TheFinish's page

First the Bookkeeping:

* - Campaign: Hell's Rebels ported to PF 2E Legacy
* - Role: "Primary Melee"
* - I was inspired to come over here by the "Bayonetta" thread.

The problem is that, the character appears to want to be two different things: A dashing swashbuckler AND a man of great strength and size - so I am looking at a MAD build, but I don't want to let my fellow players down at the table. (Fortunately, the inspiration character dumped Wisdom and skimped on Intelligence.)

Is starting as a Fighter with the Noble Background and then taking the Swashbuckler Archetype at 2nd the right move - or would the reverse be?

Have you considered going Ruffian Rogue? Porthos, aside from being large, was also a ladies man (he did, after all, get his money from a woman whose husband he was cuckolding), a bit of a cad (see earlier comment. In fact, while heroes, the book musketeers are anything but paragons of virtue...), but very likeable.

With a Ruffian Rogue you can go in on Strength and Charisma, relying on lower dexterity but medium armor, and you'll have more than enough skill increases to fulfill the "dashing swordsman" fantasy.

As for Archetypes, you can't go wrong with Duelist, whether Free Archetype or not.

Bluemagetim wrote:

I have been a bit confused by this thread. Two thoughts.

1) Why would an ally use the blade of their dagger to hit a party member in general?
You would be a poor ally to strike a party member with the blade end.
It shows little concern for their safety. Even in fantasy/film depictions of this kind of thing the most you would do is hit them with the pommel.
That is improvised weapon territory but its the right way to do this, using the blade is something a frenemy might do, but not someone that doesn't want to actually harm you. If your bringing a blade end to an ally its going to be to do surgery not to knock the sense back in them.
Edit: stabbing the sense back in someone doesnt have the same ring to it.

2) I think it gets into a sort of computer simulation-ish kind of thing to make a rogue be unable to decide when they sneak attack. Its an ability that should be completely in their control of when they are or are not using it. This is the benefit of playing table top, you don't have to be slavishly applying an ability to the point of absurdity.

For 1, the rules around non-lethal damage with edged weapons are bizarre.

We landed on the RAW that an improvised weapon can't apply sneak attack outside of the Ruffian, right?

I mean Improvised Weapons are Simple Weapons, and the GM determines what traits, if any, they have. If a GM gives an Improvised Melee weapon Agile or Finnesse, then Sneak Attack should apply without the need for your Rogue's Racket to be Ruffian.

But they could easily say "yeah the butt of your dagger is a d4 Improvised weapon with no traits" and then you wouldn't be able to apply Sneak Attack.

They could even say the butt of your dagger is a d4 nonlethal weapon so you're only taking the -2 from Improvised instead of -4 for improvised and nonlethal.

It's all up to the GM in the end.

Also, for balance considerations:

The strict RAW reading (yes, you have to deal all damage that you are eligible for when hitting an ally to remove the confused condition) makes Snap Out of It a worthwhile feat.

If you are allowed to attack an ally for 1 point of damage with no feat investment, then the value of Snap Out of It goes down dramatically.

I'd say Snap Out of It's value would go down very slightly, if at all, rather than dramatically. The feat is much, much more useful than just removing Confused, and even if we were only taking into account how good it is at removing Confused, it doesn't require dealing damage and it gives a +1 to the save, making it much better than whacking your friend even for 1 damage, since that requires an attack roll and then a flat check. The only downsides are the immunity, and the range.

So no I don't think allowing you to attack an Ally for low damage makes Snap Out of It worth significantly less. It's still a great feat.

TheFinish wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Anyway I still think that this interpretation that you can use TMI to use a staff charged by another char falls into TGTBT (Too Good To Be True).

I understand the logic of this interpretation that you are tricking the staff to "think" that you are its original charger but it's too strange and a bit exploit to allow TMI as the only way to allow the usage of a staff charged by others.

Source Core Rulebook pg. 443 4.0 - Ambiguous Rules wrote:

Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

Why would it be "too good to be true" though? It's really no different from someone with TMI having a bunch of scrolls, but with the added drawback of relying on someone else to charge the staff for you. You still need the TMI checks, your DC or spell attack roll is still going to be horrendous and so on and so forth.

There's no advantage here I can see if the wizard (or sorcerer, or whoever) wants to charge a staff and give it to their rogue (or fighter, or whatever) buddy. It's not like they can charge multiple staves during daily preparations.

Because this doesn't exist outside the TMI usage. In a party with a druid and a cleric for example the druid cannot charge a Staff of Healing and give it to Cleric to cast (and vice versa) no matter if both are able to use the spells in the staff the charges are untransferable even between casters.

So why TMI that's an unorthodox usage of a magic item would break a restriction that even the most legendary spellcasters cannot? TMI is an workaround to allow non-casters or casters of different tradition of the item spell to able to cast spells from items at cost of one extra action and a skill check with a reduced spell DC. Makes little sense that such thing is...

The most legendary spellcaster ever can't cast spells from a scroll if the spell isn't on their spell list...unless they have TMI, in which case they can.

The most legendary spellcaster ever can't cast spells from a wand if the spell isn't on their spell list...unless they have TMI, in which case they can.

That is the whole point of TMI. You're paying a feat tax, an action tax, a skill-roll tax, and lowering your capabilities (in the form of Spell DC and Spell Attack) significantly in order to use a magic item that you otherwise couldn't. Your example doesn't really work because like...the Cleric could just prepare the staff themselves?

You could have an argument if you said "Well, you could have a Druid prepare a staff and give it to a Wizard who has prepared their own staff, and the Wizard could use TMI to use two staves!" And...yeah, so what? The Wizard's going to be much worse at using the staff than the Druid so unless there's Wild Shape concerns or something else that would prevent the Druid from using the staff the party is just literally worse off. And it wouldn't be any different than the Wizard having a bunch of Druid-spell wands and using those with TMI, which is perfectly valid.

Anyway I still think that this interpretation that you can use TMI to use a staff charged by another char falls into TGTBT (Too Good To Be True).

I understand the logic of this interpretation that you are tricking the staff to "think" that you are its original charger but it's too strange and a bit exploit to allow TMI as the only way to allow the usage of a staff charged by others.

Source Core Rulebook pg. 443 4.0 - Ambiguous Rules wrote:

Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

Why would it be "too good to be true" though? It's really no different from someone with TMI having a bunch of scrolls, but with the added drawback of relying on someone else to charge the staff for you. You still need the TMI checks, your DC or spell attack roll is still going to be horrendous and so on and so forth.

