Thief

bearcatbd's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. Venture-Agent, Ohio—Cincinnati 62 posts. 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 14 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks. The main store page for the AP doesn’t list it as a drop down option it seems.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

When does this come out in pdf? Can’t wait to start reading book 2.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Seeing the same issue for PFS scenarios.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I didn't play PF1. What's the deal with Gunslinger and why do so many seem to want it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

But why would you want to confuse a new player letting them stack bonuses that they won't be able to do in any other scenario after they move on from the BB? I would say no if I were (and will) GM it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I had asked my PF Society VL and she ruled it as you are Claxon. I was hoping for a more concrete rule to reference since it could become an in-game disagreement. I thought another way to go was to give the grabbed player a free escape attempt but that would not be RAW.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Came up in my game yesterday. Monster has player (A) grabbed and his ally, player (B), successfully Shoves the creature 5 feet (Telekinetic Maneuver in this case). Does that automatically end his grab on player A because he was shoved? We ruled it would but I can’t find a rule reference.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Okay, thanks for helping me wrap my cranium around this one ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I have always felt the initial attack was part of the two action cast. Cast spell, weapon moves and makes first attack, hence Attack tag. Third action if sustained is at -5. Not cast spell (counts as attack) then the weapon makes a strike action (2nd attack).

"When you cast the spell, the weapon appears next to a foe you choose within range and makes a Strike against it."

I saw in another post where a person might want to cast but not attack (therefor not suffer the attack penalty as well). This situation I could see why it shouldn't be on the spell cast itself but I also might argue that not attacking isn't an option since the spell description say it "makes a strike".


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

In the errata the Attack tag was removed from Spiritual Weapon. The spell description states you make a Strike with it and it contributes to multi-attack penalty. I assume we are still rolling a Spell Attack both when you first fire off the spell and when sustained. How does this spell NOT have the attack tag? Mistake or am I missing something here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

During a session this past weekend I let the player tell me, in general, what he was interested in knowing. If it's not something very unique to the creature I give him the info on a successful check. I know some people don't like this approach but I feel if they won the check they should be able to get something that is more relevant for them at the moment.

I did get a comment from a gm (who has probably been doing it longer than I have and was a player in the game)counseling me that "in PFS2 the GM simply decides the most important thing to tell the characters (this also speeds up play)"

The RK exchange took all of 10 seconds in the game. Player asked if the creature had any known resistance. Answer: it does not. That was the end of it.

I feel a player gets more satisfaction from succeeding on their check this way than random info that may not be useful. Curious how other's feel about this approach?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Okay, I understand now. Thanks everyone for the assist!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

On CRB pg 159 lists special unarmed attacks for Monk. Some, like Falling Stone, do not include the Agile trait. My assumption was that all unarmed attacks are agile (per weapon table pg 280). This seems like they are in conflict with one another.

So if a Monk is in Mountain Stance are his/her attacks truly NOT agile even though they are listed as Unarmed?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The GM from my scenario earlier today does not seem to agree and still requiring the check to 'Learn a Spell' even though its a scroll that was acquired during the course of the game.

The other question is about the scroll level it can consume. Can it consume higher level spells I can't yet cast just as long as they're on my tradition's list? I guess it does say 'It can learn ANY spell on your tradition's spell list' so I assume that means yes.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Is there a check required for the familiar to learn the spell it consumes in 1 hr? The way it reads it seems like no check required.

“Your familiar can learn new spells independently of your patron. It can learn any spell on your tradition’s spell list by physically consuming a scroll of that spell in a process that takes 1 hour. You can use the Learn a Spell exploration activity to prepare a special written version of a spell, which your familiar can consume as if it were a scroll. You and your familiar can use the Learn a Spell activity to teach your familiar a spell from another witch’s familiar. Both familiars must be present for the entirety of the activity, the spell must be on your spellcasting tradition’s spell list, and you must pay the usual cost for that activity, typically in the form of an offering to the other familiar’s patron. You can’t prepare spells from another witch’s familiar."


