Thank you for the quick reply, I think what you suggested goes a long way toward clearing things up.
Player_Core_Pg_424 wrote:
A creature with darkvision or greater darkvision can see perfectly well in areas of darkness and dim light, though such vision is in black and white only. Some forms of magical darkness, such as a 4th-rank darkness spell, block normal darkvision. A creature with greater darkvision, however, can see through even these forms of magical darkness.
The bold text suggests:
- There is a possibility that magical darkness behaves differently than mundane darkness
- Magical darkness behaves the same as mundane darkness unless an exception is specifically defined in the source text
- Greater Darkvision ignores the effects of magical darkness by default
Assuming RAI is that the concealment is a normal effect of the dim light, it is possible that the shadow harmony effect could behave differently than mundane dim light. However, since no exception is specifically mentioned in the source text, the default effect is the same as if the dim light were non-magical (i.e. it is ignored by low-light vision, darkvision, and greater darkvision).
The playtest version Justnobodyfqwl mentioned is from the third errata:
Starfinder_Playtest_Rulebook_Errata_3 wrote:
Add the following sentence to shadow connection's harmony: “Even creatures with darkvision (but not greater darkvision) can barely see through the darkness and they treat targets seen through the darkness as concealed.”
It's possible that the errata made it too strong, but I worry that not having the errata makes it too weak. 89%* of creatures listed in AoN have low-light vision or darkvision. Some portion of the other 11% have some other sense which makes concealment redundant anyhow. If Starfinder 2e ends up with anything like that same distribution, then the shadow harmony seems like it would be fairly underwhelming. I hope they do add some errata later to bring it up to something reasonable.
* I got this number by searching the total list of monsters on AoN, filtering once by darkvision, then by low-light vision, and dividing the sum by the total number of monsters
My question is about the Mystic's Shadow connection, specifically its Harmony effect, and whether or not the concealment applies to low-light vision, darkvision, and/or greater darkvision. The harmony description is quoted below, with the pertinent text in bold:
Quote:
When you Transfer Vitality, the target's shadow darkens and swells, reducing bright light within a 10-foot emanation of the target to dim light. This is a form of magical darkness and can overcome non-magical light sources or attempt to counteract magical light as described on page 299. The target becomes concealed while in this dim light and can use the concealed condition to Hide. This lasts until the end of your next turn.
The RAW seems clear enough: if you are in the dim light created by the harmony, you are concealed. Period. I just want to check, are the RAW the RAI?
I saw you had responded to some other threads here and was hoping you'd show up. I place a lot of value on your opinions, so I'm glad to see you came around. If I could bother you again, I had posted another question here about a week ago and nobody has responded. I don't expect you to have all of the answers, but it would be great to hear from you if you did have any opinions on it. (Squiggit also welcome, you seem nice. ) Thank you!
Thank you both for the input. It can seem repetitive, but I do like to see multiple responses with the same take. It feels less like one person's opinion then, so I appreciate you both responding. I'll assume the rules work the way you've suggested.
Choose a creature within 100 feet and Recall Knowledge about the target.
.
However, it does not specify what skill you use to recall knowledge. I was wondering if you can/must use the Computers skill for this recall knowledge roll? It's a bit quicker than the Access Infosphere exploration activity, but seems like it's probably meant to function similarly. The name "Digital Assessment" and the flavor text "A quick check of your records and local infospheres lets you quickly disseminate information to your allies..." both lead me to believe that Computers is the intended skill for the roll here, I just wanted to check/confirm if that's the general read on this.
This is a tough one. I hadn't thought about it that way before you pointed it out, I had just assumed that "hit" referred to some sort of attack roll, rather than saving throws. I still do, I think that is more of the intention, but I can only guess since it's not explicitly outlined.
The text about two hits or a crit reminds me of the Ranger feat Distracting Shot. I think the trigger invokes images of landing two strikes or a critical strike, but spell attack rolls also seem game to me. Area effects with saving throws, like area fire, automatic fire, and AoE spells, I would say probably don't count.
