hyphz's page

Organized Play Member. 187 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

So, things just got a bit weird.. in the last session, the PCs managed to intimidate the corrupted guards into leaving them be, and then cleared out the Hidden Forge (but not yet the Prison) before reporting back to the council. However, they took a hell of a beating from the Cursed Forge-Spawned in the process and now want to take a 2 week break to recover and retrain.

This of course means that Mountainheart Chiselrock knows exactly what the PCs have just done and that they now know about the Triad, and how strong they are, so what is he likely to tell them and what are the Triad likely to do in Skaggorak in response?

Obviously I'd rather not just say that they move on and go into hiding, which they might realistically do but which would ruin the adventure, so are there any suggestions for repercussions from this?

(One idea I did have was that the PCs mentioned in front of the corrupted guards that they had trouble fighting stone golems, since Mountainheart is the leader of the Stonesmith's guild he could likely have a powerful stone golem made to defend the Triad, but I don't know if this would cause contradictions with the availability of that skill level in a level 5 town or the speed with which it was done.)


In previous d20 games, we've been used to Detect Magic being able to penetrate some surfaces, and D&D generally gave a list of what could stop it.

Detect Magic in FP2e gives no such list, but does state that it's a "30 foot emanation". Page 457 says that "in an area effect creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected", which would give it no ability to penetrate any material at all. However it is still not quite clear because technically Detect Magic only has an effect on the caster and their knowledge, not on the objects it detects. If Detect Magic affects/target the objects that it detects this could have further strange consequences down the line, such as, for example, triggers for "when a spell is cast on this object" would activate when it was detected.

So does Detect Magic target the things it detects (especially in the 4th level Heightened version), and what materials - if any - can it penetrate?


Whenever I try to add something to my Cart, I get the message "your request produced an error." without any explanation.

In addition (in case this is related) Order 12580195 doesn't show properly in my Order History. It was for Gods & Magic for 2E, but it's shown blank.

Random nerd guess: is there a problem with Gods & Magic having an ampersand in it which is being misinterpreted somewhere in the software?


Is there any official answer on whether or not you can ready to attack the limbs of a creature with Reach at the moment it attacks?


Saggorak: The fact that Saggorak is underground doesn't seem to be mentioned until page 15!

Jewelgate Way Station: the wailing crystals lose an action for each 5' square of crystals destroyed. However the map clearly shows that there are around 14 squares of crystals, so is destroying just 3 of them enough to defeat the hazard by lowering it to 0 actions, or must they all be destroyed?

It seems that if the PCs trust Talamira, they can simply shoot the crystals repeatedly from more than 20' away and faceroll the hazard. Is that intended?

A1/Carnivorous Crystal: Freeze: how is this ability adjudicated? It doesn't seem very reasonable to try and argue that the PCs will suddenly thing that a crystal that was previously attacking them is now just a regular crystal.

A2/Purple Worm: refers to "Pathfinder Bestiary 6", which would be a 1st Edition book.

B1/Deculi: cannot cast Darkness by the rules as it cannot perform the Somatic and Material components, as it has no limbs or ability to carry a component pouch (Innate spells have no component exemptions).

Kolarun Chiselrock: His Special case will contradict the conditions triggered by the successful Diplomacy checks made against him.

False Arrest: how many guards can potentially appear in this encounter? (If the answer is infinity, there is no option for the PCs but to flee.)


Is there any list or archive of the questions that have been answered on stream?


Ok, but if I was going to tailor the RP requirements for the Tenet to the table, I should presumably also be tailoring the mechanical benefits of the Reaction to be in balance with it?


Yea, the trick is that as the GM, Glimpse Of Redemption is a really powerful ability, and I want to know how harsh the GM is supposed to be on the tenet in order to balance it (although apparently the Paladin doesn't lose it if they break the tenet, which seems a bit odd but there we go).

Currently typically the Redeemer in questions is using it to focus enemies on him while the party's two-pick psycho tears them apart, with the Redeemer arguing that since it isn't him striking the killing blow, his tenets are intact. Obviosuly if the tenets would require him not to cooperate with two-pick psycho, then he is effectively out of the game.


