There is no such rule.
In 1E, PCs and monsters worked by the same rules, so adding class levels on top of monsters was a thing. In 2E, they do not.
So then I would have to figure out a way to homebrew it then?
There is no such rule.
In 1E, PCs and monsters worked by the same rules, so adding class levels on top of monsters was a thing. In 2E, they do not.
So then I would have to figure out a way to homebrew it then?
There is no such rule.
In 1E, PCs and monsters worked by the same rules, so adding class levels on top of monsters was a thing. In 2E, they do not.
Yes and no re: homebrewing. There are charts available that show you how to scale up creatures (the levels part). Gaining levels warrants adding abilities so take some inspiration (feats or class abilities) from the class you wish to emulate, likely at the level (or lower) of the creature, not their virtual class/level increase. If you want an extraordinary amount of abilities, think about swapping out some of its normal ones, i.e. how dragons do when picking up spellcasting.
As awkward as it sounds, it's proven far faster and simpler than 3.X/PF1 monster advancement, and more effective because CR will match actual threat level; no wonky exploits, pitfalls, or such. So yeah, there's some homebrewing art, but you're referencing rigorously derived math re: combat strength rather than haphazard PF1 mad science.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Lost Omens Highhelm, the Unshaken In Iron feat states that it gives the armor specialization effects of light armor.
There are no armor specialization effects for light armor.
Minor Highhelm issues I noticed with the goat animal companion:
- The support benefit does not require the animal companion to be adjacent to you/within reach of the character.
- The goat's headbutt has the shove trait, but I don't believe the shove trait does anything for an animal companion as they cannot gain item bonuses to their attacks, the unarmed attack does not have extra reach, and the goat cannot drop the "weapon" on a critical failure.
|
Minor Highhelm issues I noticed with the goat animal companion:
- The support benefit does not require the animal companion to be adjacent to you/within reach of the character.
The Support action by itself has no such requirement.
- The goat's headbutt has the shove trait, but I don't believe the shove trait does anything for an animal companion as they cannot gain item bonuses to their attacks, the unarmed attack does not have extra reach, and the goat cannot drop the "weapon" on a critical failure.
I guess it allows them to use the Shove action without needing a free hand/leg (given they are quadruped).
I guess it allows them to use the Shove action without needing a free hand/leg (given they are quadruped).
You're probably right on that, which also indirectly confirm that the other companion can't use combat manoeuvers if they have no hand. It mean that now Paizo need to errata the snake companion, who doesn't have hands either, and whose special move can only be done on a grappled creature.
I honestly don't know a single GM who wouldn't immediately rule that the snake can grab even if it have no hand, but RAW it can't.
Snakes tend to "grab" by wrapping themselves around something. Like your neck. :-)
They absolutely do in real life (altho a snake this size is more likely to coil around your entire torso to smother you rather than just your neck), but the grapple action have this requirement :
"You have at least one free hand or have your target grappled or restrained. Your target isn't more than one size larger than you."
Snake animal companions don't have any action with the grab trait, and thus can only grapple someone with this action. Which they can't do RAW without a "free hand", now that the goat confirm that animal companion indeed have to abide by the same restrictions as the player for combat maneuvers.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Goat confirms that the free hand requirements aren't just written for bipeds" really isn't a statement that I'd say holds up well.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general I distrust the logic of 'this unstated general rule is shown, illustrated, and proven by this exception to it in this obscure item, feat, or other rule written for a specific thing.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is quite literally the meaning of "the exception prove the rule" tho. The only reason for an exception to exist is for the rule to exist to begin with, therefore the presence of an exception highlight the existence of the rule.
So with this goat, either the rule (that animal companion need hands to do combat maneuvers) doesn't exist and the shove trait was added for literally no reason as it accomplish nothing (and xethic is right that it need an errata to remove the useless trait), or the rule do exist and it was added to be an exception to it (thereby proving the rule exist in the first place).
At the very least, this goat stuff show that the rule for animal companion (or for combat maneuvers) should be clarified. It doesn't matter that much for the snake (as I don't know a single GM that would rule against letting the snake grapple given that it rely on it for it's special action), but it's quite important to know if the other animal companion can use these combat maneuvers, especially since athletic is often one of their main skills.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is quite literally the meaning of "the exception prove the rule" tho.
I'm aware.
I'm also aware that 'the exception proves the rule' is a saying - not an actual rule in the game rules.
