tivadar27's page

**** Pathfinder Society GM. 1,257 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 30 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 1,257 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yeah, I do see some issues. The big damage for Swashbuckler is only triggerable once per turn, which generally means rogue is going to be better than the Swashbuckler at damage output. This, by itself, I have no issue with, if the Swashbuckler did have better defenses than the rogue.... BUT...

Rogues are just as capable of using a shield as are Swashbucklers, and they have the same scaling armor proficiency. The one advantage Swashbucklers have is they can use a buckler to the same effect as a regular shield, so they have a hand free at all times! Nice, but has some issues. First, the stance they have, Buckler Dance, has as a requirement: "You are wielding a buckler." This means that as soon as they do anything with the hand, wield a weapon, or carry something of non-light bulk, they drop out of the stance. Maybe this doesn't happen all the time, but it's pretty unfortunate. The 10hp per level is nice, but it doesn't add up to an overall better defenses. However, Charmed Life does, in fact, shine.

Still, yeah, give me rogue any day as overall just better than a swashbuckler. I don't think they did a good job of planning out this class TBH.

Castilliano wrote:
Bast L. wrote:

Hmm, a possibility is using a shifting rune on a divination staff, turning it into a gauntlet, and then using all of those slots on true strike.

Is it allowed though? It has to take the same number of hands to wield, and be a melee weapon. Both are satisfied from the weapon table, except free hand says it doesn't take up your hand. Ambiguity.

One would have to assume a Staff can still function as a Staff when it's a gauntlet. As you noted, there's ambiguity.

I'd say no. Otherwise, why wouldn't every weapon have the options staves have?
Technically, a Shifting Rune makes a permanent change. Champions w/ Blade Ally could found a booming business by converting a magic staff every day so that their shop had a variety of weapons that could cast spells.
I know my PCs would buy one, even if just on a shield boss. :)

One could hold a Staff of Divination in one hand and a throwing weapon in the other. Not sure what throwing weapons are available via Ancestry feats or Archetypes, yet even a javelin is competitive.

So this has come up and I think most generally lean towards it working, as the closest thing we have to saying it *doesn't* is treating the list of things that stay when shifted as an exclusive list, but... at least to me, that's a long shot.

That being said, even if you do do gauntlets, to use a staff it has to be wielded, and that means having the hand free when casting spells. For bows, this is unlikely to be an issue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it's a weird situation. Regarding other conditions, though, Minions "acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands." I'd read this as they share your initiative, and act when you command them, so yeah, they're bleeding at the end of your turn.

Regarding the rest though:
1. Yeah, confused/fleeing/... are... confusing? I have no ideas how this should interact, but RAW suggests that if your companion *isn't* getting a "free" action, it does nothing.
2. I could see either the "it gets 3 actions, but can only use 2" or "it gets 2 actions" being valid, meaning slowed would either have an immediate effect, or it wouldn't have an effect until slowed 2. I don't think the distinction between gaining their actions at the start of the turn vs when you command them is relevant, or I think it's a case of slowed stating how it works for a general rule, but there's a natural application for animal companions who may gain their actions later.


So umm, I just purchased a wayfinder (playtest) when I clicked on the Leshy boon....

EDIT: Sigh, basically what KingTreylll said...

So it sounds like there's two questions here:
1) Do the rules allow me to, without asking the GM, see a spell being cast and learn it without knowing someone who already knows the spell or has a copy of it. The answer here is clearly "no", as many have said.
2) Might a GM allow for this sort of thing and does it make sense from a story-telling perspective. The answer here is clearly "yes".

Ravingdork wrote:

And most importantly, ask the GM. CHECK! DOUBLE CHECK! TRIPLE CHECK!

What rule did I break exactly?

RavingDork wrote:
I'm also sick and tired of PF2E GMs telling me "No" all the time on small asks.

But... you also say you're sick of having GMs tell you no for small asks, so maybe I'm not fully understanding? Many spells are uncommon for a reason, and a it might not be a "small ask" to give you access to a spell you haven't found a copy of.