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This still isn't clear to me. Okay, let's assume it is just as Taja points out in the RAW, and we just take 5 off the total. Say it's 5 slashing and 5 fire. My player happens to have 3 resistance to fire. Can they chose to negate the slashing and only end up taking 2 fire damage total? Or maybe they have armor specialization and have 3 slashing resistance. Can they chose to negate the 5 fire and only take 2 slashing damage total?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Does the shield hardness block from multiple sources on the same attack? In other words, attack does 10 physical + 8 fire. Does a harness of 5 reduce each? One or the other? Or just combine the damage and subtract 5 off the 18 total?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks. Trying to envision a scenario where a flat check would ever be a 1 or 21 now :-/


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If there are two concealment conditions at play does the attacker have to make two flat checks? For instance, attacker is under the influence of Shroud of Night and all creatures are concealed to it. The player it is attacking has Blur or Mistform.

Two checks or just one? I'm guessing there is a rule somewhere about what happens when the same effect is in play more than once but it's not jumping out at me.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Got it. Makes sense now. Thank you


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

All the Witch’s Hex spells can be sustained. I have a few questions....

If the target succeeds at the saving throw and is unaffected, such as Evil Eye, can you still sustain the spell (like Flaming Sphere)? Or is the spell just lost on a success? Wording is “Regardless of the outcome, the target is then temporarily immune for 1 minute.” If you can still sustain it, I assume that target is immune and you have to shift to another target in that case.

With Clinging Ice Hex it states “Once this spell ends, the target becomes temporarily immune for 1 minute.” So does that mean you can target the same creature next round and they have to re-roll the save each time then?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Thank you! I figured there was a rules out there they cannot flank but couldn't put my finger on it. Thanks for the reference!

Hypothetically, if it were Enlarged but already delivered it's touch attack, could you assume that he has no melee or unarmed attack left and still cannot flank in that case?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Question came up in an encounter...my familiar delivered a touch spell (via Spell Delivery Master Ability) in the round. Another player then moves in to attack on the opposite side of the monster. Does the familiar allow for flanking in this case?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, I thought it would be nice to pick it up if I were a human with Natural Ambition but I'm a Wellspring gnome with First World Magic. Picking up the two extra spells still outweighs being human to pick up Cauldron. I agree, I can't turn down Basic Lesson but maybe pick it up at 4th, maybe...

Nothing about the wording makes me think you get 6 potions for price of 4 but that would at least be a little something better.

Overall just disappointed they didn't allow the witch to have a few potions as part of daily prep with this feat. I mean that's what witches do, brew potions, right? I don't think it would be at all overpowering. Rogue get's free poisons when they take Poison Weapon. Granted, they're pretty basic injury poisons but they don't have to craft them.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Is this feat intended to let the Witch craft a batch (6) of a potion or oil as part of her/his daily preparations similar to Alchemist? It doesn't seem written that way though. The way it's written is like you can craft some alchemy without taking the craft alchemy feat? If so, this seems like a pretty lame feat. Reason I ask is because the subsequent feats that list Cauldron as a Prerequisite use the 'during your daily preparations' language.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I would like to know this as well. I didn't get to participate/watch GenCon Online but wondered if they made an announcement about Alchemist cards.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Maybe it's left open purposely? Cult of Cinders in AoA path has a lot of hexploration and the survival rules, etc were written into the adventure book themed accordingly.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

No, it's understood they get human, elf, or half-elf feats. Seems like choices are just very limited because the few that are available at 9th may have a prerequisite, which if you don't have, makes it one choice or nothing.

I did see that half-elf gets an advantage on Multitalented which is nice. Just wish there were a few more options.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I have players hitting level 9 who are half-elf and there is no ancestry feat beyond 5th in the CRB. Seems odd since there are for half-orc. Has anyone heard if more ancestry feats specific to half-elf coming in the APG coming out soon?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Gotcha. Thanks guys


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Had it come up in a scenario I was GM'ing where a fighter wanted to use his +3 Bulwark reflex save bonus against a Bloodseeker Swarm's Swarming Bites attack. I allowed it but wondering what other's think?

