| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, will you and/or Linda be at GenCon this year?!
If so, please stop by the Paizo Galla and see me. :D
We will both be at GenCon. I don't know what the "Paizo Galla" is, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like it always should have been that way. Thanks again!
No problem! And I agree with you; so much so, in fact, it seemed so clear that it was a typo (and it doesn't match the CRB's explanation of spiked shields either) that the change was marked as a typo change, rather than a rules erratum, which we leave off of errata docs to make them more readable and useful for owners of the original (to avoid the necessity of wading through typos to find the substantive changes). I'm impressed with your eagle eye of spotting it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about tube arrow shooters that fall under the crossbow fighter weapon group?Let's see. Logan might know this better than I do, but here's my thoughts on how I might rule it in my game: I'd say they aren't crossbows, so crossbow mastery doesn't work (it actually works on all types of crossbows and not just one), nor can you as written take Rapid Reload with it but I'd allow the latter anyway. It's strapped to your wrist, so I'd say no wrist sheath but you can almost definitely hold something in the hand, and it shouldn't mess with your magic items unless wrist sheathes do. Probably the easiest way to figure out what you can do with the hand without having to work our way around the FAQ on hands of effort (which would certainly preclude attacking with wrist launcher and another weapon from the same hand; after all, just because we can Quick Draw lots of thrown weapons into that one hand doesn't mean we get more attacks for those) would be to say that the held object blocks the launch. Just for fun, I picked up a few things around the office and then slid my finger along the inside of my wrist in the direction a launched dart would go and I often found my finger poking up against the object, so at least from that perspective, it also seems to work.Sorry to keep asking dumb rules questions but this one is really nagging me. The Heavy wrist launcher is a cool weapon and I keep trying to come up with character ideas centered around them, so...
Are wrist launchers crossbows? Can I take crossbow mastery with them? Rapid Reload? You wear the on your wrist, so can you have a wrist launcher and hold a weapon in that same hand? If you do can you still attack with that wrist launcher? Can you attack with both in the same round? Since it's on your forearm rather than in your hand does it interfere with your hand or wrist magic item slots? What about shields?
Well that's an interesting one. I had forgotten about that weapon. Its text certainly seems to imply several of the tentative ideas in my last post (for instance, it takes the space to mention that you can take Rapid Reload and what happens if you do, which implies that if it didn't, the weapon group would be insufficient to allow it, but who knows, it could have been included for copyfitting, though that seems unlikely). I think this is the danger of having a weapon group with the same name shared with many of the weapons inside of it; you might wind up with rules language that becomes opaquely ambiguous between "Weapons of Weapon Group X" and "Weapons with X in the name".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wait, no FAQ this week?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wait, no FAQ this week?
Shortly; Jason just came back from a meeting a few minutes ago.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I stepped right into this one:
Positive and Negative Energy: These two terms show up in a variety of abilities, but they have no definition outside those abilities, and the abilities aren’t always consistent. How do positive and negative energy work?
Positive and negative energy are two damage types, though despite their name, they are usually not included on the list of energy types you can choose with spells like resist energy or feats like Elemental Spell. You’ll sometimes come across both the phrasing “deals X damage; this is a negative energy effect” and the phrasing “deals X negative energy damage”; these two are functionally equivalent.Positive energy often heals living creatures, though not always (for instance channeled positive energy to harm undead or the life blast spell). It often harms undead creatures, though not always (for instance channeled positive energy to heal living creatures). Individual effects will tell you whether they heal living (if they mention healing without specifying what they heal, they always mean only living creatures), harm undead, or both. Positive energy never heals or harms creatures or objects that are neither living nor undead (such as constructs), and it never directly damages the living or heals undead, barring some special effect that explicitly changes this like a dhampir’s negative energy affinity. These rules extend to the fast healing from positive-energy attuned planes as well (though overhealing on a major positive-energy attuned plane can be dangerous as well); only living creatures gain fast healing on such a plane.
Negative energy works just as described above for positive energy, reversing living creatures and undead in all cases (it often heals undead, it often harms living creatures, if it mentions damage without specifying what it damages, it always means only living creatures, and so on).
My plans were mostly to hang around with Linda. She had freelance projects to write like the super-awesome Through Maelstrom Rift, which has been revealed in a blog to have a pyrausta bard as one of the characters! How cool is that?Happy Fourth of July, everyone!
Even if you're not a U.S. citizen, have an awesome day!
Happy 4th, Mark! You got any fun wicked-awesome plans?
AWESOME~!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I stepped right into this one:Positive and Negative Energy: These two terms show up in a variety of abilities, but they have no definition outside those abilities, and the abilities aren’t always consistent. How do positive and negative energy work?
