zag01's page

Yes, Paizo definitely likes "to play" around with greek words.

zag01 wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

(the grabbed condition is removed if the grappler moves).

Can you cite that? I can't find it in the rules.

It's in the Grapple action, not the condition.

Specifically under the Crit Success and Success descriptions. Thanks, didn't read far enough.

(the grabbed condition is removed if the grappler moves).

Can you cite that? I can't find it in the rules.

Unicore wrote:

A one action saving throw spell with stun one on a crit fail is way over powered. Players should not be spamming Daze 3 times a turn crit fishing for action removal with a cantrip. Minimally it would need to be restricted to have the flourish trait, but I don't really see one action daze being a good idea, at least until we get some other damaging one action cantrip to see what the baseline for that should be. And if we never get it, then I think there is probably a reason why.

Does Clinging Ice qualify? Especially with the restriction on casting it on the same target removed.

It does have the Hex trait - which is effectively a version of the Flourish trait and will prevent using it 3 times in a round.

Unicore & Darksol, those are great points. I think it is obvious there would need to be some sort of limitation with an action reduction. Finoan points out a good existing case.

My point is I believe the designers were on the fence. I think we all agree that as is, Daze is subpar/horrible. Simply making it 1-action without other tweaks, I agree, would be too good.

Besides, crit-fishing by casting it 3 times in one round just seems unoriginal and boring. Especially considering all the other spell options available to a caster in any given round.

IF I decide to experiment with a houserule, my goal would be to make it function as a viable 3rd action similar to how Unicore espouses Force Bolt or Magic Missile/Force Barrage. Obviously those have different metrics than a cantrip so some tweaks are necessary.

zag01 wrote:

I often wonder if Daze was written the way it is, is because they were flirting with the idea of making it a 1-action cantrip.

I don't think so; if there would be any spell-based effect(s) that would warrant being 1-action, it would be attack roll based spells simply because for players they are highly inaccurate compared to save-based effects which still do something on a successful save.

But does it? Basic Will, so half of awful on a save. Does that really amount to anything/something?

If it was 1-action, then I could see the justification for it being awful...

Exactly my point.

Maybe a houserule (to make it 1-action) I'll consider in my next campaign.

I often wonder if Daze was written the way it is, is because they were flirting with the idea of making it a 1-action cantrip.

Thanks. I assume there'll be 8 plus a 'home-school' option to pick up the old universalist focus. That way there wouldn't be fewer options. Hoping for more though.

Has it been confirmed how many 'schools' are going to be in Core 1?

...Zon-Kuthon are safe. The Zon-Shelyn talk in the Starfinder 2e announcement probably means that Shelyn is safe.

I think the writing is on the wall here. My money is on a sibling squabble where both Zon-Kuthon and Shelyn die, but are remade into a new/combined deity.

Don't despair. We are working in a free PDF to bridge the gap to the Player Core.

Might this free PDF have a copy of the remastered character sheet?

They eliminated the huge power difference between casters and martials by making the two functionally identical.

This was my biggest complaint against 4e. Not that they made casters and martials functionally identical, but that they made ALL class functionally identical.

In this campaign I'm playing a sorcerer called a fighter. In the next campaign I'm going to play a sorcerer called a rogue.

Except all Reload Actions are indeed Interact Actions,

You have yet to prove this via RAW. You keep saying it is so by proxy or that it is implied. Proxy and implication are rules interpretations, not RAW.

because there is no other form of Actions to be made for Reloading.

I am asserting that RAW says the Strike action includes reloading for reload 0 weapons.

While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.

That "same action" being the Strike action.

...it's because of a trait that is applied by proxy of Reload rules (and 1+ Hand Weapon rules).

And I disagree that there is any proxy. The additional actions of reloading a 1+ reload weapon are Interact actions. That doesn't mean all reload actions are Interact actions. Venn diagram.

While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.

The way I interpret this RAW is that reloading is not automatically an interact action as others assert.

If you reload quickly (reload 0), you do that as part of the Strike action (no Interact). If it takes longer (reload 1+) then, and only then, those other actions are labeled as Interact actions.

This interpretation does give bows another benefit. However, when viewed in this context the other rules that build from here: AoO specifically stating ranged attacks provoke, Mobile Shot Stance, etc. all make more sense... to me.

I believe Uttini is talking about just the Rulebook line. I'd like to second that.

