The current vague senses I've found are sense evil from champion and grave sense from some archetype. Human scent is described as vague as well.
The Goblin Ancestry Feat allows a character to craft shoddy equipment out of junk. This reduces the cost to craft, using the crafting rules, by half. The crafting rules have the character work for 4 days, supply half the value of the item in materials, and then craft as if earning downtime income to pay off the rest.
This means that using Junk Tinker has the character pays less, but then work that much longer to cover the rest of the price. In all cases, using Junk Tinker makes a character work for 50% longer after the initial 4 days. The normal crafter has to cover 1/2 the original price with work. The Junk Tinker crafter has to cover 3/4 of the original price with work.
Surely this feat was meant to allow a Goblin to throw together an unsellable, unsharable, ugly item quickly and cheaply.
Sapient wrote: The Goblin Ancestry Feat blah blah blah Never mind. That was wrong. Junk Tinker reduces the item price before crafting calculations begin.
Edit:t hey ninja'd me themselves.
Am I misunderstanding the feat.. or doesn't Junk Tinkerer change the actual value of the item for purpose of your crafting?
So you would start out at the 1/4th item as the base price.
work 4 dayspay 1/2 of that 1/4 (basically 1/8th) then either pay the extra 1/8th, or work for a day or two more (depending on level) to get the last 1/8th free?
--------
As a stem question. junk tinkerer is only for lv 0 items right? Meaning you can't make Shoddy Alchemist Bombs or shoddy mutagen or elixirs right?
Its only lv 0 items initially right.?
I got excited briefly thinking I could "shoddy" alchemist items and make some during downtime that are "my brew! You're too dumb to know how to use it right! gnaa" bombs ands uch.
Initially thought it just lowered the item level by 1 or something to make them shoddy. haha.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
This is a cleared up version of a thread I started in this subforum:
Can a spontaneous spellcaster use a higher level spell slot in casting a lower level spell without heightening?
If impossible, situations like having to cast 4~5 times per day any spell without heightening options are rendered invalid, so I desparately require some form of official answering...
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I've found three threads about rogue minor magic, but none point to a clear rules based decision on how it works. Is minor magic meant to make the rogue proficient in spell rolls and DCs, are they meant to use a specific stat, is it a class DC and a new "class roll" for attacks? Is it meaningful that they don't gain the "cast a spell" activity as multiclass archetypes do? Are the spells meant to be innate despite the innate description explicitly stating that spells from your class aren't innate?
Do I need to be good aligned to multiclass into champion since it has you chose a cause?
Paolotsname wrote: Do I need to be good aligned to multiclass into champion since it has you chose a cause? "Choose a deity and cause as you would if you were a champion"; I think this line indicates that yes, you need to be the appropriate alignment for your cause.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
zer0darkfire wrote: Paolotsname wrote: Do I need to be good aligned to multiclass into champion since it has you chose a cause? "Choose a deity and cause as you would if you were a champion"; I think this line indicates that yes, you need to be the appropriate alignment for your cause. At the moment I'd say that's correct, but I expect to see, some day, champions and causes for all nine alignments.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Question: Does taking a spellcasting class archetype gain the spellcasting class feature? For example, does a fighter with the wizard dedication gain that feature?
Question: it appears that the fighter dedication grants no armor proficiency. Is that intentional?
Question: what paths are available to qualification as a Hellknight signifer?
Am I correct in assuming Unconventional Weaponry does nothing if you take it as a Wizard, since they aren't trained in simple weapons to begin with?
Squiggit wrote: Am I correct in assuming Unconventional Weaponry does nothing if you take it as a Wizard, since they aren't trained in simple weapons to begin with? Exactly. It seems that the general rule when considering anything as a Wizard is "it won't work".
For those watching the stream, did you hear their (hilarious) answer to the question about the difficulty of getting into Armiger if you don't start with any armour proficiencies XD XD XD
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
NemoNoName wrote: For those watching the stream, did you hear their (hilarious) answer to the question about the difficulty of getting into Armiger if you don't start with any armour proficiencies XD XD XD Nope. Which stream? Alternatively, what did they say?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So a brutish shove gives you the effect of a shove if you hit (or a critical succes shove, if the hit was a crit). But what happens when you also have polearm crit specialization?
