Vendria

yarrchives's page

61 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Battle Cry triggers “when you roll initiative.” If successful and it frightens the target, would the target be frightened for their initiative roll or has the initiative roll already happened by this point?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rfkannen wrote:

I just learned about it, it is apparently from grand bazaar: https://2e.aonprd.com/AnimalCompanions.aspx?ID=30

The legchair inspired this thread, it is just wild! Gives me strong witch hat atelier vibes which I really like!

I really like the idea of an inventor who rides their construct, sounds like a fun playstyle!

Oh wow, I did not know about the legchair, and I'm sad I didn't know about it earlier. It's still technically an animal, right? Nothing about it seems to change that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

My top 3 are:

A Fungus/Decay oriented Druid order.
A Barbarian Instinct that replicates the Aberrant Bloodrager, we can already get big and turn into dragons, so why not "weird anatomy and stretchy arms."
Calamity/Apocalypse Oracle Mystery, with the corresponding thematic curse.

If anything and everything could have a fungus/decay subclass, I would be so happy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I never noticed the spellcasting ancestor bonus added to healing. That's less boring than when I thought it was just a damage boost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh cool! That helps me a lot for visualization.

Also, I should've clarified the +2 only being there on the major curses, which would only be available at 11+. +2 on the moderate curses would be insane for a spellcaster!


Onkonk wrote:
Though while Battle Oracle gains their status bonus at 11, the Ancestors one gains their own at level 1. I noticed I feel very relunctant to get Bless as I would not benefit from the bonus myself.

Hm, I just checked to confirm but I always thought those major curse status bonuses were +2s all this time for some reason. Oops. I just don't run into those two much I guess.

If those bonuses were +2, it would 'solve' these common +1 overlaps. Getting Bless or your Courage Inspired is still nothing for you but it's less feels bad energy with the better personal buff.

Here's the catch though, I'm not familiar with this kind of balance. Is a +2 too much here? As in, how close is it to stepping on martial territory?

EDIT: +2 bonus on the major curses


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Winkie_Phace wrote:
I think I heard Undead Master will be like beast master but undead, so that is probably the most exciting thing for me. Getting to use the animal companion rules for undead is something I've wanted to do for a while.

Really? If true, I'm a lot more excited for it than before! If not, excitement is still really high.

I'm looking forward to skelly ancestry the most, but this thread has just made me realize all the cool undead art we're going to get. I'm all sorts of excited for that.


I'm not sure anyone was complaining?

Anyway, here's another fun thing you can do with mystery conduit. Once overwhelmed, you can't cast revelation spells, but since mystery conduit spells aren't revelation spells and just progress your curse like one, you can still cast those while overwhelmed.

You're overwhelmed. You refocus to regain focus points and reduce your curse level from your max curse level to minor. You're still overwhelmed. You can't cast revelation spells, but you can cast a 5th level spell with mystery conduit to progress your curse from minor to moderate. You're still overwhelmed.


breithauptclan wrote:

Heh. That is an interesting bug.

And yeah, it is obviously a bug. The intent being that 'overwhelmed' is a state of the Oracular curse that can be progressed to. So anything that progresses your curse (not just Revelation spells) can progress the curse to the overwhelmed state.

It’s actually written like the aforementioned Divine Inspiration which indicates it recovers focus points like refocus without actually refocusing. In this case, the spell is a revelation in function but not in name.


Gaulin wrote:
Yeah but without lowering your curse you can't cast too many without getting overwhelmed. So even if you regain focus points you can't cast too many cursebound spells.

That reminds me of this interesting quirk with the Mystery Conduit feat that someone pointed out to me the other day.

It turns <5th level spells w/ no duration cursebound. NOT turned into a revelation spell, just gains the cursebound trait. This is important because the only act that makes you overwhelmed is casting a revelation spell. Since those spells aren't considered as revelation spells and only mimics their functionality through cursebound, they technically shouldn't overwhelm you or be disallowed to cast while overwhelmed.

