Search Posts
I much prefer the "use your Class DC" approach. This would make Kineticists and Commanders disproportionately better at using items than others for no logical sense as nothing in their kit suggests improved magic item use.
Dueling Acumen is a skill feat so there is no issue with non-free archetype characters as all characters get a skill feat at 2nd.
Where do they answer rules questions? The only place seems to be on random podcasts or streams or in the errata passes. Which means there isn't a way to directly ask them. I'm not sure why they'd send you here for an official answer: we can give you our best guesses, but we can't make a Paizo statement appear. If i could, I have a list of things I'd like answered...
Can you choose to not apply a Hightened Effect? "Read the heightened entry only for the spell rank you're using or preparing" Player Core pg. 297. The Rank it's cast at sets the heightened effect. Can you choose to use a lower the maximum Rank version of a Cantrip or Focus Spell? "Focus spells are automatically heightened to half your level rounded up, just like cantrips are" Player Core pg. 298. Both are always at max Rank. Can you choose not to apply a Fundamental Rune, Weapon Property rune or flat bonus to a Specific Strike? Activated runes can be turned on and off. Fundamental Rune, for instance, have no Activation so they are always on. It's kind of like asking if you can turn Silver or Cold Iron off your sword off.
I mostly dislike that implementation, let me list some reasons: I don't see how the ritual requires an undo cognitive load or loss of agency because it requires both DM buy in [it's a RARE ritual so the Dm HAS to allow it in] and player buy in [by hunting down and using the ritual]. At worst, if a player feels bad after using it, then they don't use it again. As far as the DM, they just have to pick what they'd have picked if they were the PC and since the DM presumably knows or has access to the PC's spell list and should have a good idea what they can do: they'd just have to pick useful spells, not check each and very spell for the perfect loadout.
* Magical items stop functioning. I'd make a footnote that Artifacts are a likely exception to this: if their magic stopped working, they could be destroyed by means other than their specific listed method.
Again, there is no such thing as flavor text. Oh, flavor text is real. Are you REALLY going to tell me that when Needle In The God's Eyes says "With sinews of bronze and thews of iron, you leap to the heavens, piercing the arrogant eyes of the gods", the player LITERALLY leaps into the plane Heaven and stabs a random god? Or that you LITERALLY have sinews of bronze and muscles of iron? It's either that, or admit it's flavor text. And once it's made abundantly clear that some text is just flowery descriptors, you can't assume every single sentence had RAW meaning or impacts the rules. And just to show it's not a one off thing, you can look at One-millimeter Punch: "Your punches have incredible force and control." If we take the stance that it's not flavor text, it would restrict your attack to a punch instead of the actual requirement of "an unarmed attack". In a similar way, Powder Punch Stance says "You infuse your handwraps with black powder" but it actually works with "an unarmed attack, knuckle duster, or black powder knuckle duster" meaning you can kick or headbutt someone without having handwraps or gunpower... heck, it even works if you're in a form that doesn't have limbs but had an unarmed attack like a snake.
Look at Companion Items once [GM Core pg. 272]: "You might want to acquire items that benefit a creature that assists you, such as an animal companion, familiar, or bonded animal. These items have the companion trait, meaning they function only for animal companions, familiars, and similar creatures. Normally, these are the only items a companion can use. Other items can qualify at the GM's discretion, but a companion can never Activate an Item." So, unless an item had the Companion trait, a companion literally can't use it unless your DM expands the list of items they can use past the 19 that actually have the trait.
There is also the intersection of the Arcane list and individual classes to think about. Between bloodlines, deities, mysteries, and/or other such things, even those 17 unique spells aren't unique to arcane classes, in paticular the Wizard; an Imperial Sorcerer can pick up Divine Decree [Divine unique] or unfathomable song [Occult unique] or Tree of Seasons [Primal unique] while a Phoenix sorcerer gets Contingency and Disintegrate added to their Primal list. This leaves the class that's JUST the Arcane spell guy [Wizard] out in the cold without a way to poach other lists spells while seeing their own Lists unique spells usable by other Lists users. It'd be nice to have a solid set of actual unique spells in each List.
For myself, Arcane would feel better if it had a few good spells per spell rank that are unique to the list. It has Contingency and Power Words [all 7+ power words are uncommon] and... nothing else jumps to mind. It'd be nice have some lower rank common spells that are just Arcane.