Do both trigger? And do you apply both or only the highest?
Does one trigger first and the second only if you are still in range? If so which triggers first?
Can I target a concealed ally with a spell like heal without the DC 5 flat check?
The concealed condition doesn't seem to differentiate between hostile and non-hostile effect. Neither does it mention anything about willing targets or distinguish between friend and foe.
Blave wrote: Can I target a concealed ally with a spell like heal without the DC 5 flat check?
The concealed condition doesn't seem to differentiate between hostile and non-hostile effect. Neither does it mention anything about willing targets or distinguish between friend and foe.
My group has been playing through Age of Ashes with the understanding that you need to make a flat check to target allies. My character was blinded at one point, making it very difficult to heal allies correctly, which makes sense. My GM, however, and I think most other GMs could do this too, allowed us to help each other bypass the concealment. For example, when I was blind, I stumbled over to my ally in touch range and they could grab my hand or "lean into" my spell effect if its off target, making it impossible to miss them since we were already now touching or in point-blank range.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Magic Weapon is written for 'you or a willing ally', yet Magic Fang is written only for 'one willing ally'. You are not your own ally. Can you explain why the difference when they both are just similar utility buffs?
Dirge of Doom says: "Foes within the area are frightened 1. They can't reduce their frightened value below 1 while they remain in the area."
Bravery says: "In addition, anytime you gain the frightened condition, reduce its value by 1."
Which one wins? I'm under the impression that Dirge of Doom prevents you from ever reducing your frightened below 1, no matter what the ability states. In addition, Bravery says you need to gain the frightened condition before it reduces it, it doesn't prevent you from getting frightened 1 in the first place, making it sound more likely Dirge of Doom wins in my book.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I'm having a little trouble with Conditions
Enfeebled give status penalty to strength-based rolls and DCs and including strength-based attack rolls, strength-based damage rolls, and Athletics.
The question is what does the including part mean?
I assumed that it would have included a -1 on all strength based rolls including damage.
Now frightened 1 gives a -1 status on all checks and DCs. Does frightened 1 apply -1 to damage? Or is it just a special variant to these status effects where Enfeebled gives to damage?
The spell, Illusory Creature, states that the creature you make can take 2 actions when you sustain the spell and rolls to hit and deals mental damage, etc. However, does the creature possess any of its special abilities? Can it use its grab? Any of its reactions? Any of its special attacks as long as it has the actions? The spell is already like a 5 paragraph essay, but I feel like it still needs more information on how it works.
Currents and Flowing Water (Core Rulebook, p512):
"Ocean currents, flowing rivers, and similar moving water are difficult terrain or greater difficult terrain (depending on the speed of the water) for a creature Swimming against the current."
At what current speed does it go from being difficult terrain to greater difficult terrain? Does it depend on the creature's Swim speed? Is this left to GM fiat?
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Q1: Can you equip a buckler at the same time as a two-handed weapon?
Q2: If so, can you shield block with it?
Q3: Shelyn's preferred weapon is a glaive. Does a scythe meet her criteria as well?
Ranger Feat: Snare Specialist and other associated feats/ rules:
Can a Snare Specialist Ranger batch craft their "free" snares using only 3 actions? Can multiple Snares occupy the same 5 foot square, regardless of when they are crafted?
