beowulf99's page

Player Core, p297, the example given under "Heightened Spontaneous Spells" makes it very clear you can't use higher ranked slots for lower ranked spells:

If you’re a spontaneous spellcaster, you must know a spell at the specific rank that you want to cast it in order to heighten it. You can add a spell to your spell repertoire at more than a single rank so that you have more options when casting it. For example, if you added fireball to your repertoire as a 3rd-rank spell and again as a 5th-rank spell, you could cast it as a 3rd-rank or a 5th-rank spell; however, you couldn’t cast it as a 4th-rank spell.

My bold.

See RD's quoted rule above. While you are correct in that you can't freely Heighten a spell you don't know at a higher rank, you absolutely can cast a 1st rank spell with a 10th rank slot.

It will just be a 1st rank spell. If instead you knew the spell at a 10th rank, then casting it with that slot will produce the effects of a 10th rank version of that spell.

Or GM Fiat.

Character mechanics are for player characters.

^ This. 100%.

Drop Dead only lasts up to a minute, even if you bypass it's need for an attack to land. So as long as the party sticks around for 1 minute investigating, the gig is up.

False Death is better, and the option I'd pick if I was a PC setting up this sort of ruse, but it has some drawbacks. First it requires your NPC to fail some pretty low fort saves to remain under it's effects. And second, it has an onset time of 10 minutes, so you can't just bite your tooth and appear dead. It can last for 5 days though, so that's nice.

Are you going to fudge how False Death works to make sure it works as you intend? Or are you going to be okay with the party immediately finding you out when your npc passes the wrong check?

Either way you are using GM Fiat to fix the situation. So just go with whatever you want. A mysterious elixer purchased from a shady merchant. An exotic root extract from far off lands. Then decide how you want it to work, the DC's involved in the party figuring out what it is and your done.

I tend to grab a whole Adventurer's Kit and modify it if needed for a specific ancestry basically no matter what class I take. Then I sprinkle in some flavor items that have a significance to the character, like a "coffee cup" or a deck of cards. That sort of thing that doesn't cost much but really makes a character peek through.

From there, for a Kineticist, it depends on the level. If an Attenuator is available for purchase, and I can afford it, probably that first. Then armor if I'm not using an armor impulse, or explorer's clothes if I am.

If we are talking first level, then either armor/explorer's clothes as above, and then frankly bank the money. Unless there is some story cost or party fund I can pool money into. Then it could go there if I feel it would be beneficial.

It's largely comedy. I think the crit fail Feint thing could meaningfully bait/taunt, provided you were using your first two actions to do something threatening and meaningfully apply pressure. It's mostly really funny to me because it does make you more enticing to target, but it's definitely not the intended use of that action.

The fact that the natural 20 is the only thing that ruins the "taunt" is just an even funnier consequence.

But to continue questionable tactics development, Grapple attempts aren't penalized while prone! Could make you an extra tempting target, haha.

Somehow, that's even better. It's like feinting so Hard that you actually strike the opponent. Either way, it's a good thing.

I think it is clear enough as written. It does not use the standard language that abilities tend to use ie, "If you use an action or activity with the Move trait," or something similar if that was how it was meant to be read.

So if you move from your position, the stance ends. If the floor gives out beneath you and you fall, the stance ends. If an enemy shoves you and succeeds, the stance ends. If you stride from your position, the stance ends.

All of these are equally valid.

Are you asking if the Fire Aura Junction, which causes enemies to gain Weakness to Fire while in your aura, stacks with the Impulse Junction, which increases your die size?

If so, then yes. Why would they not?

Could it be possible that the Mythic system will include abilities and feats that alter core class features of non-Exemplar classes? Could a fighter end up with Spirit Striking instead of Weapon Spec?

Even if the designers aren't going to include anything like that now, they only serve themselves by leaving the design door open without having to patch language down the road.

*Disclaimer: I have not watched or read much on the Remaster, only what I've gleaned from the forums/reddit or the playtest and spoken about with my players, so I legitimately have no clue if that is a thing they want to do or not. Just spit ballin'.

