lordcirth's page

402 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Uchuujin wrote:
Only class change that really bothers me is the Champion/Paladin losing Smite Evil for the Champion's Reaction(s). I think some sort of alternate class feature could be possible in the future though (though that would end up being more like 1E archetypes, so maybe that's a can of worms they don't want to open.)

The CRB does have rules for class archetypes, even though none currently exist.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The ShadowShackleton wrote:
Saros Palanthios wrote:

That depends...

If all you're doing is moving, a non-minion mount can move 3 times per round. However you have to use all three of your actions to command the mount to move three times, so you can do nothing else during your turn. (You can of course use fewer command actions, but then the mount would also get fewer move actions.)

A minion can only move twice per round, BUT you only need to spend one action to command it to do so-- meaning you have two actions left with which to cast a spell, attack, recall knowledge, raise a shield, etc. Plus animal companions can Support you, or attack, and gain other abilities as you level up. Also they tend to have more HP than ordinary mounts.

So if all you're interested in is running away from a battle as fast as possible, then yes, a mundane mount can flee 50% faster than a companion mount (assuming it has the same base movement speed). However if you plan to actually participate in encounters, companion mounts are far superior.

Isn’t it also true that if you take multi action activities outside of combat they are fatiguing after 10 minutes?

That would mean that outside of combat you would get two moves for one action with a minion (and not be fatigued) and one move with one action for a mundane mount unless you want to ride hard and get fatigued.

I realize this might not be directly quoting the rule but seems to be more or less what was indicated by other exploration actions.

Traveling in exploration mode does not use actions. You look at your mount's speed and compare it to the travel speed table.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
Someone using a bow has a hand free to trip. They only need both hands when they shoot.

This is technically correct. However how often do you see somebody with a longbow in melee? And even if the monster gets through, lets look at the following example at its associated action economy.

1) Monster attacks some fronline character twice, then uses his last action to move up to a ranger.
2) The ranger lets go of the bow (free), trips the monster (action), moves back (action), grips his bow again (action).
3) Monster gets up (action), moves up to the ranger (action), attacks (action).
4) see 2)
5) see 3)

Repeat ad infinitum.

If you need to grip your weapon again you will lose 2 actions for every trip you do, which of course is less then ideal. Thats what I meant when I wrote you "lose" actions, when you need to change grips in order to conduct a trip attempt.

There is no action to re-grip a bow. Bows are not 2-handed weapons, they are 1+.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Champion will get you d6 fists. Monk Dedication will get Powerful Fist, which won't stack but does grant lethal attacks without penalty. You can use light armor at first, until you get stances that require unarmored.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why is covering your tracks, or tracking, problematic? They are basic uses of the Survival skill.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mountain Stance does slow you a little, but you're a monk. Moving is cheap when you have Flurry of Blows, and at level 3 it will barely matter anymore. Also, dwarves with Unburdened Iron won't care.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The max AC that any non-monk can have at level 1 is 18. A dex monk can have 19, and a strength monk can have 15 base, 19 with mountain stance. And the strength monk can easily have a lot of HP to handle a possible first-round attack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that Resilient Bulwark is very strong, and also a bit too complicated, though I like the idea. At level 1 with medium armor and no shield, you could resist 5 damage, which is the same as a steel shield. Unlike shield, this doesn't take a hand nor damage a shield. I would make it either your item bonus to AC, or your proficiency, not both. Proficiency would probably be better, since it would not unduly punish behemoths wearing, say, hide.

I would also cut the shield aspect, and maybe make something like it a level 1 class feat.

It's also unclear how this should interact with the armor specialization abilities.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Dude literally swore off a system forever because he couldn't cheese his way through a fight. Sorry, but this statement isn't consistent with his behavior as you're describing it.

A rogue being a rogue isn't "cheese". Sneaking and assassination is what the character does.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
roll4initiative wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
roll4initiative wrote:
Can anyone tell me why Grab is Athletics versus... Fortitude? Why not Athletics vs Athletics? Kinda strange.
The question for me is why is it fortitude rather than reflex? Dodging aside from someone attempting a hold seems to make more sense than, what? Being really healthy at them?
Lol! Yes! I'm like, "Hmm, fortitude measures your resistance to poison & disease, ability to shake off fatigue, and... not being grabbed. Ohhkayy."

