I wonder if the gauntlet bow can technically be reloaded with the free hand attached to it. Essentially making it capacity with an infinite clip. Kinda how I figured how weapon inventors worked with the free hand mod on loaded weapons.
You can't, it is specified in the weapon description. First thing I went to check as well.
That's what I was thinking. I hadn't read the description yet. Bummer.
I take it as some form of confirmation that both the inventor mod and Ammunition Thaumaturgy work when wielding 2 reload weapons, though.
Before we had human flickmace fighters, now we have tengu falcata fighters. Or anyone really. Tengu weapon familiarity is powerful. Can bring a simple weapon class up to falcata proficiency with just a general feat and an ancestry feat. Tengu martials having easy access to the falcata at level one will probably bring out some more bird players.
Tengu Weapon familiarity can do some nice stuff. Some time ago I put together a FA fighter build as a backup character for one of my current games that managed to use Dual Slice, Flurry of Blows and Heaven's Thunder with Shortswords thanks to that feat. It gets to some ridiculous places at level 10 onwards. In the end I preferred going just monk to not fall asleep before getting there, though. Might reconsider since we just reached level 10 the other day (don't judge me, I'm playing a Sprite sorcerer, a breeze could kill me, better be prepared).
As for the falcata, while I don't think it will be as egregious as the pre-nerf Flickmace, I expect it to be quite popular.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That Razing trait going to bring up the "But Strike says you can only attack creatures!" nonsense again.Again? It never left... It does specifically mention hazards, shields, vehicles and animated objects, all things that actually have ways to attack them in the rules.
Maybe we'll get lucky and here's a sidebar somewhere in there about attacking normal objects.
PS: On runes, coating is a good rune for toxicologists and witches[holds 10 poisons or magic oils and can apply it hands free without an Interact] flurrying lets a monk no waste it's second flurry attack if the enemy dies on the first.
Isn't this all covered by the rules on Item Damage and the Material Statistics table? The item damage rules seem to pretty clearly call out you can attack (Strike) any object you want: "An item can be broken or destroyed if it takes enough damage.... Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm excited to swing a Falcata around, especially on something like a Magus or Thaumaturge.
Did anyone spot the Klar anywhere? It's supposed to be in alongside the Earthreaker, but I didn't see it.
Isn't this all covered by the rules on Item Damage and the Material Statistics table?
Nope, not even a little.
The item damage rules seem to pretty clearly call out you can attack (Strike) any object you want
No, no it doesn't in fact is SPECIFICALLY tells you you can't Strike an object: Strike, Core Rulebook pg. 471
"You attack with a weapon you're wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). An item isn't a creature, and Strike can only target creatures.Now, as to the section you mention/quote, there are spells that specifically allow you to target objects like Shatter, Rusting Grasp and Hydraulic Torrent, so the section can be talking about them so it doesn't necessitate Strike working on objects. There are also creatures that can damage items and a Corrosive can damage armor/shields of your target on a crit. And even if you houserule that it COULD do so, you also have to houserule it's defenses as you have no basis for figuring out what AC a door has vs a necklace vs a wall vs a log.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder why all the reprints from Gods and Magic.
Some where pure updates without having to errata the source material. For instance, Chakri lost uncommon and the reload is altered. Butterfly sword gained concealable [not gods and magic, I know]. Bolas are common now. Now the polytool or bladed scarf? Not seeing any change there: I'm guessing it's so people can 'one stop shop' for weapons outside the core.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm excited to swing a Falcata around, especially on something like a Magus or Thaumaturge.
Did anyone spot the Klar anywhere? It's supposed to be in alongside the Earthreaker, but I didn't see it.
It is under shield. It is a +1 AC shield with a versatile S shield spike. There might be some additional upsides with integrated trait but that isn't revealed yet. There is a specific magic shield klar that is pretty neat - it repairs itself from nearby bleeding as a free action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm excited to swing a Falcata around, especially on something like a Magus or Thaumaturge.
Did anyone spot the Klar anywhere? It's supposed to be in alongside the Earthreaker, but I didn't see it.
Klar's appear to be in the shield section with the integrated trait which gives it a weapon. I forget the rest of the traits off the top of my head but I know its slashing versatile piercing(or the other way around)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
versatile S shield spike
Minor quibble: it's a S, versatile P. It's the razor disc that's versatile S.
