shroudb's page

6,494 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

there is direct conflict here:
Specific familiar:

Quote:
If your familiar gains more abilities than are necessary for that specific familiar, you can use the remaining abilities to select familiar and master abilities as normal.

Witch familiar:

Quote:

One of your familiar’s two bonus abilities is

always the one listed here, a mark of your patron’s indelible
influence.

One ability always HAS to be the one given by your patron.

You can only "pick" abilities if you have remaining abilities after paying for the specific familiar.

So, until you can have 1 extra ability than required by a specific familiar, to take the mandatory Patron ability, you cannot upgrade to that specific familiar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spell even says to combine the damage before adding bonuses and such, which is a step before actually applying it as damage to a character, I can't see how it can be considered anything else except one instance of damage.


YuriP wrote:

I don't think so prepare still different from activate. As I said you still can activate it but there's 0 spells prepared in it.

Allows the Trick Magic Item to use a staff prepared from other players makes sense but I still think it's out of the scope of the skill feat activity. Anyway due the restriction of a caster only able to prepare on one staff per day another party member trick it would be very niche once you are preventing the original caster to use it at same time.

Also I consider this text as flavor part. The mechanics comes after it.

We aren't saying you are using Trick magic item to prepare the staff.

I agree that this is outside of the scope of the skill feat since it is not Activate to prepare the staff to begin with.

But if another person has already prepared the staff, then you can Trick it to use those prepared slots.

The staff rules say that "only the one who prepared it can activate the staff"
But the Trick item says that "you can activate an item that you can't normally activate"

---

This is the "conflicting text" that I'm talking about.

Both are specific rules, but one of them HAS to be more specific since they counter each other out.

---

I personally think that

Quote:
For the rest of the current turn, you can spend actions to activate the item as if you could normally use it.

wins over

Quote:
The person who prepared a staff can expend the charges to cast spells from it.

allowing you to actually use a staff like that. Something that he isn't allowed to (he isn't the one hwo prepared the staff) he is now allowed to.

It is very similar to your own example of a caster Tricking a staff to cast a spell not normally in his repertoire. Something that he isn't allowed to, now he is allowed to.

---

p.s. the mechnanics say nothing more than "you can activate the item". So even if we consider the first part a "flavour text"

Quote:
Success: For the rest of the current turn, you can spend actions to activate the item as if you could normally use it.

The skill feat supersedes all restrictions per RAW. Including you not being the one who put the charges in the sstaff to begin with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "which is more specific" is (I guess) about casting from a staff that someone else has prepared.

The two conflicting rules here are:
Only the one who prepared it can activate it
Vs
You can activate it even if normally you can't.

So the GM has to make a call which one supersedes the other (or, which one is "more specific")

Imo, a staff prepared from someone else still falls within the category of

Quote:
You examine a magic item you normally couldn’t use in an effort to fool it and activate it temporarily.

So you can indeed Trick a staff someone else prepared.


No.

Quote:
A misfortune effect detrimentally alters how you roll your dice. You can never have more than one misfortune effect alter a single roll.


Trick only allows you to Activate magical items.
Preparing a magical staff is not Activating it.

So you could Trick it to activate it and cast the cantrip, or you could Trick a staff someone else has put charges in, but you can't put charges in yourself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We only did the "place in order" thing for our couple first adventures. It did lead to funny stuff, but more importantly, back then, playing as "anything" was new to all of us, so we didn't mind playing whatever the fortune had in store for us.

After a couple of adventures though, some players did settle on favorite roles and classes, so we did the arrange where you want to facilitate being able to play those roles.


The Raven Black wrote:
shroudb wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Gortle wrote:
You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before.

Roles clearly arrived before the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm, but they were different. In D&D, it was Skill monkey (Rogue)/Martial (Fighter)/Wizard (a role by itself)/Support caster (Cleric).

Also, with multiclassing and hybrid classes these roles were not rock solid and characters were able to cover multiple role simultaneously. It was actually very close to PF2 where classes cover multiple different roles more or less well.

MMOs created the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm that was not really enforced before WoW. And then a lot of players tried to shoehorn this paradigm into other games like YuriP indicates. But TTRPGs never used these roles outside 4th edition (where Striker + Controller cover more or less the DPS role).

And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong. In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).

The trinity as it is now known in mmorpgs originates from everquest, not WoW. It started as tank/healer/support(enchanter) and then devolved into tank/healer/dps.

But even before that, during eaarly dnd days, you still wanted the "roles" covered despite what those roles were called back then. I started back with black box dnd, and even then we wanted to spread around the characters to cover as much stuff as possible in a single party.

Which rolling method did you use ?

It's been so long since those days that my memory is fuzzy even about the rules, but I think we did 3d6, put in any order we want.

Those for sure were how we did when we switched to 2nd, but I think it was true for the box characters as well.

It wasn't until much later in uni when we switched to 3rd that we switched to 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as you want.


That's purely a GM issue though.

If you're bargaining with a store keeper, the DC is based on the level of the store keeper, not the party. That means much easier to haggle when you're high level compared to low level.

And the other way around, if your asking from a king a greater reward, the DC is based on the king's level, not the party's. Even if that means that a low level party will struggle with it.

