Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream!

Hi, I am creating a Sorcerer character and i wonder what the Class DC will be? I can't find this in the core rulebook for the second edition and also not for any other spellcasting class. I know it is 10 + proficiency bonus for class + key ability modifier (page 29). However, what is the proficiency bonus for the class? For e.g. Rogue it says "Trained in rogue class DC" (margin of p. 179), but it does not say anything in the margin on the Sorcerer page about Class DC (page 191). Also, this unknown proficinecy bonus does not seem to ever increase for sorcerers.

Hi, I am creating a Sorcerer character and i wonder what the Class DC will be? I can't find this in the core rulebook for the second edition and also not for any other spellcasting class. I know it is 10 + proficiency bonus for class + key ability modifier (page 29). However, what is the proficiency bonus for the class? For e.g. Rogue it says "Trained in rogue class DC" (margin of p. 179), but it does not say anything in the margin on the Sorcerer page about Class DC (page 191). Also, this unknown proficinecy bonus does not seem to ever increase for sorcerers.

Most of the casting classes, including Sorcerer, don't have a Class DC. This is one reason why Warpriest instead uses its Divine Spell DC for Crit Specializations that require a save.

If you do acquire an ability that requires a Sorcerer's Class DC, expect it to reference your casting DC instead. If you pick up an ability outside the class, like through a Multiclass Archetype, the martial Dedications will give you Trained in their Class DC (for later, like if you get the feat for a Dragon Barbarian's Breath Weapon).

Most of the casting classes, including Sorcerer, don't have a Class DC. This is one reason why Warpriest instead uses its Divine Spell DC for Crit Specializations that require a save.

If you do acquire an ability that requires a Sorcerer's Class DC, expect it to reference your casting DC instead. If you pick up an ability outside the class, like through a Multiclass Archetype, the martial Dedications will give you Trained in their Class DC (for later, like if you get the feat for a Dragon Barbarian's Breath Weapon).

Thank you, that makes sense. This could be clearer in the core rulebook.

Pardon the trivial question, and I'll delete if this was accidentally posted twice.

But for thematics, my character is interested in having a ram as a companion. He's a dwarf from the mountains, and rams fit his nature. So... Why can goats climb and not rams? Makes no sense. Or did I miss something?

First, I wanted to thank you for the modifies to battle medicine feat!

Second, could we have some clarification for what concerns flanking with ranged weapons? What we would need to know is

- Is flaking something meant just give bonuses (-2 Enemy AC) to melee attacks?

- If not, how would a character be elegible for flanking while performing a ranged attack ( or a spell attack )?

Finally, we got somehow, indirectly, extra info about it with the "Magical Trickster" Feat

Whether you’re using magic items, wielding innate magic, or dabbling in spellcasting, you can sneak spells past your foes’ defenses as easily as any blade. When you succeed at a spell attack roll against a flat-footed foe’s AC and the spell deals damage, you can add your sneak attack damage to the damage roll. If your single spell leads to multiple separate damage rolls, apply your sneak attack damage only once per target.

We see here that a spellcaster ( and because so either melee or ranged ) can benefit from having an enemy flat-footed. The question now is if all of this is to "enable" the sneak attack bonus or also to give the -2 AC to the enemy.

Thanks for reading

You should link to the threads discussing these questions so the arguments don't get rehashed here.

Please settle this one once and for all: How do Ancient Elf ancestry and Eldritch Trickster Rogue racket interact?

Do they get two MC dedications at 1st level, Get one MC dedication but lose the second because of how dedication feats work, or is the combo simply not a legal character option?

You should link to the threads discussing these questions so the Designers know what's being debated.

I feel like this thread should just be locked, since it seems like they gave up on actually answering rules questions on Twitch stream, even before COVID.

But yeah, not even linking to broader discussion doesn't seem conducive to productive rules design work or discussion here. There's also another "general" Errata reporting thread that is superfluous with the specific product Errata threads (e.g. CRB, or Bestiary, etc) which similarly tends to create opacity in what is being discussed for all involved (people don't know what's already been posted/where, more convoluted for devs to follow along, etc)

When riding a mount that is an animal companion, phantom steed, or similar creature with the minion trait, is a player expected to use the minion trait's 1-for-2-action rules (max 2 actions in most cases), the Mounted Combat's 1-for-1 action rules (which allows for a total of 3 actions), or some form of amalgam of the two seemingly disparate rule sets?

