batimpact's page

71 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

To be fair, a listed duration does more than clarity or unleash psyche synergy. It also signifies if a spell's effect is magical or not.

There could very well be an intention that unamped Astral Rain's affected area is meant to be not magical and therefore can't be dispelled, and my assumption is completely wrong.

Just like Daze having a duration. I don't think it needs one listed but it being listed does make it magical and that may be the intent.


Right, I forgot that sustained details are always specified as a duration in every other spell. The rest makes sense, thank you.


I think Astral Rain is intended to have a duration, but RAW it looks like it can get Unleash Psyche bonus damage. Would it get only get bonus damage on both the initial cast or would the triggers on entering creatures also get the bonus?

For the amp version, would the added sustain option mean it doesn't get bonus damage altogether or can the initial cast get the bonus but not the follow-up sustains?


For Shatter Space, it might be useful to note that the emanation radius is variable and is decided by the caster. It makes it less awkward to use than when I thought it was fixed at 20ft.


There are a few other psychic related ambiguities. Astral Rain and Forbidden Thought both read like they have durations but they don't have a duration listed so they qualify for Unleash Psyche's bonus.

Forbidden thought has only one instance of damage to be fair but Astral Rain technically has no limit and the damage triggers can occur at different times within a round.


breithauptclan wrote:
Using Daze as the example is a bit of a problem because Daze still wouldn't work with Unlimited Potential since it isn't a spell slot spell. A spell slot spell that is worded similarly would work with Unlimited Potential after removing the duration though.

It invalidates it for Unleash Psyche which is interesting to say the least.

That 1 round duration is peculiar no matter which way you look at it, huh? I even considered there was another effect it was related to that I just looked past.


That's a simple rule to follow, but the duration line doesn't change how the self-regulating condition work do they?

With Fear where the duration isn't specific, there shouldn't be a contradiction. However for Daze, what does 1 round duration mean in relation to Stunned 1?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
I think they're talking about Aquatic Combat and these lines:

That's the one. It's often circumvented by a creature with the Amphibious trait.

Speaking of, Return to the Sea should also probably grant the Amphibious trait.


So it's all a matter of whether the effects are magical or not? That clears up a lot of these for me.

Fear, for example, inflicts a magical Frightened condition, and therefore can be dispelled, while those other spells inflict a non-magical Frightened condition?

Similarly, Daze causes a magical Stunned condition while Ray of Frost's speed penalty is simply an effect of the spell?

Of course, these would then also determine what is valid for the Conduit feats and Unleash Psyche, correct?


Conditions like Frightened, Stunned X, Sickened, and even persistent damage. Also given that the spells have no other effect that needs a duration.

I want to know what qualifies for those level 20 spellcaster feats and now the Psychic's Unleash Psyche that care about spells with no duration. I thought it would be as simple as checking if the spell has a listed duration or not but certain spells keep me skeptical.

Fear says its duration varies but similar spells that cause Frightened like Weird, Blistering Invective and Agonizing Despair have no listed duration.

Daze can cause Stunned 1 and has a listed duration. Ray of Frost can cause a 1 round speed penalty but have no listed duration.

Persistent damage spells I've noticed to be consistent as to not having a duration listed at least.


For what it's worth, I think the spell description is decently supportive of the amp disconnect. "Your spells release soothing mental waves." Combined with the specific 30ft range, I can see it fits this visual just as well. The "amped psi cantrip counteracts" part gives me doubt but then the "chosen ally" part SuperBidi points out brings me right back to seeing the amp effect being its separate thing.


breithauptclan wrote:
The counteract effect is being associated with "the amped psi cantrip" - since that is what is doing the counteracting.

Thanks, missed that. That first effect targeting is strange though but remains functional so how it was intended could go either way. Treating it consistently with the others feels to be the best approach.


I thought the counteract effect referred to the same 30 ft and targets of the first effect? It's not setting a completely new range for the spell is it?

Other amp effects are direct at stating how it affects the spell's target or influence so that's why I thought seemed odd Mental Balm.

Homing Beacon wrote:
Choose one creature hit by the spell (if the spell has a spell attack roll) or that fails its save against the spell (if the spell requires a save).
Inertial Barrier wrote:
You or one target of the spell gains resistance to physical damage equal to 2 + the spell's level until the start of your next turn.
Remove Presence wrote:
Choose one target of the spell or one creature in its area.