I'm excited to swing a Falcata around, especially on something like a Magus or Thaumaturge.
Did anyone spot the Klar anywhere? It's supposed to be in alongside the Earthreaker, but I didn't see it.
As far as I know, Falcata as a non-ancestry advanced weapon, requires either Fighter or a 6th level Fighter feat taken through multiclass archetype at level 12 to use with scaling proficiency. That said, human with Weapon Proficiency will have a scary first four levels.
Tengu has you covered with that. Although, the ancestry itself is uncommon.As far as I know, Falcata as a non-ancestry advanced weapon, requires either Fighter or a 6th level Fighter feat taken through multiclass archetype at level 12 to use with scaling proficiency. That said, human with Weapon Proficiency will have a scary first four levels.I'm excited to swing a Falcata around, especially on something like a Magus or Thaumaturge.
Did anyone spot the Klar anywhere? It's supposed to be in alongside the Earthreaker, but I didn't see it.
Ah, thank you! Tengu Thaumaturge sounds fun to play.
Don't think the falcata is eligible, the feat only covers martial common weapons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarvern Dorn-Dergar
Hooray! The weapon I have missed most of all.
Well, they didn't give us Dwarven War Shields directly, but it's now much easier to homebrew them ourselves.
|
Isn't this all covered by the rules on Item Damage and the Material Statistics table?Nope, not even a little.
The item damage rules seem to pretty clearly call out you can attack (Strike) any object you wantNo, no it doesn't in fact is SPECIFICALLY tells you you can't Strike an object: Strike, Core Rulebook pg. 471
"You attack with a weapon you're wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). An item isn't a creature, and Strike can only target creatures.
That's not quite correct.
Strike says you attack a creature and tells you how to resolve that in the rules. It doesn't say you can't target objects - it just doesn't talk about targeting objects. But not having rules for doing something isn't the same as having a rule that you are forbidden from doing it.
So if later some other place talks about striking objects and tells you how to do it, that's fine. There was no rule forbidding it, there just wasn't any rule before telling you how to do it. But now that you have that rule, you can do it.
Putting all the different scattered examples together, I think best practice for attacking objects is:
- No Sundering held/worn/attended objects. PF1 Sunder is gone. If you want to attack an attended object, you'll first have to defeat the attendant.
- The main things you're anticipated to be attacking are walls, doors, locks, chains, hazards, that sort of thing.
- Often objects like walls have a really low (10 ish) AC, but are immune to critical hits and precision damage.
- Hazards could have an actual level-appropriate challenging AC. Then they probably aren't immune to crits.
That's not quite correct.
It seems a distinction without a difference.
Strike says you attack a creature and tells you how to resolve that in the rules. It doesn't say you can't target objects - it just doesn't talk about targeting objects. But not having rules for doing something isn't the same as having a rule that you are forbidden from doing it.
It specifically tells you what your target for the action is: creatures. As such, it's excluding other targets. Things that target objects specifically say so: in fact, many spells had the ability removed in errata and we don't assume that they still can for some reason. You don't assume that disrupt undead doesn't REALLY mean it can only target undead creatures.
So if later some other place talks about striking objects and tells you how to do it, that's fine. There was no rule forbidding it, there just wasn't any rule before telling you how to do it. But now that you have that rule, you can do it.
It would be INCREDIBLY misleading and poorly worded if it specifies one target and then later say, 'psych! Tricked you, we really didn't mean what we said before...'. :P And in this case, it doesn't do that as it never suggests that you can strike objects later in the book, as there are other ways to damage items.
Putting all the different scattered examples together, I think best practice for attacking objects is:
- No Sundering held/worn/attended objects. PF1 Sunder is gone. If you want to attack an attended object, you'll first have to defeat the attendant.
- The main things you're anticipated to be attacking are walls, doors, locks, chains, hazards, that sort of thing.
- Often objects like walls have a really low (10 ish) AC, but are immune to critical hits and precision damage.
- Hazards could have an actual level-appropriate challenging AC. Then they probably aren't immune to crits.
This doesn't add up to me: no crits makes no sense: shield used to block can take crit damage so why can't a shield on the ground? And precision targets weak spots: why can't objects have those? Object Immunities doesn't list precision. As to objects, I'd expect the AC to vary wildly depending on size, material and shape and what type of weapon you have. Hitting a sphere with a blade is harder than with a hammer and a tiny lock is harder to hit than a boulder. And an axe is likely easier to use vs a wood door than a metal one. That and at 10, you're getting into the territory where there isn't a need to roll at all: when to you stop asking your players to roll a skill check for a DC 10?
|
|
That's not quite correct.It seems a distinction without a difference.