The rules are unclear on this point, and numerous threads have cropped up about it in which no answers are determined and everyone is left scratching their heads.

Does taking the Blessed One Dedicatuon mean you have a patron diety (even if you may not realize it)? And thus prevent you from using Godless Healing?

Are you planning on releasing rules for ancestry creation,similar to how we could creat races later on in 1st Edition? It's similar to monster creation but different enough to get its own rules.

This question arose last night in our session. When wearing a bandoleer, it says in the equipment description that you can carry alchemical items in it (like alchemical bombs), but then the next sentence it only says that "A bandoleer can be dedicated to a full set of tools, such as healer’s tools, allowing you to draw the tools as part of the action that requires them." So is this to say that no matter what you are carrying in the bandoleer, if it is not a "tool" you can't draw it and use it in the same action?

So is this to say that no matter what you are carrying in the bandoleer, if it is not a "tool" you can't draw it and use it in the same action?

Pretty much: Anything in your backpack takes an action to take off the backpack and one to get the item while items in easy to access locations like a bandoleer, pocket, belt pouch, ect take a singlr action. About the only non-tool advantage is that you could pick up multiple items at the same time [like any container] and it looks cooler than a sack.

Andrew the Warwitch wrote:

So is this to say that no matter what you are carrying in the bandoleer, if it is not a "tool" you can't draw it and use it in the same action?

Pretty much: Anything in your backpack takes an action to take off the backpack and one to get the item while items in easy to access locations like a bandoleer, pocket, belt pouch, ect take a singlr action. About the only non-tool advantage is that you could pick up multiple items at the same time [like any container] and it looks cooler than a sack.

it's easier for your allies to see where your elixirs of health are when you are down and they need to feed them to you if they are in a bandolier compared to them searching the 10 or so pouches you have hanging around you! :D

graystone wrote:

Andrew the Warwitch wrote:

So is this to say that no matter what you are carrying in the bandoleer, if it is not a "tool" you can't draw it and use it in the same action?

Pretty much: Anything in your backpack takes an action to take off the backpack and one to get the item while items in easy to access locations like a bandoleer, pocket, belt pouch, ect take a singlr action. About the only non-tool advantage is that you could pick up multiple items at the same time [like any container] and it looks cooler than a sack.

it's easier for your allies to see where your elixirs of health are when you are down and they need to feed them to you if they are in a bandolier compared to them searching the 10 or so pouches you have hanging around you! :D

*Shrug* That's why you label your pouches: if your friends can't read the 'HEALING' embroidered on your pouch of healing elixirs, you need better friends. ;)

Andrew the Warwitch wrote:

So is this to say that no matter what you are carrying in the bandoleer, if it is not a "tool" you can't draw it and use it in the same action?

Pretty much: Anything in your backpack takes an action to take off the backpack and one to get the item while items in easy to access locations like a bandoleer, pocket, belt pouch, ect take a singlr action. About the only non-tool advantage is that you could pick up multiple items at the same time [like any container] and it looks cooler than a sack.

My question was though that in the description of the bandoleer is that it says in the first sentence you can carry alchemical items in the pouches of the bandoleer, but the second sentence says you can only retrieve and use "tools" specifically in the same action. So from the wording as it stands now, this means that no matter what you carry in your bandoleer (ie alchemical items like bombs, etc) you can not interact with the pouch to draw and use it in the same action....UNLESS...it is a tool only? If this is the case, either the description should say you can only carry tools in the pouches of the bandoleer or that anything one carries in their bandoleer can be drawn and used from a pouch in the same action.

graystone wrote:

Andrew the Warwitch wrote:

So is this to say that no matter what you are carrying in the bandoleer, if it is not a "tool" you can't draw it and use it in the same action?

