Underwater firing mechanism doesn't clearly state whether it removes the need for black powder or not.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The integrated gauntlet modification's requirement "(One-Handed Weapon Only; Can't Have the Two-Hand Trait)" does not disallow the [fatal aim] trait. I'd guess that it was probably intended to also disallow [fatal aim] as well as [two-hand].
Intent is unclear, but certainly nothing prevents it.
The only two weapons currently with Fatal Aim, Piercing Wind & Jezail, both qualify for Integrated Gauntlet. All Integrated Gauntlet really does is grant the weapon the Free-Hand trait, which does nothing to prevent the weapon using the weapon two handed if thats an option.
The scatter trait does not specify which damage type the splash damage has. It's quite obvious from the context that it is supposed to be the same as the weapon (or Strike in case of something like Alchemical Shot), but it wouldn't hurt to clarify.
|
It's unclear what the Gunner's Saddle does. It includes the following line:
"Just like a normal tripod, you Interact to deploy the tripod to stabilize the firearm, and then again to retract the tripod to move it."
Does that mean:
A) Once it is deployed, you cannot move the tripod from the square in which it was deployed unless you take an interact action to retract it. Meaning that the Mount could not move to another square unless you take the Interact action to retract the tripod.
B) Once it is deployed, you cannot move the tripod from the square in which it was deployed unless you take an Interact action to retract it, but the Mount can move to another square, leaving the tripod (and potentiay the gun) where it was deployed.
C) Once it is deployed, you cannot move the gun separate from the tripod unless you take an Interact action, but the mount can move to another square, bringing the deployed tripod along with it, and you don't need to spend an Interact action to either retract the tripod or deploy it in the new square.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Backpack Catapult has the Volley trait but doesn't list a distance for it, so currently the volley trait is non-functional for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Backpack Catapult has the Volley trait but doesn't list a distance for it, so currently the volley trait is non-functional for it.
Whoops. See, this is what I get for posting late at night. The AoN doesn't have the range listed but the GnG pdf does list "Volley 50 ft".
|
Does the Gunner's Saddle allow your mount to move without retracting the saddle first?
Argument on the net is that
Just like a normal tripod, you Interact to deploy the tripod to stabilize the firearm, and then again to retract the tripod to move it.
This sentence is talking about the gun, and the gun hasn't moved position relative to the mount in the mount moves.
Designer
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does the Gunner's Saddle allow your mount to move without retracting the saddle first?
Yes. The firearm and tripod are affixed to the mount via the saddle, so while the gun and tripod can't move from the mount while deployed, the mount can move wherever it wants and the saddle tripod and gun maintain their position relative to the mount.
Alright, gunna try asking this one more time, I gave it a while to see if I got answers elsewhere, but no luck. I really need to know, if a wizard or caster or any class without Medium Armor training takes Inventor Archetype at level 2, are they trained in the Armor Innovation power suit? The archetype dedication just says choose an Innovation from the class listing, and the only prerequisite for the dedication is INT 14. But without stating you are "trained in your Innovation", then it effectively locks out Wizards and casters until at least level 8 (after taking Armor Prof general feat twice at lvl 3 and 7). And a wizard would be very limited in weapon innovation choices. Construct Innovation doesn't need any proficiency meanwhile. Unless I'm mistaken this would be the first time half of the classes are basically locked out of effectively using a multiclass dedication until far later in levels. (Yes, you could technically do it without proficiency but no one would ever do that.)
If the devs really think that's necessary for balance, then I can understand, even if I don't agree, but as it stands, it seems just as likely to be an oversight as intentional, leaving it very ambiguous for tables that try to adhere to the rules as written.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, gunna try asking this one more time, I gave it a while to see if I got answers elsewhere, but no luck. I really need to know, if a wizard or caster or any class without Medium Armor training takes Inventor Archetype at level 2, are they trained in the Armor Innovation power suit? The archetype dedication just says choose an Innovation from the class listing, and the only prerequisite for the dedication is INT 14. But without stating you are "trained in your Innovation", then it effectively locks out Wizards and casters until at least level 8 (after taking Armor Prof general feat twice at lvl 3 and 7). And a wizard would be very limited in weapon innovation choices. Construct Innovation doesn't need any proficiency meanwhile. Unless I'm mistaken this would be the first time half of the classes are basically locked out of effectively using a multiclass dedication until far later in levels. (Yes, you could technically do it without proficiency but no one would ever do that.)
If the devs really think that's necessary for balance, then I can understand, even if I don't agree, but as it stands, it seems just as likely to be an oversight as intentional, leaving it very ambiguous for tables that try to adhere to the rules as written.
I don't think it's ambiguous.