The rule uses a fireball example. I see this as a more 'instantaneous' event as opposed to constantly standing in the midst of a swarm where several creatures could find ways into your armor. Otherwise I lean towards allowing the rule I suppose.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Bandolier question keeps coming up in posts. I really hope they add some additional clarification to it in next errata.

*** Venture-Agent, Ohio—Cincinnati

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, thanks. Still learning about boons but that makes it pretty simple. Appreciate you pointing it out.

*** Venture-Agent, Ohio—Cincinnati

Can society characters enlist in other Golarion organizations? If so, is that a downtime process?

For instance, I have a rogue that would fit well with Firebrands AND there are some feats available only to Firebrands of certain rank. Is that something a player declares during downtime similar to crafting check? Or are those sort of options just not available to society characters?

Thanks in advance!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Thod wrote:

Why stop at 2 spells if you have 3 actions?

Magic Missile was already mentioned as a possible 1 action spell. So in principle you could burn 3 spell slots and cast three individual spells.

While this might sound insane - here is the (fabricated) true story of the wizard Schuchtern and how he saved himself from certain doom through quick thinking and quick casting of three (individual) magic missile spells.

Poor Schuchtern - he hadn't taken a single scratch yet - but he was still doomed. The last Fireball should have taken out the last of the enemies - alas - through sheer ferocity the orc warrior refused to go down. He had drawn his battle axe and followed Schuchtern all the way on the narrow ledge.

In front of him an orc warrior - badly wounded - but refusing to go down. Behind him a fall of 300 feet. To one side a wall of rock, to the other a fall as well.

Schuchtern should have remembered a featherfall in the morning - but foolishly he had opted for 3 more spells of Magic Missile. He knew the orc was able to disrupt his first spell. He also knew that whatever spell he cast second would just trigger another bout of ferocity.

But a simple orc wouldn't be the end of Schuchtern - as long as he still had his brain to outsmart the enemy. The first casting of magic missile never hit the target as it got disrupted as expected. The second casting still didn't fell the warrior as his ferocity kept him upright. But the orc went down finally when Schuchtern cast his third and last spellslot.

And he had another day to tell the story.

I admit, this situation is more then a little bit engineered. But I was looking for a situation where casting three individual spells of Magic Missile would be superior to a single casting.

Ha! Great example and I enjoyed the story!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Charon Onozuka wrote:
bearcatbd wrote:

No doubt an errata update on the bandolier would be very helpful given the controversy I've seen in past posts and what I have been seeing in game play (if it is not 1 action). Here is my take though.

"A bandolier holds up to eight items of light Bulk within easy reach and is usually used for alchemical items or potions."

I read the first statement to be it's primary use (usually) is for alchemical items or potions. It says 'easy reach' (free action?) which seems, to me anyway, to relate to the action economy.

Feel it should or was meant to state the tools are also within 'easy reach' but the tools take up all the space in the bandolier and there is no room for potions too.

Just want to point out that I'd agree on a bandolier being related to the action economy... in that it allows you to retrieve an item in one action rather than two (similar to benefits of a belt pouch). One of my first questions as a GM when a player wants to pull out a potion/etc is, "where were you carrying that?" If I get a blank stare, that means it was in a backpack (2 actions to retrieve) because the player never thought to purchase items to carry stuff.

bearcatbd wrote:
Intuitively, a player with Battle Medicine can reach into their bandolier, pull out their bandages and Treat Wounds in 1-action but you can't pull out a vial, pop the cork, and drink it in 1-Action?
Battle Medicine is a feat, and thus allows a character to do things faster than normal as a result of specific training. If paizo were to reprint a version of Accelerated Drinker as a feat in PF2, I could see you drinking a potion in one action - but until then I'd rule 2 actions total to take out and drink.

