tivadar27's page

For the original poster: Flanking does not include a “to whom” consideration. If a foe has to deal with a melee threat from opposite sides, then it gains the Flanked condition. When it has the Flanked condition then its AC is 2 lower than normal. That’s it.

Everyone can then take advantage of that lowered AC for any purpose. There is no “flanked to me but not to him” state.

Forcing the Flanked condition though does require opponents on directly opposite sides that *could* make a melee attack though. So both flankers must have the foe in Reach, be able to act, and be wielding a weapon (or capable of making an unarmed attack).

This is not correct information. Flanking is a relative state based on positioning and an enemy may be flanked by some but not others:

I'd give my left arm for a dev to just tell us explicitly how many hands you need free to use Battle Medicine. I was pretty sure I understood how it worked before this errata but now I'm even more confused than launch when you RAW didn't even need a healer's kit...

Yes, but if you gave your left arm, would you still be able to use Battle Medicine?

CrystalSeas wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

So you're saying Battle Medicine is now a reaction rather than an action as it is in the CRB? It seems as if there are differences between the BB and the CRB, and we'll have to see which is correct...

Yeah, that's an unfortunate new conflict that needs staff input.

But what the paragraph does seem to clear up is the issue of "how many hands".

I'm still confused. Don't healers tools require 2 hands per page 288 of the Core Rulebook? How do you have a free hand if the tools require 2 hands to use?

I'm going to suggest we stick to the OPs request to keep rule debates to a minimum. For reference, I'll try to get some of the threads discussion battle medicine (in its newest form) and edit this post with them, but in the meantime, they're reasonably easy to find.

EDIT: Honestly, just look at the discussion here: Battle Medicine in Errata document starts

tivadar27 wrote:

@shroudb: I realize this is old-ish, but curious if this leads you to the conclusion that sneak attack works for both the spell and the attack for Eldritch Shot or not?

Requirements of magical trickster: "When you succeed at a spell attack roll against a flat-footed foe’s AC and the spell deals damage".

Eldritch shot: "using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell."

I'm unsure here, as you're using your attack roll result to determine the effects, rather than using the attack roll result as your attack roll for both the spell attack and the weapon attack, though maybe they're logical equivalents?

I still stick with my original analysis. Getting sneak attack dice twice on the same attack roll is very strong, and considering that most other double attack feats only apply precision once, the argument that Eldritch Shot should be different is even weaker.

Can you back up the second statement here... Every double attack feat outside of Double slice that I know of can apply sneak attack multiple times. Double slice says it doesn't do it explicitly. Swipe and Quick Reversal, for example, would both apply sneak attack to both targets.

The question here is what the rules state, not whether or not it's strong, unless it's overpowered. What "analysis" are you providing that this falls into that realm? A rogue could, for two actions, attack twice and assuming they hit on both, do as much damage as an eldritch shot for 3 actions. The obvious advantage is not having MAP, but that's also balanced against the fact that this is using 3 actions. You mention having a ranger that does this, but we're looking at Rogue here, and I'm curious how this compares when looking at an actual build... I haven't run those numbers, I don't know if anyone has...

Okay, regarding digitalization, I really don't know where to begin here...
1. The system does *not* work: I'm unable to download boons for characters who have played adventures. It seems to be saving a default character I selected the first time I visited, then not updating when I update the character.
2. And more importantly. Previously, when I finished an adventure, I got a chronicle sheet that said I had a boon and said what it did. Now, when I finish an adventure, I can go online, find the adventure I played by scrolling through multiple pages, select my character, choose "purchase", and assuming it works, I can then click on another link to access a pdf which.... is a chronicle sheet that says I have the boon and what it does. Why?

This has been asked a few times in the context of other boons, but is probably more relevant for chronicle boons as they don't appear anywhere else... but it would be *extremely* helpful to get the full text of a boon prior to purchase rather than a summary. We have to choose how to assign these to characters, presumably, and doing so without knowing what specifically a boon does really doesn't feel good/could lead to purchasing boons you can't actually use on a character. Even some sort of external site with the text of the boons being linked would be fine.