There's no advantage here I can see if the wizard (or sorcerer, or whoever) wants to charge a staff and give it to their rogue (or fighter, or whatever) buddy. It's not like they can charge multiple staves during daily preparations.

Honestly, these are perfect 10th level feats. Both are really strong, but which is better will vary based on your party and tactics. I think most parties will prefer Opportune Backstab but Nimble is nice for the lone wolf rogue.

Opportune Backstab is 8th, not 10th. Which actually matters more than people have mentioned here, not just because it means Oppotunr Backstab comes online earlier but because Nimble Strike is competing with all the improved Debilitation feats as well.

So not only does getting Nimble Strike have a higher feat cost due to prerequisites, it also comes later and it means delaying some really powerful options, which is why I think Opportune Backstab wins out handily most of the time.

YuriP wrote:

The other point is, would the specifics of prepared and spontaneous casters with the staff work like a Trick Magic Item?

Prepared spellcasters can add more charges to the staff while spontaneous spellcasters can use the staff's spells with their spell slots. And how does a char that isn't a caster use the staff that was prepared by a 3rd party? If it was prepared by a < prepared? > caster it will have the double of the charges ? But if was prepared by an spontaneous there's no benefit?

Great point, I completely forgot about spontaneous casters and their strange relations with staves.

But why 'double of the charges'?

Because a prepared caster can expend a spell slot to add charges to the staff equal to the level of the slot expended. And usually people will use the highest slot they have.

So you have a prepared caster that can cast 3rd level spells. They get a staff. They prepare it, which gives it 3 charges. The then spend one third level slot to give it 3 more charges. It now has 6 charges. Technically the staff could have between 3 and 6 (because the prepared caster could spend no slots, a 1st level slot, a 2nd level slot or a 3rd level slot), but you get the idea.

EDIT: Forgot to answer the OP. I personally think Trick Magic Item would work in a staff with no charges by letting you cast cantrips. And if they somehow get a hold of a staff with charges, I'd let them spend them too. But without help they won't be able to recharge it.

We were discussing with a friend some time back how you can be a perfectly fine follower of Baphomet by just being a guy that messes with maps, street signs or roadsigns, no other "evil" required.

Edicts Confuse paths and roads, outwit your foes instead of overpowering them, pace labyrinths
Anathema Kill something that cannot significantly harm you, bargain with Asmodeus

All of these are incredibly tame, and it did lead to the idea of a breather quest tracking "a dangerous demon lord cultist" who is just a dude stealing street signs to annoy people. For the glory of Baphomet, of course!

(also, the fact that "confuse paths and roads" is vague enough that a guy with a terrible sense of direction technically fits caused no end of mirth too)

I am playing remaster version, 2nd Ed. Some goblins are using their turn to attack from corners and large stone tables that give standard cover, they then take cover (standard to total cover)and stealth to gain hidden. 3-actions.

What happens when a player moves to a position where they technically aren’t behind an object any longer and have a straight on view at the goblin I am pretty sure the hidden is gone, but what about the cover bonus… by the rules he has cover until his next turn, but is it downgraded to +2 or is there a separate rule that makes the cover completely gone?

The Hide action states that if at any point after being hidden, you lose Cover/Concealment from the creature you hid from you're immediately Observed.

Adjudicating Cover is very clear: you only get Cover against someone if a line drawn from the center of the viewer's square to the center of the target's square passes through the object in question.

So in your example, if your player moves so that the stone tablets are no longer between him and the goblin, the goblin loses all cover and, having lost all cover, they also immediately become Observed and cease to be hidden.

So, I've been messing around with different builds and started playing around with possible monk builds. There is a feat (ancestral weaponry) for the monk that, if you have the monastic weaponry feat, you can make racial weapons monk weapons.

Because there is a general feat for weapon proficiency, and most other races have a feat for racial weapons, it sort of feels like the universal nature of the human should make their Unconventional Weapon feat their racial feat. I can see how this might be considered a stretch, but I also feel like it plays well into the idea that humans are everywhere and get adopted into everything (or that everything gets adopted into them), so I don't feel like this would be unreasonable. However, I can't find anything in writing to suggest that a weapon proficiency gained through the human feat would make it such.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work for one big reason:

Ancestral Weaponry requires a feat that grants you access to all weapons with a given ancestry trait. Even if [Human] was a valid weapon trait (and it isn't), Unconventional Weaponry grants you access to one weapon, not all of them, so it wouldn't qualify anyway.

Now, mechanically, I don't think anything breaks if you allow a human monk to use Ancestral Weaponry to make his one weapon acquired through Unconventional Weaponry into a monk weapon (so long as it's finesse or agile). But it'd need to be something you talk to your GM about.

Finoan wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

The reason I am confident is because the remaster entry for staff nexus says on PC 196 unlike the CRB which states "but it gains no charges normally during your preparation" This statement is not found in the actual entry in the remaster book.

Ehhh... You can't have it both ways. If you want to ignore the CRB printing when interpreting the Player Core rules, that is fine. But you can't then turn around and say that the removal of that wording is significant.

From just the Player Core reading, what I notice is that the wording very carefully says that "During your daily preparations" you can spend a spell slot spell to gain charges. Not "When you prepare the staff".

The staff that gains charges when preparing it is the upgraded staff.

Its not the removal of it that i find significant, it is the absence of the imperative that it gave. Its not there to say you cant prepare as normal, so i will prepare as normal.

I would have to see something saying during your preparation you can only do x to impose a limitation. Otherwise i will assume I can prepare as normal and also do the additional effect.

What additional effect? There is no additional effect. All prepared casters can spend a spell slot to add charges to a staff during daily preparations. The Thesis only gets additional effects at 8th level (where you can spend more than 1 spell slot) and/or whenever you craft your makeshift staff into a magical staff.

And again, the fact that they mention "This staff gains charges from preparing it along with expended spells." clearly implies your makeshift staff doesn't work this way, or there would be no point in wasting word count reiterating this.

Specific trumps general, and the Thesis clearly explains how you can add charges to your makeshift staff: by spending spell slots.

TheFinish wrote:

And yet you don't need flat checks to target yourself with Treat Wounds because you're never Concealed from yourself, only other creatures. So you can, in fact, bandage yourself blind with 0 problems.

As for the other points, things that happen to real world people have 0 bearing for Pathfinder rules, where not only can I find a backpack that fits 10 bucklers as easily as it does a single shield, but no matter how much stuff I have in it, retreiving a item from it only takes me 1 action. Which is also how long it takes me to draw a sword. Or to readjust my grip on a staff.

