The Tyrannosaurus form of Dinosaur Form lists the deadly trait on its jaw attack, what die is it meant to be?
Good question looking at the stats for the T-Rex its 1d12 so I would assume that until clarified
The Tyrannosaurus form of Dinosaur Form lists the deadly trait on its jaw attack, what die is it meant to be?Good question looking at the stats for the T-Rex its 1d12 so I would assume that until clarified
I can't find any example of a Deadly die being smaller than the base damage die, so I agree this makes the most sense. Definitely needs errata.
Well the just found the Krooth, which has Deadly D10 on a D12 base, so there goes that theory. Looks like I can't delete a post though...
I'm just curious when the next appropriate stream will be so all of these questions can possibly be answered. Given the past few streams have all been about a product line (the most recent few being all about Gods & Magic), and the next few appearing to be all about the GMG, I'm not sure when any of these questions are gonna get addressed.
I feel like these questions will hopefully prompt Paizo to focus on an FAQ redesign sooner rather than later.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I watched a video regarding hit points as a mechanic. The basic takeaway is that they're outdated because of blanket application. It was suggested that GMs house rule that HP should only apply in combat or activities like triggering a trap. Has there been talk about adding this as a stated alternative, or is it something better left as a house rule because of the work it'd take?
… where else would it apply?
I watched a video regarding hit points as a mechanic. The basic takeaway is that they're outdated because of blanket application. It was suggested that GMs house rule that HP should only apply in combat or activities like triggering a trap. Has there been talk about adding this as a stated alternative, or is it something better left as a house rule because of the work it'd take?… where else would it apply?
Environment.
Perhaps other venues too, but I have to wonder what one would use in its stead? "You take damage, but not combat or trap damage. You know, that other kind of damage." "Um, no, I don't know that other kind of damage."
Heck, I wouldn't mind expanding the use of hit points so it's inclusive of many forms of luck (much like Fate Chips in Deadlands). Then if you fail a key social roll you could take the difference in "damage" as your heroic-protagonist points get spent. Not sure if/how healing would work in such a system though...
Would Environmental Hazards not be "activities like triggering a trap"?
I think they are talking about things like damage from high/low temperature and the like.
Would Environmental Hazards not be "activities like triggering a trap"?I think they are talking about things like damage from high/low temperature and the like.Which is also already covered by becoming fatigued as well isn't it?
Or was that just P1?
The last part of the temp table is damage [Table 10–13]: for instance Severe cold lists Minor cold damage every hour along with Fatigue 4 hours.
|
|
The last part of the temp table is damage [Table 10–13]: for instance Severe cold lists Minor cold damage every hour along with Fatigue 4 hours.Would Environmental Hazards not be "activities like triggering a trap"?I think they are talking about things like damage from high/low temperature and the like.Which is also already covered by becoming fatigued as well isn't it?
Or was that just P1?
There we go.
|
|
This video mentions D&D's description at around 7:03 in. Basically, if luck/ignorance is involved, HP shouldn't be used. Granted, I'm not sure if Paizo's description includes the luck/ignorance clause.I watched a video regarding hit points as a mechanic. The basic takeaway is that they're outdated because of blanket application. It was suggested that GMs house rule that HP should only apply in combat or activities like triggering a trap. Has there been talk about adding this as a stated alternative, or is it something better left as a house rule because of the work it'd take?… where else would it apply?Environment.
Perhaps other venues too, but I have to wonder what one would use in its stead? "You take damage, but not combat or trap damage. You know, that other kind of damage." "Um, no, I don't know that other kind of damage."
Heck, I wouldn't mind expanding the use of hit points so it's inclusive of many forms of luck (much like Fate Chips in Deadlands). Then if you fail a key social roll you could take the difference in "damage" as your heroic-protagonist points get spent. Not sure if/how healing would work in such a system though...
… huh
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, no.
The person in the video is wanting a purely narrative game. The example I snipped was him dominating someone in the middle of the party and making them kill themselves with their crossbow, and HP not letting it go through.
That's ignoring dominating someone in the middle of the party, and the fact of coup de graces (do they exist in 5th DnD?), and is besides the point that death by self inflicted crossbow (really awkward btw) isn't guaranteed to kill the person. Likely, yes. But no guarantee.
But that's an aside, the person is asking for narrative control, an NPC killing themselves and removing themselves from the game is in the hands of the GM, which they have the ability to do so. A player attempt to force the NPC is where numbers get involved because it's you vs them and obviously they'll resist. To not want that is something for a completely different game.
So HP isn't "outdated", you just want a different style of game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, no.
