theservantsllcleanitup's page

238 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let me put this as essentially as possible, cause I think all this nitty gritty about inferring rules is just obscuring the point.

According to you all, 1000 fatal crits with grasping reach and 1000 fatal crits without grasping reach will average out to the exact same damage. It sure sounds like grasping reach is doing nothing here except giving you reach. It's a relatively minor thing given the obscurity of the feat, but I file "gaining reach with no drawback" under too good to be true, given that the wording of grasping reach pretty much explicitly says that an attack with it is less effective than an attack without it.

By your ruling, fatal crits are equally as effective with or without grasping reach, which means its drawback is not being applied in those instances, even though its benefit is.

And miss me with "but then fatal isn't doing anything" because it's still adding a die.


I think Cordell Kintner was onto something, and that 2d10+1d12 actually has a basis in the rules here. Check it out:

Counting Damage Dice wrote:
Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice include only the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice from a striking rune. They don’t count extra dice from abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes, weapon traits, or the like.
Grasping Reach wrote:
This grasp is less stable and powerful than a typical grip, reducing the weapon’s damage die by 1 step.

Note it doesn't say normal damage die; it's whatever damage die the weapon is using. I see this as a blanket effect. The damage the weapon would deal from this attack, all other things being equal, is reduced by using grasping reach. A crit with grasping reach cannot be as effective as a crit without it.

Fatal wrote:
On a critical hit, the weapon’s damage die increases to that die size instead of the normal die size, and the weapon adds one additional damage die of the listed size.

Yes, it says it adds an additional damage die, but this is explicitly not counted when dealing with effects that are based on damage dice, as listed in the first quote.

So, what happens here is that fatal indeed increases the weapons damage die to d12, and adds an addition 1d12 to the mix. Grasping reach reduces the weapon's die size by one step. But crucially, when counting a weapons damage dice, [i]dice from weapons traits are not counted[/].

Thus, the weapon's regular dice become d10s, and the fatal die is unaffected as it is not counted as a regular weapon die. 2d10+1d12

I admit it's a little harebrained... but I think it checks out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people are missing the most important part of Mark's answer (irrelevant parenthetical removed for clarity):

Mark wrote:
Two-handed weapon vs weapon in two hands was very confusing in PF1; we don't have both of those in PF2.

I think he is in fact saying that two-handed weapon=weapon in two hands, cause "we don't have both of those [as separate categories] in PF2."

The cost of wielding a weapon, any weapon, in two hands is that you don't have a hand free, and there is action economy in the way of getting anything else into that hand. If you want to use a feat that's balanced for 2h-strength weapons with a dagger... go ahead.

Edit: Additionally, I just noticed that when he says

Mark wrote:
we make it clear that requirements like that work with any such weapon in two hands

The "like that" is specifically a response to Gray's question about the requirements of Brutish Shove, which are... a Two-Handed weapon. It makes little sense to assume that he was responding to Gray's second, hypothetical question, and his answer makes perfect sense if you assume that his first response was saying that there is no distinction.


Arachnofiend wrote:
What about the other way around - say, a Champion of Nethys wielding his staff in two hands. Is the staff a d10 weapon?

That is pretty cut and dried. Staff in two hands is d8, increase one step for deific weapon, decrease one step for grasping reach. Still d8.


See this thread for discussion on this very question.


As explained here on page 444 of the Core Rulebook, you apply only the highest of each type of bonus and penalty (status, circumstance, and item). For example, if you have the following effects on you, you apply the bolded ones only:

+1 conditional bonus
+1 status bonus
+2 status bonus
-1 status penalty
-2 status penalty

For a total of +1! (I don't know if you could actually have all those, but just to demonstrate how it works.) Also note that penalties that are untyped (not item, status, or conditional, ie, "a -2 penalty"), they always stack with everything else.

As for conditions, again, you generally only apply the highest one, but there are some nuances that are better explained here on page 618 of the Core Rulebook. But yes, you can pretty much combine any different conditions at the same time (frightened, sickened, enfeebled, stupefied, etc.).


Power Attack wrote:
If this Strike hits, you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least 10th level, increase this to two extra dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, increase it to three extra dice.

So at level 19 it's 4 weapon dice + 3 weapon dice from power attack = 7 weapon dice.

