Castilliano's page

OliveToad wrote:

Errenor wrote:

I really don't see how this could be read as if illusions were allowed to do Athletics skill checks. Damage is a game term. It's not any 'effect', it's damage. Results of athletics maneuvers aren't damage in general. So no, no Athletics for illusions. (Yes, there's also this small issue of not having relevant statistics).

Verbal skill checks and feats I'd allow considering it explicitly allows project and imitate voice and that you have basically full control over it and its appearance. Then it's obviously caster's skills in work like Intimidation. Don't know about modifiers though, they could vary. Ah, yes, and it's your normal actions with normal costs.

You are misquoting me.

Now I am (fixed your typo). Before I wasn't. I can highlight anything I like. Especially when it's relevant to the topic and the old version was not. You highlight wrong things. And your FAQ is almost irrelevant to the question because it discusses how to use MAP and what is attack rolls. Here the question is different. Yes, they have used a bit vague and too broad language in 'illusion's attacks' writing description, but the key words 'damage', 'attack roll' and, well, ' Strikes' make it clear: it's actually only Strikes.

In short, you are misusing vague language (to be precise, a whole one word) to make a hole in rules and make the spell do something it was never intended to do.
Yes, you can do it as a houserule (though using caster's athletics through this illusion spell is quite absurd), but call it what it is.

Yes.

And as mentioned, allowing maneuvers would be like adding the abilities of Telekinetic Maneuver, also a 2nd Rank spell. And compare to Spiritual Hammer, I mean Weapon, I mean Armament, a 2nd Rank spell that's quite similar in power. Illusory Creature would outperform both far to well if allowed to do maneuvers too.

As for Intimidate, in reading the description I can understand the argument since one can use one's actions to speak through it, so I'm on the fence, but leaning toward yes because I can't think of any exploits beyond the spell's rank. It does increase the range a lot, but for a two-action spell + maintain + one's own actions to perform it, it seems balanced.

OliveToad wrote:

For those wondering, I did some more digging. RAW they would be able to do any actions with the attack trait. So shove, trip, grapple and etc. However, by the same token, if any actions with the attack trait were successful on the illusory creature. It will end the spell.

This is because per the rules for the spells state. ”The illusion can cause damage by making the target believe the illusion's attacks are real, but it cannot otherwise directly affect the physical world… If the image is hit by an attack or fails a save, the spell ends…If the illusory creature hits with a Strike…” (RE PC1 337)”

Along with what I found in the Paizo FAQ, Core Rule book Errata . “Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time… An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty… An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game… Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.”

It only has a modifier for attack rolls, though, not an athletics skill check with the attack trait. Allowing maneuvers would make it a strictly better Telekinetic Maneuver.

Exactly. I'd say the same for Intimidation (et al).

As Paizo mentioned re: Golarion's current named dragons, you can use the OGL monsters w/o referencing their species name at all. Which is to say all the ability sets are available, as long as you give them their own identity. Not that Paizo will lightly cross lines, but if the narrative would benefit (especially if based on previous individuals), that option's there.

Do the creatures with lowered attack scores do the same damage?
Or has it increased to compensate, to keep expected damage the same?

Also I disagree with the premise that "easier" = "improved". I'm good as long as obstacles can be correctly measured (by GMs) and overcome (by players) with some level of challenge. Was it not so before?

And the ghoul was changed more for copyright reasons than balance, though being one of the TPK kings, especially in water, losing paralysis was probably necessary even if an iconic ability. Funny enough, one might argue they're less effective in water now depending on how one rules Stench works underwater.

My guess/hope is that the improved Rage integrates some feats as part of the class chassis, i.e. Fast Movement. As in Rage improves consistently throughout one's career with physical buffing so while the Fighter remains better at generic fighting/weapons/styles, the Barbarian gets a nudge in those aspects it already kind of owns thematically, yet isn't at the top of the curve like some of the other martials are in their niches.

Evil God caused Golarion gods to have alter the fabric of the universe to prevent this evil god from destroying the world?

Close enough to the real world explanation.

Nonlethal damage hurts just as much as lethal with the only exception being the final damage taking the target to zero hit points, and you're still knocking them out. "Just do nonlethal" is no consolation!

If anything, one sign of mastery is being able to control the amount of damage one does with a blow, as in sparring or most any media involving a master & disciple, much of which is fantasy and would be simulated with attack rolls. Saying a high-level PC can't spar w/ a 1st level character w/o knocking out the student EVERY SINGLE STRIKE (or worse) is absurd to both the genre and verisimilitude.

---
That said, it seems the easiest answer here seems to be to carry low-level alchemy to do 1 point of splash damage. :-)

I'm sorry. The designers to have to write down that you can not use a character ability you have control over unless it's something like rage. You don't have to sneak attack if you don't want to. It's not like your rogue is mindlessly sneak attacking because they have no control over it.

Tabletop RPGs are not mindless games where the characters execute their abilities because they have them with no control.

If the rogue doesn't want to sneak attack and hit the vitals, they don't have to. I don't need the designers to write that down for me. Sneak Attack has always been optional.

I slap my chum on the back. "Good job!"