Mental Balm

Let's say we're using the Silent Whisper's Message. Does the amp effect care about the spell's target? It seems to have its own range for its effect separate from the cantrip I use.

If I cast Message on someone 120 ft away, I can only use the amp effect on myself or an ally within 30 ft?

If I cast Message on myself, I don't have to use the amp effect on myself and can target any ally within 30 ft?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. That amp effect is a lot better than I thought. For how gimmicky the base cantrip is, the risk/reward for amping it makes more sense now.


Does the stunned 1 target also lose that one action on their next turn? It hasn't reduced any action from the condition yet as far as I understand.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Where is the time oracle at? Was it spoiled or something?

Yes, How It's Played showed everything but two of its focus spells.

YuriP wrote:
Preview

Time oracle stuff at the 7:17 mark.


Does Time Oracle's major curse bonus to initiative have any decent application? I can't imagine going into an encounter without refocusing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know what, belated shout outs to the Undeath's Blessing change. I always felt like I wasn't reading that spell correctly no matter how many times I go back to it. No target aware of the spell's effect would ever choose to avoid it and any that did would prefer failing the save than succeed. It makes a ton more sense now.


I'm a big fan of Scare to Death but I never picked it for the instant death effect. For me, that was just a happy accident. I enjoyed it more as a second Demoralize on any target. That said, I think the nerf is reasonable. I'm content with it and will likely find it just as fun as before.

I'm also content with the errata fixing this anomaly. Previously, a crit success Scare check had a possibility of having no effect should the target crit success on the subsequent save. It effectively turns a crit success check into a crit failure. This happened to me before and it was a huge feelsbad moment after rolling a crit success.

However, as Megistone pointed out in the other thread, the errata created a different anomaly. Now, Scare to Death also has a probability of doing nothing on a crit success should the target crit fail on the subsequent save and be immune to death effects. It makes a crit failed save the best outcome for the would be target, which is undoubtedly odd.

Megistone posted a simple and clean change that solves everything though:

Megistone wrote:
The critical success effect should be: "The target becomes frightened 2 and is fleeing for 1 round. In addition, it must attempt at a Fortitude save against your Intimidation DC. On a critical failure, it dies. This critical failure effect has the death trait."


Guntermench wrote:
If it's directly in the center there would be no darkness or dim light. If it's off center there would be dim light to one side.

Oh cool. The dim light part totally slipped my mind too.


Megistone wrote:
There's still a problem with that skill: a target that is immune to death effects would rather critical fail the fortitude roll (resulting in no effect) than pass it (resulting in it fleeing). It doesn't make much sense.

That is weird. Less weird than how it previously worked imo but still.

I wonder if they could have put a clause that applied the frightened and fleeing should the target not die or is immune to death effects.


Scenario time:
An object affected by a level 3 (or higher) Light is in the center of a level 2 Darkness.

Since it's magical light, it successfully emanates light inside the Darkness area, and since it's higher level, it isn't suppressed. What does this look like for those inside the Darkness vs those outside?


breithauptclan wrote:

Most of the time, spells that have a save only let the targets attempt the save once. They will use the same result if they are affected by the spell again. Several spells have specific wording for that. And there are exceptions, such as Flaming Sphere that have specific rules saying that the target makes a new save against the spell each time they are targeted by it.

Unfortunately, there isn't a stated general rule - just a pattern that I see in most spells. So ultimately you will have to just make a ruling on the ambiguity and run with it. I don't think any of the suggested ways of running the spells is going to be a problem.

Yeah, I'll just have to discuss with the players which way they want to go for the ambiguous situations. I imagine less rolls if appropriate is going to be easier on everybody, the only concern being how swingy that can be for damage. Crit success/fails on ongoing effects are going to feel real good/bad for single rolls vs rerolling for each damage trigger. As long as everyone is on the same page on what they can dish out and take and that it goes for both sides, we should be good.


Ascalaphus wrote:
batimpact wrote:
Hold up, didn't Scare to Death also get buffed in a sense? The critical success result now frightens and causes fleeing even on a critical success save.
Well it was rather odd before I guess, that on a success the enemy would be frightened and on a critical success they could turn out to be not frightened.

It happened to me once and it was hilarious in retrospect. At the time though, we went from super pumped at the crucial critical to super bummed nothing happened. I always regretted not going for Demoralize instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hold up, didn't Scare to Death also get buffed in a sense? The critical success result now frightens and causes fleeing even on a critical success save.