Positive and negative energy are two damage types, though despite their name, they are usually not included on the list of energy types you can choose with spells like resist energy or feats like Elemental Spell. You’ll sometimes come across both the phrasing “deals X damage; this is a negative energy effect” and the phrasing “deals X negative energy damage”; these two are functionally equivalent.Positive energy often heals living creatures, though not always (for instance channeled positive energy to harm undead or the life blast spell). It often harms undead creatures, though not always (for instance channeled positive energy to heal living creatures). Individual effects will tell you whether they heal living (if they mention healing without specifying what they heal, they always mean only living creatures), harm undead, or both. Positive energy never heals or harms creatures or objects that are neither living nor undead (such as constructs), and it never directly damages the living or heals undead, barring some special effect that explicitly changes this like a dhampir’s negative energy affinity. These rules extend to the fast healing from positive-energy attuned planes as well (though overhealing on a major positive-energy attuned plane can be dangerous as well); only living creatures gain fast healing on such a plane.
Negative energy works just as described above for positive energy, reversing living creatures and undead in all cases (it often heals undead, it often harms living creatures, if it mentions damage without specifying what it damages, it always means only living creatures, and so on).
Soooo this FaQ took three paragraphs to say... what exactly?
Not trying to be snarky, just curious what the purpose of this FaQ was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Soooo this FaQ took three paragraphs to say... what exactly?
Not trying to be snarky, just curious what the purpose of this FaQ was.
Turns out positive and negative energy weren't defined. If you were just reading the rules, this changes a lot of things- negative energy effects don't harm constructs, vaguely defined positive energy effects don't let you heal undead, and so on. For folks who got the gist of it, yeah, this doesn't change anything.
Turns out positive and negative energy weren't defined. If you were just reading the rules, this changes a lot of things- negative energy effects don't harm constructs, vaguely defined positive energy effects don't let you heal undead, and so on. For folks who got the gist of it, yeah, this doesn't change anything.Soooo this FaQ took three paragraphs to say... what exactly?
Not trying to be snarky, just curious what the purpose of this FaQ was.
The one change I see is the positive energy plane. It seems like it says overhealing no longer kills mortals,but I'm not sure. It definitely says undead/negative energy creatures no longer benefit from the fast healing granted by the positive energy plane. It use to be that the negative plane kills living creatures and heals undead, but the positive plane heals and kills everything if it stays there long enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We will both be at GenCon. I don't know what the "Paizo Galla" is, though.Mark, will you and/or Linda be at GenCon this year?!
If so, please stop by the Paizo Galla and see me. :D
I misspelled the word "gala," and I don't think my use of "Paizo" as opposed to the specific location "PFS" was very clear; let me try that again.
"If so, please stop stop by the PFS Gala and see me. :D"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not trying to be snarky, just curious what the purpose of this FaQ was.
Positive Energy and Negative Energy are one of several "inherited rules terms," that have no actual definition in the Core Rulebook. This looks like a compilation of rules from all different sources that defines how positive energy and negative energy works.
It seems like its more for the Pathfinder crowd as opposed to the 3.5 Veterans Club. No 3.5 player that I know would have asked, "Hey, can I use resist energy to protect me from the cleric's channel negative energy?" because we're Bane—we lived through a time when positive energy and negative energy were newly added to the game and have brought that rules understanding (that was made clear in 3.5) with us to Pathfinder.
But Pathfinder is growing, and not all of its fans have that 3.5 background anymore. So clarifying what positive energy and negative energy is from a rules standpoint is important.
Here's hoping we get one for precision damage soon, too!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one change I see is the positive energy plane. It seems like it says overhealing no longer kills mortals,but I'm not sure. It definitely says undead/negative energy creatures no longer benefit from the fast healing granted by the positive energy plane. It use to be that the negative plane kills living creatures and heals undead, but the positive plane heals and kills everything if it stays there long enough.Turns out positive and negative energy weren't defined. If you were just reading the rules, this changes a lot of things- negative energy effects don't harm constructs, vaguely defined positive energy effects don't let you heal undead, and so on. For folks who got the gist of it, yeah, this doesn't change anything.Soooo this FaQ took three paragraphs to say... what exactly?
Not trying to be snarky, just curious what the purpose of this FaQ was.
The FAQ specifically mentions how overhealing on the Positive Energy Plane is dangerous. AKA that still happens to living creatures. What the FAQ is clarifying is the fact that the fast healing that you get on the Positive Energy results from an abundance of positive energy, and while undead creatures can normally benefit from fast healing, since common sense dictates that the major positive energy planar trait is associated with positive energy, undead don't benefit from that healing. (That isn't otherwise stated in the GMG, so technically someone who argues RAW over RAI could make the case that undead were healed on the Positive Energy Plane prior to the release of this FAQ.)