If a party feels it is unreasonable for the blacksmith to be level 15, they can surely bring that up with the GM rather than asking to completely mess up a system that as written works just fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Gortle wrote:
You, like others here, are confusing the origin of an idea, with the popularisation of certain terminology. Roles in combat dates back decades before.

Roles clearly arrived before the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm, but they were different. In D&D, it was Skill monkey (Rogue)/Martial (Fighter)/Wizard (a role by itself)/Support caster (Cleric).

Also, with multiclassing and hybrid classes these roles were not rock solid and characters were able to cover multiple role simultaneously. It was actually very close to PF2 where classes cover multiple different roles more or less well.

MMOs created the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm that was not really enforced before WoW. And then a lot of players tried to shoehorn this paradigm into other games like YuriP indicates. But TTRPGs never used these roles outside 4th edition (where Striker + Controller cover more or less the DPS role).

And stating that because you need to deal damage then there's a DPS role is clearly wrong. In PF2, every character can deal damage and as such DPS is no role (if everyone has a role, it's no role).

The trinity as it is now known in mmorpgs originates from everquest, not WoW. It started as tank/healer/support(enchanter) and then devolved into tank/healer/dps.

But even before that, during eaarly dnd days, you still wanted the "roles" covered despite what those roles were called back then. I started back with black box dnd, and even then we wanted to spread around the characters to cover as much stuff as possible in a single party.


yellowpete wrote:

I do get why there is the feeling of an inconsistency with the untrained modifiers. For example, if staying at +0 helps with immersion, then gaining +19 over the levels without any further investment in the skill after level 1 should hurt immersion, as should the automatic increase of many other stats. A game in which you can quite realistically double your overall power within a few days of fighting monsters just does not seem like a great fit for a player who is looking for this particular kind of immersion.

My favorite thing about spacious pouch/bag of holding is that it is one of the best shenanigans items left in PF2. Smuggling people in and out of places, getting to inaccessable spaces by throwing or squeezing it there, hiding in/springing ambushes out of them... not many PF2 items are so versatile and really ask for the creative input of the player like that.

I think it's a matter of perspective.

The way I see it, Trained indicates some form of commitement.

A Trained level 5 professional has been training for 5 levels, a Trained 15 level professional has been training for 15 levels. So there is a difference in the end effect of how skilled one is at this thing with higher levels.

Similarily, an Untrained character is someone that hasn't bothered with that skill at all. So it makes no difference if you haven't bothered for 1, 5 or 15 levels, you still are at the same 0. 0x1 is the same result as 0x15.


Trip.H wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Trip.H wrote:
That is a serious and unnecessary system problem that apparently did not exist in the past rule-set.

Is it actually all that serious? The problem, as described, is that someone who puts absolutely no investment in a skill is not going to be able to pass leveled checks.

That doesn't seem all that serious, after all the person in question has not even taken the bare minimum of steps to give themselves any boosts in that skill.

Again, for a number of people during the playtest this was specifically a desirable outcome.

Like I agree it's kind of weird and maybe not as useful as some people think, but treating it like some major, fundamental flaw in the game rather than just a personal taste thing seems way off base.

I do not want to blow the severity of the problem out of proportion, but it does exist, and as green as I am I've seen it ruin a few moments.

It is a good example of a real flaw caused by a mismatch of system design, and one that does not need to be there.

Especially for parties with fewer players, the untrained auto-fail is a real problem though. The game is built with scaling DCs, and then there is that contradiction where the stronger the PCs get, the *more* impossible it is to do actions they are untrained in.

The DC scaling already assumes Prof jumps and even Stat bonus growth to a large extent. Even when Trained, the chances of passing checks becomes rather remote without maximum investment.

There really is no need for the = 0 lock.
With the alternative of the lagging minus, I really cannot see any upside to the = 0 lock. It just adds the aforementioned problems with no benefit.

again, you fail to understand your problem.

the DCs of a specific thing is STATIC.

You keep trying harder and harder things, without investing anything at that thing, is what becomes harder.

There's no breaking in immersion here:
A wizard who never cared to learn how to climb a wall, will have the same exact difficulty in climbing that wall in level 1 and 20.

A barbarian who never learned how to talk politely will have the same exact difficulty, speaking to the same person, at level 1 and level 20.

You are expecting for someone who never bothered to learn how to be skillful with his way of talking, to face the same difficulties when speaking to a farmer and to a king.

That would actually break immersion, if the king was as easy to talk to as the farmer.

---

The clear upsides (imo always, like your as well are opinions) to the +0 are threefold:
It allows for static DCs to even exist.
It helps with immersion.
It makes an Attribute actually do something.


Finoan wrote:
shroudb wrote:

DC doesn't scale with PLAYER level, it scales with obstacle level.

So your example is completely wrong:

The goblin you met 7 levels ago will have the exact same diplomacy DC then and now.

The same goblin that hasn't improved will have the same DC.

A different goblin of similar type and level will have a very similar DC if not the same.

A different goblin that is fills a different role in the campaign may have a level appropriate to the level of the player characters and would have a different higher DC to match.

