painted_green's page

I'm starting an Extinction Curse campaign in two weeks but have noticed, like many others before me, that the economy of the circus doesn't really make much sense. The payouts are so small compared to the cost of upgrades that it would often require dozens of performances to get a return on the investment. And in the case of advertising, it's just throwing away money, plain and simple.

Rather than rework the system entirely, I've been thinking about a simple fix and am curious to hear your opinion on it. The fix is as follows:

Every PC, as shared coordinator of the circus, obtains a bonus of 20% of the payout, paid directly to them and to be used as they please, even for adventuring needs, after each show. (Excluding the very first show, where they already obtain a bigger bonus from the professor.)

My rationale is that this gives the players a much-needed way to turn circus profits into PC wealth. Since payout is tied to anticipation, this gives them an incentive to raise anticipation using circus money, rather than just having it sit around. And I feel that the payouts themselves are low enough that this fix won't throw the general wealth-by-level significantly out of whack.

Thoughts?

The sidebar on page 462 of the CRB states the following:
"Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. [...] if you used an action that specified, 'If the next action you use is a Strike,' an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action."

The monster ability Push lists the following as its requirement (page 343 of the Bestiary):
"The monster's last action was a success with a Strike that lists Push in its damage entry."

Now consider the roc's Wing Rebuff reaction as described on page 281:
"The roc makes a wing Strike against the triggering creature. If the roc Pushes the creature, it disrupts the triggering move action."

From my understanding of the CRB text, the second sentence does not make any sense, since it should be impossible for the roc to Push a creature in this situation, the Strike being a subordinate action to the Wing Rebuff reaction.

As another example, consider the last sentence of the kraken's Double Attack feature (involving Grab, which has a similar requirement as Push) on page 214:
"If the kraken subsequently uses the Grab action, it Grabs any number of creatures."

Of course, how these cases should be adjudicated is clear: the roc *can* Push after a Wing Rebuff, and the kraken *can* Grab after a Double Attack. However, the wording of these entries has led me to believe that a similar thing should hold in cases where it is not explicitly mentioned, like the snapping flytrap's Hungry Flurry on page 160 or the remorhaz' Thrash on page 280.

My questions, thus, are the following:

1. Should it be possible, in general, for a monster to use a Grab, Push or Knockdown action (or free action from the Improved versions) after a successful Strike, even if said Strike was a subordinate action?

2. If so, should each Strike from the activity count as a separate trigger for the Improved versions (which are free actions), so that, for example, the snapping flytrap could Grab two creatures at once with its Hungry Flurry?

Note that question 2 is really only relevant for the Improved versions, since in the standard case it is quite clear that only one Grab, Push or Knockdown is possible - the second such action would no longer follow any successful Strike. This also means that, say, the sentence quoted above from the kraken's Double Attack action is not superfluous either way.

After reading large parts of the Bestiary, my intuition would be that the intended answer to both questions is "yes". However, I would be interested in other people's input on this.

I got the Character Sheet Pack through my subscription and was wondering whether it would be possible to include printer-friendly versions of the sheets included in that set with the corresponding pdf, since obviously I want to print more of them but the standard version uses too much ink.

I am a bit confused as to when conditions applied by afflictions actually end. My reading of RAW (the small paragraph about conditions from afflictions) is that any such condition is permanent unless removed by one of the usual methods (retching for sickened, flat checks for persistent damage, recovery spells, etc.). My confusion stems from two sources:

1. The paragraph as written seems to be based on the assumption that conditions lasting longer than their affliction is a special case. But I could not find a single affliction where a condition it applies is actually stated to be temporary.

2. If my reading is correct, this makes some afflictions quite powerful. For instance, the first-level spell Goblin Pox applies a permanent slowed 1 effect after two failed saves (or a single critical failure), which, as far as I can see, is quite difficult to remove.

One possibility I see is that permanency is supposed to be based on the condition. The example in the CRB lists drained as a condition that should outlast its affliction. However, there is nothing in the CRB to suggest that drained should have this property, or that other conditions do not. I would appreciate some input on this question.

Not sure if this is appropriate yet since the release date has not officially arrived - if so, please delete this thread.

I am enjoying the book so far, but I have encountered a case which does not seem to be working as intended to me, so I figured, why not make a thread where people can post these quibbles?

Anyway, the issue I have run into is that RAW, it is impossible to attack with a flaming weapon in aquatic combats because the Strike action gains the fire trait and actions with the fire trait are forbidden underwater. My assumption would be that the weapon should at least function as a normal weapon (modified by the usual underwater rules for weapons).