Damiel

beowulf99's page

1,761 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,761 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

breithauptclan wrote:

I'll re-post this because it was added in later.

breithauptclan wrote:


Edit: And most importantly, how do you convince the people that you are playing with that your answers to those questions are the 'correct' way to do a sunder action?

A lot of people are going to see that Strike doesn't target items generally and especially not attended items.

Aside from repeatedly telling people that you are right and that 'it must work the way I want', what rules are you going to use to actually support your position?

Personally I would say that the following clause of the Adjudicating the Rules section would apply:

Adjudicating the Rules, 2nd bullet point wrote:
∙If you're not sure what action a task uses, look for the most similar basic action. If you don't find one, make up an undefined action and add any necessary traits (usually attack, concentrate, manipulate, or move).

It's a pretty easy step from "Strike Target Creature" to "Strike Target Object". Sure it's deeply at the GM's discretion, but I would say it is well supported by the rules.


I tend to side with jcheung here. Sure, a normal human or more frail race would probably use an escape action in this situation. But a muscle bound dwarf in full plate? A Half-Orc barbarian in the midst of his Rage?

They are more likely to try to "sunder" the weapon instead. So I tend to let my players use a custom action strike that targets equipment at the AC of the opponent.

I also allow players to attack appendages that are grappling them from afar. I mean, you can attack Black Tentacles right? So why not a bill hook or the tentacle of a Kraken?


You can use Brutal Finish with any melee weapon which you are currently wielding with 2 hands.

So practically anything you can reasonably grip with both hands.

Relevant Rule:

CRB PG. 279 "Hands" wrote:

Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free.

Weapons requiring two hands typically deal more damage. Some one-handed weapons have the two-hand trait, causing them to deal a different size of weapon damage die when used in two hands. In addition, some abilities require you to wield a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement while holding the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait.


I mean. It is the Major gift of a Relic. Shouldn't it be a bit out of balance?

I would hate to see balanced Relics. Relics are the Cherry on top of the Campaign. They are the MacGuffin you give the players to let them swing above their level in awesome set pieces.

They are the Ultimate version of whatever mundane item they happen to take the form of, at least as far as I am concerned. Relics should be where the designers can take the balance gloves off and just go crazy. Because they aren't meant for long stretches of standard play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:


It is a buff to unarmored characters. Just like Attack potency or Devastating attacks is a buff to weapon dabblers and truly unarmed characters.

I don't think that's quite an equivalent comparison though. It saves money for weapon dabblers, and lets you carry more weapons, but none of those weapons will actually be stronger than they could have been otherwise.

For the unarmored character it's a pure numbers buff that eventually makes them better than anyone else in the game.

Also probably worth pointing out that being able to carry more weapons can benefit anyone who would have had a weapon anyways (and even characters who normally wouldn't), whereas unarmored AC only improves a specific subset of characters at a specific level range.

I mean it's fine if you want to run it that way at your tables, but the comparison isn't great regardless.

I suppose I see what you are getting at, given they would have no cap on their Dex. I had not thought of that tbh.

I still don't have an issue with it though. At worst I would impose a universal max dex of 5. I still would not require players to purchase gear to take advantage of the ABP bonuses however. Especially given how they are worded.

If Simone the Monk wants to run around buck naked, then by Shelyn she should have that right.


Squiggit wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
But it doesn't, does it?

I mean, this thread has established that there are a lot of things ABP doesn't say.

It's kind of a half baked variant.

Eh, and it works either way really.

I have nothing specifically against requiring explorer's clothes or BoA. I just can't read ABP and come to that conclusion personally. It makes a lot more sense to me to just follow what the variant says.

So at 5th, without looking at a character sheet, I know that everybody's AC just went up by 1.

It is a buff to unarmored characters. Just like Attack potency or Devastating attacks is a buff to weapon dabblers and truly unarmed characters.

Or does a monk still have to have Handwraps to qualify? Because I personally do not think that they do.


Lucerious wrote:
I would not allow someone to benefit from the unarmored APB armor and resilience bonuses without either explorer’s clothing or bracers of armor equipped. Simone dedicated to dexterity builds could get the +7 ability modifier normally, but cannot benefit from runes with the full ability bonus. No reason to change that just for APB.

How you run it is up to you and all, but I see ABP as being purposefully built to enable such characters to make due without armor. Or a character who uses more than two weapons being able to be equally effective with any weapon they wield.

If ABP had specified that the Defense Potency required or augmented the AC bonus from Armor specifically, then sure, you would have a point.

But it doesn't, does it?

Defense Potency wrote:
At 5th level, you gain a +1 potency bonus to AC. At 11th level, this bonus increases to +2, and at 18th level, to +3.

No mention of needing any gear whatsoever to qualify.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong for seeing it the other way around, what I am saying is that it makes much more sense to just give out the stipulated bonuses as the sub-system asks without checking if the character is wearing explorer's clothes or Bracer's of Armor. Especially given that such bracers are basically useless under ABP anyway, aside from giving you somewhere to hang a talisman I guess.

I mean, after all, the whole point of ABP is to reduce the number of items that a character MUST have to be on parity, right? Why would they then make wearing some form of armor a requirement?