The closest thing we have to that is 'specific overrides general'. But a specific rule statement does not prove that the opposite statement is a general rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's meaning C, the fact that the goat specify it can shove imply that without this specification, it wouldn't be able to. It is indeed correlated to "specific override general". Since specific override general, there is no need to specify anything if the general rule is enought (the appearance of a specific rule imply that the general rule goes the other way).
RAW wise, neither animal companion nor creature can do combat maneuvers if they have no hands, as the shove, trip, grapple and disarm actions all require a free hand to be useable. A lot of people argue that that this is simply meant to be a rule for players and other humanoid creature, and it have some merit (as some monsters that should be able to at least shove just can't if we follow this rule strictly), but it's a homemade ruling, not an official one. That goat trait does strenghten the idea that this ruling isn't the "correct" interpretation of the rule, by being a visible "exception that confirm the rule".
So all I'm saying is that now Paizo need to clarify once and for all wether the "free hand only" apply to player and other humanoid creature only, or if it apply for everything in the game. And if the latter is right, they need to do some errata to fix the stuff that doesn't work anymore, most obvious of which is the snake whose special ability rely on something it can't actually do rule wise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Lost Omens Highhelm, the Unshaken In Iron feat states that it gives the armor specialization effects of light armor.
There are no armor specialization effects for light armor.
Light armors do belong to weapon groups that correspond to armor specialization effects. They just don’t normally gain access to them.
Is there anything that specifically prevents this from working as intended?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Lost Omens Highhelm, the Unshaken In Iron feat states that it gives the armor specialization effects of light armor.
There are no armor specialization effects for light armor.
Light armors do belong to weapon groups that correspond to armor specialization effects. They just don’t normally gain access to them.
Is there anything that specifically prevents this from working as intended?
Alas there is : "Group
Source Core Rulebook pg. 274 4.0Each type of medium and heavy armor belongs to an armor group, which classifies it with similar types of armor. Some abilities reference armor groups, typically to grant armor specialization effects, which are described on page 275."
Note that light armor is not mentioned.
Even more damning : "Armor Specialization Effects
Source Core Rulebook pg. 275 4.0
Certain class features can grant you additional benefits with certain armors. This is called an armor specialization effect. The exact effect depends on which armor group your armor belongs to, as listed below. Only medium and heavy armors have armor specialization effects. See here for details on each armor specialization effect."
Different game, but in Clan Lord, goats' head butts definitely have the "shove" trait. Very annoying. :-)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another issue with the Highhelm Animal Companions- their additional skills are Acrobatics and Athletics, which are the two skills Animal Companions are automatically trained in. Are they intended to be effectively down a skill on other Animal Companions or can they take an alternative like PCs can?
In Lost Omens Highhelm, the Unshaken In Iron feat states that it gives the armor specialization effects of light armor.
There are no armor specialization effects for light armor.
Light armors do belong to weapon groups that correspond to armor specialization effects. They just don’t normally gain access to them.
Is there anything that specifically prevents this from working as intended?
Alas there is : "Group
Source Core Rulebook pg. 274 4.0
Each type of medium and heavy armor belongs to an armor group, which classifies it with similar types of armor. Some abilities reference armor groups, typically to grant armor specialization effects, which are described on page 275."Note that light armor is not mentioned.
Even more damning : "Armor Specialization Effects
Source Core Rulebook pg. 275 4.0
Certain class features can grant you additional benefits with certain armors. This is called an armor specialization effect. The exact effect depends on which armor group your armor belongs to, as listed below. Only medium and heavy armors have armor specialization effects. See here for details on each armor specialization effect."
That is indeed the general rule, but it does not answer my question.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Lost Omens Highhelm, the Unshaken In Iron feat states that it gives the armor specialization effects of light armor.
There are no armor specialization effects for light armor.
Light armors do belong to weapon groups that correspond to armor specialization effects. They just don’t normally gain access to them.
Is there anything that specifically prevents this from working as intended?
Armor specialization effects are based on the category of the armor. For instance leather armor:
You gain resistance to bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + the value of the armor’s potency rune for medium armor, or 2 + the value of the armor’s potency rune for heavy armor.
There is no value listed for light armor, so there is insufficient information to determine what bonus you are meant to gain without some specific pointer in the feat.
As members of the Pathfinder Society, characters have automatic access to many uncommon options
...
As stated in the section introduction, all characters have access to the magic items in the Magic Items section on page 117, as well as the items, familiars and spells on pages 120-121.
There are no familiars or spells on pages 120 or 121, only items; the familiars and spells are on pages 122 and 123 (with some items).
As written, the familiars and spells on pages 122 and 123 are not usable in PFS Organized Play. Is this intended or was the access adjustments supposed to extend to page 123?