Fortitude save tends to correlate with strength and mass, so this is an easy way to make it easier to grab the wizard than it is to grab the barbarian, who might have the same reflex saves.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ten10 wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
I don't get why a higher level foe shouldn't have higher AC and to-hit just because he's a caster. He's higher level, he is stronger in a general sense. Call it passive wards and enchantments, call it years of exposure to mana hardening the skin and sharpening the body, call it what you will. There's no reason a higher accuracy and evasion because higher level caster can't work fine thematically aside from just saying casters shouldn't be able to have good accuracy or AC despite their level.

Because in former editions armour did matter? Cloth like +0 and plate like +8 instead of, well yeah +5 for everything (if you have the appropriate Dex)?

I have absolutely no problem if the enemy caster is playing roughly to the same rules as the player casters, so for PF2 I have no objection for a CR+3 caster to have like +5 AC because AC scales with level and he could also have higher proficiency and/or items (which then however have to appear as loot).

However I have an issue if said caster has like +300% HP or other excessive stats for no reason as they did in 4e. Building enemies the same way as player characters goes a long way regarding a general sense of fairness and pseudo-realism and D&D 3.X and Pathfinder 1 did that very well.

If I manage to jump the enemy mage with my fighter I expect him to be in trouble, even if he might be of higher level and not having my behind handed to me in the field I ought to be the expert in. Ask your own casters how they feel once the enemy Ogre, Troll or else has closed into melee.

Obviously this does only work within certain limits, not if my level one fighter is trying to jump Elminster.

General sense of fairness and pseudo-realism? But you're a group against one? Now the group has 300% more HP than the Big Baddie, who isn't and now is just Bad Bob.

I believe his point is that the boss should have lots of HP because they are a generally higher-level creature, not have +300% HP because they have the "boss" tag.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:

Where is it written, that the shield is strapped to you? A buckler is, but you will have the hand free nonetheless.

Else just drop it.

RELEASE [free-action]
You release something you’re holding in your hand or hands. This might mean dropping an item, removing one hand from your weapon while continuing to hold it in another hand, releasing a rope suspending a chandelier, or performing a similar action. Unlike most manipulate actions, Release does not trigger reactions that can be triggered by actions with the manipulate trait (such as Attack of Opportunity). If you want to prepare to Release something outside of your turn, use the Ready activity.

It is explicitly mentioned that "detaching" a shield is a 1-action Interact. CRB 274, Table 6-2.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
PF2 actually makes solo bosses a real threat, and some of the best encounters I've run. The fact that the level difference actually means something results in them being very difficult to harm and very dangerous on the attack unless you work to make it otherwise. These fights are where buffs, debuffs, and tactics really come to play as it's very important to turn the math as much in your favor as possible against a level+3 or 4 enemy.

A question out of curiosity. How are bosses in PF2?

Are they the same kind of thematically stupid as they were 4e? The bookwormish cloth wearing cult leader that was super hard to hit and apart from being a great caster could still whoop your behind in melee just because he was labelled boss was as a huge turn off in that system...

Cloth caster bosses built using PC rules will generally have lower AC then most creatures their level. APL + 2 gives them +2 AC, but having 16 dex and no armor is -2 from where anyone with armor will be. So they'll be as hard to hit as the PCs, or lower if they don't have 16 dex. But of course they should have pre-cast Mage Armor, False Life, etc in most cases. Then there's more visible spells like Blur or Mirror Image which justify them being hard to hit.

I actually made a wizard boss, at 2nd and 3rd level, and used the 2nd level one because there was only 2 level 1 PCs. That was a mistake. I had multiclassed him into Rogue for studded leather, so he wouldn't be too hard to hit. The PCs won initiative and the monk promptly killed him in one turn. If I'd used the level 3 version with pre-cast False Life, it might have been very different. (The session was still great, though!)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Step is a basic action that anyone can do. It is therefore a "general rule" in the context of "specific beats general". Tiger Stance modifies the generic Step to be 10ft, by being a more specific rule. Elf Step is an action that lets you take 2 5ft Steps. This is a more specific rule still, so it overrides.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TomParker wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
It's all fun and games until you realize that your fighter can not shield block and make attacks of opportunity in the same turn...

As in PF1, unless you had a feat.