Are the standard clothes on a given character's back not good enough for you?


breithauptclan wrote:


It is debatable whether Cast a Spell activation of magic items would qualify - I am not certain if there is intended to be a distinction between using the Cast a Spell activity directly or via the Cast a Spell item activation.

This is debatable indeed. I personally would rule it to include any time you use the Cast a Spell activity as part of casting a spell, like in the case of Scrolls, which is both an activation and the Cast a Spell activity. Otherwise using Cascade with scroll heavy Magus is just a bit more difficult. Not super hard, since Shield is always an option, but still a bit more difficult.


Tarpeius wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
There's actually an argument to be made that ABP only alters MAGIC items.
You can get a small taste of the problem with that reading right now when looking at Mage Armor, which isn't item-based but provides an item bonus. Stack that with the potency bonus to AC and saves, and suddenly the champion running around in a tin can is very jealous.

I mean, I'm not really blown away by a caster getting +3 instead of +2 at 5th from Mage Armor. +4 and +6 at later levels is a bit more problematic, making Mage Armor basically better Medium armor.

But you can always invoke the too good to be true rule, and just not allow them to stack. Which makes casting Mage Armor basically useless past 5th, saving Caster's a slot.

Basically, which do you think is less problematic?

1. Mage Armor being better Medium Armor at 11th and up.

2. Caster's saving a spell slot/day on not having to cast Mage Armor past 4th level.

Go with that one.

Edit: Almost forgot to mention:

Under No Circumstances should you let the bonus to Saves stack. That is pretty clearly too good to be true, at least in my opinion. +2 to saves at 8th? Nah, probably not chief.


1: No, as Magus Archetype does not give you access to Arcane Cascade. No Cascade, no Cascade benefit for Sparkling Targe.

Edit: You actually don't have a hybrid study as an Archetype Magus. The only interaction the Magus Archetype has with hybrid studies is the hybrid study spell feat, which just gives a hybrid study focus spell, and no other benefits of the study.

2:

Arcane Cascade wrote:
Requirements You used your most recent action to Cast a Spell or make a Spellstrike.

Arcane Cascade does not require the spell cast to be a Magus Spell, so any spell should do.


And that is why it is probably best, and simplest, to simply exempt bombs from interacting with ABP at all. I mean, you wouldn't say that Snares should get any bonus damage from ABP, right? So why should bombs?

I think ABP should be changed to only affect Magical items that grant item bonuses anyway, instead of using ambiguous wording. Mutagens should still work. Bombs should just use the bomb's statistics. Expanded Healer's Tools should still grant a +1, etc...

And I am confident that many parties probably naturally play it this way. I know mine did. Doing otherwise simply removes too much from the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

Yeah, I would simply allow alchemist mutagens and mage armor to function as they would have normally.

The goal of ABP isn't to screw over a class normally reliant on items, it's to put the power into the characters instead of their items but also prevent things from stacking in ways they couldn't under the normal rules.

As long as your not ending up with bonuses higher than what you could normally get under the normal rules, I'd say it's fine.

This is how I handle it. And given that ABP is an optional rule anyway, I don't find it particularly troublesome to tweak it. I find ABP is great for low magic games, where Alchemists should be in their element. Making them weirdly worse instead is just not a great feeling.

graystone wrote:
I'm not sure what chafted means, but it sounds painful! ;)

Ah yes, Chafted. Equal parts chafed and shafted. For when you feel wronged, AND irritated.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dispel Magic wrote:
If you successfully counteract a magic item, the item becomes a mundane item of its type for 10 minutes.

I see no reason why you would need to check against each rune. Just a single check against the weapons level, which is determined by the highest level rune present.

Edit: To clarify, magical weapons are single items, even though they are composed of multiple parts. A Firearm with multiple augmentations and runes and every other bit or bob you can think of adding to it is a single item when it comes to Dispel Magic, or really most effects that target items.


SuperBidi wrote:
Nope, in PF2 you are not your own ally. This spell is clearly meant to protect someone else than you.

I disagree. The important part is that the Targets portion of the spell designates a willing creature, and not a willing ally.

The part of the spell description that mentions ally is the much discussed "first sentence" of the spell, which tends to be a description of what the spell, or other ability/item/thing, does without rules text. Both the Targets section as well as the rules text both use the word creature instead.

This means that you could use the spell to say defend a defenseless villager who may not be an ally of yours for whatever reason.

Edit: for clarity and to quote the spell.

Dancing Shield wrote:


Targets 1 touched shield and 1 willing creature

You levitate the touched shield and orbit it around a nearby ally. When you Cast the Spell and Sustain the Spell, the shield uses the Raise a Shield action to protect the target creature.


Siphon Life wrote:
If you hit and the target is a living creature, it takes 4d6 additional negative damage, depending on its Fortitude save.

Unless it is a living undead, then the answer is no.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Rules Answer: There is no current way that I am aware of to get rid of shield block for a Fighter without GM fiat.

And I don't think there needs to be one honestly. People tend to have a diverse range of skills. It is fairly unrealistic for someone to ONLY be good at, or have applicable or special skills in, one topic even if they make a conscious effort to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
graystone wrote:
And my point would be that snares in fact DO NOT have separate rules for activation: there is NO activation line, meaning it activates when used and in this case it's when crafted:

Hold up there. 'No activation line' doesn't mean 'activated when crafted'. That certainly isn't how items in general work.