This one, in particular, Sudden Bolt, likely breaks the damage curve a bit, so I could see a GM not allowing it (it does the same damage as lightning bolt a level earlier, though obviously single target, and probably much better than Acid Arrow, the other 2nd level damage spell). I'd still probably allow it, though I might limit it to 3rd level or higher as a GM partially for this reason. I'd still want to have the player research it, and I would expect the player to ask me about it and not assume the answer to 1) above is "yes".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eric Nielsen wrote:

One thought I had, is that it also might be an effort to encourage people to use the downtime retraining options more. Even a heavily optimized crafter (or earned income w/ feats & boons to do on-level dcs instead of level -2) would still rather have a couple adventures loss of downtime -- to swap a couple of feats or re-assign pathfinder training points, etc -- instead paying 15% for those changes.

Now this doesn't help when you want to swap in a new ancestry, but basically leave everything else the same (which I know is one of your particular use cases).

I'd kinda assume the ACP cost is the "cost" associated with this that incentivizes that sort of thing, not the gold cost, which is supposed to be, in theory, neutral. I realize this isn't true for the free rebuilds, but for the future ones that have ACP costs (some scaling) associated with them, you're fairly limited in how many of these you'll purchase.


Nefreet wrote:

Someone else guesstimated the math earlier up thread and it seemed rather compelling (to me, at least). I doubt Leadership will release their reasons.

Mind you, it averages out. Some people who spent heavily on consumables will actually get more back from a rebuild. Some people like yourself will lose more.

But the average player will come close to breaking even.

Thanks, didn't spot it because of hidden text. I don't find that logic that compelling, mostly because I don't tend to see people use a lot of consumables beyond those found in-game and ones from their training. I could see 1.5 per level, but 1.5 per scenario seems mighty high.

Beyond this, I just don't get the logic for punishing some players and rewarding others arbitrarily... A sell-back system doesn't seem more complicated, and it means you pay for what you use. If I'm building a character with the intent of rebuilding later (something one might do if they think that a particular build will only be effective at a certain point), I'm essentially incentivized to blow through consumables as much as I can early on, as I'll be getting that gold back later.


... Why the 15% charge of overall wealth for character rebuilds? This likely won't heavily effect me immediately, because I've already done a couple of my rebuilds, but for both of those, I used this primarily to change a few aspects of my character I didn't like and to use options from books that weren't previously available. In both cases, this literally didn't affect my equipment at all. And given I both was low enough level as to not have needed to "upgrade" things and the fact that pathfinder school items were the expendables I used, this would have reduced my gold significantly for no reason...

PFS1 used a system that allowed sell-back at 100% of existing items. This seems like a much better way to do rebuilds, as then the character has spent what they've spent and used what they've used, and they can trade in existing equipment where applicable but aren't punished if they don't need to do that. Even if you had the sellback rate by 85%, shrug, but this just seems like a very odd change to make with really no rationalization as to where that number came from.

EDIT: It's hard for me to say if 15% make sense at later levels.... but what was this number based on? Care to show your math?


John Francis wrote:

I'm pretty sure it's almost always going to be case #2.

Fortunately we have a good working relationship with the local D&D organizers (and, for that matter, with most of the local convention organizers). If PFS & D&D present a unified front we can normally get the ear of the convention leadership.

This... might actually not be true at TotalCon. PFS has traditionally commanded around 10 tables there that are full of people in any given timeslot. I'd say PFS play accounts for maybe 5-10% of the seats/attendees at the Con, though that's just guessing. That's likely a large enough number to force the convention to notice if you decide not to play there. You're right, though, make that both D&D and Pathfinder, and it's a much stronger case.


I, for one, think the Meticulous Appraisal boon is definitely worth it. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare it only to the Wayfinder boon, as that one, by itself is obviously very good. As someone above pointed out, it compares positively to the Storied Talent boon, not to mention it affects the whole table.

I've actually doled out more Meticulous Appraisals as a PC than I've received (which means I've had a highly disproportionate amount spent on this given that most tables I've played at have 6 people). I'd agree, pressuring a low-level PC to use this boon isn't a great idea, but pointing out *that it exists* is probably worth it, as Faction Boons are not necessarily something everyone knows about, and not necessarily this one in particular.