It's like if a caster took Barb MCD re: Rage; it's nearly always a major drawback for them to Rage, much less get a net benefit from it. That would nearly always be a dead end for a caster, much like w/ Inventor.Even the Construct Innovation is a bit of a trap since it's hard to keep it competitive (at least if intended for direct combat).
Sure, Inventor seems like a great fit for intellectuals, yet it remains a very martial class (unlike say an Alchemist), and therefore its MCD is of limited use for casters. IMO this can be said of most other martial MCDs too. And there is a light armor option too which can be worn early.
silencer (G&G p. 179)
Attaching a silencer to a firearm takes 1 minute, and the silencer is consumed the first time a shot is fired through it.
Does this item should be given the consumable trait ? Or is it because of the special consumable crafting rules ?
Consumable (trait)
An item with this trait can be used only once. Unless stated otherwise, it's destroyed after activation. Consumable items include alchemical items and magical consumables such as scrolls and talismans. When a character creates consumable items, they can make them in batches of four.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's ambiguous.
It's like if a caster took Barb MCD re: Rage; it's nearly always a major drawback for them to Rage, much less get a net benefit from it. That would nearly always be a dead end for a caster, much like w/ Inventor.
Even the Construct Innovation is a bit of a trap since it's hard to keep it competitive (at least if intended for direct combat).
Sure, Inventor seems like a great fit for intellectuals, yet it remains a very martial class (unlike say an Alchemist), and therefore its MCD is of limited use for casters. IMO this can be said of most other martial MCDs too. And there is a light armor option too which can be worn early.
But you COULD take the Barbarian multiclass at level 2, so long as you met it's str 14 and con 14 requirements and you could select any of the Instincts and fully use the Rage action, you don't need any extra proficiency to Rage. Yes, as a Caster, using the Multiclass rage might lock you out of your own abilities at times, but you get to choose when you want to use it and you are fully able to use it when you choose to at level 2. Thats my point, you can take literally any other dedication and fully use it as worded, Inventor is the first multiclass dedication that needed some basic proficiency prior to being able to use the actual dedication feature.
For the Inventor, a caster can't just take any of the Innovations and fully use them at level two. And comparing Rage preventing a caster from using class features while raging, if you are using the Innovation, then you wouldn't be using the spells at the same time then either, it's about having options, literally like any other multiclass carchetype, you want the option to use it, even if using it means you are temporarily not using your own class features.
If the Inventor Archetype had wording like "choose an Innovation you are trained in or have access to", then I would agree, that would be unambiguous. As it stands, it only says "Choose an innovation. You gain that
innovation, though you don’t gain any other abilities that modify or use that innovation, such as modifications or Explode."
And I read it as "choose any of the Innovations listed, you can use it immediately, but you don't get any mods or extra features beyond just accessing and using the armor/weapon." I read it as "you can take the Power Suit and are able to use it's listed basic armor abilities".
But you and others read it as "choose an Innovation you are already trained/capable of using". So, it is ambiguous as written. When writing "choose an innovation", did they intentionally mean only if you already have proficiency, or did they intend any caster to take and use the Power Suit as armor immediately. There isn't even a feat in the Archetype to get proficiency, so I think the latter, I think it's an oversight not to include language saying you are trained in your Innovation. But if the devs come back at some point and clarify you can only take an innovation you are trained in, then that's fine, I just need to know one way or the other if casters can't be Armor or Martial Weapon inventors without heavy feat investment and waiting until higher levels, as this would be the first time a multiclass dedication had such a prerequisite (which again, is not listed as a prerequisite currently).
As for Light Armor, that is an Innovation option, but even that would still mean Casters need Armor proficiency general feat at lvl 3 before taking the dedication at level 4, this would still be unprecedented for a multiclass dedication
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see it as choose an Innovation you are already trained/capable of using, not in any forced sense at least.
I see it as choose an Innovation, and choose wisely (like we see often). Maybe with the addition that it'd be a bit imbalanced if the feat included proficiency into the package too so also consider that when choosing.
Just like the caster w/ Barbarian MCD can technically Rage (yet most often shouldn't), one w/ Inventor MCD can technically wear their armor (yet most often shouldn't).
It wouldn't surprise nor bother me if Paizo issues an errata showing you're correct (though I'd consider it a trap then too because your proficiency wouldn't increase!). As of now, you aren't, yet that doesn't prevent you from making a case to your (non-PFS) GM for some leeway if your PC concept requires such an odd combination.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I *think*(?) the Brawling Focus feat granted to the Bullet Dancer was probably intended to grant critical specialization effects for bayonets, reinforced stocks, and simple firearms? (Or, alternatively, that the Bullet Dancer Dedication feat was supposed to allow you to treat bayonets, reinforced stocks, and simple firearms as Monk weapons, which would yield the same result.)
