I won't speak on behalf of exequiel759, as I think they're more than capable of stating their position, but I personally believe it is valid to want Vancian spellcasting to no longer be the default mode of spellcasting, even if it is equally valid to still want Vancian spellcasting as an option and thus not see it excluded.
They did not ask for it to be "not the default" (it already isn't), they asked for it to be "removed":
exequiel759 wrote:
[...]so I feel vancian should be tweaked or removed in a future edition to streamline it a bit.
That or offer an alternative for those that don't like vancian like I do.
Admittedly they said "tweaked or removed", but given Flexible Spellcaster was deemed inadequate I am confident that "tweaked" was a redundant synonym for "removed" in this case.
They did go on to say "or offer an alternative" but there are already many alternatives (probably more than actually-vancian classes by this point), and they are apparently not good enough.
-----------------
The following (approximately) was an edit to my previous post, but it got eaten. Trying again:
Re wands: IMNSHO, wands are terrible in PF2, with the specific and weird exception of spell you usually only want once per day anyway (like the few remaining all-day buffs). EDIT: I have toyed with the idea of adding back PF1-style 50-charge wands, but that might be a bit of an overcorrection.
Re "Ivory Tower" design: ISTM that, in the article, Monte was using the term to refer to the intersect between not providing much in the way of guidance alongside the rules, and deliberately designing in imbalance. Although ISTM that common usage these days is more about the latter (even though the term itself is more suggestive of the former).
Anyway, whatever you call it, deliberately designing in imbalance is a bad idea, because it will always be on top of the imbalance you design in accidentally. When they were designing in 3e, they thought that if they aimed for say a 20% imbalance, they would end up with 20% imbalance. But instead they ended up with 20000%.
If you want 20% imbalance in a system as complicated as D&D or Pathfinder, you have to fight tooth and nail to get eliminate as much imbalance as possible.
I would like playing a non-vancian caster because I like playing the kineticist, which for the record, I wouldn't consider it a caster in the same sense as a wizard or sorcerer because a kineticist is pretty limited flavor-wise while your average caster is much more flexible.
I still do not understand this. You would like to play a non-vancian caster, because you like playing the kineticist, which by your own definition (and mine too, FWIW) is not a caster.
And if the Flexible Spellcaster archetype doesn't work for you, that's fine. I could quibble about that 90% estimate, but if you don't like it you don't like it. You can still play a sorcerer or an oracle - 100% non-vancian, plays exactly 0% like a vancian class. Why is that not good enough?
exequiel759 wrote:
I feel its as valid for me to ask for something I want because I don't like the current system than it is for you to want to keep what already exist, isn't it?
When "something you want" is not an option for yourself, but for an option to be taken away from other people, it becomes a lot less valid.
Non-casters were always easier to play than casters but the excuse used to be that casters were more complex but also stronger. That isn't the case (necessarily) in PF2e anymore, so I feel vancian should be tweaked or removed in a future edition to streamline it a bit.
I never understand this attitude. You don't like playing caster anyway, so removing vancian casting would make no difference to you. Do you feel that those who do like it need to be punished?
exequiel759 wrote:
That or offer an alternative for those that don't like vancian like I do.
They already do offer alternatives - you mentioned the Kineticist yourself. There are also non-vancian casters like the sorcerer and oracle, plus normally-vancian classes coverted via the Flexible Spellcaster archetype.
Pf2 is a system where a monster with +10 to its rock throw attack entry gets published, but never gets any form of official correction. Not even an acknowledgment of error. That is not a "red flag," that is simply proof positive that Paizo sell an incomplete and erroneous product.
I am not seeing why "a monster with +10 to its rock throw attack entry" is a problem on its face. It could be a problem if the bonus should be more like +2 or +20, based on Level, but it is far from self-evident. What monster, and what should the bonus be?
More generally, I think you are severely underestimating how difficult quality assurance is. The presence of mistakes does not indicate that they do not have people and systems trying to avoid them - such people and systems will never be perfect.
That said, they really should publish errata in a more timely manner. I agree with you on that.
