I did that. I am suspecting that it is that my entire player was marked as inactive instead of just the Lanni character that I was playing earlier.
But it is fixed now.
Search Posts
Also, as a side note. I am unable to get this campaign out of my 'Previous Campains' list. Even though I have an active character in it now. Not sure what is causing that. But it does make it hard to notice if anyone else posts something in here.
As for plot of the campaign, I don't have a lot of suggestions. I am not overly familiar with the Golarion setting, though I am getting more experience with it as the years go on. I have to look up specific information on the wiki as it comes up when someone else mentions it. Which means that I don't really have any particular like or dislike of any area. Also, with Dual Class and Free Archetype, it won't be hard to have all of our characters capable and competent at nearly any type of scenario. Wandering episodic problem solvers in the style of The A-Team would probably work just fine.
Normally this is where I would mention that my characters don't flirt with anyone. But since my wife is playing, we are thinking of playing a pair of Kobolds in a permanent and already established relationship. We will of course keep things to a PG rating or better. I haven't ever played with Dual Class before. It will be interesting to try. From what I am analyzing, it still doesn't necessarily make for more powerful characters - there is still a cap to how high your bonuses can get, and you still only have three actions each round. But it does end up creating characters that have few weaknesses. Normally, spellcasters don't have much weapon proficiency; some don't have armor proficiency; melee bruisers struggle to have ranged attacks; Rogues do high damage, but have low HP. Things like that. For Ancestry Paragon, there are a couple of things that I would propose for ancestries that don't have enough ancestry feats. One is to pick a versatile heritage that comes with more feats. That isn't always an option for some character concepts though. Another is to homebrew ancestry feats - which is hard to handle in character build apps like Pathbuilder. And a third is to poach existing feats from a different but similar ancestry. Again, that one isn't always possible because of the ancestry not really having anything similar. An example of this working is a Sprite character that can pick from certain Gnome feats. In Pathbuilder that can be handled by giving a custom Adopted Ancestry (Gnome) at level 1 or 3. An example of this not working is Goloma. Automatic Bonus Progression does favor martial classes and more importantly, the reduction in loot penalizes certain spellcasting classes - specifically, the spellcasting classes that have to learn and pay for all of their additional spells. Spontaneous casters are usually fine because they don't spend much money learning a bunch of extra spells. Druid and Cleric are fine because they don't have to spend money learning common spells. It is only Wizard, Witch, and Magus that are nerfed by ABP. The easy fix for that is to remove the monetary cost of learning spells. Keep the access requirements, especially for Uncommon/Rare spells, and even the time cost. Just don't make it cost coin since getting loot is reduced with ABP. Something that I want to try out at some point is removing the monetary cost of everything. Limit the items that characters can have in some other way - probably have permanent item and consumable item slots similar to spell slots. You can have a certain number of items of certain item levels. The costs of getting them are handwaved and we simply role-play finding, buying, or otherwise acquiring these items in-game. There are also some other known bugs with ABP, mostly centering around the blanket removal of item bonuses from everything. It nerfs alchemical items like mutagens and certain spells like Mage Armor and Magic Weapon that give a higher item bonus than what you can get from permanent items at the character level that they come available at. The fix for that is to convert the item bonus of temporary effects to a potency bonus that ABP uses and as normal, the bonuses of the same type don't stack. But you can use the higher bonus from the consumable for the duration of the effect.
Yeah, I can usually find more effect for a Heal spell than harming undead with it. But there are times... But from the other side - assuming that the character is going to use spellstrike ammunition already - Heal seems as good of a choice as anything else. It is the spellstrike ammunition itself that is a bit niche use.
It's not 'easily available' though. Making people record also this in addition is not free and costs goodwill. It's rather nice that paizo tries to minimize bureaucracy. The level of which is still noticeably higher than such of one bigger rival. *shrugs* You can play the PFS scenarios without reporting them as long as you aren't interested in getting PFS credit for them. As Hmm mentioned, PFS gameplay and credit reporting already happens. Adding fields for Ancestry, Heritage, Class, and Subclass doesn't seem like all that big of an additional ask. I know the Ancestry/Class of all of my characters. I don't have my PFS number memorized, and that field of the report is mandatory.
Nice. That's awesome.
especially Gnome Obsession, since you can change the lore category with one day of down time. OK, run that past me again? I'm seeing Gnome Obsession as an ancestry feat. But it doesn't say anything about switching the category with downtime. Unless that was also something added in Remaster. So retraining a feat takes a week at baseline. Again, unless that is a change in Remaster.