So yes, if you meet a random goblin scavenger and talk to it with diplomacy, 7 levels ago - and then meet the same or similar goblin scavenger later, the DC will be the same and your characters will be at +7 level from the previous encounter and it will feel really easy.

If you instead meet a goblin ranger or some other more skilled and powerful goblin, then the level of the creature may also be 7 levels higher than the goblin scavenger that you met earlier and it will have a DC that is challenging again.

Which was my point exactly:

DCs scale with obstacle levels not player levels, it isn't that "the same task becomes harder" that was erroneously given, but "you are trying to do a harder task"

Or, my example, of talking to a farmer vs talking to a king.

(p.s. don't know if you quoating me was you agreeing or disagreeing, sometimes, written posts fail to convey position)


Trip.H wrote:
shroudb wrote:

While I too have faced this dilemma, like when should be a social roll and when not, I think it's perfectly fine for an untrained skill to be +0.

Int is already amongst the weakest attributes, taking away its only saving grace is not the answer.

For higher level characters there is always the option of actually investing in Int instead of a tertiary defensive attribute (like Wis) if they like to be more versatile, and there are also options to gain more trained slots through Ancestry, general, and even class feats.

So, if someone optimises all their feats and attributes for combat, I don't see an issue not pulling my punches and asking for a diplomacy roll when they make a request.

There is though a fine line somewhere between making every rp opportunity a skill roll and never asking for a social roll.

My unease with that take is that we know that the alternative was a lagging minus. If being Expert is a +4, then it would make total sense for Untrained to be a -2 or something.

That design still perfectly accomplishes what you seek, and the severity of that minus could be enhanced if it was not thought serious enough.

____________________

When that's compared to the = 0 lock, the primary mechanical change is that as PC levels go up, the greater difficulty of accomplishing anything untrained becomes.

There's nothing wrong with an untrained skill check being a low odds affair, but IMO the = 0 lock just adds a conflict/problem with the core design of PF2E scaling challenges/checks to the PC level.

Especially with something as arbitrary as a Diplomacy DC.
"You get a crit fail, roll initiative" "???" "well, *this* goblin is 10DC harder to talk to than that other guy from 7 levels ago."

That kind of exchange would (does) snap verisimilitude / immersion for me.

Basically, the players get *more* foot-in-mouth incompetent with level.

Int doesn't give Expert, Int only gives Trained.

So, you would need something like 18 Int to have... +4 on 4 skills?

Lol hell no.

Again:

There are plenty of tools available to get Trained skills.

If you do not get them, and you CHOOSE to get something else instead, because it is "more combat optimal" then the onus is on you.

---

P.s.
DC doesn't scale with PLAYER level, it scales with obstacle level.

So your example is completely wrong:

The goblin you met 7 levels ago will have the exact same diplomacy DC then and now.

The same goes for literally everything:

Climb a wall?
Static DC
Affect a creature?
Based on the creature level.

You don't become worse, you simply don't become better. And if you want to tackle harder and harder challenges (level 1 talk to the farmer, level 15 talk to the king), while you refuse to get better... then that's on the player.


While I too have faced this dilemma, like when should be a social roll and when not, I think it's perfectly fine for an untrained skill to be +0.

Int is already amongst the weakest attributes, taking away its only saving grace is not the answer.

For higher level characters there is always the option of actually investing in Int instead of a tertiary defensive attribute (like Wis) if they like to be more versatile, and there are also options to gain more trained slots through Ancestry, general, and even class feats.

So, if someone optimises all their feats and attributes for combat, I don't see an issue not pulling my punches and asking for a diplomacy roll when they make a request.

There is though a fine line somewhere between making every rp opportunity a skill roll and never asking for a social roll.


I dislike the idea of hard taunts as well, options for soft taunts exist already in some class feats as pointed in this thread.

But if something like that was to be introduced, I can't see it be an intimidation action at all. You aren't trying to scare them away, you're trying to trick them to attack you instead of your allies, which seems to me it would be a Deception skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Antagonize feat from swashbuckler also kinda works like that.

Frightened until they attack you basically.


I assume there are no specifics because they are not uniformly identical.

A crafter may make one slightly larger, another crafter may make it slightly smaller and put a strap, and etc.

The general form needs to adhere to the specifications of "big enough to be 1 bulk and need 2 hands to operate" but seeing as they are bags, they may have slightly differences.

Which is where the gm steps in and says "this can fit, this cannot".

I expect it was done on purpose since it's a convenience item, and thus it gives the gm the power to adjudicate how much convenience it gives to the party.


I think wood/air Kineticist.

Survival, nature, diplomacy, deception as skills, natural medicine as feat.

Initially I'll be able to make all kind of fruits/Veggies to keep me full even in case of emergency.

High Con means resistance to casual colds, diseases, food poisoning, and rest unpleasantness of the era. Some Int, some Cha, rest in Dex.

Air is simply there as the fastest way to fly without downtime. Because if I'm in a purely magical setting I definitely want to be able to fly in the sky.

As other upsides of Air, Invisibility means I can save my bacon if needed.

---

With natural medicine and endless supplies of herbs I may consider taking Herbalist dedication so I can sit in a village and turn to a rural apothecary.


