1) This depends on your GM, the rules on where ACs appear from are vague, the rules on replacing an AC kinda points to one not being immediately available. So, unless it's a core part of your character, where I would assume you've been developing it as part of the unspoken background that many characters require, you'd likely have to perform the ritual for replacing an animal companion in my campaigns - subject to anything you can point to (be it campaign events/background/rules) to persuade me otherwise.
2) IF you have persuaded me that you have a suitable beastie following you, then MAYBE it could be repeatedly infused with the power of an AC and reduced to normal animal otherwise - at least until it got annoyed at your fickleness/being used and abused and wandered off. Again though, largely up to your GM.
3) no, you have to have a domain power it can replace.
4) no, it only grants access to domain powers. .
Domain powers are a subset of your full domain, and while inquisitions are interchangeable (to an extent) with domains, they can;t be interchangeable with a part of a domain. The Icon causes you to retain part of your domain abilities, so you you don't ever have the full domain to swap out.
Each time you switch animal focus on yourself you start a new '1 minute' use. There is no wording that permits you to change your aspect once you have selected it - you select one type of animal to emulate when you activate it and that is your lot until you activate it again..
The only reason you can switch freely on your AC is you never run out of 'minutes' if you do so.
Artificial 20 wrote:
You can move diagonally past an enemy - explicitly.
CRB measuring distance wrote:
You can move diagonally past a creature, even an opponent.
What you can't do is move diagonally past a solid object that runs along that border - such as a wall. Basically look at what is in your way. if you can step over it (such as a pit) or it doesn't fully fill the space (a small tree) then you can move past it diagonally.
If, however, you are trying to step around a big impassable object that either fills the square or runs along that edge such as a really big tree or a building (or a 'designated exception' type creature that fills the entire space - such as a gelatinous cube) then that's a big no.
Oh, I've thought of another question, is there a Handle Animal trick to getting your animal companion to enter a style stance?
phantom ability wrote:
The phantom stays fully manifested until it is either returned to the spiritualist’s consciousness (a standard action) ...
There are no other restrictions in respect of distance or LoS/LoE.
You can't harbour your phantom blade. You don't have either the phantom ability or the shared conciousness ability.
Table 10-2 is fine, it's well explained on how to use it and when it is appropriate to do so, and it is extremely useful at what it's designed for. It is still a tool though and as subject to misuse as any other tool.
As for the DCs in mirrored moon, they are not inappropriate to the task. It shouldn't be easy to half the time to search nearly 100 square miles.
You are missing nearly 20 years of history with 3rd edition and pathfinder that has lead to this point. It's kind of hard to be concise without that background.
A short answer to your specific question(maybe - there other opinions) is that they feel the need to curb some of the power of spellcasters in general and especially in regards to narrative impact as compared to non-spellcasting classes (look up caster/martial disparity if you are feeling particularly masochistic). While they could have made magic more unreliable or dangerous or any one of a number of things (most I can imagine would be very unsatisfactory in one way or another) they opted to reduce the overall number of spells available together with a reduction in the effects of spells (in very broad sweeps).
trivial is easy - if the DC is equal to, or less, than the DC in the leftmost column it is trivial.
I for one do not want them to remove all GM adjudication from the game, pathfinder can handle many types and flavours of games and what should be impossible for one game might just be legendarily difficult in another - I can decide what is impossible as appropriate for my game.
And with regard to the pits as pointed out, everything gets a reflex save, even if immobilised - I assume that the stats take into account the 0 dex...
pit trap wrote:
The rules actually have you covered.
If the DC is trivial, you shouldn't really be asking for rolls."You break that fortune cookie easily"
An extreme-difficulty skill DC defeats even the most skilled characters most of the time, but it’s just low enough that there’s some chance of success. Use these DCs if you want success to be unlikely but not impossible.
There exist things that are flat out impossible, and you don't need a roll as you will auto-fail.
"I'm afraid that lock is too difficult, no matter how lucky you get you will not be able to unlock it without the key".
Please no. Situational bonuses are not "interesting", nor are they fun.
