Axe Lord

corwyn42's page

Organized Play Member. 28 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

Silver Crusade

Ok, I am looking through Mark's posts here is the link to all of them:
Mark's Posts

You can use the link below to see all his posts that contain the word shield ordered by Newest First:
Mark's Posts w/ Shield word - Newest First

I went through them until the beginning of August and I did not see anything that would change his original post entry. You can keep digging if you want - you might find something.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is the link to the discussion:
Seminar discussion

Here is Mark's post:

3Doubloons wrote:
The last iteration of the Shield rules (where shields could take 2 dents, but blocking only gave 1 at most) meant it was impossible for a fresh shield to break in one block. Is that still true in the final rules?
Mark Seifter wrote:
As you can see throughout the process when we kept answering the question multiple different ways on the streams, that last playtest iteration was mostly a patch on an issue involved with calculating the dents and HP. Using HP, it is possible for your shield to break, or even be totally destroyed, in one hit, but you get to know how much damage is incoming before you decide whether to block, so that only happens if you choose. Looking at how much it would take to destroy Linda's dwarf's shield in one hit, though, even on a crit that's not going to happen unless they're fighting something way beyond their level. Even a balor would be hard-pressed to do that much in a single crit.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goldryno wrote:
HammerJack wrote:

No, you won't benefit from a broken shield.

Yes, shields can be totally worthwhile.

Additionally, you should know the incoming damage and whether it would break your shield BEFORE you choose whether to block.

Why would you expect a PC to know what the damage is and whether they want to use the shield block reaction ahead of time?

If I know a player has a shield raised (and am actually on top of my game and remembering things) I tell them they will be hit and will take damage and ask if they want to use their reaction to reduce it before announcing the damage amount.

Retroactively allowing them to shieldblock after the damage is known does not make as much sense to me.

This was discussed in this subforum:

Shield Block discussion

Silver Crusade

graystone wrote:
corwyn42 wrote:

Sorry graystone, I just don't agree with the statement "The ability just plain doesn't do that". In my interpretation of the Rules As Written - it just plain *does*.

I am not trying to change your mind, but nothing written here will change mine.

... Please point out something in the written rules that allows Crafting to count as Medicine for requirements and restrictions. No matter how i look at it, I can't see how it's possible, so I have to call it a houserule. That's just 100% outside RAW and beyond what can be called an interpretation of what's written. Now if you want to call it an interpretation of what you think the intent of it was and you based your houserule on it, I could go with that but I can't see any way it can be thought of as RAW.

If you don't have anything else to point to as a basis of you're interpretation to present, I'm happy to drop it with this but don't expect me to not call it how I see it: a houserule.

"As long as your proficiency rank in Medicine is trained or better, you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses."

My interpretation of the above sentence is what allows the use of the Crafting skill (and its proficiency level) to replace the Medicine skill (and its proficiency level) in the Treat Wounds action (and all other Medicine Skills actions).

On Page 234 of the CRB:

"When you’re actively using a skill, often by performing one of its actions, you might attempt a skill check: rolling a d20 and adding your skill modifier. To determine this modifier, add your ability modifier for the skill’s key ability, your proficiency bonus for the skill, and any other bonuses and penalties."

If you are going to use the Crafting Skill check and apply your proficiency bonus for the Crafting Skill, then that proficiency should be the one that matters when performing the Treat Wounds action.

You do not agree with that assessment - I get that, but that is my interpretation: You should use the proficiency of the Skill being used whenever proficiency matters for that Skill check.

Silver Crusade

Sorry graystone, I just don't agree with the statement "The ability just plain doesn't do that". In my interpretation of the Rules As Written - it just plain *does*.

I am not trying to change your mind, but nothing written here will change mine.

Silver Crusade

graystone wrote:
corwyn42 wrote:
Founder of Wolfburg wrote:
Am I assuming this correctly that if you are a Chirurgeon, and you are expert in medicine, you can only treat wounds at the trained level (not expert) if you want to use your crafting skill to do the check?

If you are a Chirurgeon Alchemist with a Medicine Skill proficiency level of Trained and a Crafting Skill proficiency level of Expert and you want to perform the Treat Wounds Medicine Trained Action you could perform the DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10 using a Crafting Skill check.