The difference is that Strike doesn't have a line in it saying "oh by the way, if someone else later writes how to Strike objects, ignore that, you're forbidden to do that". The basic Strike action just doesn't provide you with rules, that's not the same as actively saying nothing else in the rules could ever do that.
It would be INCREDIBLY misleading and poorly worded if it specifies one target and then later say, 'psych! Tricked you, we really didn't mean what we said before...'. :P And in this case, it doesn't do that as it never suggests that you can strike objects later in the book, as there are other ways to damage items.
Actually to quote the CRB, two chapters earlier:
Each 10-foot-by-10-foot section of the wall has AC 10, Hardness 14, and 50 Hit Points, and it's immune to critical hits and precision damage.
And there's quite a few more objects and structures in the CRB with information on how to attack them.
This doesn't add up to me: no crits makes no sense: shield used to block can take crit damage so why can't a shield on the ground? And precision targets weak spots: why can't objects have those? Object Immunities doesn't list precision. As to objects, I'd expect the AC to vary wildly depending on size, material and shape and what type of weapon you have. Hitting a sphere with a blade is harder than with a hammer and a tiny lock is harder to hit than a boulder. And an axe is likely easier to use vs a wood door than a metal one. That and at 10, you're getting into the territory where there isn't a need to roll at all: when to you stop asking your players to roll a skill check for a DC 10?Putting all the different scattered examples together, I think best practice for attacking objects is:
- No Sundering held/worn/attended objects. PF1 Sunder is gone. If you want to attack an attended object, you'll first have to defeat the attendant.
- The main things you're anticipated to be attacking are walls, doors, locks, chains, hazards, that sort of thing.
- Often objects like walls have a really low (10 ish) AC, but are immune to critical hits and precision damage.
- Hazards could have an actual level-appropriate challenging AC. Then they probably aren't immune to crits.
The Wall of Stone I quoted above is a typical example. That's a level 5 spell. If you're fighting that as a player, you're probably level 6 or more. So your to-hit would be +13 or higher, while the wall has AC 10.
And that's precisely why it needs that crit immunity. Otherwise you'd be critting it constantly.
And it's a fairly consistent pattern:
The wall has AC 10, Hardness 30, and 60 Hit Points, and it's immune to critical hits and precision damage.
With objects, if destroying the object is supposed to be a challenge to begin with, they can choose to put it in the combination of hardness/HP, rather than in the AC.
I don't think there's a systematic design guide for these things, but the pattern that I see is:
- walls have low AC and are just really chunky. How could you fail to hit the (AC 10) wall? It's right there. The trouble is actually making a dent in it. Hardness 14 (stone) or 30 (force) is no joke.
- hazards can have actually difficult AC, because they're also designed to be used in the middle of an encounter, where you might have MAP from fighting other enemies and Escape checks.
The difference is that Strike doesn't have a line in it saying "oh by the way, if someone else later writes how to Strike objects, ignore that, you're forbidden to do that". The basic Strike action just doesn't provide you with rules, that's not the same as actively saying nothing else in the rules could ever do that.
It's not giving a list of possible examples and leaves it open: it gives an exclusive list. As with anything, future rules COULD modify it, but that can happen with an explicit rule: just because Stealth requires "cover or greater cover against or are concealed from" a creature doesn't mean their can't be abilities that allow you to without those requirements.
Wall of Stone
I wouldn't take a spell effect as an example of what mundane items should be. Again, normal items can be crit and hit with precision: it's just the spell that has it and it seems to me to be something special about the wall spells and not something generic about objects. So a fairly consistent pattern with wall spells, just means that: wall spells are similar. It'd be odd if EVERY object had immunities that aren't listed under object immunities but that's exactly what'd happen following what you suggest...
With objects, if destroying the object is supposed to be a challenge to begin with, they can choose to put it in the combination of hardness/HP, rather than in the AC.
