|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On page 128 in "Sorcerer Spellcasting" there is a hint that Sorcerer should have Eschew Materials feat: "Because you’re a sorcerer, you can usually replace Material Casting actions with Somatic Casting actions, so you usually don’t need spell components."
Most likely it refers to the following text presented on page 196, under the "Special" section of the "Material Casting" action
"If you’re a sorcerer Casting a Spell from the spell list that
matches your bloodline, you can draw on the magic within
your blood to replace any Material Casting actions that require
material components with Somatic Casting actions. You can’t
replace a Material Casting action that requires a spell focus"
Thanks, it make sense. Then it's just not convenient way to put Sorcerer as an exception. Maybe better make it class feature so you won't miss it.
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each roundThis is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each roundThis is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each roundThis is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.
Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.
So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.
Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each roundThis is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.
Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.
So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.
Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me
With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.
The way I picture this is something like this:
Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.
His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.
It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.
That's fine for CP since you don't have to identify anything, you just know something's going on so you buff your allies.
With counterspell though you have to counter with either Dispel Magic, or the exact spell, and thus the issue. Maybe there was some unwritten "you don't have to identify spells you personally know" or something that got overlooked...
|
|
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each roundThis is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.
Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.
So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.
Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me
With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.
The way I picture this is something like this:
Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.
His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.
It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.
That's fine for CP si nce you don't have to identify anything, you just know something's going on so you buff your allies.
With counterspell though you have to counter with either Dispel Magic, or the exact spell, and thus the issue. Maybe there was some unwritten "you don't have to identify spells you personally know" or something that got overlooked...
Well, quick recognition allows a free action identify per round
Not sure if it's...
*nods* Quick Recognition is also a 7th level Feat, whereas Counterspell is 1st level.
Per the description of Counterspell (which differs slightly for Wizards and Sorcerers). The 'Trigger' condition effectively automatically identifies the spell (without actually identifying it so only your character knows what they're actually countering).
The wizard's Counterspell only triggers if the enemy casts a spell they've prepared (identification is not a listed trigger for either version). When you activate the ability it's wording is such that identification of the spell is unnecessary anyway. The wizard is mechanically forced by Counterspell to expend the correct spell, and never fails to do so because the ability wouldn't have triggered if they hadn't prepared it.
Identification might be necessary or at least beneficial if you ready an action to cointer a spell using Dispel Magic instead of the Counterspell ability.
It does, doesn't it?
I think there is supposed to be a clause regarding automatic spell recognition which got ommited (like that fact that everyone is supposed to he trained in unarmored defense).
Otherwise Recognize Spell and Counterspell are both nearly useless until 7th level. A 3-feat investment seems a bit harsh anyway (even if 2 of them are Skill Feats, the weakest bin in terms of combat options)
|
|
...Well, quick recognition allows a freeIt costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each roundThis is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.
Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.
So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.
Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me
With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.
The way I picture this is something like this:
Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.
His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.
It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.
That's fine for CP si nce you don't have to identify anything, you just know something's going on so you buff your allies.
With counterspell though you have to counter with either Dispel Magic, or the exact spell, and thus the issue. Maybe there was some unwritten "you don't have to identify spells you personally know" or something that got overlooked...
Unless he knew you were gonna do that so he shouted Burning Hands to throw you off while he cast Magic Missile instead. *scratches chin* it could happen. Sneaky Wizards.
|
|
Also does everyone but the monk take a -2 penalty to AC is they are unarmored? RAW that appears to be the case.
The Devs admitted that was an accidental omission, all characters are Trained in Unarmored.
Would it not make sense, to have 'unarmoured' be included in the 'light armor' category?
It used to be understood, in PF1, that for enhancement purposes, 'all clothes and robes were armor with an enhancement of +0'
And for barkskin, you could add it to someone with a natural armor bonus of +0.
|
|
...It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each roundThis is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.
Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.
So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.
Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me
With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.
The way I picture this is something like this:
Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.
His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.
It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.
That's fine for CP si nce you don't have to identify anything, you just know something's going on so you buff your allies.
With counterspell though you have to counter with either Dispel Magic, or the exact spell, and thus the issue. Maybe there was some unwritten "you don't have to identify spells you personally know" or something that got
Hmm, good point.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holy Quote Nesting Batman
|
|
Also does everyone but the monk take a -2 penalty to AC is they are unarmored? RAW that appears to be the case.The Devs admitted that was an accidental omission, all characters are Trained in Unarmored.Would it not make sense, to have 'unarmoured' be included in the 'light armor' category?
