The simplest method for any of the metals is to go to a smith that works in that metal and ask for to get a piece from the scrap that's going to be remelted.
Not sure why silver damage gets to be free. It shouldn't be any issue to find a fragment of silver or cold iron of negligible Bulk [they are common]. So I'd argue it's not just silver but cold iron would be free. As to the other ones, as they are uncommon or rare it's up to the DM how the player accesses them and what cost they are for scrap pieces: for instance, even if the object in question itself has no monetary value, it might cost something locating it. that, or there just might not be any easily found free objects, so the player has to buy one that actually has a cost. But the bottom line, once a metal had been acquired though, the player would only have to retain a negligible Bulk and no cost minimum piece of it so even if they had to buy Adamantine Chunk, all they'd have to do is chip off a negligible Bulk piece and they'd still have an Adamantine Chunk to use for something else.
As the spell doesn't list a weight or cost, it has to be of negligible Bulk and no cost minimum. As such, a silver piece is fine for use. Myself, I just get rings/charm for bracelet/necklace made out of each material I want to use and then I don't have to worry about it after that. Now if you're playing PFS, they have an extra rule for this: "Any spells which require metal to function require the PC to be holding at least one chunk of that metal or an item made of that metal."
I don't think the player (or the player's character is supposed to believe both things are true.Why wouldn't they think both are true? It's a secret roll and you can get 2 pieces of information in 2 situations: a crit success and a failure. This means if you get 2 pieces of information, both could be true or one could be wrong. As such, you can't go into it assuming the info is dubious as they don't know what the roll was as it's Secret. It's a reason why I really, really, really dislike the feat. But the feat doesn't say you know: it tells "you learn the correct answer and an erroneous answer" but it doesn't say you KNOW one is incorrect, just that you can't differentiate between them. Since you don't see a difference between them, that can mean they can both look true. It NEVER says you know you rolled a failure.
I don't think the player (or the player's character is supposed to believe both things are true. Why wouldn't they think both are true? It's a secret roll and you can get 2 pieces of information in 2 situations: a crit success and a failure. This means if you get 2 pieces of information, both could be true or one could be wrong. As such, you can't go into it assuming the info is dubious as they don't know what the roll was as it's Secret. It's a reason why I really, really, really dislike the feat.
I dislike the idea of being punished when you use Stealth for Initiative (which requires Avoid Notice) by not being able to do anything else narrative-wise. As Finoan notes, there are feats that open options like Trap Finder, Ongoing Investigation, Perpetual Scout and Swift Tracker. Not 'punishing' players for their exploration picks and allowing more fluid activities would reduce the value of such feats.
This isn't true as it makes you BOTH better AND worse at getting info: you get both the Success result and the Critical Failure result from a Failure roll. IMO, that's BAD and not hostile. It increases my chance for wrong info and makes it so that the good info I get is questionable. I'm sure some like it but I don't.
I don't think my gm even remembers, or care, for it either. If every DM I would ever play with thought like this, I'd have a lot less issues with the feat. I do not remember seeing anything in the RAW that said you can choose to NOT use Dubious Knowledge. yeah, this. The player gets NO say in its use.
I don't think hostile is the correct term or that disliking it is inexplicable. I've had some allow me to not have it but if I'm going to use up some of my DM's good will, I'd rather do it for something better like getting a uncommon/rare ancestry/feat/spell/ect.: Starting off by asking for a houserule of a classes base abilities kind of sucks.
You take the Aldori Duelist dedication: when you do so, your proficiency in Alduri dueling sword is equal to your highest proficiency in any weapon you have.
I've been to the Corning Museum of Glass and our local shops several times and have watched/participated in a good bit of glasswork. It's fascinating what you can do with glass. It's a shame that most of the local glasswork is now stained glass and bongs... :(
Player Core pg. 276
Player Core pg. 281
As per the rules, 1 is the damage die of a blowgun as that is the damage entry: whatever is in the entry IS the damage die as that is how they define the entry.