I think it's an obvious bug, and the intent is that it's supposed to count as a revelation spell as far as curse rules go. I also posed that you technically shouldn't be able to advance your curse once maxed out or already overwhelmed.


Oh wait, you made me notice something. The spell has a duration. I've only attributed that to the success result and the opportunity for creatures entering later on. Everything else about the spell seems to be an instant, one-time effect.

Could it be the duration is also applied to the prone condition? It would make the failure results unanimously superior. I have my doubts, since I expect it would point out being unable to end prone by standing. It's also a level 1 spell.

In the end, it might just be, like you said, re-entering re-triggers the spell's conequences.


Gust of Wind's success result is "The creature can't move against the wind." It doesn't carry over to failure or critical failure. So if cast in a 5-ft wide corridor, it's vastly superior if the enemy succeeds, no? They can't move towards you at all during their turn.

There are maybe some cases that isn't true, but I even thought about the critical failure result. It's a 30-foot push back + prone, but even that is less restricting than the success result for most creatures.

Is this a correct reading on it? It's a curious interaction for a very specific grid layout.


The Raven Black wrote:

Found it on the blog post about the playtest survey analysis :

"Our plan is to disentangle Esoteric Antithesis from Recall Knowledge (with a feat, like investigators’, to pick up a free Recall Knowledge if you want that)"

I think I forgot what I read in that playtest after so long, because I do remember esoteric antithesis and find flaws being directly dependent on a recall knowledge. I don’t know how I erased that from memory and reimagined it as only recall knowledge adjacent.

Good to know though. I should read that playtest analysis.


I wonder if the release of Thaumaturge will come with additional recall knowledge rules/options/clarifications. I did not have much time to look at the playtest but I heard it’s a very recall knowledge heavy class.


aobst128 wrote:
I think you're right based on the negative healing trait. It treats you as if you are undead. Malignant sustenance is pretty good then for bones.

In fairness, it’s not totally clear as written, but aggregated context clues from different passages point to it working like that afaik. It’s also less convoluted that way so I’m biased.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
I really like malignant sustenance for a bones Oracle too, fast healing along with temp HP and damage resistance is awesome.
Needs an undead creature to work. Bones oracle isn't technically undead, just has negative healing.

Isn't this the same concept as Harm needing a willing a undead creature as a target for its healing? Yet I'm sure most of us allow Harm to heal a dhampir.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Our GM always ruled if you remembered a bonus you forgot to add, or something similar, he'd let it go as long as it was the same round. But once it gets to your turn again, it's done. And he'd only get strict if people were constantly forgetting things. Continually chiming in, "Oh. Would 27 have hit? I forgot the bard's performance bonus," for the 4th round in a row. When he kept having to rewind and say you hit after all, he'd say no.

Same for us for the most part. As long as it's understandable to forget something in a hectic round or two, our GM is reasonably lenient. As players, we're also receptive to our GM having to retroactively fix something in his end so it fairly goes both ways.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope this gets a clarifying errata the first chance it gets. Until then, I'd allow this for the simple fact that mundane items allow even more customizability for the eidolon.

I played in a game with a summoner and their medic eidolon and they integrated their healer's tools as various healing fruits that grow on the eidolon. It makes me want to roll a construct eidolon and deck it out with all the tools.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's something I found browsing through the pregens and reminded me of this thread. This is in Korakai's curse description and its example is different from the APG description.

Quote:
You can’t mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your oracular curse by any means other than Refocusing and resting for 8 hours. For example, resist energy can’t be used to reduce the weakness to electricity from your curse. Likewise, remove curse and similar spells don’t affect your curse at all.

I'd gather short examples like this distributed among the other subclasses would suffice for more clarity.

Frankly, I didn't think gaining resistance via resist energy would count as reducing the weakness from the curse. I thought it would simply be additive like bonuses and penalties yet here we are. I am unsure on its integrity as official ruling, however. It's an official character sheet but I remember a few of them having several mistakes fixed with errata.