In PF2E Paizo decided to lean into the concept of Failing Forward with success effects on spells and some abilities that have effects on a failure.

In PF2RE they have apparently decided that Succeeding Backward should also be a thing.

I'll probably allow my players to set a DC and only mess with their "success" on a failure at my table.

As Impulse Junctions do not have a standard duration, I assume they are in effect for the entire duration of the Impulse they are modifying, unless otherwise noted.

Earth for example specifies that you only gain the bonus AC until the start of your next turn, even if the triggering impulse would still be in effect.

Since the fire junction does not provide a duration, I think that it is fair to conclude that it's effects last until the end of the impulse, which in the case of Ignite the Sun is when you fail to Sustain it. If that was not meant to be the case, then it would read similarly to Earth and have a duration specified.

We have been down this road before you and I SB. And it appears that we are still at an impasse on the subject.

But to summarize the linked post, the question was could a grappling creature ignore Mirror Image due to having a physical hand on an opponent while Mirror Image is in effect.

Your position on the subject is that in this circumstance Touch would be a precise sense, and you additionally would allow a character to close their eyes to make them essentially immune to visual effects, like Mirror Image while benefitting from having a Precise sense of your grappled opponent.

My position on the subject is that touch being a precise sense is not a base line assumption of the system, and requires the GM to fully decide how relying on it in combat works. Touch is un-labeled where senses are concerned by the CRB and, in my opinion, ends up being relegated to the only category of senses that is used as a catch-all for non-specific senses, Vague Senses.

If touch is a vague sense, then you gain little benefit for using it as your primary sense to detect a creature.

At best, a vague sense can be used to detect the presence of an unnoticed creature, making it undetected. Even then, the vague sense isn’t sufficient to make the creature hidden or observed.

At best a creature you have grappled, while you are deprived of all other senses, should be undetected. Saying otherwise is, in my opinion, a house rule, and should be looked at carefully to ensure that it doesn't have any unintended consequences when applied to other situations.

In the OP's situation, with a blinded fighter, the fighter still has their sense of hearing as an imprecise sense, so would treat their grappled opponent as hidden instead, barring any other ability in play that can mess with that detection.

Did the fighter have Blind-Fight? If not, then they should have been fighting a hidden opponent.

The argument that having an arm on someone would keep their current position and orientation relative to the fighter "known" isn't supported by the rules as far as I can tell, or reality in my opinion. Position is relative and abstracted too far in a game like Pathfinder for that to be reasonable.

Touch is not a good sense in real life for determining an opponents disposition. Sure, you could maybe get your hands on something of theirs, but you won't have enough information to know what they are doing with parts of their body that you aren't currently touching.

Try wrestling a friend both with and without your eyes open. How much worse did you do blind?

Isn't it weird to have a problem with Power Creep in a (generally) non-competitive game where the one running the game has the right to veto any content they wish, or modify it at their will?

Like, sure, it feels bad that a spell could be "replaced" by a spell that fills it's niche in a better way. But at the same time, if we never got spells or abilities that stretch what is possible in the game, then we will always have the same exact experience, just with a variety of flavors. No ability to play a hyper powerful Rare class or ancestry that comes out of the box with extra features. Or the ability to play a low-tech game set in the Stone age.

Maybe if it became a problem in PFS I could see complaining. But with PFS' structured nature, that is only a problem until they ban the offending content. Or restrict it.

In the hobby at large? What is the point of complaining? If a crazy imbalanced book comes out that shakes the foundation of your groups play experience, and you don't like it? Don't play with it.

I mean, the CRB kinda answers this imo.

Sometimes a spell has an area, which can be a burst, cone, emanation, or line. The method of measuring these areas can be found on page 456. If the spell originates from your position, the spell has only an area; if you can cause the spell’s area to appear farther away from you, the spell has both a range and an area.

Since the spell has both a range and an area, it is reasonable to assume that you can have it project from any square within it's range. Could be nice for shooting around a corner or something I suppose.

And that feels far more in line with a 6th level spell than a standard 15' cone.