A clarified stance on what these energy types do means that in the future, the designers and developers don't have to use as many words reprinting the same rules over and over again. This is an awesome FAQ from a writer's perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark: finally, I ask your opinion on a rules question!
In your opinion, if an archetype modifies a complex ability like Deeds (such as, say, by trading certain normal Deeds for special ones), and a different archetype also modifies Deeds in the same way (but affecting different specific deeds) are those archetypes compatible or do they violate the "don't modify the same thing" clause?
Though I tend to think the latter by RAW, I feel like the former would be better design for the game, as it permits character concepts and shouldn't be unbalancing over-all, I shouldn't think. What is your opinion as a RAW and as a GM and as a designer?
(I can see potential arguments the other way, I'm just the kind that prefers general fungability of rules and modular design even within structure like class systems, to enable concepts to flourish. I like player choice/agency and all that jazz, even as a GM.)
Apologies for typos - I'm in the backseat on a phone, and I think I got them all, but... I'm not sure, as I can read it all well, regardless. Dyslexia is both cool and sucky at times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
a character with orator
Speaking of, does anyone else find it kind of funny that of all the skills to replace, the Orator feat doesn't let you sub linguistics for Perform(Oratory)?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Soooo this FaQ took...
I suppose I stepped right into this one:Positive and Negative Energy: These two terms show up in a variety of abilities, but they have no definition outside those abilities, and the abilities aren’t always consistent. How do positive and negative energy work?
Positive and negative energy are two damage types, though despite their name, they are usually not included on the list of energy types you can choose with spells like resist energy or feats like Elemental Spell. You’ll sometimes come across both the phrasing “deals X damage; this is a negative energy effect” and the phrasing “deals X negative energy damage”; these two are functionally equivalent.Positive energy often heals living creatures, though not always (for instance channeled positive energy to harm undead or the life blast spell). It often harms undead creatures, though not always (for instance channeled positive energy to heal living creatures). Individual effects will tell you whether they heal living (if they mention healing without specifying what they heal, they always mean only living creatures), harm undead, or both. Positive energy never heals or harms creatures or objects that are neither living nor undead (such as constructs), and it never directly damages the living or heals undead, barring some special effect that explicitly changes this like a dhampir’s negative energy affinity. These rules extend to the fast healing from positive-energy attuned planes as well (though overhealing on a major positive-energy attuned plane can be dangerous as well); only living creatures gain fast healing on such a plane.
Negative energy works just as described above for positive energy, reversing living creatures and undead in all cases (it often heals undead, it often harms living creatures, if it mentions damage without specifying what it damages, it always means only living creatures, and so on).
QuidEst and Alex basically have it, although the really interesting kicker is that 3.0/3.5 didn't define them either. It seems like something people just picked up by osmosis or that it seemed obvious. There were weird things, though, like inflict and mass inflict were inconsistent on whether they specifically called out they damage living creatures. I honestly have never encountered a group, in all my time playing, where inflict would damage an inanimate object, but technically we hadn't said so (which was surprising for me to find out too). Describing these unwritten rules that we all seem to have picked up over time but can't find in the books seems worthwhile for FAQs, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
I suppose I stepped right into this one:Positive and Negative Energy: These two terms show up in a variety of abilities, but they have no definition outside those abilities, and the abilities aren’t always consistent. How do positive and negative energy work?
Positive and negative energy are two damage types, though despite their name, they are usually not included on the list of energy types you can choose with spells like resist energy or feats like Elemental Spell. You’ll sometimes come across both the phrasing “deals X damage; this is a negative energy effect” and the phrasing “deals X negative energy damage”; these two are functionally equivalent.Positive energy often heals living creatures, though not always (for instance channeled positive energy to harm undead or the life blast spell). It often harms undead creatures, though not always (for instance channeled positive energy to heal living creatures). Individual effects will tell you whether they heal living (if they mention healing without specifying what they heal, they always mean only living creatures), harm undead, or both. Positive energy never heals or harms creatures or objects that are neither living nor undead (such as constructs), and it never directly damages the living or heals undead, barring some special effect that explicitly changes this like a dhampir’s negative energy affinity. These rules extend to the fast healing from positive-energy attuned planes as well (though overhealing on a major positive-energy attuned plane can be dangerous as well); only living creatures gain fast healing on such a plane.
Negative energy works just as described above for positive energy, reversing living creatures and undead in all cases (it often heals undead, it often harms living creatures, if it mentions damage without specifying what it damages, it always means only living creatures, and so
Speaking of objects what actually is an object in Pathfinder? At first I thought it just meant constructs and inanimate objects but then the template for constructs actually calls them out as both creatures and constructs which is vague enough for me to have no clue as to how the term is defined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think technically rend is always Strength-based. Given I called out Double Slice as switching to Con, it's not unreasonable to do the same with Two-Weapon Rend, given its on the bonus feat list. If I remember, I'll try to get that onto the list of contenders for whenever we reach the OA errata. Wow, that list is really small right now; nice!Hi again!