That's in the silly "can't control new superhero powers" comedy realm, not high fantasy with a well-trained expert making precise, chosen motions. So yeah, one can absolutely "turn off" Sneak Attack by ya' know, just attacking (which if anything should be easier!).

As for reducing other damage, that falls into a gray zone IMO as many are tied to general competency or a weapon's firepower.

Abadar or the less known Demi-God called Spencer.

Remember Luke & Danny too. Of the three, Danny's the only healer.

(Also it's Spenser, and he's the only one I recall with that spelling.)

Let's not confuse Strike with strike.
Even if you can't Strike an object (w/o some of the special abilities others listed above), you can still attack that object w/ a weapon with the intent to do damage. Nobody is saying you can't do that kind of strike, but it might be resolved via an Athletics check or w/ narrative re: how much time & weapon repair might be necessary to complete the task (if it's even reasonable). Or the GM might use actual Strike damage if they adjudicate that's the best method for resolving the action because the weapon fits the use.

Given the amount of abuse to settings and obstacles I've seen in 3.X/PF1, this is kinda necessary. And I say this as a fellow who often chose adamantine hammers/work tools for his martials because they simply were (too) effective at bypassing obstacles.

As for spells, there's a similar problem that the damage scales so much faster than the durability of the sets & set dressing (much less the props, macguffins, & other items which drive the narrative). Rather than limit one's adventuring environs, etc., Paizo (seems to) think it best to relegate that to a GM's call. Given that either direction stretches verisimilitude, I agree with this decision if only that trying to generate and enumerate materials for all levels would be a headache even while leaving so much uncovered.

The funny thing is how much harmless encounters tap into the PCs' sense of paranoia and/or significance. Playing the consistently-besieged protagonists in what's often an epic tale where their choices have consequences, I too fall prey to this mindset when playing. Which is why I value harmless encounters as it gives a sense of perspective on the world, as well as verisimilitude. Some of these inconsequential moments have become important story beats.

That said, it can often be wiser to fast-forward, even if it's meta to do so, saying that the party gives due diligence to X (assuming time's not a factor!), finally determining it's harmless, they've extracted whatever lore or clues needed, and/or may proceed in confidence.

Also, if one can find the oldest of wandering monster tables, they list many harmless events, like spooky dungeon dressing or denizens that merely keep the fantasy ecosystems humming. Extending that to cities can be more difficult, but also more worthwhile if a recurring setting, especially if the tone impacts later developments, i.e. witnessing a display of authoritarian judgment or merchants talking of interrupted shipping.

There's a whole season of PFS1 where PCs of lower levels participate in scenarios on the elemental planes, so yes, those settled, hospitable areas do exist. Note that the "average" citizen is hardly average which might make social obstacles vs. generic NPCs harder than one might expect.

--
Yeah, I suppose "infinite" (yes, a legacy of The Ring/Planescape) taps into logical conundrums that "immeasurable" avoids, though for practical purposes they're the same.

And speaking of Planescape, it too has many modules/scenarios for low-level PCs to make an impact among high-level factions, and to operate in hazardous territory one would typically think off-limits. If looking to build a planar campaign, it still IMO has the best resources.

Dark_Schneider wrote:

It would be more credible with the condition “if you can grab”, I think about it like the typical brute pulling a chain to avoid the big dragon to move away. But if your hand cannot grab any part of the target to make the catch…

The use of tools should be required, the abstraction sometimes is excessive.

Meh, I disagree. I'm sure you can invent something. The alternative is the "guy at the gym" fallacy where the fighter is bogged down to within human limits but the wizard goes "lol but magic", and nobody wants that.

It's like asking how Gaston (in the original Beauty and the Beast) can essentially juggle refrigerators without all of his joints snapping. He's a literal cartoon, people! You can relax.

Yeah, at Legendary levels we're getting into anime/superhero levels. While many will veer toward cosmic/Dragonball terms (which intentionally break the curve much like One Punch Man), there are less cosmic ones like Demon Hunter or Inuyasha where "normal" humans can achieve legendary feats, often including tossing much larger/stronger enemies, leaping far higher than human joints & bones could handle, etc. Several kung fu/cultivator movies demonstrate this scope of fantasy in internally plausible ways; through mental focus, breath, hitting certain nerves, timing a tip perfectly, etc. Which is to say, legendary PCs aren't necessarily exerting legendary strength, but could be hitting the Achilles tendon so the beast spasms and crumples or slips right when it's adjusting its balance.

I would like "One-Inch Punch" and similar single-Strike alternatives to be options that replace Flurry of Blows. I find it hard to warrant taking those options when Flurry of Blows is so good (and free), yet sometimes those options fit the PC's theme better.

To make a Monk w/ Legendary Unarmed you have to play a Fighter.
In essence you're exchanging your mobility and delaying your development (which of course is a serious issue in shorter campaigns). I've made several, but I always find it hard not to take advantage of the perks of a Fighter, which steers them away from mirroring a Monk. I don't think we'll see it on an actual Monk because it'd have to give up more than just AC defense since offense is valued more.

"How did you know I was more than a simple servant?"
"Your cat rolled its eyes when you acted servile."
"Damn you, Mittens!"
"It's demeaning."

