tivadar27's page

Organized Play Member. 866 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 27 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 866 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yeah, I like having uncommon magic items/spells/..., but I'd agree that things likely went too far in that direction. Things with unique effects I understand, but having to ask permission for effectively "Protection from Evil" seems like a lot. And because class-specific stuff is also uncommon, as is some stuff that probably *should* be uncommon, you probably have to ask your GM on a case-by-case basis, and that seems like a lot of overhead.

Just as an example, things like "Adamantine Armor" and "Mithral Armor" are uncommon. While the items may be rarer (item level should account for that...), access to them shouldn't be gated the same way as some powerful more unique items, such as "Elixir of Rejuvination".

Not understanding what you're suggesting... Runes on the shield boss/spikes with doubling ring means that your main weapon (with a higher damage die) gets all the bonuses your shield would (minus that caveat for special materials).

EDIT: Actually mind if I PM you/you do me on this? Feels like we're getting a bit off the main topic here :).

I do love the versatility of Shield Boss + Doubling Ring + being able to swap your main-hand weapon to suit the occasion. I do wonder if the greater ring will replicate onto low-grade silver weapons, for example, if the level of the property rune is higher however.

@Captain Caveman: Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other a bit here. This thread had people say that because "shield bash" is listed in the weapon table, a shield is a weapon. Quoting the description of that entry, which includes the text we're referencing, really makes that not a very good argument. Do we at least agree on that?

Beyond this, the evidence we have is that Shield is not listed as a weapon, though there is text, as you've quoted, that says it "can be used as a martial weapon for attacks". I think that's pretty ambiguous by itself, as improvised weapons can also be used as weapons, as can fists, and that clause goes on to say that this is only for "shields that weren't designed to be used as weapons" and then goes on to describe spikes and boss which "work like other weapons", implying that shields, at some level, don't, though that could be just for runes depending on how you read it.

I'll ignore the entire weapon table and descriptions if you think that's fair. I'd agree this is definitely something that's ambiguous, but to me, there seems to be more evidence indicating shields aren't weapons and can merely be used to make shield bash attacks, which are treated as a martial weapon attack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or maybe things in the core RULE book are rules.... I mean, if you want to say because a shield bash says it "is not actually a weapon" this implies that is is a weapon, because... it's descriptive text for a weapon? You are trying to minimize *some* text as rules text but elevate other text. That's not a valid argument.

I do agree that there's a lot of ambiguity here, but to argue that we should ignore the description of the attack that specifically calls it out as "not a weapon", isn't really fair. There's text describing each weapon, so when a weapon is called out as "not a weapon", that's rules text that's valid to take into consideration.

thenobledrake wrote:
(there is no "this one's doesn't count a weapon" tag)

See above, there is, actually, exactly this in the description, which is what complicates matters quite a bit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agree with @K1 here, in general, the rules state:

"A shield can be used as a martial weapon for attacks,
using the statistics listed for a shield bash on Table 6–7:
Melee Weapons (page 280). The shield bash is an option
only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as
weapons. A shield can’t have runes added to it. You can
also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a
shield to make it a more practical weapon. These can be
found on Table 6–7. These work like other weapons and
can even be etched with runes."

So the problem here is it states that shields can be used as martial weapons via shield bash, not that they *are* weapons. This does lend some credence to the "shields are weapons" camp, and basically confirms that spikes and boss are weapons. But later:

"Shield Bash: A shield bash is not actually a
weapon, but a maneuver in which you thrust or
swing your shield to hit your foe with an
impromptu attack."

Here it states shield bash is not an actual weapon... and an impromptu attack. Which lends credence to the fact that shields aren't, in fact, actual weapons, but when used for shield bash are considered martial weapons for the attack. The requirement for double slice is holding a weapon in both hands...

At my tables I'll probably allow both, but I'm of the opinion that shield bash is not as written an actual weapon, even if that was the intent. Of course, adding spikes/boss solves the issue without debate, so I'll likely just do that for my characters.

Draco18s wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
1. ಠ_ಠ Have you even heard of a GM doing this, or is this a straw-man intended to illustrate a clearly "unacceptable" breach of RAW in a PFS game?

