So Shatter Mind's Amp lists that the range changes to your choice of a 30 ft cone or a 60 ft cone. I have to wonder if that is an error. Though I feel like I have seen similar wording before. But I am not sure why it would give a choice between two ranges that are both cones.
Why wouldn't you want that given the option? Not hitting your allies by choosing a smaller area that still might get all the baddies is a great boon.
So Shatter Mind's Amp lists that the range changes to your choice of a 30 ft cone or a 60 ft cone. I have to wonder if that is an error. Though I feel like I have seen similar wording before. But I am not sure why it would give a choice between two ranges that are both cones.Why wouldn't you want that given the option? Not hitting your allies by choosing a smaller area that still might get all the baddies is a great boon.
Shatter Mind only hits enemies. The only reason not to do 60’ is to avoid hitting some enemies (who you could just designate as friends and not affect anyway).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree but both of those things would normally be spelled out.
They are though: they give you the trigger and note that the entity takes control when it's triggered. The trigger is clear as is the fact that that you can't take control when you're already in control.
I also get the feeling that the reaction should have a longer cooldown before it can be used again rather than just a minute when I compare it to other similar abilities.
*shrug* it's 1 min of you sitting there watching someone else play your character. Personally, it's NOT something I'd want triggered every minute.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
They don’t clarify obvious things like that.
Beyond 1+ not equaling and 1, obviously an ability that makes one handed melee weapons as good as two handed weapons while both hands are occupied doesn’t vault bows into some position of insane supremacy with no downsides. A few diehard cranks in an issue never is enough to get a “duh” explanation from them.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scroll Thaumaturgy: It allows you to use your class DC for the Spell DC. So far, so good. But what about spells with a spell attack roll? Since the Thaumaturge is not proficient in the magical schools, does that mean any spell with a spell attack roll is bascially useless since they won't ever hit anything? I think most likely, there is just a sentence missing, allowing to use the same proficiency for spell attacks as well.
During the playtest, the very same question was asked and Mark Siefter clarified that you used the DC-10 as the modifier for the spell attack roll.
It feels a bit bad that they forgot it again in the final version.
Right, just because not clear to you doesn’t mean it’s not clear enough that Paizo is going to waste their time answering it. Telling you not to have false hope for an answer to something that isn’t actually an open question is an act of kindness. NASA doesn’t answer demands from flat Earthers to explain why they are faking satellite pictures of a round Earth and Paizo isn’t going to tell you that a 1+ isn’t a 1 handed weapon. It’s right there in the name.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Explicit clarification of magic items being able to become implements would be appreciated, as right now it's only implied.
I’d say normal DC based on your level, not based on your spell DC. It’s the result of a class ability not a spell you cast. And that makes it easier for you.
I’d say normal DC based on your level, not based on your spell DC. It’s the result of a class ability not a spell you cast. And that makes it easier for you.
Maybe, as that's a common reference point. Yet a class ability also could be based on Class DC, which for casters is their Spell DC. I think it would default to the latter without further clarification from Paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The psychic doesn't have a class DC and doesn't Unleash doesn't reference one. The rules tell us that if an effect isn't a spell or doesn't come with its own DC to base it on effect level and also that if there's no listed effect level we can calculate it based on half the creature's level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counteracting
Source Core Rulebook pg. 458
"If an effect’s level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature’s level."
As long as your psychic is a creature, this is the answer.
|
|
Exploit vulnerability requires holding an implement. Bows cannot be implements as weapon implements must be 1 handed specifically. Not 1+. That's as clear as day. Same story with implements empowerment. 1 handed.They don’t clarify obvious things like that.
Beyond 1+ not equaling and 1, obviously an ability that makes one handed melee weapons as good as two handed weapons while both hands are occupied doesn’t vault bows into some position of insane supremacy with no downsides. A few diehard cranks in an issue never is enough to get a “duh” explanation from them.
1/2 strength vs. full strength, 1D8 vs. 1D6 weapon dice or a -2 to hit within volley range, are what keep 1H+ weapons from being some insane supremacy weapon. Check your hyperbole at the door. I'm looking to get a actual response from someone at the company that can inform RAI/RAW if 1H+ are meant to be excluded.