The Redeemer tenet reads:

"You must first try to redeem those who commit evil acts, rather than killing them or meting out punishment. If they then continue on a wicked path, you might need to take more extreme measures."

This seems relatively difficult to adjudicate, so I'm wondering how people do it.

1) Is simply inviting an enemy to surrender before attacking sufficient to have "tried to redeem" them?

2) Is participating in a group combat against an enemy also forbidden?

3) Is allowing a party member to kill an enemy who could potentially have been redeemed a tenet breach?

4) What is the judgment of what can and cannot be redeemed? Is the Champion required to try to redeem things such as Golems and Demons? While it might seem obvious that these would have either no free will or no good in them, both of these can experience Glimpses Of Redemption!


Finished this off, finding a few interesting things on the way.

The final encounter: watch out for Wall Of Stone! A PC with this can wall off an area including the sluice and some enemies, and excluding the leats and the lever. This can leave Laslunn or other NPCs drowning behind the wall! This looks like it could be a major factor in future encounters, so I hope it's been designed for in the later ones.

Iavva and Lemma, the snipers, are ridiculous. They can move 90' a round with Swiftness meaning they can't be stopped by AoOs (or potentially even Readied actions), and if they're fired on they get to fire back at no action cost. Once the PCs meet them, there's little reason why they wouldn't run around and aggro everything else in the camp if they're under threat.


Ok. I think the listed immunity does tie it, but I'm not too keen on this because it requires a bunch of rulings about what is and isn't magic. Is a dragon's breath magical, for example? If Produce Flame is cast on a stick that's thrown into a forest, how long before the forest fire isn't magic?


A random bit of confusion that came up last session.

Golems have the statement that they are "immune to all spells and magical effects except for their own", but then each golem type has a list of exceptions based on elements.

The question is how this applies where an elemental effect may occur that is not the result of magic. For example if an iron golem is struck by lightning in a thunderstorm, is it slowed (as per its Golem Antimagic entry) or does it take the damage normally because the lightning is not the result of anything magic? If an adamantine golem walks through a burning forest, is it still damaged by the fire rather than healed, becuase it's just regular fire, not magic?

My assumption so far has been to rule that anti "magic" effects apply to all elemental effects because otherwise it slows the game down significantly with arguments about what a magical effect actually does (ranging from whether a dragon's breath is magical or not to "no see, the Corrosive rune just makes acid appear in the wounds caused by my sword, but once it's appeared it's regular acid..") but at the same time, I'm not sure if this results in Golems being too powerful. In particular alchemical items would be much more effective against Golems if the "it has to be magical" rule is followed.


Is it intended that Wall Of Stone has no duration, so presumably once created the wall is mundane and can't be dispelled?


What I've usually done is to either say that either:

a) the person who starts the fight starts the fight, their action happens then initiative is rolled - just because it's simpler;

b) the person who starts the fight rolls initiative, all the NPCs who roll higher initiatives take their turns but either ready or delay - depending on their state of guardedness - since they do not know the fight has started yet. Note that this also means they gain their Reactions, so guards with AoO will react to the barbarian charging in.

Trying to turn PF2e into a declare-and-resolve system in these cases is asking for trouble.


That post doesn't seem to relate to spell components? It just says that simply adding abilities to a monster doesn't affect its level directly because it doesn't keep the monster around for longer, so it has more choices, but won't actually do more.

But as I mentioned above, the interpretation of monster spell components can be very significant in terms of how much time in the action economy a monster takes to cast a spell, and what tradeoffs it has to make to do so quickly. That can definitely affect how much the monster can do before it dies.

As mentioned, I had an enemy spellcaster who was prevented from casting a key defensive spell, Wall of Force across a battlefield, because a PC closed a door in their face. Action disruption can be very important.


As I said, it's a game balance thing. Are the monsters balanced to use the same spellcasting as players, or are they balanced on the basis of handwaving?