---
Honestly, I don't think it's that creative having seen similar attempts at seeming innocuousness decades ago. Of course I'd allow it with a Deception check (especially since the PC's invested in feats). That wouldn't save the cat from getting swatted offhandedly, and its survival of a token swat leading to the conclusion it's an at-level "cat".

Note if I were a fellow player I'd think it cheesy to try to avoid repercussions which the rest of the party has to bear.
"Hey, why aren't you attacking her?!" cries the just-as-vulnerable Wizard.
"Oh, she's a threat too?"
"Ummm..."

As for PFS servants, that's a bit of a conceit for the Society; fun perks + some opportunities to fill skill gaps/add breadth in randomized parties. It never struck me as indicative of typical play, nor as plausible even.
That said, Gygax & company often had enormous parties full of hirelings & henchmen...much like one might expect from wealthy travelers. Think guides, bearers, etc. All perpetually at risk, so left behind at first indication of danger by any scouts.

Many of my players would attack a hissing cat simply to remove the annoyance/insult, that is as long as doing so didn't undermine their overall combat plan. Some would do so out of paranoia, perhaps with somewhat sound reasoning that the cat should've run away. I doubt any would spend an action on RK too, unless they had abilities linked to it.

I remember when losing in a 007 finale trying to make sure to catch the BBEG's dog in the machine guy spray because dang it, I may not be able to win, but I'm gonna take something precious from that guy as I go down. (And it sprayed the more salient targets too.) GM nixed that, offended by my "heroic" agent's actions. But in PF2 where many of the opponents embody evil or spite, and perhaps also can tell they're going to lose anyway, I could see them trying to kill the unusually brave kitty that somebody in the party must love.
Of course, that tactic's organic; it would vary by each circumstance. And yeah, grabbing the cat seems more and more a legitimate tactic if you know it might get you safely away from murder-hobos.

Holding the familiar hostage is more interesting, RD. Unfortunately it leads to the idea of simply snatching it away. Much more severe than killing it, as it would not get replaced tomorrow, effectively neutralizing the Witch. Gulp! (And speaking of "Gulp!", I can imagine a hungry creature w/ Swallow Whole-small attacking the Tiny familiar if only because the party had all Medium targets. And then fleeing.)

That falls in the "stealing Iron Man's armor/Green Lantern's ring" territory, something the writers seldom do because that takes away what makes them special. Not that Iron Man wasn't badass when the Skrulls underestimated him w/o armor, but one of Iron Man's writers said a hard aspect was visibly damaging Tony w/o lessening his powers...a.k.a. his armor which keeps him from being damaged.
On the flip side, maybe it's more like Captain America's shield, which he's always losing, with it breaking quite often for something indestructible! He keeps tossing it away, so what does he expect?
Hmm.

Finoan wrote:

“This is the symbol of

Urgathoa, a goddess of disease, gluttony, and undeath.”

As a side note, I would not require a roll or even Religion proficiency to recognize the primary holy symbols of gods common in a character's home culture (which for most Pathfinder characters would be the "core 20"). That's the kind of thing that would be common knowledge. I would require it for more obscure symbols. Using Christianity as an example, I would not require a roll to identify a cross as the symbol. Something that's a cross variant (e.g. a Hospitaller cross, or a Saint Andrew's Cross) wouldn't require a check to recognize it as a Christian symbol, but could require one to know the specifics. And identifying a fish as a Christian symbol would definitely need a check.

That's generous, as IRL people who don't study religion have hardly any inkling of other religions, confuse practitioners for each other, and fail quizzes regarding even their own denomination & lore. What in game terms would be a Critical Failure is commonplace.

A bunch of cubical wall sections floating in air sounds more like playing Minecraft than Pathfinder. :)

Craftfinder?

Evilgm wrote:

Do you feel that climbing is so interesting that it requires more checks that can fail to drag the whole thing out? Is there a genuine benefit to adding an extra roll to the scenario?

The sass isn't needed.

I don't know Evilgm well enough to analyze if that's sass, but they are echoing a GMing principle albeit via questions. It's a principle I believe that PF2 advises too. That is if success/failure are not interesting to the narrative then don't make players roll; save rolls for when it matters, trivial rolls dampen pacing (even if realistic), etc.

Which is to say, as with the scene you've set, if there are no other pressures, simply describe the heroic exertion required and move past that (non-)obstacle. But, say if a monster's chasing the party or maybe the fall's treacherous enough, then sure, a basic Athletics check might fit in except "being encumbered" seems far too low a bar IMO. That merely slows a PC down, it doesn't threaten to topple them nor risk dropping what they're carrying.

So in answer to your question: neither DC. No check without extenuating circumstances, and never a check for just becoming encumbered from holding a rope.

CR is accurate, but since it's a +2 higher CR than the party, they'll struggle if unprepared for such a fight. If they depend on melee attacks or energy that matches the breath, have low Fort saves, or if the terrain favors the dracolisk, the party will likely need to use all their resources to prevail. That's expected.
Meanwhile, a party will have a tough-but-reasonable time if filled with martials who can switch to ranged attacks (or specialize in them) & prepared casters who know what they're facing, perhaps to memorize AoEs so they can keep their eyes closed if Slowed. An opportunity to go shopping beforehand would also help. This is a pivotal encounter so likely shouldn't come up out of nowhere.