The latter, I believe. Things where the GM in question has stated some ruling with the qualifier "...at my table" when whatever it was that they said is in clear contradiction with what's actually written.

The example could just as easily have been "Battle Medic doesn't exist."

Accurate. I wanted to provide an example on either end that was clearly not debatable by RAW. Kinda by definition, most of the questions asked on here don't apply, so I took something that no one can really debate citing even esoteric readings of the rules.

"Straw man", however, is probably not the correct term here. I'm not setting it up as something to batter down, just wanted something that was definitive and everyone could agree on. "Battle Medic does not exist" would also suffice. Or "I don't like this feat at my table, so I don't allow it" in general.

This has been debated, but I think the definitive thing to be said is you can double slice with either shield boss or shield spikes, which are both listed as weapons. "shield bash" is an attack, but it's specifically stated as "not a weapon" and double slice requires a weapon in both hands. I'm of the opinion that with only a shield, you cannot double slice, though others may disagree.

Atalius wrote:
Anyone know the likelyhood of criting at level 12 with a +24 to attack roll Vs a monster one level higher than me? Trying to calculate how likely the Scythe D10 Deadly would work. Thanks for your help.

Average AC is 34, so you've got a 55% chance to hit and a 5% chance to crit, both which would go up linearly with any improvements (natural 20 is exactly +10). Suggestions for heroism and flanking are good ones.

Umm, y'all, you can't use fortune/misfortune effects on secret rolls (unless they're used automatically), so that's not really relevant. It might matter for other reactions though...

3Doubloons wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

Does A Silent Spell, after spending an action, take it's full amount of actions, or one less?

Given that Silent Spell has the "concentrate" trait, I could see the intention being either, seeing as you're spending at least two feats to get it, merely not needing to speak when casting doesn't seem like such a big deal, though who knows what the devs think.

Nothing in Silent spell says it removes an action (contrast with the Sorcerer's Quickened Casting), neither does the Spell Components section of the rules say the actions and components must correlate 1:1. Unless someone else chimes in that the text is unclear, I'll leave that out.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
So if you must dispute, please take it to another thread. Unless, of course, you are yourself a dev.
Yes, that. Please.

EDIT: Sorry, realize you might not have context. There was significant debate for this in the Silent Spell thread. There's text in the rules that states "For most spells, the number of components is equal to the number of actions you must spend to Cast the Spell." While I don't necessarily think this is intended as a general rule so much as a statement of intent, it is at least ambiguous in that sense, and while in the minority, there were enough people who thought that effectively Silent Spell was action neutral.

I'd second what most said. I'd consider using a crossbow, but at some point you're talking about the difference between a d10 and a d12 weapon (assuming ranger increased damage die), and spending an action for what is at best +4 damage is a bad trade-off.

@albadeon: Yeah, sorry, I feel like I may have grabbed the wrong post. There had been some stronger posts regarding RAW earlier, and I think I picked yours up and, in fairness, didn't do a good job of reading the specifics. Sorry about that :).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Battle medicine: "manipulate" doesn't require a free hand and this is not an explicit use of "Treat Wounds" (it uses the same DC) so:
* Is it intended to require a free hand?
* Is it intended to require a Healer's Kit?
* Is it intended to be a use of Treat Wounds?

K1 wrote:

You don't really have to presume.

Rules here are clear.

As DM you could homerule in a different way, or even imagine that the feat is somehow explained in the wrong way, but until an errata will come out, apart from arguing, the choice is between following what the feat and manipulate trait say or just interpretate all of this as you wish.

So, as a *player*, I'll assume one free hand will fly in most places. As a GM, I agree, I actually think RAW is clear here and I'll run my games that way. However, as a person, I also realize that a lot of people don't agree... So hence, even if RAW is clear for me, it's not for everyone, which makes, unfortunately, RAW ambiguous. I've outlined the differences in how I play things in another thread, as it gets too much in the weeds.

Ahh sorry, it's the interact action that requires the free hand, not the manipulate trait explicitly... Still, I'd probably assume this does require a free hand (though not two, and you couldn't use a healer's kit with it even if you wanted to...).