It seems odd when an eidolon doesn't have a body any more (unmanifested) it could still be taking poison, especially given their is nothing you can do about out. What makes you think it doesn't have a body? Secrets of Magic pg. 58
This means that beast and plant eidolon go back to the Material Plane, which leads to some... interesting questions.
I think it's more handwaving it off than ruling something. How many times have you seen beneficial buffs stay on the Eidolon when unmanifested? For myself, that's pretty much handwaved away too: if you rule that conditions continue, then buffs continue too but if you rule that they pause then so to would buffs... Does the DM really want to rule that you and your friends can toss a bunch of spells on your Eidolon, unmanifest it, rest and then go do something with a fully buffed Eidolon and the summoner/friends have all their spells?
I don't think that is all clear. I can argure the reverse. The Summoners HPs were reduced to zero by a death effect (which damaged it's Eidolon). You only have one pool of hit points. It is not like there is a disconnect or level of indirection here. I'd just as easily have the death effect apply to the Summoner. I don't see the logic that transfers the death effect to the summoner as it's not a listed condition that transfers. Yep but still clearly a reasonable candidate for TBTBT. It'd be nice if TBTBT was in the actual rules. What there is is "If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed." which is vaguer as it's not known which is intended and, as I pointed out, it's not overly problematic the vast majority of skills and skill feats are usable without tools.
Yeah, I agree but IMO that's how it works. The only way around it would be to say that the dead eidolon doesn't unmanifest as it's an object now and not creature and doesn't vanish but that's a stretch. Better to just houserule something IMO.
Corrolary: After your Eidolon dies, Ask your GM how to continue playing the game with that Summoner character. Now. The Eidolon shares the HP with the summoner. The Eidolon died and its hit points are automatically reduced to 0. What's happens to the summoner when the Eidolon dies!? The summoner dies too!!! No, the player goes to Dying 1 because it's hp are 0. As they share hp, and the dead can't raise their hp above 0, you can at best make them unconscious with 0 Hit Points: this means that you can prevent death but they can't ever do anything until the Eidolon is brought back to life. So, no it doesn't kill the summoner but it's mighty close.
They don't say you can't Strike objects, they just don't mention it. By that logic, you can say 'they don't say you can't Strike 3 creatures with a single strike, they just don't mention it' or 'they don't say you can't Strike creatures outside your reach or range, they just don't mention it.' As such, #2 clearly runs into issues with its logic and isn't a viable read IMO. Especially since there are quite a few abilities that actually relate to Striking objects, such as the Razing weapon trait, wall spells with AC and HP, and traps often having an AC. But most of those do NOT require a strike on normal objects: there are spell attack spells that target an items AC and spells that deal damage to items. There are actually only 2 or 3 things that actually rely on a Strike and even those do not require a Strike on a normal item: for instance, Razing works on shields, animated objects, structures and vehicles and there are rules for attacks/damage on those. Or a goblins Vandal that works against traps and unattended objects [like hazards and vehicles]: it works without the ability to target any normal object with a Strike.
K. Though I did read it works against animated objects. I'm thinking any creature with a hardness.What constitutes an object in PF2?Pretty much everything physical that doesn't constitute a creature. I'm thinking the opposite myself as it specifically calls out animated objects when it COULD call out constructs as a whole if that was the actual intent since the entire category "may have Hardness". That said, it wouldn't bother me if it would cover everything with hardness. It might easier to houserule Razing doing 'Targets with Hardness takes an amount of additional damage equal to double the number of weapon damage dice.'
What constitutes an object in PF2? Pretty much everything physical that doesn't constitute a creature.
Boy, do I hate getting this free thing I do not want. Class ruined. F tier. Gimme back my money pls It's the way I feel about the Thaumaturge and the Dubious Knowledge skill feat. I have to take the feat, can't turn it off and it activates automatically... I'd play the class more often if I didn't have to beg DM's to let me NOT take the free thing that ruins the class for me.
Could I use the cantrip of the Spellheart from the weapon that is in the Bandolier while it's in the Bandolier?Correct me if I'm wrong, Your best bet would be to attach the spellheart[s] to gauntlet[s] or other free hand weapons instead of trying to find some kind of workaround with the Bandolier. That way you could use the Bandolier to throw weapons while having spellheart[s] active for weapon[s]. If you're looking for man number of spellhearts active at once, go with 2 Hand Crossbows with Bayonets/Reinforced Frames so you can have 4 weapons wielded at once.
