whew's page

**** Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 602 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 57 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 602 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I don't see anything that would prevent using Handwraps of Mighty Blows with the Nails.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:


EDIT: It's also a matter of balance. Giving some classes extra 10th level spells while others simply don't have any ability or feat granting extra slots would be a bit ridiculous.

Here's why I think that balance requires that things that auto-heighten need to go to level 10:

1) Hit points keep increasing after level 17.

2) Major striking runes are level 19.


The FAQ says to add the text in three places, in the paragraphs for Miraculous Spell, Primal Hierophant, and Archwizard's Spellcraft. That means it applies to only those spell slots. That is the official ruling.

How can I be sure of that? 1) Any alternate interpretation requires reading just a sentence fragment and ignoring the rest and is thus clearly inferior. 2) Using my interpretation, there is nothing wrong or incomplete with the wording as-is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Bardo_RS wrote:
The talent tells you exactly what to roll against, and it doesn't ask you to treat wounds, it just asks you to use DC and heal the corresponding result. If they wanted you to use the treat wounds effects table they would ask you to simply roll the corresponding action just once per day per target and not remove wounds.

They did not write it that way because there are many things (notably feats) that specifically affect Treat Wounds (an exploration action) and not Battle Medicine (a combat action).

Me, I use the same DC as Treat Wounds and use the same success table too, including critical.

I think a big reason that BM isn't just Fast Treat Wounds is so that if you did one of them recently, that doesn't stop you from using the other. It makes it much safer to Treat Wounds in a place where you might get attacked, and you don't have to wait another ten minutes (or hour) after finishing treating wounds before continuing in the dungeon just so you can use BM.

EDIT: I also use the same DC as Treat Wounds and use the same success table too, including critical.


Bardo_RS wrote:
You are making a wrong read of the rule, all these feats effects a actual action roll, and not are new actions, thus they follow their rules as normal. Battle medicine is a new action who only use the DC and some things of treat wounds as refer, but you not roll treat wounds.

Now you're just making up rules out of nothing. "New Action" as you are using it is not mentioned anywhere in the CRB.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Using Bardo's interpretation, these are just some of the feats for which you ignore critical successes and failures when making their associated checks: alchemical crafting, ancestral paragon, bargain hunter, battle cry, cloud jump, combat climber, continual recovery, courtly graces, experienced smuggler, experienced tracker, foil senses, group coercion, group impression, hobnobber, impressive performance, intimating glare, intimidating prowess, magical crafting. That can't possibly be RAI.

---

Hobnobber CRB 262 wrote:
You are skilled at learning information through conversation. The Gather Information exploration activity takes you half as long as normal (typically reducing the time to 1 hour). If you’re a master in Diplomacy and you Gather Information at the normal speed, when you attempt to do so and roll a critical failure, you get a failure instead. There is still no guarantee that a rumor you learn with Gather Information is accurate.

The master version of Hobnobber does less than nothing if the trained version already eliminates the criticals, so that is clearly not how it works.

---

The correct way to interpret these feats (and thus Battle Medicine) is that if the feat tells you to make a check and that check has results for criticals, then the feat also counts as having results for criticals.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Touch of Charity has the Healing trait, so yes it does restore hit points.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Things my primal sorcerer can summon:

Character Level 5:
leopard - can pounce, moving and attacking as a single action. So the range of my summon spell is effectively 90'. Also has grab.

giant bat - flies and has echolocation. The primal list doesn't get See Invis, but with the bat it will be easy to target a Faerie Fire or Glitterdust.

crocodile - can function underwater, where my fire spells don't work.

Character Level 7:
snapping flytrap - can make two improved-grab attacks with 10' reach with no MAP (requires 2 targets)

(other things) - fly, tremorsense, knockdown, acid cone

leshy - has hands and speaks common

Character Level 9:
Argh, it looks like the devs want me to summon elementals now instead of animals and plants. So my primal evolution feat won't work well at levels 9-10, unless I buy more bestiaries.

------------------

I'm not seeing one supreme animal that I should just summon all of the time - several of the critters have niche uses.

The summoning gives me something to do when I can't get 2 targets in a fireball or electric arc, but there isn't a single "boss" opponent who would be a good target for Slow.