Having said that, anyone who thinks that power attack should ever add more than 1, 2, or 3 dice at levels 1-9, 10-17, and 18+, respectively, is reaching extremely hard.

It specifically says how many dice it adds, and it's very clear that it doesn't double anything anywhere, ever. So if you are in animal form, you add 1, 2, or 3 dice. Simple as that.


Castilliano wrote:

A wound going away because you got drained seems too wonky IMO.

I'd say damage remains consistent and gets subtracted off your new max hit points.

With the other interpretation you could use a Bloodseeker to increase your healing! (Not by enough to make it worthwhile, but as an example to show the absurdity.)

Wounds don't go away in any of these examples, I'm not sure what you mean. The difference between you max HP and your current HP doesn't change, if you were down 10 HP before you would be down 10 HP after being drained.


See here for more in-depth discussion


The rules seem to say that there is no order in which the reductions are applied. They happen at the same time.

You lose a number of hit points... ...and your maximum hit points are reduced by the same amount.

So you figure out what X is and subtract it from both sides of your hit points. In your examples,
30/30 ▶︎ 30-9/30-9 ▶︎ 21/21, or
20/30 ▶︎ 20-9/30-9 ▶︎ 11/21.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And this chart, which is based on the other one, also includes the chance of success. If you go by the bolded number alone, you are gonna have a bad time, because even if the average expert attempt will be 1 or 2 healing higher then a trained attempt with the same modifier, that doesn't really help if you are failing those attempts 50-60% of the time.


Parrying Scabbard:
You can draw this reinforced sheath during the same Interact action you use to draw the weapon it holds, wielding the weapon in one hand and the scabbard in your other. A parrying scabbard can be used for your defense much like a weapon with the parry trait: you can spend an action to position it defensively, gaining a +1 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn. Parrying scabbards are available for any sword that can be wielded in one hand.

I'd say sure, why not. I think the first sentence and second sentence are separate concepts. The first allows you to draw the scabbard with a little action economy boost, and the second simply describes the function of the scabbard regardless of how you went about wielding it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As per the errata, "Any class feature that improves the proficiency rank or grants the critical specialization effect access for simple weapons or a specific set of weapons, that ability also grants that benefit for unarmed attacks."

So when the fighter selects a group of weapons to improve to master at level 5, any group, that proficiency filters down to all unarmed attacks as well, brawling or otherwise.


Yes but fatal and deadly don't apply to hits, only crits, and the spell specifically goes out if its way to say that you don't treat a crit spell attack as a crit melee attack. Doubling the damage of a hit is not the same as scoring a crit, because crits apply fatal, deadly, crit spec, and potentially other things.

This is why they had to carve out crit spec specifically. They would have had to do that anyway even if you DID treat a HotA crit as a melee crit, because they want even a level 1 wizard to apply crit spec.

Look I'd personally allow fatal and deadly on a crit cause why not, but the rules seem to me to bend over backwards to exclude them, when it could easily say "as if you had crit with a melee attack" which would unambiguously apply everything associated with a crit.


If your druid argues for applying the striking rune, be sure to point out that striking isn't adding a damage die, it's "increasing the weapon damage dice it deals to two instead of one".

That literally makes no sense with wild shape cause there are only like 2 forms that even have unarmed attacks with a single die, and increasing only those and nothing else is patently ridiculous. Damage scaling is built into the spell via heightening. The power of wild shift is the insane versatility of a full caster who can also become a variety of competent martials with different niche abilities. Like a shark for example.


Crane, Tiger, and Wolf stances are also agile/finesse, for what it's worth


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thezzaruz wrote:
theservantsllcleanitup wrote:
On another note, though, I'm not sure about deadly and fatal. Success reads "as if you had hit with a melee attack". Crit reads "you deal double damage". If crit said "as if you had crit with a melee attack" then I think deadly and fatal would be fair game.
No it actually says "On a critical success, you deal double damage, and you add the weapon's critical specialization effect.". So of course stuff like fatal or deadly would apply.

But fatal and deadly are not critical specialization effects? Not sure why you are so confident in that ruling. Crit spec is a specific thing based on the weapon group of whatever weapon you are using. Fatal and deadly have nothing to do with it.

If they wanted you to apply everything that triggered on a crit, I think they would have written, "as if you had crit with a melee attack".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

True seeing allows you to see things as they are. The poltergeist actually IS invisible, by its nature. It's not being made invisible by some trick of magic or anything like that.