EDIT: I had been operating under the assumption that moving things online would also expand how boons are potentially assigned to characters (e.g. you wouldn't have to assign to the character that played the adventure). It's been pointed out to me that that might not be true, which makes this much less of an issue.... Still, it sucks to get a good boon that you can't use just because you played with a character that can't use it.

At a higher level, you might want to specify a transition period/state when this goes live. Perhaps this will come out in a blog, but some official policy would also be nice. It's unclear, at least to me, whether this being online implies everyone must immediately switch over (ignoring the fact that how to switch is not obvious for many things), or if there is some period where GMs/players have to update/adapt to the fact that there's been significant rule changes.

Yeah, I'm not against this change at a conceptual level, but... Three points:

Announcing a change prior to implementing it, and implementing it prior to releasing it would seem to be the way to go. This was just done in an extremely blundering manner, and there's literally no good reason for that, and it unfortunately speaks, for me, to Paizo's competence on a whole on implementing things like this. The exact same thing happened with ACP, and apparently no lessons were learned. Can someone at Paizo address this? Issue some sort of statement as to their approach on these issues?

Beyond this, if there's any plan to grandfather in boons, I *highly* suggest some overlap between this announcement and people's ability to earn these boons. There were obviously people outside of Paizo more aware that *something* was happening here, and they've had at least some time to plan/come to grips with this, and... that is also pretty terrible. Not to mention people who were saving/building for something that now can no longer purchase it, but if they had just 2 more Fame could have had it grandfathered.

Finally, what's to be done about the plethora of incorrect reporting out there. For the record, I have 70 tables under my belt. I've ensured my chronicles are correct on all of those. However, basically each character I have with multiple factions are reported incorrectly. Namely two characters:
* One should have a 30/22 split, and has a 47/4 split.
* One should have a 31/59 split, and has a 53/33 split.
Like, these aren't even *close* to correct. You're giving me two options here, try to spend hours trying to reach out to lots of GMs across multiple venues/conventions to get this fixed... or lie and just say I have boons I don't "qualify" for. Let's be honest here, I'm doing the second, because this mistake isn't on me, it's on Paizo. Was there *any* effort to gauge the accuracy of chronicles relative to online reporting prior to releasing this? I have trouble believing I'm an anomaly in this regard, though it is possible.

I think people try to do the wrong (suboptimal) things with warpriest/the subclass is misnamed. If "Battle Medic" wasn't already taken, I think that would be a better name. Particularly after the release of APG, I see a lot of the upside to warpriest, given their easy access to both Sentinel and Bastion (and to a lesser extent Marshal and Medic). This allows them to move up and defend their allies while healing/buffing them. While it *sounds* appealing, and despite the name, I think a warpriest is at their best when they're *not* making attacks.

That's kinda fun :). I don't think it's earth shattering because, as someone pointed out, it's pretty easy to get a free attack from a reaction with Marshal, and that's probably the better route to go anyways. Sure, that one's at a net -2, but doesn't force your ally to waste their last action firing at you... and doesn't run the risk of a Nat 20 (or a 19 for that matter...).

PFS scenarios are kind of their own thing, if we're looking for encounter/day expectations. Their length is constrained by real world hours, not by adventuring party endurance.

... I disagree in some ways here. Yeah, these are limited by real-world time, but I also feel like PF2 was designed around feasible real-world time blocks. Assuming PCs can "wrap up" a concrete set of things and have a night's sleep before the next in-person session, even outside of PFS play, is extremely desirable. Half the times as a player by the time we meet for another session, I've forgotten if I've used a particular spell/lost a record of who's been Battle Medicined/... As a GM, this pretty much happens to at least one of my players always. Making an adventurer's day the same length as a player's block of gaming makes a lot of design sense, and I get the impression that's what Paizo was aiming at with PF2. Pacing really does matter.

AP pacing is sometimes hard to analyze, because they're generally designed to allow PCs to stop almost as often as they want.

That said, based on the seeming plot beats, Age of Ashes seems to assume 4 or 5 encounters a day or so.

Curious as to how you're getting this number. There's some anomalous areas, but... yeah, it seems like "areas" we've been in have assumed 3ish, sometimes 4. I don't recall, outside of early first book, ever really doing 5. On the other end of things, there was the hexploration, where the number was pretty much 1-2 every day... though those were more challenging for balance reasons.