The Familiar Master flavor description says "the clever monkey that picks the lock of the thief's cell", but that monkey can't actually use thievery to pick locks even with the Skilled ability any longer. Well, considering the rules continue to say that Companion Items are the "only items a companion can use", there is an issue even if they regain trained skill use. The familiar/minion rules have always been a bit of a mess; we still have no guidance on out of combat use after all this time for instance.
What confuses me about people getting worked up about this is that there is no real exploit here to get worked up about. With leaping and feats to boost that, the distance moved by a tumble through that is essentially a stride isn’t really that big of a deal, and it still provokes the same as a stride. The ability to trigger 2 sustains off of one action is a product of the step action, not the tumble through.I mean, making leaping work that way requires a non-trivial investment of skill feats and skill proficiency upgrades. It requires more investment but offers better rewards, like avoiding difficult terrain, traps or obstacles. So the cost it's not really a mitigating factor IMO, as even using Tumble through as a stride it's well worth also having leaping. You can also sidestep the need for feats/skills with a reliable way of getting a Jump spell [3rd].
Well, as pointed out by NorrKnekten it's not backflips and such. A merfolk/Sacred Nagaji/wheelchair users with no legs has NO penalty to Tumble Through because it doesn't require backflips or any kind of tumbling. The fairness works both ways and such characters shouldn't be penalized for lack of legs anymore than a low dex character should have extra penalties piled on as they already are less likely to bypass actual foes. Secondly, a 'no dex' of 10 is average. I think the average adventurer could do a cartwheel as I can do one and I'm not particularly athletic so making a check every move just because you're ready to dodge around any potential foes seems off to me. I guess I just imagined it would have been a good action to place rolling under a beam or parkoring around obstacles that would otherwise slow you down in addition to tumbling through an enemy space or backfliping over an ooze. Its just not that. If it was actual tumbling, I'd agree. However, that's more like negating difficult terrain abilities
Well if a player wanted to move through the string slimes space they really dont need to be fancy to do it with its dc. If they insist on backfliping over the slime then the 15 sounds reasonable. That's the thing though: it's ALWAYS the same amount of fancy. It's the ability to move through a potentually occupied space, not a competitive gymnastics meet that requires triple backflips. The person I posted to is making it significantly more difficult and punishing than moving through some actual enemies and, IMO, that doesn't sound right. Now if the character wanted to make like a Performance check, sure [like how a swashbuckler HAS to make a roll for panache]. But in an empty room, they have worse penalties than failing to bypass the monster as you don't trip yourself and injure yourself to boot. Even something as 'slow' as the String Slime HAS to be more difficult to bypass than an empty space, so I'd expect at least the same penalties. Basically, I can't see any excuse where this sounds ok to me, either from a 'makes sense' point of view or a fairness one.
IMO, it doesn't seem odd that even a low dex and unskilled person might want to slip past an opponent, especially a low Reflex DC one like a String Slime with a DC of 0. Seems just plain mean to impose the crit success results of a Trip for daring to use the maneuver in a way you don't like.You are moving the goalposts here. If i try to backflip through the room, i am more likely to break my neck then to do anything else. Setting a custom DC for something a player wants to do is pretty standard i think, and as i said, if it does not give any mechanical advantage you can treat it as purely fluff. I'm not really moving anything: if you force a check or fall prone and take damage with nothing in the room then it would have to be harder when they actually want to bypass a creature. You're enforcing a trip attack because someone wanted to tumble through vs a DC that can be 15 harder than using it on an actual creature. I'll stick with saying that sounds a bit mean and it not making a whole lot of sense. Your way vs an empty room: DC15 or prone and 1d6 dam
Yep, seems mean.
In any case, i would not call this "tumble through" But the ONLY mention of tumbling is in the name and we can see from other things in the game, like Elemental Fist and Flying Kick, that names don't restrict the actual rules. Sure, you CAN tumble but you could also dodge and weave, predict the creatures movements or any other descriptive method a player wishes. Secondly, we're talking about an action that's simple enough that it's untrained Acrobatics check like Balance, Escape, Arrest a Fall and Grab an Edge. If you're going to add extra hurtles to one, are you going to add them to the others too? IMO, it doesn't seem odd that even a low dex and unskilled person might want to slip past an opponent, especially a low Reflex DC one like a String Slime with a DC of 0. Seems just plain mean to impose the crit success results of a Trip for daring to use the maneuver in a way you don't like.