As a closing, yeah, this sounds like a player issue... not an issue with the boon itself. Beyond this, it's supposed to be "Explore, Report, Cooperate", right? If you're either a) too stingy to want to spend your fame to help the table, or b) heavily depending on others to spend their fame to help you while not contributing your expendable resources as well, then I'd argue that you're not really PFS'ing right to begin with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the above two posts, yeah, @Tomppa, I see what you're saying. I guess I"m just worried about what Nefreet mentions, that there will be wording preventing you from applying the boon to a character with more than 0 XP. In which case, respec doesn't help :-P. I hope they won't go that way, but trying to err on the side of caution with this one... Hopefully ACP come on line soon, or they preview the boons with a bit more detail.


Blake's Tiger wrote:
I have a hard time picturing a ruling that would say its ok to use an ACP-costed (even the 0 costed one) to change the ancestry at X>0 xp, but not Y>X xp.
I can see where that might be allowed, especially the free one expiring 2 weeks after "AcP-Go Live," but it's all just hypothetical and supposition.

Many of the Faction mentor boons can be applied to a character with 12 experience or fewer/less, which is why I was assuming these might be similar.


Yeah, I'm asking in the hopes of getting something like an official ruling, though I know that's a pretty unlikely thing... If it's "I think it will, but we don't know", I might just not play adventures or apply them to a different unfleshed-out character to avoid potential issues.

@GM Tomppa: Do you have anything to back this up (citing quotes from developers/rules I don't know about)? So far as I can tell, not a lot has been specified as of now.


So... I've been scoping out a Leshy that I'd really like to play. ACP purchases have obviously been delayed, and right now I've got 2 tables of credit on my character (8xp). I'm playing some events at ConCurrent and wondering the following:

1) I'm assuming you can purchase a leshy boon on any 1st level character, and it doesn't need to be a fresh character?
2) If you also get a respec boon, can you purchase a leshy boon on a character that's higher level?

Asking mostly because I need to know if I need to *stop* playing this character (where I'm proxying Goblin for Leshy) because attaining level 2 would prevent me from actually playing a Leshy...


Nefreet wrote:
Did you "Refresh your points"?

I hadn't realized that was a thing :). Sorta figured they would do that automatically... So yeah, things are a lot closer now, 181 out of 193. That discrepancy could be 3 unreported events at this point... I'll try and double check.


I boosted Eric's post above, but yeah, about half of my sessions are currently incorrect when it comes to ACP... None of the sessions I GMed are correct (6), and about half of my played sessions just list no ACP whatsoever.

Also note that the wording was changed with the errata I believe. It used to say "highest level spell", now it's spell slot.

thenobledrake wrote:

I now see what you are saying, but am uncertain if it is the intended reading or not.

However, I've also just done a search through the core book for "when you take a" to try and find more cases of features worded like Mobility and come up with only Mobility and a bit of flavor text about "when you take a beating" - so it seems like it may actually be a case of Mobility using non-standard wording that makes it seem like it should function differently than other traits which enhance actions.

Yeah, I'm just really not sure... Sorry for the confusion earlier. I'm obviously not sure of the intended reading here either. What I've stated is pretty round-about, but I just can't find a good way to reconcile things any other way. Shrug, maybe errata?

thenobledrake wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
I've explained this.
It's the part where you leap from "this is not the same as using the Strike action nor the Stride action" to "These are Stride and Strike actions" that isn't clear - it looks like you're saying directly contradictory statements with those two, and you haven't provided any explanation of how they don't contradict each other.

Taking Sudden Charge involves 3 things, in this order:

1) Taking the Sudden Charge Activity.
2) Taking two Stride actions.
3) Taking a strike action.

This is what I said above, I'm spelling it out clearer here. Taking sudden charge doesn't count as taking a stride for the purposes of "your next action", or "extra action can be used for stride", but taking the subordinate action counts as taking a stride action, as the previous text in the rules seems to indicate:

Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. Stride is a single action, but Sudden Charge is an activity in which you use both the Stride and Strike actions to generate its effect.

Is this clear?

thenobledrake wrote:

So an ability says "when you use a Stride action" is when an effect applies.

And the rules say, to plug in the specifics and thus paraphrase: Using Sudden Charge is not the same as using Stride and/or Strike.

What, besides that the ability that says "when you use a Stride action" doesn't apply, could that mean?