1) But then how does the GM continue to provide treasure that interests the players?
Maybe by items that have interesting effects?
Ajaxius wrote:
2) What does the higher-level item even do in cases where you might not care about the item bonus it grants to a skill, or if the spell it mimics doesn't have a functional Heightened effect?
I have no idea what you are trying to say here: Items which grant bonuses to skills are not going to have Saves, surely?
Ajaxius wrote:
You've reintroduced a problem that was previously solved by static DC's
Impossible, since no problems are solved by static DCs.
Ajaxius wrote:
glass wrote:
Where are they getting the extra actions to activate "a bunch" of lower-level items?
I mean, that's the point. The lower-level items need to have some opportunity cost so that someone is disincentivized from using the lower-level item version.
It's my point, which is in opposition to yours. Even if a lower level item which has a relevant DC, its affects on any given save result is still commensurate with its lower level. But it still costs the same actions.
Where are they getting the extra actions to activate "a bunch" of lower-level items?
Combination of prebuffs, no/free action items, action compression items, and sometimes just actually spending your limited actions.
Spoiler:
No/free action items like the collar of the shifting spider just give you something always active or close enough to it. The collar is a free action at the start of every fight. So you can sink a good chunk of gold into that and some mutagens to use (typically moderate are best bang for buck, but greater juggernaught mutagens are great and that's certainty a gold sink). Echo receptors are another good example, you don't need to activate them or anything. You just get the precise sense.
Action compression items are abilities that just do something you wanted to do as an action better. Spring heels are the best example here, instead of striding once as an action now you can stride twice. Get to an enemy that's further away for less actions. Spider chair is also an example here.
"just using your limited actions" is stuff like dust of disappearance and quickness potions. These do just eat your actions, it's just that their effects are good enough to be worth it (and quickness potion kinda gives them back). You can easily sink like 10k gold into just dust of disappearance and let me tell you that is money well spent. Trudd's strength daggers are another example.
Prebuffs are self explanatory, you did use actions on it just at a prior time when it didn't cost much of anything. There are a bunch of different wand buffs, mostly split into 8 hour/day buffs and 10 minute buffs. 8 hour or day buffs you generally want the whole day (which can take 2-3 wands depending on how much you care on having it during the rare night ambush), these are things like mind blank (which really boosts your dust of disappearance), longstrider, and darkvision.
10 minute buffs you want to buy enough of that you can use them at the drop of a hat. If you think that there's even a 5% chance of combat or important skill roll in the next 10 minutes, you pick up your heroism wand and use it. For this purpose you have like 10 of the damn things and additional backup scrolls to boot. Never be moving around in a dungeon without your heroism. Some other examples include second rank invis (buys you time to use your dust of disappearance if you lose initiative) and clairvoyance.
There will of course be times where you do just get ambushed, and your 10 minute buffs aren't active, and for those times you can go harder on spell slot usage and other resources to compensate. Or just use your spring heels to run away and come back buffed.
With all these strategies combined you can comfortably spend your treasure by level without ever picking up a fixed DC item for it's fixed DC effect, and get great value for each and every GP you spend.
I am pretty sure none of those examples even have save DCs, so would be completely unaffected by the OP's proposal.
1) In such a theoretical system, you get this issue where you can't really give players meaningfully new items. They'll just stick with their existing items, and sell the new items.
If making the DC non-terrible means that players stick with older items, then that just shows that they were not excited by the new items' effects. So it is a good thing that they were not forced to change to them! EDIT: IOW, they will be selling them either way, even if only to buy upgraded versions of the items they already have.
Ajaxius wrote:
2) The wealth disparity between high- and low-level characters means that high-level characters are incentivized to buy a bunch of lower-level magic items that have very useful activated abilities.
Where are they getting the extra actions to activate "a bunch" of lower-level items?
Presumably someone thinks this is actually a good idea. Since it's definitely not better for small conventions, process of elimination means there must be a benefit at large ones, right?