The fundamental problem that those who see it as cheesy seem to have with the interaction seems to be the name of the ability. Like, if it was called 'Fancy Stride' instead of 'Tumble Through', with otherwise the exact same rules text, it seems like those criticisms vanish (at least the ones that have been given). That's actually a pretty important lesson for ability design – the name alone can create strong associations and having a well-defined rules body isn't enough if it's not fully congruent with the mental image derived from the title.Didn't we just have a thread on this? Yes, there is narrative flavor in the rules text. No, you can't just ignore the narrative flavor - it is there to guide you in properly interpreting the rule text. Yep, which is why we know that you must use a fist attack with Elemental Fist and a kick attack with Flying Kick... Or we can agree that sometimes flavor text and evocative names are just that; text JUST there to make it more interesting.
the original core rulebook had 4 printings with errata added each time. Waiting for the second printing isn't a guarantee you'll have a book with all the errata in [or even the majority of errata it will eventually have in total]. The only way to make sure you'll be able to have something without worrying about errata is to get a PDF as that allows you to download the most current version with errata added. And as a side note, even with the PDF, there are some things in the errata that will not show up in the books/PDFs. For instance, there is a core rulebook printing 4 clarifications that acts as an actual FAQ and isn't printed in the PDF/books. So good luck with that allergy.
Which makes it a textbook case of Specific Overrides General.This is pretty much contradicted by the mature Animal Companion text EDIT: lol I typed out an almost identical post and I noticed yours.
I don't think it's as much ignore it as never connecting the dots between multiple places in the rules: it's not like people are ignoring part of a singular whole and completely written out in one place rule. If you do a search for 'can't act' on Nethys, the sections you mention don't show up in the first hundred entries.
I saw a lot of FAQs on the link, no errata. I'll look again. they are now one in the same. The FAQ has far more errata than FAQ to be honest.
(...) For instance, when you see text that says prey, is it related to Hunt Prey or not? You have to make a judgment call and use context clues since prey isn't capitalized. If flavor was clearly distinguishable from rule text, it'd be easier for everyone involved on what's meant to be a mechanical effect and what's meant to be evocative as a possible outcome of the effect. Not much of a nitpick since I'm of the opinion such things SHOULD be capitalized to make a clear differentiation of Mechanical and casual text if they aren't otherwise clearly identifiable. To be clear on what I meant, I meant the distinction as a negative. I get differentiating them, since they are different, but I do not think that differentiating them needs to come hand in hand with narrative text being belittled as compared to rules text since I still think they're two parts of an important whole. My issue with the term "flavor text" is the negative connotation, not the differentiation. Similar to Claxon, I'm giving it no positive or negative spin. I've been calling it fluff since the old red d&d box days and it wasn't meant to belittle it anymore than crunch was to elevate the mechanical. Some people want to take offence without actually taking the context on the entire comment and shifting the word seems pointless if whatever new term would have the same meaning. What I find silly is saying one part of the whole is less needed than any other. On this, I'll have to disagree. It's 100% expected that people are going to value different parts of a product from other users. An experienced players isn't going to value the 'just starting up' section as much as the others for instance. And for some users, especially those making up their own setting, the flavor text that exists for Golarion, might be of little to no importance to them. The same can be true of those that just want the mechanics: there are those of us that would truly like sections with just the mechanics. What's needed by the users of the material isn't exactly the same. Now to illistrate the other side, I know someone that's read all the dragon-lance material for d&d even though they don't play d&d for the story and lore and couldn't care less about the mechanical bits. What's important/needed is a shifting scale depending on who you ask and what they plan to use the material for.
As a fan of narrative description myself, I've always found this distinction a bit silly as well. Isn't it all a beautiful part of the bigger whole? Myself, I think the distinction is important because in whatever game i'm playing, that descriptive text may not apply but the mechanics stay the same unless there is a house rule. Secondly, if care isn't taken, flavor text written in a casual way can just confuse things. For instance, when you see text that says prey, is it related to Hunt Prey or not? You have to make a judgment call and use context clues since prey isn't capitalized. If flavor was clearly distinguishable from rule text, it'd be easier for everyone involved on what's meant to be a mechanical effect and what's meant to be evocative as a possible outcome of the effect.
