mrspaghetti's page

Organized Play Member. 326 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Perdue wrote:

If you randomly vanish and reappear into an occupied square or wall 10 feet away, what happens? Do you blink short, does the blink fail all together, do you blink further in that direction until you find an unoccupied square?

What if you are huge and only some of your squares are occupied by other things when you blink?

If I were GM, I'd count only squares that were valid for you to appear in, then roll a die to see which one you appeared in. If there were none then you stay where you are but still have the resistance for the duration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since not using metal armor and weapons would severely restrict who could realistically take the druid archetype, I'd read it as requiring only adherence to the order's anathema.


1, agreed


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chewbacca wore 2 bandoliers in Solo, so that would be allowed for sure at my table.


Lanathar wrote:

Pretty sure they discuss this on a recent "Roll for Combat" episode referencing a discussion with Mark Seifter

They work for tools only and absolutely cannot be used for potions. Absolutely hard "no" on the potions. (I think Mark apparently messaged the GM of RfC in all caps on that one)

Well, they can certainly be used for potions, I believe you're saying you just wouldn't be able to draw and drink them with one action. Still faster than digging them put of a backpack, as someone pointed out.


ofMars wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
ofMars wrote:
...and THEN you're missing out on quicken, so...
Quicken gives you basically one extra action a single time per day. Meh. Imo, better off just casting Haste.
quicken is the only way to cast two 2-action spells in the same round, though

Yeah, but that's not worth a 10th level feat, IMO. Not by a long shot.


ofMars wrote:
...and THEN you're missing out on quicken, so...

Quicken gives you basically one extra action a single time per day. Meh. Imo, better off just casting Haste.


And I believe Paizo clarified in the errata that for universalists Drain Arcane Bond is one spell of each level once per day. So universalists are arguably less versatile since they effectively get 3 slots + 1 recast / level, vs specialists who get 4 slots / level + one daily recast of a single spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:

Cough.

Conversation
vs
Conservation

;)

Well, this thread is a conversation about conservation, so...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd house rule that all dwarves are proficient, personally


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laran wrote:
All this aside - I truly enjoyed reading about bond conservation and there are very useful elements in the analysis

Completely agree, nice analysis.

Laran wrote:


(BTW as an aside, I do not know if you changed the stat increase levels in the document since the one I am reading still has 4 8 12 16 20)

Can you explain this to me? I don't understand what you're referring to, or why you are mentioning it here.


I still have not actually ever gotten to high enough level to use it or see it used, but the observation that most combat encounters are only a few rounds is true in my experience so far, certainly. If that holds true at higher levels it would seem to make Bond Conservation tough to squeeze a lot out of. Still worthwhile though, probably.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
I actually wonder if it's intended that the Tentacles make Grab attack immediately VS anybody who enters it. The spells's first line is "attempt to Grapple creatures in the area", and I don't see why that isn't ongoing area effect. Then it also has effect of further grab at the end of creature's turn who remain in area. That actually makes for a stronger effect, with 2 chances to Grab somebody who moves into the area on their own turn AND stays there (and if they were Grabbed on entry and couldn't escape, that would total for 3d6 damage), or just 1 chance if they move in and exit before end of their turn.

Upon re-reading the spell, I think this is correct. This seems like an appropriate reading for a 5th level spell.


theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

Actually, upon second reading I don't think you can take Canrip connection three times. "You can change it with retraining" wasn't making sense to me and now I understand why.

Quote:
Cantrip Connection (Source Core Rulebook pg. 218): You can prepare an additional cantrip, or if you have a repertoire, instead designate a cantrip to add to your repertoire every time you select this ability; you can retrain it but can’t otherwise change it. You must be able to prepare cantrips or add them to your repertoire to select this.

It is saying that you pick one cantrip that becomes the cantrip that you add to your list when you decide to select cantrip connection. That is, you don't get to choose a different cantrip each time you use it. If you pick ray of Frost, it stays ray of Frost every time you use it.... Unless you retrain it.

Note the singular language: you prepare AN additional cantrip, designate A cantrip, you can retrain IT.