I put the question to ChatGPT anyway, just to see what it would say, and this is what it came up with:
ChatGPT Response:
ChatGPT wrote:
1. What counts as a "hit" in SF2e?
- The rules glossary in Player Core defines critical hit, critical miss, success, failure, and critical failure, but not “hit” as a rules term.
- Instead, “hit” is used colloquially for the outcome of an attack roll that meets or exceeds AC. That’s consistent across weapon Strikes and spell attacks (e.g. a ray spell).
So by default:
- Attack roll succeeds vs. AC → you hit.
- Critical success vs. AC → you critically hit.
That’s the baseline the feat Kill Steal seems to be written with in mind.
2. What about Auto-Fire and Area Fire?
These actions are different because they explicitly say:
- Auto-Fire: “You attempt to hit each creature…”
- Area Fire: “You attempt to hit each creature in a designated area…”
…and then they resolve by Reflex saves instead of attack rolls.
Crucially:
- On a critical failure of the save, the text says: “Creatures that critically fail this save are subject to effects that occur on a critical hit with this weapon.”
→ That is explicit rules text treating a critical failure on the save as a critical hit.
- On a failure (or success with half damage), there is no matching language equating the result to “a hit.” It just deals damage.
3. So, does “failure = a hit”?
Not under RAW. Here’s why:
- The game is careful about translating saves into hit-equivalents. For example, area weapons only tell you that critical failure = critical hit. They don’t say “failure = hit.”
- If Paizo wanted that mapping, the text would need to be explicit—because “hit” is otherwise shorthand for “success on an attack roll.”
This means:
- Critical failure on Reflex save vs. Auto-Fire/Area Fire = critical hit.
- Failure/success (half damage) = not a hit.
- Even if it feels counterintuitive (“how did they take damage without being hit?”), that’s consistent with how spells like fireball or electric arc work—damage isn’t necessarily a “hit.”
4. Comparing to spells
You’re spot on with your instinct about electric arc. Spells that force saves don’t produce “hits” at all unless they specifically say they count as hits (and none do, except where effects explicitly mirror weapon rules, like crit fail = crit hit).
So:
- Attack roll spells (ray of frost, telekinetic projectile): Yes, they can trigger Kill Steal.
- Save-based spells (electric arc, fireball, etc.): No, they don’t count as “hits.”
- Weapons with Auto-Fire/Area Fire: Only crit fails on saves count as critical hits. Normal fails/successes don’t count as hits.
5. RAI vs RAW
- RAW: Only critical failure saves count as critical hits. Nothing else is a “hit.”
- RAI (likely): The feat Kill Steal was designed for “gunslinger fantasy” where you shoot the enemy your ally softened up—it wasn’t intended to trigger off area effects or incidental splash damage. That’s why they didn’t broaden “hit” to include save-based effects.
✅ Final Ruling (RAW, and consistent with design):
- Kill Steal triggers only when the ally makes actual “hits” with attack rolls.
- Area weapons: a creature’s critical failure on its save counts as a critical hit (and thus could trigger Kill Steal if it happens at the end of the ally’s turn).
- Regular failures/successes on saves are not hits and don’t count.
I would second that. PF2e just finally allowed playing as Large creatures without punishing you with clumsy 1, though they allowed it on the condition that you don't gain any reach advantage, except through feats. That seems to be carrying over into Starfinder 2e so, RAI, I would say Large is their limit at the moment until/unless they put some thought into handling potential balance issues of allowing Huge PCs.
Currently I think they are just allowing some ancestries to have stances that give increased reach while wielding a 2-handed melee weapon (mostly large ancestries but, funnily enough, leshy had it first. XD) so it's interesting to see if there is a new feat (i.e. Hulking Corpsefolk) that simply gives an unconditional reach increase.
I would say just ask your GM though. If you really want to play it, I think most things can be allowed so long as they don't cause any problems or balance issues. Especially if everybody is having fun with them. :)
When you Transfer Vitality, you can select any number of bonded allies to transfer to, though the total maximum number of Hit Points you can transfer doesn’t increase.
.