What I think Baarogue is trying to say is that nothing about Channel Elements indicates that you don't have to fulfill the prerequisites of an impulse to use said impulse as a part of Channel Elements. Also note that Channel Elements doesn't force you to use an impulse, it states that you "can".

You tap into your kinetic gate to make elements flow around you. Your kinetic aura activates, and as a part of this action, you can use a 1-action Elemental Blast or a 1-action stance impulse.

Being that Channel doesn't state anything to the effect of, "You do not need to meet the prerequisites of this impulse," it stands to reason that you would still need to meet them.

No free hand, no impulse requiring a free hand.

These should just be Archetypes.

I mean, good enough for Cavalier and Vigilante, good enough for Samurai and Ninja. Samurai always was just a reskinned Cavalier after all. Ninja was basically a Rogue with some specialty Ki powers.

Full disclosure, I didn't read the entire thread, so apologies if anyone else brought this up but...

You follow a code of conduct, beginning with tenets shared by all champions of an alignment (such as good), and continuing with tenets of your cause. Deities often add additional strictures (for instance, Torag’s champions can’t show mercy to enemies of their people, making it almost impossible for them to follow the redeemer cause). Only rules for good champions appear in this book. Tenets are listed in order of importance, starting with the most important. If a situation places two tenets in conflict, you aren’t in a no-win situation; instead, follow the more important tenet. For instance, as a paladin, if an evil king asked you if you’re hiding refugees so he could execute them, you could lie to him, since the tenet against lying is less important than preventing harm to innocents. Trying to subvert your code by creating a situation that forces a higher tenet to override a lower tenet (for example, promising not to respect authorities and then, to keep your word, disrespecting authorities) is a violation of the champion code.

I understand that the OP is referencing Edicts and Anathema specifically and not the baseline Tenets of the class, but I think the logic still holds, even for Saranrae.

She may not like it a whole lot, but reality is reality. Not every decision made by a character is going to be black or white. There is a whole lot of gray out there. If Saranrae de-Championed every character who uttered an untruth immediately after they spoke it, then there would be a pretty large cottage industry of Spellcasters who specialize in Atonement. Because if there weren't, there would be no Champions of Saranrae left.

For a Way of the Sniper, I usually recommend the Portable Weapon Mount (Shielded) so that you don't have to worry quite so much about natural cover to use your slinger's reload.

Other options depend on exactly what you want to be doing really.

breithauptclan wrote:

Well, a dart costs 1 cp. And a pack of 10 arrows costs 1 sp. So unless my math is wrong, 10 darts would also cost 1 sp.

So it actually makes a lot of sense to use an Atlatl and treat the darts fully as ammunition (meaning that the darts are destroyed like normal ammunition, they get the rune effects transferred from the Atlatl itself rather than being individually etched, and drawing the darts is part of the reload action).

What happens if the dart already has runes on it ?

Some entries in the ranged weapons tables are followed by an entry indicating the type of ammunition that weapon launches. The damage die is determined by the weapon, not the ammunition. Because that and other relevant statistics vary by weapon, ammunition entries list only the name, quantity, Price, and Bulk. Using ammunition destroys it.

This seems to indicate that the Damage dealt by the atlatl is determined by the weapon, not the ammunition. It logically follows then that no damage additive runes placed on a dart would work during a strike using an atlatl. Other runes like Returning are... not accounted for as far as I know. So I guess ask your GM, and let them ponder on that for a while.

For me, I would allow returning to work for simplicity if nothing else. It's not really a good deal, since a returning rune costs 55gp, or the cost of 5500 Darts. This basically just let's you hand waive away buying ammo for the atlatl. It does save you on bulk I suppose.

Other runes? Probably none. At least in my opinion.

The cone and burst are actually recommendations for the GM if you need a precise measurement of what a character is searching. Like if say you are playing on a grid and the GM wants you to specify squares you are looking at. This is often treated as a standard, but as written is really just a loose guideline.

You scan an area for signs of creatures or objects. If you're looking for creatures, choose an area you're scanning. If precision is necessary, the GM can have you select a 30-foot cone or a 15-foot burst within line of sight. You might take a penalty if you choose an area that's far away.