And while it doesn't have an 'activation' line, it does have rules for 'triggering'. Which are a separate step from 'crafting'.

So while you don't like the comparison to Talismans because it weakens your argument, I think it is a valid one.

Talisman steps: craft talisman, attach talisman, activate talisman.
Ammunition: craft ammunition, load ammunition, fire ammunition.

Snare: craft snare, trigger snare. according to the rules
Snare: craft snare components, set up snare at location, trigger snare. according to what is implied by some of the found snare loot in some books

-----

So, I'm curious. What is the balance reason for not allowing snares to be picked back up?

You have mentioned the daily free snares from certain class features. I would agree that those shouldn't be re-usable. Just like how Quick Alchemy creates a non-permanent version of a consumable that can't be used for more than the round that it is created in, and Advanced Alchemy also creates a non-permanent version of a consumable that can't be used on future days - these quick snares are a non-permanent version of a consumable. Once used, they become non-usable if you try to pick them back up.

Is there something else balance-wise?

Snares don't need to be activated. They just work. Not every thing that happens has to be activated to happen, especially when it comes to reactive effects like snares or traps.

As to the cost vs. balance argument, I will play devil's advocate. Snares would be hilariously better than any other consumable if you could pick them up, even if only speaking of untriggered snares. Think about it. You decide to use a scroll, it doesn't matter what effect that scroll has, it is spent. You decide to quaff a potion, it's drained even if the effect fails or has no meaningful impact.

But you decide to use a snare, you deploy it. It doesn't have an effect. But unlike every other type of consumable, you can just, "pop" it back into your pocket. Instantly Snares go from maybe not triggering to ALWAYS triggering. Because if it doesn't trigger, you'll just pick it back up right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
graystone wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
But if it hasn't been triggered, the whole "you can't salvage anything" seems completely illogical.
A lot of the game doesn't follow strict logic instead following balance and playability.

I see the rules arguments and you have a point. It is still unclear if disabled snares count as destroyed.

I don't think it makes sense from a balance and playability basis either. I am going to be allowing the player who crafted the snares to be able to deactivate their snares and recover them providing they haven't been triggered. Snares are difficult enough to use as is and I don't want them to be irrelevant.

Which is really the main point. Are you seeing snares used by appropriate characters in your games at all? If not and it is because players don't think they work, then you should probably reevaluate your position.

Ravingdork made this thread to discuss what he saw as a legitimate, supported by the rules method for retrieving snares. I don't personally believe that his method is supported by the rules, and I have done what I can to explain why.

That doesn't mean I don't think there should be a way to retrieve snares not locked behind a feat or spell. I think there should. I think Snares should have been redesigned to be more permanent items that a Ranger chooses to carry around with them, sort of like a non-scaling/mystical version of the Thaumaturge's implements. But this is not the place to discuss that just like it is not the place to recommend house rule solutions, even if they are better than the rules as printed in my opinion.

The rules in this case just don't support the retrieval of a Snare in my opinion. They actively prevent it by my reading. Which is very different from many of the, "expect table variation" issues that we tend to see crop up here on the forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:


Except not really. When they do have the same level, it about 20% maximum. But most often they don't have the same level: snares are even-levelled and alchemy and especially scrolls are mostly odd-levelled. When you take that in account (also rarity matters) prices are very much in line. Maybe with a small discount.

They still tend to be cheaper overall than most on level consumables. The only consumables that tend to be even cheaper are Magical Ammunition, and there the margin tends to be pretty thin.

I only meant to imply that Snares are in no way particularly expensive where consumables are concerned, and definitely not by a margin that will break the bank. Not that they are singularly the cheapest consumable or a particularly cheap category.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Decent snares cost tens of thousands of gold--in a game where you cap out at about 112,000 or so at level 20.

If you can't recover unused snares, then they're pretty much useless. Who the heck would spend their entire fortune in the mere HOPE of getting a cool ability to trigger maybe ten times in their whole adventuring career?

Snares simply don't work as a mechanic if you assume they're expended the moment they touch the ground.

Snares are cheaper at any given level than an on level scroll.

Snares are cheaper at just about every level than an on level bomb, elixir or some poisons.

Snares actually feel like a pretty good deal given they take a few extra hoops to use.

Imo the bulk of snares a player is likely to set up are going to be Snare Specialist/other free snares in exactly the same way as the bulk of bombs you are likely to see be thrown are going to be incredible alchemy versions, and not store bought.


SuperBidi wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
A few other considerations. Can a character who can craft a snare in 3 or less actions reverse engineer a snare in that same number of actions? How about a character who can only do so with special daily versions of a snare, are they allowed to reverse engineer "regular" snares at their higher speed (with their daily snares), or are they stuck with 1 minute/snare?
I don't think it's really important as it's not something you do during combat. 1 minute is not a lot of time.

While it's not something that you would typically do mid combat, I can see some combat applications. A snare specialist ranger could use reverse engineer instead of disable device on a hostile snare and get 50% value back on it on top of neutralizing it. It only really has balance implications once you get to 12th and Lightning Snares, since up until that point you are having to dump an entire turn into it to pull it off, but still, it is worth considering as an offensive action.

Does that make it a problem? Up to each individual GM. We don't have any rules for using Reverse Engineer specifically in combat, it's not noted as a thing you could typically do mid combat, but at the same time the way it is worded you could do it mid combat.