I wondered how this interacted with various Connection Harmonies which mention additional affects on the target of your healing. If you use Radiant Bond to heal all allies and your harmony grants a recall knowledge check, concealed condition, chance to counteract a condition, etc, do all healed allies gain that benefit?
Thank you very much for the responses! I was hoping to have more people weigh in on this so, if anybody reads this thread and feels like it's already been answered, I would encourage people to post because I would like to hear a number of people's experiences and see if people handle things the same way across their games. That said, thank you to the people who have responded so far. :)
I think that what I've read so far has helped me clarify my thinking about the subject, even if I still have questions. I suppose what I'm aiming for is to reconcile how the rules should/do work in game with how things should work logically in real life.
Sometimes the rules of the game align perfectly well and intuitively with how things work in the real world. Other times I see people arguing over whether a rule does or does not make sense as if realism was the foundational building block upon which all game rules are based, but I see it as the reverse: Paizo makes rules based on what will maintain game balance, then comes up with some explanation that will help people to suspend their disbelief. Game balance takes priority over 100% realism.
After reading the above, my thinking about the various knowledge check skills is this:
Recall Knowledge: A quick, off-the-top-of-your-head recollection of what you already know, typically takes 1 action (2 seconds).
Access Infosphere: Researching something you do not know to see what other people have said about it, checking websites for useful information. Typically takes 10 minutes to do the research, but maybe 1 minute if you're lucky.
Gather Information: If you don't find what you're looking for online you can always ask in a forum, send someone an e-mail, or otherwise request/inquire about some information you're seeking and see if anyone has anything helpful to say. Takes longer than browsing through conversations others have already had, typically 2 hours of asking questions and waiting for responses (which is really generous considering my real-life experience).
To speak to the more realistic side of things, I think the responses here have moved me in the opposite direction from what might be expected. As a logical sequence of events, it makes sense to me that I would first think if I already know the answer to something. If I do not, I would look online to see if anybody else has asked the same question. If not, I might post the question myself and see what others have to say about it. From a real-life perspective, it makes total sense that you perform all three of the actions under generally relaxed circumstances about something you were intent on getting an answer to. The question then becomes one of game balance: Do you make a rule limiting how many checks you can combine simply to maintain game balance, even if the alternative might seem more realistic?
The consensus so far seems to be yes, give players a choice of one of these three so that knowledge checks do not become trivial and remain impactful. If anybody else has input on the matter, whether you agree or disagree, or if you could say, "Yeah, this is how my group plays it too" or something, I would love to get a better idea of how many groups are handling these checks, so don't be shy to comment. Thanks. :)
I was wondering if anybody could help me figure out how knowledge checks are intended to work in Starfinder 2e and what to expect from them. When I say "knowledge check" here, I mean anything like Recall Knowledge, Access Infosphere, or Gather Information.
In Pathfinder 2e, if you need to know something, you make a Recall Knowledge check. You either know a thing or you do not know a thing. One shot and you're done. Maybe if you're in town you could follow up with a Gather Information check, but I always had some feeling like there was at least a fuzzy line separating the domains of Recall Knowledge and Gather Information, and that they were often used for different purposes, or then not every thing you failed to recall knowledge on was worth investing time poking around town to figure out.
I wonder, with the addition of the Infosphere, does Starfinder 2e play similarly, or is acquiring knowledge just a different game now?
Of course you still can Recall Knowledge, that's normal. On top of it you can still Gather Information, but now the description for Gather Information mentions "Canvasing...online infospheres to learn more about a specific topic." I guess thinking of it as accessing the internet changes my idea of the way you use Gather Information vs. just talking to a bunch of locals. Is Gather Information in Starfinder 2e just a second chance at a failed Recall Knowledge check?
What about Access Infosphere? Is this a third chance at Recall Knowledge? Maybe these things are all balanced by the total time they would take (10 minutes for Access Infosphere seems somewhat trivial, 2 hours for Gather Information is significant though)? I never played Starfinder 1e so I don't have a good grasp on how these things work in actual play, or what the rules limit you to doing, since the playtest only mentions these things in isolation from one another (as far as I found).