The person in the video is wanting a purely narrative game. The example I snipped was him dominating someone in the middle of the party and making them kill themselves with their crossbow, and HP not letting it go through.
That's ignoring dominating someone in the middle of the party, and the fact of coup de graces (do they exist in 5th DnD?), and is besides the point that death by self inflicted crossbow (really awkward btw) isn't guaranteed to kill the person. Likely, yes. But no guarantee.
But that's an aside, the person is asking for narrative control, an NPC killing themselves and removing themselves from the game is in the hands of the GM, which they have the ability to do so. A player attempt to force the NPC is where numbers get involved because it's you vs them and obviously they'll resist. To not want that is something for a completely different game.
So HP isn't "outdated", you just want a different style of game.
And h.p. is an excellent example of a veteran hero turning the bolt/gun/dagger to the neck away at the last second while a newbie would've died (using the same damage).
Such is the nature of high fantasy (and many other genres). Sounds like the person arguing against h.p. wants a different, grittier genre. Hopefully the GMG goes into those variants, some of which seem pretty easy to institute (albeit to the chagrin of players attached to PC development).| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I watched a video regarding hit points as a mechanic. The basic takeaway is that they're outdated because of blanket application. It was suggested that GMs house rule that HP should only apply in combat or activities like triggering a trap. Has there been talk about adding this as a stated alternative, or is it something better left as a house rule because of the work it'd take?… where else would it apply?Environment.
Perhaps other venues too, but I have to wonder what one would use in its stead? "You take damage, but not combat or trap damage. You know, that other kind of damage." "Um, no, I don't know that other kind of damage."
Heck, I wouldn't mind expanding the use of hit points so it's inclusive of many forms of luck (much like Fate Chips in Deadlands). Then if you fail a key social roll you could take the difference in "damage" as your heroic-protagonist points get spent. Not sure if/how healing would work in such a system though...
This video mentions D&D's description at around 7:03 in. Basically, if luck/ignorance is involved, HP shouldn't be used. Granted, I'm not sure if Paizo's description includes the luck/ignorance clause.
The video brings up the obvious instant death and not-so-obvious percentile die roll as alternatives as well. Although, it, specifically, states that healing shouldn't work when ignorance is involved.
Taking20's videos are awful. He has a tenuous grasp of the rules at best. Age of Ashes has the exact scenario of the bad guy holding a hostage at knifepoint, and it's very effective at preventing the PCs from attacking.
Either way, I don't see how any of this is rules questions that need to be answered on stream.
POISON WEAPON [one-action]
FEAT 4
MANIPULATE ROGUE
Requirements You are wielding a piercing or slashing weapon.
You apply a poison to the required weapon; if you’re not holding a poison and have a free hand, you can Interact to draw a poison as part of this action. If your next attack with that weapon before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, it applies the effects of the poison, provided that poison can be delivered by contact or injury. If you critically fail the attack roll, the poison is wasted as normal.
Special During your daily preparations, you can prepare a number of simple injury poisons equal to your rogue level. These poisons deal 1d4 poison damage. Only you can apply these poisons properly, and they expire the next time you prepare.
How does an MC Rogue determine their Rogue level?
Option 1. This needs errata to just be "equal to your level".
Option 2. Your Rogue level is 1/2 your level rounded down.
Option 3. Your Rogue level is 0 so you don't get the benefit at all.
You can apply natural cures to heal your allies. You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds. If you’re in the wilderness, you might have easier access to fresh ingredients, allowing you to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your check to Treat Wounds using Nature, subject to the GM’s determination.
When this feat says you can "use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds" does that include substituting your proficiency in Nature for proficiency in Medicine to attempt higher DCs to heal larger amounts of hit points?:
Treat Wounds
...If you’re an expert in Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10; if you’re a master of Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30; and if you’re legendary, you can instead attempt a DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50...Cheers.
G'day, had this problematic feat rear its head in my campaign last night, has there been an official response yet? And to add on, would it still be necessary to both have a healer's kit and be trained in Medicine to attempt the check?
I'm of the opinion that both would be required, but the player with the feat disagrees. Just asked them to pick another feat until there's an answer.
|
The popular way to parse through substitution effects in this edition is to simply replace the original verbage with the new (you'll see this method all over the Forum, and especially during Unarmed Strike discussions):
If "You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds"
Then "If you’re an expert in Medicine Nature, you can instead attempt a DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10; if you’re a master of Medicine Nature, you can instead attempt a DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30; and if you’re legendary, you can instead attempt a DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50."
You can even use the same substitution idea for use of a Healer's Kit.