Another Kineticist question! How does two-weapon rend work with Elemental Annihilators? Would the 1.5Str damage turn into 1.5Con damage or would it stay as Str? Theres nothing that says it would change, so RAW it would be Str. This seemed a little strange to me so a clarification would be greatly appreciated!Glad I could be of service then!
Thank you for your answers, they help a lot in clarifying my understanding of the class. And sometimes prevent me from cheesing it too much, but I can't really complain about that :PI still have many more kineticist questions, most of them being asinine wording questions or just clarifications, but I would be grateful if you would continue humoring me xD
So, yet another set of questions about the Elemental Ascetic:
1: If you apply the bowling, pushing, or pulling infusions onto your kinetic fists/kinetic blades/devastating infusions, would the combat maneuver checks provoke AOOs if you don't have the Improved feat for that particular maneuver (or any other random shenanigan like Dirty Fighting)?
Also, would pulling work on a 5ft melee attack as the standard pull combat maneuver (ie: you step back, and pull the enemy with you) or would it just attempt to pull the target closer to you and fail?2: How does Empower interact with kinetic fist? Would it increase the additional damage dealt (so at level 7, Unarmed Damage + [d6*1.5] for a simple blast), would it actually give you extra dice (same level 7, Unarmed Damage + [2d6] (because empowered 4d6 sorta equals 6d6?)) or just not have any effect? Following that, would maximize affect Kinetic...
1) I'd say no AoOs, since it's an added effect and you didn't take the usual action. I can see a GM ruling either way for pulling, though since it already has its own exceptions, I'd generally say it doesn't help you if they're right next to you (it's still quite good if you have a lot of reach, though, since you can step up to someone to get them at the edge of your reach, then pull them all the way next to you, blow by blow, until they're too close to 5-foot-step away).
2) Maximize and empower do work, applying to the bonus damage as you guessed.
3) I'd say yes they would stack, but you have mismatched flurry, so those wouldn't. Then again, you could just use Unchained flurry for as long as it was better or equal (until you have 5 levels in elemental ascetic, possibly sooner if you more than 1 level in Unchained monk and want to hit an iterative faster in exchange for lower accuracy) and then use ascetic flurry thereafter.
@Calculations: I agree, they can be quite impressive, but it isn't obvious at first, so it's taken a while to notice for many people to notice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We will both be at GenCon. I don't know what the "Paizo Galla" is, though.Mark, will you and/or Linda be at GenCon this year?!
If so, please stop by the Paizo Galla and see me. :D
I misspelled the word "gala," and I don't think my use of "Paizo" as opposed to the specific location "PFS" was very clear; let me try that again.
"If so, please stop stop by the PFS Gala and see me. :D"
Ahhh gotcha. Yep, Linda and I will be at that dinner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark: finally, I ask your opinion on a rules question!
In your opinion, if an archetype modifies a complex ability like Deeds (such as, say, by trading certain normal Deeds for special ones), and a different archetype also modifies Deeds in the same way (but affecting different specific deeds) are those archetypes compatible or do they violate the "don't modify the same thing" clause?
Though I tend to think the latter by RAW, I feel like the former would be better design for the game, as it permits character concepts and shouldn't be unbalancing over-all, I shouldn't think. What is your opinion as a RAW and as a GM and as a designer?
(I can see potential arguments the other way, I'm just the kind that prefers general fungability of rules and modular design even within structure like class systems, to enable concepts to flourish. I like player choice/agency and all that jazz, even as a GM.)
Apologies for typos - I'm in the backseat on a phone, and I think I got them all, but... I'm not sure, as I can read it all well, regardless. Dyslexia is both cool and sucky at times.
In fact, trading certain normal deeds for new ones and then trading completely separate normal deeds for new ones is explicitly allowed by the FAQ about stacking archetypes. However, if you have an archetype that makes an adjustment to deeds overall, that wouldn't stack with one that also adjusts deeds overall or swaps out deeds. Same for bardic performances.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, trading certain normal deeds for new ones and then trading completely separate normal deeds for new ones is explicitly allowed by the FAQ about stacking archetypes. However, if you have an archetype that makes an adjustment to deeds overall, that wouldn't stack with one that also adjusts deeds overall or swaps out deeds. Same for bardic performances.Mark: finally, I ask your opinion on a rules question!
In your opinion, if an archetype modifies a complex ability like Deeds (such as, say, by trading certain normal Deeds for special ones), and a different archetype also modifies Deeds in the same way (but affecting different specific deeds) are those archetypes compatible or do they violate the "don't modify the same thing" clause?