The need for free hands and its effect on the action economy can be dramatic. For example, a Marilith can cast Blade Barrier (VSM). Even if we rule it doesn't need a component pouch, per RAW it has to put down one of its swords to do so. If it Releases the sword, it can cast in the same round, but the sword can then be grabbed or Mage Handed away, potentially permanently weakening its Bladestorm and Focused Attack moves. If it puts the sword away, and we handwave the fact it has somewhere to put it, it still has used an action to do so and can't cast the Blade Barrier until another round has passed.

So this suddenly can make a very significant difference to how the fight goes, and the use of M components is a big concern to multiclassed caster PCs, so if we're just supposed to ignore it for monsters I'd really like to know for definite which basis the designers used for the testing and math.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A slightly odd one here, and possibly pedantic but reflective of a wider issues that doesn't seem to have been addressed.

As far as I can tell nothing in Pathfinder 2e makes monster's innate etc. spells any exception to the spellcasting rules. This creates some problems with components.

For example:
An Aboleth Alghollthu Master can cast Hypnotic Pattern and Hallucinatory Terrain, both of which have material components. But it has no hands and no possibility that it would be carrying around a component pouch.

A Cassisian can cast Heal, which requires touch if cast only with a somatic component, and verbal if cast at range. It's a flying helmet with no hands or mouth. Lantern Archons have the same problem; while it's explicitly mentioned that they can speak, they still have nothing to touch or perform somatic components with.

Invisibility is a favorite; it has a material component. But it can be cast by Greater Bargests, Brain Collectors, and Cacodaemons. Can anyone see them carrying around a compnoent pouch? Cacodaemons don't even have any limbs.

Now, ok, it's easy to say that these are easily fixed up by the GM's decisions and that's true. But it speaks to an underlying issue, which is whether or not the monsters and game were balanced on the assumption that enemies use all the components in the normal way when spellcasting. I and the players have noticed that casting enemies are much easier to deal with in PF2e than other d20 games, and their battles much more initiative dependent, because even requiring them to move or open a door can shut down their key defensive spell and then they are eating 2-3 actions worth of dual pick attacks the next round.

So, was the balance of NPC spellcasting components verified or was it assumed that the GM is handwaving stuff?


I made the mistake of having the PCs sailing down a river on a boat, and attacked by some aquatic monsters as they went.

Why was this a mistake? Because it turns out there's nothing about boats in the book. In fact, only the magical swan boat even has a listed speed. Capsizing a boat is a special monster ability and can only be done by a Dragon Turtle or a Sea Serpent; even a substantial Water Elemental or an actual Kraken can't do it! Control Water can have no effect on boats; even if an effect isn't actually stated, an effect that could only impose the Slow condition on fish is presumably going to be too weak to affect any substantial ship.

So, are there any real guidelines for how to do combat where a boat is involved or are things just stuck? What should have been a thematic Siren-style encounter got reduced to daftness.


Sneak Savant doesn't modify the value, though; it modifies the effect of the value (it says "if you get a failure, you instead get a success").


Is it legal to combine these two together to auto-succeed at Stealth at (effectively) +10 compared to your Assurance value? Or does the text "when you roll..." in Sneak Savant eliminate the possibility of using Assurance to convert a failure to a success when no dice was rolled?


This can work with Fireball. It doesn't work with illusions. Thanks to Rakshasas not having any feats to hide their casting it makes a massive difference to them if their specific spells are detected or not (since they can't hide the fact that a spell is being cast, their only real strategy is to lie about what spell they are casting)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure that if there was ever a game that's crying out fon an electronic GM assistant, PF2e is it, so I hope that Lone Wolf can pull their fingers out.

Per page 305, anyone can always identify any spell they have in their repertoire. This means that if an enemy casts a spell, whether or not the GM should tell the PCs what it is will be determined by if any PC knows that spell or not. Since the GM cannot ask "does anyone know X...?" without giving away what the spell is, presumably this means the GM has to keep a list of all the spells the PCs know. Is there any better way around this?


My PCs thoroughly confused the adventure by waiting and attacking the Sunset Imports warehouse overnight. That means that they set out to warn people about the pending attacks in the middle of the night, at a time when the attacks couldn't have gone as described because everyone would be asleep. Of course, they didn't bother going to Kite Hill because the kite event immediately wouldn't be starting until the next day.