It's kind of expected somebody will get petrified, which is why dracolisk blood remedies that. If the party lacks the Recall Knowledge skills to recognize that (especially since it's an Uncommon, higher level creature), you might want to base the DC on a normal basilisk or give the party an information source that tells them.

If you still think your party will struggle (as perhaps they're mainly low-Dex melee w/ support), then you could give the dracolisk motivation to land, i.e. treasure to protect or it's starving (which might be why it's Weak). Or you could give your players a learning experience first facing other flying creatures, i.e. gargoyles or harpies w/ Reach weapons so they can recognize they need to patch that tactical gap.

Question: Is this for a thought experiment or to make a viable PC?
There's a big difference in answers.

Trouble with Barbarian is many of the best 1d4 weapons have Agile, which halves the Rage bonus to damage. Also, the MCD's just not worth it compared to Thaumaturge or Rogue MCDs. Of course, if we're going for silly, as RD often prefers, then you'd want all three MCDs!

Not sure why you dislike Spellstrike, RD, when it's just as hidden as any other ability before the Strike. And after the Strike, enemies will know it ain't just itty-bitty dagger damage. Same goes for Channel Smite (which gets access to a die bump too for a deity's weapon).

Which is to say that ultimately there are a lot of little damage bumps out there via MCDs, too many to take them all, but all being around the same damage bonus. I'd say either Swashbuckler or Rogue has the best chassis for adding a burst of damage to small-die weapons if excluding flashy magic. I think a Rogue adding lots of bleed damage plays to the concept, as that tiny weapon just inflicted a gushing wound, though Swashbuckler has similar effects available. Rogue also can add poison if that's subtle enough to count (as could Alchemist).

I think "You're Next" also plays into this concept, and both of those classes have it.

The juxtaposed question to how much healing y'all have (plenty) is how much AoE firepower does the party have? Then factor which of the two would benefit from being a renewable resource; does healing/AoE blasting run low by the end of an adventuring day?
And as Raven Black mentioned, Wis matters. An 18 Wis does about 50% more damage than a 12 Wis due to saves (given standard saves for one's level, I believe more if a lower level as one might expect vs. groups).

Personally I think Flurry + 2-action Ki Blast is just too cool to pass over as a standard routine, while healing might only occur occasionally (and retreating/skirmishing might be better anyway if issues are so dire).

You will also want to play with proficiency without level included. A big reason why Pathfinder characters feel super at higher levels is also because their level gives them such an advantage in terms of rolling against lower leveled opponents, or rather, against common NPCs, which OSR doesn't tend to do.

Yes, this evens out the whole system, meaning armies matter more (and can save well vs. the AoEs meant to destroy them). One might even keep DCs the same to avoid extraordinary feats or unrealistic Medicine. That's a major paradigm shift, yet that's also what the OP's requesting.

Well, yes, that's why I was suggesting shifting the Animist's level of obstacle-overcoming to resemble Thievery's. IMO that's still effectively neutralizing, which seems the core complaint of the OP, but with as you note, interaction.

And yea, Haunts tend to be quite flavorful, even impactful on one's understanding of the locale's backstory, so it's kinda sad to erase them from the narrative with zero interaction. An Animist shouldn't be effectively invisible to Haunts, but rather one who soothes or eradicates them. There should almost be a dialogue, even to the point I could see the Animist using social skills w/ Haunts (much like a Druid/some Rangers w/ animals). That's their shtick.

Castilliano wrote:

Doesn't a trap-minded Rogue (et al) negate traps as a threat? And traps seem more common, yet unless there's a distraction or the trap's OP, when does a trap activate at your table?

Plus Mobility, if one goes half speed, negates Reaction-based traps.

Neutralizing Haunts seems very on theme for Animists so they should have similar prowess. This comparison does suggest the Animist should take some action to overcome the haunt (whether it can react or not), and perhaps move slower while guarding against them.

What, exactly, are you talking about? All I am finding is Trap Finder.

Which very much does not negate traps.

If Spirit Walk worked like Trap Finder only for Haunts instead, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have this thread.

"Trap-minded Rogue" isn't a game term, it's simply saying any (typical) Rogue with a mind to address traps. And that they have little trouble with traps (w/ the exceptions noted above). I thought this was fairly well known & consistent at PF2 tables. So what I'm talking about is how builds with a high Dex/high Perception/high Thievery can handle traps on behalf of the party. Whether that build has Trapfinder (or Mobility) is secondary, though both would help.

After which I suggest that should perhaps be the baseline for an Animist to handle Haunts. Not automatic (as currently written), but reliable, and maybe requiring more investment, i.e. maybe they'd need to max out Religion or Occult proficiency to handle at-level Haunts much like a trap-guy needs to max out Thievery.

---
Separately I could imagine a party bypassing lots of Haunts, losing their Animist, and then having to exit. Gulp.

Doesn't a trap-minded Rogue (et al) negate traps as a threat? And traps seem more common, yet unless there's a distraction or the trap's OP, when does a trap activate at your table?
Plus Mobility, if one goes half speed, negates Reaction-based traps.