Pretty much: Anything in your backpack takes an action to take off the backpack and one to get the item while items in easy to access locations like a bandoleer, pocket, belt pouch, ect take a singlr action. About the only non-tool advantage is that you could pick up multiple items at the same time [like any container] and it looks cooler than a sack.

My question was though that in the description of the bandoleer is that it says in the first sentence you can carry alchemical items in the pouches of the bandoleer, but the second sentence says you can only retrieve and use "tools" specifically in the same action. So from the wording as it stands now, this means that no matter what you carry in your bandoleer (ie alchemical items like bombs, etc) you can not interact with the pouch to draw and use it in the same action....UNLESS...it is a tool only? If this is the case, either the description should say you can only carry tools in the pouches of the bandoleer or that anything one carries in their bandoleer can be drawn and used from a pouch in the same action.

it says that it has 8 pouches to hold stuff and that they usually hold elixirs and potions.

then it has the additional benefit, that if you instead put a tool kit in it (which takes up the whole bandolier, mind you) you can retrieve it and use it in the same action.

The two things are seperate.

What if I don't have a bandolier OR a backpack?

Can't I just pull potions and the like out of my pockets, belt pouches, and other sensible areas in the same manner I would a bandolier?

Andrew the Warwitch wrote:

graystone wrote:

Andrew the Warwitch wrote:

So is this to say that no matter what you are carrying in the bandoleer, if it is not a "tool" you can't draw it and use it in the same action?

Pretty much: Anything in your backpack takes an action to take off the backpack and one to get the item while items in easy to access locations like a bandoleer, pocket, belt pouch, ect take a singlr action. About the only non-tool advantage is that you could pick up multiple items at the same time [like any container] and it looks cooler than a sack.

My question was though that in the description of the bandoleer is that it says in the first sentence you can carry alchemical items in the pouches of the bandoleer, but the second sentence says you can only retrieve and use "tools" specifically in the same action. So from the wording as it stands now, this means that no matter what you carry in your bandoleer (ie alchemical items like bombs, etc) you can not interact with the pouch to draw and use it in the same action....UNLESS...it is a tool only? If this is the case, either the description should say you can only carry tools in the pouches of the bandoleer or that anything one carries in their bandoleer can be drawn and used from a pouch in the same action.

it says that it has 8 pouches to hold stuff and that they usually hold elixirs and potions.

then it has the additional benefit, that if you instead put a tool kit in it (which takes up the whole bandolier, mind you) you can retrieve it and use it in the same action.

The two things are seperate.

So, to use anything out of a bandolier it takes 2 actions (take it out of a bandolier pouch + actually using the item) to use something? It seems to me there is no difference in an alchemical item in a bandolier pouch than a tool in the same pouch. Just because it is a tool, why should it not take 2 actions to use as well?

What if I don't have a bandolier OR a backpack?

Can't I just pull potions and the like out of my pockets, belt pouches, and other sensible areas in the same manner I would a bandolier?

I can't find "pocket" on archivesofnethys. Sounds like that would be a GM discretion sort of thing.

I would probably, personally, rule that clothing could carry negligible bulk items, but not L bulk items. Even hiding a dagger in your boot requires a sheath.

A belt pouch holds 4 items of L bulk, and an indeterminate number of negligible bulk items, so you'd be fine with that.

shroudb wrote:

Andrew the Warwitch wrote:

graystone wrote:

Andrew the Warwitch wrote:

So is this to say that no matter what you are carrying in the bandoleer, if it is not a "tool" you can't draw it and use it in the same action?

Pretty much: Anything in your backpack takes an action to take off the backpack and one to get the item while items in easy to access locations like a bandoleer, pocket, belt pouch, ect take a singlr action. About the only non-tool advantage is that you could pick up multiple items at the same time [like any container] and it looks cooler than a sack.

My question was though that in the description of the bandoleer is that it says in the first sentence you can carry alchemical items in the pouches of the bandoleer, but the second sentence says you can only retrieve and use "tools" specifically in the same action. So from the wording as it stands now, this means that no matter what you carry in your bandoleer (ie alchemical items like bombs, etc) you can not interact with the pouch to draw and use it in the same action....UNLESS...it is a tool only? If this is the case, either the description should say you can only carry tools in the pouches of the bandoleer or that anything one carries in their bandoleer can be drawn and used from a pouch in the same action.

it says that it has 8 pouches to hold stuff and that they usually hold elixirs and potions.

then it has the additional benefit, that if you instead put a tool kit in it (which takes up the whole bandolier, mind you) you can retrieve it and use it in the same action.

