OOC Thread

On power attack the way I have always read it is the str prereq is gon, as the feat doesn't exist anymore - every character with a +1 bab has the option to take the penalty and gain the bonus regardless of str.sane for combat expertise and int. If this is not how Qralloq read it then its my fault, I told Irene to ignore the str prereq.

Feinting doesn't provoke an AoO (It's not actually a combat maneuver, however the feat tax rules throws it into deft maneuvers, the one thing that winds me up about it) What improved feint did originally was let you do it as a move action, and be a prereq for two weapon feint - Which may be a viable option if you want to do it more often.

I've interpreted power attack and combat expertise the same as LoM.

Agreed that feint does not prompt AoO. It says so in the second paragraph of its description on Aon : https://aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Feint&Category=Special%20Attacks

The Deft Maneuvers feat, making feint a move action instead, makes feinting a lot of fun for characters with sneak attack.

You are all right. Feint does not provoke AoO. My mistake. I think since Deft Maneuvers is a substitute to Improved Feint it is right to assume (as a house rule) that it allows to feint as move action.

Is everything okay? I realized there hasn't been any posting for the past 3 days.

I have a question on Knowledge skill. My character is proficient at dungeoneering, geography and nature. Does that work like the nature-survival distinction in D&D5 where the former is more like "weird, this animal supposed to be hibernating right now" or "this plant helps you sleep" and the latter is more practical, following tracks etc. So, for example, when I roll good on a dungeoneering check, what kind of outcome would I have? More theoretical or more practical? It is a sub-skill of Int so I'm guessing the former but I wanted to be sure.

Theoretical, so yeah it would be seeing if you know things about caverns, spelunking etc.

The major use of most knowledges in pathfinder is identifying creatures, and identifying weaknesses, special abilities etc.

Dungeoneering will get in for on Oozes and Aberrations (weird wibbly things, like mimics, rompers and eldritch creatures)
Nature identifies fey and animals.
Geography is one of the few that doesn't identify creatures.

Okay thanks, I understood. Here's another (probably useless) question. Unlike D&D, in Pathfinder when you hit a natural 20, it's not automatically a critical hit, you need to roll again and hit again for the first roll to be a critical hit. If you succeed, use both damages and if not, only use the first damage. What if (this question applies to D&D as well) your secon roll is also a nat 20? Considering how reluctant Pathfinder is when it comes to aditional damages, bonus attacks etc, I doubt the answer is "another chance at critical hit, roll a third dice", but still I wondered.

In a sense - You don't need to roll damage with the second attack roll, just if the crit is confirmed you roll damage again, possible multiple times depending on the crit modifier of your weapon. Most times it is x2, but some weapons have x3, or even x4.

If you roll 20 again nothing happens in official rules. (In my house games we have the rule that a nat 20 followed by a nat 20 is max damage, but that is definitely a house rule)

The other thing to note: Some weapons 'threaten' a critical hit on more than just a 20. Your shortsword for example has 19-20 as its threat range, so on a 19 you would also roll a confirmation roll to see if you hit. There is also a feat and weapon quality that can boost the threat range.

Thanks for answering these LightofMidnight. Agree with all of that.

May be out of scope of our game but before I joined this game I remember looking at a Pathfinder 2e game here and considered joining but then I decided not to. Today I realized that the GM of that game is LightOfMidnight, so as a player who is currently playing both (and probably many more), which one do you prefer and what are the main differences between them in your opinion?

I usually try to play the latest versions of ttRPG systems as they are both more popular (thus more people are playing) and they are usually optimized for more accessibility an ease of play. But PF2e is relatively new (2019?) and it did not settle among the players that much, as far as I understand. I've read something about a three step action mechanism which sounded interesting but don't know much about it.

If you don't mind me chiming in, this is something I'm really interested in. My 2-cents -

PF1e has a ton of material available from multiple years of development. This is both its greatest strength and greatest flaw, IMO, as the huge variety of options can make things confusing while also allowing great variety when it comes to character and system options.

PF2e continues the story beats and maintains the Golarion world setting, which is wonderful. Things like combat actions and inventory control is much more streamlined. Combat is different - more mobile and less forgiving - as far as I can tell with my experience so far. Character creation is still very fun and there are a lot of options already. PF2e's greatest weakness that I've seen people point out is that its not PF1e and lacks the crazy amount of customization, though I have a feeling it'll get there eventually.

I was just referring to my incredibly bad roll but thanks for the explanation.

C1NDER, yeah it is kind of interesting because Pathfinder kind of started as a way to continue the spirit of D&D 3e if I'm not mistaken and after over years people are still clinging to it. I get why they form such strong connections with thhe game though. It is very smart in lots of ways and there are always new things to learn, the detail level is amazing.

So I actually have only just started playing 2e, and that game is my first attempt to run. It's a lot smoother and streamlined, and simpler, however that does limit character options, but it still has lots compared to other games like 5e.

Pathfinder is based of 3.5 (Don't ask me the difference between that and 3) which yes was often considered to be a clusteff of rules and complexity, but a lot cling to it as 5e in comparison is very simple (And we don't talk about 4e :P)

2e is to pathfinder was 5e is to 3.5, but still be a lot of characterizing options and options for variations.

I do like 2e and the 3 action system is great as it lets you not sit there and decide between several actions etc. However 1e and it complex mutated monstrosity of rules where you can do about what you want if you dive into supplements will always hold a place in my heart. (Seriously I once built a merfolk on a tidepool dragon, among several other things)

Sorry, I think I was a little rude.

As for pathfinder 1e versus 2e, I would say 2e runs better and smoothly at a real time game. I was the GM of my old group run of Age Worms using pathfinder rules back in 2011. I remember feeling exhausted and a headache in the last few sections. Too many details.

I would have to agree, that even with PF2e being quite new, it already feels like it has a lot more flavor and customization over D&D 5e. PF2e is growing on me the more I play it.

Aside from that...I'm running a Strange Aeons game which deals with fear and haunts a lot, so I have a question about the nature of haunts that relates to what we just ran into.

More for curiosity than anything - as haunts replicate effects of spells, and most 'fear' spells are necromancy, would Tabat's +2 to saves against necromancy spells apply to a haunt like this? I feel like, though they replicate spells, haunts are intended to be different, so I'm guessing 'no'. Curious what all your thoughts are though.

I would say if it directly say 'as this spell' then all tags of the normal spell, including necromancy, would count. If no spell is mentioned then no I believe.

I was also going to ask a similar question if haunts count as undead as I can't recall off the top of my head and I have this -Fun fact Tabat will be immune to haunts from next level, as they all count as fear effects.. even if the haunt is meteors falling from the sky re-enacting Starfall.
However I have known DMs, especially in horror games to alter it to immunity fear granting say a +4 vs haunts instead .

Thanks for sharing that!
The first thing the source material for Haunts says is they are a half-way point between a trap and an undead. It specifies that spells such a Detect Undead and Hide from Undead work against haunts, holy water has an effect on them, and they are damaged by positive energy - I personally would be hard-pressed to say a haunt would not count as an 'undead' in any most circumstances. Now, whether the effect of the haunt counts as a 'SL' or 'Su' abilities is where I'd see the problem - those are specific to creatures afaik and are always labeled as SL or Su

For my original question, seeing the text of the haunt, I actually think Tabat's +2 against spells from necromancy school would kick in, since the effect says everyone is affected by cause fear, which is a specific spell in the necromancy school.I didn't realize that about Immunity to Fear and haunts, LoM! Pretty cool :D