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!
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.
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:
SCROLLS (CRB page 565 (reformatted)) wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
"Guide with Knees" looks like it should also count as directing the mount. However, it is very much the horse-emulator-interface part that I think you should be able to bypass by using the remote controls. The same for "leap".
"Spur" doesn't or shouldn't work with drones.
"Cover", "Fast Mount/Dismount", "Soft Fall", and "Stay Mounted" should use survival checks.
EDIT: added "also"
If you really want to, you can program your drone to behave like a temperamental bucking bronco. However, there is no rule that a drone loses its remote controls when a riding saddle is installed, so many mechanics ignore the optional horse-emulator interface which just isn't as efficient as using voice commands or a datalink.
This forum is quick to point out that there is a difference between the "fluff" and the rules.
No. Just, No. You can't just ignore any rules you don't like by declaring them to be "fluff".
still listed in the One Handed Basic Melee Weapon table
That's the general rule. Exceptions can (and to me, clearly do) exist.
You put the items you want to check into a square where there is no other nearby magic and cast Detect Magic. If something is magic, then split the items into 2 equal-sized piles (where only 1 pile is in range) and repeat the Detect as needed. That should go faster than checking the items one at a time, and way faster than Read Aura.
Although I can see how to get by with just Detect Magic as written, I think it will be a pain to explain my sorting techniques at every PFS table, and I also hope they change it.
This board is mostly populated by people who like and play PF1. Pathfinder players are used to the wands and generally at least can tolerate them. People who really, really hate the wands are more likely to play something other than Pathfinder and thus have little reason to spend much time on the Paizo boards.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Except for "original multi-classing", NONE of those were in the PF1 CRB either. It's ludicrously unrealistic to expect the PF2 CRB to cover everything that took ten years of splatbooks to do before. Further, since we've just seen the previews and not the actual book which hasn't been written yet, some of those things may well exist as new class feats or archetypes.
Multiclass ability score prerequisites should be lowered, and level advancement should raise all ability scores
I can't take seriously any analysis that thinks a healer should be in the front rank.
Glutton’s Jaw is a freely scaling magical shortsword that is vampiric. That’s good! Free melee capability with some survivability thrown in, and avoid AoOs from spamming cantrips. Maybe free up a cantrip for non offensive use.
Also, unlike a mundane backup weapon, it doesn't need a hand to use, so you can still cast somatic spells and use a staff or shield or whatever.
A staff's bonus to healing or fire damage or whatever is extremely close to what a magic weapon gives to a martial. Except for weapon-using Eldritch Knight types, I'm expecting that most casters will invest heavily in staffs (staves?). (Or maybe the staffs just look good because nothing else has been previewed yet, but I doubt it. Casting IS a caster's schtick (duh), and a staff lets them do more of it.)
In PF1, a back-rank character could often get by without good armor. However, in PF2, magic bracers and armor also improve saving throws, so casters get no free pass on that anymore either.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
THAT WASN'T YELLING. THAT WAS JUST EMPHASIS. THIS IS YELLING! CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?
If you go out of your way to interpret the fluff as negatively as possible, no crunchy RPG is going to work for you.
Or heaven forbid that the character spends one of their skill proficiencies on stealth BECAUSE they've spent time watching, paying attention, and learning from seeing their allies and enemies use stealth.
If a character does that, then clearly the free bonuses from leveling were NOT ENOUGH, and the current rules worked as intended.
Jonathan Cormier wrote:
That low stealth character IS NOT SKILLED IN STEALTH. It doesn't matter their level. They haven't devoted the time to that particular skill nor deemed it important. Heaven forbid players have to make choices about what's important to their playstyle or that they might not be good at everything.
Heaven forbid that a character should learn from their quite common experiences of seeing allies and enemies use stealth?
I love the shorter stat blocks. I want all of the foes in a combat to fit on one page of paper. If a creature is needlessly complicated, it increases the chance that I will mess up and make the combat too difficult or easy.
PFS monsters are getting so complex that some GMs won't run the higher-level adventures!
I just read some "Why does everyone hate 4E" threads on other websites and "We hate the monster stat blocks" was never the reason. There certainly is no general consensus that 4E monster statblocks sucked.
Alas, those don't work with text-to-speech. (Results may vary - I just tested one app.)
N N 959 wrote:
But if I'm already maxed out in stars, what incentive do I have to keep working hard? Wouldn't having new widgets to earn give more incentive than not being able to earn more widgets?
GM Eazy-Earl wrote:
Allowing races to become unlocked and playable through an expenditure of prestige points would encourage some to play as much possible (and possibly create player-GM arguments when less than the full amount of prestige is awarded), while removing much of the incentive to give back to the community through convention GMing (the current way the majority of race boons are earned).
The races given out as player boons don't have to be the same as the ones given to GMs, so people have incentive to be both GMs and players. That's how Paizo does it already.
If a player goes all the way to level 12 to get a boon, that may take a couple of years in real time. In that time, the player may well buy a couple more books.
Pax Rafkin wrote:
Can’t they carbon date Absalom Station to at least get a “minimum” amount of time passes?
If the station has decent cosmic ray shielding, then no.
Also, the station doesn't have the full 100-mile-high atmosphere like a real planet, so less carbon-14 would be created, so it would be hard to compare.
Also, carbon-dating only works on things that were once alive. Unless the whole station is made of dead bodies or wood, carbon-dating won't get its age.
Carbon-dating probably could be used to get the rough age of old documents from other planets like Castrovel, but if that gives out too much info, then it's part of what was scrambled by the gap.
I've played over 1000 hours worth of Paizo scenarios over the last 7 years, and NONE of it was at level 20.
Maybe not at level 20, but for a large chunk of the game, the mightiest weapon for an operative is the Dragon Gland.
With exploits like cloaking field, holographic clone, and uncanny mobility, an operative can be more durable in combat than a soldier.
Envoys can give the whole team +4 to hit. Everyone can still hit at level 20.
Currently, envoys don't get much after level 12, but that may change by the time I actually get a character to that level.
Brother Willi wrote:
Are you playing Paizo's published adventures? In my experience so far, melee characters rule. Also, it's hard to avoid melee when going room to room indoors.
Even if you fell like a guy should get all of his WBL replenished who blew it all it's not simple to do that. Each character is part of a party and generally parties ten to split loot pretty evenly. So if one guy is buying tons of consumables and another guy isn't, the guy who isn't over time will still end up with more wealth than the guy who blows his cash all the time. Telling casters who don't want to touch guns to buy spell gems instead is a recipe to set up this exact bad situation.
Is a caster who has used up most of the spell gems he bought 2 levels ago really much worse off than the soldier who now has an extra gun that is too low-level to ever be used again? There's not much difference between "used up" and fully depreciated. Also, given exponential growth in wealth, your old stuff rapidly decreases its fraction of total WBL even if it manages to stay useful.