Since primal evolution gives me an extra spell slot that can only be used for summoning, summoning can be less powerful than other spells of the same level, but still good for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If someone is using a disguise to crash a party, they may need to stay for a while. It's not just PCs who use True Seeing, and it's not just NPCs who use illusions. Nearly-infallible True Seeing limits what stories can be told, which is why it can be counteracted.


nixie

edit - Nixies are aquatic, so not quite


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Assumption: illusion disguises are a thing that can work sometimes, which isn't the case if the opponent gets to roll against them every round.


My second-printing core rulebook says that Demoralize does have the Fear trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A fighter MC caster doesn't lose a turn sheathing their weapon and shield and pulling out a bow when they want to make a ranged attack.


The weapon chart on page 282 says Alchemical Bombs are Martial. Also page 544 says "Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet."


The gnome, tengu, and elf options all give a bonus innate cantrip, so they would use Charisma when casting their electric arcs. OTOH, human Adapted Cantrip doesn't give an extra cantrip, but does let a cleric use their Wisdom.


I suspect the wizard's extra spell slots help more in campaigns with shorter adventuring days, like PFS or Kingmaker.

Even in PF1, I built my casters differently for APs so that they could do many battles/day even at low levels. I had an arcanist-occultist (who could summon monsters using just their power pool in addition to having spells) and a shaman with slumber hex.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

D&D fans greatly outnumber the historians. It makes more sense to officially rename arming swords as longswords.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
iNickedYerKnickers wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, Explorer's Clothing does not allow either Resilient or Armor Property runes.
CRB page 580 wrote:
Explorer’s clothing can have armor runes etched on it even though it’s not armor


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For spells like Heroism, I think it helps to have the GM tell when it changes a failed roll into a success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I rate that as a perk of being a caster, rather than a flaw: I like being able to choose powers that just work without having to roll (except maybe damage). In PF2, PF1, and various D&D versions, I make casters who never have to roll to hit.

Watching the martials in PFS, I'm not seeing that PCs that get flurries of small attacks are more popular than the ones who get fewer, bigger attacks.


I can't recall ever seeing a level3+ PFS rogue who didn't have multiple medicine feats. (I'm not sure how many I've seen, but I've played with a lot of people from many places online.) My rogue, who has all of the CRB feats but nothing non-core, is often not the best medic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Unicore wrote:
... with true strike your odds of landing the hit or crit can be 75% or better, even against level +2 or 3 monsters. ...
If a spell requires the expenditure of a second spell to be a viable strategy then that spell by itself was not balanced to be an affective use of limited resources. And as a player wasting two slots to have one competitive slot (again, of a limited resource) feels mega bad imho. I just consider true strike a poor consolidation to try to pacify undertuned spell attacks. It's the one spell in the game that raises my blood pressure on sight unless it's...

True Strike is a first-level spell. What else are you going to do with that first-level spell slot?


FowlJ wrote:
No. Instead, Basic Wizard Spellcasting indicates that they gain two free spells whenever they gain a spell slot of a new level (so, they get up to 16 free spells of levels 1-8 if they get all spellcasting feats from the archetype).

.

Basic Wizard Spellcasting Link wrote:
... add two common spells of that level to your spellbook


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It might encounter wandering monsters ...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Though the summons only lasts a minute, during that minute Comprehend Language can be cast, which lasts for an hour. During that hour, work on making a dictionary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quick Recognition lets a PC recognize spells as a free action, but only if they are a master of the skill they are using. With Unified Theory, the PC can use it for all spells.

This is totally 100% tradition-dependent. Anyone who says otherwise has a serious lack of ... something. (Speculating on what that something is probably violates the forum rules.)


Usually when a spell has a decent effect on a successful save, it has the incapacitation trait. Hideous laughter does not - the second-level version is all you need.


Cast a something-form spell and take the -2 penalty when you attack with your claws.

Summon a monster that talks and tell it to attack nonlethally.

---

Rant Mode:
I've been trying hard to think of reasons other than "Paizo sucks" why there are so few nonlethal spells. I've come up with two possible answers:

1) They're afraid that people will prep a bunch of nonlethal spells and get angry when their party gets slaughtered by undead. However, spontaneous casters could more easily take both lethal and nonlethal spells - would that change the balance of power between prepared and spontaneous?