I'm not asking which existing feat has better mechanics. Of course it's a matter of mechanics. If not, then what basis are you using to determine what feats are good or not? Why does the game need to gate these things behind feats, rather than being a skill anyone can try to do? Feats generally allow you to do something you normally can't or allows you to do something easier than you normally could: IMO Lip Reading does so and Eye for Numbers doesn't Is there that much specialist knowledge involved in either? 100% accurate lip reading? I'd say that's a talent that's not normal while getting a +/- 50% estimate of items isn't. Is either thing going to come up so often that a player will spend scarce resources on it and feel good about all the mileage their PC is going to get out of that investment? Depends on the campaign: Should we not include Quick Swim because the DM might run a game in a desert? You have a game that revolves around a lot of intrigue, scouting and spycraft and you might find Lip Reading more used than Battle Medicine. If 'guaranteed success' is what tips you over on the issue of Read Lips, would it not be better if the player could take Assurance (Society) and get a guaranteed success on all sorts of Society rolls, not just this one roll that they might or might not have to ever make once in a campaign? What makes you think reading lips would use Society? I think the majority of people would have you make a Perception check and you're NOT getting Assurance on that. Even if you find a Dm that uses Society, you're left with a Dm fiat DC which means Assurance might not be enough to make the rolls: for instance, you'd be out of luck on a very hard level based DC. Bottom line, IMO Read Lips is a good feat in its niche: if the feat has an issue, IMO, it's that its niche isn't that big and a lot of games don't fit it. Eye for Numbers has 2 parts, one that's completely useless [guestimate number of items] and one that is a niche ability in a niche ability [a bonus to deciphering writing [codes] but only numerical codes...].
I agree. The Thaumaturge should have Eye for Numbers automatically. I'd rather have it than Dubious Knowledge... :(
TBT I was not trying to convince anyone that it's a must have feat. I was refuting the idea that it was a feat tax. Not a tax per se, but its existence might stop a DM from giving out info they would normally give as it makes it seem that you need a feat to make a quick guesstimate at numbers of items. For a feat, it should grant you something you normally can't do and this feat is pretty light on that: a +2 to break a mathematical hidden code is about it and it'd still be niche feat for a game with hidden codes in it.
No Perception roll necessary to count things -- which I would include counting generic people so you know things like troop deployments and such. It isn't overly useful for this: it only counts people but can't tell you anything about them: Can't tell if they are archers, cavalry, casters or cooks and scribes... As such, it's useless in telling if it's a trade caravan or an attack group as ALL it does is count numbers: full stop. No Perception roll necessary to count things I don't see DM's asking for rolls for generic estimates unless it's for something that needs done quicky. Who asks for a perception check to glance at the table with obvious potions on it and ask for a perception check to get a ROUGH estimate on the amount? Most GMs would force Perception rolls to get the amount of detail you often want. "You immediately learn the number of visually similar items in a group you can see (such as coins, books, or people), rounded to the first digit in the total number. For example, you could look at a case of potion vials and learn that it held about 30 vials, but you wouldn't know that it was exactly 33 vials, how many different types of potions there were, or how many of which type. Similarly, you could look at a pile of 2,805 coins and know that there were about 3,000 coins in all." I've got to be honest... That's pretty much what DM's I've played with normally give. 'You see about 2 dozen men' or 'it looks like 2 or 3 thousand gold' are things I'd expect to hear without the feat. The difference would be that the feat doesn't seem to take an action but for things like watching for troop movements, it's a non-factor anyway so it's only useful when you're on a time limit like 'we have to grab the best loot quickly before the guards come' type scenarios which I find to be pretty uncommon. Seems super niche ribbon effect IMO: the +2 Decipher Writing, while niche, seems more useful.