The benefits are pretty obvious: The scenarios are easier to write because there is less/no need for multiple statblocks fr the same encounter (and probably a little easier to read for the same reason). And there will never be a situation where a level 1 character gets stuck with a bunch of level 4s and cannot really contribute much.
It's just that that last situation is being traded for the table not firing at all.
The Raven Black wrote:
Hence my "let's wait and see" stance.
Your stance has not been "wait & see". You have been actively defending the decision to the point of making up reasons it will be okay that directly contradict the announcement. And here's the thing: A couple of months of no tables firing could easily kill off a small lodge - by the time they can say "I told you so" it will be much too late.
If the PFS leadership has further information that will cast this announcement in a different light, then by all means they can provide it. Unless and until they do, I am going to assume that they meant exactly what they said. Unless we kick up enough of a fuss that they change direction, what they have announced is what is going to happen, and a lot of lodges will be gone.
I am not sure it is possible to kick up enough fuss to make the PFS leadership take note (they didn't re clerics of gorum, or oracles), but assuming everything is going to be fine based on nothing is not doing anyone (including the PFS leadership) any favours.
Let's have a little dream and imagine there is a level 7-8 scenario with additional rules to include a level 9 PC.
Why are we dreaming about a 3-level band when they have explicitly announced that it will be a 2-level band.
The Raven Black wrote:
Something I do not understand : why do people think the 2-levels band will be better for big conventions than the current system ?
I don't think anyone thinks it will be better for big conventions; only that it will not be worse, or at least not as much worse as it will be for smaller cons and game days.
I am not currently running any PF1 campaigns, and the one I thought be starting soon (Iron Gods) got pushed back a bit. But I will still talk about the two (soon to be three) PF1 campaigns I am playing in:
On Sunday night, we wrapped up chapter 8 of Savage Tide rather abruptly: In the final "dungeon" we managed to go straight to the one encounter that could give us the info we needed, gained said info, and left. We had been alternating Savage Tide with my PoA game, but we finished that, so another player is stepping up and running Strange Aeons starting this coming Sunday.
On Thursdays, we are continuing with Curse of the Crimson Throne, exploring Scarwall. Without getting spoilery, that's an interesting place!
There are three stats for an item that are based on level: effect DC, effect power (damage dealt, healing given, etc), and cost.
You can't change just one of them and then still claim that the item is balanced.
At best, that line of reasoning only works if the items in question are currently balanced. Since they fairly clearly are not (fixed-DC items are and always* have been vendor trash), it does not apply.
I wanted to argue that it works, but based on the arguments in the thread I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it does not by RAW.
It will still work IMC, though!
@Trip.H, Reactions can certainly preempt the thing that triggered them (otherwise a whole bunch of stuff would break), but that is not the problem here. The problem is when it triggers you are unconscious, so you cannot take Reactions (or cast spells).
Re Decimals: I can see how it could be confusing if you don't think of light bulk as 0.1, and as far as I can tell the rules never actually refer to it as a decimal. But if you are treating it as a decimal already (as Tridus explicitly was), then ISTM "round down and then compare" is the most natural thing in the world!
Re Large & Tiny Creatures: If I ever read that part of the rules, I don't remember it now, but as I said it has never come up IMC. TBF it is kinda wonky.
Yeah, it's getting a Rulebook, a Lost Omens book, two Adventure Paths (One 1-10 level, another 11-20), a novel, and some PF Society stuff (assuming no extra stuff which hasn't already been announced taking place during the event, which is I guess possible); plus the Shining Kingdoms book obviously having been released to help set up for the event. Quite a fair sized thing.
A novel? I didn't think Paizo did those anymore. Did I get the wrong end of the stick?
Bulk takes the problem of "you have add up a bunch of numbers and the total can get to 3 digits" and replaces it with "you have to add up a bunch of numbers except the decimals don't work like you expect, the numbers are extremely arbitrary and hard to estimate on the fly, and the whole system becomes extremely confusing once large or tiny PCs are involved."
Rhetorical question: How do decimals not "work like you expect"? They round down, just like everything other time you end up with decimals in Pathfinder.
Non-rhetorical question: How does it get confusing with large and tiny creatures? (I have never had any large or tiny PCs in my games).