I see clear instances of flavor text that has no direct bearing on the actual rules. For instance, the text in Needle In The God's Eyes that says "With sinews of bronze and thews of iron, you leap to the heavens, piercing the arrogant eyes of the gods" isn't an actual requirement that you need a god as a target of the ability. It's pure 100% flowery text and it's removal ends up with an ability that works the same as with it.
"Flavor text" in RPGs is a made-up distinction. If it's in the rulebook, it's part of the rules—full stop. Designers have said as much. The idea of tossing out anything that "sounds too narrative" just because it’s not a stat block? That’s not how these games are written. Ignoring the descriptive parts only leads to bad rules calls and worse arguments. Treat the whole text as rules unless the book says otherwise. I find it the other way around: if you insist on taking everything in the text as a mechanical rule, it "only leads to bad rules calls and worse arguments". For instance, if we assume everything is a rule, Elemental Fist requires a Fist attack and Flying Kick requires a kick. Or taking the text in Needle In The God's Eyes that says "With sinews of bronze and thews of iron, you leap to the heavens, piercing the arrogant eyes of the gods" as an actual requirement that you need a god as a target. There is VERY clearly text in the rules that's just for flavor and I find suggestions otherwise to be disingenuous. On the topic of Hunt Prey, you'll find prey used elsewhere in the rules so it's not quite as clear as seeing prey as a reference to Hunt Prey. For instance, the Slippery Prey and Prey Mutagen aren't referencing Hunt Prey and the Lion Claw talisman says "When you activate the claw, you learn to pounce on your prey in one fluid motion" which isn't a reference to Hunt pray either even though "your prey" appears. So it takes reading the whole item/ability and using context clues to figure it out. Even though it IS pretty easy to figure out, It'd be nice if prey was Prey when referencing Hunt Prey abilities since they do use prey often enough in casual fluff text/names to make it relevent.
It would have made more sense if the class had, for instance, also gotten running reload for free as a minor example. Then there would be two things you could do to rehabilitate your action economy. Literally twice as much tactical depth to reloading! Yep, much like the swashbuckler gets tumble through AND their special panache generation action so you have options.
While they don't stack, the bonus for a crit success goes up with proficiency, so once you are unlikely [or unable] to fail a roll of 15, multiple people can roll to try for a crit for a +1-3 higher bonus. Multiple crew gives a built-in explanation of how you're trying to help AND your proximity for those multiple Aid rolls. So I'll have to strongly disagree that "One crew member can aid just as effectively as ten crew members": getting multiple rolls to try for a double, triple or even quadruple bonus can be MUCH more effective than a single try. Only Minion mounts like Animal Companions and Summoned creatures move slower because they can only be given 2x Stride actions each round. If you rent or buy a horse you can Command it to Stride 3x each round. Granted, it will die if sneezed at... much like the vehicle will. Yep and some even have Gallop too. The difference is that vehicles often also allow for passengers that do not also have to spend those actions: this means that the vehicles end up being faster than what's chasing them while also having actions left to do something else. So someone chasing you on a non-minion mount sure can use the same number of actions to follow you, your passengers can actually DO something else to slow them down or stop them while the pursuers can only move [unless they have some kind of move+attack ability]: if they attack, they lose actions and start falling behind. All in all, it's not "laughably slow", which is what I was commenting on.
I don't really think vehicles are meant to be PC purchases.Vehicle mechanic AT suggests otherwise. I don't see that as a particularly good argument. The Using Vehicles sidebar notes; "The vehicle mechanic plays best in a campaign where the PCs adventure together in one shared vehicle that the mechanic can enhance, such as in a pirate campaign on a single vessel." As such, its "best" usage is with a group vehicle, not a single PC purchase or any PC purchase [DM: surprise, you now own a boat] as it can be the basis for the campaign itself as the central plot device that allows the characters to adventure. Land vehicles are laughably slow Not really. Many are the speed of the driver or steed or an equivalent speed. As most can bring passengers along, that's free movement for them. Add to that that they can also move up to 3 times speed, they can outrun a lot of creatures and mounts that have to be controlled as they only get 2 actions to move. and the rules for piloting leave much room for failure and little for fun. If you're playing with a vehicle as a central part of the game, having the high Int or Dex character take the Trick Driver Archetype makes it much easier. Add to that that even though larger ships have higher DC's, they also have a greater number of crew that can Aid in the check and all they need is a lore skill to do so [a single skill feat, Additional Lore, gets you scaling proficiency in one]. It's also not hard to cast a spell for bonuses to Pilot either. Altogether, this means that you can get Speed x2 without much issues and you can have x3 with a reasonable chance to get x3. This does mean that you have to lean into making it work and spend some resources and extra actions, though not that much. That said, the overall rules work best for chase scenes than back and forth combat: it's generally easier to kill the crew and with the price tag of vehicles, it's a sizable haul and not something you want to destroy.