I'm just curious how strict this is. One of my players is a cleric of Abadar and the favored weapon is crossbow. Would they be able to use a heavy crossbow, a hand crossbow or a gauntlet bow as well or is it strictly crossbow only. Favored weapons are specific weapons: in this case, it means the weapon 'crossbow' not the entire weapon category 'crossbow'.
Cat's eye elixir is a staple on any of my PCs who needs to target opponents.I think it'd be more to avoid a DC 5 flat check from concealed. If you have both concealment/cover and you have an agile weapon [say a Wrist Launcher] handy you trade -2 to negate a 25% chance to miss off the top. Cat's eye elixir is a hard sell for me as magus is already action starved: this is 2 actions [draw then drink]. Maybe if you can pre-buff. The 30 range can also be a detriment if you would otherwise be engaging at longer range: having to move from 100' to 30', for instance, is a substantial drop in range. Shooting Star also gives it's benefit to anyone targeting the creature, so your conflux spell recharges your spellstrike, gives a free attack and is a buff for your party for a single action. PS: Expansive Spellstrike can also make a second MAP spellstrike more viable: a shot missed by a flat 5 check has no affect but even a missed spellstrike will have the spell go off and the spell isn't affected by MAP. You could slap on a cantrip like caustic blast or timber and even if you miss the Strike and they make the save, you'll be doing some damage without spending a slot [and at a much higher max range].
I wonder how many civilians are routinely murdered in your campaigns because some of these example NPCs live "In a world with magic users and shapeshifters around", graystone. :P You mean all those civilians that are PRETENDING to be helpless? None that I know of. Sure people will be more wary of such things, and given enough context clues, may deduce that an unarmored person with a pet is a spellcaster, but I imagine non-adventuring NPCs are far, far more common than those types of threats are in the vast majority of Pathfinder campaigns. Non-adventuring NPCs are far, far more common in combat situations? In dungeons? Breaking into a bandit camp? My imagination comes up with different numbers that you I guess. We aren't talking about walking through the market in exploration mode... In short, seeing an armorless person with a pet is not enough to confirm anything on its own. You need all the other context clues (dangerous setting, heroic companions, not outright fleeing during combat, etc.) in place for it not to come off as hostile GM fiat. Yeah, that's what I've been saying. No matter how helpless you try to make yourself, it's a hard sell when you're 5 floors into a dungeon.
I just wanted to add that the witch might very well be the servant to the heroes. She may actually cook their meals, do their laundry, and care for their steeds. And what does any of that matter in a battle? She isn't cooking, doing laundry or caring for the steeds in the middle of a swordfight. The only acting or deceiving going on is for her to seem far less threatening than she actually is; to obfuscate the fact that she is one of the great heroes too. Sure... Roll deception or Perform [act] to do so. Just look at the Innocuous feat: it's about seeming to be an "unobtrusive assistants of larger folk": know what it gives you... trained proficiency rank in Deception... In fact you are 100% planning to engage in combat and pretending you aren't. Hence, you are trying to deceive those around you that you are something you aren't. Impersonate
"Success You trick the creature into thinking you’re the person you’re disguised as. You might have to attempt a new check if your behavior changes.
And again, I could see Perform [act] working similarly too.
I'm gonna have a lot of fun letting opponents focus fire on my illusory "familiar". Was this debate ever about focus fire on a familiar? It's about them being a viable target. There are plenty of npc/monster abilities that target areas/multiple targets and there is no reason to think that they would overlook a familiar as one of those targets or that if a familiar is the only target in range that it wouldn't make an attack on them. Basically, an "illusory "familiar"" or an illusory "monster" would both be valid targets. Now, wouldn't it be a primary target? Most likely not unless it's in the mood for a bite sized snack.
Forcing the player to roll a Deception check that the rules do not require them to roll is the opposite of agency. (Although this has also drifted away from the question of the thread, as recognizing someone as disguised is a deception vs perception thing, not an RK thing.) But the rules do. Look at what was being suggested: "Now, if a player approached you (the GM) beforehand, and explained that they were planning to make a witch that went to great lengths to deceive others into believing her to be nothing more than a harmless old crone, would that impact the ruling you make when the enemy being harried by the party martials sees a hissing cat?" "a witch that went to great lengths to deceive others into believing her to be nothing more than a harmless old crone"
I don't see how disguising yourself as "a harmless servant" isn't impersonation. "What's more, she most often appears to cower and hide during combats while her cat appears to try and protect her with threatening hisses."
