Wheldrake's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber. Organized Play Member. 2,575 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 2,575 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Waldham wrote:
It's not possible for a character to speak or cast a spell because the character will drop from the mouth ?

A polymorphed character in a battle form can't cast spells, period.

Even though it doesn't mention battle forms as such in the spell, we have to assume this is one, since you have listed attacks.

Even if you took the form of a dragon (and we know that dragons can cast spells), you can't cast any spells. Regardless of the spell components.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
spending a class feat

... or two.

Depending on which instance of the Multiclass Spellcasting Archetype rules you are going with.

The CRB says that you also need Basic Spellcasting as well in order to get the spellcasting class feature.

The APG doesn't.

This tired argument was put to rest some time ago by dev comment from Logan. Despite apparent contradiction that some folks managed to worm out of the rules on spellcasting dedications, the dedication along is enough to use scrolls and wands.

Indeed, Logan says "spells and wands and staves".

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Best way to let your barbarian use scrolls and wands is not using TMI, it's spending a class feat on an MC spellcaster archetype (assuming you have a 14 INT, CHA or WIS).

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I suspect the real reason people ask whether most familiars are animals is because they are trying to allow their familiar to activate items like potions.

I always assumed that familiars, like companions, could not activate any magic items (except those very few with the companion trait). The more I look at it, the more I suspect the answer is more ambiguous than that. Especially for explicitly non-animal familiars. Unless there is a specific rule I'm missing about familiars (with manual dexterity) activating items (like potions) that lack specific activation requirements.

Obviously, they can't activate wands or scrolls, since they lack a spell list. Potions? Elixirs? It looks less clear-cut.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It's fundamentally ambiguous.
"If you have the wounded condition, remember to add the value of your wounded condition to your dying value."

This could mean two things:

1) You determine your dying value normally, increment it as necessary, and add the wounded value once to the total.


2) You add the dying value each and every time your dying condition increases, making wounded 1 count as 2 or more points towards death.

I can't believe that (2) is intended, and after reading the discussion in this thread I'm not convinced that is the RAW.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

IMHO, the main reason why there aren't specific rules saying that firing a "reload 0" weapon like a bow provokes AoOs because it has a built-in manipulate action is because, for the devs, this fact was blindingly obvious.

How anyone can claim that drawing a nocking an arrow doesn't require manipulation, even if it's not an additional manipulate action as such, is beyond me.

The existence of feats like Mobile Shot Stance just put another nail in the coffin of the "no manipulation for reload 0 weapons" camp. That feat makes it clear what the standard rule is, even if it isn't stated as clearly as some would like.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There are no such rules. It's totally DM fiat.

The only recommendation we can make is that it should be very time consuming, and give results in line with existing spells.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Charau-Ka are the "goblins" of PF2.

Kobolds have been cool at least since Neverwinter Nights. Deekin lives!

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Returning to the original question, no, you can only have one thesis as a wizard.

IMHO it's a shame to waste it on a familiar, given that there are so many other ways to get one.

I would hands down always pick the Spell Substitution thesis, because there is no other way tp hot swap spell slots with only 10 minutes' work.

Some folks prefer the Spell Blending thesis, to have one more top-level spell slot, and I'd still take that before the Familiar thesis.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yow! This thread is **still** going on???

Oh, now I see. It's devolved into a discussion of whether or not we should use the word "fluff" to describe so-called "flavor text".

Yes, it's an offensive term, and "flavor text" doesn't exist. It's all part of the rules, even if no mechanical elements are invoked in a given sentence. Everything helps determine intent and usage.

And yes, there is an interact action baked into firing a bow, or any "reload 0" weapon. <g>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Also, you're not going to break your game if you go slightly over the listed treasure tables.

Sometimes, players will keep a few lesser magic weapons as backups, or transfer their runes to a bow if they are primarily melee-oriented. Sometimes the DM just feels that it's right to reward a tough fight with a cool item.