You are not limited to the DC 15 check.

Once your Crafting Skill proficiency level reaches Master you can use a Crafting Skill check to perform the Treat Wounds action with the DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30.

Once your Crafting Skill proficiency level reaches Legendary you can use a Crafting Skill check to perform the Treat Wounds action with the DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50.

This is 100% incorrect as written n the game: the DC increases are locked to medicine level and nothing in the alchemist ability changes that much like it doesn't allow you to avoid using healer's tools as that too is required by the medicine skill. The ONLY thing it does is "you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses." I can see no mental gymnastics that'd allow that to allow for level locked DC's of greater than trained. Even if you say that the action is unlocked by the training clause, nothing allows for ignoring other restrictions.

Now I will say I'd like for the craft skill to be used 100% for the ability: like 'As long as your proficiency rank in Medicine is trained or better, you can use Crafting instead of Medicine for all checks, uses, requirements and restrictions. This includes using alchemist tools instead of healers tools.'

My interpretation of the CRB matches your last paragraph. This is now a Rules Discussion and I would suggest that further discussion be moved to that Subforum. I would like to see some Ruling on this issue from Paizo. I see this as yet another area of the CRB where the designer's did not clarify their intent properly.

Silver Crusade

Founder of Wolfburg wrote:
Am I assuming this correctly that if you are a Chirurgeon, and you are expert in medicine, you can only treat wounds at the trained level (not expert) if you want to use your crafting skill to do the check?

If you are a Chirurgeon Alchemist with a Medicine Skill proficiency level of Trained and a Crafting Skill proficiency level of Expert and you want to perform the Treat Wounds Medicine Trained Action you could perform the DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10 using a Crafting Skill check.

You are not limited to the DC 15 check.

Once your Crafting Skill proficiency level reaches Master you can use a Crafting Skill check to perform the Treat Wounds action with the DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30.

Once your Crafting Skill proficiency level reaches Legendary you can use a Crafting Skill check to perform the Treat Wounds action with the DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
I would agree with beowulf99 on this one. Looking at the wording for Unified Theory, Rituals, and how sample Ritual's are presented I just am not reaching the same interpretation as Blave.

I can definitely understand where Blave is coming from, and I even had the same thought initially.

But what convinced me was the existence of rituals with optional final checks of differing traditions. Why shouldn't a powerful enough Wizard be able to use his Arcane knowledge to control the weather? Or Resurrect the dead?

Also as a Level 15 feat requiring a Legendary skill, this doesn't feel in the realm of "too good to be true".

Because the arcane tradition doesn't interact with vital or spiritual essence, which is what is used to bring the dead back. They might be able to understand the magic at play but they can't replicate it through arcana.

By RAW, a ritual is neither a skill feat or an action. You could house rule otherwise, but it is pretty clearly not a thing based on RAW and flavor.

I am not sure I agree with the statement that a ritual is not an action. On page 461 of the CRB:

"There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions".

I interpret this to mean that all activities are considered to be an action.

Also on page 461 of the CRB under Exploration and Downtime Activities:

"Outside of encounters, activities can take minutes, hours, or even days."

On page 408 of the CRB:

"While a ritual is a downtime activity" -> thus a ritual *is* an action - specifically a downtime activity action.

On page 268 of the CRB:

"Whenever you use an action or a skill feat that requires a Nature, Occultism, or Religion check, depending on the magic tradition, you can use Arcana instead."

So my interpretation of the Unified Theory feat is that when performing the Atone Ritual, a Primary Caster with this feat *could* use an Arcana Check instead of a Nature (Druid) or Religion (all others) check - since this check is being done as part of a downtime activity action. This would also hold true for any Secondary Casters involved in the downtime activity action that have the Unified Theory feat.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Indi523 wrote:


Still I actually like the version of my mistake better. If you find a magic item you have to learn the spell (if a wizard or sorcerer) to use the spell in the staff. I would give a circumstance bonus to attempts to learn the spell from the staff. Knowledge is power.
One problem i see with that is how Spontaneous Casters getting shafted with that deal. Druid and Cleric don’t have to do anything to use staffs with how they prepare; Wizard has to learn it once; and Sorcerers have to sacrifice their limited amount of spells known to use it with a staff. There’s also spontaneous casters getting less charges on their staff when they prepare them. Pretty sure the staffs were designed like that to give spontaneous casters access to a wider array with reasonable investment.