Squiggit wrote:

The problem with armor is right now the only way to gain Expert in armor is Champion, which has thematic baggage attached to it (unless you agree with my weird interpretation that you can simply fail to qualify for a cause and ignore that part of the dedication).

The new Lost Omens book has Hellknights gaining armor scaling, but that also has thematic baggage attached to it (and costs four feats instead of two).

I was kinda said they didn't make Cavalier the "default" heavy armor wearer, and then basically make Paladin orders for them. Would have removed the (default) baggage, and they could have expanded the orders/started with non-deity orders to begin with.

EDIT: Tying alignments to a class identity when they were trying to make the alignment system more optional just seems like a bad idea.

Atalius wrote:
Harm Warpriest is starting to sound like he sucks :( basically a weak caster, and a weaker martial than a barbarian and a fighter.

So there are a couple routes here:

1. Get Channel Smite. There'll be times when it's worse, and it only scales up to Expert Proficiency, but keep in mind it also benefits from things like Flank and Item bonuses to hit (there is no save).
2. Be a Cloistered Cleric? I think this route is better if you use a whip (Calistria) and can go finesse. But I'm guessing this would greatly impact your actual build.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

By "land" you mean "save", right? Also, Cast Down works so long as they don't critically succeed (as long as they take some damage) Your save DC will be your level +7 and it's a Fortitude Save.

According to this your chance is:
50% on weak save on average (5% to do no damage)
40% on medium save on average (10% to do no damage)
25% on strong save on average (25% to do no damage)

Atalius wrote:
With a 20 Wisdom at level 10 how likely am I to land my Harm spell vs enemies? Since my proficieny will only be trained.

Honestly not very likely... But at least it's save for half. That's one of the *big* disadvantages of warpriest TBH.

So, let's be clear and upfront: RAW is definitely something that exists and is referenced, particularly in the PFS guide:
"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to the number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons."
"As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com."

Still, that leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation, so I'd like to discuss the various levels of what I see as RAW vs RAI. First, I'll provide an example of each of these:
1. Clearly RAW: The game says to roll 1d20 on attacks, but your GM decides they want you to use 1d10 instead.
2. IMO RAW: I believe it's clear in the rules that Battle Medicine doesn't require a Healer's Kit, but enough people think that I'm wrong to create doubt.
3. IMO Ambiguous, but likely RAI: I think Telekinetic Projectile was intended to be a ranged spell attack, but it doesn't say so explicitly in the rules.
4. Clearly Ambiguous: What's the DC to Climb a Dragon?

Okay, so this last one really doesn't matter. It's effectively something that everyone agrees is odd, and make it up as you see fit, but for the rest, I adjudicate in very distinct ways.

For 1: I will always follow this as a GM. If I see a GM *not* following this and I point it out to them, I expect them to fix it or give me a good argument for why it's not RAW. If they don't and keep playing this way, I might actually consider reporting them to an event coordinator (note: this has never actually happened).

For 2: I will always follow this as a GM. If I see a GM *not* following it, well, that's okay. I might let them know later that I don't think that's how things are supposed to be and why, but I acknowledge it's ambiguous. I might make an exception as a GM if it clearly breaks a character's build and I don't think it's overly egregious.

For 3: I will always allow whatever interpretation the player prefers/is most advantageous to them. As a player, I will typically ask what the GM does before trying to do the thing.

Curious how others run this/treat the situation? It seems as if #2 and #3 are probably the most contentious here. Given RAW has come up a couple times throughout these threads (and whether it exists at all...), I thought it useful to have an actual discussion about the somewhat meta-topic. Also, people might disagree with my classifications entirely, and define RAW in a somewhat different way.

Actually, another question: For those who are interpreting this as a use of Treat Wounds, I'm assuming you apply all the *other* restrictions of treat wounds to its usage, namely that you can't use Battle Medicine if you've used Treat Wounds within the last hour?

Castilliano wrote:

Except there is no consensus on this rule, as the thread shows.

Your interpretation seems to focus on the bare minimum, which leads to some aberrant situations which per RAW (in the CRB) the GM is supposed to account for and override. (Which is to say, by RAW, RAW defers to the GM if there are counter-intuitive implications.)