It's like expecting to see air while using true seeing. It's also naturally invisible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's the point though. You can huck the 2-handed greatsword from one hand, no problem. But all of a sudden a smaller weapon like the bastard sword needs two hands to be fully effective?

The point of 1h vs 2h is, how much exertion is required to use the weapon to maximal effect? We know indisputably that HotA uses a greatsword to maximal effect even when you cast while holding it in one hand, so it makes zero sense to assume that it can't use a smaller weapon to maximal effect in the same circumstances.

On another note, though, I'm not sure about deadly and fatal. Success reads "as if you had hit with a melee attack". Crit reads "you deal double damage". If crit said "as if you had crit with a melee attack" then I think deadly and fatal would be fair game.


1) I feel that it not having the amphibious or aquatic trait was a simple oversight. Having to hold its breath normally makes 0 sense of it's building underwater graveyards

2) if you look at the Ranged Attack Water Spout, you see that it lists sea serpent algae, which is a poison. When it hits with the ranged attack, it applies the poison as normal for afflictions.

3) the only place capsize seems to appear is in descriptions of Capsize attacks like in sea serpent and other aquatic monsters. So I don't know on that one, might be at the GM Fiat dealership, unless there's some other source the AoN doesn't have in it


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't believe after all these years we're still arguing about flanking with ranged attacks


Castilliano wrote:

Since Power Attack has a Strike subordinate action in it, you must use your roll because that would be the next Strike.

I don't see "only basic Strikes" nor "only the Strike action" in the description. So it's any Strike later in the round AFAICT.

crb p 461 Activities wrote:
Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, 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.

Please note that the actual rule is "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions", and everything following that is just two examples of this rule's ramifications, meaning there are other situations in which it applies.

I think it probably should work the other way, but from what I have gathered PF2 tends to frown on this type of feat combination


Ventnor wrote:
Their Devise a Stratagem action encourages them to only make one attack per turn, so why not make it a Power Attack?

Because Devise a Stratagem only works with basic Strikes. It doesn't apply to power attack, which is an activity with a Strike subordinate action


The additional cost for moving through difficult terrain is 5 feet. This additional cost is increased to 10 feet when moving through Greater Difficult terrain, however this additional cost is not increased when moving diagonally.

Thus, diagonal movement normally is 5/10, into difficult terrain is 10/15, and into greater difficult terrain is 15/15.

Something has to not increase. If diagonal GDT is 15/20, everything has increased.

Nevermind, I get it now. That sentence is saying that it isn't FURTHER increased by moving diagonally. Why anyone would assume it was is beyond me, that's why it made no sense to me. It's saying "don't invent an extra additional cost from moving diagonally that isn't mentioned anywhere else".


So the second to last sentence is meaningless and superfluous?


GM OfAnything wrote:

You misunderstood.

Normal 5/10
DT 5 (+5) / 10 (+5) is 10/15
GDT 5(+10) / 10(+10) is 15/20

The additional cost doesn't increase, but the diagonal still works like normal.

Let me ask you this: what would it look like if the second to last sentence wasn't there and the additional cost did increase?


Gary Bush wrote:
Yeah, that is how it would be handled.

If normal is 5/10, and DT is 10/15, and GDT is 15/20... then that sentence hasn't actually done anything at all. There is no additional cost that wasn't increased.

I think greater difficult terrain is 15/15/15/15 because the "additional cost" isn't increased when moving diagonally, and the 10 feet added from GDT is referred to as "10 additional feet of movement".


You do your daily preparations after 8 hours of rest, so all those effects would end by themselves before you had a chance to end them with daily preparations anyway


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mathematically speaking, 6.25% of parties facing enemies with breath weapons will face three breath weapons in a row

No, 6.25% of GMs that use breath weapon enemies will have the option of using a breath weapon three times in a row. There's a huge difference between those two things, and treating them as the same is disingenuous at best.

Allowing potential consecutive breaths ratchets up tension while not in any way forcing you to do anything. The players don't know what you rolled. If you want to wait another round, just... Do it. It's only as OP as you want it to be, this isn't a video game.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'll tell you what though: Take a breath weapon from a boss battle 3 times in a row with no recourse and tell me that's balanced or working as intended.