As members of the Pathfinder Society, characters have automatic access to many uncommon options
...
As stated in the section introduction, all characters have access to the magic items in the Magic Items section on page 117, as well as the items, familiars and spells on pages 120-121.There are no familiars or spells on pages 120 or 121, only items; the familiars and spells are on pages 122 and 123 (with some items).
As written, the familiars and spells on pages 122 and 123 are not usable in PFS Organized Play. Is this intended or was the access adjustments supposed to extend to page 123?
This isn't a Lost Omens error: it's a PFS error and as such, should be posed in an appropriate PFS thread in the PFS section of these forums.
This isn't a Lost Omens error: it's a PFS error and as such, should be posed in an appropriate PFS thread in the PFS section of these forums.As members of the Pathfinder Society, characters have automatic access to many uncommon options
...
As stated in the section introduction, all characters have access to the magic items in the Magic Items section on page 117, as well as the items, familiars and spells on pages 120-121.There are no familiars or spells on pages 120 or 121, only items; the familiars and spells are on pages 122 and 123 (with some items).
As written, the familiars and spells on pages 122 and 123 are not usable in PFS Organized Play. Is this intended or was the access adjustments supposed to extend to page 123?
I may be mistaken, but I think this is in reference to things in Lost Omens: Pathfinder Society Guide. Yes this particular book's name would naturally lead to such confusion.
I may be mistaken, but I think this is in reference to things in Lost Omens: Pathfinder Society Guide. Yes this particular book's name would naturally lead to such confusion.This isn't a Lost Omens error: it's a PFS error and as such, should be posed in an appropriate PFS thread in the PFS section of these forums.As members of the Pathfinder Society, characters have automatic access to many uncommon options
...
As stated in the section introduction, all characters have access to the magic items in the Magic Items section on page 117, as well as the items, familiars and spells on pages 120-121.There are no familiars or spells on pages 120 or 121, only items; the familiars and spells are on pages 122 and 123 (with some items).
As written, the familiars and spells on pages 122 and 123 are not usable in PFS Organized Play. Is this intended or was the access adjustments supposed to extend to page 123?
Well, they listed as the source the "PFS Guide Rarity" and I took this to be the Pathfinder Society (Second Edition) Guide to Organized Play. Secondly, As far as I can find, the section quoting "items, familiars and spells on pages 120-121" doesn't exist in the lost omens book nor is there an "Rarity and Access Adjustments" section. As such, I'm still going with it NOT being the actual lost omen book BUT a PFS specific document that refers to it that seems to be in error.
|
|
Hello, I have found that some abilities are based on the premise of a thin sword, but I would like to bring a staff sword. However, my host said they are two types of weapons, and I have not found a description that the staff sword can replace the thin sword as a prerequisite. Therefore, I would like to ask, is the staff sword unable to be used as a thin sword?
I could not find the staff sword you mention on AoN. Do you mean Sword Cane, and the thin sword would be the Rapier ?
In the rules, they are 2 different weapons. You can ask your GM (maybe the host you mentioned) to be able to use a Sword Cane with abilities that require a Rapier. But, by the rules as written, it does not work.
Highhelm page 73; The Forge spell is listed as "SPELL 1", but the description says:
Developed before the introduction of the Iron Lagoon, this cantrip for superheating metal has also found valuable combat use
Is this spell a Cantrip or just a level 1 spell?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In LO: Firebrands, the moderate ring of observation says "The ring can cast invisibility on you once per day," but it forgets to define if this ability is an activation, or how many actions this costs to perform. If it is an activation, it should presumably state its traits [or, pre-Remaster, state its envision and/or Interact component(s)] in order for the item statblock to be complete.
Highhelm page 73; The Forge spell is listed as "SPELL 1", but the description says:
Developed before the introduction of the Iron Lagoon, this cantrip for superheating metal has also found valuable combat use
Is this spell a Cantrip or just a level 1 spell?
Director Luis Loza has confirmed that "Spell 1" is indeed correct as forge is a "slot" spell, not a cantrip!
So hopefully the flavor text's accidental cantrip mention will be errata'd.|
|
Lost Omens: Knights of Lastwall's throwing shield needs to disambiguate that it grants the ability to etch weapon runes.
On a tangent, my striking throwing shield deals 2d6 damage when thrown, but I'm not completely certain if this shield is still capable of performing melee shield bashes. I assume its melee shield bashes would still deal 1d4 damage, but GM interpretations will vary.
