whew's page

**** Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 541 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 49 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 541 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

HammerJack wrote:
Well, melee operatives can range from "I'm totally DEX based an rely on trick attack, so I don't know why I'm not just using a pistol"

With a Snowgarden melee weapon (Armory), an operative can freely deal lethal or non-lethal damage with no penalty and without having to spend a trick-attack-preventing action to switch modes. Dance-Fu!

It gives the GM an excuse to not have all of the bad guys gang up on the technomancer.

If they miss with their trick attack, they still can provide a flanking bonus. At levels 1-6, they can sometimes benefit from flanking.

With quick movement and uncanny agility, the operative can easily leave melee if it's starting to get scary.

Dragon glands are awesome. They're even more awesome for characters who aren't melee-phobic.

It's trivially easy for an operative to simultaneously wield both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon. Seriously, a competent operative should be able and ready to switch between melee and ranged as fits the moment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A human wizard could take Clever Improviser at level 5 and have all lores at -2. With 18+ Int, the wizard will still be better at lore than an Int-10 bard with bardic knowledge.


The pearl takes a standard action to use. The runestone takes no action. The pearl can be used out of combat, so that doesn't always matter, but the runestone is still technically better.

If there was a cheaper version of the runestone that required a standard action to recharge a spell slot, that would probably be a lot more popular than the current runestone.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Whenever an action can be done with no free hands, the rules spell it out. Battle Medicine has no such language, therefore No Free Hands is not the one true answer.

However, when an action requires a free hand, the rules spell that out. Battle Medicine has no such language, therefore One Free Hand is also not the one true answer.

Battle Medicine heals the same amount as Treat Wounds. How much healing does Treat Wounds do without a medkit? None!
What's the DC for Treat Wounds without a medkit? There is none!
Is this RAI? I don't know.

NONE of the Skill Feats for skills with toolkits say anything about hands or tools. All of them inherit hands & tools from the actions that they modify. Therefore, the lack of mention of hands or tools in Battle Medicine proves NOTHING.

NB: I have made NO MENTION OF REALISM. My position is simply that the rules are ambiguous. At this point in the debate, I feel that anyone who claims the rules are clear is lacking in ... something ... that the forum rules forbid me to speculate on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It says "AN appropriate level" because Signature Spells are a thing.


If two copies of the same feat count as different sources, when would anything count as the same source? The whole concept of sources would have no meaning or use.


A raft is an improvised boat. It is slower, heavier, less maneuverable, and probably less durable than a properly-made boat. Its resale value is very low.

So all the PFS adventure really shows is that, with the GM's permission, players can craft cheap, inferior, junky items without a formula.


Battlefield Medicine has the Manipulate trait, so a "suitable appendage" is required. What counts as Suitable? There's no one-stop definition, probably because 1) it changes depending on the exact action and 2) some creatures have special anatomy that lets them use tentacles, prehensile tails, etc in place of hands. When it's not spelled out, it's the GM's call what counts as suitable, which is the exact opposite of One True RAW.

Some actions (somatic, grabbing a ledge) specify that they can be done with hands full. Thus, by the same reasoning that argues that "if it required a medkit, it would say so", it only works with hands full if it says so, which Battlefield Medicine doesn't. The "or gestures" clause just means that SOME Manipulate actions can be done as gesture, not that gestures are the default.

Finally, Battlefield Medicine doesn't have the Visual trait, so "Stern Gaze" is definitely not RAW.

3/5 5/5

2001 Seer Elf Paladin (level 1.33)
2002 Cavern Elf Rogue (level 4)
2003 Half-Elf Sorcerer (level 1.33)


Draco18s wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Unicore wrote:
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, the rules themselves are extremely explicit about what actions a healer's tools is used for and Battle Medicine is not one of those actions.
And a lot of people think they left this out by accident. Mistakes happen.

Except that until errata comes out, the text is not there, and other text tells us that requirements (such as hands or tools) are always spelled out, so the lack of such a requirement means that there are in fact, no requirements.

That is, you're inserting requirements where none exist.

The only way you (the reader) can convince me that those requirements do exist is either:

a) I am a player and you are a GM at your table. This is called a "house rule."
b) You show me an errata document indicating that the text has changed

In the absence of both A and B, you can't convince me that hands or tools are required.

Traits are always spelled out. # of Hands and Tools are not Traits.


Alexander Augunas wrote:


From a flavor perspective, rogue is overwhelmingly coded as a criminal.