I've explained this. If you don't understand, I don't know how else I can explain it. Sorry if the way I've presented is unclear to you.

thenobledrake wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
No, because fireball has a precisely defined area of effect. Electric arc, having no such precise language, is open to interpretation. Hence this thread.

The language "Range 30 feet; Targets 1 or 2 creatures" is exactly as precise as "range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst"

Agreed, the range is 30' and the 1 or 2 creatures you target have to be in that range.

thenobledrake wrote:
Aratorin wrote:

I think Mobility does apply to Nimble Roll. You are still taking a Stride Action, and Mobility doesn't care when you take the Stride Action. Both of the Subordinate Action examples are different scenarios that have no bearing on this.

Quickened restricts which Actions you can take.

The second example fails because Strike is your next next Action, not your next Action.

Pg 461 Specifies that you are taking the Subordinate Actions:

Pg. 461 wrote:
Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. Stride is a single action, but Sudden Charge is an activity in which you use both the Stride and Strike actions to generate its effect.

I am confused as to how "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions" reconciles with your interpretation.

If anything, to me, it seems they have chosen poor examples because the examples appear to be giving people a take-away that is not compatible with the sentence they are meant to be explaining.

You use the Sudden Charge activity. This is not the same as using the Strike action nor the Stride action. After you use that activity, that prompts you to use two Stride actions and a Strike action. These are Stride and Strike actions. Is that unclear?

Aratorin wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
zean wrote:
And if you're out of the attack's range, then it follows that the attack should just miss.

Not really. If you're out of the attack range, the attack is invalid to begin with. The creature in question isn't allowed to attack a creature it can't attack, by definition.

If your action is to move away when someone is about to attack you, they'd get their action refunded to them, because after the trigger happens it's no longer a valid action for them to attempt.

The Target was valid when you Targeted it though. It became Invalid after you already spent the Action, thus you would lose the action, just like you lose a Spell if the Target becomes Invalid after you Cast it.

I mean, is this an interrupt or is this an instant? Grin, so, do we actually know when an action becomes "spent"? I didn't think there was overly much formality there. For example, I know that interrupting an activity interrupts the entire activity, but that's a bit different.

Beyond this, I'd *definitely* rule that if the first attack was invalidated by your opponent moving, you wouldn't increase your MAP. The attack was invalidated, you didn't actually miss, your opponent moved away before you could swing.

I think "expect table variation" definitely applies here, but for me, trading 2 actions on your turn to invalidate an enemy attack that may or may not come without increasing its MAP... Might be a win, but yeah, there's also a reasonable chance the enemy sees you ready (I'd allow perception vs deception for intelligent critters) and simply attacks someone else.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wizard of Ahhhs wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:

Anything which is a named action (read: anything that has an action symbol next to its name in the book) is that named action - not any of the named actions found within its description.

So it is correct that Mobility is not applicable to the Tumble Through action.

What about the fighter feat Shielded Stride? It says “you can Stride” instead of “When you take a Stride action” as per Mobility. Does this mean Shielded Stride works with Tumble Through and Nimble Roll (assuming a multi class dedication build)?

I see 9 instances where the verbiage refers to a “Stride action” instead simply “Stride” which IIRC occurs well over 100 times in the CRB. Moreover 2 of the instances of the former verbiage occur in Rogue feats and in no other class description.

It’s almost like a different author wrote the Rogue class entry.

Yeah, this is good to point out. By all the potential logic we've used above, you'd be able to Shielded Stride but not to use Mobility on all these actions. Beyond this, there are two different rules that are effectively in opposition here:

Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. Stride is a single action, but Sudden Charge is an activity in which you use both the Stride and Strike actions to generate its effect.
Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions.

These are *really* hard to read as non-contradictory. While I think this is totally ambiguous RAW, I'm going to use the additional context of the second quote to imply that this merely means that using the activity itself does not count as the subordinate actions, but you do actually use the subordinate actions as part of using the activity. It gives haste as an example, saying that if you're hasted, you couldn't, for example, using sudden charge. That doesn't violate anything we've stated above. But there's nothing saying that once you could use Sudden Charge, it wouldn't also involve you using a Stride action.

