A quick question regarding the fun little overflow feat, Elemental Artillery. If the impulse is sustained on the second round, it continues to exist and other people can interact with it to load and prep the ballista. My question is, who can fire it? Only the Kineticist? Can the Kineticist use the sustain to help reload, another ally use another interact for the second and a third ally launch off the shot? Or does the Kineticist have to launch the shot on their turn with their sustain action? It feels like there is a lot of missing information.
Here is the information so people don't have to look it up.
Spinning wood and metal together, you create a rugged wooden ballista. The ballista is Medium and appears in an unoccupied space within 30 feet. It immediately shoots a bolt with a jagged tip of elemental metal. Make an impulse attack roll against the AC of a target within 120 feet. The target takes 3d12 piercing damage on a hit (or double damage on a critical hit).The ballista can be shot again, but it must first be reloaded with two Interact actions. The ballista lasts until the end of your next turn, and you can Sustain the impulse. Each time you Sustain it, you can roll the ballista up to 20 feet, shoot it if it's loaded, or contribute 1 action toward reloading it.
It looks like a real ballista at first: "you create a rugged wooden ballista", but then it doesn't have any normal stats, its attack is purely impulse attack (which allies obviously can't use), and all actions possible for it are 'you' actions. So no, this is purely a skin for a kineticist's impulse, allies can't interact with it (and also they don't have anything to reload it, all reloading things you evidently conjure yourself). Enemies can't too btw as it doesn't have any stats.
Yeah looking at it again I am not sure where I got the ally part. Shame too because it makes it so you never really have a reason to sustain it outside of not needing to overflow again to shoot it. Having allies assist would help. I think for the kids at my table I'll allow allies to assist it though, as it would be a fun little interaction for the player. And also allow the enemy to destroy it too. Thanks for the second set of eyes!
you never really have a reason to sustain it outside of not needing to overflow again to shoot it.By the way I also don't see overflow trait on it. Is it an AoN problem?
Shame too because it makes it so you never really have a reason to sustain itSustain could also be one of the actions to Reload, shoot or move it.
I don't have the book so I can't confirm either. I swore it did, but likely is also due to me just being used to most three action impulses being overflow (like walls).
Weird though, it feels like an overflow impulse. Has all the normal signs. Huh... Neat.
"The ballista can be shot again, but it must first be reloaded with two Interact actions."
There's no explicit "you" requirement in there. Kinda hard to deny allies the ability to Interact upon the ballista, there's 0 text that indicates the ballista is Kin-only.
"You create a rugged wooden ballista" has a lot of implications, and honestly, if an ally can shoot a ballista (martial weapon prof), there's no reason to say they cannot use that one.
Any unlisted stats should default to the Ballista, while any listed stats, such as using the Kin's impulse attack, are overwritten.
Unfortunately, there's a whole big section on Siege Weapons, which means there's a fair bit that the GM needs to determine in regard to what's overwritten without explicit mention, but by consequential necessity.
For example, E Artillery creates a Ballista, but that's got a crew 2 requirement. Technically, the Kin should not be able to operate it alone. While the first shot happens even w/o a GM overriding that crew:2 into a crew:1, no single PC should be able to use it alone (aside from the specific sustain actions).
(perhaps that crew change can be ruled in part due to the E Art Ballista being a Medium while the default is a Large?)
That one change would make the rest of the default Ballista usable without much fuss.
Kinda interesting to note that the default Ballista is a L5 item that does 4d12 damage, meaning the Kin needs to be L9 to match that damage.
.
One fun note about the impulse is that the Ballista can help body-block due to occupying a square and having stats to be attacked. You also really don't want your target to move, as Aim is it's own action, lol.
Imo, the text is rather straightforward with its instruction. The impulse creates a temporary ballista on the spot, and it's up the GM to adjudicate that.
It is not a coincidence that the impulse so closely matches the stats of the ballista item. It's 100% apparent that the impulse expects the GM to use the stats of the ballista siege weapon, there's not really any room to argue the opposite.