Their first step was the girls' school which was easily dealt with, since Lady Docur was very unimpressed by the PCs trying to knock her out of bed in the middle of the night, and even more unimpressed by them flying around banging on the upstairs windows (being male PCs, at a girls' boarding school, at night)

I tried to keep the action moving when they went to the coffee shop by fudging that it had already been attacked the previous day and Laria taken, because it seemed reasonable to rule that the phantoms would just stay there after the attack having been summoned. The other halflong woman had not been killed (it's hardly fair to penalize the players for not sending the warning at Kite Hill when they have had no chance to do so yet)

The combat woke the two Rakshasas, who successfully tricked the players into thinking they were innocent victims who had been trapped in the shop overnight by the feat of the ghosts downstairs. The PCs also tried to pass on the warning to them, and asked where Laria could be found - so the Rakshasas gave them a random address in town and then bailed while the PCs were chasing the false lead.

So. What happens when two Rakshasas have the run of a city, know the PCs who are working against them and what they look like? This seems like an excellent opportunity and I was wondering if there were any suggestions, especially regarding the Nidalese diplomatic mission.

(One thing before anyone says it: I don't want to have the Rakshasas shape shifting into the PCs and then heading off to play grab-ass in the girls' school to get the PCs arrested. While I can accept that is probably something rakshasas would do, one of the players is a kid so I don't want that angle in the game.)


Is the scale on the coffee shop map correct? 5' per square means that the tables are 10' in diameter. That's a pretty massive coffee shop..


"Fighter gives you fighter class feats every even numbered level.."

Unfortunately, in the levelling-up table, it tells you it gives you "fighter feats". In the later section headed "fighter feats", it says that a "fighter feat" means a "fighter class feat". So the distinction gets confused again.


Two things from a first session:

1. The wainwright is mentioned as having a bedroom he goes to, to "get away from his husband and their children". Ok, no problem with him being gay, but where did the children come from?

2. Rusty Mae is dangerous. She broke at least three magical weapons that were freshly purchased with loot from the previous path, potentially making them irreperable since the PCs hadn't kept any cash back..


Quote:
At level 2, a fighter gains a fighter feat of 2nd level or lower. Specifically, I can take Exacting Strike, Point-blank shot, Power attack, Snagging strike, Reactive shield, Sudden Charge, Aggressive Block, Assisting Shot, Brutish Shove, Combat Grab, Dueling Parry, Intimidating Strike, or Lunge, excluding of course any of the level 1 feat or feats I already chose at 1st level. I decide I want to take an archetype instead, so I forego taking one of the listed feats and take the archetype feat Wizard Dedication.

And that is the issue.

In order to take that archetype feat, you have to give up a "class feat".

If gaining a "fighter feat" through your class gives you a feat that can be traded for an archetype feat, then the "fighter feat" that Combat Flexibility gives you can be so traded also. The words "fighter feat" cannot mean two different things in different places for no reason and with no text saying so.

For the same reason, if gaining a "fighter feat" does NOT give you a feat that can be traded for an archetype feat, then you can never take an archetype feat because you will never have a "class feat" to trade, only "fighter feats".


ofMars wrote:


Well, no? like, what is your goal here? you can't use combat flexibility to gain dedication feats, only fighter feats.

I am not sure why everyone is so sure of this. Is there a clear reference for this? If there is then please point me to it.

Combat Flexibility does not say you can gain archetype feats, but no point where you gain feats does. The archetypes section says you can take one whenever you would gain a class feat, and as you mentioned a fighter feat is a class feat; if it is not, then the fighter can never take an archetype feat because they only ever get "fighter feats" or "fighter class feats", never "class feats".


Fair enough. But what if there's property runes on the weapon, too? A PC just had a +2 Cold Iron Shifting Flaming Pick broken; do all the extra runes count towards the repair difficulty or not? (And if they don't, does that imply they don't count towards the craft difficulty either?)


Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Fighter is a trait that 'indicates abilities from the fighter class.'

I'd read 'one fighter feat of 8th level or lower that you don’t already have' as being one feat with the 'Fighter' trait.

Unfortunately, again by that reading a fighter could never take a dedication feat at all because a "fighter class feat" would mean a class feat with the Fighter trait, which no dedication feat has.