The bigger problem some of you have with them changing it is people like me who want magic weapons to be important. They should matter and they should matter in every fight.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Well, that's embarrassing... I have never noticed that :)
Well, it's reliable enough that you get people like me who love the +1/level and think that if you remove it I may as well go and play another game because it's just not the game I want to play. There is a lot I don't like about PF2, but the +1/level is not one of them.
p291 on stacking bonuses wrote:
If you gain multiple bonuses of the same type, only the highest bonus applies—you don’t add them together.
p190 on quality bonuses wrote:
Item Bonus: Weapons and skill-boosting items of expert, master, and legendary quality add the listed item bonus to attack rolls with the weapon or skill checks using the item
p371 on potency runes wrote:
A weapon potency rune grants two offensive benefits. The weapon’s wielder gains an item bonus to attack rolls with the weapon equal to the potency value. For instance, an expert dagger with a +2 weapon potency rune would grant a +2 item bonus to attack rolls with the dagger.
Prone / unconscious creatures and screening; also, movement through an "incapacitated" creature's space
The rules should not need to tell you that you cannot walk through walls. Let me know of a game that feels the need to tell you this so I can avoid it. I will not play a game that is so patronising that they think their readers need to be told this.
Kyra can attack the ogre because she can see it. You can draw a line from the top left corner of Kyras square to the top right square of the ogre. That should be sufficient for precise senses to work. The ogre would need to take an action to hide to become 'sensed' to Kyra.
I cannot see any reasonable argument that Kyra cannot see the ogre, Kyra can attack the Ogres top right square so she can attack the ogre. she cannot draw a line to the centre square so the ogre has cover.
It is that simple .
And if it's not defined, a term has it's usual English meaning. blocking terrain is terrain that blocks you - you cannot move or fire through it. If the book needs to define even basic stuff like this it will be too large to be practical.
Prone / unconscious creatures and screening; also, movement through an "incapacitated" creature's space
incapacitated has it's normal english meaning if it isn't defined in game - they don't (and shouldn't) need to define every single word they use. Paralysed is about as incapacitated as you can get.
If two characters end up sharing a space one of them (GM decides) gets shunted or made prone. 'Accidentally' covers just this sort of situation.
IF you can move into a square and you can move out of a square then you can move through a square - this is self-evident and does not need further defining.
As for screening, that seems perfect to leave up to a GM's call. I can see some situations where some creatures would still provide screening and others where they shouldn't.
Gm's can and should make judgement calls. These are the sorts of situations that are varied enough that some GM discretion is desirable.
1&2) It is not covered by the rules. I would follow the masterwork rules for a double weapon and double the cost, applying the benefit to both sides. Sidesteps a lot of potential issues and is the fairest solution short of saying "no".
3) You are proficient with all monk weapons, not a specific weapon. A monk weapon remains a monk weapon, so you remain proficient.
Curtailing magic items never made magic items feel more special to me. They are either useful or they are not. It doesn't matter if I have one or twenty.
You can flair it up however you want, you can create this elaborate backstory. It can be the only item I get by the time I'm third level and I still won't use it unless it's actually useful.
I reckon resonance (in it's current form) will make magic less 'magical'. Now that permanent magic item is not only competing against every other permanent item, but also consumables that will keep you alive.
This doesn't strike me as an AoO type interruption, it doesn't even feel like a combat trigger to me. This is a preparing-to-cast social encounter chit-chat ("hi friend, I see you reaching for you component pouch, it's not really for me to say, but that may not be your best move in this place - if you still want to go ahead I'll just move myself over here" *walking off to the bar*). Unless the GM rules that the spell was lost (in which case you should definitely be in combat mode), the player still appears to have the option to persist against the friendly advice (which will then probably trigger the switch to combat mode).
I'm a bit of an anomaly I fear. I like the +1's and +2's, and the stacking - I miss that. I want my feats and abilities to make me better at what it relates too and nothing does that quite like increasing my odds of succeeding.
Fancy new abilities are all well and good, but there are problems with that 1) someone will feel it shouldn't be locked behind a feat and everyone should be able to do it 2) if you have too many of them you can start to lose track of them and 3) most of them are so niche/situational that it really doesn't feel like you are gaining any benefit at all.