That seems way too complicated to me lol.

Visual is Visual. Plain english of "affects creatures that can see it" translates to me that if I can see it, regardless of "how" (be it darkvision, low-light, or simply there existing good enough light conditions to see it) it affects me, and if i can't, it doesn't.

As far as emitting light or not, I think I'm going to change my viewpoint from "it generates light constrained by the area of effect" to "it cannot generate light" due to actually missing the Light trait.

Quote:
Light effects overcome non-magical darkness in the area, and can counteract magical darkness. You must usually target darkness magic with your light magic directly to counteract the darkness, but some light spells automatically attempt to counteract darkness.

(although I'm still not certain about that since the humble Torch also lacks the Light trait for some reason... as if it cannot illuminate non-magical darkness lol)

But eventually, a spell missing a Trait I find it more important than mundane items missing the Traits.


Ravingdork wrote:
shroudb wrote:
No, but you are advocating that the Effect of light will go beyond the Area of effect of the spell.

Certainly the light's effects could not extend farther than the spell's range (that is, it could only illuminate a small area), but the light from the spell's effect could be seen from a great distance (that is, observers who are themselves in the dark).

Elsewise you could light up the whole world with a cantrip not intended for such a purpose.

As long as you have line of sight to the effect, that is no different than observing any other effect, yes.

But you do need line of sight for that.

Although keep in mind, that you are only creating a light that has 1/16th the area of a plain torch....
(probably around the effect of lighting a candle or a few matchsticks)

p.s. and that's if you use Illusory Object.

If you use Figment, 5ft cube of light is literally a single lit match worth of light.


Ravingdork wrote:
shroudb wrote:

What i gave with the picture as I said was a simplistic way of putting it in.

But what you are creating is "Light" in area of effect of the area of effect of the Figment.

Similarily to how a torch produces 20+20 radius of light, the figment would produce 5ft cube (or whatever the area of effect is) Light same way as a torch is conatined within the 40ft radius that it applies.

It is contained within the area of effect. Hence visible with line of sight, but not visible through corners.

Similarily, if you had a torch lit, the light wouldn't pass a corner 45ft away from it and be visible from there, but would probably be visible if one had straight line of sight to it from quite further up ahead, this "Light" you produce, doesn't pass more than the area of effect.

If you want the Light to be visible through the corner, then by definition you make the Light effect surpass the area of effect, which is not allowed.

I am not advocating that light from illusion spells would go through walls or around corners.

No, but you are advocating that the Effect of light will go beyond the Area of effect of the spell.

The area of effect for Illusory Object is 20ft burst.
Same as the Light spell is 40ft radious.

So, whatever illusion you create, your light will be constrained by that Area of effect. In this case, your Light is constrained to 1/16th the Area that a Light spell covers (10ft radious basically).

Even if you make a huge bonfire, the light that it would shed would still be limited to a 10ft radious centered on the center of the bonfire.


Finoan wrote:
shroudb wrote:

But there isn't a lack of rules. Don't twist my words.

There are distinct rules of what Range is and what Area of Effect is.

To be clear, when I say that "A lack of rules does not mean that your interpretation is correct", those are my words, not a restatement of yours.

A lack of rules regarding how far away an illusion can be seen is not proof that an illusion can be seen from miles away. It also is not proof that it can only be seen from 30 feet away.

A lack of rules saying that illusion spells behave differently from other spells regarding line of sight to the effect does not prove that an illusion of a torch can't be seen coming from around a corner before the torch illusion itself becomes visible. It is not proof that an illusion of a torch does or does not create a light pattern on a wall outside of the 5 foot area cube that the Figment spell states.

Those are all things that the GM and the table are going to have to decide on.

It is at that point an Effect/Object.

So, if a Boulder can be seen from 30ft, so can an Illusory fire.

Basically, at that point we are strictly speaking about "How far can I see"

That has absolutely nothing to do with the Effect being created by a spell or not (and even less dependent on a particular School of spells).

That's why I said that if Ignition can be seen from 30ft, so can an Illusory object. And to my knowledge, I have never seen someone say that you can't see what's happening in 30ft in clear conditions.

I'd agree with you if your statement is "how far can a character see" but what you are seeing is irrelevant how it got there, if it is a wall, a boulder, an illusion, a fireball, it is all exactly the same.

Only thing that matters at that point are size of the object and enviromental conditions.

p.s.
In the particular case we are talking about, a 10ft cube of light made by an illusion or a 10ft cube of light made by a a piece of cloth burning, would be visible from the same exact distance. As long as the effect "10ft of light" is the same (size) and the conditions are the same (night, clear sky, etc) then they are visible from the same distance.


Finoan wrote:
shroudb wrote:

What makes you feel that range of a spell, ANY spell, means that the effects of that spell aren't perceivable beyond that range?

With a lack of rules defining a difference between Illusion and other schools in that matter, they are 100% the same regarding this.

A lack of rules doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct - no matter what that interpretation is. A lack of rules means that the interpretation is going to be different in different scenarios or with different players.

What I do know is that an illusion is not going to cause game mechanics effects more than what it gives in the spell description.