zer0darkfire wrote: Pathfinder 2nd edition rulebook wrote: Experience allows you to cast some spells more flexibly. For each spell level you have access to, choose one spell of that level to be a signature spell. You don’t need to learn heightened versions of signature spells separately; instead, you can heighten these spells freely. If you’ve learned a signature spell at a higher level than its minimum, you can also cast all its lower-level versions without learning those separately. If you swap out a signature spell, you can choose a replacement signature spell of the same spell level at which you learned the previous spell. You can also retrain specifically to change a signature spell to a different spell of that level without swapping any spells; this takes as much time as retraining a spell normally does. So, in signature spells, nothing indicates that you pick a spell currently in your repertoire. Is it intended to be a spell you already know, or can it be any spell of that level, and if so, do these spells functionally become bonus spells in your repertoire? If anyone is interested in this question, Mark answered it with: "Oh, you definitely don't gain spells to your repertoire if the rules don't say you do". So that answers that. Still a little weird that you can pick a spell you don't know for almost no benefit, but I guess thats a choice you can make, just like you could make a 10 intelligence wizard for whatever reason you wanted to.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ed Reppert wrote: Q3: Shelyn's preferred weapon is a glaive. Does a scythe meet her criteria as well? All deity weapons are specific. A scimitar won't do for Iomedae, and a scythe won't do for Shelyn. That said, a non-Cleric can readily use whatever weapon they want while worshiping whatever deity they like.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
That makes sense. Makes the Champion's "Deific Weapon" pretty much useless, except for fluff, if it's a martial weapon, or common. The glaive is both.
Why has Paizo chosen in PF2 to make fixed and uniform within each class the number of elevations of skills above Trained?
Traditionally, class has been the primary determiner of skill count, but marginally modified by INT (plus one additional skill from choosing Human as one's race). In PF2, Human only grants half a skill, so to speak (the player selects one additional, skill, and it only ever elevates to Expert), and INT has been entirely removed from the equation.
Beyond that it seems questionably logical for one's intelligence to have an effect on how many skills one can dabble in yet have no impact on one's ability to further improve one's skills, I run into the following problem:
On the one side of the coin, I end up with every skill in the book Trained, plus an extra Lore or two, because "gains an additional Trained skill" is so prolifically rewarded, and I can't spend it to elevate as skill I already have. This results in my character having--well, again, all the skills, which implies that he has a number of skills for no reason other than I had to spend those gains on something or else waste them entirely. He has a number of skills, thus, which are not motivated by character design, character role-play, or play history.
On the other side of the same coin, I have skills which the character uses regularly, but which are not elevated above Trained, because I cannot do so without sacrificing class-key* skills.
*"class-key skills" in this case meaning skills which unlock Class Features.
An example would be a Ranger build. I can keep him maxed out in a selection of three class-key skills, e.g. Survival, Nature, and let us say Crafting (for a Snares build), but this means he will never be anything more than Trained in Stealth, Athletics, and Healing, even though he would be regularly using these as part of the Ranger lifestyle which justifies him becoming Legendary in the other three. Or, I can elevate his Stealth, and this somehow detracts from his abilities in Survival. Also, by being only Trained in Stealth, this Ranger has exactly the same proficiency in Stealth as he has in Perform, Society, and Diplomacy, because I end up taking all the skills, eventually, or tossing skill-adds in the trash.
In final effect, it's weird, to say the least. I do understand limits. I think ancestry feats and background selections providing only skill-adds is the right choice, because these are selected at level 1, and so do not reflect a character's experience as a hero progressing toward legendary status. I think INT-boost items providing a skill-add rather than a skill increase is appropriate and thematic.
However, I must side with previous editions on the effects of inherent INT and INT growth in a character. If an ability boost which increased INT Mod granted a Skill Increase rather than simply yet another skill-add, this would mimic the relationship of INT to skills in previous editions, and it would give me that little bit of play around the margins to represent a character who, at least by dint of raw intelligence, is able to see the relationships between synergistic skills and, for instance, be a fully developed Legendary Ranger whose stealth is at least better than his Arcana. Or who maybe, having spent all his life in the wilderness, is more Expert in Athletics than in Diplomacy and Society.
Related question: Why the choice to gate Class Features and other powers on skills rather than abilities, as was traditionally done?