Setting that aside, there is also an interpretation of Battle Medicine that reads "patch up" (which is RAW) as doing what a person does when they patch up somebody: apply a patch by hand, presumably to wounds.
IMO, that's the most straightforward reading. Saying one can apply a patch via their weapon, shield, or anything else borders on ridiculous (though I can see esoteric abilities & magic allowing for it!).

Not that I'd argue this at the table since it's a minor issue to let ruin a game session. But I think until there is clarity, a GM is right to go by their intuition on this (as long as they aren't intentionally trying to subvert clear rules or FAQs, which I'll assert this feat does not have.)

Sorry, let me clarify a bit. I'd agree that there are definitely parts of this rule that are at least potentially ambiguous, and I wouldn't fault someone for ruling the other way on this. I think, personally, that RAW is pretty clear on this, but don't think it's "beyond reasonable doubt".

I'm also not arguing you don't need a free hand (the manipulate trait covers that), merely you don't need a healer's kit. If you're arguing there's no possible way to apply first aid without a medical kit... then I'd say pretty clearly, in the real world, that's not right. I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to say is "ridiculous" or not?

I take issue of the repeated statements of "there are no rules as written". This is patently not true, and a GM, particularly in Society, must follow them.

HammerJack wrote:
I really don't think it is. The cause isn't just a benefit you gain. The tenets tied to it are the core and most important part of the class that you're taking a dedication into, not an afterthought to mark "N/A".

So I'd probably rule that the player would need to select one of the dedications, but then immediately violate it (not be of the right alignment). That *might* not matter as a warpriest, as you mostly lose your Focus Pool when you do this. If you're not taking domains, then it shouldn't be an issue.

albadeon wrote:

The CRB quite clearly has the written rule that GMs are the final arbiters of how a rule is meant to be interpreted and quite clearly advises the GM to use the rules as intended (however the GM interprets the intention) instead of the rules as written whenever there is doubt. In any hypothetical disagreement about a rules interpretation between a player and the GM, the GM wins by default, that is part of the RAW. The player is entitled to have a different opinion but that opinion has no effect on game play.

Since that is part of the core rules, and there are no specific society rulings against it, this "GM is the ultimate arbiter on the rules" principle holds true in society play just as much.

Unless the society comes up with a specific ruling for this particular case, just go with your best interpretation, and you will always be in the right for your table.

Actually this isn't true

See the section on table variation, namely:
"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to the number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons."
"As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources."

Please stop with the statements that you don't need to run an adventure as written, GMs don't need to follow the rules, or there "are no rules as written". This is pretty clearly spelled out in the guide to organized play.

EDIT: Also, can you spell out where it states that GMs are the final arbiters... I'm seeing a section on "Ambiguous Rules", but even that states it's up to the group to decide. The Game Master section in the opening states it's your responsibility to "adjudicate the rules".

This is one where I feel the written rules are pretty clear. There's no requirements for the skill to use multiple hands, and it is called out as using the same DC as Treat Wounds, not being a Treat Wounds attempt. There's definite disagreement if this was the intent (I think it was, Healer's Kits become a lot more tedious with shields...), but that's a separate discussion. I do think there's an argument that the object you're manipulating is the person... so touch might be required.

Ahh, right, non-good :). Nevermind. As Squiggit pointed out, there's no alignment restrictions, but then again, probably not very "in character". Still, they've pretty much promised non-good champions, so it's possible you could get around some of it, though yeah... that seems like tricksy tricksters.

Honestly if you're doing that, I'd recommend Champion MC ~2 to get heavy armor proficiency. You have to wait until level 12 for AoO, but you can leave your Dexterity at 10 and be whatever race you want.

Blave wrote:
I'm also still hoping that the prerequisites for Fighter Dedication (and Barbarian, Monk and Champion) is a typo and should say "Strength 14 OR Dexterity 14". I see no reason why those four should have higher requirements than the other multiclass archetypes. But so far it's only wishful thinking. We'll see once the first update is released.