As is, the Brawling Focus feat doesn't seem to do anything for someone in the Bullet Dancer Stance (which requires you to only make strikes with one of those three weapons).
Not sure if this warrants Errata but you might want to indicate how Expert Overdrive (and other class feats like this) impact Critical Successes as well as Successes. If I have an 18 int and am level 3, does Crit Overdrive give me +5 and Success gives me +3?
You may need to calculate a fraction of a value, like halving damage. Always round down unless otherwise specified. For example, if a spell deals 7 damage and a creature takes half damage from it, that creature takes 3 damage.
This is part of the Core general rules, not a rule specific to damage but does include it. You round down unless otherwise specified. E.g., Cantrip level tells you to round up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eroding bullets cast a faint green glow, and smell like the sickly sweet organic gases that rise from corpses. Handling an eroding bullet without gloves deals 1 point of acid damage and leaves the putrid scent coated on your fingers. Upon Striking an enemy, the glass casing inside the bullet bursts, releasing a splattering of bubbling green acid that coats the target. The target takes 2d6 persistent acid damage in addition to the damage normally dealt by the attack.
I assume this is supposed to say upon Hitting an enemy, or upon successfully striking an enemy, or is it intended to function on a miss?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The capitalization of Striking is confusing, because generally that would relate specifically to taking a Strike action. In this instance that doesn’t make much sense and it seems like should have been lowercase to refer to the common definition of the word which would requiring hitting. The way it is worded now it does sound like just making a strike action would trigger it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way that sentence reads is as though it was written by someone using the word "striking" in its plain English definition, and then someone else came by with the style guide and said "Strike is a word we capitalize, so we should do the same with the form 'Striking'."
The way that sentence reads is as though it was written by someone using the word "striking" in its plain English definition, and then someone else came by with the style guide and said "Strike is a word we capitalize, so we should do the same with the form 'Striking'."
I think that is what happened too.
|
Designer
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It works with a Jezail even in 2handed mode because it is technically a 1handed firearm.
That's not how it works. Handedness in PF2 is determined by the number of hands being used to wield the weapon. So if you're using a jezail in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon and you can't use any options that require you to be using a firearm one-handed until you're back to wielding it in one hand. If you use a dagger in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon for the purposes of feats and abilities that require a two-handed weapon, as laid out on pages 279-280 of the CRB. When determining the handedness of a weapon, the two questions are just "What's the minimum number of hands required to wield this" and "How many hands am I currently using to wield it?"
Handedness in PF2 is determined by the number of hands being used to wield the weapon.
Mileage may vary when interacting with the Shifting Rune. I do note that the rune references the number of hands 'required' to wield the weapon, not the number of hands that you are actually wielding the weapon in.
|
Designer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Handedness in PF2 is determined by the number of hands being used to wield the weapon.Mileage may vary when interacting with the Shifting Rune. I do note that the rune references the number of hands 'required' to wield the weapon, not the number of hands that you are actually wielding the weapon in.
Yeah, that's the key clause there. You can wield a dagger in two hands, but it only requires one. Shifting looks at the minimum requirements rather than the active state.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how it works. Handedness in PF2 is determined by the number of hands being used to wield the weapon. So if you're using a jezail in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon and you can't use any options that require you to be using a firearm one-handed until you're back to wielding it in one hand. If you use a dagger in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon for the purposes of feats and abilities that require a two-handed weapon, as laid out on pages 279-280 of the CRB. When determining the handedness of a weapon, the two questions are just "What's the minimum number of hands used to wield this" and "How many hands am I currently using to wield it?"
It works with a Jezail even in 2handed mode because it is technically a 1handed firearm.
Very helpful clarification!
By the way, should we read this as clarifying whether a pistolero can draw a Jezail when they roll initiative (Ten Paces), and be ready to use it 2-handed? (A) The minimum number of hands you need is 1, and (B) the number of hands you’re using when you activate Ten Paces is 0… which would suggest you can?
Or perhaps the two clauses you mentioned don’t settle this case, since the question isn’t whether you can *draw* it (you can, since it’s a 0/1 handed weapon according to the above confitions), but whether you can choose to come to be holding it in its 2-handed stance…
Speaking of the jezail, the fatal aim trait could use a bit of clean-up as well. Specifically this part:
"Holding the weapon underarm stably enough to fire is significantly more complicated than just releasing one hand from the weapon, so to switch between the two grips, you must do so with an Interact action rather than Releasing or as part of reloading.".
As far as I can tell, this trait is supposed to make it so you have to choose between the free hand provided by the one-handed variant and the damage of the two-handed one. No Release-> use item -> Interact to reload and switch to two-handed for free, as you can do with other two-handed firearms.