The two things are seperate.

So, to use anything out of a bandolier it takes 2 actions (take it out of a bandolier pouch + actually using the item) to use something? It seems to me there is no difference in an alchemical item in a bandolier pouch than a tool in the same pouch. Just because it is a tool, why should it not take 2 actions to use as well?

correct, except for tools, bandolier is just another type of container

What if I don't have a bandolier OR a backpack?

Can't I just pull potions and the like out of my pockets, belt pouches, and other sensible areas in the same manner I would a bandolier?

sure. But "sensible" is up to GM interpetation, and belt pouches hold 4 L items while bandolier holds 8L items.

When i said above about searching my "10 belt pouches" i was exaggerating... but not by much.

So, to use anything out of a bandolier it takes 2 actions (take it out of a bandolier pouch + actually using the item) to use something?

It seems to me there is no difference in an alchemical item in a bandolier pouch than a tool in the same pouch.

Just because it is a tool, why should it not take 2 actions to use as well?

Not a tool, but a SET of tools: putting a single tool does nothing. As to why... Because the games says so. Most likely it's to allow things skills like medicine to be used in combat. As to why alchemical items are excluded... Well, the alchemist gets the short end of the stick for lot of things so toss that on the pile too.

What if I don't have a bandolier OR a backpack?

If you can't afford such luxuries, you most likely don't have anything to put in them. Next you'll want to know where you put arrows when the game doesn't have quivers. ;)

Can't I just pull potions and the like out of my pockets, belt pouches, and other sensible areas in the same manner I would a bandolier?

It's possible Golarion hasn't invented pocket technology since it seems to be lagging behind in quiver tech too.

Personally, I think quantum quivers are amazing technology.
They phase out as your arrows deplete, yet return as you restock. That's pretty darn sophisticated, I'd say. Just don't analyze them overmuch or their wave function collapses.

Next you'll want to know where you put arrows when the game doesn't have quivers. ;)

On my character spreadsheets I type "Quiver" but link the cell to "Belt Pouch".

If you can stow 4 javelins inside of one, 40 arrows shouldn't be a problem.

Even hiding a dagger in your boot requires a sheath.

Does it? One could certainly put a bare blade in one's boot, with the attendant risk of slicing a chunk off one's foot.

graystone wrote:

Next you'll want to know where you put arrows when the game doesn't have quivers. ;)

On my character spreadsheets I type "Quiver" but link the cell to "Belt Pouch".

If you can stow 4 javelins inside of one, 40 arrows shouldn't be a problem.

LOL I do the same but I find it curious that quivers/ammo pouches are still missing.

Follow-Up Strike which has a requirement of "Your last action was a missed Strike with a melee unarmed attack"
How does this interact with Flurry of Blows which is one action make two unarmed strikes?

Can I use Follow-Up Strike to reroll only the second Strike, either Strike or neither?

Don't forget to post links to the threads discussing your question.

Follow-Up Strike which has a requirement of "Your last action was a missed Strike with a melee unarmed attack"

How does this interact with Flurry of Blows which is one action make two unarmed strikes?

Can I use Follow-Up Strike to reroll only the second Strike, either Strike or neither?

Number of actions is (seems) irrelevant.

The Barbarian feat "Oversized Throw" references picking up a nearby object, such as a boulder or table, and throwing it at an enemy. The object then becomes a simple ranged weapon with the thrown property. This seems like the definition of an improvised weapon. With that in mind, do abilities from the Weapon Improviser archetype, such as Improvised Pummel which adds a +1 item bonus to the attack roll, interact with this weapon? It seems like a clear synergy (the definition of improvised weapon even uses furniture as an example, just like Oversized Throw does), but the thrown weapon isn't explicitly described as having the improvised trait.