If "you’re in the wilderness", then "you might have easier access to fresh ingredients".
The popular way to parse through substitution effects in this edition is to simply replace the original verbage with the new (you'll see this method all over the Forum, and especially during Unarmed Strike discussions):
If "You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds"
Then "If you’re an expert in
MedicineNature, you can instead attempt a DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10; if you’re a master ofMedicineNature, you can instead attempt a DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30; and if you’re legendary, you can instead attempt a DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50."You can even use the same substitution idea for use of a Healer's Kit.
If "you’re in the wilderness", then "you might have easier access to fresh ingredients".
Can you please cite/link a few examples where people have used, or talked about using, this substitution method in regards to natural medicine? This is the first I've heard of it.
Most of the discussions I've seen leave it very restricted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The popular way to parse through substitution effects in this edition is to simply replace the original verbage with the new (you'll see this method all over the Forum, and especially during Unarmed Strike discussions):
If "You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds"
Then "If you’re an expert in
MedicineNature, you can instead attempt a DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10; if you’re a master ofMedicineNature, you can instead attempt a DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30; and if you’re legendary, you can instead attempt a DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50."You can even use the same substitution idea for use of a Healer's Kit.
If "you’re in the wilderness", then "you might have easier access to fresh ingredients".
Can you please cite/link a few examples where people have used, or talked about using, this substitution method in regards to natural medicine? This is the first I've heard of it.
Most of the discussions I've seen leave it very restricted.
I mean I really don't see any other way that it could be read. If you require the PC to have Medicine at the prerequisite rank, they may as well just use Medicine for the check, as both Medicine and Nature use the same modifier. Either it works as Nefreet states, or it does nothing at all and nobody should ever take it.
|
How does "motion sense" work? Is it consider a precise sense?
Example Sewer Ooze(Bestiary pg. 254)
Perception +3; motion sense 60 feet, no vision
So in the example above "no vision" means it is "blinded" right? But what does "motion sense" do? Is it a precise sense out 60 feet that ignores all light conditions and cover? So not sure how these things work together....
Under the Immuntities it list "visual" which I get since it has no vision
Immunities acid, critical hits, mental, precision, unconscious, visual
So just trying to understand how this would work :)
Thanks in advance
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HALCYON SPELL LIST
For purposes of using scrolls and wands, what is the spell list for spellcasters with the Halcyon Speaker archetype (HSA) feats*?
- All arcane and primal spells
- All arcane and primal spells up to the level they have access to with HSA feats
- All common arcane and primal spells
- All common arcane and primal spells up to the level they have access to with HSA feats
- Only the spells selected with their HSA feats
* Magambiya Attendant Dedication (cantrips), Halcyon Speaker Dedication (1st), Halcyon Speaker Initiate (3rd), Halcyon Spellcasting Adept (5th), Halcyon Spellcasting Sage (7th)
PRIMAL SUMMONS FEAT 12
DRUID
Prerequisites Call of the Wild
Whenever you summon an ally, you can empower it with
the elemental power of air, earth, fire, or water. You gain the
primal summons order spell.
Shouldn't this grant a Focus Point? It seems odd that it grants a Focus Spell but no Focus Point.
Can Thief Rogues add Dex to dmg when using monk wolf/tigger stances?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can Thief Rogues add Dex to dmg when using monk wolf/tigger stances?
Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.
Nope its not a Finesse Weapon its an unarmed attack
Does Bespell Weapon allow you to use the Free Action on the following turn after casting a spell?
If not, why does it use the language "Most recent action" instead of "last"/"next" action like the Metamagic or Trip action of the wolf?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, I'm creating a lvl 4 bear companion, the book says (pag 214) "companions gain 6hp +Con Modifier for EACH level you have" my bear has +2Con.
Should I apply that to lvl 1 for a total of 40hp... Or not count lvl 1, for a total of 32 HP?
I read around the forums someone wasn't counting it, they also had a bear at lvl 3 for a total of 24 hp... But in a different post, someone spoke of having a bear at lvl 5 having 48 hp (which would make sense if that person counted the formula for level 1, so at level 1 the bear had 16hp)... Anyone knows?
AC HP are class HP, just like Fighter HP. That's why Animal Companions are listed in the Class chapter.
8+4(6+2)=40
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Multiplication before addition.
ENVENOM FANGS [one-action] FEAT 5
LIZARDFOLK
Prerequisites Sharp Fangs
Frequency a number of times per day equal to your level
You envenom your fangs. If the next fangs Strike you make before the end of your
next turn hits and deals damage, the Strike deals an additional 1d6 poison damage.