You can select any sized area to seek at any time. The GM is just the final arbiter that tells you whether you can look at that entire area in the given time. If that area happens to be just your own square, then you are only going to find things in your own square.

Edit:

Also, even if restricted to only cones and bursts, bursts issue forth from a corner of a square in all directions, including over their originating square. So you are still covered.

Yeah. The only thing I would add at this point is that it feels really strange from a narrative standpoint to still be dealing precision damage when you miss.

Precision damage is for when you hit so accurately that you damage something extra vulnerable.

So flubbing the attack roll and still managing to do a small amount of standard weapon damage makes narrative sense.

Flubbing the attack roll and therefore hitting a super sensitive area very gently... Not so much.

Devil's Advocate time: You could just as easily say that, in this situation, your character was still perfectly accurate, your failed attack roll just indicates you didn't hit HARD enough to deal full weapon damage. But you still deal a small amount of precision due to placing the strike RIGHT where it needed to go.

Yes, that is an argument against the way I said I'd rule it, but it does deserve consideration just as much as how odd it is to deal precision damage on a "miss". Remember, a successful attack doesn't just mean that your weapon struck the enemy. It means it struck it with enough force to also deal damage.

Trying to argue whether you can or cannot break your own fascination is not going to be an easy argument from either side. That is because, like so many other things, the GM is the final arbiter on what does and does not constitute a hostile action.

It is entirely possible for a GM to rule that you can spend an action to slap yourself or an ally to break the condition. A slap could do damage, even if that doesn't translate to "HP" damage. Maybe they even make you perform an unarmed attack, dealing damage. That qualifies as a Hostile action most of the time.

It is entirely possible that the GM decides instead that, due to your slap acting as a treatment for a condition, it does NOT qualify as a hostile action so does not end the fascination. See Risky Surgery, an obviously non-hostile action which always deals damage to the recipient. Would Risky Surgery constitute a hostile action?

Expect table variation.

beowulf99 wrote:

Confident Finisher's failure effect stipulates that the added damage becomes the type of the weapon or unarmed attack that you attempted your strike with, not precision damage, so yes I would agree that it is fair to say that a failed confident finisher would deal damage to an enemy that is typically immune to precision damage.

Precision damage isn't a unique damage type to begin with, it already does the same type of damage as your weapon when it hits normally. That statement is there because without it the damage wouldn't have a type.

Sure, I get that. The reason I err on the side if confident finisher's failure state not dealing precision damage is that precise strike itself is not adding the damage. Confident finisher is dealing half the damage your precise strike would have added, a subtle difference.

I could see it ruled the opposite way, I just tend to be permissive with that sort of thing.

Fascinate has always felt like a dedicated out of combat condition for me for the reasons stated above. It works great when you want your Bard to create a distraction for the party in a social encounter or something like that but falls apart entirely once a combat starts up due to the hostile actions clause. One reasonable homebrew fix is to nix the bit about hostile actions against your allies breaking it. Turns it into "Dominate Person Lite".

Confident Finisher's failure effect stipulates that the added damage becomes the type of the weapon or unarmed attack that you attempted your strike with, not precision damage, so yes I would agree that it is fair to say that a failed confident finisher would deal damage to an enemy that is typically immune to precision damage.

I'm not sure exactly how useful that would be at the end of the day, since precise strike doesn't scale all that high on it's own, so half of it won't be a TON of damage at any level really. And with many creatures who are immune to precision damage being low AC/High HP enemies (looking at you Swarms and Oozes) it will be hard to guarantee a failure anyway.

A neat interaction, just not something to lean on, know what I mean?

I'd say it's hybrid ( blacksmith and woodcraft) like crafting a morning star.

So blacksmith or woodcraft would provide a +1, and if you have both you'll get a +2.

Well, to be clear, you wouldn't get +2 from the feat until you are a Master in Crafting, as Specialty Crafting only gives you half of your bonus if you only have 1 of the required specialties and full if you have both. And even that is dependent on your GM.