I wanted to get people's opinions on what the intent seems to be as far as how these skills get used and when, and how they work in practice.
To be clear though, is there consensus about whether things like Cyclonic Ascent use your base land Speed or your modified land Speed? If you have base Speed 30, with +10 from Tailwind, is your fly Speed from Cyclonic Ascent then 30, or 40?
I am building a character, a merfolk sylph air/water kineticist, who "swims" through the air (at level 8 Cyclonic Ascent). This means the character will have a land Speed, swim Speed, and fly Speed. The Air Impulse Junction also allows me to move half my speed, so I have incentive to boost my land/fly Speed.
Which begs the question: How can I increase my fly speed? Or the more general question of how the rules work with Speed bonuses and fly/swim/climb/burrow Speeds?
Page 420 of Player Core reads:
wrote:
Speed: Most characters and monsters have a Speed statistic that indicates how quickly they can move across the ground. This statistic is referred to as land Speed when it's necessary to differentiate it from special Speeds.
_
When you use the Stride action, you move a number of feet equal to your Speed. Numerous other abilities also allow you to move, from Crawling to Leaping, and most of them are based on your Speed in some way. Whenever a rule mentions your Speed without specifying a type, it's referring to your land Speed.
My problem is, every option I look at seems to only increase land Speed.
Ancestry feats...
Swift: You move with the wind always at your back. Your Speed increases by 5 feet.
General feats...
Fleet: You move more quickly on foot. Your Speed increases by 5 feet.
Item bonuses...
Boots of Bounding: ...These boots give you a +5-foot item bonus to your Speed...
Spells...
Tailwind: The wind at your back pushes you to find new horizons. You gain a +10-foot status bonus to your Speed.
If Speed = land Speed, then every option seems to only increase land Speed. Is this intentional? The only way I see around this, which I don't like for reasons which will become obvious, is if you gain speeds based on your modified land Speed.
Take Cyclonic Ascent for example: "You gain a fly Speed equal to your land Speed or 30 feet, whichever is greater..."
So, if you have a base Speed of 30, as an elf, and you are affected by Tailwind, your Speed becomes 40. If Cyclonic Ascent is based on your modified Speed, then your fly Speed would also become 40. If this is the intention, however, it is a frustrating way of getting bonuses. My merfolk being an extreme example, they have base land Speed of 5. For me to get a bonus to my fly speed from Cyclonic Ascent, I would need a +30 bonus to my land Speed, and it would only net me a +5 bonus to fly Speed. And, since I have an inherent swim speed not based on my land speed, I have no means to improve that.
Is it Paizo's intention that we not be allowed to improve alternative speeds at all? What gives?
Thank you all again for the help, and thank you Finoan for coming up with more obscure examples like Scatter. :)
I wondered, with the rarity in spells and the change to Caustic Blast, if they were trying to move away from splash damage as well. Seems a lot of people have noticed that. Maybe it will just be an alchemist thing. Curious to see.
To Unicore though, I thought of something yesterday that I wish I'd thought to put in the original post.
Unicore wrote:
The RAWest (and very unsatisfying answer for many players) is that splash is a damage type that some creatures have a weakness to. So it is possible (even if it feels anti-RAI) that spells doing splash damage don’t interact with the trait at all and just do a bit more damage of the splash type to the target.
_
I had forgotten about the line on Amped Ignition that reads, "You are not harmed by splash damage from amped ignition." It doesn't say anywhere else in the spell anything about the splash damage applying to other creatures than the target, so there is at least some implication in that sentence. Paizo seems to take for granted here that readers will know that splash damage can harm surrounding creatures, and that the spell is exceptional in that it will not harm the caster.
It still does not specify how far-reaching the splash is, or when it triggers, but the statement is made as if there were some set of rules people should know, so that is at least some sort of guidance, or acts as a bit of evidence to the direction of how splash damage is intended to work.
Thankfully, the rules for splash damage on bombs are pretty straight-forward. It's not official to say that they apply elsewhere, but they could be applied without much trouble, and that might be the easiest thing when you have spells like this that imply splash damage to surrounding creatures without saying explicitly how far away, or on which roll results.