In PFS, I've had no trouble playing a rogue who isn't a criminal. I don't use the words "rogue", "thief", or "thievery" in character and have declined when the player of a non-rogue suggested gratuitous burglary.


When making a stern glance, what appendage is being used to Manipulate? Since you're clearly more interested in mocking the rules than interpreting them in a coherent manner, why should we take your opinion seriously?


In PF1, witches didn't cackle at level 1. (I suppose technically they could, but PF1 cackle doesn't do anything if it's your only hex.)


The Gap and planet-moving are meant to hide Golarion from someone. And that someone is still around and will do something apocalyptic if they ever find the planet, which is why the gods won't say what happened.

The Starstone either refused to leave when the planet was taken, or it powered the device that did the teleport. Since the passwords to access the Starstone were lost, there's no way to tell if there is a planet teleporter still attached to it.


oholoko wrote:
whew wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
Unicore wrote:
You don't multiply the attribute damage.

In PF2, you multiply all damage except for things specifically added upon the event of getting to double damage.

So if a spell says 'double damage' you double the whole damage, though some of the spells do have a specific damage listed for a critical success on the attack or a critical failure on a save, electric arc isn't one of them.

You multiply all damage for criticals. There's no such rule for cantrips.

Oops, I was replying to something that no-one was saying.


thenobledrake wrote:
Unicore wrote:
You don't multiply the attribute damage.

In PF2, you multiply all damage except for things specifically added upon the event of getting to double damage.

So if a spell says 'double damage' you double the whole damage, though some of the spells do have a specific damage listed for a critical success on the attack or a critical failure on a save, electric arc isn't one of them.

You multiply all damage for criticals. There's no such rule for cantrips.


Since charisma is their key attribute, sorcerers are naturally better at Demoralizing. OTOH, with high Int and more trained skills, wizards can be better at identifying creature weaknesses.

EDIT: wizards are also much better than sorcerers at IDing magic items.


No.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Space Cruisers-72 Pcs for $6.

You can also get them on Amazon.


On CRB page 306, there's a picture of Ezren doing something with two books at the same time. I see no reason why the spellbook can't be spread across multiple physical books. I'm more annoyed that there are no rules for how much it costs to make a backup copy.


The alchemy toolkit includes pez/soda dispensers and little packets of pills and powders. So when you finish the quick alchemy, you don't have the toolkit in your hand.


K1 wrote:

So a fireball seems reasonable, like fixing an almost dead person in 1 hour of medications, but patting him on the back in order to let him recover some of his Vital strength seems somehow unacceptable.

Yes, yes, and yes.


puksone wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Huh, and here everyone said wizards were bad at necromancy this edition...

Deriven Firelion wrote:
I wish they hadn't made wizards so boring while nerfing magic this much. Bard and cleric magic was nerfed as well, but they seem far more fun to play.
Couldn't disagree more. 2e wizards are a lot more fun than 1e wizards, especially at low levels.
Why?? Couldn't disagree more.

PF1 cantrips do 1d3. PF2 Electric Arc can kill two goblins with one spell.

GreatAxe-throwing half-orc universalist wizard ...


Free Silent Spell + heightened Invisibility might be problematic.


HammerJack wrote:
[Q What animals do you think it is legal to bond with?

Since there aren't any rules for finding animals to bond with, I'd say you currently have to buy an animal from table 6-17.


HammerJack wrote:
what the guide says about that wrote:
When a rules option from another book references the statistics for a common creature in the Bestiary, such as the riding horse that PCs can purchase in the Core Rulebook or the spell summon animal, all relevant common creatures from the Bestiary are available for play.
This establishes that anything that would use creature statistics, summons, purchased animals, etc are limited to cretires marked common. It doesn't mean that every creature that is an option is called out by name somewhere in the CRB.

It gives Player access to bulettes ONLY for use in Summon Animal 7+.


The Character Options (Resources) section of the Guild Guide only gives access to Bestiary animals that are mentioned in the CRB.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Natural Ambition ancestry feat lets humans take a first-level class feat at first level.


The CRB thinks rogues make good nobles:

SCOUNDREL (CRB page 180) wrote:
Your racket is also ideal for certain reputable professions, like ... diplomat, or politician.

3/5 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adam Ashworth wrote:

I would prefer that content will be legal at release, and then banned if it needs to be down the road.

If their goal is to maximize the number of disgruntled players, then that is what they should do.

