mrspaghetti's page

ScooterScoots wrote:

Errenor wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Yep. There's absolutely no way I'd allow pseudo-darkness. Not an actual object. They probably should've clarified the spell can imitate things which consist of Golarion material elements, you know, wind, earth, metal, wood, fire, water.

Though I'm sure there still can be exploits.

You’re not making an illusion of darkness. You’re making an illusion of a solid object colored black with whatever cosmetic affects (illusionary object can do animations, spell says so) help it superficially look like a darkness spell. It’s basically just an animated matte painting on a black sphere, as a starting point.

Ok, that's better. But you are getting automatic disbelieve checks each turn just for being inside of it because you constantly interact with it. That would be enough I suppose. Being inside illusory wall would work mostly the same for example.

An illusionary wall you get disbelieve checks for being inside it because a wall being walk through is inconsistent with being a wall. The fake darkness/fog/smog/whatever visual effect you’re doing is supposed to be intangible, there’s nothing to feel. There’s no inconsistency to notice, no real interaction with the illusion in the way there is for putting your hand through a fake wall. Maybe you could feel a lack of fog condensation feeling, if it was fog, but rank two illusionary object fixes this.

Fog and smog aren't "an object", but I can see getting a pass there. If you want to make an illusory object that somebody is embedded in that is convincingly fog/smog so that it doesn't give automatic interacts for being inside it... well, "Any creature that touches the image or uses the Seek action to examine it can attempt to disbelieve your illusion."

Touching it, regardless of how believable it is under the circumstance, is giving at least one disbelieve attempt without spending an action.

Agreed. Having an illusion be "above suspicion" is beneficial as long as it's not in contact with those you're trying to fool. Touching grants a save chance regardless, as I see it.

Also, while I agree it's a good spell, it's not exactly without fine print. When you put a wall around enemies, it also makes it hard for allies to see/target them. So using it as suggested against a solo boss is not an obvious tactic unless it's extremely well-orchestrated and pre-prepared, otherwise you're potentially shooting yourself in the foot.

"Disbelieving" an illusion and just knowing something is an illusion are not the same thing. This isn't ambiguous in the rules. Illusory Object is one of the best spells in the game without giving its caster free disbelief. With proper spacing and delaying turns, it is simple to make it a no save stun 2 against solo bosses, and with a chance of costing them even more actions. And that's before you get into the out of combat utility.

Ok, I'll ask:

How do you make it a no save stun 2 against solo bosses? I understand it could be done situationally, but maybe there's something I'm missing. That is certainly not a given in my mind.

mrspaghetti wrote:

Errenor wrote:

It's 'I want it' 'question'. It was never clarified because the answer is no, they do not disbelieve automatically. Exactly because there was nothing written about it.

Many GMs are certain of that, others are certain of the opposite, and the rest are completely uncertain. Thus my question.

I've had GMs rule that illusions basically don't work at all, and others who say the caster can automatically make them transparent or not to whoever he wants.

If there was no PFS and people always played with the same GM, then at least there would be consistency. But if you have a character who specializes in illusions and don't know what fundamental things he can do from game to game, that is an issue.

Rule 0 in PFS : always expect the worst and build your PC accordingly.

That is actually pretty good advice, thank you

mrspaghetti wrote:

Suppose you cast an Illusory stone wall. If the caster can auto-disbelieve it, then he is immediately hidden to everyone on the other side of the wall but he can see and target them with no wasted actions to disbelieve.

Oh, you missed another thing which I would absolutely enforce:

"If a creature engages with an illusion in a way that would prove it's not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can't ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. Disbelieving a visual illusion makes it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, which might block vision enough to leave the other side concealed. "
So no clear vision through any illusion of anything solid and opaque, even disbelieved, for everyone.

Nope, I didn't miss that. I don't think that is a point that needs clarification, just an ordinary GM call depending on the circumstances. No issues at all with that take.