Also related question: Does not this choice, and the choice regarding skill increases, further relegate INT to status as the bastard step-sibling among the ability scores? It was already hard enough to convince most characters to spend opportunity-cost on increasing INT, back when INT was a gate to high level spells and other features, as well as a way to increase the number of usefully elevated skills. Now, it provides neither. Note, particularly, that it does not increase the number of elevated skills, in a game where powers are skill-gated rather than ability-gated. Which leaves INT to serve what functions? It provides the smallest of the three innate components (ability, proficiency, level) in 5 skill modifiers, and... Really, that's it. The two classes which depend on INT for Class Saves and Spell Attacks can buff INT for those purposes using items, meaning they can spend money to make up the shortfall, and spend their Ability Boosts (at creation and beyond) on other abilities.
The above is my reasoning. I would be very interested to know the devs'.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Just a simple question regarding dwarves:
DWARVEN WEAPON FAMILIARITY FEAT 1 DWARF Your kin have instilled in you an affinity for hard-hitting weapons, and you prefer these to more elegant arms. You are trained with the battle axe, pick, and warhammer. You also gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons. For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons.
As this applies for determining your proficiency when a fighter gains
Fighter Weapon Mastery 5th Hours spent training with your preferred weapons, learning and developing new combat techniques, have made you particularly effective with your weapons of choice. Choose one weapon group. Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple and martial weapons in that group, and to expert with the advanced weapons in that group. You gain access to the critical specialization effects (page 283) of all weapons for which you have master proficiency.
Does this carry over to your dwarven weapons say for dwarven waraxe?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Druid: Wild Morph focus ability
This ability is strange. The way it is written strongly suggests that you attack with both claws at once. It states "These claws are an unarmed attack you're trained in and deal 1d6 slashing damage EACH."
So here's my break down of that statement.
"These claws" is plural. So it is referring to both claws together as one.
"Are *AN* unarmed attack" is singular. So you make 1 attack roll, which uses both of your claws.
"Deal 1d6 slashing damage *EACH*" Means you roll damage twice, and add them together.
Because these are single die attacks, both are easily buffed by striking handwraps, or in the eratta, magic fang. So a strinking handwrap would cause this attack to deal 4d6 dmg as written.
Just about everyone on reddit who I asked about this disagrees. They believe that's meant to be 1d6 dmg, period. Though when I explained my reasoning, they also seem to think the phrasing makes it sound like that, but they think the wording must just be a mistake from paizo.
So please, if this is *not* how druids claws work, could that be edited to mirror the phrasing of the draconic sorcerer's claws? That was very clear and is literally the same thing. In fact, the existance of those claws is why I'm still not convinced i'm reading it wrong. Why would they be phrased differently in the first place? If I am reading correctly, and it deals 2d6 base, and 4d6 with striking, then it needs to be made *much* clearer, because people are missing it.
Further evidence in favor of my interpretation: Wild morph Druids got screwed on focus points. They get 1 unless they burn a ton of feats. This suggests the one ability they have should be vastly more powerful than those that easily get 2 to 3 points.
It states you can't hold anything in your hand while attacking. So shields are out. Apparently this can only be done as a 2 claw attack. Otherwise, that statement would be "you may not hold an object in a hand with which you are attacking", so that you can attack with 1 hand and raise your shield with the other. Taking this ability away makes this a 2 hand attack, which should again, deal extra damage.
BjörnToKill wrote: Druid: Wild Morph focus ability
This ability is strange. The way it is written strongly suggests that you attack with both claws at once. It states "These claws are an unarmed attack you're trained in and deal 1d6 slashing damage EACH."
So here's my break down of that statement.
"These claws" is plural. So it is referring to both claws together as one.
"Are *AN* unarmed attack" is singular. So you make 1 attack roll, which uses both of your claws.
"Deal 1d6 slashing damage *EACH*" Means you roll damage twice, and add them together.
Because these are single die attacks, both are easily buffed by striking handwraps, or in the eratta, magic fang. So a strinking handwrap would cause this attack to deal 4d6 dmg as written.
Just about everyone on reddit who I asked about this disagrees. They believe that's meant to be 1d6 dmg, period. Though when I explained my reasoning, they also seem to think the phrasing makes it sound like that, but they think the wording must just be a mistake from paizo.