Though I tend to think the latter by RAW, I feel like the former would be better design for the game, as it permits character concepts and shouldn't be unbalancing over-all, I shouldn't think. What is your opinion as a RAW and as a GM and as a designer?
(I can see potential arguments the other way, I'm just the kind that prefers general fungability of rules and modular design even within structure like class systems, to enable concepts to flourish. I like player choice/agency and all that jazz, even as a GM.)
Apologies for typos - I'm in the backseat on a phone, and I think I got them all, but... I'm not sure, as I can read it all well, regardless. Dyslexia is both cool and sucky at times.
Wait, wait.
So if you have a archetype that replaces Class Talent at level 2 you CAN take another archetype that replaces Class Talent at level 4?
With Class Talent being Rage Powers, Hexes, Revelations, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can tell, absolutely yes Rysky.
But if you have an archetype that replaces Class Talent 2 and another archetype that gives you a brand new class talent you can take at any level they can't stack. In fact, the latter archetype completely stops you from taking any archetype that does anything to Class Talents at all.
Because, uh... reasons I guess.
That ended up a lot longer than I wanted it to, so sorry, but it's a topic that interests me a lot.
No worries, it's a pretty rad topic. So if I was the tyrant of Pathfinder, what would I do with stats? Sometimes I fiddle around with it. If you think about it, each stat has an interconnected web of dependencies, some or all of which a given character can ignore to some extent or another. Then there's substitutions and the ability to add stat modifiers where they didn't go before. Let's ignore the substitutions and ability to add stats elsewhere entirely for now:
So Charisma. Based on the way the stat has evolved from the olden days from being beautiful and charming into having a strong personality, it could handle Will saves against mind control. Leave Wisdom with the non-mind-affecting Will saves for like curses and those other stuff. Int-based classes have too much of a strangehold on skills, since, for instance, a high level human wizard is likely to have minimum 14-15 skill points per level even with 2+Int skills, so increase everybody's skills in exchange for limiting the effects of Int on skill points. In exchange, maybe Int can handle saves against illusions and glyphs and stuff. Will is hugely broad right now, so distributing it out to everybody seems about right. Depending on whether this is enough to sweeten the pot vis-a-vis Charisma, which still has the swankiest things to guard against, perhaps Int gets UMD, not sure on that.
On to physical stats: It's no coincidence that I agree with you completely on lethal grace vis-a-vis the other graces, as lethal grace is my own invention meant to do exactly what you like about it. There's two possibilities to deal with the Strength and Dex problems. Combining Strength and Con into one stat (lowering the amount that StrConGestaltStat adds to hp while increasing baseline hp a little bit) is one way, but that just means that the new StrCon and Dex are both amazingly good compared to all mental stats. Likely better would be to split out Dex into two stats, Dex to handle manual Dexterity and reaction time (Dex attack rolls, Sleight of Hand, Disable Device, Initiative) and the other to handle balance, and dodginess (AC, Reflex, Acrobatics, Fly), could be called Agility or something, I dunno. With that split, we could also make Weapon Finesse free and make it easier to have more options like lethal grace or Dex to damage, since at that point, Str and Dex are more on par with each other, and Agi is definitely solid as well, since it covers two defenses. Maybe round us out by giving Strength something reactive to do, perhaps avoiding attacks like entangle and web instead of Reflex.
Anyways, that all aside, as to your other question "Now in both cases I find this kind of odd because Strength and Charisma are already stats that people favor for the purposes of dumping. So further incentivizing that by presenting a large number of ways to replace what they do seems like the opposite of what you should be doing. Shouldn't instead there be more ways for characters that actually want these stats to be able to effectively use them?" I agree. In the case of the Dex stuff, it's also definitely the case that finessers are behind by quite a bit in offense if you do nothing. I prefer solutions more like lethal grace, and I consistently advocate for rules like that, rather than those that replace a stat and encourage dumping. The latter are out in the wild, though, and have been for a while. It's up to each gaming group to decide what they think about them and whether they want to allow them in their games.
In fact, trading certain normal deeds for new ones and then trading completely separate normal deeds for new ones is explicitly allowed by the FAQ about stacking archetypes. However, if you have an archetype that makes an adjustment to deeds overall, that wouldn't stack with one that also adjusts deeds overall or swaps out deeds. Same for bardic performances.Mark: finally, I ask your opinion on a rules question!
In your opinion, if an archetype modifies a complex ability like Deeds (such as, say, by trading certain normal Deeds for special ones), and a different archetype also modifies Deeds in the same way (but affecting different specific deeds) are those archetypes compatible or do they violate the "don't modify the same thing" clause?