I am leery of allowing the use of a rule meant for non-combat situations to be just better than the obviously intended method for dealing with a situation, even with feat investments making it possible.

It doesn't help that there are limitations placed on using thievery to disable a snare that don't exist for reverse engineering. You have to be at least a step in training behind whoever crafted a snare to disable them. Such a rider does not exist for Reverse Engineering.

SuperBidi wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
there is a sharp diminishing return

Clearly. But if you allow someone to retrieve their snares at no cost I feel that it gives too much incentive to put tons of them everywhere (especially once you can do that in less than a minute) as there's no cost if they are not triggered (just a few minutes of your time).

And paying full cost for a non-triggered snare is both illogical and really punishing.
50% is still quite punishing, maybe the ideal number should be closer to 70-80%, but it's still way better than 0. Also, as the character is not really reverse engineering the trap but dismantling it, you can allow a success to the Crafting check to give 60% of the materials and a critical success 70%. It's a houserule but the situation is not precisely covered by the reverse engineering rules anyway so you have to adapt the rules a bit.

I am still leaning towards not allowing this actually upon reflection. While I think it has legs and could be argued that Reverse Engineer can apply to snares and allow you to reclaim materials from them, and I wouldn't be mad if anyone made that ruling at their table, it still feels like a loophole rather than an intended usage of Reverse Engineer.

Reverse Engineer is written as a downtime only sort of activity since with any other item, you would require a minimum of 4 days to do it. Snares are the only items that are crafted in such a short amount of time, and only with feats involved. I also wouldn't adjust the amount of materials reclaimed in either case. Half value feels fair while still forcing a player to carefully consider where they are laying their snares.

I am still not convinced that it should be allowed. But I wouldn't be upset to see it ruled that way either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

The discussion is long and I haven't read it entirely so I don't know if someone raised the reverse-engineering rule: "If you have an item, you can try to reverse-engineer its formula. This uses the Craft activity and takes the same amount of time as creating the item from a formula would. You must first disassemble the item. After the base downtime, you attempt a Crafting check against the same DC it would take to Craft the item. If you succeed, you Craft the formula at its full Price, and you can keep working to reduce the Price as normal. If you fail, you’re left with raw materials and no formula. If you critically fail, you also waste 10% of the raw materials you’d normally be able to salvage."

You obviously don't care about the formula and can choose to just fail the check automatically but you can get the raw materials back.
Even if it's not an obvious ruling, I think it's an appropriate one when you want to dismantle a Snare to reuse it.

Formulas, Reverse Engineer wrote:
The item’s disassembled parts are worth half its Price in raw materials and can’t be reassembled unless you successfully reverse-engineer the formula or acquire the formula another way.

I could see allowing this, though I don't know if it would be altogether that useful. You only get half resources back, minus another 10% on a crit fail, so would have to spend downtime recrafting the snare to craft it back to 100% without additional costs. Or you would have to reverse engineer 2 snares to recraft 1, so there is a sharp diminishing return involved without hefty downtime or gold costs for on level snares. Does make doing so with cheap low level snares pretty viable at higher levels since they wouldn't cost that much additional work/gp to get back to 100%.

A few other considerations. Can a character who can craft a snare in 3 or less actions reverse engineer a snare in that same number of actions? How about a character who can only do so with special daily versions of a snare, are they allowed to reverse engineer "regular" snares at their higher speed (with their daily snares), or are they stuck with 1 minute/snare?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Snip for Brevity.

RD, you just described Snares backwards.

Crafting Snares tells you that you build a snare within a single 5 foot square. Not in your workshop or some other place. Then it goes on to tell you that, once built, the snare Cannot be moved without destroying it. Destroy, not disassemble or recover or any other similar word.

This is how Snare Specialist and similar abilities tend to describe their special daily snares,

Snare Specialist wrote:
Each day during your daily preparations, you can prepare four snares from your formula book for quick deployment; if they normally take 1 minute to Craft, you can Craft them with 3 Interact actions. The number of snares increases to six if you have master proficiency in Crafting and eight if you have legendary proficiency in Crafting. Snares prepared in this way don't cost you any resources to Craft.

If either one of these two can possibly be described as having been prebuilt, it is the Snare Specialist daily snares, not standard snares. And even these note that they are still crafted. Not placed or thrown down. Crafted in the 5 foot square where they will remain barring one of the two ways I am aware of "legally" moving a snare, both of which are much more limited in utility than simply being able to pick up and move a snare.

Ravingdork wrote:
Pretty much this. I don't believe that the developers intended you to be able to reuse a limited use ability more times per day than it grants.

And I don't believe that Paizo intended for you to be able to reuse snares in their current form. That is likely the price you pay for them scaling so far in damage instead of staying limited in that regard. I would have preferred if snares would have been more about inflicting debuffs than doing damage, even more so than they are now. That would probably free up enough "power budget" to allow the reuse of snares, not to mention dropping their price to a more reasonable amount.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

I disagree that it makes Recycled Cogwheel a dead feat as that only applies to temporary one-and-done snares granted by feats.

You know that makes it worse right?

Since Recycled Cogwheel only allows you to pick up your daily "free" snares, allowing a player to pick up any snare they like makes that specialized ability to pick up your specialized snares worthless.