I really do consider the 1 reaction/round limit a huge factor when it comes to action economy, especially as the list of possible / additional reactions for each character will probably increase over time.
I think at some point we’ll see a feat that adds reactions. Probably not to the extent that Combat Reflexes did. But the limitation to reactions really doesn’t bother me. I’ve played lots of characters that had a lot of choices for their one swift action, so this doesn’t feel any more restrictive to me.

There are already several feats that grant extra reactions. 3 for Fighter, 1 for Champion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liegence wrote:
I actually think the Liberator exalt is slightly worse, since the steps only activate if the target ally refuses the free escape. Which is itself pretty restraining (the irony!) - to get a benefit your ally has to be restrained, in 15ft, and refuse the liberating benefit...

The free steps also activate every time you use Liberating Step against a non-restraining strike - that's why that wording is there. You can either liberate an ally and grant them DR and a step, or you can grant them DR, and all allies a step.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While it's easy to let someone else read your spellbook, it also takes time. And to a wizard, their spellbook and it's spells are their most precious possessions. Letting a stranger read your spellbook for hours would be practically anathema. So I think it's more likely that wizards would scribe scrolls, then sell those to other wizards, who will either cast them or copy them into their spellbook. That means there's a gp and time cost to make that scroll.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depends what you mean. You need at least half the gp cost in unspecified "materials" to craft stuff. IIRC you can disassemble stuff for half their cost? So yeah, you should be able to re-melt stuff, but it will take longer.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:

So if I'm creating a level 1 starting character, a 700-year-old elf who's been a baker since he was a youth of 70, why can't I start as a legendary baker? For 630 years, all he did was bake, bake and bake some more. Yet he can't make anything better than a 15-year-old human adventurer who was a baker for a few months. Both are trained, with a +1 from level, plus whatever their ability mod is.

You say this is better from a realism perspective, but there's still an obvious problem.

Because you start as a level 1 adventurer, not a level 2 baker. "Baker" isn't a PC class. If you want to play as a baker, you could presumably homebrew a class that is untrained in all weapons, and master at Baking Lore at level 1. But that's not the kind of adventurer that most players want to be.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:

Scare to Death is not something you would normally use against a Dragon or a stronger enemy. Because it has the Incapacitation trait anything of a higher level would roll their saves twice and take the better result.

In this scenario the person using the Scare to Death ability was level 20 with Legendary Intimidation. So at that point they should be one of the most terrifying beings that exist if they're trying.

Incapacitation changes the result one notch, not roll twice. That would be a fortune effect.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
My point is, if they made a Summoner class, then they would have a strong summon, which was better than a wizard's "summon construct" spell.

...why would you think that.

The Eidolon is just going to be a reflavored but no stronger animal companion. (Maybe with skill/utility options, but it's surely not going to be a better combat monster.)

The summoning isn't going to be meaningfully stronger than that on a standard caster because we already have the druid offering this same set up with full casting and standard casting. They are deadly serious about not letting companions take over the game, unbalance anything, or tie up time at the table.

Druids are full casters, who can also get an animal companion. Summoners are defined by their summon. Obviously they could have a strong companion, with utility, and little to no spellcasting. What would be the point of making a Summoner class if their summon didn't do anything an AC couldn't?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

Uh...I think you're in for a lot of pain as you hit the windshield of PF2 design philosophy reality.

My concern for the summoner is how they're going to give it more spells than the wizard and sorcerer to compensate it for trying to play the very bad playstyle that is a PF2 summoner.

The only winning move is not to play.

A PF2 summoner doesn't exist yet? So it's odd to be saying already that it sucks. A strong summon, perhaps with an extra action, would be different than the normal minion rules, but not that hard to implement.
A PF2 spellcaster who summons is a summoner, he's just not a Summoner. And summoners suck real bad.

My point is, if they made a Summoner class, then they would have a strong summon, which was better than a wizard's "summon construct" spell.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

Uh...I think you're in for a lot of pain as you hit the windshield of PF2 design philosophy reality.

My concern for the summoner is how they're going to give it more spells than the wizard and sorcerer to compensate it for trying to play the very bad playstyle that is a PF2 summoner.

The only winning move is not to play.