What happens if you crit? The undead target makes a save against the Heal spell as normal. That is what the Spellstrike Ammunition says. If the spell uses a spell attack roll, you use the results of your Strike roll. So if you crit with Hydraulic Push it would double the damage due to the crit. But Spellstrike Ammunition doesn't auto-double damage for save-based spells from a crit of the Strike roll. The target has to crit-fail the save to get the doubled damage from the spell. And Heal seems like a reasonable damage dealing spell when fighting undead. Not sure why it would be a poor tactic to use it in Spellstrike Ammunition instead of some other spell.
Link to PF2 thread on the same topic. Since the core game mechanics are the same, the level difference problem will be the same. Yes, playing with characters of different levels is not recommended. You can get away with 1 level difference, but even then it is still noticeable. 2 levels difference becomes very challenging, and 3 levels difference becomes a nearly insurmountable problem. As was vaguely mentioned in that PF2 thread, PFS has the Level Bump and Mentor Boon mechanics to help compensate for a couple of levels difference in characters to try and smooth things out. Also the PF2 scenarios usually have a rather narrow level range - or often a couple of tiers that each have a very narrow level range.
don't forget they do the same damage to undead, the bonus on 2 action is only for healing That's what I came here to say.
RAW on this is a mess. By RAW, if you use Summon Animal to summon a Riding Pony then it will immediately flee from combat. Unless you succeed at a Nature check during the Command an Animal action. That has no requirement of sharing a language, but it also isn't available for summoned Minion creatures - only naturally occurring animals. Summoned creatures have to be given commands using the Sustain a Spell action instead. ----- Summoning spells are bad enough as it is. They don't need further nerfs by not allowing the player to decide the actions the summoned creature takes - within reason. A GM should feel fully justified in shutting down any overpowered tactics that the player manages to find.
Yeah, this feels like a very missed opportunity. Reported games from PFS would probably be the least biased data that is easily available.
And the only place that I know of that overrides that rounding rule is when converting between level and rank. So cantrip rank is half your level rounded up. Same with focus spells, maximum spell slot, and counteract level. But that doesn't mean that everyone knows about that little general rule. Or that it doesn't cause discussion and debate at the table. Which can be annoying even if it is a very short debate when someone opens up their CRB and points to the relevant general rule.
Also, not to rain on the parade too much, but Inventor is from Guns and Gears. Which is not one of the books being Remastered. So it is looking at errata to update language to match the new core rules rather than an overhaul.
I've already seen people saying that Goblin is mandatory if playing a Flames Oracle. So I'm not sure that Pyrokineticist is any worse. I will agree that the rules as written do not have Burn It! interact with Kineticist Impulses. But I will also mention that you don't have to strictly follow the rules in your home games. Impulses are close enough to spells for me as a GM.
If a type of the item has a higher rarity, that type requires its own formula. That sounds like (bad example, but it illustrates the idea) if Elixir of Life minor, lesser, and moderate were Common items, but greater and major are Uncommon and true is Rare, then the first three could be crafted without a formula, or crafted faster with the formula. But you would need a separate formula for the greater and major Elixir of Life, and you would need yet a third formula for the true Elixir of Life.
Looking into it further, it looks like the pre-Remaster rules don't specify the rarity of Formulas. It simply says: Formulas for uncommon items and rare items are usually significantly more valuable—if you can find them at all! Which implies that they have the same rarity as the item that they are a formula for.
It doesn't seem particularly odd to me. It looks like it is restating the general rule from Immunity to part of a complex effect. It just happens to be confirming that a status or condition is a valid reason to rule something as a complex effect - not just multiple damage types.
This has been discussed on different threads. Such as this one. Or this one (that you yourself also started). Basically the only one who can definitively answer that question is your GM. There are differences of opinions on how the 'immune to a trait' and 'complex effects' rules are interpreted. I don't feel like getting into it again for this particular spell. Read the other threads for the various positions that people have and apply them to this spell as well.
I've heard this type of question before. I think it is an open question - the rules don't really cover it. The 3-action reload is the time it takes to reload the weapon with a different magazine. Not to refill the magazine. If I remember right, the ruling that I liked the best is that refilling the magazine takes one action per piece of ammunition being filled. So it becomes equivalent to reloading a weapon with individual rounds, but you are reloading the magazine instead.