That's not really true: as long as your weapon can deal max damage more than it's hardness then it's just a matter of time and not a challenge. At a 10, it's the same as a dc10 to get over a wall: if you're 9th level, is there really a reason to go through the rolls? Now look at spells that deal damage to objects: they look pretty sad if a barbarian can just take a few rounds out and do the same for free with a maul. I hope we DO eventually get more abilities to damage objects, but I'll expect some buy in to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there is a shield that launches darts but the trait for it isn't in the shield section, so it didn't get previewed, which means we don't have stats on the attack.
I love both of those things!
LOL You can have a rotary bow in one hand and a dart shield in the other! Or a shield bow in one hand and a gauntlet bow on the other!
Martial Crossbows let's GO!
The range on that Sukgung almost feels like a typo...if I may put a tinfoil hat on for a second it almost feels like they were going to release an arbalest that was a bow version of the arquebus at one stage, but they just decided to give the range to the suksong and called it a day.
So we're left with the best of both worlds, wield it in 2 hands and it trades the arquebus's extra features for 50ft of range. Wield it in one hand and it's an upgraded hand crossbow with over 3 times the range.
It does make some of the other martial crossbows harder to sell to a player though, since they seemed to have been balanced more harshly. Saving grace here is range doesn't come into play that often for most adventures so their utility might be enough if you build into them.
For example, Gauntlet bow being free hand means you can lean in hard into gunslinger reactions and never worry about having your main weapon reloaded before your turn is over. Heck this might even make instant return finally viable and actively encourage you to end the turn with your meain weapon unloaded and sudenly you can have access to every gunslinger reaction at the same time.
Basically the new martial crossbows are less likely to affect my current builds and more likely to open up new ones, which is good so long as your GM does not impose pre gunpowder tech. I almost wish there was a more generic martial crossbow that was just the harmona gun with less range for those sort of tables (for a ranger or inventor mostly), but It's not that hard to justify a homebrew when compared to the Sukgung's range so they should be fine.
I'd actually compare it to the jezail since it's its closest mechanical neighbor. They must value concussive a lot I think since that and range are what separates them. Apparently, it's worth over 100 feet of range in this case.Martial Crossbows let's GO!
The range on that Sukgung almost feels like a typo...if I may put a tinfoil hat on for a second it almost feels like they were going to release an arbalest that was a bow version of the arquebus at one stage, but they just decided to give the range to the suksong and called it a day.
So we're left with the best of both worlds, wield it in 2 hands and it trades the arquebus's extra features for 50ft of range. Wield it in one hand and it's an upgraded hand crossbow with over 3 times the range.
It does make some of the other martial crossbows harder to sell to a player though, since they seemed to have been balanced more harshly. Saving grace here is range doesn't come into play that often for most adventures so their utility might be enough if you build into them.
For example, Gauntlet bow being free hand means you can lean in hard into gunslinger reactions and never worry about having your main weapon reloaded before your turn is over. Heck this might even make instant return finally viable and actively encourage you to end the turn with your meain weapon unloaded and sudenly you can have access to every gunslinger reaction at the same time.
Basically the new martial crossbows are less likely to affect my current builds and more likely to open up new ones, which is good so long as your GM does not impose pre gunpowder tech. I almost wish there was a more generic martial crossbow that was just the harmona gun with less range for those sort of tables (for a ranger or inventor mostly), but It's not that hard to justify a homebrew when compared to the Sukgung's range so they should be fine.
Well bludgeoning is the best physical damage type and piercing is probably the worst so it's not like they shouldn't value concussive.
It's interesting now that martial crossbows are now explicitly better than their firearm counterparts minus concussive and certain utility like risky reload. They're solid choices now.
I believe you are referring to the sukgung vs the jezail? Because in that case, I wouldn't really say "better". The jezail's 90ft range is plenty for almost all encounters you'll ever have, so I'd say concussive is better. That said, I absolutely agree that we have some solid choices now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NGL, I kinda like more going for double Dueling Pistol/Clan Pistol and getting Thaumaturge Dedication and Ammunition Thaumaturgy for dual weapon Gunslingers, specially in a FA game (you get that going way sooner). Fixes the range issue the slide pistol has and does not lose Fatal compared to the new crossbow.
I like the new crossbow, but I think it would be better used as an offhand of sorts for mainly melee builds. I would like to have one as a Ranger, Rogue (if you get the proficiency) or even as a Swashbuckler just so I don't have to throw my main weapon to get a competent ranged weapon.
And yes, I think that I usually play with bigger than average maps and even then 200ft seems like way overkill. I'd take the Jezail most of the time.