I can't say any character was broken: just some tweaking here and there. I HAVE had several that are now possible that weren't possible before the remaster.
Well yeah, If you are asking about what items to make at the start of the day you are rarely going to hear "Make me this situational thing". I'm including start of day AND Quick Alchemy in my statement/post. People just don't request mutagens in my experience.
Myself, I have SPECIFICALLY asked party members if there were any alchemical items they wanted me to make and I too rarely hear 'make me a mutagen' over a wide range of games and players. So it doesn't have to be a situation where the alchemist makes a specific item and then tries to get people to use it: it happens when you let them have input into pick what you make.
As far as class HD, that part of a total package: taking a mutagen doesn't get you a spell list so it's an apples to orange argument IMO to make a tangent comparing class HD and taking unhealable damage. lol and for myself, the answer is that I'm LESS likely to survive. Movement and distance doesn't prevent return fire from weapons and ranged spells [especially with base range at 20' and with farlobber 30'] and in addition, the mutagen lower saves on some of the nastier effects. So for me, it's a pile of negatives unless you can ensure you're only fighting melee only enemies that are slower than you... At the end of the day, voluntarily dropping my hp to the lowest caster levels and dropping fort saves by a prof level for a +1 to hit and some bonus movement is too much for me. If you're good with that, then great. But I hope you can understand where it's a bridge too far for others.
I am genuinely curious: is 6 HP/level a deal-breaker for you when choosing your Class? In other words, are Psychic, Sorcerer, Witch & Wizard off the table for you due to their HP? For me, the PF1 Burn was a deal-breaker for me with Kineticist. So in a similar way, I also wouldn't take mutagens that do similar things. As far as class HD, that part of a total package: taking a mutagen doesn't get you a spell list so it's an apples to orange argument IMO to make a tangent comparing class HD and taking unhealable damage.
Splitting it up into multiple bags to distribute that weight more is cheesy, but it's also entirely valid RAW since backpacks and other such things exist. It just serves as a good example to highlight the absurdity of the entire bulk system if you get outside of the very narrow confines of "a medium size adventurer carrying their own stuff".RAW is a troll ruling. technically correct is the best kind of correct. And, IMO, the entire Bulk set of rules is troll ruling so... Since none of it makes any sense RAW, why count ANY of it trolling? Does either way actually improve your gaming experience? Does carrying a few extra bags of gold break a game? Not mine.
Right, just asking for clarification as it sounded like you were saying that you had to be mounted in order to activate it. But we are on the same page. Oh, I understand you now. Yeah, we're agreeing. ;)
It's usage 1 hand so you can use the lance one handed while mounted and the ability in question requires riding a horse to use it. This way, you can use the lances special ability to 1 hand it mounted.I presume you mean use its activated ability while one handing, Because you can already use a regular lance one-handed due to its Jousting Trait? Yes. It also does not mention needing to be mounted to use, Rather it states that there is an additional/different effect if you were to be mounted while using it. "You evoke the spirit of the unicorn that donated the alicorn lance's horn, which you ride in a shining charge." "If you were already mounted when you Activate the horn, the unicorn spirit takes shape around your steed, granting it a +10–foot status bonus to its Speed for the charge." You LITERALLY are riding a mount for the ability. The only difference is if you start on a mount or the ability makes one.
It's usage 1 hand so you can use the lance one handed while mounted and the ability in question requires riding a horse to use it. This way, you can use the lances special ability to 1 hand it mounted.
