vegetalss4's page

Hm, I guess drowning doesn't work anymore against regeneration, like it did in 1E?

Now that you mention it, by a strict reading of the rules I think it still does.

Regeneration says that:

This monster regains the listed number of Hit Points each round at the beginning of its turn. Its dying condition never increases beyond dying 3 as long as its regeneration is active. However, if it takes damage of a type listed in the regeneration entry, its regeneration deactivates until the end of its next turn. Deactivate the regeneration before applying any damage of a listed type, since that damage might kill the monster by bringing it to dying 4.

While the drowning and suffocation rules says that:

When you run out of air, you fall unconscious and start suffocating. You can't recover from being unconscious and must attempt a DC 20 Fortitude save at the end of each of your turns. On a failure, you take 1d10 damage, and on a critical failure, you die. On each check after the first, the DC increases by 5 and the damage by 1d10; these increases are cumulative. Once your access to air is restored, you stop suffocating and are no longer unconscious (unless you're at 0 Hit Points).

So strictly speaking regeneration doesn't protect against things that kills you without involving the dying condition.

Personally I think the issue here lies in reading the "lie" ability (which doesn't have the small action symbols" text of "doing so takes at least one round or longer if the lie is elaborate", as meaning it takes all your actions to do, rather than as meaning that it's still a free action, but it takes 6 seconds before they are done speaking.

Reading that section as through you where a dumb computer trying to cause a bug will give bad results with or without Pointed Questions.

Questioning someone while you walk-and-talk, so that you can automatically notice when they lie because they'll be forced to stop and stand still for six seconds would be equally nonsensical.

If I go full RAI/narrative explanation:

The reason that taking damage can remove the confused condition is because it causes you to be able to clearly identify who your enemies are - the group of people attacking you.

So if your ally attacks you while you are confused and removes the confused condition, then you would consider your former allies as hostile towards you and act appropriately until the original duration of the confused condition ends.

But that isn't RAW either.

I don't think so, I think the idea is based around the shock, pain and adrenaline might give you a moment of clarity, rather than by making you identify foes.

In general I don't think that it's an oversight that confused doesn't specify foes attack - I think it's deliberate that you can snap your allies out of it that way.

Also, for balance considerations:

The strict RAW reading (yes, you have to deal all damage that you are eligible for when hitting an ally to remove the confused condition) makes Snap Out of It a worthwhile feat.

If you are allowed to attack an ally for 1 point of damage with no feat investment, then the value of Snap Out of It goes down dramatically.

That said, I wouldn't let someone deal 1 point of damage through. It wouldn't make sense to me for you to have that level of control against a resisting foe that you still have to hit.

Through I'm not sure how it'd change the usefulness of Snap Out of It if I did, since that feat makes the roll to get rid of confusion automatically succesful - removing the need for extra actions (and turns where the confused ally is trying to kill you) seems equally useful whether you are dealing 1 hp per hit or normal strike damage

I don't think ladders involve a skill check to climb, at least.

A ladder is the first example of an "untrained" sample climb task, through I do think that following the GM advice for untrained task and setting the DC at 10 sounds pretty unreasonable.

However I was a player in a game where it was given a DC of 0 in a combat situation, meaning that you mostly rolled to see if you crited (and thus moved faster) and that even untrained you only failed on a 1.
That seemed pretty reasonable to me.

Blocks is a weird item I'd not thought about before.

Quote:

Blocks - - - - - - Item 0

Source Grand Bazaar pg. 58
Price 1 sp
Hands 2; Usage held in 2 hands; Bulk L
These wooden blocks can be stacked to build flimsy structures. A standard set comes in a small sack with 12 blocks.

Could be useful to make a shoddy barricade with? Or jam up machinery? Not sure if this is supposed to be the child's toy or something bigger.

I think those are supposed to be the children's toy considering the light bulk for a sack of 12. Plus dolls is also on page 58 while toy carriages are on page 59 so I think that's the section of the book for various toys.

Ectar wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Either way, reports of the drow empire were greatly exaggerated, and in their place is the sekmin empire which actually rules below the surface.

Gods, I hate this as the in-world explanation. And I really don't think Pathfinder benefits from unreliable narrators.

There was no other choice possible.

And I, for one, prefer the Sekmin, which I find fascinating, as the evil underground empire rather than the Drows, which leave me quite uninterested.