Calistria's entry in Lost Oments: Firebrands:
One must consider carefully before abusing or betraying those loyal to the capricious goddess of luck and vengeance
(bold face mine)
This obviously must be "goddess of lust" instead.
Same page has another sentence that I consider to be affected of the same error because of the context (cp. the following sentence):
Knowing only the smallest sliver of luck attracts or repels success, it’s little wonder nearly all Firebrands follow Calistria, or at least whisper prayers in her name. It’s also no surprise they carry this same lust for life into other aspects of their lives.
(bold face mine)
Should all be lust, I presume.
(You have definitely called for her answer. Beware! ;-))
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are we ever going to get an errata for the Gunslinger? It has been years since it was released and there is a pretty major mistake with it's weapon proficiency for non-firearm weapons being locked at expert instead of rising to master. It was already stated to be a typo by the devs but it hasn't gotten a correction yet. In fact guns and gears hasn't gotten any errata. I'm certain there are other mistakes in the book but the gunslinger one really sticks out. When can we expect this to be fixed?
Errata this year was changed to happen in batches twice a year, however that plan was immediately disrupted by the OGL debacle and the need for the Remaster. Normally G&G would need to wait for its second printing, which is probably why it hadn't happened before this year, but now we're just waiting foe our first 'new' errata after everything calms down (assuming and hoping that G&G gets a note in the first new errata)
Lost Omens: Character Guide - Remaster Compatibility
All "[Ancestry] Lore"-feats should be harmonized with the way core feats are styled after remaster (cp. Dwarven Lore from Player Core 1 (PC1), pg. 43).
Examples for these from Character Guide, not necessarily an exhaustive list, were
- Hobgoblin Lore (CG, pg. 50)
- Leshy Lore (CG, pg. 54; already explicitly superseded by version of PC1)
- Lizardfolk Lore (CG, pg. 58)
Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide - Remaster Compatibility
Lost Omens: Character Guide - Remaster Compatibility
All "[Ancestry] Lore"-feats should be harmonized with the way core feats are styled after remaster (cp. Dwarven Lore from Player Core 1 (PC1), pg. 43).
[...]
Analog to Character Guide (see my post above)
Examples Feats:
- Android Lore (AG, pg. 71)
- Axiomatic Lore (AG, pg. 76)
- Fetchling Lore (AG, pg. 85)
- Creative Prodigy (AG, pg. 96; admittedly different name but same mechanics)
- Elemental Lore (AG, pg, 99)
- Kitsune Lore (AG, pg. 124)
- Strix Lore (AG, pg. 136)
Somewhat similar but mechanically different is Azarketis' Ancestral Insight (AG, pg. 13). This might require additional consideration if and how a remaster compatibility update would be proper.
I searched for "Lore"-Feats, but again, these lists do not claim to be exhaustive. Particularly if feats don't follow the implicit "[Ancestry] Lore-Naming Convention" (as Creative Prodigy did) I might have missed them.
I just changed all Lores at my table to read as giving Additional Lore X.
Lost Omens Mwangi Expanse Question - Goloma True Gaze
This might be a stupid question, but I'd like to seek out some clarity about something regarding the True Gaze ancestry feat for Goloma.
True Gaze
"When you focus your eyes carefully, your gaze can pierce through all obfuscations, even magical ones. When you use True Gaze, you gain the effects of a 6th-level true seeing [Truesight, as of Remaster] spell, using your Perception modifier for the counteract check."
Lost Omens Mwangi Expanse pg 117
Truesight
Duration 10 minutes
You see things within 60 feet as they actually are. The GM rolls a secret counteract check against any illusion, morph, or polymorph effect in the area, but only for the purpose of determining whether you see through it (for instance, if the check succeeds against a polymorph spell, you can see the creature’s true form, but you don’t end the polymorph spell).
Player Core pg 364
So this effectively lets you cast True Seeing/Truesight as a 1-action activity. For the most part, there's nothing all that confusing except for one detail that feels it could be interpreted a couple ways: Is duration included in the list of "effects" that is gained from using this action?
In other words, does the True Seeing/Truesight from this feat last 10 minutes, same as a standard casting of the spell, or does it last for a more limited duration or for a single turn?
If it doesn't last the normal duration, then I assume that it's effectively giving me the ability to Seek on that action with the benefits of True Seeing, but since that's not explicitly stated, I come before you.
Thank you for providing me this closure.
Yes duration is part of the effects no matter if it's stated in the description or in their correct place in stat block.
True Gaze is in practice a one-action True Seeing with all their effects including duration but that uses your perception for counteract check (what's pretty good).
To make more clear Duration is a subtopic of Effects "chapter".