Not sure that it would be necessary. If the formula only further reduces the amount of setup time needed rather than letting you craft the item in the first place, then the formula wouldn't need rarity at all. Being able to set up faster for an item that you can't craft isn't helpful. Now, if an uncommon or rare item still requires the formula in order to craft the item at all, then I would expect that the formula would have the same rarity as the item.
The curse and death traits spring to mind. NPC opposition doesn't tend to survive long enough for curses to matter and usually already dies when they hit 0 HP. Part of me wishes those kind of options had simply been made NPC only, but there might be a hella petty PC out there who wants to use Clownish Curse for some reason. Mostly agree. I can see some minor scenarios where the Curse trait becomes meaningful. It means that the NPC spellcaster can't use Dispel Magic to remove Bloodspray Curse. But enemies rarely try and un-debuff anyway.
6. Little perlexed by the removal of the Eldritch Trickster racket I guess it will come abck as an arch-type It was a really sub-par Racket. It gave pretty much nothing (you get a level 2 feat equivalent and can choose Wisdom as Key Ability), and it interacted very, very badly with Free Archetype variant rules - which are very popular. Thief Racket, Scoundrel Racket, or even Mastermind Racket taking the Multiclass Archetype at level 2 and Magical Trickster at level 4 all end up being better characters overall.
Balancing the game for what I want is easy. Balancing the game for what everyone wants is effectively impossible.
Yeah, it is pretty clear that it is the caster's reach. What is a bit strange is that you can actually use two different creatures for the spell's targets - the spell doesn't say that you have to attack the same creature that you teleport to. It is very difficult to find a scenario where that would make a difference - but it is there.
That. I expect that Champion will not require sanctification in general. There may be certain subclasses that do. There will almost certainly be feats that do. So those Champions that signed up to fight the Good fight can do so. But other Champions that signed up to fight a good fight can also do so.
If a GM wanted to say 'no' to this, the first thing that comes to mind is that weapons are of the category that they are being used for at the time. I have only seen this being called out in the rules/clarifications regarding the handedness of weapons. So a 1-hand weapon is inherently a 1-hand weapon. But if it is being wielded in two hands, then you can treat the weapon as a 2-hand weapon for using abilities that require using a 2-hand weapon. In this case, the idea being that the requirement is that you are wielding two melee weapons during the Twin Feint action. So if you are making ranged attacks with the weapons, then those are ranged weapons that you are using. It feels like that is a bit shaky of an argument. But it also feels like the feat is intended to be used at melee range, not with ranged weapons.
Because Shove with DEX doesn't make a lot of sense. How quick your footwork is really isn't going to make much difference when trying to bodily move someone else. I could see allowing finesse to work for Disarm. But Grapple, Trip, and Shove should generally stay Strength based.
So it's at the very least strongly implied that an Agile Trip weapon will allow you to Trip at -4/-8. Hasn't it always been that way? The multiple attack penalty you take with this weapon on the second attack on your turn is –4 instead of –5, and –8 instead of –10 on the third and subsequent attacks in the turn. With 'attack' being defined in the game rules as an action with the Attack trait, the weapon's Agile trait would apply to the MAP that is applied to Grapple, Trip, Shove actions. The problem pre-Remaster is that the Agile trait mentions 'weapon' and unarmed attacks aren't weapons.
I have only seen PF2 played with characters of different levels in PFS. And even then, the level difference is usually 1-2 levels at most. I have only heard about this being done outside of PFS in the threads about GMs asking 'how do I stop killing my player's characters so often'. Or that one thread with the person arguing that when a player's character dies that the player has to either leave the game or rejoin the game with a level 1 character - that it is cheating to start with a character of higher level equal to the other characters.
That isn't what I am used to the meaning being when someone calls something a 'trap option'. Because this definition means anything that is just a smidge less that the optimal ideal best-pick option is a 'trap option'. So basically, A-tier choices are trap options. Only S-tier choices are not. And even then, it is only the top end of the S-tier. Something that only just barely makes the cut into S-tier may very well still be a trap option if there is something similar that is just slightly better. ----- Also, Eldritch Nails would be viable as an unarmed attack for a Witch if they had the Finesse trait. As it is currently, Handwraps and the default Fist attack is a better choice. Strength-based melee Witch is an oxymoron.