For hidden, if you are in darkness you are blinded and hidden from yourself. Crb 448, CRB 619, CRB 621 for darkness, blinded and hidden respectively. If I have missed a rule or specific rule interacrion please cite it.

Not sure if you decided to read from my post only, or just like ignoring context. My point isn't that I would rule that way because of real world mechanics, it is that this is how I would rule it for a scroll that was withdrawn in the dark and then the real world examples are because someone suggested that following RAW would be ridiculous.

I mean yes, you've completely missed how those rules actually work:

Darkness: "A creature or object within darkness is hidden or undetected unless the seeker has darkvision or a precise sense other than vision (Special Senses are on page 465)."

Under Detecting Creatures: "There are three conditions that measure the degree to which you can sense a creature: observed, hidden,
and undetected." and later, in the same section "With the exception of invisible, these conditions are relative to the viewer—it’s possible for a creature to be observed to you but hidden from your ally.

The rules for detecting things applies to other creatures or objects, never to yourself. You are never Hidden from yourself, or Undetected, or Unnoticed. All of those apply to creatures or objects that aren't you, which is what makes the most sense. If we follow your train of logic, an invisible spellcaster would be entirely unable to target themselves with spells (after all, they're Undetected) which is, to put it simply, absolutely bananas.

But furthermore, Blinded states:

"You can’t see. All normal terrain is difficult terrain to you. You can’t detect anything using vision. You automatically critically fail Perception checks that require you to be able to see, and if vision is your only precise sense, you take a –4 status penalty to Perception checks. You are immune to visual effects. Blinded overrides dazzled."

This only cites you can't detect anything using vision. Which, again, only applies to other creatures, not to you.

So I reiterate: you can 100% use Treat Wounds on yourself in the dark with 0 trouble, no flat check required.

And since I forgot to answer OPs question: no, the requirements to activate a scroll are clear, and reading isn't one of them.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Ugh. Requiring flat checks to target yourself is the apex of bad use of RAW, IMO.

I have seen people fumble to locate objects on their body (wallets and keys) and buttons on clothes in the dark.

I haven't seen someone apply a bandage in the dark, but I doubt it would be easy. Doable all the time with patience and time, but not easy.

As far as I am concerned there is nothing to indicate that spell casting is less fiddly than bandage application.

So targeting yourself with a spell in the dark while in combat or expecting danger, and doing so as quickly as you can... I don't think the flat checks are that unreasonable.

And yet you don't need flat checks to target yourself with Treat Wounds because you're never Concealed from yourself, only other creatures. So you can, in fact, bandage yourself blind with 0 problems.

As for the other points, things that happen to real world people have 0 bearing for Pathfinder rules, where not only can I find a backpack that fits 10 bucklers as easily as it does a single shield, but no matter how much stuff I have in it, retreiving a item from it only takes me 1 action. Which is also how long it takes me to draw a sword. Or to readjust my grip on a staff.

Thaumaturge - Divine Disharmony (L1)

Rogue/Swashbuckler - Tumble Behind (L1/L2)
- This goes well with a the Unbreakable Goblin Heritage and 'Bouncy Goblin' L1 feat that gives you a +2 circumstance bonus to these checks.

Rogue - Dread Striker (L4)
- This will be the most reliable and earliest if you start rogue. There is a new Rare L5 reincarnation feat in the newest season of ghosts book called reincarnated ridiculer. The feat only makes people immune to your demoralize attempts if you critically fail, so it will be significantly more reliable from L5 onwards.

Gunslinger/Pistol Phenom/Bullet Dancer - Pistol Twirl (L2/L2/L4)
- The Pistol Phenom dedication will give this to you right at L2.

Water Kineticist - Winter Sleet (L4)
- Great for a kineticist because you can expand your aura, but it will remain at 10ft for others the entire game.

So you could do something like a Unbreakable Goblin Heritgage, L1 ancestry feat with bouncy goblin. Grab Tumble Behind at L1 from rogue. L2 take the pistol phenom dedication so you can do a ranged feint as long as you hold a gun. L4 take dread striker from rogue so you can demoralize instead of feint (the -1 status penalty to enemy AC is better than feinting). L5 take the reincarnated ridiculer so you can re-apply demoralize.

Wouldn't they really suffer from missing Quick Draw at level 2? That means they'd need 2 actions to throw a dagger, and since Pistol Twirl requires a hand occupied by a gun they can't start with two out before needing to rearm.

If I had to build a throwing dagger Rogue I'd personally go:

Racket: Thief (we're sadly not going to be using Dex-to-Damage, but we want their Debilitations)

Lvl 1: Tumble Behind
Lvl 2: Quick Draw
Lvl 4: Dread Striker
Lvl 6: Juggler Dedication
Lvl 8: Lobbed Attack
Lvl 10: Precise Debilitations

After that you can build however you want. Until Dread Striker, you really need to make good use of the Rogue's Surprise Attack and you'll need to get close to use Tumble Behind to get consistent Sneak Attack damage off of your daggers. Once you have Dread Striker you have a lot more wiggle room, since you can Demoralize foes from 30ft away, but you still have Tumble Behind if they're immune and/or they pass.

Juggler is a fun little archetype (and if you have Free Archetype, you should take basically all the feats, adding Focused Juggler at 4 and Quick Juggler at 6), but Lobbed Attack is just another failsafe to get us one more off-guard if Demoralize fails and we want to stay at ranged.

At lvl 10 things get easier because Precise Debilitations means you only need to land 1 attack against an off-guard opponent to make them off-guard to anything until the end of your next turn, which will help immensely.

Hope it helps!

How I read apex items is they only will raise a stat to a total of 18. what I am asking is that if you have a stat higher than 18 with a raise say if you have a 19 and want to raise it to 20 would that upset the math in path finder?

They will not actually raise your score, they raise your attribute modifier.

"When you Invest an Item that has the apex trait, it
improves one of your attributes, either increasing the
attribute’s modifier by 1 or to a total of +4, whichever
would give you a higher score."

If you have a 19 in a stat, your modifier is +4. An Apex item would make it +5. You would still have a 19 in that stat, however.

If you later raise that attribute to 20, you'd have a +5 modifier normally, which would be +6 when we factor in an Apex item.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't think you might mean the pre-remaster rules. Even then, Apex items state:

"When you Invest an Item that has the apex trait, it improves one of your
ability scores, either increasing it by 2 or to a total of 18, whichever grants the higher
score."

If you've a Score of 19 and you put on an apex item, you'd go up to 21, still getting a +5 modifier.

