Thod's page

Graystone

Thanks for pointing out beneficial buffs!! I clearly wouldn't want to open a large option for potential misuse.

Is this a potential solution?

Once an Eidolon unmanifests it's current form ceases existence. It therefore loses all conditions> This includes positive buffs from spells or other sources as well as negative ones - even as severe as death. None of these transfer to their next manifestation.

I think this is in line with:
1) buffs don't last
2) conditions like poison or bleed are cured
3) it doesn't completely neuter the summoner if his Eidolon dies

Yes - it gives an Free out of jail card for disease and death for a pretty minor cost. This is the investment in a feat and reaction followed by a triple action or Summoner goes to 0 HP followed by healing of Summoner and triple action or two triple actions by the summoner.

So while I'm against out of jail free cards it seems a simple solution with not too many downsides or options of misuse. Unless I miss some?

It would solve both questions 2 and 3 by the OP.

Having had some time to reflect on all the contributions here I had an epiphany - at least one for myself. It might not be the answer - but it might help to get a step closer.

Question 1: Why do we assume that the summoner still shares his HP pool if the Eidolon is unmanifested.
Question 2: How should we treat the shared HP pool in case of unmanifestation?

Keep in mind sharing is 2-way.

How do we treat the HP pool?

Shared:
Case of Eidolon Death: Everyone here seems to agree if the Eidolon dies then the summoner goes to 0 HP and there is no way to get him to >0 unless the Eidolon is raised. This implies the HP pool keeps shared even after unmanifestation.

Not Shared:
Eidolon Dying status: Everyone seems to agree that the Eidolon never gets dying 1 as it first unmanifests. But that implies it no longer shares the HP pool after unmanifestation.
Eidolon bleed status: I have never seen it being tracked after unmanifestation. Again that implies it no longer shares the HP pool after unmanifestation.
Eidolon poisoned status: I have never seen it being tracked after unmanifestation. Again that implies it no longer shares the HP pool after unmanifestation.

We actually seem to contradict ourselves how it actually is handled in different cases. No - off course the rules don't say either way.

Thanks everyone for pointing out the mundane item use. Won't discuss it here anymore as it seemed discussed elsewhere enough.

I haven't been active here in a while and another thread just drew me in.

Thanks for starting this threat !! I had similar thoughts and wanted to write it now but instead will add it here.

1) Where does it state that an Eidolon can't use mundane items?

P.53 says:
Gear and your Eidolon
Your eidolon can’t wear or use magic items, except for items with the eidolon trait. An eidolon can have up to two items invested. Your eidolon’s link to you means it can benefit from certain magic items invested by you.

It carries on how item bonuses are handled. This part is to ensure no misuse/stacking happens that gives an unfair advantage. An Eidolon (at least mine) has 2 hands. He has intelligence and skills. I can see zero indications that use of mundane items are in any way forbidden if the Eidolon has the skills / can physically use them.
Please someone quote the rules text if that is wrong.

The way I handled it so far: An Eidolon can carry stuff that drops to the floor when unmanifested. As such it tends not to carry/use anything unless for a short time span. Is this wrong according to RAW?

A typical use case for my Eidolon is to cast evolution surge to gain a swim or climb speed - then have the Eidolon to go dive for treasure/the McGuffin or climb up a cliff to throw down a rope to the party. Where does even 'use of a mundane item' start?

2) This clearly needs to be addressed in a remastered version of the summoner to ensure it neither handicaps the summoner nor that it leads to potential misuse.

The way I have seen it handled at the tables I have been at: Poisoned or bleed do not progress in unmanifested form. The Eidolon tends to get summoned back only after a while (you finish a fight / heal up etc. first) - so it is assumed the timer has worn off and the condition is cleared.

This implies the timer carries on. The actual effect of the condition doesn't carry on. It seems the most sensible approach in my view to avoid misuse. But it doesn't include how to handle a permanent condition.

Simple Example - Blindness Spell (lvl 3) - critical failure.

Can you 'cure it' using Manifest Eidolon twice or do you need a successful Restore Senses Spell to cure it?

3) Getting the condition Dead should be similar to how to cure blindness. Do you resurrect using a Raise Dead or similar or can you unmanifest to revive it.
Unfortunately the rules add one snag to it. If the Eidolon is dead it goes to 0 HP with no way to raise the HP above unless it gets revived. The summoner wouldn't die - but due to the shared HP pool he goes unconscious and his HP can't be raised to above 0 HP as well - which means he never can manifest the Eidolon again to get spells applied on it.
In my view this clearly isn't the intention that if you kill an eidolon then the best the summoner can be is permanent unconsciousness. So that edge case needs an additional solution

Thod wrote:

The Eidolon dies. It is dead - but as long as the summoner is still alive it is dead only - there is no rule it unmanifests when dead. There isn't even a rule that you can't summon the dead eidolon.

There is also no rule that things do work the way that you are claiming. So this boils down to an argument from ignorance. The rules don't actually say one way or the other, so you can't claim that your ruling is the only correct one.

Each table is going to have to come to a table ruling (a houserule required because the printed rules are incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory).

Oh - expect lots of table discussions about that if it ever happens because you never heard how another table handled it and you are used for the eidolon to go away if the summoner ever goes unconsious.

RAW - if there is a rule it dies then it dies

RAW - if there is a rule it unmanifests if unmanifests

There is a rule for the first and I hope I showed by RAW it applies to an Eidolon as well (even if that only happens in rare circumstances)

There is also a rule how to unmanifest an Eidolon. Actually there are several. When the summoner goes >100 feet away, if the summoner goes unconcious, if the summoner willingly unmanifest it - these are the ones coming to mind.

There is no rule that it unmanifests if the Eidolon is dead. So by RAW this would be a house rule. It might be a sensible one - but it still would be a house rule. Don't confuse it that it unmanifests when the summoner dies. This is covered by RAW.

Edit: Actually if you could find a way that the summoner dies without being unconscious at the same time then the Eidolon should stay. Maybe that is possible via becoming a Lich or something similar.
Hm - Ghoul Fever - death - becoming a Summoner Ghoul with Eidolon - just need to ensure you never go unconscious at any step ... Off course easier to resummon it I guess.

I agree that killing an Eidolon (while leaving the summoner alive) will cripple the summoner. But I would also say killing the summoner cripples him as well. Can't see much of a difference here.

