.
Get a caster in the party casting Instant Minefield. Do the mines count as props? Because that could be pretty wild lol. (I assume they don't, but its a fun thought.) If you can get positioning where you can shove them into a mine and a prop for stunt damage, Shove is suddenly an extremely powerful attack.
This is about huge/gargantuan creatures, yes. Technically also large ones if you're flanking on the diagonal corners, but that case can be avoided with positioning. There is no avoiding it with huge+ creatures. Considering those are often "boss" enemies that can smash a Rogue very hard, being in range of your ally's defensive reactions is a big win. I've GMd groups where they had a Shield of Reckoning Champion and it stops huge amounts of damage in higher level play and makes the Rogue a LOT harder to take out. If your encounters are primarily against medium/large enemies it will rarely come up, same as if you never have someone with tank reactions. Though being able to have everyone grouped up closer to your healer is also nice given they may not be able to get around the enemy safely to Battle Medicine and with Gang Up letting you stand next to the Fighter, the healer can just stay on that side of the enemy and not have to. :) It just removes positioning as an issue in helpful ways. Well, we can agree on that point at least. Yeah, for sure. This was a good feat when it gave the Rogue flat footed, but maybe not worth it depending on party composition. Now you're also giving it to potentially several allies at the same time. I do not understand the rationale behind the buff at all.
We already know that we're doing 17 slashing and 2 fire damage, for example. For this example I'm ignoring RAW/errata/etc and using what I proposed: This is all one attack, so weakness and resist applies once. It's weak to holy, so you add 5 "holy" damage. Note that I'm not trying to lump it in with the weapon damage here. You triggered a weakness to holy, you get 5 holy damage. (If you triggered a weakness to slashing you'd get 5 slashing damage, and if you already did slashing you'd add that to the existing slashing damage same as if you had two sources of fire damage.) Apply resists: it's got fire resist 5 and we have 2 fire damage, so now we have 0 fire damage. Result is 17 slashing, 5 holy, 0 fire damage = 22 damage.
It does not make a difference*, no. You hit with one attack, you do IWR once for everything on the attack. So you'd add flame wisp into the damage, and then do the calculation. Everything follows this single pattern. The idea is to make this straightforward, predictable, and uniform. (*Greater Flaming would make a difference because it ignores fire resistance, but that's a property of that rune specifically.)
Yes, very true! The player can and should ask the question too. "What skills are revenant for RK here?" A GM should have no problem answering that since the rules say they should and they're going to answer it in any other situation anyway. People don't go "you're doing influence, just roll a d20 and I'll determine if you have any skills that work in secret." If the GM won't tell you AND just goes ahead and uses untrained results with no warning, the GM is not following the rules and is being deliberately antagonistic.
|