The answer to the title question seems obvious. However, when I tried to look up clarification on the rules for splash damage recently I found that the only results I got were concerning alchemical bombs. See below:
Quote:
Player Core pg. 292
A bomb deals any listed splash damage to the target on a failure, success, or critical success, and to all other creatures within 5 feet of the target on a success or critical success. Add the damage together before applying resistance or weakness, and don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.
Quote:
GM Core pg. 244
Most bombs also have the splash trait. When you use a thrown weapon with the splash trait, you don't add your Strength modifier to the damage roll. If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage. On a critical failure, the bomb misses entirely, dealing no damage. Add splash damage together with the initial damage against the target before applying the target's resistance or weakness. You don't multiply splash damage on a critical hit.
:
For example, if you throw a lesser acid flask and hit your target, that creature takes 1 acid damage, 1d6 persistent acid damage, and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures within 5 feet of it take 1 acid splash damage. On a critical hit, the target takes 2 acid damage and 2d6 persistent acid damage, but the splash damage is still 1. If you miss, the target and all creatures within 5 feet take only 1 splash damage. If you critically fail, no one takes any damage.
I was unable to find any generally applicable rules on how splash damage works, only how it works for alchemical bombs. Though I was wondering specifically how splash damage works with spells, they seem few and far between, especially since Caustic Blast (formerly Acid Splash) had its own splash damage removed. What spells do exist do not possess the Splash trait, and the Splash trait seems to specifically refer to bombs. I found two examples of spells with splash damage: Exploding Earth, and the Psychic's AmpedIgnition.
Do we then assume that splash damage for spells follows the rules for alchemical items? That it does a flat damage amount on a Critical Success, Success, or Failure, no damage on a Critical Failure, and affects all creatures within 5 feet on Success or Critical Success?
Exploding Earth mentions specifically the effects of the splash damage on a Success or Critical Success, but does not mention the Failure result. Should it be assumed that the splash damage still applies, or does it not apply on a Failure where the spell is concerned? The spell description also does not mention the splash damage affecting multiple creatures. Should it be assumed that the splash damage affects only the spell's target, or do we use alchemical bombs as the model and assume creatures within 5 feet are also affected on a Success or Critical Success?
Thank you all for being so kind and showing me to the "How to" section, and for being so thorough with your analysis.
So the verdict seems to run like this:
Ignition: Bonus damage applies to the spell's primary damage, not to the splash or persistent damage.
Implosion: Bonus damage does not apply, as the spell has a duration.
Coral Eruption: Bonus damage does not apply, as the spell has a duration. (Nobody said so yet but I'm assuming. I just wanted to check if anybody disagreed.)
Most of Telekinetic Rend is also cleared up, but I do have one more question about it.
Say you cast an amped Telekinetic Rend. The damage result is as follows:
I was wondering if somebody could explain to me how the damage bonus from Unleash Psyche applies to different sorts of spells. The rules for the bonus damage read:
"When you cast a damaging spell, you gain a status bonus to its damage equal to double the spell's level. This applies only to spells that don't have a duration and that you cast using psychic spellcasting."
Does persistent damage count as damage with a duration? If so, does the bonus damage apply outside of a critical failure? If not, is the damage bonus applied to the persistent damage? To the splash damage from amp? If the damage bonus is only applied once, how is it determined where the damage gets added?
Is a sustained spell considered damage with a duration? If not, does the bonus damage apply only to the initial casting, or also each time you sustain the spell while your psyche is unleashed?
The amped version of Telekinetic Rend deals 1d6 bludgeoning and 1d6 slashing damage to multiple targets. Is the bonus damage from Unleash Psyche applied to all targets? Is the bonus damage applied to both the bludgeoning and to the slashing damage independently, or is it only applied once to the final damage amount? If applied once, how is it determined where the damage gets added?
--- ---
CORAL ERUPTION
(Immediate Damage nested in duration spells)
This is sort of a bonus question. I couldn't find this kind of example in any spells a psychic might actually take, so I grabbed something from the Arcane list as a stand-in for something that may exist and be applicable to a psychic.