If I make weapon implement my bow and shoot esoterica arrows (something I can do because there is literally no mechanical definition of esoterica that requires it to be or not be something... I can have arrows of Erastil that I use in hunting folk practice and call them esoterica). Then I've jumped through the stupid hoops necessary. As it sits its not clear to me and despite what I think or what others think its going to suffer table variation. In those circumstances someone from Paizo needs to provide clarification.
Bows cannot be Weapon implements. They could be another kind of implement though (Regalia, for example).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I brought this up in another thread, but I'll throw it in here as well.
Since the Dancing Blades cantrip makes a weapon attack, it seems like by RAW it would benefit from any Potency runes on the weapon itself. Its text diverges from similar sorts of spells, and since it uses a permanent item, it can be runed.
Spell DC is not class DC.I’d say normal DC based on your level, not based on your spell DC. It’s the result of a class ability not a spell you cast. And that makes it easier for you.Maybe, as that's a common reference point. Yet a class ability also could be based on Class DC, which for casters is their Spell DC. I think it would default to the latter without further clarification from Paizo.
Technically no, but in all the cases I know of when a class without a Class DC needs a Class DC, the rules say to substitute their Spell DC.
Of course I know of no examples of the inverse except for the Thaumaturge nowadays using some items.
"A class DC sets the difficulty for certain abilities granted by your character’s class. This DC equals 10 plus their proficiency bonus for their class DC (+3 for most 1st-level characters) plus the modifier for the class’s key ability score."-- CRB, Page 29.
This raises a few questions:
1. What, in general or specifically, are the "certain abilities" concerned here? How do we know?
2. Given that casters are untrained in Class DC, their Class DC is 10+key ability score forever. So at first level, probably 14, at 10th level 15, at 20th level 16. Maybe.
3. I can't find where the rules say to substitute spellcasting DC for Class DC for casters. Where is that?
|
The level based DC would be best. A lot of class abilities use level based DCs for consistency across different builds. If you used Spell DC, two psychics of the same level could have wildly different DCs just because of their main stats being different. For example, gaining Panache is based on your level, not your Class DC.
This means the Counteract level and DC of a level 10 Psychic's stupefied condition would be level 5 and DC27. This is opposed to DC29 if they have +5 in their main stat, or DC24 if they have +0 for some reason.
I brought this up in another thread, but I'll throw it in here as well.
Since the Dancing Blades cantrip makes a weapon attack, it seems like by RAW it would benefit from any Potency runes on the weapon itself. Its text diverges from similar sorts of spells, and since it uses a permanent item, it can be runed.
I'd like to point out that the Dancing Blade isn't making a traditional Strike, but it is taking the Strike action listed in the spell description. This special Strike uses your spell attack roll and has a specific damage it deals. The damage type can be modified by the runes on the weapon, but no other part of the weapon determines the damage dealt. Also with this interpretation, it cannot critically hit, as spells always list their critical effects because they aren't Strikes.
Now, saying that, it would be nice to rename this distinct Strike action to something that doesn't conflict with the most common action you normally take with a weapon.
Imaginary Weapon has a similar issue for its amped effect, where it says you Strike, though it doesn't have the same pseudo-strike that DW has. It might be an oversight, or it expects you to reference the previous cantrip. Either way it should be rewritten for clarity as well.
I brought this up in another thread, but I'll throw it in here as well.
Since the Dancing Blades cantrip makes a weapon attack, it seems like by RAW it would benefit from any Potency runes on the weapon itself. Its text diverges from similar sorts of spells, and since it uses a permanent item, it can be runed.
I'd like to point out that the Dancing Blade isn't making a traditional Strike, but it is taking the Strike action listed in the spell description. This special Strike uses your spell attack roll and has a specific damage it deals. The damage type can be modified by the runes on the weapon, but no other part of the weapon determines the damage dealt. Also with this interpretation, it cannot critically hit, as spells always list their critical effects because they aren't Strikes.
Now, saying that, it would be nice to rename this distinct Strike action to something that doesn't conflict with the most common action you normally take with a weapon.
Imaginary Weapon has a similar issue for its amped effect, where it says you Strike, though it doesn't have the same pseudo-strike that DW has. It might be an oversight, or it expects you to reference the previous cantrip. Either way it should be rewritten for clarity as well.
The Strike subaction.. thing also doesn't do double damage on a critical hit, unless you partially use the Strike rules. It's a bit awkward overall, but I believe the intent was for it to be very Strike-like and possibly even trigger reactions based on Strikes.