Since you could just pick them up anyway without it, right? Or are you saying that you should be able to pick up any non-snare specialist/snare genius/ what have you snare, but for some reason are unable to pick up said special snares?

So what purpose does the feat serve then in your opinion, assuming that your interpretation of snare portability is true?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would also like to note that the existence of snares in loot does not mean that said snare happens to be in a complete form. In fact, we know that it cannot be since snares must be crafted in place. Instead you are likely finding all of the components for said snare, not the complete snare. Think of it like finding all of the parts of a longsword as loot. You wouldn't argue that you use it as a longsword right? Not until it is properly assembled.

I haven't really played in too many pf2e adventure paths, as my group tends to prefer home brew campaigns, but to quote Gortle slightly up thread, "and they keep all the components needed to quickly construct a spike snare handy here."

All of the components and notably not a complete Spike Snare.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Plane wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
The Recycled Cogwheel feat from the Trapsmith Archetype is needed if you want to deconstruct and later redeploy a snare that you have already set up.

"You're able to scavenge the cogwheels from your daily quick-deploy snares that use gears." <- That looks like something specifically different.

Traps that haven't deployed? Yeah, we re-use if disabled. Why not?

This feels like a case of "keep reading".

Recycled Cogwheel wrote:
You're able to scavenge the cogwheels from your daily quick-deploy snares that use gears. This allows you to deconstruct a snare that didn't trigger in order to set the snare up somewhere else. Doing so takes the same number of actions as setting the snare did. When you do, you recover the snare and can deploy it in another location.

The whole purpose of the feat is to allow you to do something not normally allowed by the rules: Collecting an un-triggered snare to re deploy it elsewhere. This feat in essence does what OP wants to do, which leads me to believe that doing so without this feat is not possible.

Since if it was possible to disable, pack up and redeploy a snare as a baseline, what purpose does this feat even serve?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Otherwise instead of noting multiple times that placed snares (no matter who placed said snare) are destroyed or cannot be moved or sold in their complete form, we would have rules telling us what sort of value we get out of a disabled or triggered snare.
Multiple times? I've only ever noted it in a single location. Where are all the others?

Snares ends with,"Unlike other items, found snares cannot be collected or sold in their complete form. Snares have the snare trait."

The first paragraph of Crafting Snares ends with, "Once constructed, it can’t be moved without destroying (and often triggering) the snare."

Triggering Snares just states that, "Unless stated otherwise in a snare’s description, when a Small or larger creature enters a snare’s square, the snare’s effect occurs and then the snare is destroyed."

There is not a single reference to anything being possible to do with a Snare other than destroying it aside from disable device which just renders the snare inert. It does not make them mobile.

Id even argue that the only ways that disable device even interacts with snares is to either trip it on a crit fail, essentially destroy it on a success, and disable it with the option to reset it on a crit.

Imo, even with your own snares, you would have to crit pass a disable device to temporarily disable it without destroying it. And even then you still can't move it, you can just reset it later if you want, in place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
After all, nothing would stop any snare crafter from just pre-crafting all of their snares and carrying them around.

This strikes me as little more than semantics. Nothing is stopping that anyways.

Interpretation 1: I buy or craft the raw materials for my snares. Then assemble them in the field with a modified Craft action, taking 1 minute apiece.

Interpretation 2: I buy or Craft ready-to-go snares. Then set them up in the field, taking 1 minute apiece.

Literally nothing has changed in how it is mechanically handled, only in how it is described.

The difference is that you can freely manipulate snare components while you are prohibited from freely manipulating a completed Snare.

To be honest, I wish snares were more flexible and treated like real items. Especially where some clearly reusable "irl" ones are concerned like Alarm or Biting snares. Instead, it is best to think of them as abilities like Castilliano recommends.

So when your character sets a snare, they aren't slapping down a pre-built version (unless you are a snare specialist or equivalent who specifically CAN do that), they are literally cobbling it together in place, making the components useless on their own in the process.

Why are they made useless? Because the rules tell us they are. Otherwise instead of noting multiple times that placed snares (no matter who placed said snare) are destroyed or cannot be moved or sold in their complete form, we would have rules telling us what sort of value we get out of a disabled or triggered snare. We do not have that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
No one is arguing that. you can reuse a snare that has been triggered by an enemy, beowulf99.

Triggering Snares disagrees with you pretty hard RD.

Triggering Snares wrote:
Unless stated otherwise in a snare’s description, when a Small or larger creature enters a snare’s square, the snare’s effect occurs and then the snare is destroyed.

You cannot reuse any snare unless it specifically states that you can.

Edit: Oops, reread what Ravingdork posted and realized the period was not intentional. I had read his comment as if he was saying that you could reuse such a snare. My bad.

To actually reply to RD, I will say that even if you disable one of your own snares and the GM graciously rules that this counts as a Critical Success on your disable device check, meaning you can re-enable the snare, you would not be able to move the snare without destroying it, making whatever you were trying to get out of it worthless due to the following line of Crafting Snares.

Crafting Snares wrote:
Once constructed, it can’t be moved without destroying (and often triggering) the snare.

That is as cut and dry as you can get.


Castilliano wrote:
I don't even think you can craft a snare at a discount. The price list isn't for the price of a snare, it's for the price of the raw materials of a snare. (Dang it, I'm having a hard time finding the list online to verify/cite, but I believe we've had this discussion before.)