Coral Eruption sort of has two effects: one immediate which would satisfy the condition of damage without a duration (6d6 piercing), and the other with a 1 minute duration (difficult and hazardous terrain). Would the bonus damage from Unleash Psyche apply to the immediate damage of such a spell, or does the fact that the spell lists a duration make it ineligible?
--- ---
P.S. If somebody could tell me how to post links, or direct me to a page that lists different code you can use on the website to do things, I would appreciate it.
The GM will have to do some serious amounts of adjudication on how to make that work (what DC does it have for detection and repair, and how much damage does it do to the victim), so I am hoping this is for a game among friends rather than an Organized Play PFS character.
Friends. I plan to keep it light-hearted. Just off-to-the-side stuff, nothing to actually kill enemies or interact with primary NPCs. Flavor and roleplay. I don't even really care if the attempts work out, or if the character constantly fails in his attempts, though it would be funny if it's the latter and then he's surprised when somebody actually dies that one time.
The point is to add fun flavor to the character, not to get the party in trouble or to gain any kind of mechanical advantage in the game or anything like that.
I am making a cleric of Zyphus and wanted to get people's opinions: which skill or skills would best serve the function of facilitating "accidents".
One of Zyphus's edicts is to "encourage deadly accidents" and his profile on Nethys says that his Divine Skill is Thievery. I wondered why thievery and if it is only because it is a skill used to Disable a Device? Perhaps there is an implication there that Thievery is meant to be used not to disable a device, but to rig it to fail at some point and cause a potential "accident".
I was also wondering if it would be appropriate to take a lore skill like Sabotage Lore as a catch-all skill for setting up accidents. If this was possible, would you then still need some kind of tool, like thieves' tools, to disable more complicated devices? (I would think so)
But sabotaging complicated devices is not the only way to cause accidents. You could do something simple like moving a ladder to the edge of a roof, hoping for it to slip and cause a fall. Does Thievery seem appropriate for more simple, uncomplicated kinds of sabotage?
Am I focusing too much on thievery and overlooking other viable options? What are your thoughts on the best way to go about this?
If a summoner gains a feature like Bardic Lore, is their eidolon also capable of using that lore? I don't believe that eidolon's benefit from a summoner's skill feats, but the language for the eidolon reads:
[Your eidolon] shares your skill proficiencies. [Your eidolon] shares your proficiency rank for Perception, saving throws, and skill checks.
the language for Bardic Lore reads:
You are trained in Bardic Lore, a special Lore skill that can be used only to Recall Knowledge, but on any topic.
It seems to check out: you have a proficiency, eidolon shares proficiency, but not any skill feats that could apply to said skill.
I only wonder because it's an unconventional skill, which gives me some pause, but I can't find any specific prohibitions to such a thing. Thoughts?
This is semi rules discussion, semi opinion question.
I had a couple of questions about this spell, and people's thoughts on it.
First, I was wondering about using the spell alongside Art Lore to, say, color a canvas. There is an option to "color" nested in the "Tidy" function of the spell. So I wonder what exactly was meant by color that associates it with tidying. Is it meant more to restore color, or to be able to recolor things on a whim?
If it can recolor things, turn blue to red and purple to pink, then I wonder how much control you have over that. If you have a blank white canvas, do you turn the whole canvas red, or can you make a red stroke, or spot? If the canvas is half yellow and half blue to start, can you color the yellow or blue portion red, or does it turn the whole thing red, because the canvas is the target?
Second question: I was excited about using the spell to clean people when bathing isn't an option, but I noticed then that the target is an object. I did see a forum with people discussing the same thing, though they discussed as if it wasn't an issue and nobody mentioned that the target is an object.
It does seem odd, that you can remove dirt from armor, but not dirt from somebody's face, since then you're targeting a creature. I wondered what people think of using the spell for that kind of a borderline issue, and if it opens the spell up to any abuses if you allowed that. I think you could draw some distinction between removing/adding dirt to the surface of a person, but not doing things that affect the person directly like warming/cooling them, or coloring their skin or such.