The issue is more 'do I even have the chance to use Elixirs/Mutagens?'. Which is followed up by 'do i even want that Elixir/Mutagen.' Most have a drawback on top of needing actions and a free hand to use. Often, I've seen alchemists that couldn't give away free items: free 2xlevel damage, minus saves and ac, attack rolls, damage, ect and you have to get into double digit levels before the duration hit an hour so you'll have to chug one every fight unless you're speed running encounters. Now there are some like Bravo's Brew, Eagle-Eye Elixir, Antidote, Antiplague that start with enough of a duration to pre-buff yourself or have uses outside combat like Leaper's Elixir, Comprehension Elixir or Infiltrator's Elixir. They just aren't ones you're jumping for joy over or likely to see them make a difference on a regular basis. Those two points are why I'll see alchemists focus on what they can do for themselves and leave party items for situations when it's likely to come up: like 'we're going into a sewer tomorrow better make Antidote and Antiplague' not 'time to make the daily Antidote and Antiplague'.
"The bonfire burns for 10 hours, providing all the benefits of a normal campfire." As there is no stats for a campfire, it's up to the DM if it gives anything other than heat/light. The main benefit, IMO, is having a wood ranged Elemental Blast come from the bonfire instead of you: it gives you extra fire damage for the blast and you can do things like add 30' to a blasts range or fire around cover.
but it dose say that it shape the object into 3 needles, but dont say in what form the metal returns. Again, it doesn't say the original item is harmed in any way: full stop. Anything after that is a houserule. and completely transforming something dont realy need any text explaining the item is damage in any way since it dont exist anymore. It NEVER says the entire object it turned into needles. In fact it'd be rather silly in some situations like casting from your Fortress Plate [a 5 bulk item] meaning that if the entire item is used, each needle is 1.66 bulk.. I don't see that as intended at all: what it says is it forms needles, they shoot out and "the metal returns to you after the attack" NOT the needles. Its obvious that they never intended us to use the spell on an item that we want to use normally, since they dont explain clearly what happens to it, they expected us to use a clump of metal and not a metal dagger. It's the opposite: unless something is spelled out, it's not in the rules. If they don't explain the item vanishing or being damaged, it isn't. They'd need to clearly spell out the items is broken or destroyed for that to happen.
Also im fairly sure that Needle Darts dont fully restore the object you use, it only say that the metal returns, propbly forever in the form of 3 or more needles. The spell doesn't say the base item is damaged, so it isn't.
The best use for more arms is the Thaumaturge's Implements. Even if all those extra arms can do is hold items, it'd make them THE best ancestry for the class by allowing them to hold each implement AND have a hand free to work with.
Precious Materials, Core Rulebook pg. 577 "The Price entry for each material gives the Price of a simple non-magical item made of that material, based on its Bulk (if the item is lighter than 1 Bulk, use the price for 1 Bulk), as well as Prices for different amounts of the material itself." However, a dagger is a weapon: Adamantine Weapon
So if you want an Adamantine dagger, it's 1540 gp. Now if you want an adamantine letter opener, that's 350gp. Now in the new GM core pg. 253, "The Price entry for each material gives the Price of a simple non-magical item made of that material, based on its Bulk (if the item is lighter than 1 Bulk, use the price for 1 Bulk), as well as Prices for different amounts of the material itself. Prices for armor, shields, and weapons made of precious material are in the Armor (page 228), Shields (page 233), and Weapons (page 240) sections of this chapter." Going to "Weapons (page 240)"you'll find the same price as core: 1,400 gp + 140 gp per Bulk.