I’ve only played a cosmos oracle and never felt the need to get divine access. I was content on being laser focused on getting the second revelation spell Insterstellar void and felt peachy.

I’ve been there though, recognizing how it would be more problematic for the other subclasses. I remembered looking through the divine list for damaging air and water spells for the tempest mystery and not finding any until 5th level or so and abandoned the idea. I reconsidered it when SoM came out with all the new spells. I was disappointed divine access couldn’t access any of them but that’s more of a deity problem than an oracle one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
I certainly agree with your point, OP. General Feats really feel a bit... lost. And the balance between them is really not that great: I almost always see the same 4 or 5 being picked by everyone in slightly different orders.

The different orders hits really close to home, although I do like how flexible those good ones are.

When was the last we got a handful of new general feats anyway? I’m anxious for more options.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
I'd like to see some higher level general feats to boost skills or weapon training.

Higher level general feats in general even.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:

Just a little suggestion if you play live and have a GM screen: initiative trackers in the form of 'tents' on top of a GM screen work really well especially in PF2 when you change initiative order regularly. Like these here: image. On your side ini and stats, on the player's side names of PCs and monsters.

Sorry if you don't use a screen and it's irrelevant.

This is how my GM did it for my very first tabletop game. I always thought it was just done that way and we never called it anything so seeing referred to as ‘tents’ made me chuckle. Real talk though, it’s been a great way to keep track of initiative or any other important character info for us and the GM. Suggestion seconded.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don’t know which is more likely/realistic. Leshies having more support for the fungus heritage or just having a completely new fungus ancestry.

Anyway, I’d be happy with anything that adds more fungus.


What upcoming book do you think is our best chance of getting new deities with new spells from Secrets of Magic?

I was building a cleric with one of the new non-divine spells in mind. I didn't realize until later I was out of luck with no deities with the new spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Plant Eidolon's ability Field of Roots forces a Reflex save but does not say against what DC. Other Eidolon abilities do like the Dragon Eidolon's Breath Weapon which specify the Summoner's spell DC


Since immobilized from the crit fail overwrite each other, my first instinct was the damage is overwritten too, but I think the condition and damage are independent of each other in this scenario so the damage from each instance continue to coexist. Does that sound right?


shroudb wrote:
the ability also fails to say what the reflex DC is based on.

Nice one, I didn't notice that. Your spell DC does seem to be the standard. Psychopomp eidolon also has an ability that uses it like the dragon and demon.

Ravingdork wrote:
I wonder if the crit failure effect stacks. If an enemy crit fails three times, are they taking three instances of damage at the end of each round?

Usually there's a claus that addresses stacking damage like that, huh? The same goes for the failure effect too but less practical without immobilized. Maybe that's why it only deals half damage on failure and full damge on crit failure?


Two questions on the Plant Eidolon's Field of Roots:

Quote:
Your eidolon extends its roots underground to entangle and possibly damage all foes nearby. All enemies within your eidolon's reach take damage of the same type and amount as your eidolon's most damaging Strike, depending on their Reflex saves. Any ongoing effects of the save last until the enemy either Escapes or leaves your eidolon's reach. After using Field of Roots, your eidolon is immobilized until it takes a single action, which has the manipulate trait, to detach from the ground; this also ends any remaining effects on enemies from Field of Roots.

1. Does the eidolon have to uproot to use Field of Roots again after it used Field of Roots to root previously?

2. Does area affected by Field of Roots count as containing plants for effects like Entangle?

After having read it more carefully, I don't think there's anything stopping you from using Field of Roots back to back while still rooted as long as you don't mind not being able to move. The ability also doesn't create an actual field of roots; the roots just aim at each enemy. The first time I read it I thought the complete opposite for each so I just needed to be sure.


Thanks for the reach info. Sounds like a lot of fun albeit limited to one Eidolon type.