It used to be understood, in PF1, that for enhancement purposes, 'all clothes and robes were armor with an enhancement of +0'
And for barkskin, you could add it to someone with a natural armor bonus of +0.
Possibly, but then Monks, Sorcerers, and Wizards still wouldn’t have access to it, without investment.
“It used to be understood, in PF1, that for enhancement purposes, 'all clothes and robes were armor with an enhancement of +0'”
That’s a common house rule I saw, but I don’t believe it was ever an official rule.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
AFAICT the rules never say to use common sense. This seems to be a problem for some people, so it may be worth fixing.
Some people (including GMs at cons) are reportedly allowing sneak attack damage with ranged cantrips. This seems clearly wrong RAW.
You deal additional damage to flat-footed creatures (see page 322). If you Strike a flat-footed creature with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged attack, you deal 1d6 extra precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse.
A player may be tempted to read the bold as the rule, and the italics as a specific modification in the case of strikes, but that's leads to bizarre issues. It would mean any source of damage at all (even a Fireball) would inflict extra damage, but not a Greataxe or Bastard Sword.
Instead, the entire paragraph should be read as the rule, and you have to meet each part to inflict sneak attack. A spell is never a Strike, so it can't inflict sneak attack.
Unless the devs want to FAQ or change in the final rules, of course. It seems like a bad idea to give Rogues a ranged touch attack qualifies for sneak attack at the cost of an ancestry feat, however.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
i hope this trhead survives until the devs are back from gencon, so they can read and think on this thread!
Even if it doesn't survive on your end because posts get removed for various reasons, we can still read it. That's one of the perks of being "devs."
We are reading. To be honest most of the errata issues brought up here and there on this post an others are already in our errata document. Stay tuned, all, and thank you for participating so far in the playtest. It is greatly appreciated.
not sure it's actually wrong:
from page 305. The very definition of Strike clearly points out that there are magical Attacks that are Strikes.
touch attacks cantrips have the Attack trait already. AND they are magical Attacks (which fireball is not, it's not an Attack, neither does it have the Attack trait)Strike is an action with the attack trait that allows you to
attack with a weapon you’re wielding or an unarmed attack (such
as with a fist).
You have to attack a creature within your reach if you’re using
a melee weapon or unarmed attack, or attack a creature within
range if you’re attacking with a ranged weapon. Your reach is
how far you can physically extend a part of your body to make
an unarmed attack or the farthest distance you can reach with
a melee weapon. This is typically 5 feet, but special weapons
and larger creatures have longer reaches. Your range is how far
away you can attack with a ranged weapon or with some form
of magical attack.
I think this is defining a Strike as wielded weapon or unarmed attack (neither of which is a spell), and incidentally noting that while range defines some weapon strikes, it also applies to some spells (which are not strikes). But maybe there was some intent by someone along the way for it to work this way.
And see page 197.
Spell attacks are unarmed, but they don’t apply any special benefits from your weapons or unarmed attacks, nor do they deal any damage outside of what’s listed in the spell.
Is the only vaguely applicable and arguable sneak attack language more specific than the clear rule here? I don't know, wait and see.
it's just that the whole paragrpash is the definition of Strike.
it seems weird to the definition paragraph to have unlinked stuff on it.
.
Wait, I've got it. You're sort of right, but it proves my point. It does include a magical attack in the definition of a strike, but a strike has to be an "action" with the attack trait. All spells with more than one action are "activities" with the attack trait. So they don't qualify for sneak attack for that reason.
An activity doesn’t count as any of its dependent actions or other abilities. For example, the quick condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you took an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.
If there is a one action attack spell, it arguably is a Strike and qualifies for Sneak Attack. Quickened Spell will do that once per day, and Fiery Body will do it for Produce Flame for as long as it lasts. (This would also mean that Produce Flame would take the multiattack penalty when you do this.) I can't think of any other ways.
Command Undead, pg 76, states it has a 24 hour duration but none of the save affects actually last 24 hours.
Telekinetic Projectial Cantrip: page 263
The Heightened (3rd) damage is 1d8 + caster modifier where all the other damage dice for this Cantrip are 1d10. Make me think the 1d8 is a typo.Produce Flame Cantrip: page 247-248
Damage starts at 1d4, but all Heightened versions use d6s. I suspect the first 1d4 is a typo and should be a 1d6.