Like the idea behind giving the rogue bespoke weapon proficiencies to begin with was "rogues should be using rogueish weapons". You mean like wizards bespoke weapons were in place to it enforce wizard themes? Who doesn't recall stories of the mighty archmage with a crossbow or club in hand. I think the bespoke weapons were a copy/paste from pathfinder 1, which was a copy/paste from d&d 3.5. I think that's as far as it went. I mean, it allows for the super sneaky/stealthy Flintlock Musket [and now Blunderbuss] sneak attacks. Between things like this AND ruffian being the 'use non-standard weapon rogue', I'm not sure 'it's not "thematically inappropriate for a rogue"' holds much weight here. If it's thematically ok for a thrown bomb, Wrecker [ranged], Dwarven Scattergun or Switchscythe [with a sweeping, axe-like blade or a hooked pick on a long rod of wood or metal], "thematically inappropriate for a rogue" doesn't mean what you think it does.
Nobody expects perfection: that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up if things seem off. Would the dying rules have gotten a day one errata if people had kept their mouths shut? Most of us think what we got is fine Citation please: I don't know that the majority of this thread thinks so and i have no idea about the user base at large. I don't see what harm there is in asking if it can be done better and if so, can it be errata'd: at the worst it's 'no' and at best, it might get a look at. The only way you can ensure that the issues you see don't attention is to stay silentand encourage others to just accept what they got and not mention things that seem off. If you don't like the end solution, then make your own home brew rules Well for a lot of people, that's not a satisfying solution whether it's because you are a player, you play PFS or you just would like to keep your houserules to a minimum [and PF2 already requires a pile with the amount of ask your DM 'rules']
Is there an archetype that gives expert crafting? Vehicle Mechanic Dedication: "You become an expert in Crafting".
people seem perturbed that it was not enough of a buff People are confused at the cut off for the benefit, wondering why that particular cutoff point was warranted when the base class itself exceeds that cutoff. IMO, it'd be weird if people didn't look at martial weapons every rogue can use like Dueling Spear, Elven Curve Blade and Spiked Chain and wonder about the balance reasons there was for a Khopesh or longsword not working. I know for myself, if a d8 was a must for my ruffian, I'd ignore the current 'benefit' of the current feature and either take the Dueling Spear [for Disarm and Versatile S] or Spiked Chain [for Disarm and Trip] so I can do just fine with the current version: I just can't see why I can use those weapons and someone else is prevented from using a longsword, Battle Axe or Jiu Huan Dao with a feature that adds non-finesse/agile weapons to the weapons a rogue can sneak attack with. So debate over this doesn't equate to being perturbed. I mean, I'm not calling people here perturbed because they question the validity of debate over the subject of a thread.
That isn't speculation though, that is simply incorrect. Dinosaurs can't pronate, dromaeosaurs had more feathers etc. Those we know, other stuff is speculative Where in the quotes you provided did it say pathfinder dromaeosaurs can or can't pronate their forelimbs? And I provided a direct quote that not every pathfinder dromaeosaurs has feathers let alone "more feathers" than the picture you have a personal dislike of. So... we're back to you insisting pathfinder be exactly like irl... except magic... and dino existing alongside people... or aliens... oh, and elemental creatures... and demons and devils walking around... and bucklers that strap to your arm... And people can be immortal... oh, and alchemy... Yeah, dino images really have to be museum accuracy or it's a crime against nature and intentional misinformation about a fantasy land! Stop the presses! Seriously though, we all have images we don't like and a RPG game isn't the place to expect museum quality 100% exact recreations of things: for instance we could spend our lifetimes debating on the correct terms for weapons/armor or usage like bucklers and arming swords. I think most are happy to enjoy the well-done images and stats in the game and don't worry about irl accuracy.
There is no in universe explanation of this There doesn't have to be. In fact we KNOW things work differently in pathfinder because dinos never went extinct there. NOTHING in DINOSAURS IN FANTASY mentions that pathfinder dinos are 100% exact replicas of earth dinos. There is no "pathfinder has different evolution" explanation in the game There doesn't have to be an explanation for anything: You have as much proof on your side as I do, hence the pictures standing on their own as we can't prove either way. What i can prove however is that it's a fantasy game where things played out differently than earth and that has many factors, like magic and alternate dimensions affecting it, that we don't have irl. 'But irl' isn't a convincing argument for much IMO. We can see that even with your argument it is clear dromaeosaurids have their real world feather coverings in fiction First, it's specifically talking about velociraptors, so it isn't proof that pathfinder dromaeosaurids as a whole have feathers. Secondly, the picture you showed from player core that you don't like in fact HAS feathers on "their backs and along the sides of their arms, legs, and tail" so it's not contradicting anything. It never states complete coverage with plumage. Or instance, if I say "she had freckles extending down her arm", that doesn't mean they are completely 100% covered in them.