Metal Carapace states "If you take damage from a critical hit, the metal shatters and the impulse ends."

Shield Block says "While you have your shield raised, you would take
physical damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) from
an attack."

Maybe it's because English isn't my first language, but when I read these two I'd rule that the Impulse only ends after the shield block, since shield block can't be used when you've actually taken damage ("you would take" means you've not taken any damage yet) and the impulse ends when you do actually take damage.

TheFinish wrote:

For my part, my players and I hashed it out that an action is hostile if it does one or more of the following: 1) Requires an Attack Roll; 2) Deals damage; 3) Imposes a negative condition; 4) Imposes a penalty. For the most part this has served us well, if a weird situation comes up (Escape) we rule on it on the spot and move on (Escape isn't a hostile action; yes, even if the player has Contortionist)

It's a good way to deal with what is and what isn't an hostile action but notice that all this you mentioned are direct hostile actions the problem is that the rule includes indirect actions.

I know, and while I understand that it'd be nice if this was clarified (especially if you do PFS), my group and I just ignore it. Only direct hostile actions matter, because if we start bringing in "indirect" into the mix it makes it more complicated for exactly no gain.

Still a weird rule though, so good for this thread (and also, for some clarification for those who can't house rule for any number of reasons).

Insulting, belittling, slandering, or defaming someone is hostile. Approaching someone silently so they don't know you're there is hostile. Merely existing in the same space as someone else who doesn't believe you have a right to be where you are or exist IS hostile, people see and experience this every day and are regularly in actual mortal danger if they don't act wisely and either ready to adopt a defensive posture, flee, or go on the offensive and two of those three is choosing to continue engaging in a conflict and participate in hostility.

As you've said, you're not looking to change peoples' minds or anything, and if this is how you run your games, more power to you. But if I'm reading this right, this would mean you can't drink an invisibility potion to infiltrate a place without initiating combat, which is enough for me to hope I never play at your table and that you never play in mine.

For my part, my players and I hashed it out that an action is hostile if it does one or more of the following: 1) Requires an Attack Roll; 2) Deals damage; 3) Imposes a negative condition; 4) Imposes a penalty. For the most part this has served us well, if a weird situation comes up (Escape) we rule on it on the spot and move on (Escape isn't a hostile action; yes, even if the player has Contortionist)

And as for weird rules: special material ammunition, just because it came up in a recent discussion. The price is already pretty bad, but then there's the question of whether you need higher grades as your weapon improves? Or maybe not? We've no clue and haven't been able to find an answer.

To answer the question: No, as long as it meets the listed requirements it doesn't matter how you acquired the spell in question.

The sentinel quote you just put there says it won't upgrade if unarmored defense goes up so the wizard will stay at only trained with heavy.

You would need light or medium to go to expert from your class unarmored isn't counted for the feat.

"If you are at least 13th level and you have a class feature that grants you expert proficiency in unarmored defense, you also become an expert in the armor types granted to you by this feat."

The proficiency will get upgraded to Expert, but only at 13th level. For the Wizard, this doesn't matter (they get Expert Unarmored at 13th). For other classes (like the Monk, or an Animal Instinct Barbarian with Animal Skin) it's a significant delay.

-----------------

On Topic though, I don't think that's right. The Feat grants you Light and Medium, and if you already have those, it also grants Heavy.

Note that it doesn't say "If you already were trained in light armor and medium armor, you gain training in heavy armor instead", it says

"If you already were trained in light armor and medium armor, you gain training in heavy armor as well"

So at 13th level, the Wizard would be Expert in Unarmored, Light, Medium and Heavy.

It doesn't, no. You summon it, as the spell describes. If the spell required a corpse it'd be described in a Cost requirement (Something like Cost: One corpse or skeleton), or alternatively it'd specify it must target a corpse or skeleton (something like Target: One corpse or skeleton).

You're not really animating anything nearby so much as pulling the dead thing from somewhere and giving it unlife.

Unfortunately it'd seem like you can't play an Ancient Elf Eldritch Trickster. Both give a Multiclass Dedication Feat, but they have no wording saying you can ignore the Dedication's requirements (like Multitalented does).

So you'd go through CC, pick Ancestry, get your Ancient Elf Multi-class dedication, then move on to class, and that's where the trouble occurs.

As a GM I'd be more than willing to let a player be an Ancient Elf Eldritch Trickster if their Ancient Elf Dedication and the Eldritch Trickster Dedication would be the same, but I'm not entirely sure that's possible under the rules.

It is obvious that the Bard must be able to produce the sound (of the instrument) in order to cast a spell. But does this also imply that the spell does not work on a creature that can't hear it?

So if a bard can cast fireball for some reason and uses this to make it Auditory and has a bunch of Deaf minions he can have them tie up "hearing" enemies and he can fireball with no chance of hurting them?

No. The text is clear that it's Cast a Spell that gains the Auditory trait, not the spell itself. Which means, as we find under the auditory trait description that hyphz posted...

"An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds. A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it."

What that means is that your bard would be unable to use the Cast a Spell Action (and therefore, cast the spell at all) if they were unable to produce the required sounds. It doesn't matter if anyone can hear them at all, only that the bard can produce them.

So, for example, if your bard was under the effect of a silence spell, they'd not be able to use Component Substitution to cast spells with their instrument.

The Syrinx are the "bird head, wings, humanoid body" of Pathfinder.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

krobrina wrote:

The other thing I don't get: if you have flapping wings, you shouldn't need to roll to hover in still air. It would be like making people roll to sit down.

I would like to point you to the vast majority of creatures with wings that find it incredibly difficult to hover in place with still air.

O.o

I googled which birds can hover and there are quite a lot of them. But let me ask you. The ones that don't. How do we know they can't? After all they're just dumb birds and you can't easily ask them to try it.

Maybe someday we will be able to do this and I'll bet that if we made a bird of prey human intelligence it would beat any fighter pilot in understanding of aerial maneuvers because it's natural for it.

Bone structure, muscle anatomy, weight and physics. The only birds capable of hovering indefinitely in place are hummingbirds. Some birds can hover for a little bit before doing something (most notably kestrels), but it's hard, especially if you don't have headwind (and using headwind to hover isn't a "true" hover in the sense you're not mantaining position by wing movement alone)

Still, what can or can't happen IRL shouldn't have bearing on PF. Personally, I wouldn't require a check, simply because the Fly action doesn't list Hovering as requiring one.

It's no sillier than the Fly action letting you slam into the ground at full speed from 120 feet in the air with a single action (if you have a Fly speed of 60 feet) while taking absolutely no damage.