It would be nice to get the 2e rulebook downloads cleaned up into one section. I had to hunt for my Bestiary 3 and found it with my APG under “:Hardcovers”. Meanwhile Bestiary 2 and the GMG are under “:Second Edition Rulebooks”, and the CRB and Bestiary 1 are under “:Rulebooks”.

All the First Edition stuff got moved to a “:First Edition” heading. Can’t you put all the 2e rulebooks together?

Since I'll likely catch it non-live via youtube, I'd like to get my Q&A question in now:

Since the release of 2E, there has been a fair amount of message board discussion on the lethality/difficulty of the 2E APs, especially for groups new to the game and/or casual play groups. I've experience this in my own casual play group. Can you talk about the design philosophy behind the intended difficulty of the APs?

Thanks!

When we have an target release date for Pathfinder Lost Omens: Absalom, City of Lost Omens we will promote it. However, you will not have to wait long for the gillmen. :)

So I downloaded my subscriber copy of the Ancestry Guide today and for gillmen it says:

For information on playing an azarketi, see the “Azarketi Ancestry Web Supplement” on paizo.com or Absalom, City of Lost Omens.

Any ETA for either of these?

4. How do you define "your modifier"? Is it just your proficiency+ability, or does it also include constant item bonuses?

(while similar to #2, I could see a GM answering each differently, such as "Yes, you get the +1, but not the Striking")

Thanks. That one was a little more clear to me, but I agree still debatable based on other posts here.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not looking for answers to those questions (as the next two posts couldn't agree on the answers). What I'm looking for is other questions of debated attributes that my GM will need to rule on in our home game.

Helpful thread as I'm considering playing a Druid or Ranger/Druid in our next campaign. To make it simpler on my GM, I've compiled these questions that they'll need to rule on. Any others you all would recommend?

1. The phrase in the various ____ Form spells that state: “…which are the only attacks you can use.” Is this meant to apply only to strikes or to all actions that have the attack trait, namely skill actions and other basic actions?
2. How the phrase from Other Spell Traits (Polymorph): “the constant abilities of your gear still function” interacts with Handwraps of Mighty Blows and the various Runes that can be attached to them.
3. What, if any, extra damage adds to the ____ Form spells stated damage bonus? Specifically: Weapon Specialization, Precision Damage from various abilities, Weapon Runes (see #2), Rage, etc.

Helpful thread as I'm considering playing a Druid or Ranger/Druid in our next campaign. To make it simpler on my GM, I've compiled these questions that they'll need to rule on. Any others you all would recommend?

1. The phrase in the various ____ Form spells that state: “…which are the only attacks you can use.” Is this meant to apply only to strikes or to all actions that have the attack trait, namely skill actions and other basic actions?
2. How the phrase from Other Spell Traits (Polymorph): “the constant abilities of your gear still function” interacts with Handwraps of Mighty Blows and the various Runes that can be attached to them.
3. What, if any, extra damage adds to the ____ Form spells stated damage bonus? Specifically: Weapon Specialization, Precision Damage from various abilities, Weapon Runes (see #2), Rage, etc.

Moving forward, is it possible to get the map artwork without the grid on it? When uploading maps to roll20 my biggest frustration is trying to get the map grid to align with the roll20 grid.

I'd also prefer this with the printed product as I have a 'gridded' plexiglass that I slip my maps under and do all my writing on the plexi. I figure I'm in the minority here, but a gridless jpg would be great.

I don't see a problem with being able to get both dedications at 1st level. It's not like you're getting them for 'free', you're actively choosing them over other heritages/rackets.

You can only ever have one (1) heritage and one (1) racket. While some heritage benefits can be gained by other means, most cannot.

Racket benefits are not reproducible.

I would argue that, due to each being a one time selection, heritages and rackets are 'worth more' than class feats (to include dedication feats). Therefore, the 'bonus' of not having to use a class feat later to select the second dedication feat is actually a poor trade and could be seen as balanced from that perspective.

... We have no plans for Bestiary 4 and will deliver monster content in a different format after this.

I'd love to have more details as to what this means.

- 1E Pathfinder held out the tantalizing notion that magic rods were also usable as weapons as written in their descriptions, but then when you read them very few of them actually said that. This time, let's make it a blanket rule.

Agreed. I made them all equivalent to light maces, though I was conservative in that I took away the weapon traits and said they also couldn't have weapon runes, however...

- Juggling stuff you have in your hands is a big deal in 2E. Now that you can use somatic components even with your hands full, cantrips are actually a good option for sword and board warriors who want a ranged backup plan that doesn't involve a lot of actions to switch weapons. So I'm not entirely sold on rods and orbs that require handfuls.