But back to the Eidolon death - how to get it back according to RAW

Step 1:
The Eidolon dies. It is dead - but as long as the summoner is still alive it is dead only - there is no rule it unmanifests when dead. There isn't even a rule that you can't summon the dead eidolon.

Step 2:
Cast Raise Dead on the Eidolon

Seems it isn't more difficult to bring back a dead Eidolon as it is to bring back a dead summoner. Actually it probably is easier as you don't have to worry about a dead body - just unmanifest until you reach a place to cast Raise Dead and manifest again. Problem solved.

Edit: Seems no table/house rules needed after all. If either the summoner or the Eidolon dies you need some resurrection to make the character playable again.

A skeleton and an animated broom are also classified as creatures. But they don't follow the Doomed rules either.

So what has this to do with the Eidolon?

Doomed:
Doomed
Your life is ebbing away,

Neither undead nor constructs are living creatures. I'm not aware that an Eidolon (at least most of them) fall into the category of construct or undead - both who are immune to death effects.

I honestly don't think that Eidolon was made to be killed that's why they share HP with summoner and unmanifests when the summoner falls unconscious.

Let me state this in a different way that I agree with

I honestly don't think that Eidolon was made to be killed on its own that's why they share HP with summoner and unmanifests when the summoner falls unconscious.

The rules assume that the summoner dies with/ahead of the eidolon - so death to the Eidolon (and reversal of it) doesn't need coverage.

RAW asks the question is it possible - not is it intended / does it actually ever happen apart of a thought experiment.

If you don't agree with that, maybe turn the question around and answer it yourself. Why according to RAW does the Eidolon die?

Step 1 - what is an Eidolon

Secrets of Magic P.57
Eidolon: A creature with this trait is an eidolon. An action or spell with this trait can be performed by an eidolon only. An item with
this trait can be used or worn by an eidolon only, and an eidolon can’t use items that don’t have this trait. (An eidolon can have up to two items invested.)

I bolded creature !!

Step 2 - Rules for Dying - apology if remastered changed them - still working on my old rules - but I would say an Eidolon is included in other significant characters and creatures

Knocked Out and Dying
Creatures cannot be reduced to fewer than 0 Hit Points. When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play unless the attack was nonlethal, in which case they are instead knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 1 minute or more). When undead and
construct creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they are destroyed.
Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don’t automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points. Instead, they are knocked out and are at risk of death.

Step 3: Dying
Dying
You are bleeding out or otherwise at death’s door. While you have this condition, you are unconscious. Dying always includes a value. If this value ever reaches dying 4, you die.

This part means that if the Eidolon ever reaches dying 4 it dies as well. That this seldom happens is due to the shared HP pool it will unmanifest if the summoner goes unconscious. Once unmanifested (at least in my view) it no longer dies. So you need some instant death to kill the Eidolon - ideally an instant death to the Eidolon only.

Step 4: Doomed
Doomed
A powerful force has gripped your soul, calling you closer to death. Doomed always includes a value. The dying value at which you die is reduced by your doomed value. If your maximum dying value is reduced to 0, you instantly die. When you die, you’re no longer doomed.
Your doomed value decreases by 1 each time you get a full night’s rest.

Edit/addition
So in my view killing an Eidolon by RAW is difficult but not impossible. If you Eidolon goes towards doomed 4 - unmanifest it - don't wait for it to reach doomed 4.

Eidolons cannot die! Just summoners can die and take their eidolon with them.

So what happens when the Eidolon gets doomed 4+?

Source Core Rulebook pg. 619 4.0
A powerful force has gripped your soul, calling you closer to death. Doomed always includes a value. The dying value at which you die is reduced by your doomed value. If your maximum dying value is reduced to 0, you instantly die. When you die, you're no longer doomed.

Your doomed value decreases by 1 each time you get a full night's rest.

I think there is agreement that the doomed isn't transferred to the summoner - so the summoner doesn't die if the Eidolon gets doomed 4.

But why according to RAW does the Eidolon not die?

Doomed condition does nothing to an eidolon as an Eidolon never dies.

Thank you all for the feedback, yeah it doing nothing sounds right RAW.

I wouldn't be that quick. I agree that doomed isn't shared. I play a summoner myself and again and again I find interesting edge cases.

My interpretations of a few cases
Example 1 - likely why you say nothing happens:
Eidolon on doomed 1.
Eidolon HP pool drops to zero - Summoner gets dying 1, Eidolon unmanifests

Example 2:
Eidolon on doomed 4

My RAW interpretation - the Eidolon actually dies - the summoner is still alive. I'm aware this would cripple a summoner. So in a home game I would find a way that he gets a (new) Eidolon back. But for story reasons I would not allow a 3-action get an Eidolon back.

Example 3:
Combination of the above
Eidolon on doomed 2, Eidolon gets hit by a critical hit that drops the HP pool to 0 HP

Example 4:
Low level Eidolon climbs up a 80 feet high mountain flank to throw down a rope. Eidolon falls just before reaching the top. Eidolon suffers Massive Damage Ruling (>2 times its total HP) while falling next to the summoner. My interpretation by RAW - Eidolon is dead, Summoner unconscious and gains dying condition.

So I think by RAW with some creativity it is possible to kill an Eidolon. But not in the simple case you refer to which likely is doomed 1. You need at least doomed 2+ and a hit or the massive damage rule to kill an Eidolon.

Yes - rules assume that the Eidolon unmanifests and doesn't die - which probably is correct in >>99% of cases. As such there is nothing in the rules what happens after that / how to get an Eidolon back.

If you did Twin Takedown at the start of your turn, how much MAP would you have after the first and second attack? If activities absorbed all the traits of their subordinate activities, you'd end up with only 1x MAP (for the activity) or 3x (for the activity, and for the subordinate actions). That's both clearly wrong.

Just to throw out a curveball here

Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty ...

Bad example as we have

activities (which we learned are also actions)
actions with the attack trait
checks with the attack trait

So even if it is just one activity - you have 2 checks and that is what it asks you to count.

Also a lot of Fighter traits make counting difficult. In (most of ) these cases it writes explicitly how often to apply MAP as actions/activities/checks etc. are all over the place.