As far as I can tell, no. Polymorph states:

"Unless otherwise noted, the battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands."

The Choker of Eloctuion gives you knowledge of that language, and the ability to understand, speak and write it...but the spell does not allow you to speak it, since neither the Choker of Elocution nor the spell itself allow you to ignore the polymorph rule's "no speaking clause"

You could still understand and read it though, and depending on what form you take, write it as well.

I'm more amused by the fact that Jirelle is correctly holding a buckler but the rules still describe it as being strapped to your forearm in the CRB and leaving your hand free. It's been more than a decade people, we know bucklers don't work that way!

They all look very nice though.

I'm not entirely sure it works quite that way. It's not that spell autofails on people who can't see/can't hear you. Although I can see how you'd get that impression from the description of the traits in the magic section.

However, while the sidebar in the magic section doesn't go into it, the glossary has a more detailed description and says:

"Auditory actions and effects rely on sound. An action with the
auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds. A spell or effect with the auditory trait has its effect only if the target can hear it. This applies only to sound-based parts of the effect, as determined by the GM. This is different from a sonic effect, which still affects targets who can’t hear it (such as deaf targets) as long as the effect itself makes sound."

"visual (trait) A visual effect can affect only creatures that can see it. This applies only to visible parts of the effect, as determined by the GM."

I think the idea for veil's heightening is that it allows you to impersonate other senses. Sure, if the other person is deaf, then the auditory part of veil doesn't work, but you still have the visual.

Similarly, for a blind person, the visual part of the spell wouldn't work (which would mean a non-heightened veil probably auto-fails, since it's only visual), but the auditory part would, letting you still use the Deception bonus and ignoring penalties.

At least, that's how I read it. I could be wrong though.

So, with Baleful Polymorph, does the creature you transform (especially if it crit fails) take on ALL of the stats of the new creature, or does it simply... look like it?

For example: enemy crit failed against Baleful, gets turned into a crayfish (because why not) and he's just... a crustacean. Does he then take on all the base stats, as the spell states 'Body and Mind'? Does this ALSO apply if the target simply fails?

Crit fail says they completely change, but a normal fail just states they transform, without specifying exactly what that means. If I Polymorph Her Infernal Majestrix Queen Abrogail Thrune II, and she just fails, can I then have my familiar cottontop tamarin simply snack on the now-a-harmless-animal Queen of Cheliax? Or does she still retain all her AC and HP?

I'm sure there's an answer I'm not seeing somewhere.

I agree with you that it's rather unclear, but given the steps needed for this spell to work on powerful foes (which you pointed out), I'd go for the more powerful interpretation, that is to say they become a truly harmless animal. AC 10+Dex you feel is appropiate, speed as appropiate, and HP so low they die in one hit.

Turn them into an ant and have your familiar eat them? Sure. Go nuts.

But I do agree the rules could be a bit more specific in what stays the same and what changes.

I'd imagine a lot of places in the Mwangi expanse and other tropical areas of Golarion might very much be like in our own world, where nobody batted an eye at going with very little or no clothing.

And as has been said before, I wouldn't be surprised if members of ancestries that have another layer of insulation (like catfolk, lizardfolk, kobolds, and such) would fall in the same category (I mean, I don't have the Lost Omes Character Guide on hand, but I seem to remember all the lizardfolk art being basically loincloth and jewelry).

And this isn't even counting the weirder ancestries like leshy or wyrwoods.

The Archaic Wayfinder has Activate: Cast a Spell.

The Core Rulebook says:

"If an item lists “Cast a Spell” after “Activate,” the activation
requires you to use the Cast a Spell activity (described on
page 302) to Activate the Item. This happens when the
item replicates a spell. You must have a spellcasting class
feature to Activate an Item with this activation component.
If the item can be used for a specific spell, the action icon
for that spell is provided. If it’s an item like a staff, which
can be used for many spells, the icon is omitted, and you
must refer to each spell to determine which actions you
must spend to Activate the Item to cast it.
In this case, Activate an Item gains all the traits from
the relevant components of the Cast a Spell activity."

So, only someone with the spellcasting class feature can use the Archaic Wayfinder by default. That's pretty clear. If you don't have the feature...it does get quite a bit more complicated.

As far as I can decipher, you could use Trick Magic Item to activate it, but the variables get weird. The Archaic Wayfinder by itself doesn't have a Tradition, so by RAW you'd use the Tradition that has the spell on it's list (maybe it'd be better to use the Tradition of the original caster in this case?)

After that the next hurdle is the DC to activate the Wayfinder. It's Item 2, so maybe the DC for a level 2 item? As other people have pointed out, this gets weird if someone puts a heightened cantrip in it, although it's not even clear if you can put in heightened cantrips. It's very muddled, for sure.

After all that though, Trick Magic Item is clear:

"If you activate a magic item that requires a spell attack roll or spell DC and you don’t have the ability to cast spells of the relevant tradition, use your level as your proficiency bonus and the highest of your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifiers. If you’re a master in the appropriate skill for the item’s tradition, you instead use the trained proficiency bonus, and if you’re legendary, you instead use the expert proficiency bonus."

Really the more I read it, the more it sounds like it's supposed to be a 1/day rechargeable scroll for cantrips. Does anyone else get that feeling? It definitely needs a lot of clarifications to work in PFS though.

Okay. So let's try this again.

If your argument is "you can hire an NPC to let you copy their formula", that won't work in Society for two reasons: 1) NPCs and PCs are distinctly different designations, and 2) you can't pay or give money to other PCs.

If your argument is "it says the Crafting Skill, not the Craft Activity", then which subset of the Crafting skill is it? Recall Knowledge? Repair? The only subset that makes sense is the Craft activity. The only change is that you only need spend 1 hour Crafting, rather than X number of days.

The sections that we've quoted need to be read together in their entirety:

"You can buy common formulas at the Price listed on Table 6–13, or you can hire an NPC to let you copy their formula for the same Price. A purchased formula is typically a schematic on rolled-up parchment of light Bulk. You can copy a formula into your formula book in 1 hour, either from a schematic or directly from someone else’s formula book. If you have a formula, you can Craft a copy of it using the Crafting skill."

This lets you do 3 things:

1) buy the formula
2) pay an NPC
3) craft the formula

All of those are going to cost you money.

I think the problem here is you're confusing copying a formula into the formula book with crafting a formula copy. They aren't the same thing.