And yeah, if Evolution Surge remained intact from the playtest, being locked into a size shouldn't be too much of an issue.


gesalt wrote:
Ranged eidolon attacks come from a level 2 feat

Are there more feats that further upgrade that attack? Like adding more traits and whatnot?

I heard about increasing eidolon size and reach is a thing. Any unarmed attacks have reach or feats that add it? I wonder how much reach I can stack on it.


The Raven Black wrote:
Death effects states : "If you are reduced to 0 Hit Points by a death effect, you are slain instantly without needing to reach dying 4. If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points."

If reduced to 0 hit points with a death effect, doesn't the condition for both instant death and banishment (reaching 0 hit points) happen at the same time? Is there a ruling determining order of events when two or more events occur simultaneously?

This can also happen if you summon a creature whose death trigger is reaching 0 hit points (instead of dying or being slain). Calathgar is one example.

Good to know about death effects though and I wasn't even aware of massive damage.


Effects like verdant burst on leshies trigger when they die. If summoned, they also get banished when reduced to 0 hit points.

Summoned wrote:
They are automatically banished if reduced to 0 Hit Points or if the spell that called them ends.

Would death technically occur after reaching 0 hit points so they get banished first? Would effects like final sacrifice, which instantly slays the creature with no hit points involved, work differently?

Some on-death effects specify reaching 0 hit as the trigger. Does that distinction change anything?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Should the Seaweed Leshy (Ancestry Guide) have the Amphibious trait? I don't think it's as integral as the Fungus trait to the Fungus Leshy but it seems appropriate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Djinn71 wrote:
That's why there is a discussion here, because there is no clear cut answer. I don't think anyone here is really looking for loopholes (I know I'm not), we're looking for the fairest way of applying this rule.

I agree. Trying to avoid loopholes is exactly the purpose of my initial questions. It's been an interesting read but the conclusion I eventually got is that there's really no clear cut answer. So I just decided to bring up any weird cases to my GM.

I did play a Battle Oracle and I discussed with my GM possible things we might have missed due to our ignorance about this rule. We did end up touching upon similar points discussed here.

The AC penalty vs Armor argument was present. He also brought up that the curse's benefits are just as 'unmitigatable' as the penalties. This means that my Oracle's damage roll bonus and fast healing were just as hard to bypass as the AC penalty. This made us really think about the consequences of leniency on what counts towards 'mitigating' an effect. If we hypothetically allowed Armor count as mitigation towards my AC penalty, we'd have to count anything that reduces my overall weapon/unarmed damage rolls. That would include immunity/resistance and any damage reduction/penalty that my Oracle's attacks would ignore, which is too good to be true (just as the AC scenario would be too terrible to be true).

We even experimented with the idea of fast healing technically being mitigated by any damage that you take at the start of your turn (when fast healing triggers) and even any persistent damage but it was just too much at that point. The important lesson we learned is that we really needed to rein in what counts as 'mitigate' for the sake of both the positive and negative effects of the curse since the possible loopholes can go both ways.


breithauptclan wrote:
... Nope, even if you get hit with Drained 3 from some other source, it would replace the Drained 2 you had previously and the curse would increase it to Drained 4. So it wouldn't protect you from that either.

The more I look at it the more it makes sense. Thanks for the examples again!

I'm still making my rounds on the other curses so I have a couple more questions.

1. Does the 'can't mitigate the curse' rule apply to the positive effects of the curse as well? Like the bonuses and buffs like fast healing? I've only played a Battle Oracle and I think this actually could've been relevant at one point but I wasn't aware of it yet.

2. Does Assurance count as mitigating the Cosmos enfeeble conditions? I did a search on this and I've read mixed opinions that may or may not also be influenced by people arguing if 'forgoing a roll' is still a roll or not.

3. Does immunity or resistance count as mitigating the Tempest weakness? Should I look at this like how bonuses and penalties are divided into status, circumstance, item, and untyped or is it different?