I've always thought they see the illusion so they know it is the illusion they want, at least any illusion with a physical manifestation they can shape.

Why would they need to disbelieve it when they made it? They can dismiss it if it is causing them problems.

Illusory Object is not dismissable

I'm not sure where this would apply. Why are you concerned with it?

Suppose you cast an Illusory stone wall. If the caster can auto-disbelieve it, then he is immediately hidden to everyone on the other side of the wall but he can see and target them with no wasted actions to disbelieve.

If not, he'd need to either waste actions (potentially several) to ignore it, even possibly having it work against him if the enemies happen to disbelieve while he fails to do so. In which case, he's at a huge disadvantage, trapped blind behind his own illusion getting shot and unable to dismiss it.

You could still make a wall with openings to shoot through and get probably greater cover.

Either way it is tedious for the players and the GM to establish the fundamental functioning of illusions every session in PFS.

Both arguments are reasonable, which is why we really need a clarification from the Paizo people. Like, a single sentence would settle the debate.

I know I'm not terribly invested in the answer other than to know whether my caster should prepare illusion spells, and if so what tactics to use. Shouldn't need to interview each GM to get their philosophy on illusions first. Don't need to think about that for any other aspect of the game that I can think of.

Do casters automatically disbelieve their own illusions?

I posted this at https://paizo.com/threads/rzs8jpdy?Do-Casters-Automatically-Disbelieve-Thei r-Own#4

but it was suggested I put it here

Thanks

It's 'I want it' 'question'. It was never clarified because the answer is no, they do not disbelieve automatically. Exactly because there was nothing written about it.

Many GMs are certain of that, others are certain of the opposite, and the rest are completely uncertain. Thus my question.

I've had GMs rule that illusions basically don't work at all, and others who say the caster can automatically make them transparent or not to whoever he wants.

If there was no PFS and people always played with the same GM, then at least there would be consistency. But if you have a character who specializes in illusions and don't know what fundamental things he can do from game to game, that is an issue.

To The Game Design Team - please answer this once and for all. Every GM interprets it differently

Thank you!

Haven't had a chance to read through Impossible Magic yet, but I'm hoping Paizo took the opportunity to finally make a clear ruling on whether casters automatically disbelieve their own illusions or not.

GM interpretation has varied so hugely on this that I hardly ever cast them anymore, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone else cast Illusory Object EVER. An authoritative ruling on this would finally fix this - whatever the ruling was.

I personally don't feel like counterspelling is worth the investment you'd have to make to do it semi-effectively. The only reason I considered Conceal Spell is because I wanted the option of casting spells while invisible without automatically giving away my position. I still think that is the one thing that makes the feat worthwhile for the right build.

I'm just curious - now that everyone's been playing for a while with this available, has anyone seen it abused? Or even used? Because I actually found that I had never once benefited from Conceal Spell through 4 levels of play as a wizard, and ended up retraining to Reach Spell (which I found myself wishing for in about half of all my encounters).

I still think it could be handy, but only very rarely, and I certainly don't see it as OP under any circumstances.

I rather like Assurance: Arcana for Wizards. You can generally auto-learn max Rank spells one level after they become available, starting at Level 3. The two exceptions are Rank 4 spells, which you can Assurance Learn right from Level 7, and Rank 6 spells, which you can't Assurance Learn until L15. Understandably, you cannot Assurance Learn a Rank 10 spell either.

This assumes you're bumping Arcana at the earliest opportunity for your entire career.

Combined with Magical Shorthand, you auto-crit succeed and get spells at half price too, though not max rank ones.

I still find it hard to believe that a paid GM can do much better than break-even (Matt Mercer doesn't count). Especially for Pathfinder, since it's so easy to find a free game.

If I can get two small groups going for weekly games, then I can meet my family's most immediate and important needs.

Regardless of the social acceptability of pay-to-GM, if you're really struggling to meet the basic needs of your family, this is not what I'd suggest as a solution.

stuff

Anyway, I think I've made my point. If people want to read it as hostile or whatever, then so be it.