But the current wording can easily be read in a way that it takes 3 actions to reload the gun when you wield it two-handed. One to take hand off and grab the ammo (as you would need to wield the weapon one-handed to do so), the second for the reload itself and the third to switch grips again. Now, this is almost certainly not intended, but it would be worth making the actual intent more clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of the jezail, the fatal aim trait could use a bit of clean-up as well. Specifically this part:
"Holding the weapon underarm stably enough to fire is significantly more complicated than just releasing one hand from the weapon, so to switch between the two grips, you must do so with an Interact action rather than Releasing or as part of reloading.".
As far as I can tell, this trait is supposed to make it so you have to choose between the free hand provided by the one-handed variant and the damage of the two-handed one. No Release-> use item -> Interact to reload and switch to two-handed for free, as you can do with other two-handed firearms.
But the current wording can easily be read in a way that it takes 3 actions to reload the gun when you wield it two-handed. One to take hand off and grab the ammo (as you would need to wield the weapon one-handed to do so), the second for the reload itself and the third to switch grips again. Now, this is almost certainly not intended, but it would be worth making the actual intent more clear.
When I read the fatal aim trait, I thought the "to switch between the two grips, you must do so with an Interact action rather than Releasing or as part of reloading" part only applied when switching between the two grips described in the trait - the regular two-handed grip and the special one-handed underarm grip unique to fatal aim weapons.
I did not read it to mean that you must be wielding it in the one-handed underarm grip anytime you pick up a jezail with one hand. The weapon's stock doesn't just gravitate to your underarm if you aren't holding the gun with two hands. "It’s possible to hold the stock of this weapon under one arm so you can fire it with a single hand".
Assuming that's right, I think you can just treat a two-handed jezail like any other two-handed firearm when it comes to stuff like reloading. You use a Release action to take one hand off the jezail. At this point, you are holding it, not wielding it, because wielding a fatal aim weapon requires that it is held by either two hands or by a hand and an underarm. Then you Interact to reload, and as part of the action to reload, you switch back to wielding it in two hands.
But I agree, the trait needs some clarification in how it works.
Do we have any idea when there's going to be an official Guns & Gears errata from Paizo? I'd kind of like to know what the official ruling is on the Inventor 2nd level feat "Reverse Engineer".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Last word was actually that they are discussing internally how to handle erratas in the future. They might end up "fixing" stuff without waiting for a reprint.
But we don't know when that will happen - if at all.
I'm not holding my breath before we finally get at least the APG Errata.
I kinda forgot about this one - is it an oversight that the Rowan Rifle doesn't have reload? The text says it runs on magic and therefore doesn't require ammo (nor could it use special ammo if it wanted to), which heavily indicates that this is intended. The stats + abilities somehow make me doubt that a bit, though, high-level specific magic item or not.
It would be really cool if it was correct. The magic revolver dream isn't dead yet, even if it takes a few levels :D
I kinda forgot about this one - is it an oversight that the Rowan Rifle doesn't have reload? The text says it runs on magic and therefore doesn't require ammo (nor could it use special ammo if it wanted to), which heavily indicates that this is intended. The stats + abilities somehow make me doubt that a bit, though, high-level specific magic item or not.
It would be really cool if it was correct. The magic revolver dream isn't dead yet, even if it takes a few levels :D
Might be a challenge to get your hands on, as it is unique. The only thing that's way out of line of an equivalent Longbow is the range tbh, the damage isn't too much compared to Longbows with Deadly at that level (especially including an additional 2-3d6 damage from property runes they'll get, it's probably a good bit lower). It'd probably be okay to have it be that strong given its rarity.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how it works. Handedness in PF2 is determined by the number of hands being used to wield the weapon. So if you're using a jezail in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon and you can't use any options that require you to be using a firearm one-handed until you're back to wielding it in one hand. If you use a dagger in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon for the purposes of feats and abilities that require a two-handed weapon, as laid out on pages 279-280 of the CRB. When determining the handedness of a weapon, the two questions are just "What's the minimum number of hands required to wield this" and "How many hands am I currently using to wield it?"
It works with a Jezail even in 2handed mode because it is technically a 1handed firearm.
With due respect, but are you sure? The CRB doesn't go as far as saying that any weapon wielded in 2 hands is a 2H weapon, or that it ceases to be a 1H weapon. All it says is that things that require you to be wielding a weapon in two hands work when you're wielding a weapon in two hands even if it's not listed as a 2H weapon.
If any 1H weapon wielded in 2 hands no longer counts as a 1H weapon (and, presumably, starts counting as a 2H weapon instead), that would also allow you to use Knockdown with a 1H weapon by wielding it in 2 hands, right? And you'd be able to use Thunderous Strike with a 1H weapon if you were using it in 2 hands at the time?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was unsure at first Ascalaphus, but your two examples make me think that yes, that's definitely the intent.