I think if the first line read "leaps from one target to another within range of the first" then we could take it as additional rules text, because it used rules terminology. There's nothing wrong with treating this as literal rules text either, but there's also nothing saying the lightning can't leap 60'... By the text of the spell, it has 2 targets and its range is 30'. Range is *always* from you. There's nothing specifying that's the range of the arc itself.

thenobledrake wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
The problem is you haven't demonstrated this in a rules context. I've asked for other sections in the rules where "you can't" has a different meaning from literally "you cannot do this thing", not "you shouldn't do this thing". Can you provide one of these?

I have provided such examples and explanation as to why I believe them to be examples.

Without the author stating their intent, neither of us is actually able to be certain which meaning of "you can't" is the intended meaning for any of the uses in the book.

You literally have not. It's possible I'm missing something, but saying "yes I have!" here really doesn't prove your point. If I've missed them, and you've provided them previously as you've stated here, can you point that out.

EDIT: The only example I find is one that's not rules related. It's "you can't eat your neighbor's food". Literally, "it is against the rules to eat your neighbor's food, but you can still do it and break the rules". That's not an argument for this in the least.

Joana wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Joana wrote:
Does drawing a weapon have the Manipulate trait? I searched the CRB for that but never found a Draw Weapon action. I really miss the Actions in Combat table from P1e. :(
Table 6.2, page 273.
Thank you!

Yep, TBH, this feels like something that probably shouldn't provoke, and I do wonder if they'll errata it at some point. Still, as of this point, it definitely provokes, and a critical for a fighter-type causes you to not draw the weapon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think one exists (an official ruling). I have a GM who runs it the other way (creatures must be within 30' of each other), and that's fine, but I'm of the opinion that RAW only requires 30' from you.

Megistone wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
I've often wondered how 1e would do with a 3d6 vs 1d20 system, and I think the same could be done in 2e. This would make smaller bonuses loom bigger. With it, you'd likely have to do crit success/failure at +/-5 rather than 10...
If you go back one page, I have done some math exactly about that.

Thanks for pointing this out. I missed the middle of this discussion TBH, so I'll go back and look for the post.

Queaux wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

Dirge is already *extremely* good. Yes, some things are immune, but to things that aren't, it's the best debuff in the game. That being said, I'm in the camp of assuming the Frightened ends immediately if you stop performing, otherwise you'd get this:

* Bard sings Dirge
* Bard sings Inspire Courage (Dirge ends, but frightened persists)
* Bard does whatever

That's a way to get the effects of 2 compositions on your turn. Even if you only get a partial benefit from dirge (no penalty to the enemies AC/saves after it's had its turn), I still think it wasn't intended to work that way

You would need to use harmonize to do that because there is a restriction that only one composition can be cast per turn:


Still, I think the stacking over 2 turns is the strongest thing the Bard could be doing versus relatively immobile enemies. That might be deemed too good by GMs given the somewhat unclear rules. I, however, think the rules do spell out that that stacking works, so I'm playing it that way at the table I'm running.

Thanks for pointing this out, I forgot about that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dirge is already *extremely* good. Yes, some things are immune, but to things that aren't, it's the best debuff in the game. That being said, I'm in the camp of assuming the Frightened ends immediately if you stop performing, otherwise you'd get this:
* Bard sings Dirge
* Bard sings Inspire Courage (Dirge ends, but frightened persists)
* Bard does whatever

That's a way to get the effects of 2 compositions on your turn. Even if you only get a partial benefit from dirge (no penalty to the enemies AC/saves after it's had its turn), I still think it wasn't intended to work that way

Also, as a follow-up, I actually agree with you (@thenobledrake) that using rules for changing hands on weapons doesn't make sense here. In fact, if anything, it would provide evidence that it should be a free action to end a stance (dropping your hand off a weapon is free, so should dropping out of a stance...).

thenobledrake wrote:
As already demonstrated "you can't" is not a phrase with only one meaning. And while it's reasonable to disagree that the reading of 'you can't because of how you're standing' and 'you can't because you are literally a cat right now' are intended to be different meanings of the phrase "you can't" - it isn't reasonable to act like my reading is not even possible.

The problem is you haven't demonstrated this in a rules context. I've asked for other sections in the rules where "you can't" has a different meaning from literally "you cannot do this thing", not "you shouldn't do this thing". Can you provide one of these?