So if you make an illusion of a campfire, I can't say how far away people can see the fire from - that is dependent on the GM and the table playing. What I can say is that the illusory light from the campfire isn't going to illuminate an object or creature hidden by concealment caused by the lack of actual light.

But there isn't a lack of rules. Don't twist my words.

There are distinct rules of what Range is and what Area of Effect is.

You are creating a homerule at this point that seperates Illusion spells' range from other spells' range.

Again, my interpetation is based strictly on written rules:
When you create an efefct, how big that effect is is defined by the Area of effect, and where you create it is defined by Range.

So, if you create a Light spell, that light spell has an Area of Effect of "20ft bright + 20 ft dim". You are creating a Light effect that is constrained by that Area of effect.

If you are creating a light effect in an illusion, you are constrained by the Area of effect of the illusion. So you are making a Light effect that shines 5ft cube, 10ft cube, or whatever that Area of effect is.

In both cases, the actual Light effect is defined where its effects are.
BUT
In both cases the GM can easily say that "in the minddle of the night, the guard atop of the walls can see a light moving towards them from 500-600-700 ft away.

That is purely someone using Line of Sight towards an Effect. The Area of effect doesn't matter here. Only the line of sight does and the miscellaneous conditions as seen fit by the GM.

But when you break line of sight with the effect, that is someone carrying a torch and there is a hard corner 50ft away, then the light doesn't "spill".
Similarily for the illusion, if there is a hard corner breaking line of sight, light doesn't "spill".

The only difference here is that Light spell has an Area of Effect of 40ft radious, and Illusory object has 10ft cube.

p.s. and yes, if you make a huge bonfire, but are restrained to 10ft cube of light, that WILL be a very easily disbelievable illusion, but that's on the caster.


Finoan wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Or are you telling me that if I cast Ignition it is invisible from further than the range of the spell?

Ignition isn't an illusion.

And if you read upthread, my stance on the topic is that it is going to be ruled on a case-by-case basis depending on the scenario and the needs of the plot. Not consistently in a manner that can be applied from one campaign to another or even necessarily from one adventuring day to another.

So?

What makes you feel that range of a spell, ANY spell, means that the effects of that spell aren't perceivable beyond that range?

With a lack of rules defining a difference between Illusion and other schools in that matter, they are 100% the same regarding this.

We only have the Traits to go by:

If an Illusion has the Mental trait (and a lot fo them do) it affects the minds, if it only has the Visual, it affects those who see it.

If I make the figment of a boulder, anyone who can see that figment sees it. It is simply a Visual Effect. Range has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Finoan wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
So illusions are now spells the most powerful spells ever because they can can directly affect the minds of everyone within, potentially miles, regardless of their level, with no saves or rolls whatsoever?

No, not everyone within miles. Only those within 30 feet. Because that is the range of the spell.

That is what we are trying to point out.

I fully disagree with your interpetation, range of the spell doesn't mean that the effect is only perceivable in that range.

Or are you telling me that if I cast Ignition it is invisible from further than the range of the spell?


Errenor wrote:
shroudb wrote:
If you make a hyper realistic picture of fire, someone looking at it straight up, would be seeing it as "light" but there is no light actually produced to be visible from around the corners if you do not have line of sight to the picture.
The problem with this analogue is that this hyper realistic image of fire would be completely invisible in the darkness, as there's no real light. So such illusions must work differently. (And I actually like 'visible but artificial' reading)
Ravingdork wrote:
I never claimed to want to generate light outside the area, only for the light waves generated within the area to travel outside of it--which must be possible as otherwise you wouldn't be able to see the figment at all, much less have sound waves generated inside the area be able to carry farther than the area's confines.

This applies to both of you:

What i gave with the picture as I said was a simplistic way of putting it in.

But what you are creating is "Light" in area of effect of the area of effect of the Figment.

Similarily to how a torch produces 20+20 radius of light, the figment would produce 5ft cube (or whatever the area of effect is) Light same way as a torch is conatined within the 40ft radius that it applies.

It is contained within the area of effect. Hence visible with line of sight, but not visible through corners.

Similarily, if you had a torch lit, the light wouldn't pass a corner 45ft away from it and be visible from there, but would probably be visible if one had straight line of sight to it from quite further up ahead, this "Light" you produce, doesn't pass more than the area of effect.

If you want the Light to be visible through the corner, then by definition you make the Light effect surpass the area of effect, which is not allowed.


My take on this:

If you create a Figment, it is indeed perceivable from whatever distance that Figment would have been perceivable. So, a boulder could be seen from hundred of feet away.

The trick in the OP's question though is this:
His "Figment" actually extended beyond the effect of the spell.

By the rules, all effects of the Figment need to be contained within that 5x5x5 cube, and that would also mean that the light produced by a created illusory source would have to be limited within that area.

The spell does not create effects based on what you created, it only creates the image.

If you make an illusory boulder on top of thin ice, it won't break the ice, because the boulder doesn't have mass.
Similarily, if you want to create light, the light won't travel further than the area of effect of the spell, because you only created the image on a light, not actual light.

Ultimately, his error was in this sentence:

Ravingdork wrote:


We've now established that, though the illusion is limited to the 5-foot cube, the effects of the illusion are not.