Yeah, after looking into this a lot more I do believe the bandolier is meant to be 'something better than a backpack' but not to pull and drink in 1-Action. I think the fact that there is a Quick Bomber Feat was the most compelling reason to see it the other way for me. You wouldn't need the Feat if you could just buy a bandolier for 1 sp. So I recant my earlier position on use of the bandolier. Apologies for cluttering up the original thread on this issue.

I do still believe it could be clarified a little better regardless of what others here have said. Searching through other posts as well as what I've seen happening in game play there is confusion on how the bandolier is used. I've seen some say you can use things like Sunrod or Smokestick in 1-action because they are tools which I don't believe since it says for full set of tools.

"It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." - Fletch


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
bearcatbd wrote:

No doubt an errata update on the bandolier would be very helpful given the controversy I've seen in past posts and what I have been seeing in game play (if it is not 1 action). Here is my take though.

"A bandolier holds up to eight items of light Bulk within easy reach and is usually used for alchemical items or potions."

I read the first statement to be it's primary use (usually) is for alchemical items or potions. It says 'easy reach' (free action?) which seems, to me anyway, to relate to the action economy.

That’s purely an assumption on your part though.

Yes, I was offering up a possible explanation as to why many others seem to be playing it as 1-action or there is confusion about it. Maybe it will get mention in the next errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

No doubt an errata update on the bandolier would be very helpful given the controversy I've seen in past posts and what I have been seeing in game play (if it is not 1 action). Here is my take though.

"A bandolier holds up to eight items of light Bulk within easy reach and is usually used for alchemical items or potions."

I read the first statement to be it's primary use (usually) is for alchemical items or potions. It says 'easy reach' (free action?) which seems, to me anyway, to relate to the action economy.

Feel it should or was meant to state the tools are also within 'easy reach' but the tools take up all the space in the bandolier and there is no room for potions too.

Intuitively, a player with Battle Medicine can reach into their bandolier, pull out their bandages and Treat Wounds in 1-action but you can't pull out a vial, pop the cork, and drink it in 1-Action?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HammerJack wrote:

I'm afraid that's wrong. Drawing the tools as part of the use actions is only for toolkits. The full sentence is bolder below. Quoting part of a sentence is usually not the best approach.

Quote:
A bandolier holds up to eight items of light Bulk within easy reach and is usually used for alchemical items or potions. If you are carrying or stowing a bandolier rather than wearing it around your chest, it has light Bulk instead of negligible. A bandolier can be dedicated to a full set of tools, such as healer’s tools, allowing you to draw the tools as part of the action that requires them.

The reference to Alchemical Items or Potions in the first sentence is the qualifier (and was mentioned in my previous post). I have played at a few Paizo local conventions and various other Society scenario events and every GM has allowed it as 1 action. In fact, I've seen GM's ask players if they have a bandolier while pulling a potion just for this reason. I believe there are posts on this in the past (I will look again). I mean, I suppose it could be coincidence that every one of them is wrong. One of them happens to be a VC. Maybe it is an interpretation dispute but if you can point me to where potions aren't included I will concede to your opinion.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Timeshadow wrote:
bearcatbd wrote:
Zapp wrote:

Basically, the OP would be well advised to consider this a challenge rather than clunkiness.

That is, the rules specifically isn't about just having character magically have whatever they need at hand. This is a fiddly game and that extends to hand usage. Embrace the mini-game instead of considering it a chore! ..is what I'm saying :)

One perfect example is Grab an Edge.

If you're a Ranger wielding twin blades (or a Barbarian wielding a Greataxe etc), you're up for a nasty surprise the first time you walk too close to a cliff.

Well said. Action economy is an integral part of the game that players should have to include it in their tactical strategy. Bandolier is another good example. You want to take two actions to drink a Healing potion in the heat of combat or just 1!
A bandolier does not allow you to draw a potion for free it still takes an action to draw it and another to drink....but if it's in your pack then it takes 2 actions to draw it and a 3rd to drink so there is that at least.

Bandolier description states "allowing you to draw the tools as part of the action that requires them." for alchemical items and tools. 1 Action to drink a potion from your Bandolier.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Aratorin wrote:
Balkoth wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Is he switching from a ranged weapon to his swords?