As a counter-example, look at Bardic Compositions:

CRB wrote:

You can cast only one composition

spell each turn, and you can have only one active at a time.
If you cast a new composition spell, any ongoing effects
from your previous composition spell end immediately.

They could have worded the stances like this, and said "if you make a strike other than a Crane Wing strike, your stance ends" but they chose not to. Though I'll grant you, I can see your point about putting it in the requirements potentially being confusing (though I think they could have done it and it still been obvious what was meant).

I'm asking for any in-rules evidence that the use of "you can't" in the rulebook is intended to mean "you shouldn't", or "doing this will cause some other effect that's not mentioned here". Outside of this, sure, you can choose to interpret the rules this way, because of English, but it's an extremely inconsistent ruling, and likely in the minority.

Yeah, pretty much all d20 systems are going to have this issue. If you bound accuracy, it's a flip of the coin, if you don't, people are virtually guaranteed success.

I've often wondered how 1e would do with a 3d6 vs 1d20 system, and I think the same could be done in 2e. This would make smaller bonuses loom bigger. With it, you'd likely have to do crit success/failure at +/-5 rather than 10...

As for which I prefer (1e certainty vs 2e coin flip), it's hard to say. I can't consider these things in a vacuum, and 2e definitely feels more strategic. Not to mention, even though accuracy is bounded tighter, it's amplified a bit by the way crit success/failure works.

thenobledrake wrote:

There's "you can't" meaning you don't have permission, and "you can't" meaning you lack the capability.

So I can't eat my neighbor's food, and I can't teleport - but one of those is conditional.

And I think interpreting the stance use of "you can't" as the you are not capable kind falls into the purview of the text on page 444 about problematic repercussions since it is - narratively speaking - "you can't do this thing because of how you are standing, but also you can't just not stand like that anymore"

Sure, if other requirements were written in the text of the abilities, then fine. But you're ignoring the fact that there's an explicit requirements section. I think you're trying to grammar away something that's completely obvious here. There's no other place in the rules that I can find where "you can't" means anything other than "it is impossible to do so". Sure, areas have "unless" clauses, but that doesn't exist here.

I'd agree there's an issue that you should be able to end a stance early, but that's a separate issue here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

Rage is not a good comparison as it explicitly tells you "you can't voluntarily stop raging" while stances can be ended voluntarily.

It is that ability to voluntarily end a stance which creates the implication that - unlike rage which states it's literally impossible to take an incompatible action - taking an action you aren't supposed to will end the stance.

Perhaps the first part is the case, but I read "you can't" as "you can't". You potentially can voluntarily end a stance, but at the same time, you can't do that by making a strike. You'd have to end your stance (whether as a free action or as an action), then make a strike. There is no wording about it being a "requirement" around strikes during a stance and the means of ending a stance, even if incomplete, are pretty clear. The requirements section for a stance is also pretty clear, and none of them indicate the strikes you are making.

HumbleGamer wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
masda_gib wrote:
Henro wrote:
Personally I'd have dropping a stance be one action, but otherwise I agree. There aren't a ton of situations where dropping a stance is something you want to do, but when you do it'd look really silly if you were stuck in it.
In the end that was what I was wondering too, as it was clear something was missing. Should it be a free or a 1-action action. Making it free is basically ignoring this problem. Making it an action gives those stances a cost in very special circumstances.
I also think it's 1-Action, and is covered by "enter a new stance". You are simply entering your "normal" stance.

I partially agree here, but then it has to be addressed what happens when you violate the stance requirements:

You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to AC, but the only Strikes you can make are crane wing attacks

So, let's make it simple and go with an athletic maneuver,which has the attack trait

An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty.

Now, you are in crane stance and perform a shove.

When does the stance end?

1)Before the shove is impossible, since you didn't violate anything.
2)During it's possible.
3)After it's also possible.

Personally I'd go with the 3rd option.

Once again, the limiting of the strikes you can make isn't a requirement of the stance, it's just saying something you can't do while in the stance. You literally cannot make a different type of strike until you leave the stance. Just like when you're raging, you can't cast a spell as say "oh, I violated the requirements for my rage, and am therefor no longer raging!"

Squiggit wrote:
Aratorin wrote:

The one where in Attack Rolls are specifically defined as being made against AC, so any roll not made against AC cannot be an Attack Roll.