The treasure tables are a guideline, so that you know what's expected. They aren't a **rule** as such. The RPG police is not going to raid your gaming venue because you were a little over generous.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Call it a "cutlass".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Alchemists and Investigators are probably the weakest classes - or at least the hardest ones to make competitive. People will chime in and say, "well, if you build them in just such and so a way, they're fine" and they're probably not wrong. But it is certainly far easier to make a profoundly unsatisfying alchemist or investigator than any other class in the game.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Note that Detect Magic only tells you "yes or no, is there magic present, within (30' emanation) range?"

It doesn't tell you what is magical, or how much. Later on, it can identify general schools, but not which item(s). Sure you can exclude your friend's magic items, but you still don't get anything specific.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself, "what is this spell supposed to do?" and "how far is that in line with a 5th-level spell"?

The problem is the missing parts in the spell perameters and description. Interpreting what is written in strict RAW terms simply doesn't give a satisfactory result.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I do this systematically.
I make a word file with collumns for AC, hit points, saves, perception, stealth and a few other skills and bonuses (spell attack rolls, etc) and update it each time the PCs gain a level.
Print it out before each session.
Also has lines below to track initiative, and below that adversaries and their initiative, damage and conditions.

Really saves time, especially for secret checks.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

This is an interesting discussion, even if it is afflicted with thread necromancy.

IMHO the spell description is incomplete, and the discussions over how to treat spells with no listed duration are moot.

For me, the "lower water by 10'" effect should be played like a "Moses effect" - Moses parting the Red Sea. In a shallow body of water (a river, a bit of lake between the shore and an island, etc) this could allow folks to move across the muddy bottom to reach their goal. The surrounding water is held back for an unspecified duration.

The "raise water" effect should create a 50' x 50' area of raised water, as long as there is a stream, pond or lake surface, with "invisible" border that holds for an unspecified duration.

Yes, I know, the spell doesn't specify a duration. IMHO that is an error in the spell's conception. I houseruled a duration of 10 minutes per spell level (50 minutes for the base spell) or until dismissed. I further houseruled that on expiration or on dismissal, the water rushes to assume its normal level, pushing foes and allies around using the spell DC as an Athletics check.

Yeah, that's a lot of houserules. But IMHO it's the only way to respect the spirit of the spell, and to allow Moses to call the Red Sea in to crush Pharaoh's soldiers.

Also, it's the only way to make it a viable 5th-level spell.

FWIW, I also posited that if the spell level is increased, it affects a larger area. But that hasn't come up yet.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If I were making a random shop generator, I would first make a shortlist of very common things that should always be found in shops, like healing potions and alchemical bombs and +1 runed weapons. Then add a section for more rarely seen items (even if they are classified as "common") that can be pulled from a random list by level.

Leitner, I've gotten good use out of your basic random loot generator, and have recommended it to many people. Keep up the good work!

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Bulk is an abstraction, intended to simplify the bookkeeping for human sized characters carrying all their gear and the kitchen sink around.

It is not intended to represent the carrying capacity of mounts, and even less of flying mounts. Put simply, the math doesn't work.

I agree with Baarogue - a large-sized flying mount should be expected to carry no lore than a large-sized horse - one rider with their gear, perhaps in emergencies a second rider at half speed. If both riders are wearing heavy armor with a ton of stuff (like a typical adventurer) I'd say no to a second rider.

The best solution is to simply handwave mount carrying capacity, since the system is not designed to support such math games.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I do the same as a few other folks here: alignment damage affects all targets not of the same alignment as the damage. So Evil damage affects all creatures not of evil alignment.

I don't want to fiddle with half damage calculations. And it really solves all my problems, since I don't allow evil PCs in my groups. We play heroic fantasy, not selfish "in it for yourself" fantasy. YMMV.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thanks for the quick reply James.
In keeping with the creepy atmosphere of Malevolence, I could see Crook(ed) Cove as a *mostly* abandoned town, fallen into ruin, but with a few denizens clinging to those ruins. Like an innkeeper/hunter who also happens to be a werewolf, and isn't above eating his "guests" if they demonstrate their weakness. Or a small community of ghouls lurking in the ruined churchyard, starved for conversation as much as fresh flesh. Or other spooky inhabitants.