A PF2 summoner doesn't exist yet? So it's odd to be saying already that it sucks. A strong summon, perhaps with an extra action, would be different than the normal minion rules, but not that hard to implement.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Champion multiclassing Cleric, which in a lot of systems would be highly redundant, but here it works great. It's seamlessly thematic, doesn't even feel like multiclassing. You get 2 cantrips, Shield being amazing for 2-hander champions. At 4th you take Domain Initiate, which is better than the Champion's Deity's Domain because it gives you an extra focus point, which you can use for Lay on Hands. You don't even need to take Basic Spellcasting to get good value out of it.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Bartram wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

The only benefit that I can see to crafting magical items yourself is that you can potentially obtain one in a situation where you are unable to buy one (such as when you're stranded on a desert island)--provided of course you are somehow still able to get the crafting supplies and formula first.
This assumes the PF1 standard of all items can be purchased everywhere and everyone is always willing to buy your leftover junk. While this may still be the case in PF2, I'm not 100% sure that it is.
If the GM is going to stop you from buying a magical item due to setting or scenario, there's nothing stopping him from blocking you from getting the components or formula. Ergo, there are very few practical reasons to waste time with crafting.

I, for one, fully intend for certain magic items to be not trivially available, but still craftable. Formulas may be a bit harder to find, but you only need to buy them once. You can also invent them.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
And as for alchemists and consumables... Yeah, the consumable pricing is just absurd. The only reason to ever use any higher level alchemical items is if you have an alchemist in the party making them for free. Non-infused alchemical items are just a waste of money.

It's been mathematically shown that there is no such thing in P2E as free crafting.

You still have to pay half. And even if you worked the full length of time to not have to pay the other half, the money saved vs time spent is exactly equal to the money earned and time spent earning an income.

That bard spending his downtime singing on the street? He's "saved" just as much money during his downtime as the artificer who used one of his skill feats just to be able to craft magical items in the first place.

Except the bard didn't have to spend a feat, didn't have to hunt down a formula to get the "savings," and can spend his earnings on the exact same magic item the artificer spent his time crafting or on something else of his choosing (unlike the artificer, who only gets to "spend" his money on his one item).

Yeah, Paizo cracked down on these known "abuses" hard.

The alchemist "free crafting" that is being referred to is Advanced Alchemy.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the heavy crossbow is great, but the normal crossbow is fine. d12 vs d10 isn't good enough for the extra action a lot of the time.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the takeaway here is that if you want your character to dual-wield necksplitters, go for it, it'll work fine. Don't worry about the optimizing. What kind of half-orc barbarian does math?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are certainly level 0 creatures in the Bestiary. 8, in fact.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

Standard apologies if this has been answered. etc etc.

If a creature has two attack forms. One normal, and one agile. And it attacks with the normal first, then agile, then back to normal.
Say his attack bonus is +20. Would it go +20, +16, +11? Or would it go +20, +16, +10?
I guess what I'm asking is.. does the -4 or -5 (and -8 and -10) come off the attack in front of it? Or does it come off of the original number?
I hope this made sense.

MAP uses only the number of previous attacks, and the traits of the current weapon. You would attack at +20, +16, +10. Using agile weapons later is therefore better.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Something went wrong when characters started being referred to as "Builds".

Characters are not builds. Builds are the mechanical skeleton that makes a character able to function in the game world.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"If combat breaks out while you’re casting one, your spell is disrupted" - page 302. Combat breaking out is not the same as rolling initiative. Once your rogue shoots (hit or miss), the ritual will be disrupted.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Allowing all spontaneous spells to be cast at any level has two problems:

1) It pressures players to pick only spells that heighten well, which is a fraction of the spell list

2) Combinatorial explosion of the number of spells to pick from every turn

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The option was for it to have +1 AC at all three item levels (with just the save bonus going up) and not cap Dex or go +1/+2/+3 to both and cap Dex. We switched to the latter, as currently printed in the item itself, late in the process on the grounds that it is always more effective or equal for all characters and is otherwise just a worse choice for mages and the like than wearing robes/adventure's clothing.

Thanks for confirming! I also find it amusing that a Dex 22 character can dodge so fast that the magic forcefield can't keep up.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
CyberMephit wrote:
How is this party going to take down a storm lord? Or a level 5 wizard with fly? Or even a level 1 lantern archon in a friendly contest?

Champions have serious issues against ranged/flying opponents, it is true. Champion's Reaction applying only out to 15 feet can be a serious limitation in anything but cramped dungeons.