I'm hoping they do this for Fighter and Monk, as those two classes can be built with one but not two of those stats (Similar to Ranger, which already uses only Dexterity). For Champion and Barbarian, however, I'm fine with it being both stats. Plus, those two are more advanced classes anyways, I don't mind them having additional requirements, especially relative to Fighter, which should be easy to access IMO.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
I'm sorry, but there are differences between playing harshly and making hit and run tactics with zombies. Monsters have to be played according to their respective intelligence and mindset.
No they don't? That is bringing your own values and preferences to the table that another person might not share. And even if you--as a player--value a certain level of simulation in combat, then a GM can always come up with a plot contrivance to play them how he wants; perhaps a necromancer controls the zombies remotely. Spooky!

I mean, I'm pretty flexible here when it comes to freedom of the GM do do what they want, but here I am going to agree with SuperBidi by-and-large. I agree monsters don't "have" to be played according to their respective intelligence, but good roleplaying would *not* have zombies that weren't being explicitly controlled using hit-and-run tactics. Flanking, perhaps, but not hit-and-run.

I should say, if you're running a home game and you want basically all enemies to have tactics, fine. If you're running a pre-made game (scenario, AP, module), then doing this sort of thing isn't really good GMing unless the scenario calls for it.

mrspaghetti wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
EDIT: I will say I don't find the arguments saying "low Int means they shouldn't use good tactics!" very compelling. This might actually be a totally cromulent strategy for low Int monks/rogues, who do want to flit in and out. Intelligence doesn't dictate ability to act strategically in combat.

Well, intelligence is certainly one factor, but I'd say training is even more important (assuming intelligence isn't near-mindless, at least). The question for me is, how likely is it that a given group of enemies has effectively trained together to execute complex strategies? Because you can't do that successfully without drilling. A lot. Elite military units pull it off because they train constantly. I normally don't see groups of intelligent PCs even attempting that sort of stuff, tbh.

In the case of generic orcs, I'm kinda skeptical that they'd be doing crack precision coordinated maneuvers. Probably more reacting on the fly than anything, with minimal planning.

Agreed if it's generic orcs, but if it's an orcish raiding party? A group of orc bandits? I could see it being a strategy they were used to. However, yeah, if it's happening repeatedly in the campaign, then that seems a bit hard to swallow. Just saying that even though they might not have high intelligence, that doesn't mean they would do stupid things in combat. As others have pointed out, even animals have pack tactics.

Also, there's a whole debate on Dump Stats/Intelligence over on the Leshy/Hobgoblin thread :-P (LOCG). PF2 plays a lot different from PF1, and there's a lot of discussion over what's actually important. Suffice to say, lots of people have lots of different opinions, as is probably evidenced on this thread as well. I'm one that thinks Intelligence/Charisma are both probably equally dumpable in a lot of cases, but others (see Deadmanwalking) think Strength is worse. Honestly, we probably need more play to see what *actually* helps and what doesn't, and a lot will be dictated by what your party can do/needs.

Honestly, Constitution isn't *as* important as it used to be, but it's still pretty much the second most important stat across most/all builds. Wisdom's going to be king, due to perception, initiative, and will saves. After that, Dexterity is nice, but really not needed for any builds that have heavy armor (Full Plate = +3 in most situations to Reflex). So constitution takes up second place here.

Note I'm not arguing for any singular build it's the second most important, rather I think it's probably more globally 3, but if you average across, people's first stat will be their primary attack, but that varies *a lot*, second will be wisdom, third will be constitution.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's funny, I was actually playing a dumb fighter type at a table recently and we had just opened a door with a 5 foot hallway into another open room. In the room were 4 monkey-type enemies. My character rolled high on initiative, so they yelled "strategy!", ran in, hit one enemy, then ran back next to the party.... Then the enemies went, and they took turns moving to where they could see us through the door, and each flinging two... ahem, rocks... at us.

Moral of the story? This strategy might work in some cases, but there are going to be a lot of cases where it's a terrible strategy. Enemies who move slowly, party who has ranged attacks, party with attacks of opportunity... If the enemies don't know the party they're facing and they have the potential to be good at this sort of strategy, then I *might* try it, but it probably shouldn't happen all the time, and it might not work frequently.

EDIT: Though I will say I don't find the arguments saying "low Int means they shouldn't use good tactics!" very compelling. This might actually be a totally cromulent strategy for low Int monks/rogues, who do want to flit in and out. Intelligence doesn't dictate ability to act strategically in combat.