Do let us know if and when you release any "Whispers in Ravounel" content.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber


Have you given any thought to publishing further elements from the "Whispers in Ravounel" campaign that gave rise to the Malevolence adventure?

I'm specifically thinking of details on Crook(ed) Cove and the wilderlands around that area.

We're looking at playing Malevolence when our current campaign runs its course and it feels like it would work better if there were some support for actions outside the manor.

I'm assuming that none of these details have made it into print, so I'll have to homebrew anything I want to use, but thought I'd ask nonetheless.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
When I ran it for my group, it was much more organic. The manor was one location of literally dozens that the group could explore as they wished, and they started and stoped exploration of it in favor of other locations several times, sometimes in the same session.

James (and anyone else who has run this adventure), have you posted or published any of these "dozens of locations" anywhere?

I'm planning on beginning **Malevolence** in a couple weeks, and I've started detailing some interesting locations in the ruins of Crook(ed) Cove and the surrounding hills and forests, as well as some starting handouts for the players. But it would be great if some other DM material were available.

I know my players, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that by the time they finish with the manor itself, they'll want to continue with these characters, especially if the heir to Xarwin manor survives and they have the opportunity to reclaim the lands and title.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

You don't need to be faster than the bear. Just your buddy.
"That dwarf paladin was a swell bloke. Just couldn't run to save his life."

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
Familiars usually aren't useful in combat because their stats are abysmal.

More than that: most of their stats are undefined.

This said, let's not forget that it's a roleplaying game. If it makes sense for a familiar to be able to use an exploration activity, the DM can certainly allow that. From earlier examples, if a hound or wolf are being used to follow a trail, it seems highly appropriate to allow a survival check for that. And if a flying "pet" were commanded to scout around, it wouldn't be game-breaking to give the party the meager +1 initiative check that comes from that, or even to allow a separate perception check for the search activity.

As DM I draw the line when a player tries to give his "pet" complex commands. Maybe Lassie can run and get the sherriff to help get Timmy out of the well, but most complex actions are going to be beyond a "pet".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In the Pendragon RPG, there is virtually no magic. A single healing potion giving 1d6 healing is a valuable artifact.
Furthermore, natural healing (even with the assistance of a chirurgeon of some sort) is agonizingly slow, often requiring months. The Pendragon RPG is designed to have a single adventure each year, with the rest of the year being spent managing the PC knight's estate.

It seems self-evident that a PF2 campaign set in the world of Pendragon would be very different indeed. Even if you removed all magic, and used ABP to avoid a profusion of magic items, you would have a very, very different situation if PCs had access to standard PF2 medicine-based healing.

I'm not saying that it can't be done. Simply that you'll need to have extensive houserules, and that the end result won't look anything like the Pendragon RPG.

One of the things I really liked about Pendragon was the concept of opposed virtues and flaws, and they way they are used to determine PCs' actions. IMHO that would be a hard sell to players used to more free-form RPGs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Since companions can't take reactions, they can never Grab an Edge when falling off a cliff.
Sad widdow putty tat.

Yet another reason why Grab an Edge should've been a free action, not a reaction.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Everybody engaging in Paizo-bashing here needs to take a deep breath and a step back.

Yes, mistakes were made. No, we'll never know the whole story. Heck, I doubt if even the people involved directly in this situation know the whole story.

The most heartening part of this whole crisis is that the top folks at Paizo have admitted to making mistakes and pledged to do better in the future.

If this incident makes some people take a knee-jerk reaction against the company as a whole, that really saddens me. Paizo has gone above and beyond in supporting diversity and inclusion, and the fact that top management hasn't always managed to keep to the straight and narrow path of virtue only shows that they are human, with human weaknesses and shortcomings, just like lesser mortals.