On a critical failure, the poison is wasted as normal.
What is the point of the bolded text? The Feat already states that the venom is used up after your next strike, whether or not it was successful. This additional line adds confusion to the intention. Is the venom supposed to last until I hit and deal damage, or until I get a critical failure, whichever comes first? Or does it only last for a single strike, regardless of outcome like the rest of the Feat says?
|
|
What is the point of the bolded text? The Feat already states that the venom is used up after your next strike, whether or not it was successful. This additional line adds confusion to the intention. Is the venom supposed to last until I hit and deal damage, or until I get a critical failure, whichever comes first? Or does it only last for a single strike, regardless of outcome like the rest of the Feat says?ENVENOM FANGS [one-action] FEAT 5
LIZARDFOLK
Prerequisites Sharp Fangs
Frequency a number of times per day equal to your level
You envenom your fangs. If the next fangs Strike you make before the end of your
next turn hits and deals damage, the Strike deals an additional 1d6 poison damage.
On a critical failure, the poison is wasted as normal.
Until you hit, if you get a Critical Failure the poison is wasted even if you have Strikes remaining.
Until you hit, if you get a Critical Failure the poison is wasted even if you have Strikes remaining.What is the point of the bolded text? The Feat already states that the venom is used up after your next strike, whether or not it was successful. This additional line adds confusion to the intention. Is the venom supposed to last until I hit and deal damage, or until I get a critical failure, whichever comes first? Or does it only last for a single strike, regardless of outcome like the rest of the Feat says?ENVENOM FANGS [one-action] FEAT 5
LIZARDFOLK
Prerequisites Sharp Fangs
Frequency a number of times per day equal to your level
You envenom your fangs. If the next fangs Strike you make before the end of your
next turn hits and deals damage, the Strike deals an additional 1d6 poison damage.
On a critical failure, the poison is wasted as normal.
"If the next fangs Strike you make"
Whether the Strike hits or Misses, the Venom is spent. It does not say "The next fangs Strike that hits".
|
|
That’s exactly what it says if you don’t chop off the ending.
“If the next fangs Strike you make before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, the Strike deals an additional 1d6 poison damage.”
Basically if you miss you don’t lose the poison. But you also don’t get it all on your fang Strikes, just the one that hits.
That’s exactly what it says if you don’t chop off the ending.
“If the next fangs Strike you make before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, the Strike deals an additional 1d6 poison damage.”
Basically if you miss you don’t lose the poison. But you also don’t get it all on your fang Strikes, just the one that hits.
I'm still not seeing how you think it lasts for more than one strike. It only says it modifies the next strike that you make. If it hits you get the bonus, if it doesn't nothing happens. Any strikes after that are just regular strikes.
To work the way you are reading it, it would have to say "until the end of your next turn, the first fangs strike you hit with..."
I think the error is in the use of the word "next." Given the rest of the attack, I think the intent is that it applies until you either hit, critically fail, or your next turn ends, but it's easy to read it instead as saying it only applies to the next attack you make regardless of how the roll ends up.
Thank you. That's why I posted in this thread in the hopes of getting clarification. As written, it is a confusing mess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incorporeal
An incorporeal creature or object has no physical form. It can pass through solid objects, including walls. When inside an object, an incorporeal creature can’t perceive, attack, or interact with anything outside the object, and if it starts its turn in an object, it is slowed 1. Corporeal creatures can pass through an incorporeal creature, but they can’t end their movement in its space.
An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.
Incorporeal creatures usually have immunity to effects or conditions that require a physical body, like disease, poison, and precision damage. They usually have resistance against all damage (except force damage and damage from Strikes with the ghost touch property rune), with double the resistance against non-magical damage.
...so, they're immune to melee attacks from corporeal creatures that don't have the finesse trait? It states that said creatures can't even *attempt* Strength-based checks against them (and for those of you who want to point out Strike is what a creature is attempting, it states that Strike uses the appropriate attack roll as per the Attack Roll rules, which call out ranged vs melee rolls, and that they are checks (much like AC is a special type of DC, but it *is* a DC), and specifically that they are Strength-based checks).
It doesn't help that every incorporeal monster has finesse trait for their melee attack(s) or sometimes they don't have melee attacks at all. The only exception to this seems to be the Adventure Path monsters, which are the only ones that don't have the finesse entry to their melee attacks.
So, now not only can incorporeals maybe hover/not hover/are affected by gravity/aren't affected by gravity, but now you can't even attack them and they can't attack you unless it is a ranged attack, magic, or finesse.