This is definitely a case where reading the rules is important, as others mention in the thread already. Because it's a Unique DC to recognize whats unique about that person, but not their common ancestry/etc. People who just use the unique DC verbatim wind up in silly situations where you can't recognize an Orc because that Orc has a name.
While it is definitely a good idea to write it down, hopefully most of us would realise that the DC to identify an orc as an orc would not go up by 10 just because one has a specific named stat block (after all, the orcs using generic statblocks have names too in-universe, even if they are not written down anywhere).
AoN is great as a reference, but I think the books work better for seeing the overall structure of the rules. With AoN you can dive right to the part you're looking for, but you might miss the stuff a little further around it that you should also know exists.
I would phrase it as AoN is great for content, but not for rules structure.
Captain Morgan wrote:
AoN is generally great, yes, but it has created this false understanding of how knowledgeable DCs (and even relevant skills) work. As Hammerjack pointed out at the beginning.
I do not understand - in what way?
Mathmuse wrote:
The weakness in the Archives of Nethys DCs for identifying creatures is that they are based solely on level with no consideration for the creature being familiar, common, uncommon, or never before seen
Wait, really? They don't include the Rarity in the AoN DCs? That's really unhelpful if true. EDIT: It does not appear to be true, or at least not universally so (I have only checked one example): The Tarrasque correctly gives the DC for a Unique level 25 of 60 (it would be 50 without the +10 Rarity modifier).
But the thing is, when someone tells you they're reading and having internal discussions about it, you still don't believe them.
Has anyone said that? If so, please link it so I can decide how much I actually believe it. If not, why bring it up?
???
It's the seventh post above yours (by James Jacobs)...
Our favourite dinosaur is of course great. But the post you refer to says nothing about PFS, which is not surprising because AFAIK he is not part of the PFS team. Which makes the reference to it rather unsatisfying, when it comes in response to my saying this:
glass wrote:
Nobody is asking for a "debate" - only that PFS team acknowledge that the changes are unpopular (and preferably reverse them).
EDIT: I get that we are on Paizo's own forums, and there are some passionate fans of the company here. But trying to shut down criticism does not help Paizo - if anything, it hurts them.
yes, I could have phrased it better to avoid your pedantic reading on the onset. It's making a valid point on "how do you interpret this paragraph" and that there are two ways to go given the text.
First, why are you quoting me as saying "false premise" when the actual words I used were the much less inflammatory "faulty premise". Secondly, that it is not an AnO is not my being "pedantic" - it is fundamental to the question at hand. At the very least, you are begging the question by characterising it as such.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
All the text is important, you cannot ignore any of it.
Exactly. Your reading requires ignoring a bunch of text; mine does not.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Second if you read the full text of the deed, I posted above you will see that it does not mention any type of action. Therefore, it does not override the action type.
And Azathoth called me "pedantic"! Yes, strictly speaking Attacks of Opportunity are not "Actions" so you are technically almost correct (which, contrary the meme, is not the best kind of correct). Nonetheless, it is clearly stated in the text you just re-quoted that the Parry part of OP&R costs an AoO not a Standard Action.
(Only almost, because the Parry part requires an Immediate Action.)
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Making a melee (or ranged) attack is in fact listed as a standard action in the book.
The Attack Action is a Standard Action, but I never said it wasn't. There are umpteen ways to make a melee or ranged attack that are not the Attack Action (some of which are other Standard Actions, but many are not). This is surely not news to you?
Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity;
You bolded the wrong part: The key part is "makes and attack roll" - IOW, nothing else about it is "as if making an attack of opportunity" (except the action cost, from the previous sentence).
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
While Opportune Parry and Riposte is not an AoO it requires the swashbuckler to expend a use of an AoO. There is no question that if the swashbuckler has already taken all his AoO for that round that he can no longer use Opportune Parry and Riposte.
You are correct, there is no question over that, so why are you bringing it up?
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
That makes it clear that to use the deed the swashbuckler needs to have an AoO to use to parry. If you do not threaten a square, do you have an AoO available to expend?