I for one will *continue* to support Päizo, and continue to support their efforts to foster inclusion and diversity in our hobby.

Thank you Erik, Jeff, Jason and others for being so forthcoming and for trying to better in the future. Thank you Sara, Diego, Crystal, Jessica, and Lissa for helping to not only bring us great content, but to champion important social issues that affect us all. Thank you Owen, Jim Sonja, Mark, Aaron for weighing in and helping maintain balance in these difficult times. My condolences and support to those who lost their jobs, or lost less tangible but no less important things like respect, trust and confidence in this whole situation.

Thank you Paizo, for facing these obstacles and shortcomings and trying to do better in future.

Cheers, --- Wheldrake (aka Phil Benz)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Regardless of the relative merits of undercasting some focus spells or cantrips, nothing in the rules allows you to "undercast".

Indeed cantrips say, "A cantrip is always automatically heightened to half your level, rounded up."

Focus spells also say, "Focus spells are automatically heightened to half your level rounded up, just like cantrips are."

So any decision to allow the undercasting of spells is a pure houserule subject to DM fiat. It's an entirely reasonable houserule, for many of the reasons brought up in this thread. But the RAW make no allowances for it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There is nothing in the slingstaff entry that says it isn't a staff.
If you look at the historical version of the slingstaff, it is simply a staff with some cloth or leather stips attached to it.
(as distinct from the wacky artist who thought a slingstaff should look like an oversized slingshot)

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

One really good way to start is with the Beginner box adventure (which takes PCs to 2nd level) and then link it with Troubles in Otari.

I believe these are fully supported on Foundry, so you shouldn't need to wrangle any maps or tokens or statblocks.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
Having an adversarial relationship between players and GMs is a squiffy basis for a group.

Absolutely true. I've known DMs who were trying to sadistically screw over their players in the end, and it ain't pretty.

Way back in the days of yore the game was built with an intended adversarial role.

No, it wasn't. Way back in the mid-70s we also knew that the best way to play was in a cooperative, non-adversarial way. You may have known some people who adopted an adversarial style, but the game itself was never "built" that way.

Just sayin'.

Also, on the topic of learning spells from spellcasters of other traditions: there is nothing stopping a wizard from learning a spell from a druid, per RAW. If your DM doesn't want to allow it, fine, but do make it clear that he's imposing a house rule, and that if he's going to make it that much harder for you to learn spells, he'd better make some allowances for other methods, like granting access to an appropriately-leveled NPC spellcaster from time to time.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

IMHO, the change in familiar roles is at least in part due to the decision to make PF2 characters more reliant on their own powers rather than carrying around a menagerie of minions. So we have:
- familiars don't fight at all, with a few marginal exceptions like spell delivery.
- summoned critters are far lower in power than before, and cost an action every turn to keep running.
- even animal companions have suffered a modest decrease in raw combat power, and also cost an action from their master most of the time.
- all other minions (like animated objects from a ritual) are well below the level of the master, making them mediocre combattants, and cost an action to maintain.

It's almost as if PF2 were designed to force potential minion masters to give up more than they gain, and rely on their own innate powers and teamwork, rather than replacing their party members with over-powered summons and other minions.

So to the OP, if you want to have a pseudo-"mauler familiar" get a companion through Beastmaster. Anything else is a very ambitious and rather extreme homebrew which gifts you with a power that other PCs simply don't get.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Animate Object is a very cool ritual. Who doesn't want an animated object minion? But for that to work well, you need an indulgent DM willing to homebrew critters for you. At 4th level, I'd want an animated armchair that could carry me while I study my spellbook.

Very soon we will get Secrets of Magic with an undisclosed number of cool rituals. But you're very right that the number of available low-level rituals is limited.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

But you may have looted spellbooks from your adventure. Or the DM may have placed an NPC spellcaster nearby, regardless of settlement level.