Copying the formula into a formula book costs nothing in and of itself. What costs money is usually getting the formula in the first place. You can buy them, or pay an NPC. But you could also get them as loot, or maybe an NPC decides to let you copy a formula for free as a quest reward.

Crafting a formula copy follows the Crafting rules (although it is unclear if it follows them to the letter or it only takes one hour). You need to have the formula already, either as it's own thing, or from your formula book. Then you can hand over the formula (or sell it, etc) without having to hand over your formula book.

If we followed your interpretation of the rules, which is to say that copying into the formula book is the same as crafting a formula, we'd need to pay twice. First to get the formula, and then to Craft it. That, to me, is obviously not intended.

"Why would a DM forbid a player from having a lower DC on a subject he is really into?"

Mostly because the advantage of Lore isn't to give you lower DCs, it's to allow you to test in specific situations pertaining to that Lore when you have a worse proficiency in another relevant skill.

For example, you have Lore: Sandpoint Trained, but not Society. The GM calls for a Society roll to determine a bit of history of Sandpoint. You could say "Hey, can I use my Lore; Sandpoint skill instead?" and the GM would probably say yes. But do you get a lower DC? Maybe, maybe not. The big advtange you're already getting is using a Trained skill instead of Untrained.

Or to use my own earlier example, you run into a religious book on Norgorber. The GM says parsing through the coded messages inside is Religion, and sets a DC of 25. You have Religion Trained, but you also have Lore: Anaphexia at Master. Now, the GM knows this book is actually related to Norgorber as Father Skinsaw, not The Reaper of Reputation, which is the aspect what the Anaphexia worships. So they say "Yes, but the DC is 28" (or they keep it a secret, however they prefer). Again, the big advantage here is you get to use better proficiency, not necessarily a lower DC.

And when it comes to monsters, we can agree it's different because you could always ask to try with Lore:Particular Monster. It's true. But the GM can just say the DC is the same. Or that this particular monster is so rare you need Trained or better to even try. Or a whole host of other things.

You could argue this steps on the toes of Master Monster Hunter (the Ranger Feat), but a Ranger using that feat is going to be rolling Master Nature (at a minimum), while you roll Untrained (Whatever). Oh but they can use Incredible Improvisation to get a +4, then maybe they'll be better than the Ranger. Yes, once per day. And they might not even end up being better than the Ranger, again, depending on the DCs the GM sets.

A lot of the discussion on "gaming" the Improvisation feats seems to ignore the GM is the final arbiter of anything, and that it's very easy to tell when someone is trying to abuse something like this and act accordingly.

You can't reduce the DC to a Lore check if the character is not specifically trained in it. Otherwise, at level 1, instead of rolling Arcana (Int + 3) to Recall Knowledge about a construct you just have to roll Lore(Broom that moves on its own) and you can roll Int with a DC reduced by 5. The bonus to the DC should only be applied when the character is Trained in the specific Lore, not when the player invents a Lore to roll with an easier DC.

To reiterate a previous point: using a Lore skill does not automatically mean a lower DC, and the GM is well within their purview to just disallow Lores invented on the spot. This idea that access to Lores is an easy 2 to 5 DC reduction needs to stop. It's not supported by the rules anywhere.

To your other point, though: DC is DC is DC. If the GM says identifying the Broom is an Arcana DC 10 check, but also a Lore (Animated Object) DC 7 check (I'm making the numbers up here, don't read intot hem too much), then yeah, anyone can try the Untrained Lore (Animated Object) roll if they so wish. This is perfectly within the rules, otherwise there'd be no point to Lore specifically saying it can be used Untrained to Recall Knowledge.

But seriously, there's no such thing as "You can use Lore to reduce the DC to Recall Knowledge on Monster identification". There's guidelines to let GMs know they can allow Lore checks in certain situations to supplant a broader skill, and that usually this check is Easy or Very Easy. But that's it.

And when it comes to Recall Knowledge not related to monster identification, the only rules talking about supplanting one skill for another talk about making the DCs higher, not lower.

It should be fine on paper. You're giving up some damage to get Reach and some utility of choice. Neither option is strictly better AFAIK, but Reach doesn't have quite as much use to a Barbarian in the beginning since they don't get AoO until level 6.

Polearms also has a better Critical Specialisation than Axes, but IMO not as good as Swords or Hammers.

It's all plenty viable though.

TheFinish wrote:

So it's not like a player can just ask for a lower DC because theoretically they know every Lore. It's up to the GM to determine if a Lore even applies, and even if it applies the DC may not be lower.

What you put in bold simply highlight that it's up to the DM validates a specific lore to be used on a specific task.

The recall knowledge check explains this, in adjunct to how the answer you get could be different

Quote:

The following skills can be used to Recall Knowledge, getting information about the listed topics. In some cases, you can get the GM’s permission to use a different but related skill, usually against a higher DC than normal. Some topics might appear on multiple lists, but the skills could give different information. For example, Arcana might tell you about the magical defenses of a golem, whereas Crafting could tell you about its sturdy resistance to physical attacks.

For example:

DM: Who has Religion or Cult of the Dragon Lore can roll
Player: I have dragon lore, can I also roll?
DM: Yes, you can ( another DM could have said "unfortunately your dragon lore won't help you this time" ).

So,

The Religion check would have DC XX
The Dragon Lore Would have DC XX-2/3
The Cult of the Dragon Lore would have DC XX-4/5

I mean, nothing says Lores get lower DCs by default, anywhere. Even when talking about identifying creatures, the game says:

Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).

People seem to be assuming two things when they have a problem with Untrained/Incredible Improvisation:

1)Every Recall Knowledge check has an applicable lore.
2)Using a Lore skill to recall knowledge=lower DC.

Neither of these are true. The GM is final arbiter on what skills apply and what DCs those skills have. Period.

In fact you may have a situation where your Lore skill is a higher DC, because it's related, but not what you need (for example, you have Lore: Whispering Way, but the check is about Norgorber in general and thus Religion).

For the sake of clarity:

Untrained Improvisation

Incredbile Improvisation

Bardic Lore

So, the way I read this, it'd play out something like this:

GM: [Describes a weird statue something related to Sarenrae]
Player: Can I Recall Knowledge?
GM: Yes, it'd be Religion DC 25, or Lore: Cult of the Dawnflower DC 21.

Does the Player have Lore: Cult of the Dawnflower Trained?