Your training focused on Crafting one particular kind of item. Select one of the specialties listed below; you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to Crafting checks to Craft items of that type. If you are a master in Crafting, this bonus increases to +2. If it’s unclear whether the specialty applies, the GM decides. Some specialties might apply only partially. For example, if you were making a morningstar and had specialty in woodworking, the GM might give you half your bonus because the item requires both blacksmithing and woodworking.

I'd say blacksmithing and/or woodworking would work for the bulk of snares, minus edge cases. I'd lean more towards Woodworking personally to reinforce the "woodsman" image of snares, but the flavor is up to you.

Identify Alchemy Exploration Activity

It's not the easiest to find, but it is there.

I will say that the advent of virtual table tops has largely made remembering actions a non-issue for a sizeable portion of the ttrpg market. Probably not the majority by any stretch, unless we go back to the bad times of 2020, but a large enough number that it bears consideration.

I would be interested to see a TTRPG specifically designed with VTT's in mind, and what sorts of things that system would do differently taking automation and automated record keeping into account.

Or I guess I could just go play a CRPG. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To me it's clear that Temporary Immunity does not prevent anyone from casting Blindness on the target, only that there is no additional effect from it.

And the same is true of Treat Wounds actually. Another player can attempt to treat a temporarily immune character with Treat Wounds. The treated character in that case is simply unaffected by that application of treat wounds.

I'm not 100% sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Could you try to elaborate on exactly where you are coming from? Are you saying that the rules could be worded differently to be more specific? Or are you saying that you don't interpret the rules to work in the way posited up thread?

I don't see it as an argument in good faith. I don't see it as an argument that is trying to benefit the game and make it more playable, or easier for new players to understand, or consistent and able to remember the rules as a result.

There are so many problems with arguments that start with, "well, the rules don't technically say..."

There is a good reason why the first section of the General Rules include things like "The GM has the final say" and the "Ambiguous rules" rule. We all - including the game developers - know that it is not possible for the rules authors to remember every little fiddly detail for every new item description text. RAW is to use RAI in those cases - not use some undefined behavior because it isn't explicitly forbidden by the strictest reading of the rules.

Eh, as I said, it was what I saw as the best argument at the time really. On the one hand, I was likely too selective in my thought process when reading "thrown" weapons. That to me says weapons with the thrown trait.

On the other hand, it is possible to be too broad in defining a thrown weapon imo. Could any item that is placed in the bandolier, and then drawn and thrown, benefit from the runes? A spoon? A fork? A rock?

They would be improvised thrown weapons at that point, no?

beowulf99 wrote:

I contend they are not. They do not have the Thrown trait.

Straight from the rules:

Quote:

Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet

Furthermore, from the splash trait on bombs:

Quote:

When you use a thrown weapon with the splash trait, you don’t add your Strength modifier to the damage roll.

Fair dues and all. In my opinion, they are clearly not a thrown weapon in the way that the Bandolier intends. Weapons with the thrown trait, that could be etched with runes themselves.

They are physically thrown for sure. But I don't think it really counts as a "thrown" weapon in the same way that a dart or shuriken do. At least not in my opinion.

I contend they are not. They do not have the Thrown trait.

Ah. Here it is. I finally figured out where I had seen this precedent being set.

Doubling Rings wrote:

The rings also replicate property runes from the weapon in the gold-ringed hand, so long as the weapon in the iron-ringed hand meets all the prerequisites for a given rune

So with the general requirements of runes

Quote:

Runes must be etched onto permanent items

I don't know how much more clear the rules need to be.

Problem is, Thrower's Bandolier does not contain that sentence. While I agree that Doubling Rings and Thrower's Bandolier are alike, they are not exactly alike. So we have to use their individual wording to evaluate them.

For example, Blazon's of Shared Power share Doubling Rings wording on prerequisites. However, Gunner's Bandolier does Not share that language. This is likely due to the fact that you can only place runes for Ranged Weapons on them, so any weapon placed in the Bandolier would already meet such prerequisites.

In other words, Doubling Rings having that rider does not mean that Thrower's Bandolier must have it either.

Big Spicy However. This leads us to probably the best argument against this working: Bombs are Not Thrown Weapons, so should not be able to be placed in the Bandolier in the first place.