That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh. How can an animal from a different reality be wrong? However it's presented is correct as it'a a piece of fiction. If there is a setting that has pink furred dinosaurs, it's correct for that setting. Nothing in pathfinder purports to 100% mimic prehistoric age fauna.
I mean, once the game says it's cool to sneak attack with a longspear, Breaching Pike, Dancer's Spear, Elven Branched Spear, Lancer and mounted lance... I can't really take "it's hard to be sneaky carrying a 7'pole" seriously: especially noting the Elven Branched Spear as NOT sneaky as it's pretty ostentatious and doesn't seem any more precise than a bardiche.
Do you think they should have just invalidated the longspear as a choice for Ruffians? Because that's what would have happened if they got martial d8 weapons. Mainly because it should mirror what happens with every other rogue: the class now has the ability to use 1d8 martial weapons at base but the ruffian should be limited to a longspear? Why should it be limited to d6 martial when the base class isn't? When you can use a Dueling spear without looking at subclasses, why should you be excited you get a feature to use a longspear? Why should the subclass where their passive is that they can sneak attack with more types of weapons be able to use better weapons to sneak attack with Because they can already use 1d8 martial weapons from their class: it's just odd you have to downgrade to a simple weapon to do the same damage you can do with a weapon you can pick without any subtype.
My point is that a rule can be too bad to be true and unambiguous, or ambiguous but not problematic. Hence, me thinking that using 'too bad to be true' as shorthand for 'use the ambiguous rules' as a mistake. As to "that second sentence", I don't think it does apply to non-ambiguous rules: IE, it means 'if a rules is ambiguous because the wording has problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended...' IMO, it's pointing you to the houserule section: "House Rules
None of the cantrips in player core are 3d4, that's just needle darts We've been told Rage of Elements spells were made to be pre-compatible with remaster changes, so it's understandable people add its spells into the pool of 'remastered spells'.
Most heritages don't distinguish the limbs. It is the bird like types that use the term talon. Which is fair enough, it is a more specific word. That isn't turn. They do use it for birds but also bats, demons, dinos, dragons, undead and others mention non-attack talons. However Kitsune and some Nagaji both explicitly state that they have claws on their hands and their feet. So? The mention claws, not Claws. Similarly, a mention of jaws doesn't mean a Jaw attack. Further Fist is clearly referring other body parts. It is also explicitly Unarmed which means it doesn't use a hand at all.You can bite, kick, body slam, headbutt, talon strike or foot claw with your hands full. Ok, i said as much: the difference is that the statistics don't change no matter what you want to call it, so it uses the fist stats by default. "Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks 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." This means it's dm fiat if a 'claw' attack deals damage other that B or has a damage dice other than 1d4 since it isn't a Claw attack with it's own stats but a Fist attack.
Plus AoN is really good for "figuring out a specific thing that fits what you need, like "I am looking for a martial weapon with reach and disarm" but if you actually want to do a survey of all the options actually picking through a book (or a PDF) is way better since you don't have to click on every single spell or feat. That's just factually incorrect as we aren't talking about a single book but having to page through every book/pdf that has those particular type in it. For spells you have to go through the core, secrets of magic, dark archive, rage of elements, Knights of Lastwall, Highhelm, Advanced Player's Guide, and a stack of AP's... IMO, that sounds a LOT harder than looking up nethys. With the way the game is and new material coming out all the time, it's impossible for a book to be a solution: any listing made can't know what's going to be added in the future making it invalid as soon as new material is made. Only a listing that's actively added to works that way, meaning something like nethys.
|