I am kinda on the fence on the TK cantrip at 3rd level. It starts as 1d10 and then goes to 1d8+int which is a solid damage boost over the flat 1d10. It may be that 1d10+casting stat was considered to much of a jump up at 3rd for it.
Oh, here's another: the duration of a round.
Somewhere it seems that it's still 6 seconds long, in other places it says that a minute is 6 rounds long (which means that a round is 10 seconds instead).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, here's another: the duration of a round.
Somewhere it seems that it's still 6 seconds long, in other places it says that a minute is 6 rounds long (which means that a round is 10 seconds instead).where does it says that a minute is 6 rounds?
rules wise:
When every action counts, you enter the encounter mode
of play. In this mode, you have turns during which you use
actions. Your turn in sequence with everybody else’s turns
makes up a round. A round is 6 seconds of time in the
game world. Depending on the details of the encounter,
you may have the opportunity to use reactions and free
actions, both on your turn and on others’ turns.
Page 197:
CONCENTRATE ON A SPELL Requirements You have at least one spell active with a concentration duration, and you are not fatigued. Choose one spell with a concentration duration you have in effect. The duration of that spell continues until the end of your next turn. Some spells may have slightly different or expanded effects if you concentrate. Concentrating on a Spell for more than 10 minutes (60 rounds) ends the spell and makes you fatigued. If you take damage equal to or greater than your level from a reaction or free action triggered by this action, your spell is disrupted and immediately dismissed.
Bolding mine.
I think I had at least another instance of that somewhere, but I can't find it now.
Oh, here's another: the duration of a round.
Somewhere it seems that it's still 6 seconds long, in other places it says that a minute is 6 rounds long (which means that a round is 10 seconds instead).where does it says that a minute is 6 rounds?
rules wise:
When every action counts, you enter the encounter mode
of play. In this mode, you have turns during which you use
actions. Your turn in sequence with everybody else’s turns
makes up a round. A round is 6 seconds of time in the
game world. Depending on the details of the encounter,
you may have the opportunity to use reactions and free
actions, both on your turn and on others’ turns.
I also saw some references to a minute being 10 rounds so this seems consistent with the other mentions I was seeing. So abilities like wildform for druids with a 1 minute duration actually are still really solid in combat powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people (including GMs at cons) are reportedly allowing sneak attack damage with ranged cantrips. This seems clearly wrong RAW.
You deal additional damage to flat-footed creatures (see page 322). If you Strike a flat-footed creature with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged attack, you deal 1d6 extra precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse.
That is just silly to argue (that you can sneak attack with any spell). First because the definition of the Strike Action on page 308 precludes using spells to perform them, and second because spells are cast using Verbal, Somatic, and Material casting actions; all of which are distinct actions excluded from the conditions for making a sneak attack.
I've never been my own ally. Ally isn't defined in the glossary, but I do not think you are considered your own Ally based on the term's usage in the context of the paladin oaths.
The Aid and Assist actions further imply you aren't your own ally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are reading. To be honest most of the errata issues brought up here and there on this post an others are already in our errata document. Stay tuned, all, and thank you for participating so far in the playtest. It is greatly appreciated.
Is there an ETA on the Errata document? I can understand GenCon might have delayed things a bit, but the sooner we can get it and implement it into our playtest games the better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there an ETA on the Errata document? I can understand GenCon might have delayed things a bit, but the sooner we can get it and implement it into our playtest games the better.
As soon as we can reasonably get it through the full process and get it to you. Gen Con is slowing us down. Not everyone is back from that show yet and it takes some time to ramp things up when folks do get back.
We just ask for a little patience. It will not be long (but may be a tad longer than you would like).
We are reading. To be honest most of the errata issues brought up here and there on this post an others are already in our errata document. Stay tuned, all, and thank you for participating so far in the playtest. It is greatly appreciated.Is there an ETA on the Errata document? I can understand GenCon might have delayed things a bit, but the sooner we can get it and implement it into our playtest games the better.
i believe the answer from the post-gencon sticky was Soon™
as they have to recover from post-con flu and whatnot, and can really get into things once most folks are able to do so.
EDIT: ninja'd!
I've seen a few references in this thread to using Dispel Magic with the Counterspell action, but I cannot figure out how that would work within the RAW.
Counterspell says you have to use the same spell.
Ready allows you to prepare a single action as a reaction, but Dispel Magic takes two actions, so that doesn't seem to work.
The Swift Dispel feat almost gets there, but is dependent upon a different trigger.
What am I missing?