Hair might be defined as a non-living "object", maybe that's an abuse case? If somebody is looking for a brunette and you turned your hair blonde. Could also be a fun creative option. Where do people think the lines are?
I don't know that there's an official ruling on this, so I wanted to ask people's opinions:
If a character gains an early archetype feat, through something like the Ancient Elf heritage or any other means, what would you suggest they do with their Level 2 free archetype feat?
Should such options be disallowed? Do you let them take one of the level 4 feats? A dedication feat for a different archetype? I wondered if this comes up and how groups typically handle it, or would expect it to be handled.
When a character has a score of 18, or a +4 modifier under the remaster rules, a +1 increase (Ability Boost) only counts for half as much and won't raise your modifier to +5. You'll need two boosts for that.
So when you take a feat for an animal companion and it says increase a stat by 1, but the stat is already +4, does the same rule apply? Do you need two feats that increase a stat by 1 (or one feat that increases it by 2) to get from +4 to +5?
Does the Magus's Spellstrike combine strike damage with spell damage?
e.g.
If I Spellstrike with a slashing weapon and Gouging Claw and an enemy has Resist Slashing 5, Do I subtract the 5 from my damage once or twice?
If my weapon has the Flaming Rune (1d6 fire damage) and I Spellstrike with Produce Flame against an enemy with Weakness Fire 5, do I proc the extra 5 damage once or twice?
I wanted to open a discussion on what are the best ways players have seen a bard roleplayed, conventionally or unconventionally.
Of all of the classes that have ever graced the pages of a Paizo sourcebook, and all the way back into D&D, only one class has ever intimidated me in a way that I was actually scared the play it: The [dreaded] Bard!
I think there are two big barriers to entry for me: one being the musical theme of the class, and the second being the pressure I feel to have many actions be detailed and novel.
I love support, and love the idea of a support-dedicated class, but I always hated that it was stuck behind the barrier of a class that is all about music and instruments and things that I am so unfamiliar with, and not especially interested in trying to roleplay. You can also go the oratory route, but that side of the Bard that is like, “Go ahead, say something inspiring,” it's a lot of pressure! While a Fighter swings a sword and a wizard might cast a fireball, it feels like the bard is expected to come up with something totally new and unique to do each time they use their abilities. Like casting a spell to give a +1 bonus vs. giving a speech nobody's ever heard before to give a +1 bonus. Yikes!
So above, when I say “conventionally or unconventionally”, what I mean to ask is how people have seen the traditional bard done well in a way that makes it more manageable and inviting, or how they've seen untraditional bards break the mold, get away from their stereotypes, and be played in a way that opens up some other interesting options for roleplay besides music and oratory.
It wouldn't work so well for things that change your fist attack to have better stats though. Kicking would still be just the regular stats.
You might also look into shield spikes or other such attached weapons to put on your shield. You can use your shield for both making attacks and defending with. Raise a Shield and Shield Block are not impacted by using the shield to make attacks with.
Yeah, I know! I was looking at the orc feat Iron Fists and it's specifically a fist improvement. Grr. :)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it's nice to know my options anyway. Thanks for the shield advice and all the rest. Very helpful. :)
Question 1, I think, was covered pretty well: nothing says you can't wear armor or be encumbered.
I actually want to put questions 2 and 3 back up for appraisal though.
Going to the free-hand rules is a good idea I think, but I also wanted to square things with how the game defines unarmed attacks. So, this is what I dug up:
“Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.
Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body. Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks. Details for those unarmed attacks are provided in the abilities that grant them.”
I think the key take-aways from all of that are, “You can strike with your fist or any other body part” and “Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body.”
Unarmed attacks seems loosely defined as just attacking with your body in some capacity, which is nice because it leaves things open to describe what is maybe cooler or more fitting for your character, if you want to kick or headbutt or such.
In light of that, I think you could mechanically use an unarmed attack, like a kick, followed by use of a free hand. And, if you can do that, it's probably just as well to—for flavor—punch something and then use your free hand, or grab as a part of the attack or such, because the underlying mechanics would be the same: unarmed attack, followed by use of the free hand, with the stipulation that the unarmed attack does not have to be with the free hand, it's somewhat to your imagination.