The book has multiple not completely compatible definitions of an Attack Roll, so both sides have merit.

Not sure that's really a compelling argument, since that's from the section talking about how armor class works, so of course it specifically deals with armor class.

To try to argue that that invalidates how attack rolls work in the rest of the book doesn't make sense to me.

I'll grant you that it's at least a reason, compelling or not. So yeah, fine, it might be somewhat ambiguous here. I hadn't spotted that particular blob of text, even if it is in the minority.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any roll you make as part of an action with the "attack" trait is an attack roll. Finesse weapons let you substitute your Dexterity for your Strength when you make an attack roll using them. Honestly, I don't see how this really needs any clarification, unless it's to state it is in fact the intent. You can substitute your Strength for Dexterity on Athletics check to trip when using a whip, for example.

The only *real* question regarding RAW is whether you are "using" the weapon to trip when using it with the trip trait: "You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand." This seems pretty cut-and-dry to me though.

I'll grant you, the way to figure this out is convoluted, but once you do, I think it's pretty clear RAW.

EDIT: I guess what I'm asking is by what interpretation of the rules is the above *not* true?

It would do zero damage to living creatures. Positive damage is always damage, but it doesn't affect living creatures. If a spell heals, it will say so (as is the case with Heal). Working on citations, will edit...

CRB p.452 wrote:

Two special types of energy damage specifically target

the living and the undead. Positive energy often manifests
as healing energy to living creatures but can create
positive damage that withers undead bodies and disrupts
and injures incorporeal undead. Negative energy often
revivifies the unnatural, unliving power of undead, while
manifesting as negative damage that gnaws at the living.

I'd agree this isn't spelled out perfectly here, but it's basically stated that positive damage hurts undead (and doesn't specify it hurts anything else). And it separately talks about healing effects and damaging effects of positive energy.

Yeah, so I'd agree this is an odd one. I think you should just be able to drop a stance as a free action, but agree that the rules, strictly speaking, don't permit it. Only being able to make Crane Wing strikes isn't a requirement of the stance, strictly speaking, as there's a specific section for stance requirements, and that even got adjusted for Mountain Stance (what used to be a Trigger became a Requirement).

That being said, this falls into the realm of "if something seems obviously wrong, fix it!", and I think it's reasonable to allow you to simply drop a stance assuming it's your turn.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Clever. Though only really works if the enemies aren't staggered between party members. And you do need lingering, as the duration would run out when you went into delay otherwise.

Note, another interesting approach for cases like this could be:
* You play inspire courage
* Ready inspire defense for enemies turn.
* Allies go.
* Enemies turn starts, your readied action goes off.

Wash, rinse, repeat. Note that this allows Inspire Courage/Defense to be up during "relevant" times each round, but also uses all of your actions (including your reaction)...

Ubertron_X wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
You *may* not threaten if both of your hands are occupied with a ranged weapon/non-weapon while flanking.

But how about that I do threaten, even when using a crossbow (2 hands), simply because improvised weapons are a thing? And I think especially a crossbow makes for a mighty fine improvised club of some sorts.

So unless you are dual-wielding soft cushions or wet noodles I guess flanking will be justified.

Nope, improvised weapons are not weapons :-P. By definition. Flanking states you must be wielding a melee weapon or capable of making an unarmed attack. If it simply said "capable of making a strike" you'd be fine.

Aratorin wrote:
I've made that argument myself, but every group I've played with has shot it down. As I tend to play ranged characters myself, I conceded the point and let them give me the benefit.

You a certainly a magnanimous individual! :-P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratorin wrote:
You have a free hand with a bow. In fact it's required to have a free hand to use the bow.

You don't when you fire it, because firing the weapon requires you to use your free hand to retrieve, nock, and fire. You'd *provide* flanking with a bow, but you couldn't benefit from it when firing the bow.

EDIT: by the logic of people who argue the above... as I said, I wouldn't apply it myself, but I think the notion that you do need 2 hands to fire a bow is correct. For example, if someone readied an action to shove you off an edge as you went to fire your bow and succeeded, I'd definitely rule you needed a critical success to grab the edge because you didn't have a hand free.