Here's a different spin: what if the ability to boost cantrips with item bonuses to hit were a weapon property rune, say about a L3 or L4 rune? It would mesh neatly with +1 staves, or gauntlets, shield bosses or bows, depending on the kind of caster you are.

A weapon property rune is an interesting idea. I assume your intent is to have this rune give the ability to use the weapon's potency rune to also add to cantrip/spell attacks? I'll have to think on that one.

You don't end in melee range with the cantrip though. An important distinction.

Important from a caster's perspective. Not as much from a martial's point of view. ;)

Anyway, I don't think +1 to spell attack rolls is the end of the world, but I'd be more wary of +1 DC items. The success grades for most spells are pretty well balanced already.

You've heard that lots already in this thread, and I don't think you'll completely ruin any game by introducing such things. Have fun.

I do appreciate the input.

When comparing martials to cantrips, you should really be using ranged weapons. Weapons still come ahead, as they should, but it's a much smaller gap.

I don't know. 2 actions = cantrip or stride & strike. Most cantrips have a 30' range limitation so I don't see those choices as being unequal.

This is a Homebrew thread!

I think we've wandered in that direction. My original intent was to get general advice/feedback.

Orbs

-Item bonus to Spell DCs from a single School of magic
-May purchase other Runes (ex. "Abjurative" for Item bonus to additional Schools)

What is your thoughts behind making them school specific? Seems like certain school orbs would never see play due to lack of DCs or DCs that matter. Why wouldn't you just up level/price to make it apply to all schools? Though my approach does limit to magic tradition... that could be seen as just as arbitrary.

Once potency runes are factored in, spell attack rolls fall behind attack rolls for all martials. Now, this was probably intentional on Paizo's part, since Exocist did point out that cantrips tend to do higher damage, but I suspect that as more non-cantrip, non-focus spells come out that require a spell attack roll, the lack will start to feel more noticeable for spellcasters. I don't see much of an issue with giving spellcasters a way to gain a +1 potency rune to spell attack rolls at level 6, and then a +2 potency rune at level 14, in order to keep them from falling quite as far behind, especially since those are the points where spellcasting proficiency really lags behind martial attack rolls.

Thanks for posting the breakdown on attack values. That hits to the main point for my adding in spell attack boosts. Further, I would disagree with you and Exocist about cantrips doing higher damage. Again, once you factor in level appropriate Striking weapons a Fighter with a d8 weapon is on par with heightened cantrip damage and a Barbarian with a d12 weapon greatly outpaces both on damage output. And that is comparing a single-action strike vs. a 2-action cantrip.

I think I will introduce this into my game and see how it goes.

@Glass - I'm happy to report back. I doubt it will get to wonky though.

Thanks all. Any thoughts on Item level? I like the idea of applying only to cantrips. Perhaps for a lesser version.

My current thought is to utilize Rods & Orbs since those seemed to be dropped in 2e.

Lesser Rod (+1 with cantrips) - level 4
Rod +1 (all spells) - level 10
Rod +2 - level 16

Orb +1 (DCs) - level 12
Orb +2 - level 18

My thought being to keep it a plus behind weapons of similar level and require actions to swap out between rod and orb.

So I'm running an Pathfinder 2e Eberron game converting 3.5 and 5e modules as we go. I came across this item:

WAND OF THE WAR MAGE +1
Wand, uncommon (requires attunement by a spellcaster)
While holding this wand, you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls. In addition, you ignore half cover when making a spell attack.

I assume this is a fairly common (or uncommon as it says) 5e item. [I don't play 5e.]

I've noticed that while +1 weapons and +1 striking weapons are very common in 2e there seem to be no similar items for spellcasters. I'm sure that was a conscious design decision by the Paizo folks, but I'm wondering how much would it break the game if I introduced this type of item. ??

I know I can put what I want into my home games, rule 0, etc. What I'm looking for is advice on what to look out for, power-creep specific. I'm still getting used to the tighter math of this system over 1e/3.5. Would this item seriously skew things? Would also adding +1 to DCs or a separate item that does so be the same/worse?

Right now I'm considering introducing it as only a +1 attack boost and making it tradition specific (arcane, divine, etc). Then a separate item that boosts DCs, also tradition specific. Could use advice on what level to place these at too.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks for the feedback. My player asked about the cantrips too. The intent was for them to work just like regular cantrips, so you can use the device multiple times throughout the day.