How is it shenanigans? ANY other discrete item is counted as such so why are bags of rocks that are 1 bulk 9.99999999 l treated one way and a bag of coins with the EXACT same 1 bulk 9.99999999 l treated differently and added together? Why would coins be singled out as one individual item even when not stored as such? IMO, I'd call shenanigans on you if those bags got treated differently because one is called 'coins' and one isn't. It NEVER says [or suggests] to add all containers together in one grand total any more than you have to add all your daggers together before you adjust for Large. Seriously, would you force someone that had 10 Marbles to add all the 200 marbles per bag BEFORE checking or just count each bag as individual items? If you aren't making them count them as a 1 bulk item, why would you make them do the same with coins?
Yes, each item of 1 Bulk converts to one L, but Bulk rules defy algebra (see above). Each unit of Bulk for larger items converting into 1 L Bulk would be ridiculous, and I'm shocked you'd suggest it.I was merely being thorough, suggesting as many different possible interpretations as I could think of in the moment. You just have to play with Toy poppets and non-Pixie Sprites to convert their 1 Bulk bodies into L. That way you can carry 200 of your fellow party members... :P
Not only that but there is a bigger fish to fry before you get to Exempla Dedication. Mythic rules in general, it makes no sense that they can be this far broken and not in the overpowered format. While I'll agree mythic needs an overhaul, it's about as low on my priority list as an issue can go since it's a niche rules set that will likely never affect me. I'm much more likely to see something Rare like Exemplar Dedication. So, while elemental barbarian, Sin Wizards and sword champions were PRETTY low on what I'd like to see errata for, at least I might actually see them in play unlike Mythic.
Fortune: "You can never have more than one fortune effect alter a single roll." Skill Stratagem: You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next Intelligence-, Wisdom-, or Charisma-based skill check or Perception check involving the target before the start of your next turn." Let's Try That Again: "Reroll the triggering skill check and use the new result, even if it’s worse than your first roll." The other players are 100% right, you can't use both as both are Fortune effects. There are fortune effects that do not involve rerolls. For instance, Unity allows the use of the caster's save modifiers, Tempt Fate gives save bonuses and can shift a success to a crit, Prophet's Luck gives bonuses/minuses to rolls, ect. Just because a Fortune trait normally involves a reroll doesn't mean that's the ONLY effect a Fortune effect can have.
Well, I guess the only people you have to convince are the other people at your table. Best of luck to you. "A constant spell affects the monster without the monster needing to cast it": it doesn't feel like I have to do a lot of convincing to do with this being said in the rules. I mean it LITERALLY and EXPLICITLY says you don't have to cast it. IMO, it'd be you that has to convince people that "spending the normal spellcasting actions" is Casting a Spell when it JUST told you they don't have to cast and it says it's an activation vs Casting.
Highlighted relevant part. It's not "normal number of spellcasting actions", it's "normal spellcasting actions". While it does say it's kind of not casting, when you need to spend normal spellcasting actions I would rule it is almost like normal spellcasting, with all traits and effects. So maybe Counterspell won't work (though it's extremely strange when it's a spell which can be counteracted), but other reactions based on traits absolutely will work. I take the highlighted part as telling you that you spend the same number of actions, not that it's some mysterious pseudo-casting when it specifically tells you what I highlighted: "A constant spell affects the monster without the monster needing to cast it" especially when it states "reactivate" and "normal spellcasting actions" when it's SO, SO much easier to say 'A constant spell once cast affects the monster for an unlimited amount of time.' and 'If a constant spell gets counteracted, the monster can recast it.' They went out of their way to make it non casting. If they wanted it to be casting, it takes a LOT less space and can be much more direct in saying so.
I concur with Squiggit. That is how I would see it as a DM. Spell was never cast. It's a spell effect to simulate an innate ability of the creature.Not exactly. As Finoan said, it is actually a spell. Which means that when it's dispelled (and it can be), it has to be actually cast again. It doesn't say it's cast though: it's activated using the same actions. In fact it says it's NOT cast. Constant Spells
So if the Jann has Truespeech dispelled, it can spend 2 actions to reactivate it. It goes out of its way to say it's not cast but activated.
