| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's the intent, Rysky, but I'm a bit unclear on it too.
I think the intent is that you can still attack a ghost (since they're resistant to nonmagical weapon damage and that would be kinda strange if you can't), but what about Grapple or Trip?
Again, seems obvious that Trip is probably the kind of Strength-based check they're referring to, but a Trip check isn't really that distinct from a Strike action, what with both of them being attack rolls that use similar attribute modifiers.
And then, since the text specifices 'strength based' does that mean you can trip a Ghost, but only if you're doing it with a finesse trip weapon, so you can roll Dex instead?
I think we can navigate this rule to figure out developer intent, but there's enough weirdness with the text that I think it warrants some attention from Paizo nonetheless.
Also "it's a check based on your Strength, but not a Strength-based check" is some real PF1 era pedantry. Not enthused about that kind of paradigm showing up again here.
Take a cue from the card game. Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks are all distinct. A strength check is still a strength check even if you use an ability to apply your Dex instead.
Take a cue from the card game. Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks are all distinct. A strength check is still a strength check even if you use an ability to apply your Dex instead.
That's not really how it works: Skill Descriptions "As the actions of a skill aren’t comprehensive, there may be times when the GM asks you to attempt a skill check without using any of the listed actions, or times when the GM asks you to roll using a different key ability modifier." They also tend to say things like "Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks" instead of just 'stat' check. It's very hard for me to call a check you use dex for a str BASED check. So I don't think you can just take, say Athletics, and say any roll you use with it is Str based because it's key stat is that even when you're rolling a different stat for it.
Then going by what you said, an Athletics check could never be a combat check if you make it a str check as they are different things even when used in combat: that'd lead to very odd/strange things.
I'm not sure how that latter proposed example follows.
He said "Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks are all distinct." That means an athletics check is ONLY one of "Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks". As such, if you make it a str check, it can never be a combat check and is unusable in combat. If Acrobatics is a dex check then you can't use it in combat to escape. If Strike is a combat check, I can't use it to destroy a cart for firewood. When you make this HAVE to fit in only one column, it's going to make things wonky as things are obviously in multiple columns. I can't see how combat changes what stat the roll is based on vs non-combat.
I think that's the intent, Rysky, but I'm a bit unclear on it too.
I think the intent is that you can still attack a ghost (since they're resistant to nonmagical weapon damage and that would be kinda strange if you can't), but what about Grapple or Trip?
Again, seems obvious that Trip is probably the kind of Strength-based check they're referring to, but a Trip check isn't really that distinct from a Strike action, what with both of them being attack rolls that use similar attribute modifiers.
And then, since the text specifices 'strength based' does that mean you can trip a Ghost, but only if you're doing it with a finesse trip weapon, so you can roll Dex instead?
I think we can navigate this rule to figure out developer intent, but there's enough weirdness with the text that I think it warrants some attention from Paizo nonetheless.
Also "it's a check based on your Strength, but not a Strength-based check" is some real PF1 era pedantry. Not enthused about that kind of paradigm showing up again here.
That disheartening, honestly. It is pedantic, to the nth degree.
If checks that use Strength as an attribute bonus aren't "Strength-based", then tell me just what the hell is? If a check that is using an attribute for numerical reference (i.e. *any* check with a d20 essentially) is not based on that attribute, then what should it be called? "A check that just so happens to add Strength as a bonus, but we're both agreeing to keep it mutual and take it slow since we've both been hurt by rolls in the past. I really appreciate how he listens"-check? Come on, people, at a certain point you actually need to figure out that just because you can say what it isn't doesn't mean you've answered for what it is.
So, Rysky, hate to say it, but this time you're wrong about that Strength nonsense. And if it's all the same, we're pointing at the evidence (which you've all actually done for me, so I won't reference it at any great length). Strikes use melee or ranged attack rolls as appropriate. However, Strike is an action, not a check. It requires a check. Please don't use that as an argument because it's invalid and useless and, ultimately, does nothing but convolute the question.
Melee and ranged attack rolls are classified as checks. The CRB dictates as such. As I stated before, AC is still a DC, even though it's a "special" kind of DC.
The ultimate question is: since melee is a STRENGTH-BASED CHECK (per CRB) does that mean incorporeals/corporeals cannot attack each other with melee attack rolls unless they possess the finesse trait? And if so, why the random distinction?
Sure, rules as intended could be something argued about all day long, but Paizo, I can't read your mind. I don't much care what you *intended* to mean - the words in the book that tell us GMs how to do A, B, and C respectively have said something that is just frustratingly vague enough to not be able to be solved.
Will I make a ruling at my table? Absolutely. I have to. But am I frustrated that something this simple doesn't have a straightforward answer? You bet your arse I am.
|
And we had these arguments in P1, where Strength-Based check, and a check that uses Strength are not the same thing, and thus what I was going off with your current question, since either:
A) that rule is still in play in P2 in some effect (attacks are fine and still work but things like Athletics won't affect ghosts, this is what supposed to be happening regardless of wording)
or
B) Nothing that uses strength at all can affect incorporeals but dexterity based is just fine, which is just flat wrong.