Considering that

A) the chances of rolling two 1s in a row are around 6%, and
B) the GM gets to decide what the dragon does. Nothing says they HAVE to triple tap their PCs. It's just another option in their narrative toolbox...

I honestly don't see it as that big a deal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
If you roll a 1, there is no round you couldn't use it.

There is no round you couldn't use it, but there IS a round on which you couldn't use it AGAIN. The round in which you used it. In this round, you are not able to use it again. This is the point I've been trying to make. They probably didn't want to make a different cooldown for breaths that only took one action. This way, all breath weapons can't be used multiple times in the same turn regardless of the actions they take. And, they can all be used in the next turn if a one is rolled. Seems pretty consistent to me.

As far as effects go, I still don't understand why you think it's a contorted recategorization. I'm not sure how "unable to use an ability as a result of using an ability" doesn't qualify as an effect.

In fact, it seems to me more like jumping though hoops to decategorize the cooldown into something that exists in the paragraph explaining the effect of the ability but yet is somehow distinct from it in every meaningful way.

Edit: Put it this way, if they wrote "You can't use it again for 1d4 rounds, starting from the end of this round" I think it would seem weird, but that's exactly what you all are proposing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Paizo is balancing based on a 1d4, not counting the round you use the ability in

[citation needed]

My point is that how do you know that this was their intent? The rule can easily be interpreted to mean that you DO count the round you use the ability in, unless I'm missing something, I see no reason to assume that they balanced it around not doing so.

And I'm obviously not suggesting they didn't balance it, I'm suggesting that perhaps they decided that not counting the round in which you use the ability was underpowered and so went with a rule that allowed a 25% chance of consecutive uses. If you have something that indicates otherwise, I'm all eyes.

Quote:
Because they made the cooldown 1d4.

Yes, they made the cooldown 1d4, and it makes perfect sense to me that this means you use the ability once every 1d4 rounds, rather than every 1d4+1 rounds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the average of 1d4 being 1? I'm having flashbacks to the bodybuilding.com discussion of how many days are in a week here. The average of 1d4 will always be 2.5.

N N 959 wrote:
You're overlooking that fact that the 1d4 is part of the "balance" equation. So if Paizo expects a Breath Weapon to fire very 2.5 rounds on average, and you lower that to 1.5, your dramatically increasing the efficacy of that attack.

Hang on a sec, by your reading of the rules, the average is once every 3.5 rounds, because you don't count the round on which the cooldown die is thrown. Imagine if you rolled a 1 every single time. By your reading, that means you are using it every other round, which is once every 2 rounds. Rolling 2.5 on average means using it every 3.5 rounds on average.

But moreover, you are presupposing that you know what Paizo's intent was in balancing the ability. How do you know with such confidence that they expect it to fire every 3.5 rounds? Do you have some developer insight to share here? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that they decided to ratchet up the tension of fights involving a breath weapon. And the way it was written in PF1 is immaterial. Balance comparisons between games are inadmissible in this court.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure why people are so quick to say that the cooldowns from rage or breath are not part of those abilities' effects. They affect me, and if they aren't created by something I did, what are they created by?

It's not like they are just abstract balancing measures; they reflect an actual in-game consequence. After raging for a minute, I'm spent. I need time to recuperate before I'm ready to go through that again. Likewise, after using a breath weapon, my fire glands are low on fire juice and need time to refill before I can breathe it again, but it can take more or less time to do so depending on how many dragonfruits I was eating recently.

I don't know about you, but those certainly seem like effects to me. If there was a spell that said your target couldn't use rage for a minute, you'd certainly consider that part of the spell's effects, and I see no reason not to give the same consideration when it happens as a result of an ability I myself used.

Secondly, people seem to have this impression a 25% chance to have the option to use breath on 2 consecutive turns is outrageously broken and it's inconceivable that they would ever allow such a thing. Whereas I think that adding the chance for consecutive breaths just ratchets up the tension. Especially since like I said, it's an option. There's no rule that a dragon must use their breath weapon as soon as it is able to. If you really think blasting them consecutively might be too much in that moment.... just don't do it. Wait another round, you make the final call anyway, and presumably you are the only one who knows the result of the cooldown roll in the first place.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It already used its breath weapon in Round 1, thus it doesn't constitute as a round where it hasn't used its breath weapon. Once it uses the breath weapon, the cooldown applies, regardless of if its one or two actions. It used a breath in Round 1, thus using a breath again in Round 1 or Round 2 still means it hasn't had a round where it couldn't use a breath weapon again.