If that was not the case, then the impulse would need to provide statistics that we know the impulse inherits from the ballista item, such as HP, Hardness, etc.
And once we recognize that the impulse is definitely inheriting from the base ballista item, we also know that the impulse inherits the rules explaining how the base item functions.
As far as I can tell, not only is the usage of it as a siege weapon RaI, but RaW.
.
I don't see using the impulse as a ballista as something that could create any real problems at a table, and even if it were to end up as fun flavor that only gets used in that way once per campaign, I see that fun use of the impulse as worth whatever minor hassle might arise from needing to check the siege weapon rules for something.
As such, I lack even a pragmatic reason to disallow that use.
.
All that "I disagree" having now been said, to each their own, no worries.
>And once we recognize that the impulse is definitely inheriting from the base ballista item
Except it's clearly not?
Elemental Artillery: "The ballista is Medium..."
Ballista
Item 5
Uncommon MountedYou are making wrong assumptions and then declaring a conclusion to be foregone based on those wrong assumptions
Dude, that literally helps proves my point. I do not know why you think that disproves it.
The reason the impulse specifies Medium is precisely because that is a stat of the ballista they wish to change for the impulse. There are many of those, from the impulse removing exactly 1 dmg die, to altering the range of the shot.
Because there are necessary statistics that the impulse left unwritten to inherit from the base item, such as HP and Hardness, the impulse is nonfunctional on its own. The GM needs to pull stats from somewhere to make the impulse function, and the text outright tells you where to look.
To rephrase/crystalize this down:
The presence of a creature size, but lack of mandatory creature statistics, AC, HP, etc, is proof that the text:
"You create a bastilla [...]" does in fact mean
"You create a bastilla, as in the bastilla item, [...]"
and is pulling the stats (and rules) from the bastilla siege weapon.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo typically identifies a page number when you need to access another book for rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's 100% apparent that the impulse expects the GM to use the stats of the ballista siege weapon, there's not really any room to argue the opposite.
That's a very convenient position for you to take.
It's 100% apparent that the impulse expects the GM to use the stats of the ballista siege weapon, there's not really any room to argue the opposite.That's a very convenient position for you to take.
I presented my reasoning as to why, and will repeat it.
Other impulses that create pseudo creatures list AC, HP, Hardness, and every stat they need.
Or they reference something else to pull those numbers from. Timber Sentinel references Protector Tree, while the actually independent ones like Ambush Bladderwort, Jagged Berms, list out all needed stats.
This is genuinely not a difficult case to determine. Your hostility seems to be clouding your judgement here.
Paizo typically identifies a page number when you need to access another book for rules.
I've got no idea how accurate that is, but my own experience indicates it's mostly names that are the reference link.
Timber Sentinel is an example I've got open that says "as a protector tree spell" but does not have a page number (or even what book it came from).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo typically identifies a page number when you need to access another book for rules.I've got no idea how accurate that is, but my own experience indicates it's mostly names that are the reference link.
Timber Sentinel is an example I've got open that says "as a protector tree spell" but does not have a page number (or even what book it came from).
Weird. I have a copy of the book in front of me. Page 34.
"You conjure a tree within 30 feet, as a protector treeˢᵒᴹ spell"
Are you making claims based on Nethys, which uses links instead of references?
Paizo typically identifies a page number when you need to access another book for rules.I've got no idea how accurate that is, but my own experience indicates it's mostly names that are the reference link.
Timber Sentinel is an example I've got open that says "as a protector tree spell" but does not have a page number (or even what book it came from).
Weird. I have a copy of the book in front of me. Page 34.
"You conjure a tree within 30 feet, as a protector treeˢᵒᴹ spell"
Are you making claims based on Nethys, which uses links instead of references?
Ah yup, that would do it.
I've only got a patchwork of the .pdfs based on which have been in a humble bundle (that I've noticed and snagged).
Kinda odd to think that the OG text is almost never going to be the first version referenced.
Paizo typically identifies a page number when you need to access another book for rules.I've got no idea how accurate that is, but my own experience indicates it's mostly names that are the reference link.