Castilliano wrote:

Instead of parsing the rules like a lawyer or philosopher, read them as if a friend were communicating to a friend. The intent seems pretty straightforward to me.

Thing is, friends also answer when you ask "what do you mean here?", and a book can't. Since we already are, by gradual erosion, getting cases where "dealing the damage of a Strike" and "hit with a Strike" have an important difference, this won't scale up over time.


Say a PC has a +3 striking sword. That means that what they actually have is a sword with a +3 potency rune and a striking rune.

If this sword gets broken and the PC wants to repair it, the DC is based on the DC to craft the item, which is "set by the GM based on the level, rarity, and other circumstances".

So, does repairing this sword have the difficulty of simply repairing a sword (a level 0 item), or does it also require repairing the +3 potency rune (a level 16 item)?


We've run into this problem again, which was present in the playtest but hasn't been resolved since, and it seems to be caused entirely by some unnecessarily confusing wording.

Page 142: Table 3-12 indicates that at every even-numbered level, the character gains a "fighter feat".

Page 142: "Fighter feats" says that at every even-numbered level, the character gains a "fighter class feat", and that "fighter class feats" are listed on page 144.

Page 144: has that list, but it is headed "Fighter feats"; not "fighter class feats."

Page 143: Combat Flexibility states that, when you make your daily preparations, you gain one "fighter feat" of 8th level or lower that you don't have.

Page 219: "Select the archetype's dedication feat using one of your "class feat" choices."

Page 219, again: "For example, if you gained an ability at 6th level that granted you a 4th-level class feat with the dwarf trait, you could swap out that class feat only for an archetype feat of 4th level or lower with the dwarf trait." (There is no such ability, neither does any archetype feat have the Dwarf trait. However, this does establish that the fact that a feat is granted by an ability does not prevent it being swapped with an archetype feat.)

Therefore, all of the evidence seems to be that you can take archetype feats, possibly even dedications, with Fighter Flexibility.

Arguing that a "fighter feat" is not a class feat leaves it either impossible for fighters to take Dedications at all (because they get "fighter class feats" or "fighter feats", never "class feats"), or to take feats at all (because they get "fighter class feats", but have only a list of "fighter feats")

This really seems to be unnecessary confusion created by a tiny choice of word and seems a prime errata candidate, so could it please be clarified?


I understand they're sequential at the table not to be maddening, but that's exactly the simulation issue. If they were simultaneous in the narrative then that guy couldn't pick up his weapon and move over without getting shot on the way, which is the PCs want to represent by Readying/Delaying; but as you correctly point out, this then breaks it in the other direction where they can do everything while the enemies are still standing still.


Thanks! That's really helpful! The only issue is..

Ascalaphus wrote:


So if your players really get their ambush right, enemies lose 1-3 actions because they have to draw weapons and move into positions.

Action economy seems to be less important to the players that who attacks first - because whoever attacks first potentially crits first. The issue they have isn't that the enemy doesn't lose 1-3 actions, it's that if the enemy rolls higher initiative than them after they kick the door down then they mysteriously have to stand and watch as the enemy picks up their weapon, moves over and potentially attacks the kicker. This is a rather uncomfortable abstraction.


I understand it can be an unfair tactical advantage, and I don't really like the "PCs delay" thing. But the issue with the raw system is that it fails to model the fact that (in the case of a door being kicked down), the PCs know exactly when things are going to kick off and the enemies on the other side of the door don't.

I don't think you can really give any comparison to a real SWAT operation because of the initiative and action system's abstractions. If a group of professional soldiers kick down the door of the barracks of another group of professional soldiers then you wouldn't argue that the group in the barracks are just as likely to be ready as the one kicking down the door because both are equally trained fighters. But then equally the ones in the barracks would likely be delayed by their preparations whereas in PF2, if they win initiative they get their three actions unbroken and can stand up, Interact to grab their weapon and fire without being in any danger while doing those things.

Part of the problem is that most of the fights in the sample modules are presented as set-pieces with the enemies linked to the terrain in the room where they are encountered. I understand the appeal, but it does mean that if the monsters do detect the PCs through the door, they either "assume defensive positions" and wait for the PCs, or burst through the door themselves.