You just contradicted yourself though. "It hasn't had a round where it couldn't use its breath weapon again".

Yes it has: the round when it uses the breath weapon. That round, it is not allowed to use it again. Again, meaning a second time. Without the restriction, you could use it three times in one turn, so you can't tell me that the cooldown hasn't affected anything.

It's convenient to just say "well that round doesn't count"... But I'm not sure that it's a logically sound argument. I have yet to hear a compelling reason that the round on which the breath weapon is used shouldn't count towards the cooldown. Why should rolling a 1 prevent me from using the weapon in two turns?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's flip the script. Hell hounds have a breath weapon that takes only one action, and it has the same "Can't use breath weapon again for 1d4 rounds" limitation.

Hell hound uses breath weapon as its first action on its turn. Rolls a 1 for the cooldown. It can't use breath weapon again with its remaining actions this round. So far so good.

Hell hound's next turn comes up. It can't use its breath weapon this round either?

Hmm. Well now it really seems like it wasn't able to use its breath weapon again for TWO rounds, even though it "Can't use breath weapon again for [one] round".

Thoughts?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The only argument otherwise is that it says you can't use it "again", that is, the single-action/reaction cooldown defense. It doesn't say "you can't use it for 1 round". That would disqualify the current round from counting for the cooldown because I already used it this round.

Instead it says I can't use it again for one round, and there was in fact a round in which I was unable to use it again. The round I am currently in.

Pretty nuanced, and I highly doubt this is the intent, but... That's the argument.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like people are kind of talking past each other here. Nobody is saying that holding ANY item in one hand allows you to wield it. Nefreet is saying that if you are holding, in one hand, an item that requires one hand to wield, then "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively." IE you are wielding that item. This seems fairly straightforward. If the item requires 1 hand to wield, and wielding is based on holding the item in the right number of hands, and nimble shield hand allows you to hold an item in that hand.... where's the disconnect. Obviously if the item requires 2 hands your other hand would have to be free as well so you could hold it in two hands to wield it.

The specific call out that you can't wield weapons in that hand is also indicative that you can wield non-weapons in the nimble shield hand. Otherwise they wouldn't need to specifically restrict weapon use.

As far as interacts go, the hand qualifies for actions that require a free hand that are interact actions, but not actions that require a free hand that are NOT interact actions. Like trip, disarm, etc. Those require a free hand, but nimble shield hand counts as free for Interact actions only, nothing else.

The two clauses are separate.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing that had value is not being handwaved as not having value, it's just that that value has been abstracted away from those specific table entries. The value of a bandolier still very much exists in the new system, you just don't need to buy a specific item called a bandolier to access it. You are assumed to have access to the most mundane of organizational tools, just like you are assumed to have the benefit of generic footwear.

Ever walk barefoot on gravel? It's difficult terrain. And yet nobody would argue that the game needs to model walking around barefoot.


For the people upset about who don't like this change. Does your character walk around barefoot? There is no footwear listed in the book. So if your character has shoes or boots or clogs, or whatever, I'm just wondering... how?

Maybe you've never thought about that due to the fact that it literally doesn't matter at all, and you just assumed without having to even consider it for a second that Golarion has shoes in it because obviously it does, and it's not worth the ink it would be printed with to delve into the economics of footwear. And I'm willing to bet that it hasn't been a problem in any conceivable way.

This is the same exact thing. If you want rough leather boots that have been through hell and back, great. If you want roman style sandals, alright, sounds gladiator-y. If you want pouches and bandos, you just... have them. You are a hero fighting demons and undead, not a fashion model. If you want to play an economy simulator, idk go cook one up in gurps or something, but this ain't it, chief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not unreasonably. But at the same time, the coolness of a rare pet can be undercut if that pet is also statistically superior. For example... When everyone has the ghostly wolf... It's not that cool.

I went out of my way to tame a bloodseeker bat from zulgurub, because it had a 1.0 attack speed. And people would constantly comment on it--not because it had better stats but because it looked awesome and was gigantic and not many people had them.

Both sides have validity to be sure. I wish the stow wear carry system was in pf2 from the getgo. Would have been an easier sell to start with it imo


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It reminds me of when blizzard standardized pet stats for hunters in world of Warcraft. lots of people were up in arms because all of the pets became statistically the same, but after that change you did actually see a lot more variance in the types of pets people used because you couldn't optimize anymore, so it became about the aesthetics of the pet.