Agreed, though, that being able to break whenever makes this harder to measure. Still, this goes back to a discussion of "using your spells". I think it's safe to say using 1 of your highest or second highest spells per combat (minimum 5) is perfectly reasonable, and if you're playing on the lower end of encounters per day, then the rule of one spell per level generally is a good one (particularly for sorcerers and wizards...).

Mathmuse wrote:

We have seen only 2 Adventure Paths, one stand-alone module, a free RPG Day module, and a few PFS society scenarios written for Pathfinder 2nd Edition. The description of the APs I have seen in the forums is that their combat is harsh. I bought Fall of Plaguestone and see a lot of Severe-threat combat encounters. My guess about content written for PF2 is that the players have to limit themselves to two or three encounters a day because those encounters are brutal.

Fall of Plaguestone is not representative. I believe even the designers have admitted that it's overtuned and more difficult than modules are usually intended to be.

That's certainly true in comparison to the other published PF2 content thus far.

Agreed, but it doesn't change the fact that for everything we've seen so far (actually, 25 scenarios is more than "a few"), the expectation is 2-3 combats per day...

Going back to the original topic: Remember that darkvision doesn't have a range in this edition, it's just the ability to see through darkness as far as you can see...

Both from a gaming strategic standpoint and from a real-world standpoint, flanking around an enemy line to come in from the back and get *the person/people everyone is defending* is a sound tactic. Mindless undead won't do it, but intelligent enemies will definitely try to snuff out the healer/caster in the back. They might not be doing the most damage, but in a lot of cases, they're either keeping the fighter doing the most damage up or preventing the enemies from doing damage, so yeah... I don't get the argument that this wouldn't happen.

Granted, yes, if there's an actual line of players and the enemies don't have ways to avoid AoO's, then it's likely not the best strategy, but, as others have said, that rarely happens.

EDIT: Note that this isn't going to happen if it's a rogue who's positioning himself behind enemy lines unless they have a good way to get out. A Barbarian or Fighter-type enemy, definitely.

Ravingdork wrote:

Stop moving to cover and then casting the shield spell or using the Raise a Shield action! The bonuses to your AC don't stack! It's one thing if you're just trying to get the damage mitigation, but oftentimes, I find that is not the case.

A better use for the third action there is actually using the Take Cover action to move your standard cover to greater cover (+4 AC, Reflex, Stealth). You're more likely to mitigate damage and it doesn't need to be maintained each round -- only breaks if you move, attack, or go unconscious.

Though normal cover is direction-specific, so if someone comes around that corner, you will be totally exposed. That being said, yeah, the Take Cover action if you're in a ranged combat is super good!

AC matters, and it matters a lot. That being said, there are obvious trade-offs. A two-handed weapon is going to do +2 damage per damage die more than a one-handed weapon, and after striking (+4), that's nothing to scoff at. I think a lot of people were generally pumping up the value of shields because coming from 1e play, lots of "effectiveness" metrics only included offensive statistics (DPR largely), and ignoring defensive capabilities when evaluating a character isn't really a good way to do things anymore.

You can certainly go without a shield, but unless you mitigate that somehow, you will be a lot more squishy. Barbarians have some of this built in with additional and temp HP, but even so, no one's going to argue they'll outlast a well-built paladin with a shield in a battle, even if they do do more damage.

So there's all this debate going on regarding Battle Medicine. I don't want to jump into that, but a decent number of people seem to be coming to the conclusion that requiring healer's tools and a free hand is the most practical way to go (if you don't agree, that's fine too, not stating it's unanimous...).

However, this leads to a weird corner case potentially, because healer's tools require 2 hands. I've heard takes that the healer's tools should need to be "held:, but not "worn", so they'd only take up a hand, and I hope that's not the way this is going, because it carves out a corner case that's likely completely unnecessary. Healer's tools should just be changed to require only one hand.