BTW, I don't personally think that truth can exist only in a textbook, nor do I think that textbooks always contain truth. Good for you with the degrees, lots of us have those. Bad form in my opinion to credential-drop like that though.

Hmmm, I dont think capitalism and gravity are all that similar, seeing how one is an intrinsic property of the universe and therefore trillions of years old and would exist with or without humans and the other is arguably 600 years old, not even practiced in every country in the world, is created by humans, and practiced differently all over the place.

Just cause something is old(ish) doesn't make it a law of physics and doesn't make it right.

Besides that, GMing is still playing a game and while some people get paid millions to play games, that's entirely based said games ability to be sold as an entertainment product to people not playing. Also, while most of the time people are paid differently based on their roles, I doubt you could get away with making most of the players pay and only one (no matter how hard they work) getting paid.

GMing for pay and critical role are only similar on a surface level, especially since the players arnt paying Matt, they are absolutely friends having a good time together, and the product being sold is being sold to an audience for basically free (supported by ads and donations)

Supply and demand are absolutely operative in every country, and also were operative everywhere before there were countries. It is not created by humans, it is simply a consequence of limited resources. Where there are laws or conventions that attempt to ration scarce resources, if those rules defy a significant supply-demand imbalance then they will be ignored or circumvented.

BTW, if you read Freakonomics you will note that even animals partake in resource rationing, not so unlike humans as you might expect.

This isn't politics, it's economics. I'm not arguing that nothing can be done and nobody should try to influence things, I just think anger at "capitalism" is totally unproductive and misplaced. It's not right or wrong, anymore than gravity is right or wrong. That was my point.

To address the comparison of sports officials being paid for their work, I'd point out that it's not the players who pay them. That would be weird.

I think the dragon possibly being able to use its breath again on its next turn is better for the game than the players knowing that it cannot use its breath again on its next turn.

That is a good point.

I'd argue that casting a spell non-Silently cancels the Avoid Notice activity.

Yeah, I mean the party could have easily let the caster go first in that situation by just delaying to let her cast her spell. I'm not sure what reason anyone had to be upset, if the barbarian ran into the room knowing the wizard wanted to cast a spell first then they have cooperation issues.

I would. IMO, casting a spell should not be treated any different than sneaking along, drawing a weapon, etc. Granted verbal components are meant to be announced loudly, but a cautious caster could try to mask those sounds with other ambient sounds, depending what they are. Would I always allow the stealth check? No, but neither would I never allow it. A heavy wood door between me and the enemy plus any ambient sounds from the enemy's side of the door, I could be persuaded to allow a stealth check albeit with a penalty. Perhaps with the hard or very hard adjustment.

Except that there are specific feats for casting spells stealthily. So allowing anyone to do it renders those feats worthless. Conceal Spell and Silent Spell.

I definitely would not let the wizard roll Stealth if the spell had a verbal component unless Silent Spell was used. Probably not Arcana either, though that would depend on which spell was being cast. I usually allow Arcana for initiative when the caster's exploration activity was Detect Magic, but I'd also probably consider it appropriate if they were using other divination spells like Clairvoyance.

It won't work out anyway. Gnomes are too flighty & half-orcs like it too rough.

Might as well break it off now.

I hate online gaming but its becoming more and more necessary, sadly.

Roll20 has never worked for me - I've always struggled to understand why its so ubiquitous. Fantasy Grounds was too difficult for me but I might give foundry a try.

Thanks for all the perspectives!

What browser do you use? As a rule, everything works better in Google Chrome.

Themetricsystem wrote:

Round 12. You spend 10 full rounds after the one you have used it being unable to use it, the logic is no different, until the full duration of "the cooldown" has elapsed you cannot use it again.