Kull rather than DnD.

There were (and are) definitely other possible choices.

For instance they could just go with a clean retcon

What if a PC followed through, but then later retrained out of Druid Dedication? Do they really forget a whole language somehow?

I'd presume they'd lose it, much like how a PC would forget the Dwarven and Jotun they picked up with the Multilingual feat if they retrained that. (or for that matter same way they'd lose their training in Nature).

There wouldn't be anything supernatural about it either, it'd just be an exaggerated for game purposes example of people forgetting abilities they once had. Such as all the people who could speak one of french/german/spainish/etc. etc. back in school, but who then forgot it from disuse.

It just happens over 5 day instead of decades for both balance reasons and because decades are too long for most games.

If the story calls for a bean counting contest and someone comes out with a jar full of beans that feat has you covered.

The really sad thing about Eye for Numbers is that, Eye for Numbers wouldn't even let you win the "guess how many beans in the jar contest" (assuming the GM doesn't just go "wow, someone actually took Eye for Numbers I guess you win the contest then).

I googled for an example of bean guessing and found this video of a guy asking a bunch of college students who mostly just throw out a bunch of quick answers.

I wrote down the first 39 answers (skipping one that mumbled too much for me to hear), got bored and then skipped to the bit where the video maker said how many beans were actually in the jar (520).

Out of those 39 guesses - 3 where closer to the correct guess than the 500 Eye for Numbers would have given you, and 3 more where within the full "error margin" of Eye for Numbers.

Almost but not quite getting a bronze medal at the village fair bean guessing contest is pretty disappointing for a skill feat.

A good starting point might be the analysis in this forum post by Pronate analysing how existing weapons are balanced and their guide linked therein.

It boils down to some math about baseline damage and number of traits, as well as not all traits being equal.
Now this isn't perfect, and the systems have some limitations but it's a start, particularly if combined with the discussion in the rest of the thread.
for instance some combination of traits and stats doesn't appear in the game because they might be too much together even if they aren't to high "cost" in general.

It's probably relevant for what you want that the only weapons with both more than 1d6 damage and backstabber are requires two hands. Almost certainly because off-guard isn't that difficult to get and 1d8 is the max damage for a 1 handed weapon martial weapon in general.

For a not-complex version of the weapon I might go with something like the temple sword/khopesh like Jerdane suggest.
Martial sword, 1d8 Piercing damage, 1 hand, trip.

I'd accept the lack of an anti-shield trait from it's curve in much the same way I accept that a flail doesn't get anything like that despite being able to go around a shield with the chain. That is to say, all weapons have ways to avoid shields somewhat and I'd just accept that representing minor differences in how easy they are to use is below the system resolution.

If the shield trait is important to the conversion and I was willing to be a bit more ambitious I might homebrew a special trait.
Here I'd stay away from a to-hit bonus. That's real powerful in this system, even if circumstancially restricted, and outside of the normal weapon design space.

Instead I'd give it extra damage when the target used a shield block reaction (to the wielder not the shield) - probably equal to the number of damage dice (similar to the Razing trait which is also mostly an anti-shield trait in practice but halved since creature HP is more important than object HP).
I'd be OK with letting that stand on a 1-handed martial 1d8 weapon since the circumstance is so relatively narrow.

I really like that both the options previewed this time is reasonably low level.

It's much more exciting for me to see options I'm much more likely to get to play with.

I have also always read the ground as being an adjacent surface.
It's a surface and it's adjacent to you whenever you are standing on it.
Neither of those term have a special game meaning

That clause seems to be there to exclude those cases where there isn't anything for the target to be stuck to.
For instance a flying foe or one swimming in water.

Perhaps it might be worth it to go Kobold instead of human to gain the kobold breath, ancestry feat. That'd give you another offensive ability targeting reflex that doesn't "just" give off-guard. Plus it's another area of attack thing which isn't restricted to enemies directly next to you.

You could either add Dragon Breath for a 1/hour damage and area boost or Dragonblood paragon for persistent damage on a crit fail at 9th level

"Sorry, you rolled too well!" is very unlikely to happen at my table.

Agreed. At most I might increase the DC slightly if they needed to land on an exact and narrow spot - as in enough less than 5ft that the difference would seem worth bothering about.

Ooh this sounds like a very interesting idea.
Probs by the way for selecting significantly more than nine quotes by the way.