The "effects" are indeed limited in the area.

Another simple example: If you create the image of a waterfall, the water won't leak beneath the 5ft cube. There is no water.
Similarily, the "light" won't extend beyond the 5ft cube. There is no light.

This holds true for both sound and light. The "noise" you can create is limited to noise that is created within the illusion. And that noise can indeed be perceivable from further away, like noise is. But the noise is not generated outside of the illusion.

Similarily, the "light" created can be perceived from further away, the same way that you would perceive it if it was a boulder instead. It just doesn't get generated outside of that area.

---

A simpler way to visualize this is if we understand that we make a "hyper realistic picture of X".

If you make a hyper realistic picture of fire, someone looking at it straight up, would be seeing it as "light" but there is no light actually produced to be visible from around the corners if you do not have line of sight to the picture.


Yeah, despite the random art, which mostly stems from dnd, the official pathfinder description is a Sack that you need 2 hands to use. Even backpacks allow you to draw stuff from them with 1 hand, and i'm pretty positive i've seen art around actually depicting it as described: a sack.

Imo it looks mostly like santa claus sack rather than anything else.


Gaulin wrote:
Just know that there's some discourse with effortless impulse and final gate, with some people saying they basically have the same trigger and thus don't stack. Personally I'm of the opinion they would work in tandem, but I avoid taking options where opinions are split since I don't want to deal with wobbly rulings.

I know, I'm part of the people that say that they definately altered the wording of the Final Gate to alleviate this issue (it uses way too many words to avoid mentioning "start of your turn" which is the normal limiting factor).

But yes, there is contention about all the feats of the kineticist that grant "start of your turn" actions and Final gate mentioning that it is first action of your turn.

in the above example,the only thing you are hindered with with a negative ruling would be the "sustain invis" though, all the others happen at different times of your turn.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, Gourd Leshy's feature mentions that the draw becomes part of the action, in this case, it will become part of the Strike action that you are doing during your reprisal.


Kinetic principle is always applicable even for just an extra Blast per turn, while Final gate needs specific conditions that often won't apply.

Still, for Stances that are more important during your turn as opposed to enemy turn, using both will be the optimal imo.

As an example, for Fire that wants his aura active during enemy turns it's less appealing, but for someone like Desert Wind earth/air, something like "free action open gate+stance, 2 action impulse, blast, free action blast, followed by earth reaction shutting down the aura to mitigate damage during enemy turn, rinse repeat" sounds very powerful.

Edit:
Even without reaction, something like:

Free action activate aura, free action activate stance, free action sustain imp invisibility, 1 action Thrown weapon blast, quick action thrown weapon blast, 2 action lighting dash through enemy, free movement from Junction, now without aura to pinpoint you" sounds disgusting.


In my home game I've introduced an Amulet of Divinity that functions the same but for divine.

I haven't run into problems regarding the balance of such an item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the other benefit is that even if you release your grip and move, the shield is still "in your space" so you can regrip it any time you want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

The Eidolon doesn't exactly get all your skill proficiencies as otherwise a feat like Dual Studies would not work.

It's very much up to the GM, in my opinion. The fact that it's a "special" lore skill would put it appart from the "normal" skills to me. But I can see a GM allowing it.

Dual Studies has this wording in to actually function: "These skill proficiencies are not shared between you and your eidolon."

Otherwise, RAW, your Eidolon indeed shares all of your Skill proficiencies, including those gained via feats/features.


Deriven Firelion wrote:

Do all these feats interact to in essence make you effectively hidden unless you critically fail at a Stealth check or desire to be seen?

Legendary Sneak: Hide or Sneak with no cover or concealment. Avoid notice during exploration and another activity.

Sneak Savant: Only fail a sneak check on a critical fail.

Blank Slate: Immune to detect, scry, or revelation spells under 10th level.

Can you tell the DM you are always sneaking? How do some of you play this combination?

Just keep in mind that Savant sneak is specifically for Sneak checks, not Hide checks.

So you can still fail the initial Hide check.


Bluemagetim wrote:
shroudb wrote:

it also lets you add your favorite 1st level spell to any staff you want.

Later on, this is of less importance, since 1st level spells do kinda fall off, but later levels you get other benefits either way. Early on, that 1st level spells aren't completely wash, that's still a tangible benefit.

Early staves like Mentalist's or Fire, getting an additional spell, of your choosing and regardless of how that spell messes up with the theme of the staff, is actually a decent upside.

Ok I think I'm missing something then.

At level 1 and 2 couldn't you just not expend the slot and have that same spell prepared with that slot? Isnt the makeshift staff providing literally a lateral change with the downside of requiring the staff in your hand to use the spell?
Or do you mean the tangible benefit comes on line at level 3 and up?

I meant when you upgrade on a level 3 or 4 staff for "early on". Even without putting a spell there, you will be having 2-3 charges at those levels, and instead of having (usually) only 1 option to spend those charges, you will be having 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

it also lets you add your favorite 1st level spell to any staff you want.

Later on, this is of less importance, since 1st level spells do kinda fall off, but later levels you get other benefits either way. Early on, that 1st level spells aren't completely wash, that's still a tangible benefit.