No idea if this was answered before...
What is the hardness of a Monk's unarmed attack with Adamantine Strikes applied, for the purposes of overcoming material hardness?
And is it actually legal to Strike an object?
And is it actually legal to Strike an object?
"You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack)." As written, creature only. Pretty much the only way to attack objects is with a hand full of spells that specifically target them.
What is the hardness of a Monk's unarmed attack with Adamantine Strikes applied, for the purposes of overcoming material hardness?
You have no hardness [it's object only] so it's for things like Shuln's "Resistances physical 10 (except adamantine or bludgeoning)".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And is it actually legal to Strike an object?"You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack)." As written, creature only. Pretty much the only way to attack objects is with a hand full of spells that specifically target them.
There's actually a lot of evidence for objects being able to be attacked. The Wrecker Animal Companion option makes specific reference to bonuses when attacking objects, and the rules on objects reference being unable to attack attended ones under normal circumstances.
Both are clear indicators of the rules assuming you can attack objects. As is logic, of course. It being omitted as an option under Strike naturally remains a serious problem, but several rules still indicate you can.
I'm not sure how that latter proposed example follows.He said "Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks are all distinct." That means an athletics check is ONLY one of "Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks".
No it doesn't. "The items on this list are all different" does not mean "there are no items that are not on this list".
There's actually a lot of evidence for objects being able to be attacked.
Oh, I agree that there should be other ways to attack objects and that the rules infer that you can damage them: I was only pointing out that currently you only have some spells to do that [or DM fiat].
As is logic, of course. It being omitted as an option under Strike naturally remains a serious problem, but several rules still indicate you can.
The issue is deeper than an omission of object from Strike but the entire mechanics of what that strike would look like: what would the AC, hardness, hp and/or saves be for that random object? Can you crit? Can you fail? It's all in the air.
Myself, I'm in favor of a new action [like Smash or Sunder] that lets you deal damage to objects without a roll: it just deals weapon damage + str bonus. This removes needing an AC/save for items leaving only Hardness and HP to figure out.
No it doesn't. "The items on this list are all different" does not mean "there are no items that are not on this list".
That makes no sense to me. If they are different, that means they can't be the same... Once you pick a category for a roll it's distinct and immutable by what was suggested: IE once you make the choice what an athletics check is, his statement is that it's then a distinct roll. If you have another way to read "Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks are all distinct" please explain: if it can be multiple things, it's not distinct...
There's actually a lot of evidence for objects being able to be attacked.Oh, I agree that there should be other ways to attack objects and that the rules infer that you can damage them: I was only pointing out that currently you only have some spells to do that [or DM fiat].
As is logic, of course. It being omitted as an option under Strike naturally remains a serious problem, but several rules still indicate you can.The issue is deeper than an omission of object from Strike but the entire mechanics of what that strike would look like: what would the AC, hardness, hp and/or saves be for that random object? Can you crit? Can you fail? It's all in the air.
Myself, I'm in favor of a new action [like Smash or Sunder] that lets you deal damage to objects without a roll: it just deals weapon damage + str bonus. This removes needing an AC/save for items leaving only Hardness and HP to figure out.
No it doesn't. "The items on this list are all different" does not mean "there are no items that are not on this list".That makes no sense to me. If they are different, that means they can't be the same... Once you pick a category for a roll it's distinct and immutable by what was suggested: IE once you make the choice what an athletics check is, his statement is that it's then a distinct roll. If you have another way to read "Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks are all distinct" please explain: if it can be multiple things, it's not distinct...
Squares and Rectangles are distinct, but Squares ARE Rectangles.
Squares and Rectangles are distinct, but Squares ARE Rectangles.
There is no point in the distinction then: What's the point of "Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks are all distinct" if they can be interchangeable in some way? What is the meaning of the interchangeable distinction in relation to the question of Incorporeal? If they aren't separate categories, why make them?
Because sometimes they are.
Again, then what's the point of the distinction? If a dex check can also be a combat check then I just don't see the point of RexAliquid's post. "A strength check is still a strength check even if you use an ability to apply your Dex instead" seems to indicate that they think that if something is one kind of check, it can't be another kind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes
Again, then what's the point of the distinction?
I can bold things too. That doesn't really make a persuasive argument or explain anything though...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This seems excessively harsh relative to 1E, where the target of your grab is pulled adjacent to you (so they can at least attack you in response)
There's GM guidance about allowing players to attack extended limbs. It's not a hard rule, but it's something worth pointing out in this case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because rules interactions require that they overlap and some don't.
... "Again, then what's the point of the distinction?" If you aren't answering that, I'm not sure why you keep posting replies. Overlap in no way explains why "Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks are all distinct" should be the way we look at it.