Yes, of course you do. Everyone gets one (people with Combat Reflexes potentially get more), and you obviously have not expended it.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
So, if in your game using Opportune Parry and Riposte is a standard action that basically prevents the swashbuckler from attacking that round, I can accept that. But that is no how I do it in games I run.
Firstly, there is no general rule that non-AoO attack rolls mean Standard Actions - there all kinds of different attacks with attack rolls, with action costs everywhere from Free to Full Round (if not beyond). Secondly, even if there were, OP&R explicitly spells out its action costs so it would be overriden.
Azothath wrote:
Does the Ally with Parry vs a Foe's attack treat the AoO as
The question is based on a faulty premise, as there is no AoO happening to be treated as anything.
Re the original question: Opportune Parry & Riposte (hereafter OP&R) interacts with Attacks of Opportunity in two ways: It uses up an AoO, and the attack roll is made as if you were making an AoO, but it is not itself an AoO (if it were, there would be no need to specify that was like one in two specific ways).
As such, it does not inherit any of the qualities or requirements of an AoO other than those relating to the Attack Roll (and needing an AoO available in the first place, of course). There is no need to threaten anyone, because although you are making an attack you are not making it against anything in particular - it is not compared with anything's AC.
TLDR: The only requirement for a weapon to do the Parry part of OP&R is that you can make an attack roll with it. You can make an attack roll with a whip, so it is fine (if suboptimal).
Re Avenger Finesse: It is, as noted above, not required to Parry with a whip. If threatening were necessary, Avenger Finesse would not help - it lets a whip count as one handed & piercing; it does not let it count as threatening.
Re Parrying with a bow: Yes, of course you can. As noted above, the only requirement is that it is a weapon you can make an attack roll with.
However, barring some extra flange, you cannot Riposte with a bow (except as an improvised weapon). Unlike the Parry, the Riposte is against a creature, and that creature needs to be within reach. Ranged weapons do not have reach, they have range.
Re taking an AoO in the middle of another attack: It's fine IMNSO. Or rather, given that everything that happens in combat is highly abstracted for playability, especially when it comes to timing, "in the middle of a swing" is not something that is really defined.
Unless you think that everyone actually stands motionless waiting for everyone else to take their turns one at a time?
Yes, carrying the shard gets you the bonus from its Ioun stone, in addition to the stone'sshard's actual powers. At least, that is how my GM played it, and it seems like a much better plan even if that is not strictly what it says.
Arrgh. Why do I only ever spot typos after the edit window has closed?
Gaelstromdk wrote:
Did you guys choose for the second shard to allow Haste to be cast on multiple people or just the holder? I saw some discussions about that as well.
Multiple people. Or at least, I do not remember any restrictions, and I do not see why there would be any.
I just looked it up on AoN, and it just says the bearer can cast haste as an SLA. It does not mention any restrictions on targeting, so there aren't any (beyond what is in the spell itself, so up to 25 targets within range, no two of which may be more than 30 ft apart).
One other piece of advice: Try to make the players and the PCs feel like they want and need to assemble the Sihedron. When we played it, several of the players felt like assembling the thing would cause bad things to happen, but we had to do it or the AP would stall - that is obviously not ideal. Especially as it seemed like they were right.
Much better to give the impression that Xin is going to rise either way, and we need the artifact to have a chance against him.
I am not sure how much of that is on the AP as written, and how much is on our GM for that campaign (he is a good GM, but nobody is perfect). But I thought it was worth mentioning.
I have only played this, not run it, so take what I say with a pinch of salt. But AIUI:
Yes, carrying the shard gets you the bonus from its Ioun stone, in addition to the stone's actual powers. At least, that is how my GM played it, and it seems like a much better plan even if that is not strictly what it says.
So if that was the only reason for leaving the shard behind, there is no reason to. If there were other reasons, I don't think it would work. The curses can be quite nasty, so you are going to need to insert the Ioun stone to safely get them back to Heidmarch Manor. And as far as I know, it is not easy to remove the Ioun stones once they are inserted, so it would not be practicable to leave the shard behind and keep the stone. Even if leaving valuable-but-cursed major artifacts lying around was a good idea.