Presumably, though, one of them is a fighter multiclassed into champion, for Sudden Leap and Felling Strike at 9th. Failing that, one of them is a bard multiclassed into champion for fly at 7th.

Alternatively, they all carry a backup shortbow. Not as dramatic, perhaps, but they are all trained in it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I intend to ignore the - bulk 1cp basic items like sheaths. It's nice that they included them for those who want it, but even my RAW-loving self finds that degree of detail overkill.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some characters I'm excited to play:

Dwarven monk, (10 dex) mountain stance, going for both stunning fist and brawling specialization (They stack!) for maximum Flurry of Stuns.
Built level 1.

Human monk, Dragon Stance, (16 str, 16 dex) steel shield to bring AC up.
Spinkicks + spiked shield is just cool.
Haven't built yet.

Human Paladin of Iomedae with steel shield and flail. Might domain for Athletic Rush, to dash + trip with flail. Will take all the shield feats and probably multiclass either Cleric or Fighter.
Built level 1.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LizardMage wrote:

Afternoon everyone!

Just making sure I didn't miss something, but I don't need an Int/Wis/Chr score of 16 to cast 6th level spell? Having a high key ability only impacts the DCs and Attack rolls?

Thanks for the assist!

Correct, there is no minimum stat. Though multiclassing into casters requires a 14.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Not only does PF2 require you to buy competence in your class, it has feat locked entire approaches to the game to certain classes. I have a sword and board Ranger in PF1 that is achieved within the confines of the class. That isn't even possible in PF2. Granted, that may change with new content.

I don't understand what you mean, that a sword and board ranger isn't possible in PF2. Get a steel shield and shield spike, take Versatile Human or General Training for Shield Block, and take Twin Takedown. An effective sword and board ranger at level 1. If you don't want to be human, then you can take Shield Block at level 3, and settle for the +2 AC until then.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NOM NOM NOM wrote:

I'm testing out all sorts of stuff in the character creator via herolab and having a blast.

I made an elf barbarian who was a gladiator in an underground arena hundreds of years ago who went into hiding after a bunch of other adventurers burned the thing to the ground.

I made a charlatan diviner whose whole shtick is to whip up towns into a frenzy of intrigue just to see what happens.

I made a ranger of Gozreh who protects the wilderness from gentrification.

Also a former bounty hunter turned liberator, who's fighting to free the people she unjustly handed over to corrupt lawmen.

A lawful necromancer, follower of Nethys, who in her spare time consults as a private investigator, mainly because of her expertise at keeping her own privacy.

And the best part is each of them is so easy to start up because it's little more than picking a background and a class and just going hog wild.

I'm trying to figure out a way to make a detective barbarian. But I can't stop giggling at the idea of Conan looking around him and cursing at the black and white and shades of grey.

Charisma is useful for deception, diplomacy, etc for detective work. It's also a very strong combat option for intimidation for a barbarian. Decent Int for skills shouldn't cut into your build too much, given that you use medium armor.

Eltacolibre wrote:

Weaknesses are doubled simply because they aren't extra damage dice or comes from a crit trigger or requirement.

At least, so far that's the case unless told otherwise.

But weaknesses aren't damage that the attacker deals, it's extra damage from a property of the monster. At least, that's how I read it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
More of a germ of an idea, but I have a concept of a Wizard who worships Nethys and multiclasses into Champion so that he can stomp around in Full Plate. He’d probably also pick up Lay on Hands, cause why not have a wizard who can heal?

Would Nethys approve of someone using mundane armor in his name? I think you'd need it to be at least +1 for it to not be anathema.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
I think the crafting rules are fine for at-level items. My problem is that it apparently takes a legendary smith 4 days to make a spear. It seems the devs didn't think of this, or didn't think it was worth complicating the rules for.

To be fair. Forged in Fire TV show has had amateur and professional (does it for a living, 20years experience) bladesmiths. They usualy spend a week on the final project fine tuning and peprfectin their weapon to the best of their abilities. And they have modern forging tools. Of course they also have the reverse. spend 6 hours to make a blade in competition. but those often break or aren't well done (relatively speaking)

It wouldn't surprise me if a skilful bladesmith spends that long because they're proud of their skill and wants to take the time to do it right. Whether its a cheap spear, or a fork.

