Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Searched the thread but didn't see this one mentioned yet:
Wrestler Dedication gives a bonus to your Fortitude DC against being Swallow Whole-ed, but Swallow Whole is typically a Reflex save.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
In Impossible lands, there is conflicting information on how long Imirh the Amaranthine has been the principle spiritforger.
On page 280 it says: "Dunn Palovar was only able to find
a suitable replacement in the last year."
But on page 285 it says "When the Amaranthine took the mantle, Iranez
presented him with one question both she and the Principle Fleshforger
want answered: who caused the Evisceration? They’ve been waiting 14
years now for his answer"
So did he get the position this year or 14 years ago?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The bulk of the slide pistol is weirdly high. It is 2 bulk, which is more than a musket. Meanwhile, the Liar's Gun is the same thing, but slightly smaller and is light bulk. The latter also seems weirdly low.
The other thing is the Rowan Rifle not having a reload statistic. It is a magic gun, so according to the description it doesn't need ammo. Still, without reload, it is massively stronger than any other ranged weapon in the game. I wouldn't mind it if it were real, but it sticks out.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Rowan Rifle is a level 16 unique magic weapon. It's okay for it to be stronger than normal I think. It's a weapon of legend.
No, the real question is how Concussive interacts with a weapon that does pure energy damage. If you take the trait at face value, the Rowan Rifle deals fire damage just fine to fire elementals (as they generally lack immunity to piercing and bludgeoning). Meanwhile a creature immune to physical damage wouldn't take fire damage from it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
In the Gods & Magic rules for pantheons (pg. 92), it states
Quote: A character who worships a pantheon this way can gain the domains, alternate domains, and spells from the pantheon instead of those from their patron deity. As written, this does not permit the character to take the favored weapon of the pantheon. It seems like the intent is to select the entire stat block of either the patron or the pantheon (with edicts/anathemas of both), so I'm wondering whether or not the omission is intended.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
ratrik wrote: In the Gods & Magic rules for pantheons (pg. 92), it states
Quote: A character who worships a pantheon this way can gain the domains, alternate domains, and spells from the pantheon instead of those from their patron deity. As written, this does not permit the character to take the favored weapon of the pantheon. It seems like the intent is to select the entire stat block of either the patron or the pantheon (with edicts/anathemas of both), so I'm wondering whether or not the omission is intended.
Yes, you take all the things listed for the pantheon (including favored weapon) as if it were your patron deity. This is an omission, not an exception.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The new Oatia Skysage archetype in Gatewalkers needs a few clarifications to function;
First off, the Basic/Expert/Master spellcasting feats grant new spells known but do not explicitly grant Basic/Expert/Master spellcasting benefits, nor does it clarify that these function as innate spells, as the Captivator/Ghost Hunter archetypes spells do. Essentially, the archetype has three feats that grant spells known, but never grant spell slots with which to cast those spells.
Is the intention that these be innate, as with the Captivator? (This would make sense because the spells known progression, like the Captivator, goes up to 9th level).
Or, is the intention that these feats grant Basic/Expert/Master spellcasting benefits implicitly, as is arguably indicated by the “Spellcasting Archetypes” section in the CRB? (This would make sense because the dedication explicitly declares that the Skysage has a Repertoire, as a typical spontaneous caster does.)
Or is the intention something else entirely? It would really help to have some clarity here.
Separately from this, there is also an issue with the 14th level feat Starlight Armor; it’s a 3 action activity to activate, but it has no listed duration. Is it indefinite? Does it last until the Skysages next daily preparations? Ten minutes? One minute? Until the end of the skysage’s next turn?
Since AP archetypes historically don’t get much actual errata, some clarification on intent would be helpful at least.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
From Absalom, City of Lost Omens: Azerketi are unable to breathe underwater. They do have the Amphibious trait, but from the CRB we know that PC ancestry traits "have no mechanical benefit."
Tarpeius wrote: From Absalom, City of Lost Omens: Azerketi are unable to breathe underwater. They do have the Amphibious trait, but from the CRB we know that PC ancestry traits "have no mechanical benefit." Even though it comes from their Ancestry, Amphibious technically may not be an Ancestry trait, i.e. Elf.
Garuda's Squall shouldn't have the Lineage trait, as it's a level 5 ancestry feat that has another Lineage feat as a prerequisite.