2) Players just aren't asking for it often enough. (In the SF COM playtest, one nonlethal spell was the ONLY thing I asked for. I didn't get it.) Likewise, the recent "What spells are we all hoping for in Secrets of Magic?" thread doesn't have anyone (except me just now) hoping for nonlethal damage.


anything that does nonlethal damage


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
whew wrote:

Skilled Human Heritage gives an extra Expert skill at level 5. Multitalented(rogue) at level 9 + Skill Mastery at level 10 or 12 and be Master at 4 skills at level 13. Levels 2-8 are free to multiclass in whatever you want (or not).

I realize that this is just going to add "I shouldn't have to play a human" to the list of what's 'wrong' with swashbucklers, but it's just not true that "they absolutely can't diversify at all."

“Swashbucklers have less flexibility on skill increases by orders of magnitude more than other classes to the point where it not only strains narrative choice, it actively punishes players for not increasing specific skills since failing to do so means your class becomes unplayable. It has a built in trap because it has no skill increase support but requires skill increases more than any class.”

Is that fair to say?

less flexibility - fair

orders of magnitude - no

trap - baloney: How can a player not notice that they're using a skill every round?

no skill increase support - you're replying to my post where I described one of the ways to get skill increases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Skilled Human Heritage gives an extra Expert skill at level 5. Multitalented(rogue) at level 9 + Skill Mastery at level 10 or 12 and be Master at 4 skills at level 13. Levels 2-8 are free to multiclass in whatever you want (or not).

I realize that this is just going to add "I shouldn't have to play a human" to the list of what's 'wrong' with swashbucklers, but it's just not true that "they absolutely can't diversify at all."


Perpdepog wrote:
Not to mention, the book isn't consistent with creature bulk, either. A medium creature is 12 bulk rather than 6 bulk when petrified, for example.

Most kinds of stone are denser than flesh - it's totally reasonable that a petrified creature weighs more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Things my rogue has done besides stab with magic shortsword:
* throw javelins (using quick draw & potency crystals)
* medic stuff: battle medicine, treat poison, healer's gloves
* Using quick draw & doubling rings, try other melee weapons to see what beats DR
* throw beads from necklace of fireballs
* grapple a flyby-ing foe using a readied action
* cast shield cantrip

All of those things can be done with one hand, so a rogue never needs to drop their primary magic melee weapon or waste actions to sheathe or unsheathe it.

Things my rogue is ready to do in combat but hasn't yet:
* disarm a trap
* trick a magic item


Combat skill is what gives a high-level person the majority of their armor class. It's hard (impossible?) to gain that skill without learning a bit about fist-fighting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Sure, the PF2 skill system is incredibly coarse in general (a level 15 character without Athletics that can't swim or climb for s#@%)

In the playtest, everyone advanced automatically in every skill. (A few?) playtesters complained repeatedly that they wanted to be able to make a character from the desert who never learned to swim.


Casting Spells from a Wand CRB page 597 wrote:
Casting a spell from a wand requires ... activating the item with a Cast a Spell activity using the normal number of actions for the spell. ... use your spell attack roll and spell DC.

Since you're using the Cast a Spell activity, you can also use metamagic with a wand.


Would a crossbow gunslinger still call themselves a gunslinger? Maybe they'll make a crossbowslinger archetype which is Common and has just the crossbow-compatible parts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
True enough. Those are legendary abilities. They look very cool in the mind's eye. Scare to Death ends the fight unlike those other feats and looks stupid doing it.

That is your take on it. As we have seen other people do not find it that ridiculous. And most of all, it does not make the feat broken in any way or shape.

Come to think of it, I believe we can find visuals for the other Legendary skill feats that can look pretty stupid too. Like Catfall always having you fall on your bottom, and maybe bounce a little up and down repeatedly before settling on the floor.

All as part of the visuals of course.

Yes, a player who insists on using the worst possible flavor can ruin any game.


If it's a real gladiator duel in an arena, and the arena manager thinks that the paying customers don't get their money's worth if the battle ends too quickly, they can just ban it. (Spells that make it hard to see what's going on might also be banned.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1 had archetypes for fighter, gunslinger, and bard which were all called buccaneer. There was also Occultist (arcanist archetype) and

Occultist (Occult class):
I had one of each of these in PFS. My table tents said "Arcanist(Occultist)" and "Occult Occultist".