- If the answer is Yes, nothing happens.
- If the answer is No, then it's Untrained. The Player can use Untrained Improvisation to roll, adding half their level (if at level 6 or lower), or their full level (if at level 7 or higher). They can also, if they wish, use Incredible Improvisation to get +4 to the check.
- If the answer is No, but they have Bardic Lore, they can use Bardic Lore instead. But if they do, they can't use Incredible Improvisation, because Bardic Lore is Trained (or Expert, depending on the player's Occult proficiency).

That's how I read it. Recall Knowledge (the action) specifically states:

"The GM determines the DCs for such checks and which skills apply."

So it's not like a player can just ask for a lower DC because theoretically they know every Lore. It's up to the GM to determine if a Lore even applies, and even if it applies the DC may not be lower.

I dislike hero points, and don't like that they became not a house rule in pf2, it feels like hey, we couldn't quite get the balance right, so here's some get out of death free coupons for when you get one shot.

I liked pf1 crits & fumbles, but it sounds like most people didn't implement them consistently. That's my big dislike about house rulings, is when they are inconsistent.

On fumbles:
The way I've always used them, they work the same as crits. Meaning they were only applicable to attack rolls, and you roll to confirm the fumble just like you roll to confirm a crit. On a nat 1, you roll again, if the second attack misses, you confirmed the fumble. A fumble means you provoke an attack of opportunity. This systems is way more benefit to PCs than monsters, because enemies are far more likely to miss and generally roll more attacks.

Critical fumbles is an added house rule I use, which is that if you confirm a fumble with another nat 1, something bad happens. There's also the flip side where if you confirm a crit with a nat 20 something good happens. This makes them extremely rare and special occurrences.

Obviously if your table enjoys these house rules, it's fine, but the "normal" fumbles you describe disproportionately affect melee warriors: they're gonna be rolling a lot more attack rolls, and AoOs only matter if you're in reach. So most spellcasters and ranged characters won't ever notice this. Which seems more than a little bit unfair.

Critical Failures, or Fumbles, or however you want to call it. Hated people putting that house rule into PF1, and I hate it's actually become a non-house rule in PF2 for some things.

And keep in mind, I don't mean stuff like "A Natural 1 on an Attack Roll always misses." I mean "A Natural 1 always misses, and now you get this extra bad thing."

Gotta say; “we dismissed peoples’ concerns” and then locking the comments on the post is a little bit of mixed messaging.

I'll admit I was surprised too, particularly because it didn't seem that bad.

Or y'know, at least about as heated as this thread, which is still open...while that one's still locked.

TheFinish wrote:

I think what Kasoh was getting at (and I may be wrong, so take it with a grain of salt) is that:

- If we assume the cops are going to be doing questionable things
- And them doing these questionable things will be presented as "good"
- And this is a problem.*

Then why is it not a problem if the only thing we change is that it's no longer cops, but third party vigilantes? How exactly is presenting mercenaries doing questionable things as "good" any better than doing it with cops?

*Note: I base this on this line from Thebazilly's original post:

"It's not the concept of doing bad things, it's the concept of doing bad things while you're supposed to be protecting the people you're harming. It's that stacked on top of these issues existing right now and for far too long in our society. It's that playing a good cop is feeding into the copaganda problem."

I would argue that mercenaries, unlike cops, aren't assumed to be held to the same duties and responsibilities cops are. If society tells us cops are supposed to protect us, and then they betray that, that's doubly bad. If a "mercenary" does something bad, then they haven't broken a general social understanding to do so. It doesn't make what the mercenary does any less wrong, but in an absolute value sense it is less wrong than if a cop did it. Additionally, the hot button issue that started this all is cops doing bad things, to oversimplify. If it's no longer cops doing bad things, and instead the local crazy wizard, then it's less relevant to current topics and also less relevant to what is currently the issue in America (and other countries) and also becomes not copaganda.

Mercenaries as a whole aren't, but we're talking about mercenaries acting in place of a police force (which is what they would be in this case), in which case they should be held to the same standards you expect from the position. They're filling the same role, giving them a pass, or implying it's not as bad when they slip because they're not "actual" cops is just a horrible position to take. In this case the absoute value wouldn't be less wrong.

And sure, it wouldn't be "copaganda" as you like to call it, but it would be worse, because you're endorsing vigilantism which has, historically, proven to be as bad, or worse, than state-backed police actions.

Not that it would be anything new, mind you. A lot of published adventures already go this way. But it doesn't make them better.

Kasoh wrote:

Thebazilly wrote:

The idea of swapping out the player characters' role to private investigators makes the AP a lot less distasteful to me.

Because its so much better as a society when we outsource our state sanctioned violence to outside parties. Then their racist and classist behavior is just the fault of individuals that society bears no responsibility for.

I mean, do you plan on your players being classist and racist? Most adventures kind of hinge on your characters being outside parties to begin with.

I think what Kasoh was getting at (and I may be wrong, so take it with a grain of salt) is that:

- If we assume the cops are going to be doing questionable things
- And them doing these questionable things will be presented as "good"
- And this is a problem.*

Then why is it not a problem if the only thing we change is that it's no longer cops, but third party vigilantes? How exactly is presenting mercenaries doing questionable things as "good" any better than doing it with cops?

*Note: I base this on this line from Thebazilly's original post:

"It's not the concept of doing bad things, it's the concept of doing bad things while you're supposed to be protecting the people you're harming. It's that stacked on top of these issues existing right now and for far too long in our society. It's that playing a good cop is feeding into the copaganda problem."

This was a very nice read, and I'm interested in how the ritual itself is, mechanically.

I always loved Blood Oaths from Earthdawn and this seems to be very similar.

Tectorman wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

...shooting myself in the foot, options wise.

Except... that's how all specialists eventually feel. My great weapon fighter player found herself in a fight recently where any hit she landed resulted in massive counter-damage, and she was in a bad way. Then she pulled out a longbow and kept fighting. It wasn't as good as her normal maul, but it was a setback associated with her normal specialization in melee weapons.

Did her entire gimmick suffer temporarily? Yes.

Was she actually denied options other than two handed weapons? No.

Exactly the same way your shield specialist should use a Sturdy or similar shield as their primary tool, and switch to a backup as appropriate.

Shield block isn't the only shield-related thing you can focus on, though. Class feats augmenting Raising a shield also exist, and I can pursue all that become available to me, just like the previous example with Shield block. And for having the unmitigated gall to take 100% of all non-Shield Block shield related feats, my wide and various selection of shield options...

Doesn't tank the way it would with Shield Block specializing. Wait, what? I thought specializing required such an outcome. If it doesn't for non-Shield Block specializing, why should Shield Block specializing get the shaft?

I'm going to blow your mind - focusing on shields isn't the same thing as Specializing in Shield Block.