Sounds good. Hopefully the summary of my position on the matter is beneficial in some way. I'm hiding this thread now too like I did the other one.
First, is there anything more you are hoping to get from this thread than the previous two threads on the subject? ------ Yes, it is a change - the rule text literally changed. Whether that is a correction to what the developers originally intended, or a shift in the rules that the game developers want to make - you would have to ask them. There is evidence for both cases and I am not going to put words in their mouths regarding their intentions. Previously, the Wounded condition states that it only applies when you gain the Dying condition. The Knocked Out and Dying rules also say to add your Wounded value to what value of Dying you gain when you are dropped. The Recovery Check section of the death and dying rules did not say to add your Wounded value at any point. However, the Taking Damage while Dying rules did have a reminder to add your Wounded value to your increase in Dying - which is odd since the Wounded condition does not say to do that. In the Remaster, the Wounded condition is unchanged - it still does not state that it applies at any time other than when you gain the Dying condition. The Knocked Out and Dying rules are also unchanged. However, the Recovery Check rules have been updated (link to preview image) to state that when you fail or critically fail the recovery check that you do add your Wounded value to what you increase your Dying value by. That is new. That also does not contradict what the Wounded condition says. The Wounded condition does not have to be the only source of rules process. The Death and Dying rules do still exist and should be the place where the entire process is defined. If your character has the Wounded condition, then its value can be referenced by other rules without problems - even if the Wounded condition does not mention all of the places that do so. Also, the Taking Damage while Dying rules are unchanged - including it only having a reminder that your Wounded value adds to your increase in Dying, even though the Wounded condition does not say to do that.
Yeah, I suppose... it just doesn't fit the picture I have in my head. Traditionally, arrows are point down in quivers, so how are you supposed to reach the arrowhead to activate the ammo? I think you're correct and that RAW it works, but I just can't bring myself to think it should. Once you have wrapped your head around that one, next you can try describing how you interact to activate already-loaded firearm ammunition like Exsanguinating Ammunition.
A 'trap' option is one that doesn't work as advertised at all. Like the Hex Delivery part of Eldritch Nails. Ooze Arrow is a 'niche' option. It isn't good in all situations or for all characters. An alchemist is probably going to be using other items such as Acid Flask with Quick Bomber because it gives good results for fewer actions. But Ooze Arrow does actually work as described, and isn't really all that bad. A '1-action lost' effect is a pretty good debuff even if the enemy chooses that option. And since it is an item, there are no class feature requirements in order to have it available like the spells or special abilities that you could duplicate the effects with.
As far as I can tell, Armor Specialization effects are only available to Champion and Fighter.
Yeah, you need Magical Trickster. Edit: And a GM willing to 'determine otherwise' so that Magical Trickster's spellcasting works with Hide and Sneak the same as Strike does.
I think what I'd like to see for Hunt Prey is a feat or default option that Hunting a new prey doesn't end your old one. If you're tracking a group of the same creatures, it is janky deciding which of them was your actual prey. So why not just do all of them? Like Double Prey? It isn't quite what you are mentioning, but it is pretty close.
Am I missing something? Is there another option here I'm not seeing? Not that I am aware of. Getting sneak attack at range has always been a bit fiddly. I think by design. It usually involves teamwork. Play alongside a Gymnast Swashbuckler and you won't have many problems. 1) Have them drop prone, take cover, hide, then sneak attack. Since you can take cover while prone, that's enough to let you hide (stupidly) so you can fire off your sneak attacks every round. Downside of it giving you a -2 to hit no matter what that I can't seem to get rid of. That is very rules questionable. It works based on a rules technicality. One that I expect a large number of GMs are going to shut down simply for balance reasons. So if you theorycraft your character with this as their main gimmick, the build is not going to be very usable as an example of what is generally possible.
That's my thought too. This is a cool character concept, but it is going to need agreement from the GM and the rest of the table. Whatever magic you use to justify it in-game, here is the previous thread on options for how to play a character that is just a dog.
Bold is fine. I have also used ooc tags to indicate quoted text. It gives a similar effect of distinguishing between what is quoted and what is added.
The thing is that the Dying rules are inherently self-additive. Every time you fail a recovery check your Dying value gets added to. It gets added to by an amount that is a calculation. A calculation that involves the Recovery Check result and your current Wounded condition value. That is literally what the rules for recovery checks say: When you fail:
When you critically fail:
And putting the '+ Wounded value' in there was added. Deliberately. Ignoring it seems hard to justify. Calling it a no-effect line of added text is also really hard to justify - the rules to add Wounded when you get the Dying condition already exists in the Knocked Out and Dying rules. So adding it in the Recovery Check rules but saying it has no effect makes no sense.