So please, if this is *not* how druids claws work, could that be edited to mirror the phrasing of the draconic sorcerer's claws? That was very clear and is literally the same thing. In fact, the existance of those claws is why I'm still not convinced i'm reading it wrong. Why would they be phrased differently in the first place? If I am reading correctly, and it deals 2d6 base, and 4d6 with striking, then it needs to be made *much* clearer, because people are missing it.
Further evidence in favor of my interpretation: Wild morph Druids got screwed on focus points. They get 1 unless they burn a ton of feats. This suggests the one ability they have should be vastly more powerful than those that easily get 2 to 3 points.
It states you can't hold anything in your hand while attacking. So shields are out. Apparently this can only be done as a 2 claw attack. Otherwise, that statement would be "you may not hold an object in a hand with which you are attacking", so that you can attack with 1 hand and...
The Wild morph means that both your hands are elegible for attacks.
So you could grab with a claw, and still maintain the clan effect because you have 2 paws.
Also attacks like twin feint and double slice require 2 weapons. By doing so, you will be elegible because you will have 2 hands.
You won't get a super double attack for free. It is obvious if you compare the dmg with any other class.
K1 wrote: Also attacks like twin feint and double slice require 2 weapons. By doing so, you will be elegible because you will have 2 hands. Unarmed attacks aren't counted as weapons so they don't work with feats that require weapons.
"However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so"
Hi all!
I first asked this via email, and I was instructed to come here, and ask it here. I pre-apologise if it was already asked:
So... The question is: Chill Touch and Multiple Attack Penalty -->
MAP says, for every attack CHECKS it gets harder to hit. Ok.
Chill Touch attacks without a check, but it has the attack trait.
Does this mean it passes automaticly it's attack check, and induce multiple attack penalty, so I should better hit the monstaz with my rapier first, and then use my chill touching cruelty later.
OR
It has no check so I can chill touch, and sting with my blade however I wish, because it DOES NOT generate MAP?
Thank you for your help!
Adam
Adika wrote: Hi all!
I first asked this via email, and I was instructed to come here, and ask it here. I pre-apologise if it was already asked:
So... The question is: Chill Touch and Multiple Attack Penalty -->
MAP says, for every attack CHECKS it gets harder to hit. Ok.
Chill Touch attacks without a check, but it has the attack trait.
Does this mean it passes automaticly it's attack check, and induce multiple attack penalty, so I should better hit the monstaz with my rapier first, and then use my chill touching cruelty later.
OR
It has no check so I can chill touch, and sting with my blade however I wish, because it DOES NOT generate MAP?
Thank you for your help!
Adam
A few spells (including chill touch) were changed from being spell attacks to being saving throw based during the shift from playtest to live version.
But they kept the old traits (attack trait on said saving throw spells, non attack trait on spells that now have attack rolls)
My PERSONAL opinion is:
That this is simply a typo and not intentional.
But RAW, if you use chill touch and then attack, you will suffer MAP (but if you first attack and then chill touch you'll suffer nothing, hence why I strongly think it's a typo)
K1 wrote: It is obvious if you compare the dmg with any other class. I see your logic, but find that to be a terrible argument. Under no circumstances should a player be required to go figure out how a spell balances against other classes to see if it works. It should stand on its own. And when read alone, it reads exactly as I've described it. You might be right, but if you are, then I'll say again, this needs to be reworded to mirror the much clearer draconic sorcerer claw ability.
Also, it's not "free" as you stated. It specifically says "You cannot hold an item while attacking". It does not say "you cannot hold an item in the hand that is being used for an attack". If you are holding an item - at all - you may not attack. So you cannot hold a shield, and you cannot hold a staff. This is effectively a 2 handed attack, which means the damage die should be increased beyond a d6. 1d12 for a 2 handed melee attack is not obscene and 2d6 is only slightly better than that.
Then when you add to this that you must focus for 10 minutes between each use, as compaired to a 2 handed weapon that you can just spam over and over, it seems fair.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Somebody makes a rule. Somebody else notes that the rule says X. Yet another somebody says "oh, that can't be right, it must be a typo."
Until it's officially corrected, it says X.
|
