turtle006's page

If you are on the side that allows the "ready an action to move away" strategy: (or feel it is RAW)

Can you dodge ranged attacks the same way? Why or why not? What about bombs or splash attacks? Breath weapons? Where do you draw the line as to what is avoidable?

When my husband GMed, he had me do all of the technical rules stuff (as a player) so he could concentrate on the story.

As long as you have someone you can trust, that may work.

What if you could create a new thrall in the square occupied by an existing thrall. Destroying the old as the new erupts out, treatinf the new one in all ways as a newly summoned one.

That way, if space is an issue, the Necromancer can still get to create new thralls, but the space required doesn't increase. But the space is still a limit to the total number available for use.

I'd be open to a spell slot progression like Magus/Summoner depending on what we get for it. Maybe a tad more at 3 slots per two highest rank spells instead of 2.

Or maybe just have options that allow us to sacrifice/"spell blend" slots for other benefits or to activate other abilities. You know those grave spells that need an existing thrall? Maybe if you didn't want to sac a thrall for whatever reason, you can instead sac a low rank spell slot in place of a thrall to cast the grave spell directly from yourself.

I like this idea. It also gives an option to not block off all available spaces with thralls.

For the record,I agree with Darksoul. The range of the spell is clearly 60 feet, reach spell will only work on that, and not change the requirement to touch a shield.

As written, it reads to me as choose for each creature. And could be used to give allies effectively a free step. (Lift a foot, move 5 feet and drop.)

Why are signed versions of languages so much easier to learn than spoken ones?

I read that as an additional charge for languages you already know, so it costs 40 points to learn a "new" sign language.

This is 100% a table decision. I would caution that not all of the AP archetypes are balanced "in the wild". As a rule though, if everyone agrees, it's probably ok.

It would be worth questioning why that specific archetype though. Is it only for some gonzo ability? Or is it a legitimate request?

As a Trans woman just coming out. I’d be happy to hear of a trans pc.

My husband's character transitioned when he did (from they to he)

So the consensus seems to be that if someone is hiding, there is no roll until another creature comes by, and then stealth is used vs perception.

I can see the rules justification for that, it just seems weird that if a creature is hiding, and someone runs by, they get an automatic check to see them. (Or the hider has to make a check to stay hidden, same effect)

I concede the rules say that, though.

turtle006 wrote:

shroudb wrote:

turtle006 wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Hide is an encounter action.

For what you're describing, you don't "roll to hide", instead you simply are doing "avoid notice" exploration activity, and when the other creature is close enough to be reasonable to have an encounter, THEN you roll your stealth check.

This, to me is the right answer. Any time there could be a hostile enemy, initiative needs to be rolled. If you were to flip the op's hidden character into an enemy and the seeker into pcs, it's easy to see why.

I don't think I agree with your point here. If the PCs are actively looking for someone, they are already in encounter mode. If they have no reason to look for someone, and the hidden creature has no reason to interact, then nothing happens, it doesn't even get mentioned.

As an aside, guards are actively seeking, IMO. So I can't see a way to abuse this.

Why is searching for someone an encounter mode thing only?

Searching, tracking, and etc are Exploration activities and are/can be used to find someone.

---

Even if you aren't actively searching, if an elephant tries to hide behind a sapling, you'll still see him.
How good/bad you're hiding is not something in vacuum, but always related towards potential viewers and their angles of approach and such, which is why it make sense that you only do the Avoid Notice check when you are close enough to know all the circumstances for said check.

Yeah, I didn't explain properly.

If no one is looking for them, and a hidden creature doesn't do something to reveal themself there is no roll, and no encounter.

By the rules, the elephant is revealed because it doesn't have cover or concealment, not because it is bad at hiding. If an elephant is hiding in a barn, and the PCs walk by, they don't automatically detect it unless they look for it (or it loses cover ofc)

the thing is, cover or concealment is relevant to begin with, and...

Respectfully, is there a rule that let's you find a hidden creature without seeking?

If the party is hustling, and goes past a hidden creature, how do they spot it?

turtle006 wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Hide is an encounter action.

For what you're describing, you don't "roll to hide", instead you simply are doing "avoid notice" exploration activity, and when the other creature is close enough to be reasonable to have an encounter, THEN you roll your stealth check.

This, to me is the right answer. Any time there could be a hostile enemy, initiative needs to be rolled. If you were to flip the op's hidden character into an enemy and the seeker into pcs, it's easy to see why.