No it doesn't. "The items on this list are all different" does not mean "there are no items that are not on this list".That makes no sense to me. If they are different, that means they can't be the same... Once you pick a category for a roll it's distinct and immutable by what was suggested: IE once you make the choice what an athletics check is, his statement is that it's then a distinct roll. If you have another way to read "Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks are all distinct" please explain: if it can be multiple things, it's not distinct...
It's a matter of logic. I said that "the items on this list are all different" does not mean "there are no items that are not on this list". That latter assertion is apparently an unstated premise in the original argument. If the elements of the argument are "the items on this list are all different" And "there are no items that are not on this list" then the conclusion that an athletics check must be one of the things on the list of different checks is valid. But that's not what he said.
I don't really see what you're arguing at this point honestly.
I've never been sure what you where arguing about from the start: that's what I've been trying to figure out.
It's a matter of logic.
I agree: "Combat checks, strength checks and dexterity checks are all distinct" was followed by "A strength check is still a strength check even if you use an ability to apply your Dex instead." The logical inference, IMO, is that the argument is that they are distinct because they can't be interchangeable. If that's not the argument, then "A strength check is still a strength check even if you use an ability to apply your Dex instead" makes no sense along with a need to differentiate between rolls past the actual stat you roll with. To me the logical thing is that a roll you add str to is a strength check no matter when it's used or what the key stat is. I was never sure what the point of a combat roll distinction as it didn't seem like a meaningful distinction: a roll for acrobatics shouldn't change depending if you're in or out of combat.
Well, I guess we need to know what was intended by "combat checks". I'd do some research but it's late, so I'm going to bed instead. :-)
Is it intended that things like Oozes, Swarms, or Living Whirlwind can be Grappled and Tripped, and that things like Snakes, Spiders, Sharks, Aboleths, Lillends, Baomal's, etc... can be Tripped, or is that an oversight?
It seems absurd that a Barbarian can put a Spider Swarm in a headlock, or that literally anyone can Trip a Gelatinous Cube, but I can't find any rules that would prevent it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mesmerizing Performance DC
Animal Trainer Dedication gets your animal companion trained in performance. So IMO, it'd be DC = 10 + level + 2 [prof] + cha [+0]. The archetype can allow your animal companion to get to legendary in Performance.
Not a rules question per se, but I think it's topical -
Why is the trigger for reactive shield restricted to melee attacks? Why, despite the trigger, does the AC bonus apply to all attacks?
Pg. 292 of the CRB lists Tindertwigs (10) for 2sp, but on Pg. 554 they are listed as 2sp for 1. Which is correct? That's a fairly substantial difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a Leshy, you can take the Fungus Leshy heritage. While this only grants the Darkvision trait, wouldn't you also lose the [Plant] trait and be considered a [Fungus] now? It seems silly to be a Fungus Leshy only in name and not in mechanics as well.
Additionally, if you had summoned a Fungus Leshy and it died near you, would you be able to benefit from its Verdant Burst, which heals fungi specifically?
|
Do you need a different formula for each type of spell for a scroll to craft?
Ie. Do you need 2 separate formulas to craft a scroll of magic missile and a scroll of mage armor?
As an add-on to this - what about wands? Is there a generic 'wand of 1st-level spell' formula to make a any 1st-level spell into a wand, or do you need a separate formula for each spell?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a Leshy, you can take the Fungus Leshy heritage. While this only grants the Darkvision trait, wouldn't you also lose the [Plant] trait and be considered a [Fungus] now? It seems silly to be a Fungus Leshy only in name and not in mechanics as well.
The PFS guidelines say you do indeed become a fungus in a mechanical sense. That's not controlling in a rules sense for non-PFS games, but it's probably indicative of intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess PFS is the shiny new FAQ/Errata process? /s
So I guess PFS is the shiny new FAQ/Errata process? /s
I mean it's as good a start as any. PFS players arguably need faster decisions for things like this than home players, due to table variation being so damaging to the format (keeping the same character for multiple tables/gm's). If that translated to faster rulings for rules interactions for everyone, that wouldn't be a bad thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously though, APG is officially in the printer's hands now, so I expect Errata to be on the burner so to speak.
Seriously though, APG is officially in the printer's hands now, so I expect Errata to be on the burner so to speak.
I would certainly hope so! But we'll have to wait and see.
So I guess PFS is the shiny new FAQ/Errata process? /s
That was pretty much how it was in PF1 too. PFS would have updates long before the official game did and would often have rules changes/fixes for content that the FAQ/errata team refused to touch.
For Glyph of Warding, how many Glyphs can you have if you gain a second magic tradition (such as through Archetype feats)? Does it matter if it uses the same or a different Spellcasting Ability?
[...]The maximum number of glyphs of warding you can have active at a time is equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.
I think there is a ring that allows you to cast a glyph of warding as well. Would that count toward your max limit?