Examples:
Power Attack: 1 melee strike with added damage - apply 2 MAP
Swipe: 1 melee strike (against 2 foes) - apply 2 MAP
Quick Reversal: 2 melee strikes (against 2 foes) - apply 1 MAP
Knockdown: Strike and athletics check - apply 2 MAP - but only afterwards
Double Shot: 2 strikes at -2, apply 2 MAP afterwards

So we have 1 strike action - 1 MAP
1 strike action - 2 MAP
2 strike actions - 1 MAP
2 strike actions - 2 MAP

Adding check into the mix makes it even more complex - therefore it is explicitly mentioned.

The one (I found) that seems not to spell it out explicitly: Combat Grab.

RP: Poor Lini - she got captured and thrown into a damp cell. Hoping to be rescued by Valeros, Ezren and Merisiel she spots a mouse in her prison cell.
Checking her pockets she notices a crumbled fortune cookie. Carefully feeding it to the mouse she attaches a ring of hers to the mouse and imprints the image of the tavern they stay into the small animals mind.

This is theory craft and a serious rules question - but I thought I start with a real possible situation.

This question got inspired by Ascalaphus and MathMuse in a different thread. How do we actually count actions for flat checks.

Now to the rules part that are important.

Primal Caster
Casting Animal Messenger - a 1 minute casting time
The spell has material, somatic and verbal components
The caster has her wrist bound by manacles (just standard) incurring a DC 5 flat check on manipulate actions

Now the question - how many manipulate actions does casting the Animal Messenger need?

This actually isn't that simple. I requote CRB

There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions.

So counting 'actions' can be done in different ways - depending what qualifies as action according to RAW when doing a flat check against a manacle.

Sensible answers by RAW seem:

1 check - I treat all as 1 activity/action
10 checks - the activity is split across 10 rounds
20 checks - there are 10 somatic and 10 material actions done during the whole cast
30 checks - there are 30 actions total (3 actions/round times 10 rounds in a minute)

Chances of success are
1 check: 80% - 4 in 5 (16 in 20)
10 checks: 10.7% - approx 1 in 9
20 checks: 1.2% - approx 1 in 87
30 checks: 0.12% - approx 1 in 800

All numbers are rounded slightly. I included them as they show that depending on a ruling the result goes from a very good chance to an outside chance to near impossible.

How would you rule - and why?

Action and Activity are specific game terms. I trust that if Paizo meant Activity, they would have stated Activity. However, they didn't, they stated Action in the RAW.

This bit got me looking at the CRB a little bit closer

And according to the CRB an activity is one kind of action

Actions

You affect the world around you primarily by using actions, which produce effects. Actions are most closely measured and restricted during the encounter mode of play, but even when it isn’t important for you to keep strict track of actions, they remain the way in which you interact with the game world. There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions.

...

Activities usually take longer and require using multiple actions, which must be spent in succession. Stride is a single action, but Sudden Charge is an activity in which you use both the Stride and Strike actions to generate its effect.

So to reiterate - an activity is an action that normally requires using multiple actions

Now I'm looking at casting Silence (as it is 2 actions, has material and somatic components - so no discussion to remove verbal)

So in Math talk (for MathMuse)

1 A (=spell casting activity) = 1 A (=action) = 2 A (Single Actions)

Yes 1 action = 1 action= 2 actions

Mathematically nothing wrong with it.

The question is - do we count/check for A, A or A when we ask for a flat check?

Why does it matter:
Loading a bow is 1 A, 1 A or 0 A

Loading a light crossbow is 1 A, 1 A or 1 A

Loading a heavy crossbow is 1 A, 1 A or 2 A

To me it seems the majority actually count A or A if we apply flat checks. That is in line with a single check for a free action, reaction, spell-casting action, multi-action action.

RAW only says action. And the term actually seems more ambiguous as I thought.

Even the icon key refers to this:

ACTION ICON KEY
These icons appear in stat blocks as shorthand for each type of action.
[one-action] Single Action
[two-actions] Two-Action Activity
[three-actions] Three-Action Activity
[reaction] Reaction
[free-action] Free Action

A three-action-Activity still is just an action aka 1 A but 3 A

First

Thanks for all the replies. First of all - I'm NOT saying that a multi-action spell should mean multiple flat checks. I just try to understand the logic of some posters here and it got me thinking - do I count correctly.

Activity was the word I was missing - I agree that if you split an activity over two rounds then you do a flat check in both rounds

BUT

Spells: A somatic component is a specific hand movement or gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures.

CRB says: Casting a spell is a special activity that takes a variable number of actions depending on the the spell as listed in each spell's stat block.

compare this to
Reload
While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many interact actions it takes to reload such a weapon.

To be clear - as GM I ask for a single flat check for the reload activity (unless split across rounds) or the spell casting activity.

Should I do 2 flat checks for Silence - 2 action spell with (Material, Somatic), as well as 2 flat checks on (most?) 3-actions spells?

This assumes I count actions (and discard all verbal actions in my count). Yes - both material and somatic add the manipulate trait.

If I count actions, then this seems the only sensible way.

I think it's just a matter of counting.

If you're going to reload a heavy crossbow that takes 2 Interact actions. If you're grabbed that means that you need 2 flat checks for trying an action with the manipulate trait.

If it's only a light crossbow then it's only 1 Interact action that triggers 1 flat check.

And with a bow it's 0 Interact actions, so 0 flat checks.

What is the difference here to spell casting?

There are 1 action, 2 action and 3 action spells.

If I cast Magic Missile - do I have to do

1 flat check for the single action
2 flat checks for the double action
3 flat checks for the triple action

To me it was the same - loading a Heavy Crossbow is one 'action' with a cost of 2 'actions'

Is there wording in the spellcasting that make it clear it is different to something like reload? Because by that logic - reload heavy crossvow = 2 flat checks I think most spells need 2 flat checks as well.

Mathmuse

I think the issue is in your name. You treat a number exactly what it is - zero means zero.

Take a step back and look at it from a developer/writer point of view - not a Maths point of view.

In Maths we are well aware of integer and decimal numbers. For rules simplicity you would avoid decimals as the plague.

Now we have the situation where an interact (drawing an arrow) is so small that it doesn't warrant to add a full action to it. Guess what a Mathematician would do if he wants to avoid decimals? He rounds to the closest integer.

To me This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. sounds pretty much that the developer rounded the total effort of interact actions to zero.