EDIT: I also had a buccaneer bard. That table tent just said "archer" with a couple of musical notes.

.

Default Golarion setting clearly has no problem with multiple things having the same name.


Old_Man_Robot wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:


Sorry, but "It is too hard to buy a few scrolls" is a bad argument

You could at least pretend to have this conversation in good faith.

Scrolls are consumables.
Runes are not.

Spells are consumables.
Weapon attacks are not.

Until you admit these are not equivalents you aren’t engaging honestly.

Wealth grows exponentially in PF2. No matter what you spend it on, your lower-level money depreciates rapidly.

My rogue uses potency crystals and necklaces of fireballs and they are totally worth it. Using consumables can be FUN!

Some people just aren't stingy misers like you. You owe Superbidi an apology.


Are there any second edition stats for flying carpets?


If the eidolon is equal to a fighter, but the spell-less summoner keeps their 18 charisma, then the combo is strictly better than a fighter and thus OP.


You administer first aid (or cast stabilize) and continue with the surgery.


HumbleGamer wrote:

You will be renouncing to skill checks like

...
- Recall Knowledge

The first-level magus feat combat assessment does just that.

Since you have to hit and usually get the knowledge after you've finished your turn, it's not the greatest. However, it still counts as Recall Knowledge while spellstriking.


graystone wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
2- if you are melee, you have a free stride or step included in the spellstrike
Sure, it's nice but once once you get into position, you're not using it. If you have tough foe and are beating it down for a few rounds, a free step isn't that exciting. Still the best option but after you're in place, there isn't a reason to not strike and cast instead [or strike, strike skill]

Get a Gnome Flickmace. Then, if the foe doesn't have reach, you can use the spellstrike to step away and make them waste an action to move adjacent every round. If the enemy has Attack of Opportunity but not Reach, this also lets you avoid the AoO.


Kendaan wrote:
Oh, so a Warpriest with a deity with a 2H weapon is gimped because they can't use shield block, but a Cloistered with a deity giving bad domain is fine bcause they could chose another deity?

If not strictly better meant the same thing as gimped, then the answer might be yes. I'm just in this thread because the post I first responded to used "strictly better" improperly, so that all I had to disprove is the "strictly" part.

Strictly better - MTG Wiki:
Strictly better describes a card which is, in isolation from other effects, superior to another card in at least one respect, while being worse in zero respects.

Strictly better - game theory:
(a strategy) That leads to a better outcome no matter what the other player does.


Kendaan wrote:
whew wrote:
Exocist wrote:
From 1-6 and 11-14, Warpriest is strictly better than cloistered.
A cloistered cleric can start with both a domain and Electric Arc. Electric Arc ignores cover and has range, so AC is less important. With no need for a weapon, the cloistered cleric can wield both a shield and a staff or scrolls. I don't see how that's "strictly inferior".

Electric Arc is not on the Divine list, so the Cloistered Cleric can only access it via ancestry feat.

Which the Warpriest can also do, while having the same spellcasting proficiency until level 7.

Yes, a warpriest can eventually get both Electric Arc and a domain, but even after they do, they're still a class feat behind, so there's still some situation of the player's choice where the cloistered version is better. Slightly better defenses and a slightly better third-action attack using a tertiary attribute is just not "strictly" better at all.

Quote:


The only thing Cloistered Clerics have in their starting package is 1 domain spell, which is just as dependant on deity as Shield Block.

Unless the campaign doesn't let me pick my deity, I don't see how anyone would think this was a serious point. Yes, if you build a cloistered cleric badly in just the right way, you might be better off with a warpriest, but that's a straw man argument if ever there was one.


Exocist wrote:
From 1-6 and 11-14, Warpriest is strictly better than cloistered.

A cloistered cleric can start with both a domain and Electric Arc. Electric Arc ignores cover and has range, so AC is less important. With no need for a weapon, the cloistered cleric can wield both a shield and a staff or scrolls. I don't see how that's "strictly inferior".

1 to 50 of 602 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>