I've had bad results from the former, since the intended approach then becomes "we wait until we think they're tired from standing on edge and have decided we're not going to attack after all, then attack" which is difficult to deny; how long are they going to stay in those defensive positions, assuming they're not guards on shift? Hours? Days?

If they do the latter, the set piece is broken and we end up with the old issue of "why don't all the monsters in the dungeon just come to the first room?". Plus if the PCs get wind of the situation they will be surrounding the door with readied attacks, and if the monsters see that and don't attack, then the same logic applies on the other side too and every dungeon door is a siege (which is not a good situation to try and simulate since most dungeon designs do not consider supply lines).

Essentially what I want is some way to not give an unfair advantage to the PCs while still keeping the rulesfeel that tactical approaches are valid.


So, I've been having a bit of a problem identifying what should happen at the start of combats.

My method so far has been to allow the PC that is initiating the battle to complete their action outside initiative, then go into initiative as normal. This means that sometimes the PC who started the battle ends up going twice in quick succession if their initiative roll is high, but this makes more sense than the PC turning out to roll low on initiative and then either having the action that starts the fight cut off or being able to wait to start the fight until everyone else's turns have passed.

But now, often the players while outside a room will say something along the lines of "we roll initiative then we all Delay for Bob's turn until everyone is Delaying, then Bob kicks down the door, then we all undelay after Bob" so that all of them act immediately after the door is kicked down in a single block, no matter what the initiative rolls are on either side. As before, if any enemies on the other side of the door roll higher initiative it doesn't matter because the fight has not yet been started (they haven't detected the PCs and the door is not open yet)

Now I know that I am technically allowed to say that the PCs cannot choose to start Encounter Mode until they have actually been detected and the fight has begun, but this seems rather arbitrary. They've argued that it simply represents "SWATting" the room and I can see that, although that is rather outside the modelling of the game system because in a SWAT raid the criminals do not stand around doing nothing while all the cops enter one at a time. But while it's a reasonable action it makes the whole initiative system void which I'm sure would not be the intention.

So how do people generally deal with the moment a fight starts and this kind of preparation by PCs?


Ah, ok. For some reason I got the impression that you had to rip the APK; I didn't know bluestacks was trust enough to download directly from Google.

Still not too keen on pushing the monopoly though!


So the attack roll made for Escape is neither made with a weapon, nor made unarmed?


Hmm. This seems a little awkward because what type of attack rolls are these? Are they made with a carried weapon or are they considered unarmed?


AJCarrington wrote:
hyphz wrote:
I haven't tried Pathbuilder because I don't have an Android phone.
There is an emulator for the PC called BlueStacks. I haven't tried it myself yet, but have seen positive comments on Reddit. As well, I believe the author is considering a PC-based program to release via Steam, but no idea as to time frame and such.

I did know about that. But I don't really want to jump through those hoops just to hand the character generation space to this guy.


That's sort of assuming the wording confusion that I was referring to.

Quote:
The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a -5 penalty to your attack roll.

This assumes that the attack action has an attack roll. Strike explicitly says "make an attack roll", but Escape does not describe the roll made as an attack roll.

Quote:
Every check that has the attack trait counts towards your multiple attack penalty

This states that it counts towards the penalty, but not that it suffers the penalty. This makes it clear that Escaping will affect Strikes later in the round, but not that Escaping itself suffers from MAP.


Is any roll requested by an action with the Attack trait automatically considered an Attack roll?

The issue is whether Escape (which has the Attack trait) has rolls affected by multiple attack penalty, or merely contributes to the multiple attack penalty for any attempts to Strike the foe after the Escape action.

I can see the argument that it can be treated as an attack, but page 278 and page 298 give precise definitions of and formulae for "attack rolls"; and the wording of escape does specifically describe it as "a check using your unarmed attack modifier", not "an unarmed attack roll".


I thought that too, but I think that's mental cruft from D&D 3.5 or PF1. The section on weapon handedness (p280) states only that weapons require the number of hands listed in their description to wield, and the section on sizes (p295) states that a Small or Medium creature can wield a Large weapon but at no benefit and they become Clumsy, but doesn't state that they need two hands to do it.