Early staves like Mentalist's or Fire, getting an additional spell, of your choosing and regardless of how that spell messes up with the theme of the staff, is actually a decent upside.


The Contrarian wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
The lack of the Staff trait is, to me, the nail in the coffin on this subject and says everything that needs to be known. You'd need to wait to upgrade/swap it to a proper one later on to prepare it in any other fashion.

I interpret it as a normal staff in all respects. Just because it doesn't mention the Staff trait doesn't mean that it doesn't have it. It's in the name. Literally. As others have said, why would the developers bother wasting the wording?

** spoiler omitted **

It is a "normal" staff. The way a quarterstaff is, or the way a wooden stick to help with walking is.

It just doesn't have the specific magical abilities that come alongside the Staff Trait.

Similarly as to how you manipulate a shield to Raise it but it doesn't come alongside the limitations of the Manipulate Trait.


A)You forgot to bold the part that says that the cloud is at the enemy's face, not a huge 10x10 area, but just his face. Limiting specifically area of effect compared to general area.

B) you forgot to put into that the whole premise is if we use the Method of Exposure (NOT Trait)for general Inhaled poisons (open a vial). Despite the fact that we have a completely different Method of Exposure (casting a spell)

C)Your interpetation only works if you selectively exlude words out of the General Method of Exposure to follow your narrative.


It sounds like it would be cumbersome to switch so many weapons/hands, but certainly doable.

For solving my own mobility issues I benefited a lot from taking gadgets and making ample use of Blast Boots which basically translate to something like getting into/out of any position once per combat.

I found Unstable to be too important to waste on Explosive leap and I soon retrained out of it. Until level 14, only 1 Unstable for most combats is a real restrain.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

When one has made his mind despite evidence pointing out where he's wrong, by simply claiming that his interpretation of said pointed facts is just flavour or, worse, need not to be considered due to abbreviations, then there's simply no need to engage in this conversation.

That's because it stops functioning as a conversation to begin with.

Let those that see the "1 target" simply play it as such, and those who think otherwise play it in their homegames as they see fit.

This is no longer a rules debate to begin with as all rules have already been clearly provided.


looking through the picture and concept, i think your main problem lies that mechanically, what you are trying to do would require access to both weapon and armor modifications.

armor modification just to fit the whole mechaarmor and weapon innovation to do what you are trying to do with the switching of weapon (very easily achievable through dual-form weapon feat, like a reflavored whip (+grapple or something) for one for for the pincher, and a more melee friendly form for the main attack)

From play experience with an armor inventor myself, it is a vlass that needs a couple of levels behind him to start to be good. If you want to use tamper+shield reliably, i think the only option is to go with Unarmed/freehand weapon.

So, ultimately, with trying to be able to do all the below things:
reach maneuvers, shield, ranged attacks, tamper, good melee damage, good defences.
you are putting yourself in a corner build wise.

do keep in mind, that for Offensive boost, armor inventor can only choose 1 weapon during daily prep to benefit from.


My earth/wood kineticist hasn't participated in a lot of combat yet to have an opinion on that.

But as a gm dealing with a wood/air kineticist, it really depends on the battle. From midlevels and onwards, i don't find it that disruptive, that's because rarely do the fights are so static that the tree is so gamechanging, and in the battles that it is, the kineticist is forced to keep casting it every turn if he wants it to be up, which i don't think is a bad tradeoff.

As a gm tool, in another campaign, i recently tried to incorporate a wood kineticist as an antagonist, but obviously the party was barely fazed by the tree where after putting down 3 trees it really only mitigated one hit eventually. But that's to be expected since a party has access to tools like aoe damage, repositions, target switching, and etc to trivialize the tree's impact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ninja'ed


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The important bit is this:

"You begin play with a makeshift staff of your
own invention. It has the magical trait and contains
one cantrip and one 1st-rank spell, both from your
spellbook."

It DOESN'T gain the Staff Trait. It only gains the Magical Trait.

So, it is by definition NOT a regular magical staff that follows the normal rules of magical staves, since according to GMC pg. 278 (where the Staves rules are):
"All magical staves have the staff trait."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think strict RAW they wouldn't transfer, because the only thing that transfers is "The weapon’s runes and any precious material it’s made of apply to the weapon’s new shape. "

So the new weapon will not have the non-rune, non-material specific effects.

Am I wrong here?


Trip.H wrote:


If a Witch decides to flavor themself by wearing a bunch of literal bones, it's okay for that to have negative social consequences with NPCs, ect.

And if a kineticist DECIDES to have an overtly obvious Aura it's ok for him to have some negative impacts.

If he doesn't though, then that's equally okay to have zero impact on his actions.

Or do you make all of your Witches wear bones around their necks "because that's the Witch flavour i decided" ?

---

My wood/earth kineticist has a bunch of leaves, twigs, and soil, orbiting around him. I expect to have issues trying to hide with that. But that was MY DECISION of the Aura appearence.

If someone else wants to have a subtle Aura, that's purely a player decision and his right.

Trip.H wrote:


If a player said "no, I can Hide. My aura is so thin, it's just a few grains of sand flying through each square."