Crafting Snares clearly states that you can craft snares using downtime to reduce the cost.

Crafting Snares wrote:

A snare is built within a single 5-foot square. Once constructed, it can’t be moved without destroying (and often triggering) the snare.

You must have the Snare Crafting feat to create snares. You can spend 1 minute to Craft a snare at its listed Price. If you want to Craft a snare at a discount, you must spend downtime as described in the Craft activity. Some snares have additional requirements beyond those stated in the Craft activity; these snares list their requirements in a Craft Requirements entry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Due to the odd and inconsistent language, some people interpret snares as being un-purchasable. I've been told that, rather than purchasing a ready-to-go snare (like a bear trap), you're actually purchasing the components and raw materials for the snare (such as wire, blades, and pressure plates), which you would then Craft in the field.
Snares wrote:
Snares are small annoyances and simple traps you can create using the Crafting skill if you have the Snare Crafting feat (page 266). Creating a snare requires a snare kit (page 291) and an amount of raw materials worth the amount listed in the snare’s Price entry. Unlike other items, found snares cannot be collected or sold in their complete form. Snares have the snare trait.

It is pretty clear that you don't purchase ready to go snares. You purchase all of the things you would need for that snare, and a snare crafting kit, then use those things to craft the snare. What does this stuff weigh? No idea. But we do know what it costs, the price of the snare.

I have a feeling that snares being automatically "destroyed" when being tripped or disabled is to stop players from obsessing over carrying around bits of trash scrounged up from triggered snares to resell or recraft into new snares. In other words, it is purely a balance convenience.

I mean, we all know that a Biting Snare is just a beartrap right? And beartraps tend to be pretty reusable. But in PF2 they are not. Saying otherwise is a pretty thin stretch imo.


Crafting Snares wrote:
A snare is built within a single 5-foot square. Once constructed, it can’t be moved without destroying (and often triggering) the snare.

Up front, I would say that you would have to craft the snare entirely within the space you want it to occupy. Doing what you suggest would be more in line with how a Snare Specialist Ranger or Kobold with Snare Genius would go about it, but that requires such a feat and probably shouldn't be allowed without it. After all, nothing would stop any snare crafter from just pre-crafting all of their snares and carrying them around.

Saying that, I wouldn't require the crafter to be in that exact spot for the entire downtime period. After all you are looking at multiple days or weeks for some of the more expensive snares. They would just have to be able to return to their chosen spot to put in their hours of work when they want to make progress on it.


Gortle wrote:

Technically the GM is supposed to be applying circumstance bonuses and penalties.

I don't require grapple checks against unconscious characters or unattended objects. You want to hold them, OK done. You want to pick them up, OK. It is basically the same. I just let it work.

The lower AC and reflex DC is really there for it you are trying to damage the unconscious character. To ensure they are dead for example. In that context (damaging spell) no change to the Fortitude DC makes sense.

Do the rules say that anywhere? I am not sure.

In a roundabout way, yes they do support that position.

Making Choices wrote:

Often, your choices have no immediate risk or consequences. If you’re traveling along a forest path and come across a fork in the trail, the GM will ask, “Which way do you go?” You might choose to take the right fork or the left. You could also choose to leave the trail, or just go back to town. Once your choice is made, the GM tells you what happens next. Down the line, that choice may impact what you encounter later in the game, but in many cases nothing dangerous happens immediately.

But sometimes what happens as a result of your choices is less than certain. In those cases, you’ll attempt a check.

To summarize, if there are no stakes or little chances of failure, there shouldn't probably be a check happening in the first place.

No risk or consequences? No check. Grappling an Unconscious person has little risk and no immediate consequences. Future consequences on the other hand may apply.


I don't know about you guys, but it just occurred to me that "The Loaded Bow" would make an excellent tavern name.

Oh. Back on topic I guess?

What part of the spiral are we at now?


Lycar wrote:

The feat states that "...your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity, or other reactions that are triggered by a ranged attack.".

I would like to hear your reasoning for why this feat supposedly does not do what it says it does.

Sure. Two main reasons really.

1. The Trigger of Attack of Opportunity is as follows.

Attack of Opportunity wrote:
A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.

Mobile Shot Stance prevents the ranged strike from satisfying the third criteria listed, since it doesn't trigger by virtue of being a ranged attack. However, MSS does not grant the strike blanket immunity to triggering reactions for any other reason. If the intention was to say that the Stance users strikes simply don't trigger reactions, they could have just said that. Instead they specify that this applies to AoO as well as other reactions triggered by ranged attacks. Which leads to...

2. Simple consistency. Why should Attack of Opportunity be treated differently than any other reaction not triggered by a range attack? Why should disrupt prey be able to trigger on an MSS bow shots manipulate trait, but not AoO, even though they share that trigger in common?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
We could fall down a rabbit hole of dozens of subordinate actions if every step that required an action to perform on its own created a subordinate action whenever performed as part of another action. Reloading a crossbow requires drawing a bolt, so the Interact action to reload must also require an Interact action to draw. For playability, a line must be drawn after which the lesser actions are absorbed into the overall action without a chain of subordinate actions. I believe that for Reload 0 the line is drawn before creating a subordinate Interact action.