The Shifting rune states that the weapon "takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield."

Since a weapon of any size still requires the same number of hands to wield (by a creature capable of wielding that weapon), does this imply that a Shifting rune can freely change the size of a weapon?


We had a small confusion regarding two Fighter abilities.

Battlefield Surveyor: "You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Perception checks for initiative."

Incredible Initiative: "you gan a +2 circumstance bonuses to Initiative rolls."

My assumption was that these did not stack, because they are both circumstance bonuses.

However, a player argued that they do stack, because although they are both circumstance bonuses they are bonuses to different things: one is a bonus to Initiative rolls, and the other is a bonus to Perception under certain circumstances. If a given roll comes in both these categories then it is affected by both, not because the bonuses stack, but because the roll is in two categories.

Is this correct?


The Clay Golem's cursed wound ability reads:

Quote:

Cursed Wound (divine, curse, necromancy) A creature hit by the clay golem’s fist must succeed at a DC 29 Fortitude save or be cursed until healed to its maximum HP. The cursed creature can’t regain HP except via magic, and anyone casting a spell to heal the creature must succeed at a DC 29 counteract check or the healing has no effect. The golem’s counteract level is equal to its creature level.

This is confusing in two ways:

a) does "succeed at a DC 29 counteract check" mean to actually meet the conditions to counteract a DC 29 effect (which, if the PC is less than level 10, would require a critical success - and thus a result of 39 - because of the golem's counteract level 10), or just to roll a check modified by casting proficiency (ie, the kind of check used for counteracting) and exceed DC 29?

b) Cursed Wound has the trait "curse". The Afflictions section of the Core Rulebook states that curses are afflictions. However Cursed Wound is not listed in the format of an Affliction (it does not have Onset time / stages / etc). Does this mean that Cursed Wound can be counteracted as if it was an affliction (albeit requiring a critical result if the PC is below level 10) or not?

c) As with all Golemn, the Clay Golem is immune to magic. Can the Clay Golem be the "enemy" target of a Forbidding Ward?


I suspect you're supposed to remove it by magical healing to max HP.

But I see what you're saying, it's confusingly worded: it reads "succeed at a DC 29 counteract check", not "successfully counteract a DC 29 effect", so only a regular success is needed, but it's an awkward way of putting it.

I don't know that the curse can be counteracted, although again it's weird here: it's described as having the "curse" trait, and the text reads that a curse is an affliction, but it doesn't have an affliction stat block (maximum duration, onset time, etC0. Likewise I can't see anything making it clear that it's a spell (I can't find any ruling that simply having the Divine tag makes it a spell)


Cydeth wrote:


It looks like you made a mistake on figuring out what level the effect is, it should only be a level 5 effect.

That would make it reasonable, but:

Bestiary, Clay Golem, Pg 187 wrote:


The golem's counteract level is equal to its creature level.


Area C2 the level 10 Clay Golem. If it hits, the PC must make a Fort 29 save or be cursed to be healed only by magic and need to make a DC 29 counteract check or lose the healing. The golem's counteract level is equal to its level, which is 10. Because this is higher than 8, when level 8 PCs meet this golem, if they are cursed they must roll a critical success on the counteract check which is a 39.

A level 8 character will probably be Expert in spellcasting, and if they have a +4 in their spellcasting stat, then their total bonus for this roll will be 8 (level) +4 (stat) +4 (expert) = +16, which means they have no chance of rolling a 39, and their only option is to roll a 20 and have a success boosted to a critical success.

Is it really intended that characters hit by this golem will be healable only by magic and then 19/20 healing spells cast on them are lost?


HeroLab Online was horrible when I started using it, but it's much better now. I kind of hope it succeeds, because although having to pay for it regularly kinda sucks, the benefit is that it means there's at least a small number of people working on improving it every day as their jobs.

I haven't tried Pathbuilder because I don't have an Android phone.

PCGen is "Running out of volunteers" to work on its code, and having looked at the code I can see why.

1 to 50 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>