I'm with you that true zero interact means no manipulate. But 0.1 (I made that up) rounded to zero and we might have a different story.

Just my small contribution

The question is in the title.

From its description it looks like it does, but I'm not sure and I'd like to know what you feel about that.

What in the description makes you think this is the case?

It makes a comparison to distinguishing living/undead similar to color. You couldn't detect color through a wall - so can't be that part.

Having given some more thought to it:

You can't heal or harm through a wall. If positive(negative) energy is stopped by a wall then it seems sensible that lifesense is stopped as well - unless there is a good argument against it.

But so far whatever I find or can think of would rather say no.

I'd say yes, it can work through walls as other imprecise senses do as well, like hearing.

Lifesense is not an imprecise sense

Tremorsense and Wavesense are.

7/7 monsters in the CRB have lifesense as a precise sense. It is only the Duskwalker feat which gives you a much shorter range compared to monsters and makes it imprecise.

So according to this logic it should not go through a wall as it is not (per se) an imprecise sense.

Why would you think distance limitations only apply at the moment of casting? One might think that's generally the case, because the majority of spells aren't sustained thus it only matters at the time of casting.

But the rules (that I could find) only have this to say:

Quote:

Spells with a range can affect targets, create areas, or make things appear only within that range. Most spell ranges are measured in feet, though some can stretch over miles, reach anywhere on the planet, or go even farther!

There is nothing there to imply the range only applies at the time of casting.

Seems it took me too long to write my reply. In regard to winking out if you are too far away. There are arguments in favor and against it I guess.

There is precedent that if some spell gets countered (light while overlapping with a higher level darkness) - that it will be back after darkness expires. This is time - not distance (and I would have to look where the exact example is) - but there is an argument that it could just no longer move / retarget.

Another example would be Unseen Servant. It has range 60 feet and mages often make them permanent - a common staple. But surely they don't wink out of existence because the mage moved away > 60 feet.

It's magic. Just invent a sense which is acceptable to you. But introducing arbitrary restrictions is really awful behaviour for a GM.

Following RAW isn't an arbitrary restriction

Targets
Some spells allow you to target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally.

Sustain doesn't has the range restriction - but targeting does !! So you can't target from another plane if that planes distance is > the spell range.

Here is a 100% legal level 1 version that can be used in most dungeons and achieves 90% of the benefits from the Maze spell

Action 1: Stride (outside of the room with BBEG)
Action 2: Close door

Action 3: sustain whatever you want to sustain

Disadvantage: yes - the BBEG could follow you more easily as into a maze - but there is a good chance he is busy fighting your comrades and a surprising number of enemies actually don't pursue.

Advantage 1: you could actually still hear your comrades shouting a 'it's save to come back'
Advantage 2: you actually have 2 actions remaining instead of 1 as Maze also needs to be sustained

This leads to the question - why then isn't this tactic not being done more often? Because in most cases it is a bad tactic. If you target someone you need line of sight.

Also - Second Edition is much more of a collaborative game compared to First Edition. Flank / offering extra HP to hit / being an extra body helps keep you comrades up. A 'tank' in 2e might stay up 3 times as long as a squishy - but that is far from 20 times in 1e.

Actually - there is already a 7th spell that achieves what you want with Maze - Ethereal Jaunt. One level lower and as long as the enemy has no force or abjuration effects it only has positives.

I went through the list of spells with Sustain - the only situation I could truly see to make sense is

Your party is being slaughtered - most (all) of your allies are dead. You cast Revival and Maze away in the hope your raised comrades will finish the job.

One more bit - some comments here did mention Dimension Door. Dimension Door in 2e has the restriction of line of sight - so it seldom works to get you to a safe place - unless in a wide open space to give you a head start (or to dimension door behind a wall of force).

CRB: List of sustained spells
ANTIMAGIC FIELD
CALM EMOTIONS
DANCING LIGHTS
DIVINE AURA
DROP DEAD
DUPLICATE FOE
ENTHRALL
ETHEREAL JAUNT
FIELD OF LIFE
FLAMING SPHERE
FORBIDDING WARD
GATE
GHOST SOUND
HIDEOUS LAUGHTER
HYPNOTIC PATTERN
ILLUSORY CREATURE
IMPLOSION
LOCATE
MAGE HAND
MAZE
MIND PROBE
MIND READING
MISLEAD
PRESTIDIGITATION
PROJECT IMAGE
PRYING EYE
PUNISHING WINDS
RETROCOGNITION
REVIVAL
SCINTILLATING PATTERN
SCRYING
SPIRITUAL GUARDIAN
SPIRITUAL WEAPON
STORM OF VENGEANCE
SUMMON
UNFATHOMABLE SONG
UNSEEN SERVANT
VIBRANT PATTERN

APPEARANCE OF WEALTH
COMPETITIVE EDGE
MAGIC’S VESSEL
PROTECTOR’S SPHERE
WORD OF TRUTH
IMPALING BRIARS
STORM LORD
DREAD AURA
PROTECTIVE WARD

The CRB has written aid (I use lower case aid - not Aid !!) for AC written in the rules already - but maybe not in the way you think.

Aid (upper case) gives you a circumstance bonus

The Cover rules do deal with potential aid (lower case) Cover rules Nethys

No roll needed - you just step between yourself and the attacker. It is conceivable that other actions might be used. You might Aid by waving your hands and stepping back and forth to block a path - increasing lesser cover to standard cover.

You might aid by using something large (a table?) to block, etc.

So yes - RAI in my view is you can aid. It is written into the rules as cover. If you want to improve beyond that, then it falls into the area of GM should grand it (or not) depending on what you do.

Can you aid by waving a reach weapon up and down between two opponents? More or less give cover but from standing next to two fighting opponents? Maybe? Would have to look what precedent is there (wouldn't give it for free if there are feats for it) but wouldn't say outright no either.

But anything going above the cover rules would be - check with the GM.

But I've also seen RAW used in more toxic ways such as:

* My GM doesn't like this but I found this obscure combination of things and now he has to! Ha ha ha!
* A casual reading of this doesn't look problematic but if you read it just so, the ability doesn't work like it's intended. Aren't I clever?
* This rule obviously works this way. It's obvious to me, and if I just say it over and over again it'll be clear to other people too. Yeah, other usually reasonable people read it differently, but that can't be sign that the rule is actually ambiguous, because it's obvious to me. So they are either... malicious? Stupid?
* The rules don't quite seem to cover this situation. Something must be done! Wake up the designers! Never mind that you can make a reasonable ruling by comparing to existing rules, or that the book itself says that this particular issue should be down to GM discretion. I demand that the book answer ever possible question I have definitively! The game should be complete! A 650p CRB isn't thick enough!