Yes, it is pretty clear to me that you can only select a particular familiar/master ability once. Otherwise selecting Spell Battery multiple times, for example, would be kinda silly imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
If a person cant state their position then how else are debates to happen?

Apparently debates are fine as long as you don't disagree with anyone. Which makes for a really interesting debate*.

*(If you define "interesting" as "not interesting")


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there are already a bunch of threads on this. Might make sense to post in one of them rather than starting another.


graystone wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

I've noted a distinct cultural shift on these boards since the advent of 2E.

*slapstick old man voice*

I blame the sudden and massive influx of 5E youth across our borders and all these gosh-darned whipper snappers taking up the hobby for the first time. I'm so happy that Paizo's customer base is growing I could throw a jamboree, but me thinks some o'them weren't raised right by their parents. Always lookin' for fights where there was none and no manners at all.

If'n you're really old, you forgot to tell 'em to get off your yard, take that fancy skateboard'n some place else and to turn off that horrible music... Back in my day curmudgeons knew how to complain right...

This would be a great place to quote the movie Gran Torino, except it would probably get me banned from the forum.


ofMars wrote:

Would you say that someone with quicksilver mutagen gets a bonus to finesse melee attacks because of your RAI applying to dex? what about to AC, since dex hits that, too? The transition from flavor to mechanics unbalances the item. It applies to what it says it applies to, and that includes spell attacks, and excludes all sorts of things that you could imply with "quicker and nimbler."

This is reminiscent of my 5e player getting stuck between the description of true strike giving her "an insight to her opponents defenses" and the mechanical effect of just giving her advantage. She wanted knowledge about their AC or resistance or whatever because of how she interpreted the flavor description instead of the mechanical abstraction of...

I'm saying it would be much more consistent if the devs had written "attack rolls with ranged weapons", and that is how I'd interpret it. But as stated earlier I don't fault your interpretation.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
Charm was a bad example, but I think you know what I meant. Have fun.
Not sure what you mean. It seems there’s a bit of confusion on both sides at this point. My point was simply an interesting interaction between mechanics. At this point I’m not sure which part you think should or shouldn’t be RAI. Sorry if it came off otherwise; seems like just simple misunderstanding

I'm not confused actually. Given only the excerpts you posted from the Quicksilver Mutagen description your argument is completely sound. But if you also read the phrase that comes before it, i.e. "you become swifter and nimbler", then there is doubt imo. That's because to me it indicates the source of the bonus, which would not really affect a roll which is entirely based on an ability modifier completely unrelated to one's swiftness or nimbleness.

To me it is logical that RAI the Mutagen bonus to attack rolls only applies to ranged attacks modified by dex.


beowulf99 wrote:
stuff

Dude, you are obviously determined to interpret this as you've stated. Why keep looking for affirmation? Just go with it and play.


Charm was a bad example, but I think you know what I meant. Have fun.


Doesn't everyone benefit from that as often as they are penalized by it anyway?


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Actually, i find that as a pretty weak argument.
I still don't see how becoming "swifter and nimbler" would benefit a roll that depends on your spell casting ability modifier.
Haven’t you ever heard them called ‘Finger Wagglers’? This lets them waggle their fingers more swiftly and nimbly.

Well in that case...

Seriously, I could see it reasonably applying for some spells but not others. E.g., Telekinetic Projectile perhaps, but not Charm. Personally I'd say no to both cases but I wouldn't fault a GM who went the other way.

BTW, what you saw as a weak argument was actually not an argument at all, I had merely stated my opinion without any supporting argument whatsoever. My follow up post contained an argument.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Actually, i find that as a pretty weak argument.

I still don't see how becoming "swifter and nimbler" would benefit a roll that depends on your spell casting ability modifier.


beowulf99 wrote:

There is no reason you couldn't gain an item bonus from the boots of speed to both stats at the same time. The piece I feel others are missing is that the climb speed is derived from the characters move speed, which is altered by the boots. When you gain that climb speed, you now have an unaltered climb speed, derived from your move speed that the boots can then alter with the second part of its buff. You don't give up your move speed, so the boots are still buffing that. And if you had a swim speed they would be buffing that as well.