My player gave a broken femur to the party sorcerer and said "just snap off a piece to distrupt undead". He also routinely carries his 1940s/50s style flashlight. Still low level, but he's already got the feel for describing his devices down.

I did just try and reuse other class feats. I didn't copy the full text to keep it shorter, but see your point. Any thoughts on the homunculus feats? My intent was to make them able to be the minion specialist which was one of their shticks from the original.

If you have time to look over the others, I'm short a couple spells for some of the dragonmarks. I figure I can add in once more books come out but I'm open to input with whats out now.

Hello All,

I've started running an Eberron game using the 2e rules and have been converting different things from the original 3.5 ruleset that I haven't seen (or haven't liked) from others.

I'd appreciate feedback on my work thus far:

Artificer

Dragonmarks

Warforged

I haven't seen anyone else tackle the Artificer yet. I modeled it off of the Alchemist which I know people have mixed feelings towards so I'm curious to hear opinions.

The Dragonmark conversions I've seen have mostly adopted the 5e approach and made/treated them as backgrounds. I prefer the original 3.5e style of feats that give spell-like abilities and have modeled them as such. I'll admit these may be a bit OP but that has been the flavor for me.

I've seen a few warforged conversions and most have been good. I even cribbed one that I liked and then tweaked it. (credit given in document).

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge John Templeton's Shardfinder 2 as it's obvious he has put a lot of work into that and I'm stealing regularly for my home game from there.

Thanks for the reply and explanation. You say you applied the refund to my store credit. I'm not seeing that I have a store credit on my account page. Should I be seeing it somewhere else? Can you just auto-apply it to my next subscription shipment?

Thanks,
Z

So how do I request a refund for the amount of the discount that wasn't applied? I know you guys are busy, but 3 weeks without a response seems kinda silly.

Z

Two week bump.
I received the product, but still don't know why my discount didn't get applied.

Z

Hello,

This is my third order that hasn't gotten the AP discount applied to my other subscription items (this time the LO Character Guide).

Is this a reoccurring bug or has the Legacy Paizo Advantage discount changed?

Z

So I think I got overcharged here. Can I get a credit to my account?
Z

Hello,

I just got my authorization email and it appears my Advantage discount only got applied to my AP and not my other subscription item. Hoping this is just an error and not something I misunderstood with the changes to the advantage discount.

Thanks,
Z

PS. I swear I made a post about 30 minutes ago and can't find it, so sorry if two pop up.

Thought I'd post here as others may have the same issue.
Just got my order authorization email and it looks like the Advantage discount applied to the core rule book, but not the bestiary for the subscription.
Assuming this is a glitch. Let me know if I misread something.

My order #: 7916530

Z

Hello,

With this order I've restarted my Campaign Setting subscription, however I'd like it to start with the Lost Omens book, not the Druma book. I selected 'start with Lost Omens' at each page but it kept resetting to Druma. Please correct as I know you can.

Thanks,
Z

I received the new email. Thank you for your help.

I wanted to restart my Adventure Path subscription with the first of the Return of the Runelords, but it kept defaulting to the last of the previous AP. With your website down, I was waiting to see the option of 1 or 2 of the current and it looks like I missed it.
Can you start me with the first, instead of the 2nd?

Well, the books coming out will be somewhat less than PF1 as PF2 will share a schedule with Starfinder where PF1 did not.

Is this conjecture or have I missed some official post? From what I've seen Paizo post on the matter, plus all the new hires they keep announcing, a drop in production for Pathfinder would surprise me.

zag01 wrote:

Can someone provide sources for the info in this thread? Or is it all speculation?

The Glass Cannon podcast and the Alchemist Blog contain most of the info in my original summary. Bits are probably from elsewhere but I can't recall where precisely.

Thanks. I just saw there were more than 2 podcasts. Link to 3 & 4 for those that haven't heard them:

Podcast 3-4

Can someone provide sources for the info in this thread? Or is it all speculation?

Good Morning,

Please cancel my Order 4692224 and cancel all my subscriptions for now.

Thanks,
Zach

Thank you. Will I need to do anything to have that credit applied to my next month's subscription order?

Does the shipping discount not exist anymore? There used to be a 'Paizo pays the first $10 S&H for orders over $100'.

I was expecting to get that on this order. Can someone enlighten me?

Are there any plans to provide something akin to a Players Guide for the Starfinder APs?