But you're right, RD, sometimes you're simply S.O.L.

As written, the Magical Shorthand feat simply doesn't grant you access to whatever spells you might desire. You can grumble about that if you like, but getting access to spells to learn is part and parcel of the campaign. You need to talk to your DM and figure out how you can find more spells, and encourage him to leave you clues to places you can find spells to learn, either through negociation or more directly physical means.

Unless this is purely for theorycrafting. In which case you can ignore the rules on access, and assume your character gained access through campaign-linked means.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The advantage of the second part is regarding Earn Income and the availability of level-appropriate jobs in a given settlement. Say your wizard is 8th level. Maybe you're in a smallish settlement where 8th-level Earn Income tasks simply aren't available. With this feat, you can automatically accrue income as an 8th-level task towards the cost of the rare inks and parchments used to learn the spell and inscribe it in your spellbook.

As far as the availability of spells is concerned, at least in my home campaigns the main source of new spells is spellbooks looted from dead adversaries. After that, it's contact with NPC spellcasters who will accept to teach you spells in exchange for something. Or a scroll you can buy.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Your DM is right. Magical Shorthand is all about writing faster and learning faster, not about reading a new spell written in the clouds. You still need either someone to teach you or a grimoire or some other written source. Maybe you could summon a devil that would agree to teach you the spell - but that is beyond the purview of the Magical Shorthand feat.

It even specifically references the notion of availability at one point: "you choose a spell available to you to learn".

The speed at which you can learn new spells with this feat is lightning fast, and the downtime system is just gravy on top of that.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
Starocious wrote:
Is this based on rules or is it going to be yet another gm call? (Because im getting very tired of how much of the rules arent written down)

Would it do any good to post a general topic responding to attitudes like this? I know I have linked to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem before. But that is some rather heavy reading and people either don't know about it, or don't understand how it relates to a game rule set like this.

I could try breaking it down and showing how it relates and what is and is not possible. But I am worried that all it is going to do is devolve into a flame war. Because people who are angry usually just want to be allowed to be angry - not proven how they are wrong.

Don't even try, Breit. That's called "feeding the trolls" and it never works.

There are a number of grey areas in the PF2 rules for jumping. If we didn't have the Sudden Leap feat, it wouldn't be at all clear whether or not you could jump up and hit a flying creature with no feats required. And the RAW offer no guidance on what happens when you jump or leap to a lower level than what you started from - only higher. There is no "jumping down" yardstick.

But that's what DMs are for - adjudicating corner cases. No RPG escapes such a requirement.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Back in the day, we built our characters on a sheet of paper.
And we liked it!


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think the attraction of the Free Archetypes optional rule stems from a feeling I've often had when creating a character for PF2: most of the characters seem "feat starved" and there are so many cool & interesting feats that I feel like taking on a given character, but I can't.

This isn't helped by the fact that all the campaigns I've had the opportunity to play in are very low level.

We started the current campaign I'm running **without** Free Archetype rules, for the simple reason that all my players were new to PF2. A year and a half in, with 30 sessions under our belts, I finally did add in the Free Archetype rules, retroactively, but for story reasons. My PCs discovered an ancient Azlanti artefact that allowed them to share in some of the memories of ancient Azlanti heroes dead some hundred centuries. This happened when they were 8th level, so it was a bit of a chore to go back & select four archetype feats in one go, but my players have matured in their understanding of PF2 rules, and it worked well as a reward.

If I were starting a new PF2 campaign tomorrow, with experienced players, I'd state up front that we were using Free Archetype rules. It adds a little more breadth and complexity to PCs, and just feels right.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The Combat Climber feat is designed specifically to be able to fight with a weapon while climbing. It doesn't seem much of a stretch to note that combat without that feat is less impactful, as you elbow, knee or forehead slam your adversary.

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm really enjoying the new Mwangi book too, and I have to agree that much of the Mwangi material from PF1 has a colonialist vibe to it, H. Rider Haggard style adventures, braving the dangers of the Dark Continent.