There is no limitation in the book or the description of the boots that stop that climb speed from being further buffed by boots of speed.

I understand what you are saying, I just think your interpretation here is too good to be true.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Suppose the enemy has an ability that gives a +2 AC against melee attacks. It would help against melee spell attacks, but not against ranged spell attacks. But all spell attacks are based on your casting stat, not Dexterity.

I’m curious if this is the case, since the book takes a small section to specifically state the differences between Melee, Ranged and Target Spells. For the most part it doesn’t seem like it will be much of an issue; but i found an interesting interaction with Quicksilver Mutagen.

Quicksilver Mutagen CRB pg 549 wrote:

Your features become thin and angular. You become swifter and nimbler, but your body also becomes fragile.

Benefit: You gain an item bonus to Acrobatics checks, Stealth checks, Thievery checks, Reflex saves, and ranged attack rolls, and you gain the listed status bonus to your Speed.
In other places they specify Ranged Weapon Attack Rolls as well; so this interaction on the surface looks like it should work with Ranged Spell Attack Rolls. Would be interesting if it’s an oversight, but atm there’s too little evidence to say for sure.

I doubt that RAI the mutagen applies to spell attack rolls of any kind.


Strill wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

I'd say no.

We should apply the effects in a consistent order.

For example:
I have 30-foot land speed.
I apply the boot effects: I now have 35-foot land speed.
Then I apply the Quick Climb effect. I gain a climb speed equal to my land speed: 35.
Since I've already applied the effect of the boots, I can't now do it again.

But you haven't applied the boots' bonus to Climb speed. You've applied the effect of your Quick Climber feat. Your climb speed has not yet received its item bonus.

I agree with @Matthew Downie on this one.


Luckily one can ignore anything one finds unproductive, unhelpful or negative in any way. In the case of a moderated internet forum, that means you only have a problem if the moderator decides you're unwelcome.


Zapp wrote:
Man, I need an updated PDF where all the errata has been annotated... :(

I would think some enterprising gamer out there has already done that and shared it.


breithauptclan wrote:
Telekinetic Projectile is probably a typo

You guys should look at the official errata. TKP was specifically changed to spell attack roll.


You're explicitly not allowed to retrain into something that you wouldn't have been able to take initially, so no.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Penecontemporaneous One wrote:

Thank you for the page reference.

The bedside manner, you can keep.

I'm not seeing any "bedside manner" in @thenobledrake's response. It appears to be a simple, factual answer to your question.


thenobledrake wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
Atalius wrote:
Interesting, both my hands are occupied and noticed the spell has a material component, does that mean I need to empty out one hand (Shield) so I can cast the spell?
I don't think so. Holding something doesn't prevent you from using somatic components in 2e, only being restrained or pinned in some way.
the spell has a material component - not just somatic.

My bad, I stand corrected.


Atalius wrote:
Interesting, both my hands are occupied and noticed the spell has a material component, does that mean I need to empty out one hand (Shield) so I can cast the spell?

I don't think so. Holding something doesn't prevent you from using somatic components in 2e, only being restrained or pinned in some way.


Ravingdork wrote:

My battle oracle loves haste!

True strike
Bespell weapon
Strike
True strike
Bespell weapon
Strike

Makes for a pretty amazing round for damage, especially when you consider the higher chances for critical hits.

Bespell Weapon is only usable once per turn, though it lasts until the end of your turn, so technically it's

True Strike
Bespell Weapon
Strike
True Strike
Strike


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ofMars wrote:
yeah, given that attacking more than twice isn't super optimal for most classes, and there are so many different things you can do with your actions it seems less about getting one more attack and more about doing all your other stuff and still being able to attack

Or more importantly, still being able to move.

I'm scratching my head over this thread, frankly. Getting an extra action is amazing for any build. Why would a wizard need to be good with a weapon to benefit from an extra action, for example? Perform any 3 actions and still be able to move too. Seems like a no-brainer.


There's no separate "Summon Swarm" spell as there was in PF1. I don't see why you couldn't summon a swarm of the appropriate level using Summon Animal.


