|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering who has misread a particular rule and ended up having a better (or at least more enjoyable) result because of it.
For example, while running last night, I couldn't find how many charges wands were supposed to have. This came up because the druid had a 1st level wand of heal and wanted to use it to heal up the party's tank, a monk. So, I ran it as: As long as it is on your spell list, you need to spend a point of Resonance each time you cast the spell from your wand.
It wasn't until afterward I found the rule buried that wands have 10 charges, but everyone at the table was really happy with wands working that they just needed to spend Resonance to cast the spell if it was already on their spell list.
I also remembered that the 3.5 Eberron setting had a similar item called eternal wands that let the user use the spell in it unlimited times over the life of the item, but only so many times per day (3 if I recall correctly).
Eternal wands are 2/day.
I love Eberron so much. I'm wondering if there will be a way to play it with PF 2E.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was promised Resonance would get rid of a thousand separate charge counters on my magic items. Hell yeah I want wands that just require Resonance and nothing else to work.
Although that would mean they blow up sorcerers' spells per day and known tables. Which... I can live with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my monsters had a weapon that allowed him to grab right after the attack. I played it as a free manoeuver to grab needing an Athletic check, PF1 style (instead of an action to grab automatically). It was funier this way :) I tried to grab as Attack of Opportunity and missed several times, but when I managed to grab it made some intense moments.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Initially we were doing the Paladin's retributive strike before determining if the Ally was hit by the attack, and the applied condition could therefore cause it to miss. On a subsequent reread of the ability we decided it was intended to happen after the ally was hit, but before damage was rolled. This is much less satisfying compared to jumping in and occasionally saving an ally from a hit, and the condition affects far fewer rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my group, the GM didn't notice for most of the session that the Paladin's Retributive Strike doesn't have the "ignore multiple attack penalty" option that Attack of Opportunity has.
After it was noticed, monsters no longer took paladin's tanking with any seriousness. Although there were 10 more attempts at Retributive Strike from her, she didn't hit once. Adding MAP to the -2 is just too much unless you waste your turn hoping for a reaction that you -may- be able to use, and without any spells or ranged attack (no Gunladins so far, and we all miss those in our group) there wasn't anything for her to do outside of trying to hit them with the slashy end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading the thread, I have no idea how to handle starting wealth past 1st level, nobody else seems to be having this problem, and it is driving me crazy; please send help, I saw that I had misread the rules for starting magic items on a higher-level character. I had simpliifed them and avoided many of the problems mentioned in the thread.
Monk's flurry makes sense if both attacks have the same bonus (however they don't.)
Why shouldn't it make sense? It's still 2 attacks for one action with combined damage even if the second strike has MAP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monk's flurry makes sense if both attacks have the same bonus (however they don't.)Why shouldn't it make sense? It's still 2 attacks for one action with combined damage even if the second strike has MAP.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition's method of modeling Two-Weapon Fighting in the fighter and ranger feat Double Strike is by combining the two Strikes, one with each weapon, into a single double-sized action. Both Strikes have the same multiple attack penalty.
The monk's Flurry of Blows has no such statement about both Strikes using the same multiple attack penalty. Nevertheless, they take place in the same action and combine their damage and enhancements for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses, which is extremely much like Double Strike. And in Pathfinder 1st Edition, the monk's Flurry of Blows was a variant of Two-Weapon Fighting, "When [using Flurry of Blows], he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."
Which leads to two different interpretations:
(1) the benefit of Double Strike is two attacks at the same multiple attack penalty and the benefit of Flurry of Blows is two attacks costing only a single action slot, and both get the secondary benefit of combining damage together before applying resistance; or
(2) Combining two Strikes into one action means simultaneous strikes, so they have the same multiple attack penalty and combine damage together before applying resistances automatically.
Option (1) is the correct one.
If the Playtest Rulebook were perfectly organized, we could 100% rule out option 2. But the rulebook does hide some rules in unexpected chapters. If the intuitive rule about simultaneous strikes having the same multiple attack penalty is not found, the reader could decide that he or she simply has not found it yet and assume it holds regardless. Or that the writer was careless and forgot to mention the rule explicitly.
The rulebook could clarify Flurry of Blows by adding the word, "consecutive":
[[A]] FLURRY OF BLOWS
Monk
Frequency Once per round.
Make two consecutive unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage and enhancements for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses.