Neutralizing Haunts seems very on theme for Animists so they should have similar prowess. This comparison does suggest the Animist should take some action to overcome the haunt (whether it can react or not), and perhaps move slower while guarding against them.

Castilliano wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Agreed 100%. I wrestled in high school and it's not unusual to end up with your face buried in a body part blocking sight. And yeah, when they happens you just have to grasp around to find something to get ahold of. Like sure, you know where they are because you're in contact with them, but trying to grab a specific part or hit them in a specific area would be challenging. I agree with imprecise and miss chance, with the exception that as long as you remain in contact with them you know where they are 5ft square). If that's even an exception.

They allow hitting in high school wrestling?

I mean, no it's not allowed. But it can be hard to tell if you're trying to get a hand in/around an opponents body and trying to throw a punch. Punches were more obvious than biting, hair pulling, scratching, or other underhanded things so it's a lot less likely. But based on legitimately trying to just grab an opponent's arm, I feel like I'd have a hard time punching very successfully either. Cause it's not just about connecting any place on their body, but connecting with something that will hurt. You also can't exactly reel back and punch or rotate your body through to carry momentum. So your punches will have a lot less force.

Also important is that you added "...would be...", not "was", as in a hypothetical, not a retelling.

I think you're reading more into my words than I meant.

I didn't punch anyone while wrestling, but I definitely grabbed at people. Trying to grab someone around the waist instead of around the shoulder, or traying to grab their wrist instead of their hand or bicep isn't easy when you're clenched up against someone.

Of course, what I'm describing is also more than a "grapple" but less than "restrained" because this is possible without either person really having control of the other, but it's not just one person standing holding the other person's wrist. So depending on...

I was supporting you, as your words never did say punching occurred, only that it'd be difficult if attempted. :-P

And yeah, having also wrestled, I find PF2 inadequate for a martial arts RPG, but it's not built to emulate MMA so it's fine much like hit points are abstract. Of course this leads to multiple interpretations of the same broad concept of "engaged in grappling enough to hamper them".
So much better than the 3.X flow chart though! Give me the simpler, less combat-dominating PF2 version.

I actually think the flat check benefits the monsters since it's PCs who default to Athletics, adding the Attack trait to maintaining a grapple.
Most monsters who grapple have Grab, which lacks the trait, as does Constrict. They can maintain easily enough, though this relies on one's outlook on "other effect" re: Hidden & whether the monster is targeting or merely flexing some muscles.

I suppose how often one grabs invisible/hidden foes depends greatly on how many pure spellcasters one faces. :-)
(A lot of PF2 NPC casters are significant martial threats, perhaps because of how easily PF1 ones could be shut down. And Silence, etc.)

---
Foil Senses is a great big bag of crazy given its breadth. No touch opens up a can of worms re: interactions, though I suppose interacting could be interpreted as intentionally breaking Stealth.

I guess the monster would let go, thinking their hands (et al) were empty, though maybe they'd naturally Seek first, but even losing that action costs a lot for significant enemies.
If I think a bug escaped my hand, I still throw to make sure. Who knows how different monsters might react. :-)

If I were to make a blanket rule, I'd have it be imprecise. I wrestled and there'd have been drawbacks if I couldn't have seen, even while grappling. And if you do land a grab, maintaining it doesn't have a miss chance. But not knowing which way your opponent has positioned their free limbs means you might be clasping at air. And unless you have the opponent Restrained, even simple punching/Strikes would be hindered, so 20% miss chance seems about right.
I witnessed a blind wrestler, and he was quite competent, but also had a lifetime to compensate. Still at a disadvantage in many positions.

That said, how precise touch is depends on task, time, and the scope of what one's sensing. But needing to adjudicate each instance might get cumbersome.

It allows you to wear a different skill kit. If you're frequently swapping (or more likely wishing you could be swapping) between skill kits in combat (w/ one of those being a Healer's Kit), that's like getting free actions.
Is that niche? Yes, as there are only a few in-combat kits.
Do I have builds that would cherish getting access to multiple kits during combat? Also yes, were they Gnolls.
Between that and a Grappling bite attack, Gnolls seem to be kings of gaining spare hands. You could wear one kit, carry another, take this feat, and use all three kits with your free hand even while grappling an enemy. Lol. Trapper healing Alchemist...I guess?

Also note that "free hands" is a mechanical concept, so a creature with multiple arms/hands still only has access to two "free hands"(at least as a PC, with NPCs perhaps gaining specific special abilities representing being multi-handed).

So if you have a one-armed Monk, you could arguably have one of your legs be your second "hand", though its functionality would be a matter of discussion with your GM. Which is to say "free hands" can be somewhat nebulous when disconnected from traditional bipedal forms.

Which leads me to my last point, I'd let you grapple with your legs if you weren't using one of your typical "free hands". So there'd be no net mechanical advantage, extra utility, etc., but if you like the imagery, sure, go for it. Abilities like Gnoll's Crunch are pretty precious, so if you are going for a mechanical advantage, you're gonna have to invest.