I don't understand, from what I can gather reading page 592 of the CRB you don't have to learn the spell in the Staff in order to Cast it, it just needs to be on your Spell List and you need to be high enough level to cast a spell of that level.

If you are a Sorcerer who uses the Primal Spell List, you can cast the Resist Energy spell from a Staff of Abjuration even though Resist Energy is not in your spell repertoire as long as you can cast second level spells.

From the CRB Page 593:

"You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level."

Is Resist Energy on the Primal Spell List? - yes
Is the Sorcerer able to cast second level spells? - yes
Are there two charges in the Staff? - yes

All three requirements met - you are good to cast Resist Energy from the Staff of Abjuration.

The same would be true for a Wizard who does not have Resist Energy in their spellbook:

Is Resist Energy on the Arcane Spell List? - yes
Is the Wizard able to cast second level spells? - yes
Are there two charges in the Staff? - yes

Since Resist Energy is on all four Spell Lists, only the ability to cast second level spells and having enough charges in the Staff matter.

Now lets look at Feather Fall. Since it is only on the Arcane and Primal Spell Lists, the Wizard (Arcane) and Sorcerer (Primal) would be able to cast the spell from the Staff of Abjuration but a Bard (Occult) or Cleric (Divine) or a Sorcerer (Divine or Occult) would not be able to cast Feather Fall from the Staff of Abjuration.

In the case of a Wand, it only needs to be on your Spell List - you do not even need to be able to cast spells of that level.

From the CRB Page 597:

"To cast a spell from a wand, it must be on your spell list."

So a first level Wizard (Arcane) can cast a third level Burning Hands spell (Arcane or Primal) from a Wand created with a third level Burning Hands spell; however, the Reflex DC would be the DC from the first level Wizard casting the spell. The same would be true of a first level Sorcerer (Primal), but a Bard (Occult), Cleric (Divine) or Sorcerer (Occult or Divine) would not be able to cast the Burning Hands spell from the Wand.

Is my understanding correct? or am I missing something?

Silver Crusade

corwyn42 wrote:
Hmm, that leads me to wonder what would happen if a high level Dispel Magic spell was used against the Castle. Would it be able to disable the artillery? Would it keep the Castle from walking or cause the flying variant to fall? Perhaps it could disable the Construct Armor and allow a breach to open up.
RavingDork wrote:
I don't believe anything would happen. Dispel magic doesn't work on other animated objects, does it? They're creatures, not spell effects, right?

Ok, I see that you modeled the Moving Castle as a bigger Animated Object - that makes sense. I agree that Dispel Magic should not do anything to a typical creature, but aren't some Animated Objects created via some kind of Ritual (or similar magic)?

I was thinking: What would happen if the Ritual effect was dispelled/counteracted? There is a precedent for dispelling a Ritual. If you critically fail applying the Geas ritual to a willing target and become the subject of the Geas yourself and can counteract it by using the Remove Curse spell. Also, the Ritual Blight can attempt to counteract the effects of the Ritual Plant Growth.

I was thinking that using Dispel Magic on the Ritual effect might work like using it on an unattended Magic Item - making it mundane for 10 minutes.

Sounds more like a Rules Discussion, but I was curious on how the Moving Castle was created in the first place - i.e. was the Animate Object Ritual performed? (spell level 10 for Creature Level 17) or was the Moving Castle was given life via an infusion of positive energy?

Silver Crusade

Sapient wrote:

What about the Shield cantrip?

Could you prepare it twice, so that if the Shield Block reaction is used, you could immediately start using the second prepared Shield cantrip?

** spoiler omitted **

I think the author's idea with the text "you can't cast it again for 10 minutes" would apply to any Shield cantrip trying to be cast - not just the one from a particular Cantrip slot.

In general I think the author's idea with being able to cast a Cantrip as many times as you want would result in Players only including a single instance in their Cantrip slots. As such, they included the limitations for light sources or Shield spell usage accordingly.

I think the Core Rulebook should not have used the term "spell slots" on page 300 when describing Cantrips:

If you’re a prepared caster, you have a number of cantrip spell slots that you use to prepare your cantrips.

Perhaps a better wording would have been:

If you’re a prepared caster, you can prepare a specific number of distinct cantrip spells per day.

Silver Crusade

It looks like the Forum Submit Post code introduces the space after 75 consecutive characters:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EN5-K9eJWsIe6FCNATBlLXODRu-d0U9Jof9ByTX 8mhs/edit?usp=sharing
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345 678901234567890
However, if you format the code using the proper formatting as shown in the How to format your text, the link works without changing anything:
Commoner PF 2E Class

Silver Crusade

The Paizo forum page introduced a space between the X and 8 characters in the URL. The link worked when I removed the space, but when I tried to paste it back into an updated post the space was re-introduced. You will need to copy/paste the link and manually remove the space.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EN5-K9eJWsIe6FCNATBlLXODRu-d0U9Jof9ByTX 8mhs/edit?usp=sharing
___________________________________________________________________________ _____________^remove this space

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Parduss wrote:

I just had a thought, Crossbow Ace, instead of upping the damage dice (but keeping the other features), instead it reduces the reload by 1 on any crossbow.

This would make the Heavy Crossbow have the same effect as it currently has (because under my interpretation "simple crossbow" means the D8 version only, maybe I am wrong here)

But it's effects on the other two options would be more interesting:

The normal crossbow would become a comp longbow that treats the user as having 18 str (Gnomes and Halflings rejoice)

And even more interesting would be the hand crossbow as a 1 handed str 18 shortbow, allowing a shield.

How about changing the Reload for a Heavy Crossbow to 1 with a minimum strength requirement (say 18)?

What about a new feat that would give the use of a Crossbow the Deadly Weapon trait provided by bows? (Hand=Deadly d8, Reg=Deadly d10, Heavy=Deadly d12)

You could add the Agile Weapon trait to Hand Crossbows.

You could create a new Crossbow weapon group to give them a different Critical Specialization effect. The details of this new Crossbow weapon group could be something specific for your house rules play - something your players have hinted at and/or you think they might show some interest in.

Silver Crusade

Temperans wrote:

Okay after reading it on first inspection I would say this:

* Due to the nature of the construct having a size category sounds counter intuitive. Wood Colossus (Manor house) are Gargantuan, Stone Colossus (Stone Keep) are Colossal, due to lack of humanoid form for the moving castle I assume it would be colossal or bigger.

* I feel like the HP is too little, but that's probably due to the HP being a reflection of the strength of the enchantment, not the actual castle.

* I'm not sure on the Construct Armor breaking on a critical hit. It feels to me like that's just too easy, might be better if it breaks when if the critical hit overcomes the resistance. This prevents most regular weapon atks from breaking the castle.

* Any melee attack should be in relation to its method of travel or general. For example, all castles probably have a slam attack, but only walking castles have a "foot" attack: So maybe make a default melee attack, and add any new/alternate attack on the movement options.
Also, it feels like melee attacks from the castle should have some chance to damage it.

Since the flying Castle variant specifically says it has no land speed, I agree that a "foot" melee attack does not make sense. A generic "slam" melee attack sounds appropriate. I think the Trample attack should not be available for the flying variant unless performing it caused some kind of damage to it consistent with it making landfall. It would be cool to GM a flying variant that crash landed on the party as an attack. Would you need a Burrow speed in order to get out from under it? Or would you treat this like a Swallow Whole attack?

I don't think breaking the Construct Armor on a critical hit will under-power the Castle. It only lowers the AC by 4, but I agree that any critical hit must actually do damage to break the Construct Armor. With a Hardness of 20, this would require some sort of magical weapon to generate a sufficient number of damage dice (or just use a siege weapon of some kind :)

Hmm, that leads me to wonder what would happen if a high level Dispel Magic spell was used against the Castle. Would it be able to disable the artillery? Would it keep the Castle from walking or cause the flying variant to fall? Perhaps it could disable the Construct Armor and allow a breach to open up.

Silver Crusade

It is interesting in that your design has introduced some things the original designers either did not consider or did not include in Pathfinder Second Edition. First, an item can have both a Hardness value *and* a Weakness value. Second, the definition of Siege weapons and how they are used.