Though I tend to think the latter by RAW, I feel like the former would be better design for the game, as it permits character concepts and shouldn't be unbalancing over-all, I shouldn't think. What is your opinion as a RAW and as a GM and as a designer?
(I can see potential arguments the other way, I'm just the kind that prefers general fungability of rules and modular design even within structure like class systems, to enable concepts to flourish. I like player choice/agency and all that jazz, even as a GM.)
Apologies for typos - I'm in the backseat on a phone, and I think I got them all, but... I'm not sure, as I can read it all well, regardless. Dyslexia is both cool and sucky at times.
Sorry - I've forgotten that FAQ!
To clarify, if, at first level, something drops, say, Deadeye and Gunslinger's Dodge, then I can take something else that ignores them but replaces Quick Clear?
Or at third level, if something drops Gunslinger Initiative, I can take something else that trades Pistol Whip?
Or is it replacement by level? Sorry for the confusion. I'll look for that FAQ, when I have access to the computer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, trading certain normal deeds for new ones and then trading completely separate normal deeds for new ones is explicitly allowed by the FAQ about stacking archetypes. However, if you have an archetype that makes an adjustment to deeds overall, that wouldn't stack with one that also adjusts deeds overall or swaps out deeds. Same for bardic performances.Mark: finally, I ask your opinion on a rules question!
In your opinion, if an archetype modifies a complex ability like Deeds (such as, say, by trading certain normal Deeds for special ones), and a different archetype also modifies Deeds in the same way (but affecting different specific deeds) are those archetypes compatible or do they violate the "don't modify the same thing" clause?
Though I tend to think the latter by RAW, I feel like the former would be better design for the game, as it permits character concepts and shouldn't be unbalancing over-all, I shouldn't think. What is your opinion as a RAW and as a GM and as a designer?
(I can see potential arguments the other way, I'm just the kind that prefers general fungability of rules and modular design even within structure like class systems, to enable concepts to flourish. I like player choice/agency and all that jazz, even as a GM.)
Apologies for typos - I'm in the backseat on a phone, and I think I got them all, but... I'm not sure, as I can read it all well, regardless. Dyslexia is both cool and sucky at times.
Sorry - I've forgotten that FAQ!
To clarify, if, at first level, something drops, say, Deadeye and Gunslinger's Dodge, then I can take something else that ignores them but replaces Quick Clear?
Or at third level, if something drops Gunslinger Initiative, I can take something else that trades Pistol Whip?
Or is it replacement by level? Sorry for the confusion. I'll look for that FAQ, when I have access to the computer.
The former is correct. It's by deed, not by level. But if you had an archetype that altered deeds, perhaps something like "for each deed you have, you gain +3 maximum hit points", you couldn't take any other archetypes that mess with deeds (because for instance, if an archetype traded one universally useful deed for three situational deeds, it then would also give you +6 unexpected hp in this example). The point is to avoid unintended consequences. I encourage home groups to make their own case-by-case decisions if you find a combination where it seems like any interaction is harmless or unnoticeable, but that's such a table-by-table distinction that it wouldn't really work as a FAQ answer.
Thanks! :D
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.
Seems like, the way this reads, if a PC is standing in artificial light in an open field on a starlit night and an NPC is standing 60 feet away in another artificial light, they have concealment from one another for ranged attacks because there are squares of dim light between them, even though they're both lit up with torches or light spells or what-have-you.
Is this correct? Is the only way not to have a 20% miss chance at night to wait until the two areas of normal light touch so there are no squares of dim light between them? I've always just assumed that if someone is marching through a dungeon with a daylight spell on, they're just lighting themselves up for ranged attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Mark.
Regarding the Touch of Serenity feat (APG 172-3), is it a mind-affecting emotion effect, or a supernatural effect?
Should anything immune to it? For example, with Stunning Fist, creatures immune to critical hits, as well as those that are immune to stunning, are not affected by that feat.
It certainly seems like it's a mind-affecting charm or compulsion of some kind, but it isn't tagged as such in the text. That makes it a good candidate to look at for FAQ or errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.Seems like, the way this reads, if a PC is standing in artificial light in an open field on a starlit night and an NPC is standing 60 feet away in another artificial light, they have concealment from one another for ranged attacks because there are squares of dim light between them, even though they're both lit up with torches or light spells or what-have-you.
Is this correct? Is the only way not to have a 20% miss chance at night to wait until the two areas of normal light touch so there are no squares of dim light between them? I've always just assumed that if someone is marching through a dungeon with a daylight spell on, they're just lighting themselves up for ranged attacks.