The Strike subaction.. thing also doesn't do double damage on a critical hit, unless you partially use the Strike rules. It's a bit awkward overall, but I believe the intent was for it to be very Strike-like and possibly even trigger reactions based on Strikes.I brought this up in another thread, but I'll throw it in here as well.
Since the Dancing Blades cantrip makes a weapon attack, it seems like by RAW it would benefit from any Potency runes on the weapon itself. Its text diverges from similar sorts of spells, and since it uses a permanent item, it can be runed.
I'd like to point out that the Dancing Blade isn't making a traditional Strike, but it is taking the Strike action listed in the spell description. This special Strike uses your spell attack roll and has a specific damage it deals. The damage type can be modified by the runes on the weapon, but no other part of the weapon determines the damage dealt. Also with this interpretation, it cannot critically hit, as spells always list their critical effects because they aren't Strikes.
Now, saying that, it would be nice to rename this distinct Strike action to something that doesn't conflict with the most common action you normally take with a weapon.
Imaginary Weapon has a similar issue for its amped effect, where it says you Strike, though it doesn't have the same pseudo-strike that DW has. It might be an oversight, or it expects you to reference the previous cantrip. Either way it should be rewritten for clarity as well.
I agree that this might be the intent, but what matters in the end is how it is written.
Dancing Weapon's is written as a subaction that the weapon itself takes as if it were a creature, but it has a listed damage that scales with your spell level and is a spell attack roll. Critical effects aren't mentioned anywhere.
Imaginary Weapon is a melee spell attack that scales off of your spell level and lists a critical effect as normal for spells. The amp, however, somehow suddenly becomes a Strike and I guess assumes you know what to roll for it? Does it now function as a normal Strike with the normal critical effects? Does that mean it loses the optional knockback detonation? Who knows.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
I missed the spell attacks section, thanks for pointing it out. There is one part, however, that I think it's worth pointing out: "Spell attacks don’t deal any damage beyond what’s listed in the spell description."
Since there's the line about Dancing Blade dealing only one of the available damage types on the weapon, I think the spell attack damage rule holds true. Otherwise there would really be no need for that line, and it would deal damage as normal for a Strike.
You would crit as normal for a Strike and get the Potency bonus to hit, though.
|
|
I was waiting for this point to gain more traction!
Dancing Weapon's is written as a subaction that the weapon itself takes as if it were a creature, but it has a listed damage that scales with your spell level and is a spell attack roll. Critical effects aren't mentioned anywhere.
As Baarogue said, using your Spell Attack Roll doesn't actually make a difference. Not only is there nothing stopping SAR from benefiting from runes, its explictly called out that they do, with the noted rider that they are rare.
The damage override is important, in that it means that any attack wouldn't also benefit from Striking runes.
|
|
...I missed the spell attacks section, thanks for pointing it out. There is one part, however, that I think it's worth pointing out: "Spell attacks don’t deal any damage beyond what’s listed in the spell description."
I take this as applying to Telekinetic Projectile too. So no applying any damage due to weakness to anything beyond the damage type dealt by the spell.
So, no weakness to silver damage even if you fling silver pebbles.Thank you so very much.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just noticed something, not sure if it was intentional or I missed something, but might be worth looking into:
Given an extra ten minutes of time, the thing about you only recovering 2 focus points if you have only done psychic stuff with your focus points doesn't matter.
So, AFAIK, spending focus points doesn't have to take place in an encounter, and you don't have to spend them in an encounter to refocus. At least no one in our group of experienced pathfinder players has found that rule, (which leads our Champions to often lay on hands->pray->lay on hands->pray->etc until everyone is healed out of combat). So given that:
If your psychic has another way to use focus points, say, life lesson from a witch. And blows through all 3 of their focus poings at level five, including a life lesson, then they are at 0 focus points.
They refocus by meditating for 10 minutes. Because they used life lesson, they only get one focus point back. They immediatly cast a spell with a spell amp (let's say detect magic amped.) Back down to 0
If you've spent Focus Points only to amp psi cantrips or fuel psychic abilities since the last time you Refocused, you regain 2 Focus Points when you Refocus
Well, you have only used psychic abilities since the last time you refocused. You gain 2 focus points back. You then cast amped detect magic again (bringing you down to 1 point) and then refocus again, back to 3.