I actually don't mind this change as much as I might think I would. ultimately it's up to the table to figure out where the "ridiculous" line is and not cross it, which it was before, just to a lesser extent with things like 1000 manacles


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They don't exist mechanically. They exist in the world. Take however many you want! The rule books are far from an exhaustive list of everything that exists in golarion


16 people marked this as a favorite.

This battle medicine thing feels like being on the the final hole of mini golf trying to putt it into the cup but you just keep overshooting it stroke after stroke


graystone wrote:

This isn't true: I quoted the errata FOR BATTLE MEDICINE. It explains you have to use the tools and to do so, you need 2 hands.

PS: "Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 287 1.1
This lists how many hands it takes to use the item effectively. Most items that require two hands can be carried in only one hand, but you must spend an Interact action to change your grip in order to use the item"
The errata quote says you have to use healers tools and doesn't alter the hands required.

Ahhhhhh. I see. I thought page 248 was battle medicine's page, and was reading the page 248 entry as if those were the requirements for BM, in which case, I would continue to make this argument. But clearly it's very wrong and battle medicine requires 2 hands. Oof. BIG oof.

Maybe paizo is just allergic to saying "Battle medicine requires X hands"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
248: To reflect the clarification on healer's tools allowing you to draw them as part of the action if you're wearing them, change the Requirements to "You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free"
Cool but that doesn't override the 2 hands needed to use the tools that this says in the errata "This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287." As I said, unless they've changed how many hands you need to use the healers tools, that errata quote means it needs 2 hands.

Specific vs general. The hands column of the item table is the general requirement for use of the kit. The "Requirements:" field of battle medicine is a specific list of what you need to use the ability. Wearing with one hand free overrides needing two hands.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Qaianna wrote:
Megistone wrote:
Yes, mathematical symmetry is already broken by the fact that matching the DC exactly is a success. And for good reason, because I can't think of a way of resolving ties that doesn't complicate the game or involve useless rerolls.

Agreed. Put another way, there's a succeed by zero: you meet the DC. So for this let's say DC 15. Get that fifteen? Succeed by zero.

How do you FAIL by zero?

This is like asking "how do you underpay by $0?".

You can't. The question is meaningless by definition, because if you pay the price of the item you have purchased it, full stop. There is no way to pay the full price of the item and fail to purchase it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Think of it like buying something.

How much did you overpay by?

1) I overpaid by $10. I am owed $10 (Crit success).

2) Nothing, exact change. I bought it, but I didn't over or under pay (Met the DC).

3) I underpaid by $10. I still owe $10 (crit failure).

This analogy was unnecessary but nevertheless I thought it was a pretty good example of a situation where the "attacker" wins ties.


I think longsword is a good example here. Suppose there was a form spell that allowed you to polymorph into a humanoid creature with a longsword. Now suppose it had the same language as the other form spells. It's pretty clear to me that it would be allowing you to use your attack modifier *with longswords*, assuming it was higher, because... what else would it mean? What other modifier could possibly be relevant?

I think this example is good because its easier to conceptualize your bonus with a longsword in the abstract, cause obviously all I need to do to use it is get a longsword. It's less intuitive with animal form because there's no way to get a tongue attack if you are a human.

The point is *if you had this attack, what would your modifier be*.

I'd also point out the language in Elemental Form:

Elemental Form wrote:
One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use. You’re trained with them. Your attack modifier is +18, and your damage bonus is +9. These are Dexterity based (air or fire) or Strength based (earth or water). If your corresponding unarmed attack modifier is higher, you can use it instead.

Corresponding is the keyword here. You attack modifier with the corresponding attack. People in here just can't see the forest for the trees imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to say in general, folks, to just shelve the self-righteousness and condescension in these debates, cause no matter how sure you are about something, sometimes you're just plain wrong. Which is fine, being wrong is fine. But being obnoxious is not.

We are all just striving towards the light of truth, to whatever extent truth can be said to exist. Debate in good faith, and give the benefit of the doubt to your fellow rules lawyers that they are also debating in good faith. We'll all have a much better time

edit: also, Djinn71, excellent piece of jurisprudence on the prof bonus argument. Great stuff.

1 to 50 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>