Thankfully, there's no rampant metagaming shenanigans at our table so save outcomes are mostly public. I just need some clarifications on how things work RAW, which I now realize I should have emphasized in the OP.

I'm GMing 2e for the first time in a while, so I've been refreshing myself on some rules and this one in particular stood out for some reason. Well, actually it's because it made me realize for the first time how inconsistent our group was on this.


Squiggit wrote:

Interstellar Void adds "with a basic fortitude save" to the sentence describing the sustain action, so I think it's each time.

Needle on the other hand only has a save attached to the spell itself, so it should only be one check.

At least that's how I interpret it.

I think this is what I'm after, a general rule of thumb on how to read these ongoing and repeated effects when it doesn't specify.

Like for most area effects that do ongoing damage like Cloudkill, our group defaults to rolling a new save each time. It feels natural with it not being attached to a particular target as people can go in and out, but I'm not even sure if that's RAW.

Later, I need to find another spell like Interstellar Void just for comparison. I'm sure there's one, but I can't remember what it was called and trying to find it on my phone is a nightmare.


aobst128 wrote:
They chose the wording carefully with buzzing bites to explicitly say it only needs one save. I imagine other spells like clinging ice and needle of vengeance works the same.

Buzzing Bites is interesting. I think it's the most specific description I've read on the matter, even more so than Flaming Sphere. I don't know if I should read that as the general rule or the exception.

That said, Clinging Ice only ever had one damage trigger though, unlike Interstellar Void, so I think that was one is rather clear.

Additional question on Needle of Vengeance: Would the saving throw be rolled on cast or on the damage trigger? As in, would the target know in advance how bad they rolled or would they only find out after their first hostile attack?


For the Witch's Needle of Vengeance and the Oracle's Interstellar Void specifically.

I know you roll for each trigger for something like Flaming Sphere but it's very specific on telling you to do so. My instincts say roll only once for the two spells since, unlike Flaming sphere, they aren't specific, but I want to be certain.

Bonus question:

For Interstellar void, does the fatigue apply (after the save I'm guessing) no matter the save result?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RexAliquid wrote:
A battle oracle in their curse hits about as often as a barbarian, but instead of rage damage and resistances gets full spellcasting and fast healing. Seems about right as is.

Is the curse bonus to hit enough to match barb? It’s only a +1 and at that curse level, they’re stupefied so the full spellcasting isn’t even fullly active.


Oh totally. Getting reimbursed for my hoarded bandoliers was pretty hype! Best patch ever.


Gaulin wrote:
Aah I see. That'll show me to not check something and go by my memory. I thought it straight up said you refocus. So not that great of a spell for an oracle.

Ironic with it being the most focus spelly class we have. At least it’s only this one corner case.

I’m surprised there isn’t an actual combat refocus yet. Divine inspiration is the closest and it isn’t one technically. Maybe they planned on refocusing triggering many other things so it’s future-proofing for those?


I don’t know why but erratas are always hype for me. I remember being hyped for the Alchemist changes and I’ve never even played one at that point!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
Bludgeoning is least resisted for physical, electric for energy I believe. Your choice also depends on what resistance you want if you pick an element.

I think it’d be between sonic or electric. I like the idea of sonic since how often am I going to have a character w/ sonic damage strikes at 1st level? Seems fitting for a construct eidolon too but I guess that flexibility is their whole deal.


Blave wrote:
If they do in fact bring Clinging Ice up to the same power level, I just hope they do the same with the other Hex cantrips. Except Fervor. That one's fine.

That’s a concern I had too. It would noticeably leave much of the other hex cantrips behind.


Similarly, I hope needle of vengeance is also clarified if its save is rolled once or for each instance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All of these examples are great! I’m leaning toward the construct eidolon. With how modular that one is, all of these feel applicable. All this grapple talk is also really interesting. My ally martials would really enjoy having an extra grappling body on the field and I wouldn’t have to risk my own positioning. Tempting, tempting.

For the attack damage types, I noticed piercing and slashing has some nice feat and spell support. I really like bloodletting claws and envenom companion together, but the piercing and slashing combination seems resisted easily. It’s probably smarter to only have one attack either piercing or slashing and the other bludgeoning or elemental with energy heart, huh?


What are people’s go-to configurations for the eidolon’s primary and secondary attacks? Like the damage types and primary attack traits.