Does Eldritch Shot benefit from Magical Trickster, allowing you to sneak attack twice, or does succeeding on a spell attack roll necessitate actually rolling, with ES's substitution not working for it?

For Mastermind Rogue, is it intended that it get harder to flatfoot your target each time? How does creature identification work when fighting against a bunch of the same type of creature?

Does Eldritch Shot benefit from Magical Trickster, allowing you to sneak attack twice, or does succeeding on a spell attack roll necessitate actually rolling, with ES's substitution not working for it?

It doesn't say roll just succeed so it looks good for 2 sneak attacks.

For Mastermind Rogue, is it intended that it get harder to flatfoot your target each time? How does creature identification work when fighting against a bunch of the same type of creature?

Additional Knowledge

Looking at the chart:
Hard, +2
Very hard, +5
Incredibly hard, +10
So first check normal next DC+2, 3rd DC+5, 4th DC+10, no 5th

CompliantHornet wrote:

Does Eldritch Shot benefit from Magical Trickster, allowing you to sneak attack twice, or does succeeding on a spell attack roll necessitate actually rolling, with ES's substitution not working for it?

It doesn't say roll just succeed so it looks good for 2 sneak attacks.

Right, sorry - I've seen comments about 'succeeding on a roll' requiring a roll other places. I think the strongest counter argument is Assurance, but I'm not positive. Also that it might be too good to be true.

CompliantHornet wrote:

For Mastermind Rogue, is it intended that it get harder to flatfoot your target each time? How does creature identification work when fighting against a bunch of the same type of creature?

Additional Knowledge

Source Core Rulebook pg. 506
"Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a check to Recall Knowledge, rolling another check to discover more information. After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should adjust the difficulty to be higher for each attempt. Once a character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless—the character has recalled everything they know about the subject."

Looking at the chart:
Hard, +2
Very hard, +5
Incredibly hard, +10
So first check normal next DC+2, 3rd DC+5, 4th DC+10, no 5th

Ah sorry - what was confusing me was that Creature Identification has another entry after that that makes it seem like "Yep, that's a troll" on secondary successes.

I'm still unsure if identifying one troll in a combat identifies his buddies, or even future trolls.

I'm still unsure if identifying one troll in a combat identifies his buddies, or even future trolls.

You would think that once you identify a troll or more importantly their racial abilities you would be able to more readily identify them again, but the tricky part is how that relates to something that looks like a troll but isn’t a troll, or a variant troll, or in the case of 2E how a unique troll (simply because we gave it a proper name) would affect it. A creature’s base racial abilities shouldn’t be affected by it being elite or having class levels, etc. For example, it shouldn’t be harder to identify a human just because it’s a level 10 fighter, but many GMs simply go by a strict reading of recall based on a creature’s level.

I was hoping for an expanded discussion on this in the Gamemastery Guide, and was disappointed when it wasn’t there. Though I’m hoping it might be added to a product in the future. Delving into the nuances of knowledge has to be worth at least a decent length article by an interested author.

I am told that my questions about Familiars should be posted in this forum, and not in general Pathfinder 2ed forum. Though I will say that all the people that responded to my question "Does a Raven familiar have a beak attack" were very nice and had a very lively discussion on the topic!
Anyway -
My original question as you can see was "Does a Raven familiar have a beak attack", the general consensus was that familiars do not have any of the natural attributes of a Raven. The familiar is nothing but a "Statblock" to which the magic-user can give to attributes per day. One of these attributes MUST be "flight" (thou that was still being discussed). I had also asked that if the familiar was just a "statblock" could it be changed from Raven today and Cat tomorrow. The answer seemed to be NO once a raven always a raven "statblock".
Lastly, I asked that if the reason for it being a fixed entity was that the CRB said that you pick an animal to be your familiar so that is the type of familiar you will always have. I then said if I picked a raven as a companion then I could teach it to have a "Fly-by Attack". Thus I asked

"if the familiar is an animal and animals can be trained to do a given task, then a familiar could be trained to do given tasks"

I am asking this forum where (and why) my logic is incorrect. I am not trying to break rules, but I am trying to understand and still think outside the box on things.

Thank you for your help.