I don't think there is a reason to draw any line. There are only a finite number of things your character can or will be doing at any one time. For reloading a crossbow, that means drawing and placing the bolt in the crossbow. For a bow that means drawing and knocking the arrow.

I don't see how one is more or less complicated than the other. In one case you draw and load without shooting. In the other you draw and knock then loose.

Trying to claim that there are so many, "dozens of subordinate actions" involved feels like blowing it way out of proportion.


Lycar wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
My point is that even if you remove one trigger, you don't remove all possible triggers of an action.

How so? If the argument is that the Reload action gets subsumed into the ranged Strike action, it means the Strike inherits all the traits of the subsumed action, hence the Strike action of a Reload-0 weapon has both Manipulate and Interact traits. So far so good.

Since Mobile Shot Stance explicitly says that your ranged Strikes do not trigger AoOs, it does not matter how many traits there are that could trigger a reaction. And the part after the 'or' relates to things other then AoOs, so is not relevant here.

To clarify: The feat expressively negates AoOs from the ranged Strike, period. It merely clarifies that it also negates non-AoO reactions, that would otherwise be triggered. I do not see how your argument holds water. Disrupt Prey and Implement's Interruption would be either a form of AoO, which MSS explicitly negates, or they would fall under 'other reactions', which MSS also cancels.

I think you are thinking about this backwards. MSS doesn't stop Ranged Strikes from provoking entirely, it only stops them from provoking by virtue of them being ranged strikes. It doesn't stop any other trigger as far as I can tell.

MSS stops your Ranged strikes from provoking because they are ranged strikes, but doesn't stop them from fulfilling other triggers. It doesn't say that it does, so it doesn't.

The way I interpret MSS, it doesn't even stop AoO entirely. It only stops AoO from being able to trigger based on the fact that the ranged strike is... a ranged strike. If that ranged strike also has Manipulate, it would still trigger just fine as far as I can tell.


Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Lycar wrote:


In this case, there also is no problem with Mobile Shot Stance. The reload is subsumed into the Strike action, and the feat explicitly absolves the Strike action from any AoOs. So the reload technically provoking does no longer matter.

Would also mean that, yes, a grappled archer without Mobile Shot Stance stands a 20% chance to lose their action.

Yeah, that. So, unless we go with '0 action cost to reload means no interaction happens', that question is now answered as 'Yes, being grabbed does influence shooting a bow'.

This is my interpretation as well. Since the specific text of Mobile Shot says the attack no longer provokes, and the reload is part of the attack, it no longer provokes, and yes a grappled archer would suffer a 20% change to lose their action if they tried to use their bow.

Straying into slightly off topic territory, but I would argue that this doesn't save a bow strike from AoO's if they include Manipulate. Mobile Shot Stance is pretty specific in what it does.

Mobile Shot Stance wrote:
While you're in this stance, your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity or other reactions that are triggered by a ranged attack.

MSS wouldn't stop the manipulate sub-action of drawing the arrow from provoking by virtue of having Manipulate, since it isn't itself a "ranged attack". In fact it would make Bow Strikes susceptible to any reaction triggered by a Manipulate action, even if they don't spell out triggering based on a Ranged Strike. Disrupt Prey or Implement's Interruption spring to mind, and they are both relevant to the discussion since they both disrupt on a critical hit.

My point is that even if you remove one trigger, you don't remove all possible triggers of an action.


Castilliano wrote:
Errenor wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Dubious Scholar wrote:

That's true. I'd forgotten about them using handwraps as their rune source, so unlike a spellcaster they actually have martial accuracy and damage if they punch the golem.

Still probably very unfun for them, but.

Also, thinking about it - it really makes the melee air blast seem awkward if I can do more damage by just kicking the enemy.

Aren't golems immune to nonlethal? The Kineticist would be punching at a -2.

True. So, it seems having these 2-3 sp gauntlets or Knuckle Dusters could be useful.

As far as I understand they work perfectly well with handwraps.
What supports the idea that Handwraps work with Knuckle Dusters?

The more important question: Why wouldn't you just rune the Knuckle Dusters?


I mean, sure it doesn't say specifically that you can make ice, then sculpt it. But what the feat does say is the following:

Adapt Element wrote:
Choose one of the following options allowed for that element, though the GM might allow you to make similar small alterations.

I would say that shaping ice is enough like shaping any other element enough that it would qualify as a "similar small alteration."


SuperBidi wrote:

For the point 1, no there are no restrictions. Still, the GM can apply some common sense (Striding looks a bit weird while doing a roll, even if I can see the Isoki accelerate/decelerate).

For the point 2, a wall is not an incline as it's vertical. I think the word incline is quite clear, I don't see your issue with it.

Point 1, sure, you could impose some restrictions, but that is firmly in that age old, "house rule" territory that everyone around here dislikes so much. As worded there really isn't anything I'm aware of stopping such a character from using that action to do whatever they want, including striding right back up the hill they just rolled down. Which seems odd.

Point 2, you are correct that incline does not mean a vertical wall. But at what point do you really draw the line? Remember that the fiddlier the answer, the less useable the feat is in practical play. If the player has to ask if every slope happens to be steep enough for the feat, they likely just won't want to use the feat, or more likely, forget that they have it entirely.

Another area that will require gm adjudication I think. It should probably be looked at and clarified though.


Ratfolk Roll is a pretty cool feat. But exactly how cool is it?