4. This is a more general curse question, but by default, the curse remains active while you're unconscious, right?


breithauptclan wrote:
I tend to think of it as that the abilities apply first, but then the oracle curse conditions are added again afterwards. I haven't yet found a case where that order of applying abilities and conditions doesn't result in sensible rulings.

That’s a good way of thinking about it. I also appreciate you breaking it down with specific examples.

I just wasn’t sure if being hidden is still considered being concealed or something similar. I think this is one of those cases were one overrides the other/they both can’t coexist. I almost always miss those rulings.


Ravingdork wrote:
I'm uncertain of the other examples, but I do believe you would be able to reduce the drain from conditions other than your curse.

I think my only concern is the drained condition from the curse is uniquely cumulative so interacting with any drained condition could seem like it’s also interacting with the curse.

Although, I do share your interpretation. For example, at a total of drained 3 (drained 2 + drained 1 from the curse), the feat would let you treat it as essentially drained 2. To me, nothing about that seems to directly mitigate the curse effect. The drained 1 from the curse is still there creating a tangible effect that otherwise wouldn’t be there IF the curse was truly mitigated, ignored, etc.


I sought out a few instances where mitigating the oracle curses come up so I can get a better understanding.

For the Flames minor curse where it conceals creatures more than 30ft away, the Halfling’s Keen Eyes would not lower the flat check DC for a concealed target per curse rules. Would it lower the flat check DC for a hidden target because the curse only conceals at this point? Is it pertinent if the target becomes hidden using the concealed condition from the curse?

At moderate curse, where everything past 30ft is hidden, the flat check DC surely doesn’t get reduced.

Keen Eyes wrote:
When you target an opponent that is concealed from you or hidden from you, reduce the DC of the flat check to 3 for a concealed target or 9 for a hidden one.

For the bones moderate curse, you get a drained 1 condition that’s cumulative with additional applications of drained. A Svetocher Dhampir makes you calculate the drained penalties as if it was 1 drained value lower. If drained 1 because of the curse, you would still be under the full effect of the drained 1 as per curse rules.

What if you are drained 1 from your curse while also drained 1 from a different source so you are now drained 2? Would you be able to count the drained value as 1 lower then because you are not prevented from mitigating drained from a different source?

Svetocher wrote:
When you have the drained condition, calculate the penalty to your Fortitude saves and your Hit Point reduction as though the condition value were 1 lower.


graystone wrote:
Nope, Double has "up to two" and Alacrity has "up to three" so there isn't any difference in the argument. It's Perpetual that's worded "instead of spending one" so you're still comparing it to "up to".

Sorry, I was referring to the "instead of spending one" text not the "up to." Double brew has the "instead of spending one" text, alacrity does not. Perpetual does not have that text either; it has "create...using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents."


Squiggit wrote:
From what I understand, the hangup people have isn't the "up to two" part, but the 'instead of spending one" part.

If that's the hangup, there's a big difference between brew and alacrity then, right? Since alacrity doesn't have that text?


beowulf99 wrote:
That is not the best worded ability that I have read. Then again, my experience with alchemists is practically nil in PF2, so not overly surprising I missed that.

That line always makes do a double take every time I read it even though I already know what it's actually trying to say.

beowulf99 wrote:
2. Because they don't actually cost you reagents, they do not qualify for double brew, since double specifies spending reagents. You could however still craft them for a cost with double brew. The only reason I could imagine doing so would be that you don't have the formula for a higher level version of the item, but you need multiples of it's effect in the same turn.

Oh right, it's the 'spending reagents' that's used to argue that point. I remember getting it, but if spending reagents is what prevents perpetual infusions from qualifying, wouldn't the same be true for the default quick alchemy?

The double brew description even clarifies that quick alchemy is normally "spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item." Spending with quick alchemy is exactly what perpetual infusions bypasses for specific items and double brew just modifies it from "spending one batch" to "spending up to two batches." If double brew was its own action, perpetual infusions definitely wouldn't qualify for it.


Aricks wrote:

I agree that you can use Double Brew to make two perpetual infusion items for one action and no reagent cost.