I think that's supposed to be talking about areas that block what's on the other side of them (like fog, or magical darkness that prevents the light from reaching you) but I agree that the wording isn't as tight as it could be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It certainly seems like it's a mind-affecting charm or compulsion of some kind, but it isn't tagged as such in the text. That makes it a good candidate to look at for FAQ or errata.Hi Mark.
Regarding the Touch of Serenity feat (APG 172-3), is it a mind-affecting emotion effect, or a supernatural effect?
Should anything immune to it? For example, with Stunning Fist, creatures immune to critical hits, as well as those that are immune to stunning, are not affected by that feat.
This actually reminds me of another ability. The Psychic Sorcerer has the following as their first Bloodline Power:
Psychic Strike (Su)
At 1st level, you can overwhelm the minds of those nearby. You can target one creature within 30 feet that you can see; that creature must succeed at a Will saving throw (DC = 10 + 1/2 your sorcerer level + your Charisma modifier) or it takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point for every 2 sorcerer levels you possess and becomes shaken for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
While it clearly states that it overwhelms the minds, it is not stated to be a Mind-Affecting ability. RAI, I would say it is mind affecting, but by RAW it appears to be able to affects mindless creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From this thread
Ultimate Equipment has an item called the Mummer's Ruff that gives you a bonus to bluff checks to imitate a voice.
But the Vocal Alteration spell in Ultimate Magic and some of the specific rules in Ultimate Intrigue say that you mimic voice with disguise.
So, yeah, there seems to be a problem with the interactions here.
Since Ultimate Equipment errata happened recently so we aren't likely to see more soon, figured I'd bring it up here.
Hello Mark, hope you're well!
What's your opinion on class-less RPG systems? Do they make it easier or more difficult to fulfill character concepts? What advantages/disadvantages does a class-based system have compared to a class-less one?
Thanks for your time. Cheers!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now for another exciting FAQ Friday!
Klars: A traditional klar “counts as a light wooden shield with shield spikes”, and a metal klar “counts as a light steel shield with shield spikes”. What exactly does this mean? Particularly, a klar is a one-handed weapon that deals damage like a heavy spiked shield, and it deals slashing damage instead of piercing damage, so where do the differences end?
A klar counts as a light shield for the purpose of using it as a shield (for instance, it grants a +1 shield bonus to AC, has a –1 armor check penalty, and has a 5% arcane spell failure chance). For the purpose of using it as a weapon, it is a one-handed weapon that deals 1d6 slashing damage, but it is otherwise similar to using a spiked shield (for instance, the damage doesn’t stack with the bashing ability, you lose the shield bonus to AC when attacking with the klar unless you have Improved Shield Bash, and so on). As a side note, anywhere that lists klars as counting as shields with “armor spikes” is a typo that will be handled in the next errata.
With GenCon looming, how many more FAQ Fridays can we do before the con? I'm hoping we can at least do one more Friday, perhaps with two related FAQs, but only time will tell!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Mark!
NP!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It certainly seems like it's a mind-affecting charm or compulsion of some kind, but it isn't tagged as such in the text. That makes it a good candidate to look at for FAQ or errata.Hi Mark.
Regarding the Touch of Serenity feat (APG 172-3), is it a mind-affecting emotion effect, or a supernatural effect?
Should anything immune to it? For example, with Stunning Fist, creatures immune to critical hits, as well as those that are immune to stunning, are not affected by that feat.This actually reminds me of another ability. The Psychic Sorcerer has the following as their first Bloodline Power:
Psychic Strike (Su)
At 1st level, you can overwhelm the minds of those nearby. You can target one creature within 30 feet that you can see; that creature must succeed at a Will saving throw (DC = 10 + 1/2 your sorcerer level + your Charisma modifier) or it takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point for every 2 sorcerer levels you possess and becomes shaken for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
While it clearly states that it overwhelms the minds, it is not stated to be a Mind-Affecting ability. RAI, I would say it is mind affecting, but by RAW it appears to be able to affects mindless creatures.
Unlike Touch of Serenity, it clearly states that it overwhelms minds, so I would say that the lack of mind-affecting tag is at that point in conflict with the ability itself (Touch of Serenity doesn't have such a conflict; it just seems like it was meant to be mind-affecting), so it falls to you to decide how to resolve that conflict. Certainly, in my home group, we would rule it as mind-affecting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Mark, I've come back with another strange idea.
So recently I've been browsing the magical weapons/enhancements sections of various books to see what kinds of enhancements I can give to my Elemental Ascetic, when I came across conductive. After reading through it (and the various forum posts about Kinetic Blast + Conductive) I realized that I can't use it on a melee attack because there's no way to gain a melee kinetic blast without using a form infusion, which would require an action that you're already doing.