I do agree that some of the shard bonuses are pretty underwhelming (although some are nice), although TBF these are not the best Ioun stones either: IIRC, they are not the stackable type, so past the lowest levels they are only useful on nice-to-have-but-not-essential stats - the really important ones will have an equal or better belt or headband.
Some of us already pointed out it should help with internal consistency
People have claimed that, but I am not sure I buy it. How should it help?
ISTM, consistency or lack thereof in APs has more to do with how they are written and edited than how they are published.
Because spreading them out over 6 or 3 months means that the individual chapters are all in various stages of development at any given time. With publishing as a single volume, all individual parts will need to be in roughly the same stage of development so that the lead person can edit the whole thing at once instead of in pieces spread out over time.
-Skeld
Yes, but publishing them over 3 or 6 months does not force them to spread the writing over 3 or 6 months. They could theoretically write it in exactly the same way they will be going forward, and then just hold onto the later parts for longer.
Although admittedly, it is psychologically easier to get something done in a certain time frame if you have a genuine hard deadline. Plus there is the longer period between paying the writer and selling the product, which I had not considered before. So, fair enough.
Not a Reflex save. That's the issue. A Reflex save represents an effort to avoid something, in whole or in part, but in this case avoidance has been adjudicated by way of the melee attack allowed by Spellstrike. I wouldn't be raising this topic for a Fortitude save or Will save because both those represent an effort to resist something--not dodging an explosion or rolling with an impact.
The Reflex Save/TAC dichotomy is an issue, but it is an issue from he core rules - the case considered in the OP is just a very minor symptom.
Consider for example, a Mythic Red Wyrm: You can ask me to think that despite its vast bulk, its incredible senses, millennium of experience, and Mythic nature mean that allow it to dodge like a much smaller creature, and therefore its Reflex bonus is a respectable +13. You can ask me to think that that those advantages cannot make up for its vast bulk, and therefore its touch AC is a pretty awful 4. But PF1 wants us to think both of those things simultaneously. If you want to play PF1 (and I do), best not to worry about it.
TLDR: I love PF1, but Touch AC and Reflex Saves being a mess extends beyond this one item.
I still think cantrips should do more damage. Instead of 1d3 to 1d6, it would be 1d6 to 1d10. Also wish all spells(and SP/SU abilities) that do HP damage or heal HP damage would get the casting stat mod added to damage done/healed.
I get wanting that, but you also have to understand that the cantrips had already been infinitely buffed, as they used to have the same kinds of limit per day as all other spells.
Regardless of whether they were even worse in 3.5, PF1 attack cantrips are still a terrible use of a standard action at all but the lowest levels. And yet they still take up character sheet space and mental bandwidth.
Been on a bit of a break over the past couple of weeks due to holidays and other factors, but we're back to Curse of the Crimson Throne tomorrow, and hopefully Savage Tide on Sunday.
Oh there’s no question about RAI since all the summoners summon spells specifically says in the spell description “functions as summon monster but summons [insert creature here] instead”.
There is always a question about RAI! Most likely IMNSHO, whoever wrote the spells in question never considered the interaction with Speedy Summons or vice versa, so RAI does not exist.
Diego Rossi wrote:
BTW, Summon Nature's Ally works like summon monster (even if it doesn't contain text saying that), but the ability doesn't even consider that chain of spells.
This seems like a non-sequitur, given that the reason that the spells in question do have "text saying that".
Anyway, the question hinges on whether the ability to be affected by outside abilities is part of the spells' functionality, or separate from it. In my opinion, either position is reasonable. However, when you are trying to determine whether you have permission by RAW, you have to go less permissive interpretation IMO.
So I broadly agree with your conclusions, if not exact the logic behind them.
That said, I would probably allow it in those specific cases (while acknowledging that it is not RAW, and so reserving the right to not do so in other similar cases if needs be).
Taunt doesn’t have the emotion or mental trait, so it’s not really a taunt at all. You’re not making the mindless zombie mad at you.