I'll be honest most 'cool effects' are underwhelming, because they are rarely always useful abilities, or they are so ineffectual as to be a waste of time.
I guess I like the bigger numbers too much. They are effective and fun. And I want them on my magic items.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
There are other games designed around little or no magic gear, there aren't as many where magic items play such a large role - I play PF partly because I love acquiring those items. take that away and it isn't PF anymore.
This is inaccurate and could lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules. Class levels have nothing to do with iteratives (beyond providing base attack, same as non class HD). The key distinction is manufactured weapons as seen with the Solar and Deva mentioned above that have no class levels and use iteratives.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Yeah, let's not go back to AD&D, that was really a terrible system for stats. I look back now and wonder how/why I stuck with it for so long! Most people I knew came up with a system to mitigate that (often one of the broken alt rolling systems) and it wasn't unusual to see characters with 3x 16-18 stats. Fighters never saw the light of day unless they had 18/XX.
Everyone is different, I like the ease of getting an 18 at 1st - I just wish the latter levels weren't quite so limited.
Nope, let me be the voice of dissent. I want magic items to have a measurable and consistent effect. I don't want to sink significant resources into an item I'll only use twice a level, or when I do use it, it has no effect because of a bad guy saving against it. That usually means a numerical bonus of some sort.
I want to put on a magic item and immediately be better.
I don't want magic for PCs to be rare - it can be rare in world, but I want my characters dripping with magic. minor trinkets and major powerhouse items both.
I really don't give a gnats whisker what the other players are rocking, I don't care if we all have the same load out - I want this for my characters regardless.
What I want pretty much mandates a set of key items that are assumed - and I'm ok with that.
Really? actual, real people are confused by this? and it's not just internet hyperbole? Because I have never met, in over 30 years of gaming and personally teaching a lot of people, anyone confused by the different uses of 'level'. A simple explanation that class levels and spell levels are different has been sufficient to allay any concerns.
I always use grouped initiative, and have done since my AD&D days, and I've not noticed that PF2 is particularly lethal - certainly not any more so than any previous incarnation of the game. I've knocked a couple of players down to 0, but nothing that has significantly threatened multiple characters.
I don't think it's expressly covered by the playtest - it is GM discretion. There is nothing saying you can't grant access.
I am also not a fan.
"Typically most will ignore" being interpreted as "none will ignore" is a bad faith interpretation of the rules - full stop.
This is not an area of the rules I would want to see straightjacketed - it needs that flexibility. Not every demon should be required to go for the jugular and sometimes the paladin needs to show no quarter.
"Typically most" sets an expectation that in "most" encounters the bad guys will not attack downed foes. whether that is 55% or 85% or not at all is at the discretion of the GM, but the bad guys should not be attacking downed characters in every encounter. The rules state that outright and clearly.
Also, you need to factor in the playtest goals for this chapter - which as a player you may not (and probably should not) be aware of*. And remember that this is a playtest, it is not a polished final product so noting how much is too much - well, this sort of feedback is important, so make sure you fill in the surveys. Completing the remaining chapters will be similarly useful, so please keep at it.
*That said, if there is one chapter that players should be aware of the goals - this might be the one.
thoughts on goals:
players might not react appropriately if they fear further encounters - if they try to conserve resources it could lead to a higher death rate than normal - maybe?
One thing I am doing is letting my players know what the playtest goals are after we've finished (where they aren't so obvious)- so they can see why things happen the way they do.
Just because something can be dented does not mean you can interpose it between you and an attack.
Armour and shields are still items and can therefore be damaged in other ways - although the lack of an explicit sunder manoeuvre makes it unlikely that that will happen in combat.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Ah! so of course we should all defer to your opinion, as you put it so eloquently...
Paladins are cool and deserve a place front and centre. If you don't like them, there are 11 other classes to play. It's all good. There are at least 4 classes I have no interest in (Alchemist, Barbarian, Ranger and Sorceror for those who need to know) and will never play - I'm not calling for their removal.
Then don't use them. They aren't mandatory - the rules couldn't be more explicit about that.
secret checks p293 last sentence wrote: