willuwontu's page

816 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 816 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

blahpers wrote:

@willuwontu: You can take 10/20 on ability checks as well.

Using Skills -> Taking 10 and Taking 20 wrote:
Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to concentration checks or caster level checks.

Welp, I know what I'm taking for initiative checks now.

Edit: They still wouldn't be able to take 10 as it's a caster level check.


baggageboy wrote:
How could they follow the time rules of potions before 7? Making a single level 3 potion should take an entire day (i think I could be wrong) and you're supposed to be able to make as many as your wisdom mod each day which could be as many as 5 potions...
Brew Potion wrote:

You can create a potion of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures or objects. Brewing a potion takes 2 hours if its base price is 250 gp or less, otherwise brewing a potion takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. When you create a potion, you set the caster level, which must be sufficient to cast the spell in question and no higher than your own level. To brew a potion, you must use up raw materials costing one half this base price.

When you create a potion, you make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell. Whoever drinks the potion is the target of the spell and spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.

You potions have no price (they're free), so they take 2 hours to brew. Any additional take the normal amount of time as they would cost.

At level 4 they take an hour to brew.

At level 7 they take 1 minute.


baggageboy wrote:

So I'm planning to build a druid and I want to use the druid herbalism nature bond. However there's a fair amount of confusion regarding the rules on herbalism. I've done some searching, but I cannot find any fan's or developer clarifications. If anyone can find such I'd deeply appreciate a link :) So without further ado, here's the breakdown of how I think this is intended to function.

First level ability:
You get to make a number of potions for free (no monetary cost, time cost, or spell slot cost, or craft check) equal to your wisdom modifier each day. After being created they are exactly like regular potions mechanically. If you want to make more than that you use the normal potion crafting rules. They look funny, and though they have the normal value, selling them will be hard (basically a GM can keep you from breaking the WBL if they want to).

Fourth level improvements;
You can try to confuse people about what a concoction actually is. Woot?

You can create your extra concoctions in half the time and half the cost (1/4 market cost)

You can make concoctions of any spells you can cast, not just druid spells. Cause you are totally multiclassing with another caster class?

Seventh level improvments:
Your tricky cocncotions are even harder to identify. Again woot?

You can make concoctions in 1 minute. Sweet, you can brew up some stuff shower fast. This is actually useful.

You can turn a spell slot into an extract with the infusion discovery. Bombtastic, handing out all sorts of good buffs, action economy win!

Note that they follow the potion crafting rules before 7, and thus take the same time as a potion to make and require you to expend to spell you use to make them (they are free gp wise and no craft check needed).


VRMH wrote:
Andre Roy wrote:
Quote:

Aid Another

(You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another.)]
The rule doesn't seem to allow automatically succeeding in aiding someone, you either gamble for that help, or you don't.

Quite so. Though it does say "can't take 10 on a skill check", which this isn't. But this cheese is getting altogether too odorous for both strict RAW and unclear rule interpretations.

Pity.

Considering Skill checks are the only thing you can take 10 and 20 on, it could have nothing to do with the situation, but you still wouldn't be able to take 10.


Only if they're different types of bonuses or untyped or circumstance bonuses.


The closest thing to a statement on this is the retraining FAQ with the quote from the retraining rules.

Quote:

Retraining: Can I retrain out of my base classes and use my prestige class levels to meet the requirements for that prestige class?

No.
The retraining rules say, "If retraining a class level means you no longer qualify for a feat, prestige class, or other ability you have, you can't use that feat, prestige class, or ability until you meet the qualifications again." Therefore, if you retrain out of the base class and that causes you to no longer meet the requirements of the prestige class, you no longer have access to the class features from that prestige class, and therefore can't use that prestige class to meet the requirements of anything (including itself).

Update 10/16/13: In any case, you cannot use rule elements from a prestige class to meet the requirements of that prestige class.

Update 10/16/13: New ruling: You cannot use retraining to replace a base class level with a prestige class level.


This is what Ace Trip is meant for.


Spring Heeled Reaping wrote:
While using Spring-Heeled Style, whenever you use Shot on the Run or Spring Attack, you can attack two different creatures at any point in your movement. Each attack is made at your full attack bonus. Any creature that you attack in melee with this feat cannot make attacks of opportunity against you for that movement, as normal for Spring Attack.
Improved Spring Attack wrote:
When you use Spring Attack, you can select two targets to attack during your movement instead of one. The second attack made this way is made at your full base attack bonus – 5. All restrictions of Spring Attack apply to both targets, and your movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity from either target. You can’t target the same creature twice.
Greater Spring Attack wrote:
When you use Spring Attack, you can select three targets to attack during your movement instead of one. The second attack made this way is made at your full base attack bonus – 5, and the third attack made this way is made at your full base attack bonus – 10. All restrictions of Spring Attack apply to each target, and your movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity from any of your targets. You can’t target the same creature more than once.

They don't stack, choose one of them to apply.


blahpers wrote:
If you were hit by ill omen, you could suddenly decide to ask your GM what your character knows about Andoran parliament members from 100 years ago. I wouldn't recommend trying this, though. } : D

If you're hit by a spell you can make a knowledge (arcana) check to identify to identify a spell that just targeted you. Also works on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regardless


Phase Lurch wrote:
A phantom in ectoplasmic form has the ability to pass through walls or material obstacles. In order to use this ability, it must begin and end its turn outside whatever wall or obstacle it’s moving through. An ectoplasmic phantom can’t move through corporeal creatures with this ability, and its movement speed is halved while moving through a wall or obstacle. Any surface it moves through is coated with a thin, silvery mucus that lingers for 1 minute

An incorporeal phantom does not gain the phase lurch ability, only ectoplasmic phantoms do.Instead, it uses the standard incorporeal rules.


Quoting relevant abilities helps people help you

Quote:
If the ectoplasmic phantom is ever more than 100 feet away from its spiritualist, or the incorporeal phantom is ever 50 feet away from the spiritualist or outside of line of effect from the spiritualist for more than 1 round per spiritualist level the spiritualist possesses, the tether is automatically broken; the phantom immediately returns to the Ethereal Plane and can’t be summoned from that plane for 24 hours.

The countdown starts if it's outside of your line of effect.


Nice, can I use multiple of that same type of focus then?


It uses your wisdom modifier in place of your dex modifier for attack rolls only, you still use your normal damage stat.


A few questions brought up by the planes hopper handbook.

1) Can you use a focus on a spell that lacks a focus component?

2) Can you use more than one focus on a spell?

3) Can you use material components on spells that lack a material component?

4) Can you use more than one material component on a spell?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Plus "the magic stick solves our problems, the magic stick is life" is aesthetically irritating in a way "let's take a breather" is not.
If Paizo doesn't want to power up mundane healing to that extent they should just create a magical ritual ala healing circle. It wouldn't use up spell slots and would take long enough to cast that it could be disrupted if used in an hostile situation, but would provide reliable out of combat healing that isn't mundane, item based, or class locked.

I definitely wouldn't mind this, but I'd prefer for the Heal Skill to actually gain more power and be more relevant to a party's staying power when they lack a healer character.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:

Letting barbarians, monks, paladins, and rangers be good at raw damage output doesn't negate the role of damage-dealer. It just means you don't have to be a fighter to fill that role.

Letting bards and (sort of) alchemists and wizards have a lot of skills doesn't negate the role of utility party member. It just means you don't have to be a rogue to fill that role.

Giving bards disable device as a class skill in 1e or giving barbarians d12s to soak up damage with doesn't negate the role of trap-finder. It just means you don't have to be a rogue to fill that role.

Letting alchemists, bards, and sorcerers be good at magic doesn't negate the role of magic-user. It just means you don't have to be a wizard to fill that role.

The only role that is still closely tied to a class is clerics being healers. So giving more options than CLW/Heal for significant amounts of healing wouldn't negate the role of healer. It would just mean you'd no longer have to be a cleric to fill that role. Not to mention that healsticks actually make it more interesting to play a cleric, because you no longer feel required to save all your spell slots for CLW. You can use the wand for that and your actual spell slots for the rest of your spell list.

Counterpoint, those are all examples of roles replaced by other classes filling that role. If healer wasn't replaced by an item, but by feats and class features for other classes I wouldn't mind as much. To replace any of those other roles using purely items would have a huge gold investment, why should it be different for healers.

I wouldn't mind more mundane healing options (skill proficiency usage options, skill/general feats) being opened, nor would I mind more class features/feats being added as options for other classes. What I do mind, is the replacement of a class by a cheap source.


I think that while a healer should not be mandatory, not having a healer should have trade-offs (such as feat/skill investments or heavy gold investments). Additionally, healers should not feel useless and unnecessary (I'm looking at you CLW wand) when added to a party.

One of my buddies rolls a healer in PF1 almost every campaign (I don't get why he enjoys it, but hey he does), and enjoys using oradin and vitalist (the GM gave him permission to use it because of his penchance for healing) in order to contribute to healing both in and out of combat using his spells and power points.


RAW as long as you can charge you can make a full attack with pounce.


Melkiador wrote:
I'm missing something. What's so great about that spell? It's pretty good against undead and has a decent range, but in general, it seems less useful than magic missile.

Higher damage than magic missile (on even levels), and while it may require a ranged touch attack, it still is a touch attack so it's pretty easy to land.


It doesn't work for the reasons you've stated.


Witch, then gunslinger and shifter.


1) You gain heal, not knowledge (planes)

2) You use your relevant performance bonus instead of the skills bonus.

Versatile performance wrote:
When substituting in this way, the bard uses his total Perform skill bonus, including class skill bonus, in place of its associated skill’s bonus


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So we're ignoring the existence of untrained and expert proficiency I see.

Really it should look like this

  • Untrained - Roll Twice and take the worst
  • Trained - Roll Once
  • Expert - Roll two times and take the best
  • Master - Roll three times and take the best
  • Legendary - Roll four times and take the best


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
A barbarian's weapon proficiency improves only once, at 13th level, from trained to expert. A single instance of scaling would be rather disappointing.

Seems like they need to get higher than expert proficiency then *nudge nudge* :D


Moro wrote:
Makarion wrote:
There's also an elephant in the room: spells auto-scale, but martials need to spend their class feats to scale, which gives more room to casters for conceptual development, rather than running to keep up with the tide.
I've been pushing for scaling feats since 3.0 for exactly this reason. Why does anyone need to take Cleave, then Great Ckeave, then Greater Cleave, then Greatest Cleave? Taking Cleave should eventually scale up to better Cleaves as your character advances.

Rather, as their weapon proficiency advances.


How are you increasing in size?

If it's through enlarge person

Quote:
A humanoid creature whose size increases to Large has a space of 10 feet and a natural reach of 10 feet. This spell does not change the target’s speed.

You now have a natural reach of 10 feet.


Neodymium wrote:

On a similar note; Legendary Elven Chain seems almost entirely pointless. The benefits of Master quality already negate Noisy(it's only a 1 increase to the only -1 check penalty) for a chain shirt. And mithral reduces the bulk. Legendary only increases the hardness(and still not enough to prevent an adamantine weapon from halving it).

Or did i miss something?

It also increases the number of potency runes allowed on it.


auras wrote:

An aura issues forth from each side of your space, emanating out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell’s aura radiates 30 feet from the caster. Because the sides of a target’s space are used as the starting point for the aura, a Large or larger creature’s aura affects a greater overall area than that of a Medium or smaller creature.

The rules for cover apply to auras (see page 314); an aura does not need line of effect to a target, but it must not be entirely cut off from the target (an aura in a lead box would not extend outside the box). Some auras are active for a duration, meaning you can potentially move while the aura is active; in this case, the aura moves with you as you move.

Right now with this wording, this means that as long as the area is not completely cut off from the point of origin from the aura, it will effect that area. This is due to auras in 2e lacking the spread rules from 1e.

Essentially, no matter how far you walk, as long as you end up within the radius of the aura without needing to go through a solid wall, that area is considered to be a part of the aura.

Instead, we could make the edge of the aura be considered a wall

suggested wording wrote:

An aura issues forth from each side of your space, emanating out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell’s aura radiates 30 feet from the caster. Because the sides of a target’s space are used as the starting point for the aura, a Large or larger creature’s aura affects a greater overall area than that of a Medium or smaller creature.

The rules for cover apply to auras (see page 314); an aura does not need line of effect to a target, but it must not be entirely cut off from the target (an aura in a lead box would not extend outside the box). For the purposes of determining the area it affects, the edge of the aura's radius is considered a solid wall.

This clearly states how they work and helps clear it up.

Edit: Relevant Image Currently the ? case on the left is included, this change would fix that.


Based on how most everything is retroactive, I'd say yes, anything official though?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:

I would point out that empower states

"This also increases any persistent damage
dealt by the bomb, but not its splash damage."

meaning it increases persistent damage in general-it doesn't say base effects. AKA. the +1 conditional bonus is also increased.. So that lv 19 alchemist's do 6times. (and if you had another way to increase base dice on the bomb that would increase in such a way as well)

aka. its persistent damage is 12, not 6.
6d8+12Persistent+9 conditional bonus to damage +Splash
= whatever item bonuses actually do. I'm not sure yet.

Probably not quite what they meant. but it is how it currently works.
Or at least how I read it. which who knows if I'm reading it true.

That is an incorrect reading, you only partially quoted the relevant text of empower bombs.

Quote:
At 3rd level, you can create 3rd-level bombs that deal double the bomb’s base damage as presented in its entry.

This means that only the base damage and not any conditionals from other effects (ex: burn it) are multiplied by empower bombs.

So a level 19 alchemist fire would deal 6 + 9 (level 19 /2) = 15 persistent damage, not 60 persistent damage.


Alchemists Poison Touch is missing the Alchemist trait, this means that alchemists can't select it as a class feat.


This means that a level 2 expert crafter cannot do any crafting by RAW, please fix this.

Table is on page 148 for reference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All batch crafting does is let you craft multiple items at the same time. You'd treat every item of the batch as if you were crafting that item alone for the purposes of prices. So in this case, he'd reduce the price of each elixir by 1sp (4sp overall in total).


Back to the original topic, I'd really like to see the combat feats scale based on proficiency like the skill feats.

EX. when you have cleave, and expert or master in the weapon you use with it, you should automatically get the benefits of great cleave as well, no need for separate feats.

Same thing for double shot becoming triple shot, and knockback becoming awesome blow.


Continuing on with the OP's line of thought, just to show how much it breaks the system. (Note that I disagree with it)

This means that by using the archetype feats that gain a class feat from another class, I can instead take another archetype feat, allowing me to get 2 (or more) archetype feats into my archetype and allowing me to take other archetypes faster since I complete my dedication requirements faster.


What's the issue?

I'm not seeing it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like resonance, it's a good replacement for the item slot system and x/day item effects.

I dislike it's application on potions and elixirs though.


Forseti wrote:
This is especially unattractive when you consider how few spells the sorcerer learns per spell level: 4, 1 of which is dictated by the bloodline.

Aside from ya'know, it not actually being dictated by bloodline.

Quote:
At 1st level, you learn two 1st-level spells of your choice and four cantrips of your choice, as well as an additional spell and cantrip from your bloodline (see page 130). You choose these from the common spells on the spell list corresponding to your bloodline in this book, or from other spells on that spell list to which you gain access.


It makes so all your bombs are infused, not invested there's a big difference. This allows you to use the empowered bombs ability with bombs that you didn't make using advanced alchemy or quick alchemy.

For mutagens this allows fast onset, extend elixir, eternal elixir or persistent mutagen to work for mutagens you didn't make using advanced alchemy or quick alchemy.


Luceon wrote:
technarken wrote:


The first encounter I created was 2 Clerics of Calistria. While admittedly a severe level encounter, What did happen, however was I learned one very crucial thing about how 2e works: In-Combat Healing is way to strong. These clerics had 7 4th level Heal spells per day, and with only one player able to make attacks of opportunity, they were able to heal with impunity. Each heal healed 7d8+4 hp with 1 action. Then they'd whip to chip down the party. Only the party had a Paladin with Channeled Life and was able to counter with his own healing to counter the chips. The fight (that would have probably taken half an hour or so in 1e) took 90+ minutes to resolve. The Clerics had an AC so high...

How are they healing 7d8+4 with a 4th level slot? And if they were healing at range its 2 actions, so they were adjacent to each other right?

They used heal as a 4th level spell

Quote:

Heal Spell 1

You channel positive energy to heal the living or damage the undead. You restore Hit Points equal to 1d8 plus your spellcasting ability modifier to a willing living target, or deal that amount of positive damage to an undead target. The number of actions you spend when Casting this Spell determines its targets, range, area, and other parameters.
• Somatic Casting The spell has a range of touch. You must succeed at a melee touch attack to damage an undead target.
• Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting The spell has a range of 30 feet and doesn’t require a touch attack when targeting an undead creature. An undead target must attempt a Fortitude save, taking half damage on a success, no damage on a critical success, or double damage on a critical failure.
• Material Casting, Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting
You disperse positive energy in a 30-foot aura. This has the same effect as the two-action version, but it targets all living and undead creatures in the burst and reduces the amount of healing or damage to your spellcasting ability modifier.

Heightened (+1) The amount of healing or damage increases by 1d8, or by 2d8 if you’re using the 1- or 2-action version to heal the living.

Simply by using the 1 action version (or 2 action), they heal for 1d8 + casting modifier + 2d8 * 3 (4th level spell) for a total of 7d8 plus casting modifier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

By RAW no, however most of the features that grant master in a save also grant the ability to treat successes as critical successes. This should become baseline for master proficiency IMO, along with legendary proficiency as a baseline causing crit fails to be fails instead.


thenobledrake wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Also screening needs "one size smaller than you or larger" to be changed to "within one size category of you", right now it's jsut confusing.

The phrasing you suggest changing to is a change of how the currently phrased rule works.

To elaborate, lets use a practical example:

You are a size Medium creature. A size Small or larger creature between you and your target can provide screening. If the creature between you and your target is size Huge, and your target is Medium or smaller, its space is treated as blocking terrain (and so on with larger sizes of intervening creature and target, so long as the intervening creature is at least 2 sizes larger than you and your target, whatever the target's size might be)

If changed to the phrasing you suggest, a size Large creature would providing screening to your target, but a size Huge creature wouldn't, and if your target was size Large or larger that Huge creature also wouldn't count as blocking terrain - meaning the creature between you and the target could improve your accuracy against targets behind it if it enlarged itself from Large size to Huge size.

If the creature is 2 sizes larger than you, it doesn't provide screening, it provides cover, which doesn't stack with screening.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:

Here is my two cents worth:

Give all classes 11 feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, etc.

Take nothing away from casters.

Give all martial classes unique abilities at those levels where casters get to upgrade their spellcasting/receive powers.

This way, feats are equal, casters don't lose out, and martials get something actually unique and cool.

As long as what the martials receive is equal in power to the spellcasting that casters get, then I see no issues with this.


Reynard-Miri wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
I could see changing it if they decide that proficiency increases no longer function as the feat/feature slot.
Weapon proficiencies don't count as class feats for weapon classes, so I don't see why spell proficiencies should for spell classes. It's also a massive pain for "mystic theurge" type builds who want to get a class feat at precisely that level.

Because martials get their weapon proficiencies on their odd levels as their class features, Spellcasters on the other hand get their spells as their class features on odd levels and their proficiencies on their even levels except for legendary caster (which would have to be changed to increase the spellcaster prof by one).

So spellcasters either have to give up their proficiency gain at those levels in order to counter for the fact that they're getting class feats at those levels now, or they don't get class feats at those levels in exchange for proficiencies.


Davor wrote:

Making feat progression more consistent across classes would be much more inclusive, and is more intuitive, for players.

As for the whole "Why can't martials have some advantage over casters?!" argument, maybe feats should just be a way of specializing within your class, not a measure of power. Why SHOULDN'T classes be getting an equal number of feats if feats are no longer entirely shared between classes? These class-unique abilities can, and should, be designed around the class taking them and their viability as accessible multi-classing options, and there's no reason to remove sorcerer customizability just because they get spells. Make feats consistent, and make feats cool.

Yeah, just change the fixed features they get at those levels to feats, and make legendary spellcaster only increase their proficiency by one step.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure we could give casters the same number of feats as martials, we just need to remove the features they gained at those levels and turn them into feats for those levels.


1.) Yes, reactive forms still effect you while using unfettered wild shape.

2.) It cannot take wild shape feats, it replaces that ability with a different one.


Mergy wrote:

Druids get orders that modify how their feats work. Fighters could have schools that govern what their abilities give them:

Schools:

Might (two-handed weapons, or weapon and shield with heavy armour progression)
Finesse (dual wielding one-handed weapons, or one weapon and a free hand with light armour progression)
Archery (ranged weapons with light armour progression)

You would be able to be in the Might school and take a Finesse feat, but you'll get an extra bonus from a Might feat.

Just make the schools the weapon groups.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Oh, and they also get "Giant" not "Jotun" so this is just an editing error.

Yup , I totally realize that, this was just a fun way to write it.

1 to 50 of 816 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>