I could have sworn it included undead, oozes, and some aberrations. Oozes are precision damage not nonlethal. It's almost exclusively constructs for nonlethal. You can nonlethally beat an undead, say A lich, to 0 hp. The only thing is that you can't knock them unconscious [immune], so the final hit has to be something that deals lethal. edit: Double checked, and it seems that you could kill an undead with a nonlethal. Getting Knocked Out [Player Core pg. 410] says "When undead and constructs reach 0 Hit Points, they're destroyed." So looks like punching a skeleton to death is a go.
Oh dear. It seems I've been playing my awakened giant spider incorrectly then, smashing skeletons and what not. You're doing it right. "The Unarmed Attacks table (page 277) lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you'll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body. Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks." Just because Fist got replaced doesn't mean that you don't use it's "statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body". The Fist replacement is covered in "Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks." A bear awakened animal can still kick you with an unarmed attack using the 'fist' stats. Why they put that it's a replacement is beyond me though as it complicates things for no gain that I can see. For instance, that awakened bear? I see no reason they can't use a punch attack using the 'fist' statistics which makes the replacement text meaningless IMO. The only way to look at it is that somehow awakened animals somehow lose the ability to attack with other parts of their bodies, which doesn't seem RAI. PS: I guess you could try to argue that you could use the Animal Attacks in place of fists for other body attacks, but being able to 1d6 P beak kick seems even less likely RAI.
Goblins having an ability that vaguely resembles the scene does not equate to me actually describing that ability. Being two degrees from Kevin Bacon does not actually make one Kevin Bacon. It's Kevin Bacon vs Kevin Bacon with a fake plastic mustache... the degrees of separation is negligible. Both are about people on fire, in a mundane sense, and people taking damage for grappling them. There is nothing you can say that would convince me that they aren't virtually identical... Environmental effects are not exceptions. Water being boiling is not an ability of the water unless the DM chooses to characterize it as such, nor with acid lakes, etc. Otherwise the concept could be said to only apply to house rules and GM fiat, as feats and spells and disease are not exceptions. Environmental effects ARE exceptions as they aren't what normally happens. In base game you don't have high winds, boiling water, ect. Now that might be normal for the game you run or for the area you go to, but that doesn't make them not abilities. Same for feats and spells and disease as they are things that aren't normal for the base game. Everyone isn't diseased or can cast spells, hence they create exceptions. If you don't think these things are abilities, then what do you think is one? Nothing about abilities suggests that there has to be an active element to an ability, for instance. Now as to who's ability something is, that's DM fiat, as the rules don't go into that.
I did not call out an ability of any kind. :p What you described WAS ability goblins have a feat for. That was my point and why I made the post. Secondly, mundane has no bearing on whether something is an ability. If you fall into a vat of flaming oil which is deemed to be sufficient to catch someone else on fire - as I said, in the mundane sense - that being on fire is not an ability. It is possibly a condition, affliction, or effect, but it's closer to an environmental condition that happens to be localized on a person. ability [page 452, player core 1]: "This is a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules." So a condition, affliction, effect or even an environmental condition all count as abilities, as they "provide an exception to the basic rules". It in NO way matters why there is an exception, so anything that would damage someone the grappler alters the normal rules and is an ability. So if someone takes burn from grappling someone, no matter if it was a goblin feat or because the target is on fire, it was because of an ability that caused it. Ability is referring to a RULE that alters the normal game flow, no matter who or what causes it.
Not even sure how such a being could even come about short of "a wizard did it." I mean... One of the possible origins for them is exactly that: "Some historians think them a failed experiment of a wizardly cabal". The true form of a conrasu is an abstract chunk of spiritual essence, so it's not hard to imagine some other kind of essence could get caught up in there as opposed to the more traditional biological reason for a heritage. I'll be honest, with as far out there that their 'normal' existence is, adding 1/2 orc seems like the least problematic part for my role playing them or figuring out their background with how alien they are. Secondly, Talos is an option too. How hard is it to imagine some elemental metal essence is in a conrasu, either in the core or the plant. They have Rites to enhance the plant parts with magic, a connection to Axis, Light and plants. Would a rite for a connection to the plane of metal be so odd?
If you think this will be a big deal, play an Orc or 1/2 orc. Take the feat Iron Fists. Your problem is over. Or a Talos with Ferrousoul. Dwarves can do it for 2 round with Spark Fist. there's also quite a few Dedications that do it.Kind of had my eye on the conrasu of Monad. Well, you can still be a Conrasu with a Dromaar heritage. |