So now I have the following questions:
1) In Telekinetic Blast's description, it has this line in it: ** spoiler omitted **
Could a Telekineticist use this ability with Kinetic Blade? For example, could a telekineticist holding a +1 short sword make a melee attack with that short sword for its normal damage (instead of kinetic blast damage), adding CON instead of STR as the damage modifier?
2) Similarly, the wording above implies that the weapon you throw need not be a ranged throwing weapon to deal its normal damage... So could you just throw your +1 short sword with Telekinetic Blast and have it deal damage as a +1 Short Sword (adding CON instead of STR to the damage roll, as per thrown weapon?)
3) Assuming the answer to #2 is...
1) I'd say you could.
2) Yep, so far so good.
3) That appears like it might be kosher, albeit complex, since you've nested an ability in on itself; however, at the very least, the 1/2 Con from the fire blast and the full Con from the ordinary throw I believe would not stack on your damage roll for the attack.
4) I'd say no; elemental annihilator has a specific over general rule with "always", so that particular form infusion overrides the option for the alternate telekinetic blast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, would you see anything wrong with adding Giant Eagle or Giant ow to the Summon Natures ally 3 list?
There's two issues, one of them is critical and the other one is flexible. The critical issue is that III is the wrong level for them. Typically a CR 3 or 4 (like giant eagle) is at least on the IV list (higher if it has any crazy spell-like abilities or things like that). Similarly, a CR 5 (like giant owl) is at least on the V list; indeed our big owl friend is literally listed as a Green Faith additional summon option for V in the back of Demon's Heresy. The flexible issue is that adding more summon options increases the versatility and power of summoning, which is already a powerful option, so you probably want to gate it somehow (consider a nature's ally version of the expanded summon monster from Monster Summoner's Handbook as one example of this).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From this thread
Ultimate Equipment has an item called the Mummer's Ruff that gives you a bonus to bluff checks to imitate a voice.
But the Vocal Alteration spell in Ultimate Magic and some of the specific rules in Ultimate Intrigue say that you mimic voice with disguise.
So, yeah, there seems to be a problem with the interactions here.
Since Ultimate Equipment errata happened recently so we aren't likely to see more soon, figured I'd bring it up here.
When UI came up, I did the research for the Skills in Conflict section, and I basically came across the same dichotomy you describe: The rules had clearly been divergent on which skill to use in various places. I brought it to the rest of the PDT, and we discussed which way to go, and came to the conclusion as presented in UI: Disguise is for all aspects of the disguise itself; Bluff is for lies you tell in attempt to keep your cover (generally because they would be true from the point of view of the person as whom you are disguised).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello Mark, hope you're well!
What's your opinion on class-less RPG systems? Do they make it easier or more difficult to fulfill character concepts? What advantages/disadvantages does a class-based system have compared to a class-less one?
Thanks for your time. Cheers!
I've actually enjoyed classless systems, but one of the big problems with them is that they're invariably even more abusable than classed systems (not to say classed systems aren't abusable too, of course).
In terms of fulfilling character concepts, they are both better and worse. Restrictions breed creativity and classes/archetypes can really catch your eye and help you set your heart on something out of the sea of possibilities, but if you came at the game already sure of something ultra-specific before looking at mechanics, a classless system of equal size and robustness can almost always get you closer to that than a classed one can.
I accidentally stumbled across something excellent with classless systems while running a game that a friend wanted to try out as an experiment. Basically, each player clicked random page on tvtropes until they hit I think it was four actual tropes, then they came up with a concept that fit those tropes, and then I as the GM built them that character in a classless system (in this case Mutants and Masterminds 2e) since chargen is intense and most of them had never played M&M before (one person had the trope "I forgot I could swim" so I literally gave the player a page with a list of powers and no descriptions of how to use them or what they do, and he was really stoked, since that was exactly what he was hoping for to fit that trope). This turned out to be the best experience with a classless system in any group I've seen, in large part because I built all the characters, so to whatever degree I exploited the system (for example, it's been a while, but I believe it costs 15 of your 150 points to have the highest Reflex save allowed, but for 2 points, you can have improved evasion, which is pretty much better than having a high bonus, since you get half damage even on a failed save and no damage in the unlikely event of a success, whereas the person with the high bonus needs to succeed for half), I did so in an even-handed way.
As a result of that experience, I now recommend doing something like that for classless systems. I've seen grar otherwise, even with characters who just seemed more powerful than they were. For instance, I had a classless character once a long time ago who if the enemy failed a really easy Will save, the effect was intensely bad for them, but that was unlikely except on mooks or set dressing NPCs, and the character was arrogant enough that she believed no one could resist her attacks unless they were immune to magic, so she would never try again if she failed the first time. It was a GM I didn't know beforehand, and people including the GM were pretty apprehensive about the character, but when it came time to play, the GM wound up buffing her because he saw how it actually worked.