I've made the counter argument, you don't agree with it. I accept that, but I also don't state my position as RAW and you do... I'm stating that RAW is ambiguous because there *are* two ways to read that text.

In fairness, it wasn't you who claimed it was explanatory text, and I didn't pay close enough attention to that. There's enough disagreement about this that I don't think there is unambiguous RAW here. You're just flat wrong about the interpretation not being possible. "For most" has many examples which are considered rules except where exceptions are stated. Just a couple include:
* While the tuning forks for most prominent planes are uncommon...
* Most Small creatures eat one-quarter as much as a Medium creature (one-sixteenth as much for most Tiny creatures)

These are pretty clear examples where "for most" is definitely intended to imply a default rule when an exception is not stated. Do you have definitive proof that this was not intended to be meant that way? Are you arguing that if a creature says it's treated as size tiny, it wouldn't require one-sixteenth the food?

mrspaghetti wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
That's not an ambiguous rule because that's not really a rule, it's just explanatory text. Saying it's true for "most spells" does not equate to "removing a component from any spell reduces its casting time". It's just pointing out a trend made when designing spells.

That's just like... your opinion man!

In all seriousness though, it's part of the rulebook and in the text. It may be indicating a design decision, it may be indicating a general rule for which specific examples might diverge. In general, it could be read either as:
* "Typically, the number of components and actions agree" or
* "Unless stated otherwise, the number of components is equal to the number of actions you must spend"

As stated at the very beginning of this thread, there is no indication there is an error in Silent Spell RAW, which says to remove a component, not an action.

BTW, your two "equivalent" statements above are not really equivalent. If anything, the way it appears in the book actually clarifies that the number of components has no firm relationship with the number of actions. E.g, I typically go out to lunch on Fridays. But there are lots of times I don't, and no one I typically go to lunch with on Fridays would assume that I am going to lunch on any given Friday without asking me first.

Talking about spells in particular and going back to your "equivalent" text, are there any spell write-ups that specifically say anything to the effect that "This spell does not have the same number of actions as components"? I am unaware of any.

If you just want Silent Spell to work without adding an action in your game and you're the GM or you can convince her to house rule that way, go for it. But given all the evidence and reasoning in this thread I think it's clearly not RAW and imo not RAI either.

Listen, I'm tired of this whole "my way is the only way of reading the rules". If you can't accept that other people might have different ways of interpreting this, then that's on you. But cool, you do that.

BellyBeard wrote:
That's not an ambiguous rule because that's not really a rule, it's just explanatory text. Saying it's true for "most spells" does not equate to "removing a component from any spell reduces its casting time". It's just pointing out a trend made when designing spells.

That's just like... your opinion man!

In all seriousness though, it's part of the rulebook and in the text. It may be indicating a design decision, it may be indicating a general rule for which specific examples might diverge. In general, it could be read either as:
* "Typically, the number of components and actions agree" or
* "Unless stated otherwise, the number of components is equal to the number of actions you must spend"

mrspaghetti wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:

The verbal component would normally have added an action of its own to the spell

Quickened Casting reduces the action count, but I read it as the components still being required. The action economy is improved but you get no stealth.

Your statement is inconsistent. Either components add actions or they don't. I think the commentary in the thread previously establishes that components and actions are independent (which your last statement relies on). Since Silent Spell adds an action (which is different from a component), the net result would be one added action to the spell overall.

It... doesn't really do that. It leaves it unclear if there should be a one-to-one connection between components and casting actions in most cases, and therefor removing one removes the other, or if it's just a "typical" thing. The rules text could be read either way.

"Page 303: For most spells, the number of components is equal to the number of actions you must spend to Cast the Spell."

Relevant discussion thread.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
Revan wrote:
He seems to be taking the position that Iomedae's appearance in Wrath of the Righteous was actually indicative of the alignment system, and not a massive, massive writing fail.
This encounter is cannon until the authors retcon it. You may not like how alignments work in Golarion - but it's not a fail if it works as intended by the authors.

Nope, this is not how Pathfinder works. Saying "but mom, Iomedae did it!" is not going to get you un-grounded.