If we take the Pathfinder First Edition Siege Weapons and use a Heavy Catapult to successfully attack the Moving Castle, would the 8d6 damage be reduced by the 20 hardness value before or after applying the 10 weakness value? If before, then the minimum damage for all siege weapons would be 10. If after, it is possible that a poor roll from a Ballista doing 3d8+10 damage may be entirely reduced by the Castle's Hardness of 20.

There are a lot of rules related to using Siege Weapons in Pathfinder First Edition: weapon proficiency, loading time, reaiming time, crew size, etc. A GM would need to determine how to map them into PF2 rules. Since the PF1 Siege weapons have Hardness and HP values, would the Moving Castle ever target the Siege Weapon(s) being used against it? As a mindless construct how does it determine its targets? Or does it require an intelligent controller inside the Castle?

The AC of 40 would prevent anyone other than a high level PC from being able to hit the Castle using any kind of weapon. In that light, a lower level party would not even try to damage the castle as a whole, but merely try to breach a door/window. This is something the GM would need to prepare for with the construct provided. Unless the destruction of the Castle is the party's primary objective, I cannot see them spending time combating it if they can limit the combat to a few rounds of artillery fire before breaching a door/window. Even if the Castle's inhabitants may be high level creatures, it may be the party is only trying to retrieve an item within the Castle or free someone imprisoned there. In these cases, it is likely the party is trying to avoid combat altogether.

Should the party decide to combat the Castle, you would need to consider how effective the Earthquake spell would be against the non flying/sea variants. The spell as written is designed for damage to a Large or smaller creature within a structure - not the structure itself. Would the flat check be used against the Castle itself? What about the heightened (level 10) version of the Earthquake spell? The 11d6 damage for an 8th level spell is on par with the 10d6/12d6 damage from a 7th/9th level Fireball spell. Perhaps the 10th level Earthquake should do 13d6 damage?

I wonder how a Reflex save would apply to the Castle. The Castle from Krull moved to entire new locations - not several feet to avoid area effect spell damage. Was your intention to allow the Castle use a Reflex save to reduce the damage from the various area of effect spells (i.e. Fireball/Polar Ray/Meteor Swarm)? I can see the magical nature of the Castle helping to resist the effect of a Disintegrate spell via its Fortitude save. Perhaps the Reflex save is the magical nature of the Castle reducing the Area of Effect damage rather than the Castle itself actually moving?

Am I correct in assuming that the stats for the Artillery Barrage 2 action activity is the same as the Ranged 1 action attack? [+27 magical, propulsive, range increment 120 feet, siege volley 30 feet; damage 3d10+16] Could the Ranged attack action be used once the munitions have been exhausted?

Was your intention to let the GM decide on the amount of ammunition the Moving Castle started with? You included text about running out, but did not include any amount value in the sheet provided.

In any case, I like what you have designed. You may consider having the Spectral Citadel Variant of the Castle move if its HP is reduced to 0 (or some other low value) as some kind a trigger to its innate spell. Perhaps combine it with the Living Bastion variant and put a time value on the Castle remaining mundane. After that time expires, the Castle would revert to a magical Moving Castle again. Perhaps the Moving Castle could regenerate HP at a rate of X HP/hour and when at 50 or 75 or 100% of its HP it would revert back to its magical state. This would provide the race to find the Castle and finish it off while in its mundane state.

You could add traps/wards inside the Castle that could teleport party members outside the castle or trigger its innate spell. Not sure if you want to include them in the Castle's definition or just let the GM be creative.

Just my thoughts, curious to see what you think.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about adding a new condition: studied <value>.

The Study Subject could give the target a studied 1 on success and a studied 2 on a critical success.

NOTE: targets that have immunity to precision damage cannot have the studied condition.

The Studied Strike could be an action with certain weapon and studied condition requirements. Make a Strike and apply the studied condition value as a circumstance bonus to the attack roll. On a success it would deal the 1d6 precision damage that would increase as your level increases (5, 9, 13, 17). After the strike the studied condition is removed.

Now you can have new feats that support debuffs rather than damage.

Blinding Strike - precision damage is applied as a blinded condition for studied value rounds.

Kidney Strike - precision damage is applied as enfeebled condition: value equals studied value.