If you watch any TV shows, CHA is clearly the important ability for investigators. All those CSIs are smoking hot.


I'd say no. Trip is an attack that happens to use a skill check for the roll, but I don't think halfing luck was intended to reroll attacks.


There's always the option of taking a multiclass dedication


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the OP. It was fine when I thought wizards got a class feat at 1st level, but now that they don't, they should probably have simple weapon proficiency by default.

The argument/explanation for them not having a 1st level class feat was, "no other caster class has it". So the same logic should apply here - if all the others have it then so should the wizard.


Obviously, and no one suggested that or anything remotely close to it.

But as long as any attack it makes only does "1d4 plus your spellcasting ability modifier", what's the difference if it's an illusory spell, melee weapon, breath weapon or ranged weapon? It's not real, so it doesn't have to follow the rules of a real lightning bolt, etc. You could just roll an attack roll per the illusory creature spell rather than requiring a save. Not sure how I'd handle the whole area effect thing, but certainly if it affected only one creature I don't see why it would be an issue.


So is there any reason an illusory creature couldn't cast an illusory lightning bolt, for example? I'd think that would work, though it would likely allow a disbelieve check for damage disparity.


Zapp wrote:

Anyone else thinking it slightly weird how... undefined this is, especially pull?

The Bestiary does state that as a general rule Push is doubled on a crit, but that does not seem to apply to the CRB (where individual push effects state that you push more on a crit).

Neither rulebook nor bestiary define pull at all.

I kind of expected a general rules entry for each.

I guess it's just Forced Movement


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PrimalWyld wrote:
The only potential exception would be the normal skill proficiency improvements that you get but I think that might be stretching the rules.

That would not just be stretching the rules, it would be breaking them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't remember reading that it has to be something in the bestiary. I just made one up that fit my concept, which didn't have any abilities.

I think this is being overthought. If you want something as a familiar and you don't want to choose something as an ability that's innate to it, then it just magically won't have that ability until and unless you choose that ability again. So it's a "special breed" of crow that looks exactly like a regular one but can't fly, etc. Except on days you want it to.

You don't really need to explain it, familiars are magical, as is their bond with their master.


Asgetrion wrote:
3) Is there a point to cast non-cantrip spells as heightened versions?
In addition to what others said:
CRB p 299 wrote:
When you heighten your spell, the spell’s level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you’ve prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level.

So, for example, preparing Dispel Magic at a higher level has benefits, and likewise preparing any other spell benefits against Dispel Magic (or any other countering effects) when heightened.


Quote:
Just because you don’t see an answer here doesn’t mean that we aren’t aware of and considering the issue

It also doesn't mean that they are considering it.

I think some more spell errata are certain, but I'm not sure this cantrip will make the list at all.


Valid points.

Watery Soup wrote:
It is undoubtedly easier to have a friendly conversation with the GM and give constructive critism. He'll probably ask you to GM, and you can use that opportunity to show everyone how to do it correctly.

Mmmm, no. This (again) is not about style of play or mechanics, it is about attitude. Maybe you know of some techniques for having a "friendly" conversation with someone you don't really know, who has a bad attitude, and have that conversation turn out well. I do not, and so I don't do it.

Just thought I'd ask in case there was already a place people used for such things. Looks like the answer is no.

As for "showing everyone how to do it correctly", most PFS players demonstrate that every game by trying to be nice. It's not something I could demonstrate any better as a GM than as a player. The reason the GMs attitude matters more is because he has a much greater impact on enjoyment of the game for everyone else.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Who "coerced" him?

I think he was either an employee of the game store hosting the event, or possibly even the PFS guy for that location. He indicated that he "always has to" GM, and didn't seem too happy about it.

Doug Hahn wrote:
A subjective rating would be pretty useless: your ideal game might not be someone else's.

I'm talking about a bad attitude, not a style of play. It was like having the bailiff from traffic court be your GM - condescending and rude.

I find subjective ratings to be very useful if the sample size is large enough. Think Amazon product ratings and reviews.

1 to 50 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>