I just wish we had called it something else like "mark" instead. As in "you have decided to pay specific attention to that enemy." I hate, hate, hate the idea of "you can draw enemy aggro with an ability that controls them" in a game like this.
Mark would have been a better name, but I understand why they kept clear of that - given the Guardian already sounds very much like the 4e Fighter, giving its signature ability a name associated with 4e would have been something they wanted to avoid (both for legal reasons, and because a lot of PF fans hated 4e).
You don't have to be in the bounded caster "camp" to understand or appreciate that clearly others find value in it and can accurately self identify that they would enjoy it more than the current available options.
Great post! I don't have a strong opinion on this specific case (partly because I don't know what "bounded caster"* means). But I am strongly of the opinion that people get to want what they want, and other people do not get to tell them they are wrong to want it (within reason of course - we are talking about elfgame content not human-rights violations).
And yet, people on the Internet will tell other people that they should not want what they want all the time. Less often in real life, but still too often IMNSHO. Wrongbadfun must be policed!
(* Although I am now wondering if it is another term for "wave caster")
2) "The summoned creatures remain until the sun next rises or sets, and no new creatures can be summoned from the bottle until the initial summoned creatures’ destruction or return."
The bottles can summon a new creature:
a) after the sun sets and the previously summoned creature returns;
b) after the sun rises and the previously summoned creature returns;
c) after the previously summoned creature is destroyed.
Presumably also if the summoning is dispelled (by the bottle user or someone else).
Also maybe if it is dismissed, although it is not clear to me if summon monster's normal dismissibility is overridden or not.
I don't want to massively derail here, but could you all expand just a little on the problems of D&D 5.5? What do you mean by "lowest common denominator"? Is 5.5 the same as the rather poorly named D&D One I've been hearing about?
Without getting into the edition warring: Yes, "5.5" and "D&D One" both refer to the same (current) edition of D&D, also known as "5.24" (with the original 5e edition being retroactively dubbed 5.14).
"D&D One" was WotC's code name used during development, and the other two names are community applied. AIUI the finished version is officially just 5e, as WotC are trying to pretend it is not a new edition (it totally is, of course).
I cannot speak in detail about 5.5 because it is the first edition since I started in the late 80s where I have not even bought the PHB (partly because I do not like what D&D has become, and partly because I do not like what WotC/Hasbro have become). But my impressions is that compared with 5.0, it contains a huge volume of small changes with really fixing anything significant.
As BR says, heavy armour could account for the 20 ft normal speed. I am not sure where the 10 ft Fly speed come from though, so even if they are wearing heavy armour that part could still be a typo.
so, mine has multiple tabs before you get to the actual character
Legal
What is this Thing
FAQ
Customization
Getting Started Etc.
Looks like it was written around 2009-2010
Seems like the right era, but mine did not have any of those extra tabs (although I suppose it is possible someone else stripped them out before it got to me).
If it's the same spreadsheet I used early on, then it was written when pathfinder was still mostly 3.5
I wonder if it is actually the same one.
How can I describe it? It uses a lot of very tiny cells and merges them a lot, which makes it kinda hard to edit (which has not stopped me hacking it a fair amount over the years). The font is generally Goudy Old Style, except for the character's name which is Freestyle Script. Labels like "BAB" are white text on black (I would comment on the other colours, but I think I have changed some of them over the years).
A friend emailed it to me, sufficiently long enough ago that I have forgotten exactly how long. Possibly during the playtest era. I don't know where they got it from.
Now I am wondering: Can anyone remember if they Alpha or Beta of PF1 still doubled the ACP for Swim?
Thanks folks. I've been doing that wrong for nearly sixteen years. Although TBF I do not think I have ever had a heavily armoured character need to make a swim check, so it hasn't made that much difference.
In my defence, part of the reason I thought that was that the Excel character sheet I have been using doubles the ACP, so whoever created that sheet made the mistake first.
If you weren't considering Tyrant's Grasp, definitely do that one. Just make sure you play Carrion Crown first.
