Merisiel

Wizard of Ahhhs's page

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 38 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
Outside of some ancestry feats that reflect drow abilities (faerie fire/darkness innate spells, a different suite of ancestral weapons, etc) and light blindness, in what ways are drow actually different than cavern elves?

I cheated and looked up a couple of the monster entries for Drow in Archives of Nethys. They all have

Spoiler:
a +1 status bonus to saves vs magic which is on top of the usual saves vs mental effects that elves can get through ancestry feats.

That seems like a really powerful bonus, although I don't know what (if any) spells/items might grant the same thing.

To be fair, light blindness is potentially a really big problem to deal with, depending on the campaign. But I'm not sure if the two would balance each other out or not! Curious what the community thinks...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
In 2022 Absalom Reckoning? That's over 2000 years ago to the current year. Why would you care what happened then? ;)

Indeed! I realized after posting that I missed a perfect opportunity to use an AR date!!

But why limit the Drow to 4722 AR? The Drow are eternal and everywhere :D

(as are my accidental double posts it would appear :-/


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
In 2022 Absalom Reckoning? That's over 2000 years ago to the current year. Why would you care what happened then? ;)

Haha! I realized after posting that I missed a perfect opportunity to use an AR date!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Just curious if there’s been any updates regarding if we might see them as a playable ancestry any time soon and also express my desire to purchase any future sourcebook that could have it.

I’m currently rp’ing my cavern elf as a Drow and my GM kind of, sort of plays along but it would be awesome to have a legit ancestry/heritage with its own unique ancestry feats. Would also be awesome to have an archetype or two focusing on Drow magic. From what I understand, there has already been a Drow themed archetype focusing on hand crossbows, so maybe there is cause for hope.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

As somebody who prefers to play casters over martials, I feel like 90% of casters' problems could be solved through the action economy.

When the game first came out there was a lot of favorable discussion about spells that had different variants for different numbers of actions. But it became apparent right away that only a tiny fraction of spells have this feature (magic missile, heal, and harm are the only ones I'm aware of).

For Acid Arrow, instead of giving casters +1/+2/etc magical implements (which I personally think *would* make casters overpowered) why not instead have a 3 action version that grants a nominal amount of splash damage on a miss. That could be an interesting alternative to always having to cast true strike before a ranged touch spell.

For Burning Hands (and other cone attack spells), why not have a 3 action version that allows you to exclude an ally from the area of effect. There is always one person who manages to get in the way and this would solve that.

Of course, doing all of these would kind of mess up the value of metamagic feats, so...

Why not have a 3 action version of Haste that also allows you to use the extra action for a meta magic feat.

Maybe some of the underwhelming capabilities of casters will get fixed/improved in Secrets of Magic. Time will tell.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
There is definitely a case of GMs playing monsters by the stat block instead of by the adventure description, and I wonder if the tendency to use pre-loaded modules in VTTs is making some GMs approach encounters without reading carefully about how they fit into the adventure or immediate plot.

I can't speak for how my GM is approaching this, but what I have noticed is that the fog of war that our VTT implements definitely makes encounters more difficult than they would be at a real tabletop.

I feel like when using fog of war in a VTT there needs to be either some allowance from the GM for things like metagaming and out-of-character strategizing or else more XP needs to be given out to account for the increased difficulty. Otherwise its just really difficult not having the same situational awareness as everyone else in a game that assumes a high level of teamwork and complementary tactics.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

The success outcome for the Trick Magic Item action says "For the rest of the current turn, you can spend actions to activate the item as if you could normally use it."

I take that to mean that this action is not compatible with the 3 action versions of heal and magic missile but could still be used to cast the 1 or 2 action versions of those spells (for a wand of heal for example). Is that correct?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

This is one of my favorite guides. Thank you for creating it!

I believe the sorcerer class feat for Bespell Weapon should actually be level 4. It is listed as a level 4 feat on 2e.aonprd.com and per the errata on Paizo's FAQ: "Page 199: In the Sorcerer Feats sidebar, change the level of “Bespell Weapon” from 6 to 4 to match the feat itself."


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Like many others, I looking forward to the Secrets of Magic book later this year and very happy about the new classes coming out - especially the Magus.

There are a lot more options beginning to open up for gish-like characters and this is definitely something to be happy about.

One option that I would like to see is a way to imbue (perhaps via crafting) some of the properties of a magical staff into another weapon. As the CRB points out, staves are indispensable for an elite spellcaster but sometimes it would be nice to replace a staff in favor of something more exotic.

There appear to be precedents in the game lore too that I believe support this request. For example, the hellknight signifiers of the order of the nail carry halberds - that would preclude them from simultaneously wielding a staff. Also, the mighty Sorshen of New Thassilon carries a double-bladed glaive in lieu of a staff. I don't think she would carry a glaive unless gave her an equivalent or superior benefit to a staff. (On a side note, I'm surprised she didn't make it into LO: Legends!)

To be fair, I will say that its really nice that you can cast spells from a staff using only one hand so that makes it possible to wield a one-handed weapon in the other hand (like Gandalf in the Hobbit movies for example). But it would still be nice to have some of the advantages of a staff while wielding a two handed weapon or simply a one-handed weapon by iteself!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

One of my favorite things about Paizo products in general and Pathfinder, in particular, is all of the wonderful art decorating the pages of these products. I am very happy that Paizo hires highly talented artists who consistently produce such memorable work!

Some artists like Wayne Reynolds are very well known and their art is instantly recognizable based on the particulars of their style, which evoke a certain feel to Pathfinder that is unique to the game.

But oftentimes I find myself drawn to a particular piece and wanting to know which artist made it so I can learn more about their work and (to the extent I'm able) emulate their style in my own hobby artwork, but then there's no signature or initials visible that indicate who might have created it.

One of my favorite interior art pieces is the changeling hellknight on page 131 of the Lost Omens Character Guide. But there's no signature or initials so I have no idea who might have created it.

So... I guess this is my very roundabout way of asking if there's an index somewhere that would tell who created what pieces of art? If that's not available I would still love to know who created the changeling hellknight piece!!


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Fly!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Gortle wrote:


I don't get why he is having a problem with a TPK. I've rarely have problems with published modules. But I have't played the one he is talking about. I'd expect a seasoned gorup of players to do better. I get that you can have bad luck (I rolled 4 natural 1s in a row recently).

The group I am in has been playing PF2 once a week for a little over a year now and during that time we have had one TPK and two near misses where the GM had to intervene by nerfing mobs on the fly. We definitely aren't expert players by any means but I feel like our party all has reasonably competent players.

From what I can see, the math in PF2 is tuned very well to expected outcomes. It's balanced very well on the averages but because of the critical rules it can be very swingy on the tails of the dice distributions and because of that it doesn't take much bad luck to down multiple characters or produce a TPK. I personally don't have a problem with this as I like the excitement the critical (+10/-10) rules produce but I can see that it might frustrate some people. I have suggested to our GM that they be more liberal in handing out Hero points to compensate for some of the luck swings.

On an unrelated note Gortle, I really like your class guides (especially the one for sorcerer) and I really respect your opinions!


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

In the 2e core rulebook, there is an elf heritage called "cavern elf" that gives you darkvision.

It's my understanding that cavern elves aren't the same thing as drow but given that elves are said to adapt physical characteristics relating to their environment I would expect they look distinct from other elves.

I have searched the web and the various 2e core and lost omens books and I haven't seen a description or image of what a cavern elf might look like but I might've missed something. Can anyone point me to a reference?

(Side note, slightly irrelevant but my pandemic hobby has been taking up drawing so I would like to *attempt* to actually draw such an elf :D)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Filthy Lucre wrote:
What is the communities thoughts on Jeremy's hot take here? How do your play experiences mirror, or contrast, from his?

I for one really like Pathfinder 2e as does my gaming group and we have been playing for a little over a year now. The choices are meaningful, interesting, varied, and for the most part balanced. Yes, optimizers (like me) can drain the fun out of it, but that's true for every game.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Do the sorcerer's blood magic effects for granted spells apply to the heightened version of those spells?

For example, if an elemental bloodline sorcerer (who has a 3rd level granted spell, fireball) casts the heightened 4th level version of fireball (whether it was signature or added as a 4th level repertoire spell) does that 4th level fireball get the blood magic effect of +1 damage per spell level for +4 points of damage?

Thank you in advance for any answers!


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

This question has been asked in one form or another a couple of different times before in this forum (for example, here and here) but I didn't get the feeling that the community really had a clear (majority) position on this.

To restate, if a character takes the sorcerer multiclass dedication and then later picks up the Basic Blood Potency feat and chooses Dangerous Sorcery as their sorcerer feat, does this feat only affect the spell slots granted by the sorcerer dedication or does it also affect any spell slots granted by the character's (base) class. For example, could a Wizard pick this up to get a damage bonus to spells from their wizard spell slots?

Would the answer to the above question apply more generally? For example, could a Sorcerer gain the benefits of Spell Penetration for their sorcerer spell slots by taking a Wizard dedication and Advanced Arcana?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

This is wonderful. Thank you Paizo, and community!!


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
dirtypool wrote:


Draco18s wrote:
(2) The "snap judgement" as you call it can't really be snap if the conclusion is both (a) supported by the GM guidelines and (b) one drawn from literal hours of data entry.
I spent hours studying chemistry, but I am not a chemist. Complete your analysis before delivering results. What you're doing is called speculating, and it's more or less pointless.

I will be muting the rest of this thread but first I want to point out that Draco is discussing data that is still being collected which is a perfectly useful thing to do. It is a few of the people in this thread who are shouting him down who are making things pointless.

In my experience, it takes guts to put yourself out there and present an analysis that you've worked hard on. Whether I agree or disagree, Draco has worked hard to put together this dataset and I have tons of respect for anyone who does that. So for what it's worth (which is nothing), I stand by Draco.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Fletch wrote:


Also, the Gygaxian Naturalist in me doesn't dig that skill checks increase with level and not just training. Like, if you spent a bunch of skill increases to become a legendary...uhh...carpenter, you shouldn't be out-carpentered by a guy with minimal training who has just killed a lot of ogres. Is that a realistic interpretation? Are there mechanics that reign that in, or is your city's legendary dwarven armorsmith always going to be outclassed by the Sandpoint apprentice who learned smithing from slaying a dragon?

There is a variant rule in the Gamemastery Guide that allows you to drop the level bonus to proficiencies. It's a bit of work to implement but it may align more with your preferred style of play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:

Having already done about 75% of the work in this regard:

< Low: 1
Low: 15
Mod: 37
High: 127
Extreme: 13
> Extreme: 0

This covers literally every monster from 10th level up (except a couple of the metallic dragons; their stats are very much in line with the others as well as good aligned, so not likely foes, but I'll get to them eventually) and a broad selection of monsters from -1 through 9 (I'm filling in that when I have time/inclination). Only Bestiary 1, Bestiary 2 is going to be its own long slog.

You can see what's accounted for here:
https://github.com/Draco18s/PF2StatisticsData/tree/master/Assets/Resources/ specific_monsters.

If you're interested in other attributes:
** spoiler omitted **

Hey Draco, I just got around to looking at your dataset and oh my goodness this is pretty amazing. Thank you for posting this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Wizard of Ahhhs wrote:


Except that it does if you've specifically cherry picked those examples.
No it doesn't, because I'm using those examples to highlight that more information than just a few letters is needed - not to make a claim about what the overall data set will say.

Okay, just to clarify, are you saying that your dataset of 14 cherry picked observations provides the same weight of evidence as my 53 observations which I didn't know anything about prior to picking? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter if the "O" data is weaker evidence because I'm trying to make a claim? Or something else?

thenobledrake wrote:
Wizard of Ahhs wrote:
And besides, Draco18s has already posted the compiled data set so there you go.
Don't get mislead by missing a few words in a post - Draco18s posted a compilation of monsters 10th-level and up, not the whole data set.

That is a fair point.

thenobledrake wrote:
Wizard of Ahhhs wrote:
That's like asking whether the mail will get delivered tomorrow. I have no idea, but based on past events it seems reasonable to assume that the status quo will continue.
My point was that Paizo isn't picking monsters for the Bestiaries based on filling out the 'right' spread of how many have which tier of AC, so a Bestiary trending any particular way isn't enough evidence to definitively answer the question that is the thread title.

I agree with you that Paizo isn't picking monsters to fit a particular spread right now. But I disagree about not having enough evidence. A spread exists, it's just (apparently) not being intentionally selected by Paizo.

At the end of the day, I think we have to go with what we have today. We have a Bestiary 1 and a Bestiary 2 (which I don't currently own due to a subscription snafu). We don't currently have a Bestiary 3 even though it's been announced. So in judging the spread of monster ACs we have to go with the population we have now. Bestiary 1 and Bestiary 2 and whatever's been published in the current APs are literally the population we have right now.

By the logic you're using here, health researchers can't draw any conclusions about infant mortality because babies from 100 years from now haven't been born yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Wizard of Ahhhs wrote:
Did you just jump straight to "O" knowing that lower ACs would be there or did you randomly pick that letter?

That doesn't matter.

Except that it does if you've specifically cherry picked those examples.

Wizard of Ahhs wrote:
And no, you don't need to compile the entire data set to spot a trend.

There's a difference between "a trend" and "an accurate trend" though, which was what I was trying to point out.

You can see a trend, and that trend might even be accurate - but you can't be sure without the full data set.

I am not saying that we can be *sure* about anything. I am only saying the trend looks real (or accurate as you say) and is worthy of discussion. And besides, Draco18s has already posted the compiled data set so there you go.

thenobledrake wrote:


And then you get into figuring out whether the trend is a problem or not, which involves things like looking at whether the creatures that have high AC make sense to have high AC, and making sure that the other parts of the design are within expectations since AC isn't the only factor in a creature being on the mark for its level.

Yes, that is what I've been discussing with Krispy. I'm inclined to think its not an issue at this point.

thenobledrake wrote:


Finally, how many Bestiaries does Paizo have to make the spread even out before we lock in our "AC is too high across the board" declaration?

That's like asking whether the mail will get delivered tomorrow. I have no idea, but based on past events it seems reasonable to assume that the status quo will continue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:

I personally wonder if a lot of peoples views here are related to Age of Ashes and Plaguestone - both of these APs early on are heavily weighted towards high target numbers and difficult encounters with single or few foes. My parties I ran through AoA struggled a lot more early on in book 1 of AoA, until they figured out chain aiding and bonus stacking against a pretty notorious enemy who is otherwise extremely difficult to deal with in AoA book 1...

That's true in my group's case (I am not the GM). The second to the last fight in Hellknight Hill. My goodness we would've TPK'd had the GM not pulled a couple of punches. In our current home brew adventure we've been fighting a lot of higher level constructs so... may just be the this particular adventure.
KrispyXIV wrote:


EDIT - +7 stat bonus is from 22 stat (4 increases since creation) and an Apex Item for an additional +2, putting you at 24.

Got it, yep that makes sense.

I think it might be a little harder in practice to get a +3/+4 on aid given that you need a critical success to do so, but it looks like you're right overall about the 2-6 range. Thank you for walking me through that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
Wizard of Ahhhs wrote:
I understand how subtraction works. Also are you referring to capital "A" Aid? To be fair, we probably aren't using Aid enough. But Aid is a reaction and so I don't see how that is a...
The Aid Reaction requires you to have spent An Action to prepare to Aid.

Thank you, I forgot about that.

KrispyXIV wrote:


Example of Fighter vs. AC at most extreme case I can find - Extreme AC at level 20 is 48. A level 20 fighter has +38 to hit (+20 level, +8 proficiency, +7 stat, +3 item), meaning that they need +8 to their hit roll to hit on a 2...

Available to them is -2 target AC from Flatfooted, +3 Status (from Heroism), +3 circumstance (from aid, goes to +4 if you have a legendary assistant or something like Helpful Halfling), and an easy -2 targets AC from a success on Scare to Death (or any other source of Sickened, Frightened, Clumsy, etc. that reliably imposes these conditions).

Where is the +7 stat bonus coming from? It's my understanding that status bonuses don't stack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Wizard of Ahhhs wrote:


KrispyXIV wrote:
Third - Don't use all three actions to Strike. I can't stress enough that a third action to Strike is a bad choice and you're extremely unlikely to hit with it - once you're in the range where you can reliably aid, aiding another characters first strike with no MAP is a much better use of an action.
I understand how subtraction works.

That was needlessly salty on part. I apologize for that.

What I am trying to say is that if we *assume* taking all 3 actions as strikes (regardless of whether we actually do or not) then we should expect to hit at least once about 70-80% of the time.

Assuming the designers' stated goal of 55% success rate (not including MAP) then we get (assuming full MAP) the following miss chances:

0.45 * 0.7 * 0.95 = 29.925% chance to miss all 3 times or equivalently 70.075% chance to hit at least once - within my original claim.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:

I just went and did "O" to highlight why what seems like a trend probably isn't and you'd need to compile the enter data-set to draw any conclusions with any useful level of accuracy:

Quote:

> high: 3

high: 3
moderate: 2
< moderate: 6

Did you just jump straight to "O" knowing that lower ACs would be there or did you randomly pick that letter? Also you have only 14 observations here compared to 53 for me so I'd say that if anything your data has less evidence than mine.

And no, you don't need to compile the entire data set to spot a trend.

KrispyXIV wrote:
Second - If you're having trouble hitting things on your turn, take steps to swing that in your favor. Look for Status Bonus to Hit, Status Penalty to enemy DCs, Flatfooted, and Circumstance to Hit. You can easily get it to where your first attack as a non-fighter should be hitting on a 2-6 against a wide range of opponents, even those with high AC's.