Yes, he's trying to be a switch hitter of sorts.

It also seems like he'd be better served, technically, by going something like Rapier/Short Sword rather than two Short Swords.

As a Ranger myself, PF2 really disincentivizes this. A Shortbow is just as good in Melee as a Shortsword. The only real reason to switch is if the enemy has specific Resistances or Weaknesses.

Other reasons to switch are 1) if you suspect target has AoO ability and 2) you also don't get the damage ability bonus.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:

Basically, the OP would be well advised to consider this a challenge rather than clunkiness.

That is, the rules specifically isn't about just having character magically have whatever they need at hand. This is a fiddly game and that extends to hand usage. Embrace the mini-game instead of considering it a chore! ..is what I'm saying :)

One perfect example is Grab an Edge.

If you're a Ranger wielding twin blades (or a Barbarian wielding a Greataxe etc), you're up for a nasty surprise the first time you walk too close to a cliff.

Well said. Action economy is an integral part of the game that players should have to include it in their tactical strategy. Bandolier is another good example. You want to take two actions to drink a Healing potion in the heat of combat or just 1!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Julius Foxton wrote:
and when you are saying spell slot, you mean can cast 1-1st lvl a day, 1-2nd lvl a day and 1-3rd lvl spell a day...correct?

Correct


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
First World Bard wrote:
bearcatbd wrote:
Ok, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I'm understanding correctly. Basically, I'm just trying to find a way to get the Haste Spell for my rogue. All the other spells are just added bonus.
If all you want is Haste, it might just be easier to purchase a wand of Haste. As a MC spellcaster, you'd get Haste at 8th level. A wand of a 3rd level spell a 7th level item, costing 360 gp. Now, to use the wand you'd need to either have Trick Magic Item (which would take an extra action), or take the Multiclass Dedication for a spellcasting tradition that can cast Haste. If you're a Human, you can take Multitalented at 9th level, saving you that 2nd level Rogue feat / allowing you to have taken a different dedication instead.

Great suggestion. This is a society character so gold resources being more limited I'll have to weight the cost of the wand. I like the idea of just taking the MC Dedication that way I wouldn't have to burn another archetype feat (Basic Spellcasting) just to get to the Haste spell and with the wand could get it a level sooner. Thanks!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Ok, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I'm understanding correctly. Basically, I'm just trying to find a way to get the Haste Spell for my rogue. All the other spells are just added bonus.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So post errata:
If you have Basic Spellcasting feat and never took bloodline breadth AND never used the Learn a Spell activity this still doesn't give you anymore spells than pre-errata as I read it. So how is this improved considerably? Picking out one of the spells to be Signature is nice but still seems very spell limited to me unless I'm missing something. Was it implied you couldn't try to learn new spells before the errata?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Okay, thanks for confirming that for me.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm sure this has already been asked somewhere but I can't seem to find it. Anyway, if I start the Sorcerer dedication at higher level, say 6th level Rogue, and then take the Basic Sorcerer Spellcasting feat at 8th level. Am I getting all the spell slots for my current character's level or is it from the time I started becoming a Sorcerer?

I assume you get all the slots immediately (i.e. 8th level Rogue who has only been a Sorcerer for two levels would still have 2 cantrips, 1-1st lvl, 1-2nd lvl, & 1-3rd lvl spell slots.

As opposed to having 2 cantrips and only 1-1st lvl slot because he only started progressing at lvl 6 instead of 4th.

I believe according to the RAW it's the first scenario but intuitively it seems like he would need to invest time developing his sorcerer skills/slots and progress like a 1st lvl Sorcerer normally would have from the time he started becoming a sorcerer.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Ah, right. My bad, I was thinking of Improved Grab in my head when I replied I think. So many rules, not enough time...


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I agree. If it is any different than being an automatic grab as part of a successful damage attack that includes 'plus grab' in the descriptor then Paizo should clarify or change it. I've been assuming it happens as part of the attack for awhile now.

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>