I liked the idea of Tyrant's Grasp when I first heard about it, but then I heard some things that put me off. Nothing concrete (since I try to avoid spoilers), but the impression that I got by nerd-cultural osmosis that it has a downer ending: More like a WFRP adventure than what I would normally expect from Pathfinder.
Without going into details, is that impression broadly correct? And if so, how easy is it to tweak it to be less Warhammer-ish?
(There is also the factor that there are already 8.5 APs still to play mentioned in my post, which could easily keep me going for the next two decades.)
Arkat wrote:
If you do play Wrath of the Righteous, take your time with it and if you do use the Mythic Rules, definitely consider using Mythic Solutions to tone down the Mythic stuff a bit.
Yeah, if I do ever end up doing WotR, I would definitely look at tweaking the mythic rules. Whether I would go with exactly Legendary's tweaks or not I would decide nearer the time.
But if I had to pick one reason, I would have to go with the all the PF1 APs I have not played or run yet.
To expand a little, we are currently playing Curse of the Crimson Throne and Savaged Tide*, and have Strange Aeons and Return of the Runelords lined up to go after (technically we started the latter a while back, but we decided we had too many things on the go and parked it until after CotCT). We have already completed Age of Worms*, Rise of the Runelords, Shattered Star, and the original unnamed 3.0 Adventure Path (sometimes called the "Sunless Citadel" AP).
Beyond that, there are a bunch of PF1 APs that I would love to play/run/both one day: Carrion Crown, Reign of Winter, Wrath of the Righteous, Mummy's Mask, Iron Gods, and Ruins of Azlant.
While some of the PF2 APs look fun (including Abomination Vaults, which I am running currently, and Quest for the Frozen Flame and Stolen Fate which I picked up in the recent Humble Bundle), none of them grab me in the same way the best of PF1 do. With the possible exception of Strength of Thousands. EDIT: Part of it might be that I like full-length APs, and Paizo pretty much abandoned them at about the time they might otherwise have been hitting their stride. Even the upcoming fourth Runelords AP is apparently going to be half length.
(* 3.5 AP but played in PF1, converting on the fly. After the first chapter, in the case of AoW.)
Although I do play and run other systems (including PF2), there are a number of reasons why PF1 remains my primary system: It is partly historical accident and inertia, partly that I now know the system really well, and partly that I have a lot of material for it (including all my 3.x stuff with minimal tweaking, and a decent amount of homebrew).
But if I had to pick one reason, I would have to go with the all the PF1 APs I have not played or run yet.
Last month we wrapped up the Path of Ashardalon (the original 3.0 Adventure Path, although converted to PF1, mostly on the fly).
We started it at the end of March 2022, so it has been taken just over three years. We were interleaving it with Savage Tide, although we focused on PoA a bit more towards the end to get it done. We still have a fair way to go with Savage Tide: We have rotated back to and will be focusing on it for a bit.
We will also be rotating back to CotCT (from the out-of-scope AbV) soon in my other session, so get to take a break from GMing and play for a bit!
I agree with those who are saying that RAW does not permit the GM to change the DCs on a whim. It allows them to increase the DC if and only if they genuinely believe that a particular use of aid is harder than typical - no other reasons. Of course, as a practical matter they can use that to justify changing it for other reasons if they are prepared to lie but that does not make such changes RAW.
With regard to the OP's problem - one detail that leapt out at me that I don't think anyone else has mentioned: This has mostly been against mindless undead.
I wonder if, in the absence of a more detailed description, the GM is interpreting this as some kind of Feint and is therefore giving the Aid the Mental Trait. Which mindless undead are immune to.
Of course, even if that is the reason the GM should have given some indication beyond "you fail".
LTTP, there doesn't seem to be a straight-forward concrete answer so far:
A great wyrm solar dragon normally casts as a 19th-level sorcerer, but has no actual sorcerer levels. If they take one actual sorcerer level, they will cast as a 20th-level sorcerer but will have the other features of a 1st-level sorcerer (including +2 Will, an extra HD, and the associated hit points and skill ranks).