Since it can be etched with runes as if it were a Thrown Weapon, like the Gunner's Bandolier can only be etched with Ranged Weapon Runes, then there is no need for the Prerequisite language.

Bombs not being Thrown Weapons, mean that they aren't able to be placed in the Bandolier in the first place, and even if the gm allowed it, they should not benefit from the magical effect of the Bandolier in any case, similar to non-ranged weapons that happen to be placed in a Gunner's Bandolier.

Thoughts?

My thoughts on the matter. My mind isn't made up per se, but this is basically my thoughts as they sit now.

1. Bombs do not have a weapon damage die listed in their weapon profile, instead dealing specific damage called out in their rules. This is similar to say, the Fire Damage dealt by the lit Fire Poi, and thus would not be adjusted by Striking Runes, even if you were to let runes on a Thrower's Bandoleer work with bombs. So no big deal there as far as I am concerned.

2. The only property runes I can see having value with bombs are flaming/shocking/etc... that grant extra damage dice. These runes tend to only grant such damage on a hit, so no worrying about splash benefiting from such runes. Not many other runes have any real benefit for bombs. Especially runes that thrown weapons qualify for at any rate.

3. The greatest benefit that I can see bombs gaining from runes working for them is increased item bonuses to attack rolls for lower level bombs. So you can keep your lesser bombs a bit more relevant this way. They still won't be dealing spectacular damage, but they will hit that much more. Which could impact the balance considerations for weapon property runes working.

Honestly, 3 being a thing makes me want to accept that this works purely because it makes bomber alchemists just a bit more bomb-y. Bonus damage from Damage property runes is just icing on the cake, and not the buff you probably are worried about since it requires a hit to happen, and a bomber alchemist is about as inaccurate as you can be without purposefully self-sabotaging.

I don't see this necessarily being intended, as it would be weird for Paizo to "fix" a subclass with one specific item. Especially an item that isn't tailored to them from the top down.

So, call me undecided. RAW, I agree with Graystone, I think the way everything is worded does not preclude thrower's bandoleer runes from being copied onto a bomb.

RAI... I am not really certain to be honest. Until and unless we get official word though, I will probably allow this at my table. Unless I find some reason that it is too good to be true in the meantime.

Indeed. If I cast a 10 foot emanation and exclude myself from the effect, and then move to a different square that is still inside the spell's area but is no longer at the center of the emanation - can I still exclude myself from the effect?

Not unless the text of the emanation in question says so as far as I can see.

Unless the text states otherwise, the creature creating an emanation effect chooses whether the creature at its center is affected.

Seems pretty clear to only apply to centered creatures.

The Dhampir is what is called a "Versatile Heritage" which means that it takes the place of your "natural" heritage you select with your Ancestry.

So for example, you could choose to be an Elven Dhampir by first selecting Elf as your ancestry, then Dhampir as your Heritage. You then gain access to Dhampir Heritage feats, as well as any features granted by the Heritage itself.

In the Dhampir's case, that means the Dhampir trait, Negative healing and Low-Light vision or an upgrade to Dark Vision for ancestries who naturally already have Low-Light vision.

This is awkward, but flagged to be moved to Homebrew, given that this is basically a custom sub-system. 3rd times the charm?

To say something substantive, I do have a question. When you say, "Concentration+ [whatever the normal duration is]" do you mean that you don't have to use concentrate actions until the spell would normally have timed out anyway, then have the option to concentrate to extend the spell?

If so why not just make it a custom meta magic action triggered by a spells duration elapsing? That would neatly contain everything important about it, and make it very easy to paste into/delete from your game. It would also make it possible to create a custom script for a VTT to make this happen without fiddling with or "recasting" a spell every turn. That can be cumbersome if the GM has to refresh slots each turn to make it work.

Otherwise, it sounds like a fine idea. If a caster pushes themselves too far, they will end up fatiguing themselves. I like the idea of a caster being able to push themselves to extend the duration of their spells at times of great need or some such. At the same time, I would definitely charge a feat for the privilege. Though this could be offset in some other way in your games as you mentioned.

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:

∙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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.