Um, I specifically called out these things:

Wizard of Ahhhs wrote:
And yes, I understand this is what flanking, demoralize, trip, inspire courage, etc. are for
KrispyXIV wrote:
You can easily get it to where your first attack as a non-fighter should be hitting on a 2-6 against a wide range of opponents, even those with high AC's.

I haven't seen this, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. What would be an example against an on level or higher enemy with high/extreme AC where a fighter only needs a 2-6 to hit?

KrispyXIV wrote:
Third - Don't use all three actions to Strike. I can't stress enough that a third action to Strike is a bad choice and you're extremely unlikely to hit with it - once you're in the range where you can reliably aid, aiding another characters first strike with no MAP is a much better use of an action.

I understand how subtraction works. Also are you referring to capital "A" Aid? To be fair, we probably aren't using Aid enough. But Aid is a reaction and so I don't see how that is a better use of an action.

Gorbacz wrote:
I'll file this under "I used to hit 95% of the time with my first attack in PF1 and now I feel incompetent" category.

I never played PF1 so I wouldn't know.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

I looked up all the ACs from the monsters under “A” and “B” in Bestiary 1 and cross referenced those with Table 2-5 in the Gamemastery Guide and tallied the ACs into bins according to whether they were greater than High, High, Moderate, and less than Moderate and observed the following totals:

Quote:


> High: 17
High: 21
Moderate: 12
< Moderate: 3

I stopped after "B" so I can't say with certainty if this trend holds but it sure looks like they skew high to me.

I heard that Jason Buhlman said somewhere that the design goal was to keep the success rate at about 55% on average which makes sense to me. But with this distribution, even a fully kitted out fighter on a good day is going to have a hard time keeping up, especially against bosses. And yes, I understand this is what flanking, demoralize, trip, inspire courage, etc. are for but even so, this makes it really hard to ever feel like anything more than marginally competent as a martial. (Oh and good luck to the casters trying to land an Acid Arrow without True Strike.)

Moreover, in a group with 6 players, having to wait all that time to finally get your turn only to wiff is super disappointing. Like, if I use all 3 of my actions to strike then at least one of those attacks should land at least 70-80% of the time otherwise it starts to get really frustrating. And this happens a lot when fighting bosses.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Aratorin wrote:


Because using an Activity isn't the same as using it's subordinate actions.

Using an Activity is using an Activity, but that Activity is a container, which contains other Actions, and when you use that Activity, you use those other Actions.

If an ability says "You can only use Strike Actions", you could not use Power Attack, because it's not a Strike Action.

However, if an ability said "Add +1 damage to your Strike Actions", and you used Power Attack, the Subordinate Strike Action would gain +1 Damage, because it is a Strike Action.

One other point that was raised in my gaming group which I believe also supports Aratorin’s interpretation is that if we take the argument that things that trigger for basic actions don’t trigger for subordinate actions because of the “using the activity isn’t the same as using the action” rule then we get other highly counterintuitive results like a rogue not being able to apply sneak attack damage for an Opportune Backstab.

I believe the reason this line exists in the sidebar is to close a potential loophole where players might break the action economy. (i.e. use more than 3 actions during their turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Aratorin wrote:

I think Mobility does apply to Nimble Roll. You are still taking a Stride Action, and Mobility doesn't care when you take the Stride Action. Both of the Subordinate Action examples are different scenarios that have no bearing on this.

Quickened restricts which Actions you can take.

The second example fails because Strike is your next next Action, not your next Action.

Pg 461 Specifies that you are taking the Subordinate Actions:

Pg. 461 wrote:
Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. Stride is a single action, but Sudden Charge is an activity in which you use both the Stride and Strike actions to generate its effect.

You’ve just put words to what has been bugging me about this. If Mobility were only supposed to apply to a Stride action when its not part of any activity or reaction then why didn’t they just assign an action point to it and specify Stride as a subordinate action to Mobility itself?

So I’m inclined to think your interpretation is the correct one.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:

Anything which is a named action (read: anything that has an action symbol next to its name in the book) is that named action - not any of the named actions found within its description.

So it is correct that Mobility is not applicable to the Tumble Through action.

What about the fighter feat Shielded Stride? It says “you can Stride” instead of “When you take a Stride action” as per Mobility. Does this mean Shielded Stride works with Tumble Through and Nimble Roll (assuming a multi class dedication build)?