Actually, the one open question here, which has come up in other threads: You *may* not threaten if both of your hands are occupied with a ranged weapon/non-weapon while flanking. While you can always make an unarmed strike typically:

CRB p.278 wrote:

Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed

attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body
Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an
unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the
same statistics for attacks made with any other parts
of your body.

People have used this to argue that while you can kick someone, it still requires Hands: 1, as Fists do. I'm not sure I believe it, but it's the argument being used against being able to flank with a bow. However, if you have a 1-handed ranged weapon, you'd threaten with the other hand.

There's definitely questions about intent, but RAW, the above is the only thing that might prevent you from flanking with a bow.

Atalius wrote:
Sorry for the noob question my friends, but can non arcane casters use a staff of Divination? And how many charges do you have on the base staff of Divination?

Effectively no. The staff gets charges equal to the highest spell slot the person who attunes... err, invests in it has. For non spellcasters or casters with only cantrips, that number is 0. you could potentially attune to it for its other benefit (I believe), but that's likely not worth it.

So, I was looking into making a mounted character, assuming that being on a mount would simply give the benefit of using a command action to get them to move around. However, the mounted combat rules, it turns out, have a lot of additional complications to them, and I think many of them just feel overly complicated for not a good reason. Curious others opinions.
1) When mounted on a size large mount with a reach weapon, you don't get the benefit of reach, as your mounts reach is greater than yours. My Opinion: I get this one, because mounts with reach was such a *huge* advantage previously. I'll take this addition without complaining.
2) When mounted, you share your mounts MAP. My Opinion: Sure, okay, so they don't want you to abuse the whole "we both move for one action and both get a bunch of attacks". But, this has lead to a lot of open questions as well. What if I mount mid-turn after myself/my companion have attacked, or dismount after we have attacked. What happens next? I don't mind this one, but they need a lot of clarification here.
3) When mounted, you have soft cover from attacks "where your mount would be in the way". My opinion: ... Why? First off, this is ambiguous, secondly, it feels like an addition that's unnecessary and needlessly requires remembering something new.
4) When mounted, you take a -2 penalty on reflex saves. My opinion: See #3 above. This just feels like more mechanics to remember. It might be realistic, but it's burdensome.

I'm also curious how many people play with mounts, and how many people actually knew these rules, in particular the last couple. I know I've been at tables where others had mounts and weren't following them. Generally I didn't overly care and didn't point them out, but it's happened a couple of times.

thenobledrake wrote:

You're getting hung up on that the example happens to be worded that way. The actual rule, which the example is elaborating upon, is "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions."

So using Nimble Dodge enhanced by Nimble Roll is not the same as using a Stride action.

So you're totally right. I looked at the text you were citing, which was the example. I had actually missed the line you quoted above (including in my own readings previously trying to figure this out). Thanks for spotting that particular text.

Good to know, because I definitely had this wrong previously (thought Mobility would work with Predator's Pounce).

EDIT: Relevant rules text.

CRB p.462 sidebar wrote:
Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions.

Yes, Nimble Roll would allow you to use mobility IMO, but I think there's also a fair question as to whether "half your speed" refers to your full land speed or your speed for that stride action, which is 10'. I'd 100% allow someone to move 5' with Nimble Roll using Mobility. I think, giving the wording, I'd also allow 10', but I can see someone ruling the other way as well. Note: this would also come into play with things like Liberating Stride... and I'm sure there's others.

Note, the relevant rules here for activities:

CRB p.461 wrote:


An activity typically involves using multiple actions to
create an effect greater than you can produce with a
single action, or combining multiple single actions to
produce an effect that’s different from merely the sum of
those actions. In some cases, usually when spellcasting,
an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or
even 1 free action.
An activity might cause you to use specific actions
within it. You don’t have to spend additional actions to
perform them—they’re already factored into the activity’s
required actions. (See Subordinate Actions on page 462.)

@thenobledrake cited the rules for subordinate actions, and while I acknowledge that their interpretation could be correct, I read that to mean that it's due to action ordering: you take an action that requires your next action to be a strike, you start an activity action, you take a strike. This is different, this is saying any time you take the Stride action. The question here is whether "using" an action is the same as "taking" an action. I believe they are, but you can certainly argue that they're not.

1 to 50 of 1,257 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>