Additional feats could be made for the precision damage being applied for the stunned, stupefied, slowed, etc. conditions. The feat level would be used to ensure the strikes are only available when their power is on par with the character level.

In each case, the studied condition is removed after the Strike is made (successful or not).

With a studied condition, the value could be increased by *not* attacking the target, but continuing to study them. This way the circumstance bonus and other debuff values could also be increased.

In order to maintain the studied condition between rounds, you would need to perform a Sustain the Study action with the Concentration trait.

Thoughts?

Silver Crusade

logsig wrote:
The fact that it does nonlethal damage may come in useful occasionally.

If you need to question someone after the combat is over, you need a nonlethal way to do damage. Daze can help with that aspect.

Silver Crusade

corwyn42 wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
There probably needs to be an action for the crossbow to change hands though, unless trading gear is a free action.

And since familiars don't have a carrying capacity and can't wield any weapons (regardless of whether they are given Manual Dexterity or not) they can't hold or wield the crossbow to reload it. Aside from the fact that it takes a bit of strength and a human-sized stature to reload a crossbow at all.

A generous DM might allow a familiar with manual dexterity to hold and carry a single item of negligible weight. A crossbow? Not so much.

If they were given a STR score (say -4 or -5) then with their tiny size we could calculate what they could carry. But they don't have a listed STR score.

Until or unless they get listed stats somewhere (say in the GMG) none of the cool reloading/bombing actions people used to like are possible.

I would use the Pest Form spell on pages 356/357 as a guide for a familiar's STR score. According to the spell, you transform into a Tiny animal - the same as a familiar. The spell also indicates you gain the statistic of an Athletics modifier of -4 and since the Athletics skill is STR based, I would agree with a STR score of -4 for a Tiny animal/familiar. So according to Table 1-1 of Page 20, the Tiny Animal/familiar would have a STR score of 2-3 and be able to carry a Bulk of 1 (5 - 4). This is also the Bulk of the Tiny animal itself (see Bulk of Creatures on Page 272). Since the Heavy Crossbow has a Bulk of 2, the familiar would have the clumsy 1 condition trying to carry it, but would be able to drag it without penalty. You could impose a DC for the familiar for each of its Interact actions to successfully reload the Heavy Crossbow. Since a crossbow is a simple weapon, a simple DC of 10 might work, but the GM could impose whatever DC seems appropriate for your type of play.

In reading further, a Tiny animal as a Bulk limit of Half (according to Table 6-19 on page 295), so it would be able to carry/lift/manipulate an item with a Bulk of 2 (5/2 rounded down). This situation sounds like a good candidate for the "Game Conventions" box on Page 444.

Silver Crusade

Wheldrake wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
There probably needs to be an action for the crossbow to change hands though, unless trading gear is a free action.

And since familiars don't have a carrying capacity and can't wield any weapons (regardless of whether they are given Manual Dexterity or not) they can't hold or wield the crossbow to reload it. Aside from the fact that it takes a bit of strength and a human-sized stature to reload a crossbow at all.

A generous DM might allow a familiar with manual dexterity to hold and carry a single item of negligible weight. A crossbow? Not so much.

If they were given a STR score (say -4 or -5) then with their tiny size we could calculate what they could carry. But they don't have a listed STR score.

Until or unless they get listed stats somewhere (say in the GMG) none of the cool reloading/bombing actions people used to like are possible.

I would use the Pest Form spell on pages 356/357 as a guide for a familiar's STR score. According to the spell, you transform into a Tiny animal - the same as a familiar. The spell also indicates you gain the statistic of an Athletics modifier of -4 and since the Athletics skill is STR based, I would agree with a STR score of -4 for a Tiny animal/familiar. So according to Table 1-1 of Page 20, the Tiny Animal/familiar would have a STR score of 2-3 and be able to carry a Bulk of 1 (5 - 4). This is also the Bulk of the Tiny animal itself (see Bulk of Creatures on Page 272). Since the Heavy Crossbow has a Bulk of 2, the familiar would have the clumsy 1 condition trying to carry it, but would be able to drag it without penalty. You could impose a DC for the familiar for each of its Interact actions to successfully reload the Heavy Crossbow. Since a crossbow is a simple weapon, a simple DC of 10 might work, but the GM could impose whatever DC seems appropriate for your type of play.

Silver Crusade

Here is a situation where I think the Bomb Critical Specialization effect could be a benefit. An alchemist creates a bomb and gives it to a Ranger with the Far Shot feat who is also hunting a prey that is between 40 to 80 feet away. Within 10 feet of that prey are other non-hunted enemies. The Ranger can now throw that bomb up to 80 feet with no penalty (Far Shot doubles the Alchemist Bomb range to 40 feet and the Ranger ignores the penalty for the second range increment of the Alchemist Bomb when targeting the hunted prey). The Ranger should have a better ranged attack bonus than the Alchemist and should be able to apply some splash damage to more enemies than normal on a critical hit. At 3rd level, the moderate versions of alchemist bombs also do more damage than any type of normal ammunition. Not a bad technique to use when ambushing a large party of monsters at 5th level.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When reading the Alchemist Feat: Feral Mutagen:

Whenever you’re affected by a feral mutagen,
you gain the mutagen’s item bonus to your Intimidation checks.

Was curious what the term "feral" referred to - I assumed it referred to Bestial Mutagen, but that item did not contain any reference to the term "feral". I went to the index to see if there was an official term for "feral" and there was no reference to it. I was hoping for an entry between Feint and fey bloodline.

Silver Crusade

In reviewing the Errata changes, I noticed that the spell Breath of Life was not updated.

In Errata version 1.2 the Dying condition includes the statement: 'You lose the dying condition upon returning to 1 or more Hit Points.'.

The text under Breath of Life (Page 208 of the Rulebook) states: 'The target regains 4d8 plus your spellcasting ability modifier Hit Points, reduces its dying condition to dying 3, and gets a +2 conditional bonus to its next recovery save.'

Since the Playtest no longer keeps track of negative hit points, the Breath of Life spell should bring the character above 0 Hit Points. According to the Errata, the character should lose the dying condition. The Breath of Life spell should remove the text: "reduces its dying condition to dying 3".

Silver Crusade

Found the answer to the Nimble Dodge question. Under Touch Armor Class on Page 292:

'Anything that gives you a bonus or penalty to Armor Class also gives you an equal bonus or penalty to Touch Armor Class unless stated otherwise.'

Silver Crusade

When reading the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, I found numerous areas where I was not sure what was intended and the wording used did not clarify the author's intent. Included below are a list of areas where the text could be improved:

1. The term "Armor Class".

Under BASIC CONCEPTS on Page 7:

'This way, when you see the statement “a Strike targets Armor Class,” you know that both Strike and Armor Class are used with their rules meanings.'

Under ARMOR AND SHIELDS on Page 176:

'ARMOR CLASS
Your Armor Class (AC) measures how well you can defend against attacks. Your Touch Armor Class (TAC) protects against attacks that need only to touch you.'

Under ROGUE FEATS on Page 121:

'You nimbly dodge out of the way, gaining a +2 circumstance bonus to your Armor Class against the triggering attack.'

Source of Confusion:
Does does the +2 circumstance bonus apply to the Armor Class (AC) or to both Armor Class (AC) *and* Touch Armor Class (TAC)?

Since the term "Armor Class" is both a meta-term - applying to both (AC) and (TAC) and an individual type of Armor Class - that which measure how well you can defined against attacks that are not touch attacks (AC). There are several places in the Rulebook that use the term "Armor Class" and it is not clear if the text is referring to both (AC) and (TAC) or just (AC).

Possible Improvement:
Use a different term for the meta-term or the first type (AC). Perhaps Weapon Armor Class (WAC) instead of just (AC)?

2. Assumed Feat Traits.

There are many places in the Rulebook where an feat indicates "Make a Strike", but the Trait box for the feat does not include the Trait "Attack". It is unclear if this was simply an editorial oversight or the intent of the author. This potentially impacts the multiple attack penalty that should be applied on subsequent actions.

Under Multiple Attack Penalty on Page 305:

'The second time you use an attack action (anything with the attack trait)'.

Under FIGHTER FEATS on Page 89:

The DOUBLE SLICE and POWER ATTACK feats both indicate to make a Strike, but neither feat includes the "Attack" trait. However, the Strike action on Page 308 includes the "Attack" trait.