I don't think I agree with your point here. If the PCs are actively looking for someone, they are already in encounter mode. If they have no reason to look for someone, and the hidden creature has no reason to interact, then nothing happens, it doesn't even get mentioned.

As an aside, guards are actively seeking, IMO. So I can't see a way to abuse this.

Why is searching for someone an encounter mode thing only?

Searching, tracking, and etc are Exploration activities and are/can be used to find someone.

---

Even if you aren't actively searching, if an elephant tries to hide behind a sapling, you'll still see him.
How good/bad you're hiding is not something in vacuum, but always related towards potential viewers and their angles of approach and such, which is why it make sense that you only do the Avoid Notice check when you are close enough to know all the circumstances for said check.

Yeah, I didn't explain properly.

If no one is looking for them, and a hidden creature doesn't do something to reveal themself there is no roll, and no encounter.

By the rules, the elephant is revealed because it doesn't have cover or concealment, not because it is bad at hiding. If an elephant is hiding in a barn, and the PCs walk by, they don't automatically detect it unless they look for it (or it loses cover ofc)

shroudb wrote:

Hide is an encounter action.

For what you're describing, you don't "roll to hide", instead you simply are doing "avoid notice" exploration activity, and when the other creature is close enough to be reasonable to have an encounter, THEN you roll your stealth check.

This, to me is the right answer. Any time there could be a hostile enemy, initiative needs to be rolled. If you were to flip the op's hidden character into an enemy and the seeker into pcs, it's easy to see why.

I don't think I agree with your point here. If the PCs are actively looking for someone, they are already in encounter mode. If they have no reason to look for someone, and the hidden creature has no reason to interact, then nothing happens, it doesn't even get mentioned.

As an aside, guards are actively seeking, IMO. So I can't see a way to abuse this.

I don't think there is specific rules support for this. IIRC the current rule is that shields are strapped to your arm, and they can be "dropped" from that hand so it counts as free.

IMO that points to being able to hold, but not raise, a shield in gorilla stance.

Seems to be a cae where someone didn't fully understand the rules. From the way it is written, is seems like it is intended to "spray" out from the creature. But a burst doesn't do that.

I think I would fudge it to start behind the creature and move away.

I agree with the intention, but I think finding treasure that you can't use until tomorrow sort of feels bad.

Does it break realism too much if they are allowed to "override" the item once? The scrolls/wands still have a randomly determined spell, but they can choose to override, it using these rules, once.

I think this allows for the creative use of a "bad" scroll, but still doesn't remove treasure.

Trip.H wrote:

Because resistance/weakness 5 to all damage translates to "has weakness 5 to fire, acid, cold..." and lists every damage type. It is shorthand for listing off every type.

No, it is not.

That is a common interpretation of Resist All. But it is not stated in the rules as such, and it is not the only possible interpretation of Resist All.

It can also be interpreted that Resist Fire (5), Resist Acid (5), Resist Sonic (5), ... is in fact different than Resist All (5). That difference being that if an effect would cause multiple damage types and 'instance of damage' does not get separated out by damage types, then the rule about only applying one Resistance would apply and you would only drop 5 points from one of the damage types rather than Resist All that would drop 5 points from all of the damage types.

I thought of this too, but what changed my mind was that means Resistance [5] to each individual damage type spelled out, excluding one, is Better than Resistance all [5] not spelled out in the vast majority of cases. And that sounds both TBTBT and the kind of minute rules interactions that Paozo has tried to avoid.

In certain cases, it makes resistance fire [5] and resistance cold [5] better than resistance all [5] (if they take fire and cold in the same attack)

This was a derail in the Commander thread:

Warden" is used heavily in ranger feats, "aegis" isn't appropriate for reasons that will become apparent, "protector" is arguably pretty lame even if you don't like guardian, "tank" isn't a class name (it's an MMO role), "stewards" are the folks who keep the throne warm for you while you're off adventuring, "keeper" is creepy, "bodyguard" is a profession (not a class), and "watchdog" is a pet.

Guardian is at least a word they've named superheroes after.

But also, this is the commander hype thread, not the "debate the guardian name" thread ;)

Do I sense that there will be a deemphasis of the shield? Maybe they just get DR and an ability to impose themselves in front of an attack?

Someone said above (sorry for no quote) that they can't see a class being tied to a piece of equipment, which was a great point I feel.

Since you only need a sliver, and one of the ways to assess the purity of a metal is to slice a sliver off...