Farewell, Jingasa.

3/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As in PF1, the GM can throw a PC in jail and declare him DEAD. (The GM has to report it and the player can appeal it.) Also, a PF2 GM can give out Infamy like in Starfinder.


Syri wrote:
graystone wrote:
they are still overweight just going by the premade alchemist... They need 3 or 4 more things dropped in weight [alchemy tools, books, not needing healer's tools, ect] to make it a workable weight. We'll see.
A friend told me that the Fumbus pregen's Bulk works out exactly right if you treat his alchemist's tools as 1 Bulk and his formula book as light Bulk.

I tried to look that up before making my post. I really did. Alas, I foolishly depended on the entry for backpack on page 287 to tell me how backpacks work.


graystone wrote:
The ONLY thing that gets drawn for free from a bandolier is parts of a tool set: nothing else.

Yeah, that's how it's written. I'm just annoyed that they say it's for potions, but I'm having trouble coming up with a good reason to put my potions in a bandolier instead of a backpack. To attract pickpockets? So they show in the artwork? So my fellow party members see that I have them? It feels like they messed up the wording, like they forgot to define "within easy reach" or something.


shroudb wrote:
whew wrote:
shroudb wrote:

when it really matters you're going to keep using 2 actions each turn to drink a healing potion?

that doesn't sound that productive to me.

One action to get some emergency healing ... action economy efficient

If I have to spend an action to draw my potion, to be fair you should spend an action to draw your wand. Further, though it's written badly, a bandolier should let you draw and use a potion as a single action.

Strawman? you should look what the word means, because it's certainly not what you think it is.

For starters, reading what you reply/quote to is a good start.

why do people still quote me and keep referring to wands?

ALL the examples i've given are from permanent items that aren't "clss restricted". Rings of resistance, healer's gloves, etc.

the example you quoted that i gave was the healer's gloves, which is 1 action to heal on touch.

Healer's gloves heals exactly as much as a healing potion (lesser) each and every day, gives permanent +1 item bonus to medicine, is much faster to use (1 action as opposed to 2) and costs like 6 times as much as the potion.

Healer's gloves major (which was what you was quoting) is even BETTER getting the same value for money as a greater healing potion in less than 3 heals! AND is still faster AND it still gives +2 now to all medicine checks!

again, EVERY permanent item , do not get stuck on "wands".

secondly, bandoliers do NOT allow free access to potions.

trust me, as an Alchemist lover i wish it would be so, but bandoliers only allow easy access to "toolkits"

You correctly figured out that I did not notice that you were talking about Healer's gloves. However, for your rant about me-not-knowing-what-Strawman-means to make sense, you have to pretend the opposite, just so you can be rude twice instead of just once. Not cool.

That said, now that I've finally read the blurb for Healer's Gloves, I totally agree that no-one (except maybe monks with handwraps) should ever buy a higher-than-first-level healing potion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

when it really matters you're going to keep using 2 actions each turn to drink a healing potion?

that doesn't sound that productive to me.

One action to get some emergency healing ... action economy efficient

If I have to spend an action to draw my potion, to be fair you should spend an action to draw your wand. Further, though it's written badly, a bandolier should let you draw and use a potion as a single action.

I just played in a recently published Paizo adventure where we had time between battles but weren't allowed to rest. It happens.

Finally, comparing healing potions to wands is Strawman. The proper comparison is Wands vs Scrolls. Heal wands are at least 10 times as expensive as Heal scrolls, not "3 or 4 times":

MAGIC WAND (CRB page 597) wrote:

Type 1st-level spell; Level 3; Price 60 gp

Type 2nd-level spell; Level 5; Price 160 gp
Type 3rd-level spell; Level 7; Price 360 gp
...
Type 6th-level spell; Level 13; Price 3,000 gp

.

SCROLLS (CRB page 565 (reformatted)) wrote:

Level 1: 4 GP

Level 2: 12 GP
Level 3: 30 GP
...
Level 6: 300 GP

EDIT: in actual practice, unless I had so many of them that they were making me encumbered and I was really high level, I wouldn't buy many healing scrolls at higher than level 1.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
so, in just 2-3 heals, you're already ahead in "value for money" than your potion

Unless I drink all of my potions in the same day, giving me more healing when it really matters.