...Wait, if fleshwarp doesn't have humanoid trait, it can't have beastkin heritage!
How we can make beastkin turned into Fleshwarp then if that was real!?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2271
Is it intended for Explosive Death Drop to light the PC on fire on a critical success? Since the player would be adjacent to the target when they get slammed down.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Might be. It's not like 1d6 persistent fire damage matters to that character, when at the earliest level they can do that, their Rain of Embers Stance is giving them 7 Fire Resistance.
Oh, I hadn't even considered that part. Yeah, I suppose it mechanically doesn't really matter.
Garuda's Squall has Lineage trait but since Prerequisites has said trait, remove it from former one.
Question on Disrupt undead
The spell reads as follows.
You lance the target with energy. You deal 1d6 positive
damage plus your spellcasting ability modifier. The target
must attempt a basic Fortitude save. If the creature critically
fails the save, it is also enfeebled 1 for 1 round.
I have been informed that this means that if it saves it takes half or no damage depending on the save, but this is not how the spell reads. It reads as if you do the damage and if it crit fails it also is enfeebled. Could this be worded so it is clearer to new players?
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Basic Saving Throw.
The reason that the save also affects the amount of damage taken is because it is listed as a "basic Fortitude save".
The reason that the save also affects the amount of damage taken is because it is listed as a "basic Fortitude save".
While i understand that is how it works. For a new player just reading what the spell does that is not what it says. Could be phrased better is all. I appreciate the clarification.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
*shrugs*
It is a general rule and becomes standard terminology for about 80% of damage dealing spells.
'basic save' is as standard of terminology as 'your spellcasting modifier' or 'enfeebled 1'.
Avoiding reprinting all four outcomes for all of those spells was a deliberate choice made by the design team in order to reduce page count and printing costs.
I'm sorry that it confused you. But I don't think that the decision is going to be reversed.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
"Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Athletics or Constitution, and one is a free ability boost." -- Lost Omens: Firebrands p75
Athletics not being an ability, perhaps it should be Dexterity?
|
7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Despair wrote: "Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Athletics or Constitution, and one is a free ability boost." -- Lost Omens: Firebrands p75
Athletics not being an ability, perhaps it should be Dexterity?
I'd go with the stat for Athletics, Strength until we get an official reply.
I'd look at it further, but it's not out yet on PDF.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Another vote for substituting "Strength" as the stat that gets the ability boost. For the same reason: the Athletics skill uses the Strength modifier to calculate your bonus.
|
12 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Oh, yeah, that should totally be Strength instead of Athletics.
What a silly little mistake. Ha, ha, ha, ha... :(
Runs away to latibulate.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
I had guessed Dexterity because there were a number of other abilities I felt were a bit of a stretch, and it was the one stat not covered by any of the new backgrounds. And multiple had Strength. Also, Dexterity just seemed more of a Thrill Seeker thing than Strength.
Cape of Grand Entrances is giving Circumstance bonus...
If it was giving perma-Circumstance bonus, it should be item bonus.
In my eyes, Circumstance bonus via activation is fine.
Acknowledge Fan is missing incapacitation. I can hardly imagine that a 1 action ability with no frequency ability inflicts stunned 1 on success, stunned 2 on failure and paralyze on crit fail.
Even without a frequency limit I'd say it is an extremely strong ability as you can spam it on lower level enemies.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Musical Accompaniment seems a long stronger than comparable cantrips, such as Guidance, Sense Time, Infectious Enthusiasm, and Forbidding Ward.
No limit on how often you can cast to get the bonus, you get the bonus on every Performance check for a minute, without sustain. It feels comparable to level 1 bless.
It's suddenly by far the best ancestry cantrip for Battledancers, Gladiators, Pistol Phenoms, etc., when it doesn't really seem like the type of thing that's trying to shake up the meta *this* much.
Especially being Common, which makes it slightly easier for a player to sneak it into their build without GM approval.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guidance applies to any check and Infectious Enthusiasm lets you choose between a variety of abilities. Bless applies to all attack rolls in an AoE.
Musical Accompaniment is specific to the worst skill in the game, so it should be a bit better.
Squiggit wrote: Guidance applies to any check and Infectious Enthusiasm lets you choose between a variety of abilities. Bless applies to all attack rolls in an AoE.