All you need to do is go visit some smith's under pretense of shopping for metals.

In my opinion, since the shards are individually targeted (I.e. can be targeted at 2 different creatures) by RAW it would be 2 "instances".

However that seems extra deadly especially at low levels so I don't think I would run it that way.

I have been playing D&D consistently since 1979. I have played MMOs since about 2001. I had never heard anyone say Tank, Healer, DPS until MMOs and it didn't become prevalent until WoW took off.

I am still opposed to a taunt mechanic. I don't think any professional fighting for their life is going to be distracted by someone enough to attack them irrationally. A taunt mechanic removes tactical options. And removes player agency, because don't forget Monsters get skills too, generally with a better bonus too.

My issue with a "taunt" type mechanic that makes an opponent so mad they get reckless, is that doesn't work against professionals. How many athletes get yelled at by many thousands of people for example?

If someone is so untrained that calling them names is going to make them lose their cool, they aren't a real threat to a professional adventurer like the PCs.

Maybe you can insult a goblin or other low level threat to make it reckless, but I wouldn't expect it to work against anything past level 1 or 2.

Slight shift in topic. What gates ARE known and available to the public? Are there ANY gates that the party could travel to said town and pay the gatekeeper X amount of gold to travel from A to B?

Is there any other in world travel systems? I'm curious if there is a way to get form say Bevoy to Absalom quickly other than spells like teleport?

Probably unofficial, but I am sure my AoA players would let you use theirs for a price.

One of the example topics for nature recall knowledge is geography.

Would it be Society to learn about geography like cities and states? Since they are "humanoid made".

A way to simulate this that may not be as game breaking is to let everyone be hasted. That means less options for the extra actions and no multiple spells. Maybe at a higher level increase what they are allowed to do. (This is off the cuff, but it feels like it would be a boost but not a game breaking one)

I would argue that synchronized swimmers use "stances" and are definitely not on the ground.

Seriously, though, since we have (at least) on stance that has the "must be on the ground" requirement it implies the others do not have that.

Atalius wrote:

Would the enemy know if you were casting a level 1 Agitate or a say a level 6 Agitate? This is an important consideration. Many a monsters would have no problem eating a level 1 spell for damage. A level 6 spell however would make them think twice.

I would say only if they can identify the spell using the same rules as PCs do

Or after taking damage once IMO.

SheepishEidolon wrote:

A battle is about to begin, excitement rises - and the game grinds to a halt, for rolling dice and bookkeeping, excitement cools down.

I simply do not grok this. How many people are in the party? Does the GM roll for every creature individually? I have four players in my party who roll physical dice and I use Combat Manager to manage the combat. The app rolls for all of the creatures individually and then I ask the players what they got, plug in their numbers, sort the results and we're off in about twenty seconds.

I do it manually for all creatures and players roll theirs. Doesn't take much more than your 20 seconds even that way.

I love these. They are unique and add depth. I will probably add some for my wife's Alchemist in AoA. With some houserules...

Most are extremely complicated. Need to limit the math required to determine effects.

I may have missed it, but they need a save also, else they are too strong.

I know nothing about the dates, but I am going on vacation that day also.

Vacation ^5

I don't know the answer, and the only situation I can see it coming up is if the Monk doesn't know about the immunity. (Otherwise he wouldn't use that body part or weapon)

In a case like that, I would tend to do what ever is best for the player. Possibly treat as 2 attacks in this case or allow both to do full damage.

That many? I did not realize. I never played one before, so I assumed that it was finite like spells known.

As was stated above, with quick alchemy, an Alchemist can prepare anything they have a formula for, so having a ton of them is a direct increase in versatility.

Gisher wrote:

Here is my current list.

Take away those that the druid isn't proficient in, that you likely don't have access to (that are Uncommon), and that require additional components (such as ammunition) and you have...

...the club and the staff.

I could get that without spending a feat by saying I pick up a stick off the ground.

While this is correct, there aren't usually many sticks lying around banquets, for example, and there may not even be any in a dungeon. I see this feat as a way to conceal a weapon for specific circumstances, not to create a weapon for general use.

I am an old grognard, have been playing some form of RPG since the late 70s.

I rarely consider skipping level one. To me it feels like deliberately leaving out some of the game that I play to have fun. I like the growth of a character from 1-20, and level 1 serves to indicate a lot of where the character fits in the party.