Ratfolk Roll wrote:
Your ability to curl up into a tight ball comes in handy. You roll up into a ball and move up to four times your Speed in a straight line down an incline. If you reach the bottom of the incline or hit an obstacle during this first turn of movement, you stop rolling safely. Otherwise, you automatically keep rolling at this Speed during subsequent turns until you hit the bottom of the incline or an obstacle ends this movement (which can happen in the middle of your turn). You're slowed 2 each turn after the first that you keep rolling, and if you hit an obstacle on a turn after the first, you and the obstacle both take 4d6 bludgeoning damage and you stop rolling.

At first I thought this was an ok, if expensive niche feat. Then I read into it a bit more and came to some surprising conclusions. I am posting to see if my read on this is reasonable.

So if I have this right, you can roll down an incline 4x your speed for 2 actions, then continue at that speed until you get to the bottom of that incline or hit something in the way. If this happens after your first turn rolling you take avg. 14 damage but otherwise are fine, not even prone.

The weird bits:
1. Aside from being slowed 2, there are no other restrictions placed on what you can and can't do with your remaining action. You could be tumbling 100 feet down a hill, then make an accurate shot with a firearm for example. Or you could "roll" a further 25 feet (assuming 25 speed character) by striding, but this time in any direction you want, including back up the hill.

2. There is no guidance given on the minimum and maximum angle that qualifies as an incline for Ratfolk Roll's purposes. How steep does a hill have to be to qualify? Does a vertical wall count? While I am a fan of leaving some specifics up to the gm, some guidance on this would be nice. Personally, I love the idea of a ratfolk rolling down a vertical wall stopping to take a shot with their Arquebus every 200 or so feet to account for a reload round.

Does that sound reasonable? If not, why?


Cordell Kintner wrote:
There should either be a built in mechanic to automatically avoid them or punishments to players for trying to break your taboo.

That punishment is already baked into your average Barb player's psyche. You cast spells on me? I cast axe at you. Repeat until lesson learned.


Waldham wrote:

What is the key ability for the innate spells for an elemental vessel ?

Charisma ?

I would imagine so, but I don't know that it really matters as the vessel itself has 0's all around for it's mental stats.


Guntermench wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Errenor wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:


It is possible to use Perform in combat. Does that make it a combat action?
Yes, for some classes and feats, as far as I remember :-P

Ah. That is a check using Performance the skill for another purpose, not the "Perform" action.

Related, but different. Those abilities you mention, mostly bard stuff but also from archetypes like Gladiator, are not themselves a Perform action. They are a separate action or activity that happens to use a characters Performance skill, in the same way that Recall Knowledge using Crafting wouldn't be a Repair or Craft activity.

Edit: Clarity and linked relevant AoN pages.

Battledancer has to use a Performance check to Perform. It is the Perform action.

Fair dues. Is that the only one?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:


It is possible to use Perform in combat. Does that make it a combat action?
Yes, for some classes and feats, as far as I remember :-P

Ah. That is a check using Performance the skill for another purpose, not the "Perform" action.

Related, but different. Those abilities you mention, mostly bard stuff but also from archetypes like Gladiator, are not themselves a Perform action. They are a separate action or activity that happens to use a characters Performance skill, in the same way that Recall Knowledge using Crafting wouldn't be a Repair or Craft activity.

Edit: Clarity and linked relevant AoN pages.


Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Okay, then consider this: If this was meant to be a purely non-combat spell, why have options to have it be castable in combat by denoting actions? We already have rules and published spells for non-combat spells that have components and take longer than usual to cast. Why didn't we just follow those rules for this if the idea is that this isn't a combat-oriented spell?

This is a bizarre line of thinking. Every spell that's not meant to be used in combat should have an arbitrarily long cast time to denote that it's not meant to be used in combat?

I don't see how that benefits anyone.

Yeah. Sometimes a spell has a 2 action cast because that is what the designer decided was fair based on whatever system the developers use to balance things.

Sometimes a spell takes a full minute for no discernable reason.

It is possible to use Perform in combat. Does that make it a combat action?


Xenocrat wrote:
I’ve heard of crazy people who think disintegrate is a combat spell rather than a tunnel excavator.

I mean, you have to roll to hit and they get to save. Obviously a construction tool being used incorrectly.


Spells that can be cast in combat aren't necessarily combat spells. You could cast a lot of spells in combat that would have no practical effect on the combat itself. Object Reading for example only costs 2 actions to cast. Is it a "combat" spell?

The most common use of Synchronize i can think of is for timing an event where the party has to split up. Think a heist or ambush where split second timing is important. You aren't likely to have time in a combat round to plan out then setup and execute something like that.

And the most likely mode of play you will be in when using the spell is either exploration or downtime. So the rules on size space and reach are a lot more flexible. And that flexibility is a feature, not a bug of ttrpg's. Sometimes the real answer is that it works because the gm says it works.


I tend to agree with Xethik here. Spellhearts are commonly believed to work with Spellstrike, so why wouldn't a scroll?

I would say that spells from invested items that don't use "Cast a Spell" as their activation would not count however. Things like Mattock of the Titan replicating Earthquake or Final Rest casting Sunburst.

Basically, casting a spell is casting a spell, whether that casting is done to activate an item or not.

1 to 50 of 1,761 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>