Musical Accompaniment is specific to the worst skill in the game, so it should be a bit better.
Many classes specialize in Performance, and can use Performance to do nonstandard things, like Demoralize, or be used to gain Panache, etc. This is a huge buff for those.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Yeah that's probably the point.
It just doesn't follow the pattern of cantrip buffs so far.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Asking this again, hoping for some errata.
Would doubling rings give the +1 item bonus to shield augmentation traits like Shove or versatile S if you have a potency rune on a weapon?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thomas Keller wrote: Would doubling rings give the +1 item bonus to shield augmentation traits like Shove or versatile S if you have a potency rune on a weapon? As I see it, RAW shield augmentation still doesn't say it makes shield a weapon or that augmentation is a weapon for some reason. So doubling rings don't work at all on this shield. On the other hand I don't see any good reason to forbid it.
Though versatile S doesn't interact with +1 item bonus in any case.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Would doubling rings give the +1 item bonus to shield augmentation traits like Shove or versatile S if you have a potency rune on a weapon? As I see it, RAW shield augmentation still doesn't say it makes shield a weapon or that augmentation is a weapon for some reason. So doubling rings don't work at all on this shield. On the other hand I don't see any good reason to forbid it.
Though versatile S doesn't interact with +1 item bonus in any case. Why doesn't versatile S interact with the +1 bonus from a potency rune?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thomas Keller wrote: Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Would doubling rings give the +1 item bonus to shield augmentation traits like Shove or versatile S if you have a potency rune on a weapon? As I see it, RAW shield augmentation still doesn't say it makes shield a weapon or that augmentation is a weapon for some reason. So doubling rings don't work at all on this shield. On the other hand I don't see any good reason to forbid it.
Though versatile S doesn't interact with +1 item bonus in any case. Why doesn't versatile S interact with the +1 bonus from a potency rune? Because versatile S only allows to change damage type to slashing? Which doesn't interact with +1 to hit in any way? Apples and carrots?
Well, +1 to hit from a rune does also make the damage magical, but that again doesn't affect any other types the damage has.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Would doubling rings give the +1 item bonus to shield augmentation traits like Shove or versatile S if you have a potency rune on a weapon? As I see it, RAW shield augmentation still doesn't say it makes shield a weapon or that augmentation is a weapon for some reason. So doubling rings don't work at all on this shield. On the other hand I don't see any good reason to forbid it.
Though versatile S doesn't interact with +1 item bonus in any case. Why doesn't versatile S interact with the +1 bonus from a potency rune? Because versatile S only allows to change damage type to slashing? Which doesn't interact with +1 to hit in any way? Apples and carrots?
Well, +1 to hit from a rune does also make the damage magical, but that again doesn't affect any other types the damage has. So if you have a weapon with a potency rune, and doubling rings, and you do a shield bash, that Strike doesn't get the bonus from the potency rune?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thomas Keller wrote: So if you have a weapon with a potency rune, and doubling rings, and you do a shield bash, that Strike doesn't get the bonus from the potency rune? Correct, as shield bash isn't a weapon. "A shield bash is not actually a weapon, but a maneuver in which you thrust or swing your shield to hit your foe with an impromptu attack."
Thomas Keller wrote: Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Would doubling rings give the +1 item bonus to shield augmentation traits like Shove or versatile S if you have a potency rune on a weapon? As I see it, RAW shield augmentation still doesn't say it makes shield a weapon or that augmentation is a weapon for some reason. So doubling rings don't work at all on this shield. On the other hand I don't see any good reason to forbid it.
Though versatile S doesn't interact with +1 item bonus in any case. Why doesn't versatile S interact with the +1 bonus from a potency rune? Because versatile S only allows to change damage type to slashing? Which doesn't interact with +1 to hit in any way? Apples and carrots?
Well, +1 to hit from a rune does also make the damage magical, but that again doesn't affect any other types the damage has. So if you have a weapon with a potency rune, and doubling rings, and you do a shield bash, that Strike doesn't get the bonus from the potency rune? For a shield without any modifications - without any doubt doubling rings won't work, because as graystone said shields aren't weapons.