I bet it’s eidolon and build dependent but I’m curious about examples as someone who’s looking into playing a summoner for the first time.


I should’ve probably said I was thinking of a specific intereaction. I wanted to see if the bones oracle bonus against poison would help against both damage rolls. Rereading the spell, there are no saves to roll at all so it didn’t even matter.

It’s just funny to think about but if the explosion was meant to have the fire trait, multiple overlapping flammable fumes would explode in a chain reaction.


The flammable fumes is a spell that normally deals poison damage but can potentially deal fire damage under specific conditions. It only has the poison trait though and no fire trait. Usually descriptions are pretty good at specifying trait changes but there none for this spell. I assume it’s on purpose becuse fire effects trigger it, which could mean it would trigger itself if it had the fire trait?

Is it a poison spell through and through for both the cloud and explosion damage, or should it replace the poison trait with fire for the explosion?


PlantThings wrote:
I forgot to add, Cloudkill has a fun interaction with Bones's moderate curse and up. It gives you a high chance of taking minimal to no damage from your own Cloudkill. I've spent several encounters just standing inside my Cloudkill, confidently concealed and souped up with temp HP. It's also easier to maneuver the Cloudkill when you're already in it.

I did not consider taking advantage of the bonuses from the curse like that. I still think the situational curse bonuses is the worst part of the bones mystery but it’s so much better knowing ways to actively use it. I guess its good too if you have other party members casting poison, death, and disease area spells. I wouldn’t feel like I’m getting in the way of those!

I understand the divine access level issue more now. I still want to get and try armor of bones even if it might not be needed. It looks fun and the aesthetic is hard to pass up. However, if I do, I don’t know when I could fit in divine access now that the feat choices are becoming more interesting. I feel maybe at level 12 I could see taking divine access to get cloudkill but it feels a little late. It would’ve been perfect if I could take it instead of reach spell at level 2. Good feat but it’s generic enough that I don’t feel attached to it unlike the coming feats at 6th level and higher.

Lots to think about! Thanks for the advice!


I think we've been doing it differently as well. We usually allow RKs until they "attempted an incredibly hard check" or "failed a check" AFTER succeeding at least once. Not RAW but it was how we first interpreted it and it has worked out so well so far that we just rolled with it.

I think Im just lucky enough to often avoid the RK crit fail result that I never pay attention to that interaction.


Instead of making an advice thread, I was wondering if I could get some advice here for my bones oracle.

We just turned level 6 and I don't know if I should take the next revelation spell armor of bones. I don't know if it's worth the feat if Im already making good use of soul siphon for the temp hp.

Any other general advice is also welcome!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The critical failure result of RK is like a success but with false information. Unlike a regular failure, you won't know that you failed. Failing an RK roll also means you can't attempt to RK for additional knowledge.

How do you hide the crit fail result when they want to attempt to roll for additional knowledge since they didn't know they failed?

Do you just roll for it but declare it as a regular failure despite the actual result?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I rule that worshipping a deity counts as Having a deity so that those are not masked Cleric-only spells.

Isn’t that how it works normally? If it didn’t, there’s a bunch of things that wouldn’t make any sense. For example, angelic sorcerer grants some spells that require a deity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tess of Tosof wrote:
I would love to hear more of build and story choices that people have made with different types of Oracles.

I made a kitsune bones oracle recently for a negative healing party. It’s my first oracle too. So far, I’m pleasantly surprised how well it has handled.

Soul siphon has been the biggest highlight, mitigating the drained effect from the curse while dishing out some damage. The coolest thing I didn’t notice about it at first was that the temporary hp from it has no duration. I think barely anything does that so it’s a unique thing to play with.

With the errata in mind, I do hope its unlimited duration is an intended feature. I’ve been having a blast playing my character as an unsatiated glutton for extra life force. Begging and paying anyone to have their souls siphoned just to top of my hp and hunger outside encounters was not on my bucket list, but I’m all for it now.


Blave wrote:
The second printing of the APG is done. It was stuck in international logistics for quite some time, but since the APG is back in stock here at paizo, I assume it has reached them by now.

Good to know! Appreciate it.

I love me some erratas despite that one time I was hit hard with the angelic halo nerf.


Errata? For the APG?! Was there an official announcement for that sans dates? First time Im hearing about it.


Right. Cause even if you could glare in Goblin or any other language, the removal of the language understanding penalty would make it mechanically unnecessary. Thanks for helping me work it out in my head!

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>