This 100%

I was in a lucky position that twice in the last 10 days a designer gave input to rules discussions.

In both cases I had players say RAW is very clear.

In both cases I had GMs say RAI is very clear.

In both cases designer input was needed to settle the issue as discussions had settled into 2 camps with no expectation that one would convince the other

Let me start first in saying - there certainly would be value in a good compilation of rules issues that is easy accessible and can be used to settle issues.

My issue is - how do you keep out bias?

Lets be frank. A lot of discussions are about loopholes in rules text. As a player you are easily tempted to argue in favour of a loophole. As a GM you are easily tempted to argue in disfavour of a loophole.

This directly feeds into the RAI vs RAW discussion.

How would the editorial decisions be made on such a FAQ?

Would editors be selected in a balanced way?

How could that be achieved?

Would it try to give a clear answer or rather summarize these are arguments in favour or disfavour of a ruling?

I think it is time to move on. I brought this up as I think it is problematic.

The main redeeming sentence here is this

has helped me a lot to flesh out some actual story for this character, and in a positive way.

And no - you can not reflavour a clan pistol to have the same qualities but not being a clan pistol. We had these discussions here years ago when reflavouring of dogs to pigs (or the other way round) started to have in game consequences when the society started to deal with goblins and it did have an impact because of the background lore.

Being adopted by the Dwarves of Dongun Hold is likely the safest way to ensure you don't lose the pistol at higher levels if an errata for this gets written.

I don't go with

the rules clearly allow

There wouldn't be this thread and a discussion in the rules questions on the discord server where we play if it would be clear.

And as you are about following RAW and being cheeky - you are aware that your character sheet unequivocally, 100%, clearly does not give you access to the pistol if I do a RAW interpretation of the rules ;)

The group moves along at the party. They are keen to impress Gorm Greathammer first. He seems to be in a discussion with Kreighton Shane - the Society's Master of Scrolls.
Kreighton seems to completely ignore you as he keeps talking to Gorm while there seem to be two conflicting emotions that show on Gorm. On one hand there seems to be a plea of help in his eyes.
On the other there seems a raised eyebrow as he sees what clearly is a dwarven clan pistol - dangling from the belt of Muriel.

I would probably just suggest sparing yourself (and your GMs) the stress and save up 11gp for the weapon you actually want (or 35gp for a +1 weapon).

Nope - that is why we are here

As GM here is my take

Pro - yes a clan gun is fine to use

There is a way to read the access condition for PFS to overrule both access conditions.

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

Con - no a clan gun isn't fine to use

We are talking a brand new 1st level character and the player already voiced that he likely will use the rebuild rules anyhow to rebuild that character

The player jokes that if there is an errata then he should get credit for it - so he is aware that this relies on a certain reading of the rules

There is a boxed text that explains the the reverse isn't allowed - a dwarf doesn't get access to the clan pistol as he has to fulfill both requirements. This seems to show RAI that the reverse is on shaky grounds but that box is (not surprisingly) missing in the access document.

Asked first time how he thinks he got access to the gun it was cheekily suggested that his character killed a dwarf. I cheekily suggested back in this case I would have to suggest infamy.

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

All of this doesn't play out in a vacuum. Lore wise the Society has issues with how they are perceived. This has been there since Season 1 of second edition - and it seems to come to the forefront in this season.

The group just starts 1-01 and the first task they want to do is - influence Gorm Greathammer - Faction leader and source of lots of lore. The scenario suggests to lower the DC for good roleplay.

So I'm asked to reward good backstories and interactions for everyone else and judge it best using my understanding of the world of Golarion but in the case of a clan pistol I just ignore any embarrassment to a dwarf caused or any taboo broken as it is just lore and fluff.

I would be a lot more forgiving in different situations.

2nd edition - Does the PFS access overule the need of being a dwarf for buying a clan pistol?

PFS Note The clan pistol’s ammunition costs 1 sp for 10 rounds. Gunslingers (and characters with the Gunslinger archetype) gain access to all uncommon weapons, ammunition, and related items from Chapter 4 of this book, with the exception of Beast Guns and any limited or restricted items, unless the item indicates otherwise. Characters with a Home Region of Alkenstar, Dongun Hold, or the Shackles have access to all black powder guns, ammunition and related accessories.

I'm told all it needs is setting the Home Region and any character can buy a Clan Pistol - which at least lore wise is pretty problematic.

The 11th level version makes you trained in a skill of your choice when you make it. So could you choose a specific lore skill when you quick alchemy or quick tincture? Would be pretty handy for investigators. Knowledge in a bottle.

RAW it seems to work

RAI I doubt Lore Skills should be included in skills to select

This gives an Alchemist the equivalent of Bardic Lore in a bottle for the relative cheap cost of a single infused reagent. If you know ahead of time that Cyclops Lore might be beneficial today then you might even create multiples at the start of the day for a cheaper price.

It reminds me of the errata for attack, attack roll, attack trait. In this case it is more niche - so I wouldn't expect an errata unless there is widespread use of it.

As Gortle says - the equivalent of the escape action was done by your ally who killed the grappler.

Delay might be used more often then you think to gain (or lose) a condition (effect?)

I delay to become quickened (wait for the wizard to cast haste)
I delay to become un-blinded (wait for someone with light to move first into darkness)
I delay to become concealed - Fog Cloud or somethin similar to be cast before I flee
I delay to become un-deafened - wait for character with silence to move out of my area
...
Restrained - I delay for the barbarian to smash the slaver chain before fleeing

The list will go on for a while.

There is even a condition that places you in auto-delay so that allies can remove it - dying - it moves your initiative in front of the creature who caused it.

PFS often gets depicted here on this board as the bogeyman for RAW and the final arbiter. So let me share my personal experience (5-star, 4-glyph GM) how I would expect Plate Mail and Druid to be handled.

You will get away on 80% of tables with wearing Plate Mail. The number is an estimate and not for the reason you think. In games there is only a limited amount of time to do character reviews. That is the amount of GMs who likely (at a F2F game) won't even notice you wear plate.