You may not like that one author's writing in a single adventure for a single deity doesn't provide conclusive proof about the alignment system as a whole, but your GMs are fully within their right to give you an alignment infraction for Magic Missiling your inferiors.

Squiggit wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think you're wrong about this. Trained is precisely equivalent to "one rank per level"- it's literally "add your level." Legendary is like "one rank + per level, plus skill focus, plus a class feature like trapfinding or consummate liar."

This requires us to assume that Trained is baseline upon which skill usage and DCs are assumed and that the game doesn't really account for higher profiency, but that doesn't really seem to be the case.

Trained is only the baseline at low levels and higher level CR appropriate checks are not something a trained only character can reliably succeed at (with a handful of exceptions, Trained in athletics scales pretty well for instance). Even beyond that, access to skill functionality and feats are sometimes gated behind proficiency too.

PF2 definitely made it easier to invest in Intelligence, but Int is unequivocally weaker, because Trained is no longer sufficient to give you full access to the skill. Tighter system math also means that those extra +s you're missing out on by not being at a higher proficiency tier significantly impact your ability to succeed on checks.

Frankly, it's one of the big headscratchers for me about PF2. In PF1 the general consensus was that Wisdom was incredibly important for everyone, Int was ignorable and Cha was a universal dump stat... so in PF2 they buff Wis, nerf Int and leave Cha basically untouched.

I had something longer typed up, but Squiggit basically hit upon all the points, and probably better. Note that they did weaken Dexterity in PF2 a bit, but that came at the benefit of Wisdom, so yeah, I don't really get it either. At least they had a *plan* for making Charisma more important, even if they did end up scrapping it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
In Golarion, casting Magic missile on your subordinate because you don't like their answer isn't evil. This is an established fact.

Umm, wut?

Ravingdork wrote:
Varun Creed wrote:
I have the players roll 5 times secretly (in a dice tower behind my GM screen), and I write down what they roll for when I need their results. :)
That's an interesting idea. Though I've heard of players gaming that system. If you can remember that you 4th roll was 20, you might make a take a useless Seek action on your third roll just so the real secret check you want to succeed is that natural 20.

I'm honestly not a big fan of this. Yeah, it lets the player roll, but for me, rolling in the moment is a big part of the excitement of the game, even if it is the GM doing it. Obviously to each their own, but I'd rather hear the clink of the dice when my fate is being decided :).

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I guess my question is- is Int less valuable for people who don't key class features off intelligence in PF2 than it was in PF1?

It seems like the only sense in which this is is true is that no classes are saddled with the 2+Int skill ranks thing.

Int in PF1 effectively gave you "legendary" proficiency in an additional skill. You got 1 skill rank per level, so you could maximize one other skill. These aren't exactly comparable of course, but I feel that's a reasonable way to look at it. Level to everything (trained) does make this equation significantly different.

Sorry, I also feel like we're getting distracted, and I agree with @Pepsi Jedi here. My previous post will be my last discussing how "dumpable" Intelligence is. The fact is that dumpable or not, I'm still going to play Elves, and I'm not going to pick a race solely based on its stats (mind you, I might have trouble pulling off a dwarven sorcerer...).

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The nature of evil is something that we've been debating about as humans for centuries. Color me skeptical if someone on the Paizo boards is claiming to have a definitive answer on this topic, even in game only :-P.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Sarenrae: Anathema create undead, lie, deny a repentant creature an
opportunity for redemption, fail to strike down evil.

That third clause there seems to be a big issue with those actions. Maybe it was an evil creature, but killing it without at least figuring out if it wanted to be redeemed is something I'd definitely say would go against Anathema if done repeatedly.

Actually the one issue I've had is players saying "I roll knowledge" and then simply rolling. Then again.... this was an issue I had with PF1 as well :-P. I try to tell my tables to wait for me to *call* for a roll, but you know... that doesn't always stick.

Also note, ruling the other way would have some weird effects for fighter feats that use "ranged weapons", I don't think double shot is intended to work with daggers, yet if you're saying daggers are ranged weapons when they're thrown, they also clearly don't have a reload time...

EDIT: Or maybe not, I guess it's no more confusing than a Javelin, which would also qualify.

1 to 50 of 866 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>