That's not necessarily "bad* per se. A lot of heroic fantasy is inspired by literary sources that are not entirely politically correct, viewed from today's perspective. But it is very refreshing to see a new outlook in this latest Mwangi book, and it helps balance the earlier colonialist-oriented material.

But let's face it: heroic fantasy RPGs are all about facing dark and dangerous foes and defeating them. There have to be evil adversaries to fight just about everywhere, so it makes sense to maintain at least some of the pulp-era themes, at least for those who want to use them.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

"On Feb. 6, 1897, Indiana's state representatives voted to declare 3.2 the legal value of pi."
Not that this has anything to do with PF2.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It's very logical that things like transferring runes or having access to spellbooks and rituals is handwaved in PFS because the underlying conceit of PFS is that everyone works for this high-powered magical organization which has resources its members can use.

If, in your home games, the PCs also have access to such an organization, or have friends and associates who can fulfil the same purpose, then why not grant easy access as well.

But if the PCs are travelling heroes with little to no local support, I see no reason to handwave access to rune transfer, crafting or anything else. Sure, they can roleplay into access, pay for crafter or spellcrafter services, or what have you.

And IMHO we don't need exhaustive official price lists for every conceivable service. The DM is fully capable of assigning a reasonable cost, based on his assessment of the task and the PCs' ability to pay.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I dunno, I tend to feel that adding level to just about everything is good design. Players want to advance in level every couple of sessions, if only to be able to try out new things, and feel powerful. They want to be able to stand up to stronger and stronger adversaries, and the game lets them do it.

Everything is working as intended.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Thod wrote:

As player you can't sell it for half price.

It is up to the GM to set a price for you if you want to buy it (anyhow - an intelligent item will be uncommon at best but more likely rare - so you depend on the GM to make it available RAW in any case)

As a class of items, one might say they are rare. But each intelligent item is unique - one of a kind. That's beyond simply being "rare".

This said, you can get a ballpark figure by checking what level it is, and how other items of a similar level are priced. But IMHO, the fact that the price is listed as "-" is indeed an intentional decision on the part of the devs. These items are "priceless". Any attempt to buy or sell such an item is an adventure of its own.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As long as the spell is on multiple lists, nothing prevents you counterspelling a given spell.

Your problem will come with spells that are not on your list at all.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There is no price on intelligent items simply because they cannot be purchased. They only enter a campaign if the DM decides to include them. They are unique items, priceless in more ways than one.

And, FWIW, you can't expect Paizo devs to chime in on your question, especially when all you could possibly want to know is already listed in the book. Their price is "-" = meaning there is no price.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gortle wrote:

Just to point out that thick and thin are not defined and are not keywords.

That property is described and assigned by the table more than anything else.

It is defined in that table.

As Graystone pointed out, there is no ambiguity in the interpretation that shields are classified as "thin " objects.

So, per the RAW, Dwarven Reinforcement doesn't apply to shields.

Unless you choose to homebrew a different interperetation. But this is the rules forum, hence my answers.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

I don't buy it, the rules also state that individual playing cards and an Palm Crossbow, and Alchemist Goggles are "thick" objects.

Really? Where? I'm not seeing it in those links you pasted.

Themetricsystem wrote:
DR, in my opinion, does not actually relate to thick OR thin objects at all those are "flavor words" meant to communicate the intent.

Hey, you're certainly entitled to share your opinion, or even modify the Dwarven Reinforcement feat in your home games if you like.

But PF2 is a game system built on keywords. Thick and thin objects are defined, and a shield is listed as a thin object. Hence making the Dwarven Reinforcement feat inapplicable in the case of shields, according to the RAW.

This is a rules forum, so I tried to answer the OP with the applicable rule. Not with just an opinion, mind.

BTW, thanks for the reference, Aw3som3, that is indeed exactly what I was thinking about in answering the OP.

1 to 50 of 2,575 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>