This number will drop if you go to VTT and drop even further in PBP or PBD.

Disclosure - on average the number of mistakes I pick up when looking across character builds at tables is 2:1 in disfavor of players. On the other hand 95% of rules discussion are if you pick up some 'strange' build in favor of the player based on questionable interpretations of rules.

In case of metal armor and druid expect the majority to rule against it. This reflects several strong opinions here. There are exemptions - sometimes it is a GM or even Venture Officer in an area who starts such a trend and you will have local pockets where something is ruled different. Don't be shocked if that ruling will be challenged if you go to a convention with a wider intake.

How would I rule?
Level 1 / unexperienced player: I ask politely to rebuild ahead / even mid scenario if only picked up later - assuming someone just didn't know the rules
Higher level: Depends. A Plate Mail with several feats spend to be able to wear it and possibly runes on it can be difficult to change on the fly.
At the same time the excuse it is a one time use doesn't fly. If you bought it 2 levels ago then you used it repeatedly - even if not at my table or in this specific game.
I dislike to be THAT GM who stands up and invalidates your build. But on rare occasions it has happened. Ideally we get to a solution that works for both the GM and the player.

I think 3D aspects in the OP question distract from the true issues around bulls eye lanterns

1) they can be used as a ‘weapon’

They are perfect if you ever know you go Duergar hunting

2) the rogue sword and lantern fighter vs sword and board

In darkness you are hidden from other creatures without dark vision if you are using lantern and sword.

The cone is only ahead of you. So you see perfectly while staying yourself in darkness. Others know your position but without dark vision or a second light source can’t do anything about your condition and are at a major disadvantage (disarm the lantern ?)

Never seen that in actual play - most GMs don’t bother about light rules and this is specific for a bulls eye lantern vs Wayfinder, torch, light spell - but there are some interesting aspects that can be done with a bulls eye lantern.

Actually 2e changed one aspect of light / darkness.

If you are in darkness without dark vision then you can see someone in light as long as there is nothing blocking it.

Magical darkness I think is the exemption.

So if you have your bullseye lantern low then you will see the halfling even if there is no light in the square above the halfling.

On my phone - so won’t waste half an hour to hunt it down in the rules. Check sight / darkness / light. 2e rules are not always straight forward where to look for such details - but I’m 95% sure that is correct and somewhere explained in the CRB and now explicit.

Throwing a rope with light forward, downward (example of the well) or upward can be done with various simplicity.

A) downward automatic - gravity - just fix one end

B) forward - attach a weight on one side to throw it

C) upwards - use a grappling hook as weight (you might get away in b with improvised items)

Mathematically the 50 foot rope is 3 1/2 light spells. One cast at 0, 20, 40 (and 50).

No harm done for rule of cool down a well - but should be clarified it is not as intended and as GM I would stop it as soon as they start to abuse it.

In my view the hold or strapped is a game mastering / playing issue - not a rules issue.

Here is a made up example - for more interesting reading I did create a little bit of a story.

Merisiel was down close to dying, Ezren was down - not in a better shape. So it was up to Ezren and Kyra to take out the Undead Lich. Side by side they fought - shields raised in unison - Kyra's shield blazing from her goddess power (Emblazoned Armament), sword and scimitar striking in unison.

Would they all die here now or could the prevent fate and walk out glorious? Valeros landed a near final blow - that is when disaster struck - the Lich raised his claw and Kyra went down - seriously hit by the Lich.

In game play you want:
A) Valeros to hold the shield - so he can drop it and has a free hand to do battle medicine on Kyra.
B) Kyra to have the shield strapped - so if Valeros is doing battle medicine that she can use a 3-action heal to prevent Merisiel/Ezren from dying and to get urgently needed HP back to the whole party (yes - to make it more dramatic I use emblazoned armor on the shield)

In reality it is likely that neither the player of Valeros nor the player of Kyra even considered if the shield is held or strapped. There is no box on any character sheet (I'm aware off) that specifies if a shield is strapped or held - yet - in this fictitious example it could be the difference between TPK or a memorable story.

That is why my advice is - first time you come up with the situation rule in favor of the player if needed - but after that it sticks. Often player don't want to take advantage of the situation but rather haven't even spend time to consider if it is held or strapped - until it makes a difference.

Yes - in an ideal world you ask the question at the start of a game or tell your GM before the game. But who is perfect as GM or player?

You can hold or strap a shield. I’m not aware of anything that by RAW prevents either.

If you hold it - you can drop it for free but it can be disarmed and is also dropped if you go unconscious.

If you strap it, then you can’t drop it for free - but you don’t drop it if you go unconscious.

You can even hold or strap a buckler. Holding a buckler has the added disadvantage that you can’t use the hand as free hand when not using the buckler.

As GM I rule:

Shield - default held
Buckler - default strapped

This is the most common case and in most situations the most beneficial to a player.

Players (or very special situations - you wake up and grab your buckler) can overrule the default.

I only allow the ‘Schroedinger’s Shield’ aka the player decides only after the fact if it was strapped or held once. If a player insists - I always do X then fine - but I keep memory of that and will rule the same way next time.

The problem of failing saves comes up again and again - every other months at least.

The issue with 2e is not can you opt to fail - the question would be - can you opt to fail and avoid crit fail or if you opt to fail - what fail condition would apply.

Somewhere else I did the Maths for damage spells. It showed there are circumstances where failing is superior to rolling a dice as it avoids crit failure.

This makes voluntary fail messy in 2e and that is the main reason in my opinion why you don't find it allowed unless it is specifically mentioned in the spell description (yes - some do allow failure).

I would definitely allow someone to force feed someone else as exploration activity.

During combat I would have to look at it on a case by case basis. Couldn’t find exact descriptions on my phone but these ‚food‘ items seem not to be build for combat situations and would fall into creative play not a standard use.

You've become senseless. You can't act while stunned. Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose, possibly over multiple turns, from being stunned. Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost. For example, if you were stunned 4, you would lose all 3 of your actions on your turn, reducing you to stunned 1; on your next turn, you would lose 1 more action, and then be able to use your remaining 2 actions normally. Stunned might also have a duration instead of a value, such as “stunned for 1 minute.” In this case, you lose all your actions for the listed duration.