1 - Use the Ability: Start cooldown, at the end of the turn, counter at 0
2 - At the end of the turn, counter at 1
3 - At the end of the turn, counter at 2
4 - At the end of the turn, counter at 3
5 - At the end of the turn, counter at 4
6 - At the end of the turn, counter at 5
7 - At the end of the turn, counter at 6
8 - At the end of the turn, counter at 7
9 - At the end of the turn, counter at 8
10 - At the end of the turn, counter at 9
11 - At the end of the turn, counter at 10
12 - You can use the Ability

So, you can't use 10 times in 10 minutes an ability with a cooldown of 1 minute?

No, just like you couldn't use an ability 3 times in 3 minutes with a cool down of 1 minute. It would be twice.

I recently played a PFS game where a level 2 cleric tried to cast a second level spell.

My point is that characters created by new players who are unfamiliar with the rules should have their characters checked by someone who is familiar with the rules. Even a quick once-over. That is regardless of whether the character was created using tech or not. If absolutely nobody at the table knows the rules, then nobody is likely to notice mistakes, tech or no.

mrspaghetti wrote:

I'm distrusting of technology to implement complex sets of rules (unless I wrote the program myself). I've seen too many people with wrong builds resulting from using character builders.

Relying on those can affect game balance quite a bit, which will in turn negatively affect enjoyment of the game. If you don't know the rules then you'll never notice if a rule is being implemented wrong by the tech.

On the other side of the coin, I have seen dozens of examples of people handwriting their Character over the years who have their sheet littered with mistakes when even the most rudimentary piece of software would have warned them that they were not following the rules. In my experience people who aren't using some tools rarely are able to turn in a completed and legal Character without sitting down with a GM for a full build audit or someone else who does have access to actual tools.

Beyond that, I don't understand how you think you can somehow more easily audit a sheet that was written by someone without the help of tools versus one that was already assessed by a piece of software custom-built to handle the rules... skepticism is fine and all but your argument makes no sense at all and discounts a huge segment of players who use builders as a means to help with accessibly to the system. If 100% of people had to read the game rules from cover to cover and really understand them before actually creating a character and getting to play the product would never have been printed in the first place because it wouldn't have enough of a following or momentum to add new customers and players to the hobby.

Well nothing can be audited, regardless of the source, if nobody at the table actually knows the rules. So if the players and the GM are all relying on technology alone, I think that's a bad idea.

I'm distrustful of technology to implement complex sets of rules (unless I wrote the program myself). I've seen too many people with wrong builds resulting from using character builders.

Relying on those can affect game balance quite a bit, which will in turn negatively affect enjoyment of the game. If you don't know the rules then you'll never notice if a rule is being implemented wrong by the tech.

And let's not forget the humorous possibilities for stowing things using the Iron Gut spell.

"What's that? You're hungry? Hang on, I have an extra muffin... PHLAAaaaarf!
Here you go!"

Too bad the heightened version doesn't increase the number or bulk of the items you are able to store that way, only the duration.

Ravingdork wrote:

Roll20 drag and drop works great with feats, gear, and spells. Saves loads of time!

If I drag and drop a armor, shield, or weapon, it automatically updates my AC and attack listing. It also calculates all the bulk for me.. If it's a feat with an action, it creates an entry in the action section of my character sheet as well, so I don't have to switch tabs to activate the feat.

It's totally great. My guess is that earlier posters simply attempted it before the features were ready (been up for at least a month insofar as I can tell).

Just got on to test the compendium. Still doesn't work with classes, backgrounds, ancestries. You know, the most important first steps of any character creation.

If you're making a character and start out with those steps and they don't do anything, what's the likelihood you're going to continue?

I'm not sure most people use the VTTs for creating their characters, as you apparently do. Personally, I create my character the old-fashioned way and then put the info into the VTT sheet.

Even those that rely on drag-and-drop functionality I suspect are mostly interested in spells, feats and gear. I guess your bar is a lot higher than mine.

A point which won't matter to many, but will be critical for a few, is that Foundry and Fantasy Grounds don't work natively with Linux. That's why I've not used either of those, personally.