3/5 5/5

If you have recently run dangerously low on resolve, then you might want to keep slotting your Improved Champion boon.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Battle Medicine requiring a healer's kit is not intended; we know this because it is very specifically a different action than Treat Wounds

An alternate explanation for why they made Battle Medicine not count as using Treat Wounds: If you used Treat Wounds in the last hour, it doesn't stop you from doing Battle Medicine (and vice versa).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Crying Angel pendant only works for First Aid, not for other uses of Medicine.

I'm not so sure that Combat Medicine doesn't need two hands and Healer's Tools: it could be argued that since Treat Wounds automatically fails without them, the DC for one-handed Combat Medicine is also "automatically fails". (If you put the Healer's Tools in a bandolier, you don't need any extra actions to use them.)

3/5 5/5

Yep, I really messed that up. Looks like a level 1 or 2 Trained person should get 2 SP per day with a crit (16 SP for 8 days).

3/5 5/5

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Tim Schneider wrote:

32s for a crit? I think you've messed up your math. I only get 16s.

A crit on a level 0 task gives you level 1 task success earnings. So instead of 5c/day you get 2s/day. 8 days at 2s/day is 16s. How'd you get to 32? To get that you'd need to earn 4s per day.

Are you doubling for a crit? Cause the crit success doesn't say to do that. "Critical Success You do outstanding work. Gain the amount of
currency listed for the task level + 1 and your proficiency rank."

I read "task level + 1" as meaning use the level 1 income (2 SP) + 2 for rank would be 4 SP per day. However, (5+1+2=8) CP per day is also a reasonable interpretation of that text. Argh, now I'm not sure. I'm flagging it for FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I made an elf thief-racket rogue who can cast the Shield cantrip. At level 5, it will have 40' speed.

I also made an elf paladin. He has Ancestral Longevity which gives him a floating trained skill. I am hoping this will reduce the pain of not having a lot of skills. EDIT: At level 1, he has speed 30 in medium armor.

3/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Downtime example:

From the Player Basics section of the Guide:

The Task Level for Table 4-2 on CRB page 236 is your level minus 2 (minimum 0), so 0 for a first-or-second level character.

From table 10-5 on CRB page 503, the DC for a level 0 task is 14.

The proficiency rank for a Trained skill is 2. The amounts below assume the money-making skill is Trained (not Untrained or Expert).

Table 4-2 gives daily income, but the amounts below are the total for all 8 days. Roll once and use the same check result for all 8 days:

* critical fail (natural 1 or 4-or-less on the craft/perform/lore skill check): 0 income.
* fail (5-13 on the check): 8 CP
* success (14-23 on the check): 4 SP
* critical success (natural 20 or 24+ on the check): 32 SP


The "in reach" part does not apply to ranged weapons. Retributive Strike still keeps its maximum range of 15 feet when used with Ranged Reprisal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:
Continuing to look at Barbarian for a sec, the quintessential Barbarian is probably Conan, a character who commonly used a sword and shield in his stories. Yet the Barbarian class doesn't have Shield feats, so you can't even play the barbarian without MCing.

Shield Block is a general feat. A human Barbarian can take it at first level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The action-reducing spells are much better when you get the higher-level versions that affect multiple targets. Fear and Fear(3) might be OK if someone in the party is built to exploit the frightened condition. Command(5), Slow(6), Paralyze(7) all look good to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The chronicle does provide reputation. On the downside, for a repeatable it's lacking in alternate options to make it different every time.


Yes, I'm just saying that you should be comparing wizard damage to archer damage, not melee fighter damage. Do fighter archers do as much damage as melee fighters?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're fighting a large creature in a doorway or a 10x10 corridor. Are 4 fighters going to do more damage than 2 fighters and 2 wizards?

A pirate ship attacks and there are a few rounds at range before the ships connect. Is a fighter still going to do more damage than a wizard?

The enemy flies and has a ranged attack. Is a fighter still better? (This one may have a different answer at high levels when the fighter can fly.)

Underwater? The fighter is probably better at swimming, but is he still just as much better at damage?

In conclusion: how much does a max-strength fighter's damage decrease when using a ranged weapon? Does he still do more damage than a wizard?


MerlinCross wrote:

Why do we care about debuffs if the math shows just doing as much damage as possible is usually the way to go?

You can do debuff fighter in both systems. Both systems(and community) will say you're probably not playing it right but you CAN do it.

Always gotta go for the big numbers, that's what we've been taught and told.

In PF2, the action cost for debuffing is much less: characters can do a debuff instead of taking a third attack at -10 or for free with a crit.

1 to 50 of 541 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>