Because - and this is the trippy part - if it doesn't reduce your options, its not specialization.

Focusing on Raise Shield like that is just making you better at using shields.

Its sortof like how a ranger focusing on Dual Wield doesn't really reduce his pool of options for weapons from level 1-20, but a Fighter does (for most of it).

This is just...nonsense. Focusing on shields is specialisation, because it is reducing your options. If I invest a bunch of Feats into shield use (not necessarily shield block), I am not taking feats for other stuff, therefore I have less options in the battlefield. That's literally what specialisation is.

You're arguing that further specialisation should come with more limits. Does, "I'm a two-handed fighter" is less limiting than "I'm a two-handed Fighter and chose Polearms as my weapon group" this is true. And in that vein "I'm a shield-using fighter" is different than "I'm a shield-using fighter that specialises in Shield block".

The issue here is that the fighter transition isn't nearly as limiting for the two-hander (or duelist, or ranged, or whatever) as it is for the shield blocking Fighter. Why? Because while the two-hander may be limited to Polearms in this case, he can create a wide variety of items by using runes. The shield block fighter has exactly one option: Sturdy Shields.

Are all Fighter weapon groups as free? No. If you choose Hammers, and want to go two handed, you also only have one option: the Maul. They're still way better off than the shield-block Fighter due to runes.

And more importantly, the Maul was the only two-handed Hammer available from Level 1. It's not like they had the option of Maul, Lucerne Hammer and Earthshaker but past a certain level everything but the Maul ceased to be able to do the job it's supposed to do.

TheFinish wrote:

I guess I find it confusing because I never found Pathfinder's core assumed experience to be "do things, get stuff", it was more "do things, gain power", but that power doesn't have to come from items (it can, but it doesn't have to).

Fair enough, but from what I've seen in my 35 years of playing D&D and then Pathfinder, the assumed core experience is "do things, get stuff." The "stuff" in this equation can be items, or treasure, or experience points—it's the stuff you get that allows you to gain power.

And since you only gain benefits from your XPs 20 times during your character's career, and only once every several sessions when you level up, those bursts of rewards aren't NEARLY as common as the rewards of gaining stuff. You can get the rush of "gaining power" much more often by finding a fancy new magic item than you do by leveling up.

Ah, I see your point there. Our experiences have indeed been different then, since 95% of the time when I've played published adventures (which, due to time constraints, is most of the time) finding an item just leads to "Ok, how much can we sell it by?", unless it's a general use consumeable, or a campaign-related quest item; at which point you could replace all those nice items nobody wants with equivalent piles of gold and it's the same thing. Better, in most cases, because you don't run into issues of where to sell the stuff and whatnot.

I know 2nd Edition has taken steps to avoid the vendor trash problem, so maybe that's where the divide stands.

Though in either case, like Unicore says, thank you for engaging in the discussion and providing your viewpoint.

CorvusMask wrote:

I'm now kinda disappointed if they never end up doing "return artifacts to their rightful position" ap/pfs scenario because that really is really clever twist on the rpg tropes (which also addresses the "steal artifacts from the locals" rpg narrative that I remember Pathfinder Society also having been guilty of)

This is a really pretty interesting reversal on the classic RPG artifact hunt quest. It'd be complicated, since so much of the game's reward structure is built into the acquisition of new magic items, of course, since you'd have to either balance the "put stuff back but get other things" themes or come up with an entirely new way of gaining rewards that feels logical and doesn't rely upon a "bottomless bank of magic items that your benefactors dole out to you starting with the weak ones and holding back on the good stuff until you're higher level without making the players frustrated that their so-called allies are being 'stingy' with their rewards."

Couldn't this be theoretically solved (or at least partially mitigated) by making this particular AP make use of the Automatic Bonus Progression variant rules? You could even tie it into the story by making the ABP a side effect of the items being returned, if you want.

That leaves your benefactors, whoever they are, able to just pay you in hard coin for the characters to acquire whatever nice ancilliary items they like.

Thanks for the decision to go forward and release the AP, I look forward to getting it.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Sure, but I'd imagine that their owners used the 'we feed you during sieges' as part of the justification for their political power.

They didn't. The cornucopias' function was a closely-guarded secret.

No, it wasn't. A Guide to Absalom is very clear on this matter:

"The 12 cornucopias of Absalom are open secrets. Discussion
of their appearance, location, or function is banned by
law, but hundreds of people have to be aware of exactly
those things to enforce the laws." - A Guide to Absalom, page 60 (emphasis mine).

Many people know what they are and what they do, it's just not openly talked about.

Discern Lies is a Divination spell, which I'd assume are mostly allowed. Zone of Truth is Enchantment, but I'd expect to be an exception to any Enchantment bans.

Actual mind control (and even mind reading, to a lesser degree) are a whole different kettle of fish than those.

To allow or not allow is only part of the problem. There's a whole host of other considerations here before you can even think of using these spells in a court of law, like:

1) How much do we trust these spells?
2) How much do we trust the spellcaster?
3) Do we have anyone or anything that can cast them?
4) Can we afford it?

Point 1 and 2 are very important. Even in PF 1, zone of truth can be circumvented (for one, you can't even tell whether the person made the save); and while you can with discern lies, it can still be circumvented by either silence or because the spell can't "necessarily reveal diversions". In 2E it's an even bigger problem because discern lies is just a bonus to a Perception check and thus infinitely less useful.

2) is a problem in any setting. You can try what one of my players liked to call the "daisy chain of truth" by casting the spell on the person casting the spell, ad nauseam, but that just increases cost and decreases availability and etc.

It's a whole barrel of monkeys, for sure.

I'm not even sure that using charm person (or similar effects) to get someone to confess would be a bad thing, assuming there were other checks to ensure that the confession was true.

It’d be inadmissible, and the entire investigation, let alone trial would be tarnished with “they used magic to mess with my head and make me confess”.

This goes back to "How does Law in Absalom actually work?" Is it like our current, modern system, or like ye olde times? Somewhere in between?

If I cast charm person on someone inside a zone of truth and they answer with a confession, what do we do? How much do we trust the spell (either of them) here?

The truth of the matter is it'll be up to the adventure writers to set the guidelines.

The only other example we have, from Trial of the Beast, has this to say:

So there's precedent for them being allowed/disallowed depending on circumstances (though it should be pointed out the adventure assumes 1E spells, which are much more powerful and reliable than their 2E counterparts, and it may have been a way for the writers to forestall the use of such magic to make 80% of the adventure pointless).