@Grcles de Cross: It is best to think of familiars as being a completely separate thing that looks like an animal. They aren't actually based on the animal that you have them look like at all - for instance, if you make it a bird, it doesn't have a fly speed without you getting the Flight as you picked.

The entirety of their stats are detailed here (core stats and rules), here (familiar abilities), and here (specific familiars). As far as I can tell, the closest you get to an attack is Faerie Dragon's breath weapon.

I seem to be easily confused.

The CRB states " Your familiar can’t be an animal that naturally has more familiar abilities than >your daily maximum< familiar abilities."

However, the APG states, for the dragon, ">Required Number of Abilities 6<
Granted Abilities amphibious, darkvision, flier, manual dexterity, speech, touch telepathy"

I gather I MUST give this familiar "flight" each day. I can grant one more ability BUT "manual dexterity", "amphibious", "darkvision", "speech", and "touch telepathy" are also Familiar abilities.

Where am I missing the logic?

Thanks for the help.

Specific Familiars are basically a deal for buying a specific set of abilities you cannot then alter. You invest the 6 Abilities and get everything in the Faerie Dragon description. Abilities beyond 6 are spent to get other, additional, things.

Deadmanwalking - Thank you that helps a lot! A clarification, please. If I chose a Dragon it will have all 6 abilities AND I can add Focused Rejuvenation and Independence Once per day. I really hope I got it right this time.

Thanks

Deadmanwalking - Thank you that helps a lot! A clarification, please. If I chose a Dragon it will have all 6 abilities AND I can add Focused Rejuvenation and Independence Once per day. I really hope I got it right this time.

Thanks

Er...how do you have the ability to add Focused Rejuvenation and Independence? If it's something on top of just having 6 Familiar Abilities available to pay for being a Faerie Dragon it would stack, yes.

The Lich has an action called Drain Phylactery, which is a free action that can be used once per day to cast any arcane spell up to the highest level that they can cast, even if they don't have it prepared. The exact wording is:

"The lich taps into its phylactery’s power to cast any arcane spell up to 6th level, even if the spell being cast is not one of the lich’s prepared spells. The lich’s phylactery doesn’t need to be present for the lich to use this ability."

Is the intent for the spell to be cast as a free action? Or does the action only enable the Lich to then cast the spell using the required actions as per the spell they choose? Because this is bizarrely strong if it's the first case (and, given the nature of liches and the once per day restriction, MIGHT be ok).

Er...how do you have the ability to add Focused Rejuvenation and Independence? If it's something on top of just having 6 Familiar Abilities available to pay for being a Faerie Dragon it would stack, yes.

These two abilities are listed as abilities that someone can give their Familiar ( APG page 146 ).

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Er...how do you have the ability to add Focused Rejuvenation and Independence? If it's something on top of just having 6 Familiar Abilities available to pay for being a Faerie Dragon it would stack, yes.

These two abilities are listed as abilities that someone can give their Familiar ( APG page 146 ).

OR am I missing your point and the 6 abilities that these familiars have is all it can have?

He's saying if you have more than 6 abilities to give (7 for instance) you can give them additional abilities.

The 6 abilities buys you a "Specific Familiar" which has more abilities than if you spent your abilities on 6 individual abilities (and some special abilities that only it has). This cost of 6 is effectively a "bundle" since you are getting more than the 6 would have bought you, but that comes at the cost of not getting to choose the abilities your specific familiar gets.

6 abilities = Imp

7 Abilities = Imp + Focused Rejuvenation

I have a gymnast swashbuckler with +1 handwraps. If I put the ghost touch property rune of the handwraps, would I be able to grapple incorporeal creatures?

I believe so, yes.

hi all, i am newbie.if i can't take a win under monster card - this card shuffle in location?

I think so.

hi all, i am newbie.if i can't take a win under monster card - this card shuffle in location?

This seems to be a question about the Adventure Card Game.

The general rule if a monster card is not defeated is that it gets shuffled into its location. This can change under a few circumstances:

hi all, i am newbie.if i can't take a win under monster card - this card shuffle in location?

Tap your green mana and summon a Pikachu? I assume this is some kind of card game question instead of a PF2 question. ;)