Timber Sentinel is an example I've got open that says "as a protector tree spell" but does not have a page number (or even what book it came from).
Weird. I have a copy of the book in front of me. Page 34.
"You conjure a tree within 30 feet, as a protector treeˢᵒᴹ spell"
Are you making claims based on Nethys, which uses links instead of references?
Ah yup, that would do it.
I've only got a patchwork of the .pdfs based on which have been in a humble bundle (that I've noticed and snagged).
Kinda odd to think that the OG text is almost never going to be the first version referenced.
Yeah, books are more about the pleasure of reading without a light glaring in your eyes, and a thank you to Paizo and/or your local game shop or book store.
Loving the discussion and the back and forth here. Helps me from my perspective as a GM. Please keep things civil is all. You both have great points and I think I'll need to have a discussion with the player in the future moving forward just so we have an agreement. Likely will end up middle ground here, but we'll see what the players expectations are. Thanks guys.
I don't say it often enough, but my large priority for the raw RaW first is not supposed to imply in any way that said RaW should be run at tables.
IMO it's very helpful/important to have the actual state of the existing rule known before a GM / homebrewer can then improve upon it.
In this case for Elemental Artillery, it's probably a nerf to use the actual siege weapon rules, lol. Needing to spend an action to re-aim alone is serious enough, and of course, there's the crew mechanic.
All siege weapons need more than one person to operate them, working together as a crew. These crew members all need to be adjacent to the siege weapon for it to operate. A siege weapon's stat block lists the minimum number needed and the maximum crew size. Adding additional crew beyond the minimum is useful for ensuring a quick and successful Load in uncertain conditions and allowing for enough time to Aim the siege weapon when firing at a moving target.
Properly using a mounted siege weapon involves three activities: Loading, Aiming, and Launching the payload. Generally, none of these activities can be taken unless the weapon has enough crew, but the GM might allow a smaller crew or even an individual to perform simpler parts of the process, like Launching—especially at a dramatic moment!
It's really bizarre that almost all of the siege weapon actions specify "a/any member of the crew" and seem to imply that a solo PC can *almost* operate a weapon below the crew requirement. Moving the siege weapon is the only one that mandates all crew participate, though the other class, the portable siege weapons, also mandates everyone use actions for the attack (like smacking w/ a battering ram).
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1622
I can totally see why no one uses the siege weapons, and it's a bit of a shame. With just one or two wrinkles ironed out, I can see them being more fun than hassle, and get actual use at the table. The dev clearly spent some time making sure there's a few general use, low crew options. And the books keep adding more siege weapons, so clearly someone in Paizo really wants these things to get used, lol.
.
.
Main things I would homebrew:
* Assembling / Disassembling is measured in *days*. Whyyyyy.
Disassembling --> (1 hr x Crew) ÷ trained Crafters.
Assembling --> (4 hr x Crew) ÷ trained Crafters, multiplier for higher Craft prof.
.
* Must Ready + Reaction from crew when leader does stuff:
Gone. Either make crew holding the battering ram slowed 1, and/or have their participation sacrifice their ability to do Reactions. Keep it as a simple state for doing the Siege weapon stuff, must not add situational complexity right when the party wants to hit w/ the ram.
.
* The siege weapons have static stats:
Like, how could they possibly overlook this, lol. No shit the players are never going to use a door ram when it's stuck w/ level 2 stats forever. Adding a blurb to each weapon to say how the different Striking runes scale the damage and DCs would work.
It might be better to rewrite each item with scaling stats based on item level. With how gp cost scales nonlinearly, that'll probably best be done with each siege weapon having a multiplier number for price @ level (cheap= 80%, costly = 140%) and a chart that contains the default price p level.
The PCs *need* to be able to customize the level and power of these things, full stop.
I honestly don't know how a writer could think the items would ever see use when left static like that.
If the expectation was always for a GM to homebrew these things into higher Lvl versions, there absolutely needs to be guidance / formulas provided by the og writer. Multi-user items are strange, and any normal attempt at improvised scaling will be even more of a GM scramble than usual.