"You have opened a connection to a primordial plane of elemental power, it's swirling a full 10 feet above and around you. You are saying this is so thin and hard to see, that those tomb raiders 30ft over there, who just saw you seconds ago, will not notice the cloud of elements when you're behind the pillar?"

"yes."

Do you understand why a GM might disallow that as power-gaming/ridiculous? Or at the least impose a circumstance penalty?

Since when are "a few grains of sand" a "cloud" ?

As for penalties:

About as much of a circumstance penalty as the dust that rises from the steps of the rogue who walked behind the pillar.

How much would you penaltize that rogue?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trip.H wrote:
shroudb wrote:
As for additional abilities, those are also open to interpretation how they appear. You want flowers blooming for temp HP? I want my ally's skin to get bark patches. How are those affecting stealth?

Because however you want to flavor it, the elements exist in every bit of space within the aura. The appearance of elements is mandated, across every square, in a binary on-off manner.

Saying it appears as bark is fine, but saying "and there's nothing else" would clearly change the mechanical rules.

If you wish to refute that the appearance of elements exist in every square covered by one's aura, then please directly state as such.

If you admit/accept there are swirling bits of stuff visible in every aura square, I think it's understandable that a GM might take issue with hiding behind a pillar.

Note I haven't said taking cover, but hiding one's location.

----------------

If you think a Kin *should* be allowed to hide/suppress the appearance of their elements from individual squares as they wish, that's a request for a GM.

I play Alchemists, the last thing I would do is ~"nerf a class just because of how I imagine it to look" or whatever.

I am being a stickler here so that people can avoid future conflict/pain when their incorrect reading of the rules would cause problems for them later.

As far as I can see, there really is no ambiguity about visible elements floating in every aura square. That all this fuss is over spending a single action to open the gate, which already gets to come with free action compression, is head-shaking to an Alchemist, lol. The core design of the Alch is in anti-synergy with itself, and has broken class features like Alchemical Alacrity which were never fixed. Comboing an Overflow impulse before the Sneak/Hide attempt is not an onerous burden, and fits very well with the considerations the class might need to make.

A)You put the word "visible" in, there's nothing in the description of the Aura mandating them to be overly visible. The word doesn't even appear in the description.

B)
Bits of elements is vastly different than everything is covered in the element.

As I said, if I want bits of sand spread in the 10ft radius, that's hardly visible.

In fact, it is required to not be dense, because in order to have a sandstorm, as you imply, around me then I have to spend feats and actions to get that.

The passive aura is by the rules so weak that it CANNOT affect the environment.

The flames of the fire aura can't burn. The sand cannot conceal, the wood cannot obstruct or pummel.

It really is just bits of weak elements.

The fact that they are spread across an area speaks nothing about their density, and the only relevant actual rule is that they CANNOT be dense.

Elements flowing in every square can be as much as a bit of sand in each square if a player wants that to be his aura


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Trip.H wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Again, nothing in the Aura entry forces one to design the Aura to be extremely violent and obvious.

Bits of sand orbiting, a fine example for a purely earth aura, are fine per RAW. It is element coming out of your gate and can be spread in 10ft radious.

And in normal circumstances, no one should auto detect that except in some very specific environments.

On the flip side, chunks of molten lava are also applicable as a fire/stone Aura, and those would be extremely more visible.

---

People putting words into the actual ability text that do not exist are imo the problem.

Duuuuuude. Cmon.

Quote:
Through your kinetic gate, elements flow from an elemental plane to orbit your person. The form and appearance of this kinetic aura are unique to you. Examples include a chaotic wind orbiting the body, fragments of floating gravel, colorful wicks of flame, stars of raw metal always changing shape, floating snowflakes, or splinters dancing in the air. If you can channel more than one element, pieces of all your kinetic elements appear in the aura.

As soon as aura junctions get involved, that upgrades to flying bits of metal that attack enemy weapons and armor, life giving blossoms springing up outta nowhere, difficult terrain, enough water to grant fire resist, and enough fire to impose fire weakness.

If the air junction is taken, I'm fine w/ it being actively obscuring in a prismatic light-bending active camo kinda way, even for mixed elements floating in there.

But without air, it's just wild to me that foes would be unable to see a clear boundary where the aura of swirling elements stops. If that boundary is visible, the Kin ain't hiding behind that pillar unless they switch it off, or get a homebrew way to dial down the aura.

Quote:
and can be spread in 10ft radious.
Nah, not letting those weasel words sneak in. It is spread. No option to make it 5ft, nor 0ft. The mechanical effects within each square the aura are non...

Nothing of what you said contradicts what I said.

If that's how you want YOUR Kineticist to look, feel free. Do not force your image into my character when absolutely nothing of that is forced by any rules.

In both cases, fine sand or molten lava, the Aura is "elements coming out of you".

Do not put words into an ability that do not exist.

As for additional passive abilities of auras,those are also open to interpretation how they appear. You want flowers blooming for temp HP? I want my ally's skin to get bark patches. How are those affecting stealth?

"Dude cmon" is not an argument for nerfing a class just cause in YOUR mind you have a specific imagery and refuse to see all other ones.

1 to 50 of 6,494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>