Stunned overrides slowed. If the duration of your stunned condition ends while you are slowed, you count the actions lost to the stunned condition toward those lost to being slowed. So, if you were stunned 1 and slowed 2 at the beginning of your turn, you would lose 1 action from stunned, and then lose only 1 additional action by being slowed, so you would still have 1 action remaining to use that turn.

Instead of highlighting the second and fourth sentence I highlight the third one. It clearly states how many actions you lose.

Trying to circumvent this by clever timing is just trying to make stun a lot more powerful through a technicality in the wording.

There is a conflict here:
a) when to reduce numbers of stun (normally at the start of a turn)
b) how many numbers of actions to remove

Even

Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn. If you have conflicting conditions that affect your number of actions, you choose which actions you lose. For instance, the action gained from haste lets you only Stride or Strike, so if you need to lose one action because you’re also slowed, you might decide to lose the action from haste, letting you keep your other actions that can be used more flexibly.

Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can’t act. When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately.

So I go with Aw3som3-117 - the only bit that isn't spelled out is how to do the Maths if it happens during the turn of a character.

One more bit:

You likely need a Nat20 to crit against the boss.

It is therefore best to delay instead of ready.

Ready means 2 actions. You nearly double the chance of a critical. Also - the boss loses his reactions while stunned. Especially useful if he has AoO.

This would make it nearly 4 times more effective to strike him with the gun directly after his round instead of a readied action.

Keep in mind while you ready you can’t to exactions of your own as further downside.

You need to read the whole stunned condition.

stun (part of)Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost. For example, if you were stunned 4, you would lose all 3 of your actions on your turn, reducing you to stunned 1; on your next turn, you would lose 1 more action, and then be able to use your remaining 2 actions normally.

Stun 1 means you lose 1 action. Yes - you can’t act while stunned. But if an enemy has 3 actions then he loses the first on stun 1 and can act afterwards as stun is over.

It even tells you as example that on stun 1 you only lose the first action and carry on.

There is a HUGE difference between stun 1 (lose 1 action) and stunned 1 round.

The latter tends to come with the incapacitation trait and makes it difficult to apply on a boss.

It isn't as simple as that:

1) You are level 16. A level 16 creature is stunned 1 - this means it loses 1 action. A level 14-15 is stunned for 1 round - but a boss shouldn't be lower level as you.

2) It is a Focus Spell - casting it multiple times will be a problem. Most ever would be a full Focus Pool of 3 and you use it all in 3 rounds.

3) The Spell is uncommon - so not sure how to get access.

4) Just read - once targetted it leads to immunity 10 minutes - so there goes the cast it multiple times.

Yes - it is devastating on a low level enemy 13 or lower (d6 rounds they can't do anything) - but a level -3 monster should be no problem to take out multiple rounds.

Edit: And it doesn't even work on a true boss who is higher level as you. Well - might have worked at level 15 for a level 16 enemy.

Even though I agree with Castilliano, the rules do actually have this covered too.

Carrying and Using items

Quote:

A character carries items in three ways: held, worn, and stowed. Held items are in your hands; a character typically has two hands, allowing them to hold an item in each hand or a single two-handed item using both hands.

Singular. One item held in a hand when being used for its purpose.

And there goes my idea for a Shoony Wizard for RP reasons modelled on my dog who is legendary in carrying and fetching sticks in his mouth.

But I want to hold my wand between my teeth !!

My hands are already full

Surely if it doesn’t tell me how many hands needed then this should work

/s

@Elsra - I actually started an answer to show it is circumstantial - until I made the Maths for a specific example and crafting turned out superior.

I take a level 10 Wizard - crafting a batch of 4 level 3 scrolls. He is expert crafter and expert Akademia Lore. I therefore give him a +19 skill for either

Average income as crafter: 5.6 gp per day

Average income for akademia Lore: 3.6 gp per day. So why do I earn more as crafter compared to a dayjob?

The reason is the DC. I used level 3 scrolls as it seems they can be done in a decent time and still be useful.
A level 3 scroll is a level 5 item - so the DC is actually a low DC18 - leading do a high chance of crit success and zero chance of crit failure.
This means I earn at level 10 but I have to do a check vs level 5.

Here is the Maths in detail:

Sorry that this forum isn't table friendly and I don't want to spend half an hour to render it nicely

+19 skill, DC18 - scroll level 3
Outcome|Chance|Income|Days total|Days Paid|per day|Chance*Income
Fail|5%|0|4|0|0|0
Success|40%|5|24|20|4.17|1.67
Crit Success|55%|10|14|10|7.14|3.9

Sum of last column 5.6 gp

+19 skill, DC27
Crit Fail|5%|0|0
Fail|30%|0.7|0.21
Success|50%|5|2.5
Crit Success|15%|6|0.9

Sum of last column 3.6 gp

Edit: The last columns are income per day weighted by chance to allow summing them up as crafting is across different number of days.
I haven't optimized it yet for what level crafting at which level of play yields the best income. Also of note - I could write some scrolls while stuck in a small village for 2 weeks waiting for good weather to get across a moutain - good luck to use Academia Lore in such a place.
BUT - it is a lot of investment, you actually need to be able to use the items you craft to get a benefit and your GM might just handwave the need to find a realistic dayjob - no matter where you are.

I'm also unsure how you can work out the spellcaster ability modifier for the monster and it proficiency bonus going off the monster stat block?

Hammerjack already mentioned DC-10.

You find the rules in the CRB on page 447/448

Spell attack roll result = d20 roll + ability modifier used for spellcasting + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties

Spell DC = 10 + ability modifier used for spellcasting + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties

If I call ability modifier used for spellcasting + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties equal to X

then

Spell DC = 10 + X

and

Spell attack roll result = d20 roll + X

or

Spell DC -10 = X

It is a little bit backward - and if you have attack spells they normally add the attack bonus explicitly. But DC -10 is easy enough to be done.

Quick repair was compared to Battle Medicine

How do you deal with the following:

Legendary Crafter stands behind construct:

Action1:Quick Repair
Action 2:Quick Repair
Action 3:Quick Repair

The main cost for Quick Repair in battle is to get your hands free. But once you started to repair - why stop.

10 foot corridor - the new tactic - 2 constructs in front, one (or two) legendary crafters behind to heal up to 200HP+ per round

Not sure I will ever see it on a table but wanted to throw this in when we compare Battle Medicine to Quick Repair. Battle Medicine is once a day - Quick Repair right now is unlimited.