Right, but say I'm a fighter, and in a week the town we're in is going to be attacked. I want to head right to the smithy and start churning out basic spears like a madman. I would like to be able to make them really fast, and if we went by purely gold cost, a spear costs 1sp, and I can do 1sp/day at level one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
A friend of mine is pretty new to PF, he's looking to make a caster Druid he wants to make a pure blaster type. Anyone recommend race, feats? Thank you!

Storm Druids get the best blasting. To be able to cast Tempest Surge more often, you want to get more Focus points and improved regen. Gnomes have a strong primal theme and can get Energized Font at 5th level to get 1 Focus point back as an action once per day. I would take Widen Spell and/or Reach Spell, and eventually Storm Retribution at 6th.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the crafting rules are fine for at-level items. My problem is that it apparently takes a legendary smith 4 days to make a spear. It seems the devs didn't think of this, or didn't think it was worth complicating the rules for.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
Light is nice if nobody else took it, shield is okay if you have 2 hands full, either as a shield on a 2-handed weapon user or 2 weapon fighter, or as a backup for when your real shield breaks.

I would actually use the cantrip first - a free damage block before you start using your own shield.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Its up to the DM.

*sigh*... SO no guidance is what you're saying... That's the last thing I want to hear. It'd be nice to have some assurance that if I take a monk, for instance, I'd be able to have a default stance as to whether or not I could expect to refill Shuriken without having to instead add it to the ever growing number of questions I have for my next DM [and the one after that, the the next one and the one after all of them...]. I'm going to need a 100 question questionnaire every time I start a new game. :P

I swear, at every turn there's something else that makes me less excited about the game...


"You gain access to uncommon weapons that have the monk trait"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mogloth wrote:

This isn't a rules question.

My friends and I were going over the books last weekend. I was flipping through the spells and was reading some out loud at random. I read PW:K. You speak a word - stuff dies. Essentially.

My friend didn't like that. He was looking at it from a player's perspective. No saving throw and your character is dead.

Which got me to thinking and wondering. Has Paizo ever put out a monster that had PW:K on it's spell list?

1) If you are level 14 and fighting something with PWK, it's a very difficult boss that might murder you anyway

2) If you are level 14 or above, you should have access to Raise Dead, Resurrection, etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boomstik101 wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Nunchucks aren't a grapple weapon (they are backswing, disarm, finesse, monk)

Did you mean something else?

I dont have my book in front of me, but I remember them being the *only* grapple weapon. Maybe my eye wandered on the weapons table.

Ctrl-F on the PDF reveals that while the grapple weapon trait is defined, there is no grapple weapon listed. Odd.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
Archives of Nethys wrote:

Spellwrack Spell 6

Abjuration Curse Force
Source Core Rulebook pg. 371
Traditions arcane, divine, occult
Cast Two Actions somatic, verbal
Range 30 feet; Targets 1 creature
Saving Throw Will
You cause any spells cast on the target to spill out their energy in harmful surges. The target must attempt a Will save.

Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success Whenever the target becomes affected by a spell with a duration, the target takes 2d12 persistent force damage. Each time it takes persistent force damage from spellwrack, it reduces the remaining duration of spells affecting it by 1 round. Only a successful Arcana check against your spell DC can help the target recover from the persistent damage; the curse and the persistent damage end after 1 minute.
Failure As success, but the curse and persistent damage do not end on their own.
Critical Failure As failure, but the persistent force damage is 4d12.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding some parts of this spell.

First, does persistent damage stack? I'm inclined to say no, but I can't find anything on Archives of Nethys indicating that it doesn't.

Second, the success effect, does the curse reduce it's own duration when triggered?

So, lets say you have 7 rounds left on both a 1 minute spell and spellwrack affecting you, and before the next round someone lands 2 spells with durations on you. First, do you take 2d12 or 4d12 persistent force damage? Next, does the duration for your buff and spellwrack both go down to 5 rounds, or is it just your buff? Third, lets say next round you recover from all persistent damage but someone hits you with another spell with duration, do you begin taking the persistent damage again?

CRB 621, persistent damage of different damage types stack, the same one doesn't. Since you take persistent damage at the end of your turn, not immediately, that would imply that stacking several buffs on the target will not cause more damage. As for reducing it's own duration, Spellwrack doesn't actually have a duration, so it isn't reduced. only the curse has a duration, and it isn't a spell.

1 to 50 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>