Because you only have to set up your character sheet once, and you can't click a button on a pdf to roll for attacks, spells, damage, saves, etc.

I am just providing a counterpoint to your assertion that Roll20 "doesn't work". I have played dozens of games on it as a player, and several as a GM and my experience has been that it works just fine. To get started for $0 it is a great platform IMO. It is true that there is a fair amount of manual entry, but that doesn't bother me and didn't take that long. Once the sheet is set up it is trivial to maintain and level up, and play is smooth.

The ability states you are unable to use the breath for 1-4 rounds after using it. Which means that you cannot use the breath for 1-4 rounds after you use it. Using it the round after you just used it means you have not had a round (or more) where you have not used it, which means you break the restriction by doing it this way.

If you use it in round 1, and you roll a 2, you must wait until round 4, where 2 rounds where you have not used a breath, have passed. If you roll a 1 instead, you must wait until round 3, where 1 round where you have not used a breath has passed.

Yeah, it seems pretty simple to me. Bringing in whether something takes 1 action or 2 has nothing to do with anything. If it says you can't use it for X rounds after using it, then you can't use it for X rounds after using it. That you can't use such an ability in the very same round is too obvious to even state, regardless of how many actions it takes.

I'd run it as immediate save upon casting, then saves afterwards only for creatures ending their turn within the cloud. So you could hold your breath and run through it, but if you were in the area when cast, it forms quickly enough that you may or may not have a chance to hold your breath (thus the fort save).

But I can see the other interpretations as valid as well. I think an initial save upon casting makes sense for a third level spell, otherwise it's not practically much better than Obscuring Mist.

mrspaghetti wrote:

Harles wrote:

I have purchased for Roll20, but its implementation on there is pretty bad. The character sheets don't work, spells and feats can't be dropped in, and there isn't a lot of content.

That is not correct, the character sheets for PF2 work fine in Roll20. Maybe whoever set up your games did not specify that it should use the PF2 custom sheets.

Spells and feats can be dropped in only if you pay for the compendium, which I have not done. But some GMs have that enabled and it is easy enough to add things manually, IMO.

I pay for the lowest-cost level of subscription at Roll20 only for the character vault import/export functionality. But that is really not necessary to get started with it and get used to it.

I set it up and ran it as GM. I purchased every rules resource available on Roll20, including the highest tier subscription.

And I can say emphatically that it doesn't work. You cannot drag equipment, heritages, feats, or much of anything else from the compendium. It doesn't put in weapon qualities, calculate bulk, put in AC for armor, or many other things that should be considered basic functionality. Sometimes bonuses are applied from stats and sometimes not, so you have to go through the character sheet with a fine-toothed comb to see what works and what doesn't.
It's not worth what I paid for it. The free, built-in rules system on FG works better than what I paid $50+ to do on Roll20 with its Core Rulebook.

What you describe is a lack of features you want. That is very different from a flat statement that they "don't work". Yes, there is some manual entry, but it most certainly works once you have it set up with the right information.

Well the OP had 3 reasons: 1. Verisimilitude, 2. Balance and 3. Fairness.

#1: Well, anything can fail if you make the assumption of a worst-case scenario. This easily works though, if you assume instead that what is being drawn are two potions (or anything else, really) from the pockets of a bandolier.

#2: Balance is unchanged in any significant way with either interpretation. But with my way there is less standing around after using up all your actions drawing things, so the game flows better, IMO. We've all experienced those totally anticlimactic turns where all we did was get ready to do something in some future turn. Less of that is always a good thing, IMO.

#3: I don't have an issue with fairness at all. As stated above, I see no significant change to game balance at all, just an improvement in the way the game flows for everyone.

I have purchased for Roll20, but its implementation on there is pretty bad. The character sheets don't work, spells and feats can't be dropped in, and there isn't a lot of content.