Remember, Refocusing allows you to refocus as long as you have spent "1" focus point since the last time you refocused, and I can find nowhere in psychic or the focus point rules in general that say focus points can only be spent in combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a toxic community member isn't an act of kindness and equating someone asking for clarification to being a flat earther just shows that you aren't being a positive contributing member. Maybe take a step back and think about how you acting that way is going to impact people new to the system and community vs. someone like me who will call you out on your 'antics'.Make the bow my regalia implement and now we're all fine and within RAW. But that still doesn't answer the actual question which is two parts. Was this really the intent from Paizo or was it an editing error/oversight. Despite your attempts to distract from the substance of the question I was asking for both RAW and RAI. You're just so hung up on RAW and how it aligns with your desired RAI that you can't even let someone ask a question without trying to brow beat them for it.
Sometimes when you look into the Abyss, it just ignores you. I'm just trying to prepare you for never receiving an answer, and explaining why.
At least 90% of the things listed in this thread, including many that are seriously and significantly screwed up in a way your question is not, are never going to get an answer.
If you've spent Focus Points only to amp psi cantrips or fuel psychic abilities since the last time you Refocused, you regain 2 Focus Points when you RefocusWell, you have only used psychic abilities since the last time you refocused. You gain 2 focus points back. You then cast amped detect magic again (bringing you down to 1 point) and then refocus again, back to 3.
Remember, Refocusing allows you to refocus as long as you have spent "1" focus point since the last time you refocused, and I can find nowhere in psychic or the focus point rules in general that say focus points can only be spent in combat.
This is complete genius.
You definitely can spend focus outside of combat, and I agree that this is the correct outcome of the language they published, so you can take extra time to do multiple castings/refocusings between combats to get back up to 2 points.
I'm less sure right now if this lets you get back to three points (in two increase increments) after level 5.
Being a toxic community member isn't an act of kindness and equating someone asking for clarification to being a flat earther just shows that you aren't being a positive contributing member. Maybe take a step back and think about how you acting that way is going to impact people new to the system and community vs. someone like me who will call you out on your 'antics'.Make the bow my regalia implement and now we're all fine and within RAW. But that still doesn't answer the actual question which is two parts. Was this really the intent from Paizo or was it an editing error/oversight. Despite your attempts to distract from the substance of the question I was asking for both RAW and RAI. You're just so hung up on RAW and how it aligns with your desired RAI that you can't even let someone ask a question without trying to brow beat them for it.
Sometimes when you look into the Abyss, it just ignores you. I'm just trying to prepare you for never receiving an answer, and explaining why.
At least 90% of the things listed in this thread, including many that are seriously and significantly screwed up in a way your question is not, are never going to get an answer.
If you've spent Focus Points only to amp psi cantrips or fuel psychic abilities since the last time you Refocused, you regain 2 Focus Points when you RefocusWell, you have only used psychic abilities since the last time you refocused. You gain 2 focus points back. You then cast amped detect magic again (bringing you down to 1 point) and then refocus again, back to 3.
Remember, Refocusing allows you to refocus as long as you have spent "1" focus point since the last time you refocused, and I can find nowhere in psychic or the focus point rules in general that say focus points can only be spent in combat.
This is complete genius.
You definitely can spend focus outside of combat, and I agree that this is the correct outcome of the...
The big question with going up to 3 is the language regarding Refocusing as a psychic, which says "up to your maximum of 2".
Right, is that by implication changed when your maximum is 3? They should have either said "up to 2" or "up to your maximum." This in between formulation is wishy washy, although they probably just meant it to be duplicative for extra clarity.
I don't think you can go up to 3, but I also don't think there's any justification for the 18th level focus feat being where it is, so maybe this is why - it does less and is less necessary than you think so you can wait longer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't know how to fix Unlimited Potential. Maybe once a day, and instead of "prepared spell" you don't expend the slot??
I think you just change "you don’t expend the prepared spell as you cast it" to "you don't expend the spell slot used to cast the spell."
I think this is reasonable since:
- It costs an action
- It's once per minute
- It's a spell of level 5 or lower with no duration.
This is going to get you like one free spell per fight, which seems reasonable. I think it's just a c/p error from the level 20 Druid feat that does this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just copy the Sorcerer 20 feat that does this.
The Empowered Bulette on p. 113, is that supposed to be an Elite Bulette with additional Abilities? The Perception stat (+18) would suggest so.