The argument I've seen against this interpretation is in how Double Brew is worded:
"When using the Quick Alchemy action, instead of spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents to make up to two alchemical items as described in that action"

Specifically, the "instead of spending one batch....you can spend up to two batches" which see how if you squint and turn your head a bit that it means you can only do it while making things that use infused reagents. I think the "spend up to two" part is key though, implying that you can spend 0, 1, or 2 reagents to create 2 items that would cost you 0 or 1 reagents each.

I'm not well versed with the alchemist. I just always found this subject interesting for some reason. I used to get both sides pretty equally, but after more readings and with how you break it down, I've having a harder time seeing how it wouldn't work.

I could be wrong, but double brew and alacrity simply gives you the option to increase both the reagents you can spend and number of items you can make with quick alchemy. From the default cost of 1 batch of infused reagents spent and 1 alchemical item created to up to 2 and then up to 3 for both. I'm not sure how changing those numbers would invalidate perpetual infusions from applying when it's relevant.


I’ve seen this debated before. I’m genuinely curious, what is the argument against perpetual infusion synergy with double brew and alchemical alacrity? Is it simply because perpetual infusion refers to not spending a singular batch of infused reagents?


Castilliano wrote:

How would you regain, if you haven't spent any?

Do you mean gain above your normal max?
Definitely not over 3, and I would say not over normal either since the gain is as if Refocusing, and Refocus would never let the Focus Pool go above its normal amount.

For times when you refocus from 0 to 1 focus point but you have a max pool of 2 focus points. I can’t refocus again to 2 since I just refocused. Divine Inspiration, if it does work this way, would be one of the few ways to regain that 1 focus point you normally couldn’t.


And does it also mean you can regain focus from divine inspiration even if you haven’t spent focus points, as required by refocus, since it isn’t technically refocusing?


I’m guessing this spell doesn’t count as a refocus for the familiar ability focused rejuvenation. It just regains focus points ‘as if’ you refocused, right?


iNickedYerKnickers wrote:
I think the disparity is that successfully fascinating a target with Fascinating Dance requires a Critical Success whereas successfully grappling/shoving/tripping a foe, or stymying a foe with Bon Mot requires only a Success, not a critical success.

Thankfully, you don't have to fascinate the target to gain panache.


I keep forgetting that objects have decent innate protection with most spells unable to damage or target them. Considering how master abilities work, star orbs can be kept comfortably hidden away from danger while having its benefits still function unlike with sleeves of storage. That's something less convenient for animal familiars, and I'd only need sleeves of storage if I need full protection.

Alright, I'm starting to see the payoff now. Thanks everyone.

I'll keep those ruling loopholes in mind though. Good to know for when I'm feeling greedy.


I'm looking at the kitsune's star orb familiar and it seems to have two drawbacks with no payoff, no natural speed and one of its familiar abilities is locked into innate surge. The inanimate object aesthetic is amazing and innate surge is thematic to the ancestry but that ability doesn't even come online until level 5.

Am I reading this correctly or this there a mechanical advantage I'm disregarding, like maybe with the familiar being a tiny object instead of an animal?


The order of operations makes sense. I just find it arbitrary when a trigger asks for one or the other. I don't think I would have ever noticed if it weren't for reading through the swashbuckler. For the most part, it's occurrence is rather scattered everywhere else and not prolific enough to naturally detect.

For the swashbuckler, it does seem contradictory at first that it specifies checks in the panache class feature, but it does not under the styles. But assuming there is an intended difference, the description detailed in the styles would be the more specific rule.

I did think the disparity between the Battledancer and the other styles was because it wasn't part of the APG playtest and would have updated text in comparison. However, the Wit style also wasn't part of the APG playtest and similarly doesn't mention checks like the others. Who knows, but Battledancer's trigger specifically needs you to exceed the check DC so I see why it needed to be explicit.

It's definitely a GM chat situation at this point. Thank you!

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>