That is not correct, the character sheets for PF2 work fine in Roll20. Maybe whoever set up your games did not specify that it should use the PF2 custom sheets.

Spells and feats can be dropped in only if you pay for the compendium, which I have not done. But some GMs have that enabled and it is easy enough to add things manually, IMO.

I pay for the lowest-cost level of subscription at Roll20 only for the character vault import/export functionality. But that is really not necessary to get started with it and get used to it.

Where's the best place to find online games? And what's the best VTT to handle PF2? (Roll20 seemed ... lacking?)

My wife especially loved the system, but our in-person game fell apart due to the pandemic, and transitioning it to a VTT had some problems (necessitating in me ending the campaign).
I'm not seeing much in PFS on here. Are there other avenues?

I always use warhorn. There are various VTTs, but Roll20 is by far the most common, and most games use that for the maps/rolls, with Discord open in a separate window for voice.

To clarify, I don't really care and this isn't my thread. Just saying I think the OP has a point and it would make more sense to me if that were the norm. I get it that the majority here disagree.

mrspaghetti wrote:

So the net effect is no change to game balance, just less nonsensical mechanics IMO.

Ok, and in your home game you can run the game without mechanics you believe are nonsensical.

But drawing two things at the same time is something that an average person can't do without training (ie a feat).

You have made your point. But a point still remains that the rule is the rule and the rule is understood how the rule works.

Is there a feat like that? If so, I wouldn't advocate just allowing it for everyone. But since, to my knowledge there is not...

I think I wasn't clear. I was saying that the ability to do what I'm suggesting is not a significantly bigger advantage for a Two Weapon Fighter than for anyone else. Any character who happens to have 2 free hands (or is willing to drop whatever is in them) has advantages as well. An alchemist can draw 2 bombs or mutagens, a wizard can draw 2 scrolls, etc. And the enemy can do the same.

So the net effect is no change to game balance, just less nonsensical mechanics IMO.

We will have to disagree on this. I think it would break game balance to allow the drawing of two items/weapons/whatever with a single action. It makes TWF very overpowered because it would allow an attack with both weapons on the first round of combat. Double slice becomes more a "go to" standard.

In the end, it comes down to the GM's call. The rules are clear. One action to draw one "something".

Yes, we disagree on how significant that is for TWFs vs everyone else.

mrspaghetti wrote:

It's what my arthritic grandmother did every time she unloaded her shopping cart onto the conveyor at the supermarket.

Is she doing it while moving and/or in combat under time pressures? Can she grab 2 mini cans of soda off the conveyor and chug them down in 6 seconds? Can she grab her keys and a pack of mints out of 2 different pockets and then use both in 6 seconds? I don't think you're looking at things correctly with this example.

I don't know, Grams was a real badass.

To me the intent is pretty clear that a 1 means it's unusable for one round. So I'd say you can't use it on the round following its first use. The "x" value is how many rounds it's not usable.

Game balance is not affected if everyone can interact to draw an item with each hand at the same time.

And I'm not talking about playing a harpsichord with one hand and transcribing poetry with the other at the same time. Talking about picking up two things, one with each hand. That's not remotely the same as making a Strike at the same time as doing something else, IMO. It's what my arthritic grandmother did every time she unloaded her shopping cart onto the conveyor at the supermarket.

Interesting that the discussion had been entirely focused on drawing a weapon with each free hand. I guess the OP did showcase this as his main issue, but from my perspective it's more generalized.

For example, if a player has 2 free hands and 2 potions in a bandolier, does it take 2 actions to draw both? If yes, then only one can be consumed that turn. If not, both can be consumed.

I'm just having trouble visualizing someone standing there stupidly, only taking one item from their bandolier at a time, as if one hand is tied behind their back.

Perhaps the intent of the Shield Block isn't to have it available all the time, so characters have to make choices about when to use it. The Shield cantrip certainly supports a "once per fight" usage idea.

Honestly, I think a great many more spells should be dismissible.