I see 9 instances where the verbiage refers to a “Stride action” instead simply “Stride” which IIRC occurs well over 100 times in the CRB. Moreover 2 of the instances of the former verbiage occur in Rogue feats and in no other class description.

It’s almost like a different author wrote the Rogue class entry.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Reactions can have subordinate actions, and when they do they are also activities (since "activity" just means a combination or alteration of actions).

Does this mean that the acrobatics skill action Tumble Through is an activity and therefore can't benefit from Mobility either?


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Got it. Thank you!


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
HammerJack wrote:

That doesn't mean either of those. It mears reactions are a type of action.

They can have subordinate actions, but they don't always.

Sorry I forgot to add can in my previous post so maybe I caused some confusion.

Nimble Dodge is a reaction which when enhanced with Nimble Roll allows a Stride.

And since we're saying that the Stride in this case is a subordinate action, then it must be subordinate to the Nimble Dodge + Nimble Roll reaction, right?

So the reaction in this case has a subordinate action which means that either reactions more generally can have subordinate actions or the reaction itself is an activity which would mean that reactions more generally are activities (or at least can be).

It sounds like we're saying the first alternative - that reactions can have subordinate actions, is that right?


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:

You're getting hung up on that the example happens to be worded that way. The actual rule, which the example is elaborating upon, is "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions."

So using Nimble Dodge enhanced by Nimble Roll is not the same as using a Stride action.

Quick point of information, on page 461 of the CRB it says: "There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions."

Does this mean that reactions are activities? Or does it mean that reactions have subordinate actions?


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Say I have a rogue with the following feats: Nimble Dodge and Nimble Roll.

Suppose they are adjacent to an enemy which is using a strike action to attack them which then misses and I use my rogue’s Nimble Dodge + Nimble Roll to stride 10 feet away.

As I understand it, this stride will trigger the enemy’s Attack of Opportunity.

However, now suppose that my rogue also has the Mobility feat in addition to Nimble Dodge and Nimble Roll and their speed is 25.

The Mobility feat on page 184 of the CRB says:

Quote:
When you take a Stride action to move half your Speed or less, that movement does not trigger reactions.

The Nimble Roll feat on page 187 says:

Quote:
When you use Nimble Dodge and the triggering attack fails or critically fails, or when you succeed or critically succeed at the saving throw, you can also Stride up to 10 feet as part of the reaction. If you do, the reaction gains the move trait.

If I’m reading this correctly, the 10 ft movement provided by Nimble Roll is a stride action that results in a move less than half my rogue’s speed. Therefore shouldn't it benefit from the Mobility feat and not trigger the enemy’s Attack of Opportunity?


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Yep sorry for deleting the previous message.

My GM was saying that the cat fall would reduce the fall by 10 feat but my character would still take 5/2 rounded up = 3 damage. But it sounds like the consensus so far is no damage in this example.

Thank you! I have to go annoy my GM with this thread now :-D


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

On page 463 of the CRB it says:

Quote:
When you fall more than 5 feet, you take bludgeoning damage equal to half the distance you fell when you land. Treat falls longer than 1,500 feet as though they were 1,500 feet (750 damage). If you take any damage from a fall, you land prone. You fall about 500 feet in the first round of falling and about 1,500 feet each round thereafter.

Also, on page 259 the Cat Fall acrobatics feat says:

Quote:
Your catlike aerial acrobatics allow you to cushion your falls. Treat falls as 10 feet shorter. If you’re an expert in Acrobatics, treat falls as 25 feet shorter. If you’re a master in Acrobatics, treat them as 50 feet shorter. If you’re legendary in Acrobatics, you always land on your feet and don’t take damage, regardless of the distance of the fall.

Suppose my character is trained in Acrobatics and has the Cat Fall skill feat. And suppose they are standing next to a 15' deep pit when an evil member of the party pushes them over the edge. How much damage would my character take in this instance?


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

For the purposes of determining which spells can receive the benefits of the Sorcerer's Dangerous Sorcery feat, as well as blood magic effects, do the innate spells granted from things like the Runescarred dedication or the Dhampir 17th level ancestry feat (from APG preview) count as "spell slots"?

They aren't explicitly called out as such, but mechanically they behave (i.e. only cast once per day) like spell slots. So it seems to me that not counting them as such is a bit of nerf for something like the Runescarred dedication.

The consensus in my gaming group seems to be that they aren't, but I wouldn't mind a second opinion (or a third, or a fourth, hehehe).