Source of Confusion:

Does making a Strike automatically infer the "Attack" trait (even though a feat does not specifically state it)? Or was it the author's intent to not include the "Attack" trait? If after making a POWER ATTACK, the player decided to use an action that could not be used if an action with the "Attack" trait had already been used, the GM could interpret that using a POWER ATTACK before this action is acceptable - even though this was probably not the author's intention.

Under CLASS FEATURES on Page 97:

The FLURRY OF BLOWS action does not include the "Attack" Trait, nor does it include any text about the Multiple Attack Penalty (as other feats/actions have done).

Source of Confusion:
Does using the Flurry of Blows as the first action not incur any Multiple Attack Penalties? This would imply that the second Strike action would be made at the highest attack bonus. A GM could easily interpret the two unarmed Strikes made as part of the action as two attacks and require the player to use the Second and Third Strike actions with a -10 multiple attack penalty. During game play, the GM would want to search the forums for a general ruling - slowing down game play.

Possible Improvement:
Add text to clarify how the multiple attack penalty is applied by using the FLURRY OF BLOWS action.

3. Placement of KEY TERMS.

On the same Page 89, the KEY TERMS section is *very* important. The feat FURIOUS FOCUS includes the "Press" Trait which indicates the action can be used only if you are currently affected by a multiple attack penalty. Our playgroup did not notice the Press Trait's importance and allowed the feat to be used as the *first* action of the round - which was clearly not the author's intention. Either an improved location of the KEY TERMS and/or a reminder under Requirements - something like "Can only be used if you have a multiple attack penalty" would have avoided this oversight on our part. Of note, this oversight is significant enough to cause the player to make an alternate choice for the fighter feat - say POWER ATTACK instead.

I will follow up with additional Rulebook feedback in subsequent posts.

Silver Crusade

Just another thought on the saving space idea.

Under the Saving Throw explanation, you could include a small table with very common saving throws. The table would have 5 columns, 1 for the type of saving throw and the other four represent the four outcomes: S,CS,F,CF.
Under the spell, item or effect that requires the Saving Throw add the text: Saving Throw [Fortitude|Reflex|Will] (<Type>) or if the Saving Throw is not included in the common table, use [Fortitude|Reflex|Will] (See below) and include the four outcomes inline.

Damage would be one of the common saving throws. As long as the table didn't get too long, it could be useful.

Silver Crusade

I agree that stunning does more than just prevent divine spell casting or supernatural abilities. It is more than "being cut off from the divine". I am hoping that the author of this Bestiary 6 entry would post some clarification.

Personally, I would have worded it in a manner similar to the Source Severance cleric spell - with divine magic being the selected type of magic being severed. I would also have it be a permanent aura with a radius of 60 feet centered on the Charnel god and listed it as a Defensive ability rather than an Offensive one. I would keep the DC 35 Will save to allow a character access to divine magic within the aura and the stunning/staggering effect only when entering into the aura's area of effect if the save fails. I also would limit the staggering effect to 24 hours rather than be permanent.

Silver Crusade

JoelF847 wrote:
p. 54 Charnel God - Is the severance ability supposed to interfere with divine spell casting and supernatural abilities? The phrasing "must attempt a DC 35 Will save to avoid being cut off from the divine" suggests an effect like that, but the ability instead simply stuns and staggers them, which doesn't sound like "being cut off from the divine" to me. It certainly sounds like a secondary effect of BEING cut off from the divine, but nothing about this actually cuts them from any divine abilities as written.

If you fail the DC 35 Will save you are stunned (which will prevent you from casting a spell). I see no reason why the Charnel god cannot attempt to use this ability *every* round - which will maintain the stunned condition each time you fail. So, unless you succeed the DC 35 Will save - you will not be able to cast spells as you will always be stunned. This effectively prevents you from spell casting and/or using supernatural abilities as you cannot take any actions. Sounds like you are cut off from the divine if you are always stunned. I agree that the wording of the Charnel god entry could be improved to clarify this.

I totally disagree with the need for Atonement to remove the staggered condition. In reading the Atonement spell, the divine character did nothing to warrant atonement - no evil act/misdeed. They only failed to make a Will save - hardly justification for needing atonement.