Shield augmentations don't make shield a weapon and aren't a weapon either, so RAW they won't work. But I suppose nobody would be surprised if some GMs would allow it (as augmentations allow runes themselves and give shield weapon traits).
Doubling rings will also work with weapons attached to shields (shield bosses or shield spikes for now), because they are melee weapons:
When you wield a melee weapon in the hand wearing the golden ring, the weapon’s fundamental runes are replicated onto any melee weapon you wield in the hand wearing the iron ring.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
So, you can put runes on a shield with augmentations, they just don't do anything? That makes no sense.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thomas Keller wrote: So, you can put runes on a shield with augmentations, they just don't do anything? That makes no sense. Runes work as normal. Doubling rings don't. (Or do, if you have permissive GM)
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Runes work as normal. So, since a shield is not a weapon, they don't work.
This needs clarification/errata.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thomas Keller wrote: Runes work as normal. So, since a shield is not a weapon, they don't work.
This needs clarification/errata.
Nope. It is written they work - then they work. One of the base principles of the game - specific beats general.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Runes work as normal. So, since a shield is not a weapon, they don't work.
This needs clarification/errata.
Nope. It is written they work - then they work. One of the base principles of the game - specific beats general.
But it's not written that they work, only that they can be inscribed. Nothing about what they actually do.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I mean if that's how you want to play it in your home games more power to you I guess.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thomas Keller wrote: Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Runes work as normal. So, since a shield is not a weapon, they don't work.
This needs clarification/errata.
Nope. It is written they work - then they work. One of the base principles of the game - specific beats general.
But it's not written that they work, only that they can be inscribed. Nothing about what they actually do. For runes it's one and the same. If they can be inscribed at all - they work. It follows from the general rules for runes quite easily.
I also had this doubt (even though I'd completely ignore that even if the intent and text of runes' rules were written less clearly) but then re-read the Runes section.
Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Runes work as normal. So, since a shield is not a weapon, they don't work.
This needs clarification/errata.
Nope. It is written they work - then they work. One of the base principles of the game - specific beats general.
But it's not written that they work, only that they can be inscribed. Nothing about what they actually do. For runes it's one and the same. If they can be inscribed at all - they work. It follows from the general rules for runes quite easily.
I also had this doubt (even though I'd completely ignore that even if the intent and text of runes' rules were written less clearly) but then re-read the Runes section. if I hit someone with a runestone with the +1 rune, does it get the bonus?
AceofMoxen wrote: Errenor wrote: For runes it's one and the same. If they can be inscribed at all - they work. It follows from the general rules for runes quite easily.
I also had this doubt (even though I'd completely ignore that even if the intent and text of runes' rules were written less clearly) but then re-read the Runes section.
if I hit someone with a runestone with the +1 rune, does it get the bonus? Depends on whether you are allowed to consider runestone improvised weapon. And how runes and improvised weapons interact. It's another recurrent discussion here (and probably unresolved, I don't remember).
Intent for runestones is crystal clear though.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Errenor wrote: Thomas Keller wrote: Runes work as normal. So, since a shield is not a weapon, they don't work.
This needs clarification/errata.
Nope. It is written they work - then they work. One of the base principles of the game - specific beats general.
But it's not written that they work, only that they can be inscribed. Nothing about what they actually do. For runes it's one and the same. If they can be inscribed at all - they work. It follows from the general rules for runes quite easily.
I also had this doubt (even though I'd completely ignore that even if the intent and text of runes' rules were written less clearly) but then re-read the Runes section. So, are you saying that the runes only give an item bonus for what traits they have, or that they give an item bonus to Shield Bash, which is not a weapon?
Grumpus wrote: PlantThings wrote: Purifying Icicle has a fortitude save entry that isn't clear what it applies too.
It stumped us during a game the other day so we just played it like a regular spell attack. Are we missing something here? It reminded me of very similar spells, Searing Light and Chilling Darkness, that I looked back to for clues, but no luck.
It probably should have the ATTACK trait too. I'd like to bump this, I'd like to use the spell as a replacement scroll for magic missile in the beginner box as I don't have any arcane casters in the party.
I have a question regarding player races or half-breeds. In 1e you were able to play as creatures, is there such ruling in 2e? I am asking because I would like to be able to play as a succubus again or a half-demon. I just wish there was a way to do that without trying to homebrew a race.
|