Note that most metaphysical specifics re: Golarion have gone undeveloped simply because they haven't impacted the larger stories being told. On a smaller scale, ertain scenarios might hint one direction while an NPC background elsewhere might contradict that. In this regard it resembles a comic book universe where everything's true that an author might wish to include.

Also, why commit to a specific worldview (as developers) when one might want to mix, match, delete, and expand for some greater narrative purpose later? I think this mindset also ties into why one of the first major components of Golarion was that prophecy doesn't apply any more. For a fantasy world, that's a major subtraction, yet it also prevents canonical prophecies from accumulating, inevitably bogging down canon. All futures are possible, with none beholden to previous canon (which is hard enough to track for ongoing situations!).

Anyway, I think the primary concept to absorb is that Paizo explicitly has not created Golarion as a prescriptive canon, but rather as a toolset. So not only is it normal for them to leave unanswered questions at the edges, Paizo encourages GMs to cut & paste freely, analogous to CRPG modding. If one were to question the developers, you'd get a broad range of answers (often framed as suggestions/opinions) that suit their own playstyles...at that given time for their own given stories.
And I say this as a GM who loves integrating as much published lore as possible to share with players as we tell our stories.

If I ever meet an Inevitable, I fervently wish it will be with my Human Metal Kineticist armored in gold and red.

MC Inventor?

Is Baldur's Gate 3 going to be any good? I've heard not great things about it. Maybe they've improved it since then. I heard character customization by class and such not a thing. Pre-generated characters. And you can't create your own party.

That's...horrible.

It doesn't matter if they're the same character/PC, it matters if they're the same creature, which they aren't. They even have different stats and sometimes different skills, but more importantly different bodies (for say Athletics to push a door down) and different minds (like say to act as a sounding board for a Recall Knowledge check). The fact their actions are linked and one controls the other doesn't override any of that (nor would it for a Minion creature with similar limitations).

Hopefully this GM was merely reacting to an unknown situation with an over-conservative knee-jerk ruling and can rule more reasonably once considering the elements at hand and how all the constituent parts exist.
Or...maybe it's an issue of mechanical balance, where one player being able to Aid their own PC simply rings alarm bells. IMO that's part of the "two creatures" advantage of a Summoner, something their power budget & vulnerabilities pay for.

I think it's important to note that one can imbalance an encounter if there are narrative solutions or consequences. I'm reminded of the "combat as sport vs. war" spectrum debate which seeded this thread. That difference hinges on narrative more than math so narrative elements seem pretty pertinent to this thread as well. It's like the difference between white-room computation vs. bots and actual play with terrain & motivated agents (not to mention supply routes, traps, deception, etc.).

Also there's that thread about a month back where the GM was looking for advice re: a non-violent player in his group. After some of us described various ways to construct a campaign world/style where many battles could be resolved through alternate means, one poster chimed in how much they themselves would love such a game. Which of course would completely upend typical notions of PF2 combat & monstrous interactions, yet PF2 does have the tools for such encounters & obstacles.

Raiztt wrote:

As a DM of almost 20 years, I can say that after you've figured out your math you've still got several important things to consider:

1.) Enemy motivation/goals - Alternate Lose Conditions
2.) Player motivations/goals - Alternate Win Conditions
3.) Unusual or impactful terrain
4.) Interactables
5.) Diverse enemy types/abilities

Without one or more of these elements, no matter how perfectly tuned your encounter is, it will be boring.

Does this hold for new players? I haven't had the chance to teach the game, but I imagine that learning the mechanics and basic strategy will be engaging enough early on that GMs can put less emphasis on giving enemies personality or varying the environment.

First off, I'd say it's important for new players to recognize their enemies as active agents in the game's world, not simply blips to bop. Sure some are mindless or bestial, but I think it's important for players to recognize they are interacting, not simply rolling.

As for what interests them, the game's half tactics and half storytelling so it matters which appeals more to your co-writers, the players. This thread had only been addressing the former and the tools to balance the tactical side. Raiztt is introducing the other half, in which all of the elements of creative writing interweave into the battles, most specifically "make moments matter". Is this scene/combat deserving of screen time or page space? How interesting or memorable is it on its own or within the greater context?

In an RPG, events should have player choices that impact the story (even if subtly guided there), yet yes, with many players, perhaps especially the newer ones, there's also the emotional appeal of the wondrous, strange, terrifying, or just winning, yay! Setting, mood, intriguing ideas, events, and character-driven elements all can contribute. If you can seamlessly blend the tactical half and the narrative half, then kudos to you though published adventures have a give & take, what with XP quotas for leveling up, yet needing to deliver an impactful campaign w/ memorable NPCs. Also, players steer the ship somewhat, leaning into different interests. Some tables (especially those with little play time) will pare AP encounters down to the pivotal ones while others love conflict and tactical mastery, might even add combats, side plots, etc.
So yeah, encounter advice will vary by each player, and hopefully yours are enough in sync with each other and you that your recipe will resonate with all of them.

I think it has something to do with using one's essence/presence to poke into the universe/cosmos and get direct knowledge of the target much in the way that True Names operate. Not intellectual or wise, kinda channeled in an occult way (albeit without the tag so not).