A 'stable surface' isn't a core-rulebook defined keyword or a listed category. It's technically up to GM discretion, but I expect most tables (mine included) wouldn't bother with the minutiae of specifying which floor is or isn't a stable surface. I can see some GMs saying certain floors requiring acrobatics checks to stay upright would not count as a stable surface, but in practice I think many tables would forget / omit this detail.

This

As GM I'm happy to go with a normal surface is stable - someone holding it is stable.

I'm not going as far as Humble Gamer and say it is just fluff and therefore has to be disregarded 100%.

Quick Repair while flying?

Quick Repair while Swimming?

Quick Repair while in Quicksand ? (actually rare but our group just encountered a lot of sand yesterday)

All of these are rather uncommon circumstances. And I'm happy if players use creativity (one person holding it both hands while the other is doing quick repair while both fly).

I tried to analyze what is actually RAW - as what does it mean numerically.

Let us start with what all agree on:

CRB p.621

You can be simultaneously affected by multiple persistent damage conditions so long as they have different damage types. If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount.

That is clear - only the highest amount of damage of a certain type applies.

Next step - how is damage defined:

Damage is sometimes given as a fixed amount, but more often than not you’ll make a damage roll to determine how much damage you deal.

Actually that is step 1: Roll the Damage Dice and Apply Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties

So the CRB actually says - to determine the damage you have to roll the dice and apply modifiers to figure out what damage is.

It is claimed that d8 is greater then d6. Actually if I roll a d6 and a d8 then the following happens:

The estimated damage of d8 is indeed higher - 4.5 vs 3.5 but if you actually roll both then

The d6 is expected to be higher in 31.25% of cases
The d6 is expected to be the same value as the d8 in 12.5% of cases
The d6 is expected to be lower in 56.25% of cases

So yes - in 68.75% of cases the d8 yields the higher (or equal) damage. But that is a far cry from stating damage of a d8 is (always) greater then d6.

But does it actually matter?

Here is a table for d6 - taking the highest value

Number dice -> expected value
1d6 -> 3.5
2d6 -> 3.95
3d6 -> 4.64
4d6 -> 5.07
5d6 -> 5.34
6d6 -> 5.51

Eventually it is near to guaranteed that you roll a 6 at least once - so this will lead eventually to 6.

Now the same in %
1d6 -> 100%
2d6 -> 113%
3d6 -> 133%
4d6 -> 145%
5d6 -> 153%
6d6 -> 158%

So 3 instances of d6 persistent would end up more or less the equivalent of d6+1 and 6 instances would be d6+2 (using expected value - it never can go above 6 !!)

So in reality we tend to ignore this. The few extra % is just not worth the hassle to keep track as GM. My opinion of what is expected of a GM is that he should weave an interesting story and keep the group entertained.

The rules are there to set expectations - not to bog down the game play.

Now there is a much bigger problem with persistent damage - getting rid of it !!

Using a d20 greater / equal 15 means that in 5.7% of cases (just above the chance of a nat20) you still have persistent damage after 8 rounds. Rolling that many dice is tedious - doesn't add to the fun. So here is what happens mathematically if you roll for each instance seperate to end:

Number of d6 persistent -> average dice rolls to remove it -> chance to fail after 10 rolls

1d6 3.33 2.8%
2d6 4.71 5.6%
3d6 6.34 10.8%
4d6 8.12 20.5%
5d6 9.98 36.8%
6d6 11.88 60.0%

What do I do in my games?

1) I try to actually apply persistent damage - I would guess in 25%+ cases it gets silently forgotten (also by players)
2) I take the 'highest dice' and roll only once - so in case of d6 and d8 I use a d8
3) I do exemptions in case of 4 persistent vs d6 persistent and 5 damage reduction - in this case I roll a d6 with the off chance to get a 6
4) A single check removes all instances of a given type

Is this RAW? In the most literal reading of RAW likely not (see my own analysis) - but it is pragmatic and keeps the game going. It is also how I see it normally done at game tables.

Also keep in mind - in my view the two real issues influencing the true damage at the table aren't even discussed

a) forgetting to apply persistent damage (VTT and automation can help here - players seem fine if you forget to remind them of their damage ...)
b) getting rid of every single instance

Thank you for correcting my terminology.

I used the word target because that was my impression how some here used it and got mixed up.

Hope the bit below is more precise

Teleport:
The person you teleport is the target and the only target

The person teleported to x is then the effect? As such x is not a target. x therefore does not have to obey the targeting rules but is described in each teleport spell what is/isn't allowed for x (in most cases you have to see x).

I think the core issue about ‘target’ is that we have primary targets and secondary targets in some cases.

Weird behaviour like casting around corners, relaxation of rules can result.

So what are primary and secondary targets - and no - these terms are not used by Paizo.

Take Area of Effect Spells. Example Fireball. The primary target is the center of the blast. The secondary targets are everyone in blast radius.

You need Line if effect for the primary target. You then draw multiple lines in all directions of the primary target and hit everyone in that blast.

It is 2-step and as side effect you ‘can cast around corners‘ if you cast at the middle of a junction down a corridor. Monsters hiding in the side corridor - out of sight, out of the primary line of effect (caster to center of burst) are still hit.

Now take teleport: The primary target is the creature to teleport. You still need line of effect for the primary target. The secondary target is where you teleport the target to. For that targeting is relaxed and most teleport spells allow any secondary target you can see.

You can see through a Wall of Force - so the secondary target can be on the other side. The primary still need line of effect - but we often ignore it as in most cases it is the caster.

I even wrote why secondary targeting is relaxed. In 1e secondary targets could even be inside a wall aka I teleport 50 feet North and don’t know/see what is there.

In every single case Teleport Spells i checked do tell explicitly where you can teleport to - invoking specific overrules general and sight overcoming line of effect for the secondary !! target.

Swap Teleport Spells are a little bit iffy. My guess is that Paizo writers didn’t really distinguish between primary and secondary - in this case you have a pair of targets which are primary and secondary targets at the same time. So give Paizo writers a little bit leeway if these might not be written bulletproof.

I hope this explanation makes sense. I use primary and secondary target as I miss a better nomenclature and as both are colloquial ‚targets‘ but need to be treated differently.