I had some questions about how Wrestler archetype abilities work with a character wearing full plate armor and a shield:
1. The dedication mentions things like: "Prerequisites: trained in...unarmored defense" and "Your training in the wrestling arts has made you particularly adept at moving, striking, and grappling while unencumbered." Nothing I see in the archetype, though, specifically prohibits you from using any of its feats while wearing light, medium, or heavy armor, or while encumbered.
Q: Are these things simply flavor text, or are there some restrictions on armor and encumberment?
2. With feats like Combat Grab or Snagging Strike, the requirements specify that, "You have one hand free, and your target is within reach of that hand." The feat text also specifies that you must "Make a strike while keeping one hand free." The keeping one hand free bit, I just am not sure if they really wanted to specify that you can't be holding something.
Q: If you have a free hand, with a shield in the other, can you use the free hand both for the strike, as well as to grab or make your enemy flat-footed?
3. Most other feats on the archetype list have the prerequisite "You have a creature grabbed or restrained." Many, like Suplex, also prompt you to "Make an unarmed melee strike against the creature you have grabbed or restrained."
Q: With a shield in one arm, and an enemy grabbed in the other, can you still strike with the hand you're using to grapple/grab/restrain? Can you make other unarmed strikes like a kick or a headbutt?
When the Champion Reaction, Iron Command, is used and an enemy has immunity to one of the effects but not both, are they forced into the remaining option, or can they choose the one they are immune to as a means to avoid consequence?
For example, a swimming enemy cannot be knocked prone. If you used Iron Command on a swimming enemy would it:
A. Be forced to take the damage, since it cannot be knocked prone?
or
B. Be able to choose to "drop prone" even though it technically cannot?
p.s. To clarify, I couldn't think of a case in the opposite direction. It makes sense to me that an enemy with Resistance or Immunity to a damage type could still choose to take that damage even if it's 0, and I'm not trying to trick anyone into saying they can't. :)
So, the title here is mostly a joke based on another thread titled, "Is it just me, or is Iron Command *really* strong?"
That said, I had a bit of the opposite reaction when I read Iron Command, and I wanted to ask people's opinion on its use, especially people who have had experience using it or have seen others in their games use it. I'm going to sound negative here, but I really am looking for people's experience with this ability or opinions why it's not as bad as I think or why I'm not looking at this the right way.
My first concern when reading this Champion's Reaction is that it gives the enemy a choice. That essentially is like saying, "Your reaction does A or B, whichever is worse [for you]." In that case, you would want for the two options to be close in the impact of their consequence because, if one option is clearly more impactful than the other, it will never be chosen.
This leads to a second problem: I don't see being knocked prone as equally consequential to taking the damage from this reaction (assuming both options are viable for a given enemy). I imagine a scenario where the reaction is used, an enemy drops prone, uses its second action to stand up and its third to attack, only losing its "least valuable action", the third attack. Same if it casts a spell, more or less.
The more you improve one side of your reaction with things like Iron Repercussions, the greater the disparity between the two becomes, and going prone becomes the obvious choice. The only way I could think to take advantage of knocking an enemy prone would be to grab Attack of Opportunity, Divine Reflexes, and follow up your Champion's Reaction with and AoO when the enemy tries to stand. You would have to be level 14 to pull that off though, and it feels more like trying to fix something that's broken than improve on a good thing.
I don't know how many people have gotten to see Iron Command in action, but I was really curious how it works in play. I'd be excited to hear anybody's thoughts on this, or why you think that things I see as problems might not be problems. Or why they are, if that was your experience, but mostly I hope I'm wrong or missing some things. :)
Could you use the Raise a Shield action, then follow up with a strike from a Shield Bash, Shield Boss, or Shield Spike?
The rules are clear that you lose the benefits of Raise a Shield if you hold something in your hand (like a weapon), but don't address attached weapons. I didn't find clarification in the Raise a Shield description or the Attacking With a Shield section.
Does anybody know how this should play out by the rules?