Just keep in mind for ammunition that the activation action is separate and in addition to the Striking action, I see often the mistake, especially in newer tables, that forget that.Yup, it's why I gave up on even the Ooze Ammunition, despite being able to make them via Advanced Alch, it is simply that hard to justify the action cost. shroudb's point being that Imp Shot also has a 1 action activate cost. So one action to activate the ammunition and then a second action to shoot it at the target.
I think it is reasonable to apply the rules of redundancy to all conditions with values. Even wounded. So when the recovery entry says plus wounded value if any I assume that as a condition we only use the highest present wounded value and it never stacks with itself. Can an effect of a condition be applied outside the entry from the condition itself? The Redundant Conditions rules say that you can't have three instances of Frightened 1 and end up with Frightened 3 as a result. You can have three instances of Frightened 1 that have different durations, but the combination will still be effectively only Frightened 1. But taking that to mean that Frightened 1 only applies to your AC the first time you get hit doesn't make any sense. Similarly, you can only have one instance of Wounded 2. Having a second instance of Wounded 2 (in addition to not being possible from any gameplay scenario) would result in an effective Wounded 2. But taking that to mean that you only apply your Wounded value the first time you are hit doesn't make any sense.
You know, it would be nice if this thread could be about actual critiques of the remaster and not endlessly going back and forth about the change to wounded. Maybe that could be its own thread? Yeah. It is too bad that people couldn't keep it civil in the thread dedicated to that topic. And the discussion about the Dying change wouldn't bother me so much if people would debate it using what the actual rules are and with a realistic view of what the impact of the change is going to be. But trying to claim that RAW is unambiguous that you only add Wounded when you first drop and gain the Dying condition is unreasonable. And claiming that this change is a catastrophe and will ruin the game is a complete exaggeration. And to be fair, on the other hand claiming that this isn't a change to the rules (even though the wording of the Recovery Check section literally changed) is not really justified. As is claiming that RAW is completely unambiguous that you always add your Wounded value when you gain or increase Dying.
It is your game, if the current npcs are not high level enough to do the tranfer, just have a higher level npc move to the town to offer said service (at a price according to his level of)"A price appropriate to his level" is what I was asking for help determining! As for this question: I don't think it is balanced to have excessive added costs for rune transfer above what the rune transfer rules list. Not unless the GM is adjusting the amount of income the PCs are getting to compensate. If it is intended for rune transfer to be very expensive and be a significant portion of the character's wealth expenditure, the rules would call that out. Also, having rune transfer be a significant portion of character wealth makes Magical Crafting nearly a must-pick in order for the party to stay on the wealth-by-level progression. It wouldn't be possible for the adventure writers to publish loot for an adventure that is balanced both for parties that have a Magical Crafting character and parties that don't. So if it isn't realistic enough for the NPCs to do the rune transfer for just the listed 10% of the rune's cost, add a trivial or token amount of cost. Perhaps another 10% of a level 2 rune as a fixed cost that doesn't scale with the rune level being transferred.
Previous thread on similar subject. tl;dr: Abomination Vaults was written before the requirement of Magical Crafting was added to the game rules. The GM can and should give the ability to transfer runes to some of the NPCs.
The thing is, the difference between 'action', 'action', 'action', and 'action' in the rules is one of the bigger standing problems. So I really can't tell you if the intent of the rules is to specify only what you use for your actions or to prevent you from using any other actions as well. Instead you and your table have to decide what the intent of the Fleeing condition is. And I personally think that what actions are available and what reactions you can use should be ruled on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't make much sense to say that because of a loophole in the Fleeing condition rules that a character could cast Brine Dragon's Bile or Shadow Projectile while Fleeing. But it does seem reasonable that they could cast Sudden Shift, Feather Fall, or Air Bubble in order to help them get away.
Shield Block would be difficult to use if you haven't used Raise Shield. As for balance concerns, remember to consider if you want enemies to be able to do that to you.
If Sam only has access to cantrips, can she cast spells from scrolls? It's never come up before so I thought I'd ask. It is rather heavily debated. Mostly by me... But I don't do rules lawyering on game threads. |