I think Razmir's the one on the forums asking "How much does turning into a lich distort the mind?"...for a friend.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Thank you Mathmuse for starting this thread. I appreciate your thoughts here and your analysis of the math is always something I learn from. I think a lot of GMs could learn from your ideas here.

One thing I try to play with as a GM for really exciting encounters is the beyond-extreme encounter that is over a sprawlingly large map, with enemies spread out across in different locations, close enough to trigger when appropriate, but far enough away to have that be a visible factor in the party tactics. I think that one of the reasons why some tables experience "weak casters" is when durations of encounters are never longer than 3 to 5 rounds and the map is so small that the longer range of many powerful spells is an irrelevant feature of the spell. My players have responded very well to encounters that are several trivial, low and moderate encounters, with one severe hidden in there somewhere, that can be fought in waves by moving around a central courtyard or on a boat that is pulling out of dock.

In the old days, encounters started when opponents were sighted, or understood to be enemies, which could happen at hundreds of feet away. There would be the question of how to approach an enemy. Archers and mages could be attacking multiple rounds before the martials ever get close enough to attack.

Further, in the older days, you could not assume hostility unless clearly marked as an enemy faction currently at war. Even bands of savages aren't always out to slaughter everything. Sometimes you could just evade the enemy instead, either because they didn't notice you or they let you avoid contact.

All of this holds as true now as it did "in the older days".

Yeah, I agree. There's nothing about PF2's better tuned challenge system that delineates how one must GM. If anything, PF2 makes it easier for the GM to whatever option they're aiming for. And if talking about published adventures, thejeff rightly points out how "the olden days" had subpar encounters. No edition has a monopoly on superior encounter design in their published adventures, but PF2 does have a leg up on superior encounter design tools.

And I'm talking as a GM whose personal campaigns have a broader, war-like scope where you don't go fight "the dragon you just heard about" simply because it must therefore be level-appropriate...because it's not. If you've heard about it, in a major city full of more powerful NPCs, then it's likely famous yet alive for a reason. And that's an actual "encounters must be balanced for PCs, right?" example from a player from 3.0, so it's not like PF2's tuning spawned such notions of game balance. Nor does PF2 require balance. And since 3.X/PF1 encounters were generally swifter, I'd say PF2 gives more leeway for PCs to escape when outmatched.

Complaining about PF2's game balance is like complaining about a finely tuned musical instrument. Just because one can play popular genres with it doesn't prevent another musician from riffing some jazz, scat, or whatever freeform style one prefers.

Build the casters like monsters rather than PCs; the difference in how power is budgeted makes all the difference. An NPC gets less usage out of the breadth, variety, or day-long endurance PCs have so it can be hard to build a level-appropriate threat w/ the PC system. This gets amplified if the NPC lacks the teammates for teamwork or the magic gear to get one's numbers into range. With an NPC, bake those numbers right into the stats, both as if they had gear and had an ally doing Bon Mot/Demoralize, which yes, leads to higher Spell DCs, etc.

Use the same spell list, grab a few at-level class feats that should be useful in their brief encounter, but default to the monster charts for their final stats.
One of the notable traits of high level monsters is they often have efficient action economy, i.e. Improved Grab instead of Grab. So perma-Haste the NPC, maybe add Mobility if it needs to fly vs. PCs w/ AoOs, poach whatever other at-level abilities you think make for a balanced encounter. In many ways this is easier than using the PC-chassis, as the numbers are laid out on charts for you. As mentioned above, pre-buffing spells can achieve much of the same effect, but I'd only use that when it makes sense in the story and the party can't merely wait out until the durations expire. I'd rather spend some of their power budget on directly having the intended abilities, i.e. give them a Fly speed rather than always them conveniently have Fly pre-cast.

Then keep in mind that this late in the campaign, especially as you say with a known type of recurring enemy, the players have likely dedicated a lot of their own power budgets to shutting down spellcasters. Doh! Kudos to them, they're playing right IMO. That means you have to diversify the obstacles. A meaty thug henchman would be the opposite, perhaps an ooze which can Grab PCs, one which is immune to much of what the caster's unleashing (or not if you want to Split it). Or perhaps a room of Hazards & Traps that the caster can navigate, but which the party has to overcome.
And diversify spells. At those levels, the "turn Save Success into a Crit. Success" abilities like Evasion will neutralize a lot of spell effects, but the PCs can't cover all types of saving throws.

One trick I used in a published high-level adventure was to add some peons spread out far and obvious one round before the actual enemy party engaged. The players recognized the peons from before so freely dispersed to handle them, leading to a massive tactical error when the real threat surfaced, even though the diversion only represented one round of movement away.

And of course illusions. Great resource for casters, and the can prematurely trigger the PCs into battle mode so they expend their best buffs & blasts in a minor battle.

GMs are only human beings. Some appreciate having some written word with which to adjudicate in game.

Which is why we have this Rules forum BTW.

Most GMs would "appreciate having written word with which to adjudicate in game" (outside of improvisational storytellers that would likely gravitate to a different RPG). Having such a rule would be the best case scenario, even if one chooses to deviate from it, hopefully with purpose rather than arbitrarily.