I also think that level 1 can be exciting as you are "one bad decision" away from death. PF2 added hero points so you are less likely to be "one roll" away from death which was one of the concerns I have seen expressed about low levels. (Not the OP specifically, but others)

Leshy characters need to breathe, I think it is safe to say plant eidelons do as well.

And that aside, I personally would rule the summoner still needs to breathe even if merged.

I read that as it has to be a weapon with no metal. Since it says staff in the description, that's one option. Clubs are just wood, right? It doesn't say melee so a sling works. Seems like there are several options.

Glaive or Scythe is a definite no.

I would like to see some sort of sentient parasite. They take over humanoid hosts but are actually a virus or other microorganism.

Disclaimer: I am a bit of a grognard.

I bought a 250' roll of 1 inch graph paper and copy all of the maps. I then cut out the rooms and only lay them out when they are discovered.

Your art can't possibly be as bad as mine either, so you have that going for you.

Want to really wreck your brain about sheathing a sword? Make a small ancestry Giant Barbarian with a giant sized 2 handed weapon!

/Pedant on: Spider paws have claws on them that could be used to approximate wolf teeth. /Pedant off

Personally, I would let an Anadi in spider form use Wolf Jaw attacks, ad I don't see any benefit to restrictions on the player.

I am currently running Age of Ashes for 3 players who are all new to PF2. One of them is completely new to RPGs and the other 2 have dabbled. They are not exactly an optimized party. (Rogue, Alchemist and Monk)

We only have one rule book, and the players don't use it when we are playing as they don't need it. Everything they need to play is on their character sheet. (Which is the default class specific one.) Or they ask. If I am unsure of a rule and can't find it quickly, I make something up and clarify for next time.

I do use a laptop during play, but that is mostly because I bought the AP as a PDF.

The players need some guidance during level up, but other than that haven't had many issues.

I will say that coming from another system, it was hard for me to see them not completely optimized (the Alchemist started with 16 Int for example.) But in practice it hasn't been a big deal.

Maybe your players (and yourself) need to just do what's fun and stop worrying about what is best?

If I open a door while invisible, and release a terrible monster that I didn't know was there upon my enemies. Is that a hostile action?

How can any rule possibly cover scenarios such as this that we probably couldn't get 10 people to agree about?

One of the funniest moments of our AoA campaign was the Alchemist getting confused and critting the Monk with her torch.

Especially funny because the Alchemist player has terrible dice luck and didn't get another crit for a long time.

For those arguing that a step is ok, can I take 3 steps away from the fighter that caused the fear to end up beside the Cleric that did not? It doesn't say I have to go back the way I came after all.

I don't see any way "fleeing in terror" can include carefully stepping to avoid an attack.

I think you were in the right. Being so scared you are running away doesn't exactly imply being careful.

One thing I did with my players is I agreed to not charge them for rations, ammo etc as long as they agreed to not loot every enemy down to the underwear.

Seems to have helped, and they don't have to carry 65 +1 striking weapons back to town for the few gold.

It seems to me that most of that is lore and not mechanics. If you wanted to have a baker that was legendary in baking for example, you just give them legendary baking.

One of the good things about the npc/monster creation rules is that you don't have to make them like a PC. Just give them the abilities you feel they should have.

Maybe I am not grasping what you are looking for, but NPC archetypes are not something that would necessarily work, as all NPCs are created as individuals.

SuperBidi wrote:

I play it like that:

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬜⬜⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬜⬜⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜

Basically, you take a 10-foot burst and remove a 5-foot burst from it.

While I agree the rule can be read multiple ways when you really get into it, I think my interpretation is the most straightforward one.

This is prob the correct way. a "10foot radius ring" even if undefined cant be bigger then a "10foot burst" thats just silly.

If you add in the 4 corner squares, this is 60' long also. I think it is 55' currently if you use the every second diagonal rule, which seems close enough to me.

While I agree with your points, there is also the issue of baggage to consider. If someone is coming from a D&D background, the term Monk (and Druid and etc) have specific connotations.

A player coming to the game from 5e for example. Seeing a class named something else, let's say Brawler instead of Monk, is not necessarily going to grasp what the class is about.

I don't know that that is enough of a reason to keep the names, personally, but I am also not trying to sell a game.

Yello!

Can I use parts of Prairie Drake as a craft material for the Drake Rifle in PFS? If so, what damage type will it have?

Thx for the help!

Rifle https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1166
Drake https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1928

There are no PF2 rules for scavenging items from creatures that are not 3pp.

So in PFS, that means no.