And navigating this grey territory is where help of the Rules Forum's combined insight can aid greatly (even if some see fuzzy non-RAW as beyond this forum's purpose).

From how I read it, that's exactly the opposite of the OP's point. This is because what Person A sees as an "exception" might only be a restatement of Paizo's rule/default/etc., something Person B might very well understand. Yet the OP's also not saying it's evidence for Person B's POV. It's simply poor evidence not worth over-analyzing when we're adults who can decide what works best for our tables (which Paizo wholeheartedly advises and encourages).

So the rule of thumb (if not whole hand) comes out to "the exception proves GMs must adjudicate because it may or may not be alluding to a rule", which is to say pointing at exceptions makes for poor grounding. A rule only exists when it's communicated, so it's a stretch to be beholden to one that's written nowhere. A major element of PF2's design philosophy is that GMs should use their reasoning more than subjugate themselves to legalistic rules interpretations, much less nonexistent rules vaguely discerned through indirect, unreliable means.
In other words, PF2 RAW has explicitly stated that RAW is no longer king, so there's no reason even to base an argument on "RA-hinted at" (if we should even be arguing).

One of the devs (I believe) made it clear that if the narrative calls for a Fireball to burn the dusty, old library, then that's naturally a risk that should exist. Yet it's the default that AoE's never harm items that matter, since that's generally unfun (most especially when a PC dies or drops an item, losing some or even all of their wealth due to a follow-up AoE). This is much the same reason PF2 removed Sunder. But yeah, if the story/obstacle/whatnot would be enhanced by overriding the default, it can happen. That's one of those areas where GMs should be warned to weigh the cost/benefits AND even savvy players better be forewarned.

One might rather say it's an attribute of "this specific dusty, old library being susceptible" applied by the GM/writer instead of a "Fireball burns dusty, old libraries" which as mentioned would be abnormal. I can think of one example scenario where a boss baddie throws papers in a brazier to burn clues/evidence. I imagine destroying the brazier with a Fireball isn't going to save the evidence! But if a boss died then their body was toasted with an AoE, I'd think any papers on them would survive if killing the boss was meant to be the only obstacle/step needed. Heck, it should probably survive most anything short of utter destruction.

As a grognard Drow fan who's built a behind-the-scenes Drow adventure arc going through DnD modules from the Drow's POV (and hitting most of the "best of all time" adventure list), I can't say I would have noticed if Paizo had silently excluded Drow.
"We're going to the Sekmin portion of the Darklands."
"Cool."

So I find it mighty polite of Paizo to even bother to tell us, and to take the blow to their own plans for the sake of smoother transition than would have happened via Hasbro's legal shenanigans.

---
And yes, one can't officially play a Drow in PFS, but your head-canon is your own. In PFS1, I did play a Half-Elf pseudo-Drow, escaped from Drow slavers. It had zero relevance to any scenario and I don't even think his escape or subterranean origins ever arose except in his own dedication to freeing others. But he was a Drow to me! :-)

The Darklands represents far more in Pathfinder than in D&D if only due to having multiple layers of continent-sized regions. Compare to The Vault of the Drow which represents a city & its farms. That's like having alien planets nested below your feet. If not for daylight, many monstrous abominations would as readily devour humanity as any other snack. It's a good thing they also occupy each other.
And then there's all the same potential for ancient ruins and magical anomalies found atop Golarion. Heck, arguably the commonality of Drow might have watered down the Darklands' eldritch, esoteric, eerie potential.

@ especially in Against the Giants and the Spider Queen series, they were an unknown foe (even if hints were placed in some versions of the Slave Lords modules/compilation).

That's an issue with timelines, taking a later product and placing before an earlier one. The giants modules hinted at Eclavdra, but it wasn't until the final one you met her...wielding an artifact and adjacent to a temple of eldritch horror. This was a person meant to stand out against a party fighting scores of organized Fire Giants. So yeah, pretty powerful, but in a wholly different way to the waves of giants; lithe, stealthy, with little strength, yet lots of exotic incapacitating effects (as opposed to the giants' pure physicality).

tl:dr Without that mechanical imbalance for low-level Drow to fight high-level PCs, there's just the spider & demons, right? But isn't that more about the spiders & demons than the Drow themselves? Pretty sure the serpent folk are going to come w/ their own decadence, poisonous monsters, and fiendish allies too.

I agree with that interpretation re: terrain. The wall springs into existence in the given pattern, save for areas where it cannot. Obstacles breaking the pattern of Wall of Fire, unlike some walls explicitly state, seems to have zero effect on its manifestation. I do have some qualms about if the wall's blocked twice whether I'd let the separate portions both manifest.

If I recall the length of the ring is the length of the line (in terms of squares, and w/o me double-checking) I don't think you can shorten the ring as it's defined by its radius which is neither length nor height, the two parameters the caster controls.
Which is to say, I don't agree with your rendition of a 10' radius (hollow) circle. It implies a 5' radius circle around a point would be...a 10'x10' square? The way you have it is how I'd imagine a 5' radius circle would look; go out 5' safely from center point then there's the circumference of fire. So a 10' radius would go 5' further before fire (filling in corners I believe).