Why? Well, I've been playing for a while now, and honestly, I'm trying hard to remember the last time I/someone wanted to:
1. Stabilize someone, or
2. Treat poison on someone, or
3. Stop someone's bleeding
And the GM asked "do you have healer's tools at the ready and are both your hands free?" The fact is, this just creates an unnecessary barrier to performing actions that aid your party members and has a pretty steep cost. Most GMs I know just kinda let that happen, and honestly, I think that's the right thing to do. I think it's reasonable to expect someone to have a hand free, but for those with a shield, or dual wielding, dropping everything you have means that instead of 1 action, you've effectively given up a whole round.

So instead, just make healer's tools (and possibly rogue's tools) 1-handed. Let there be a marginal cost to having a hand free and requiring regripping/drawing, but don't make these tasks so burdensome that they're unusable unless a GM effectively ignores their requirements.

There's enough feat taxes in the game, but they're a lot less common than in 1e IMO. Most of the MC dedications are, in fact, feat taxes. They don't give you nothing, sure, but they give you something you don't really want/won't use in many cases in order to get access to something you do. Some of the MCs are better (Champion with Heavy Armor, Rogue, potentially, with Surprise Attack), but on a whole, they are a feat tax.

Beyond that, though, I'm hard pressed to find many others. I don't really consider sudden leap/flying kick to be feat taxes. You don't *have* to take them to get something else/they are not mandatory. Yes, for certain builds who can't use ranged, they're a way of dealing with flying things.... but so is a potion of fly, so it's not your only outlet to deal with that.

EDIT: With the combat style archetypes now out, the MC dedications aren't as necessary if you're looking for a fighting style... they're probably still feat taxes in some cases, but it at least comes up less.

Yeah, it's a weird situation. Regarding other conditions, though, Minions "acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands." I'd read this as they share your initiative, and act when you command them, so yeah, they're bleeding at the end of your turn.

Regarding the rest though:
1. Yeah, confused/fleeing/... are... confusing? I have no ideas how this should interact, but RAW suggests that if your companion *isn't* getting a "free" action, it does nothing.
2. I could see either the "it gets 3 actions, but can only use 2" or "it gets 2 actions" being valid, meaning slowed would either have an immediate effect, or it wouldn't have an effect until slowed 2. I don't think the distinction between gaining their actions at the start of the turn vs when you command them is relevant, or I think it's a case of slowed stating how it works for a general rule, but there's a natural application for animal companions who may gain their actions later.

One thought I had, is that it also might be an effort to encourage people to use the downtime retraining options more. Even a heavily optimized crafter (or earned income w/ feats & boons to do on-level dcs instead of level -2) would still rather have a couple adventures loss of downtime -- to swap a couple of feats or re-assign pathfinder training points, etc -- instead paying 15% for those changes.

Now this doesn't help when you want to swap in a new ancestry, but basically leave everything else the same (which I know is one of your particular use cases).

I'd kinda assume the ACP cost is the "cost" associated with this that incentivizes that sort of thing, not the gold cost, which is supposed to be, in theory, neutral. I realize this isn't true for the free rebuilds, but for the future ones that have ACP costs (some scaling) associated with them, you're fairly limited in how many of these you'll purchase.

To the above two posts, yeah, @Tomppa, I see what you're saying. I guess I"m just worried about what Nefreet mentions, that there will be wording preventing you from applying the boon to a character with more than 0 XP. In which case, respec doesn't help :-P. I hope they won't go that way, but trying to err on the side of caution with this one... Hopefully ACP come on line soon, or they preview the boons with a bit more detail.

thenobledrake wrote:

Anything which is a named action (read: anything that has an action symbol next to its name in the book) is that named action - not any of the named actions found within its description.

So it is correct that Mobility is not applicable to the Tumble Through action.

What about the fighter feat Shielded Stride? It says “you can Stride” instead of “When you take a Stride action” as per Mobility. Does this mean Shielded Stride works with Tumble Through and Nimble Roll (assuming a multi class dedication build)?

I see 9 instances where the verbiage refers to a “Stride action” instead simply “Stride” which IIRC occurs well over 100 times in the CRB. Moreover 2 of the instances of the former verbiage occur in Rogue feats and in no other class description.

It’s almost like a different author wrote the Rogue class entry.

Yeah, this is good to point out. By all the potential logic we've used above, you'd be able to Shielded Stride but not to use Mobility on all these actions. Beyond this, there are two different rules that are effectively in opposition here:

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.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions.

These are *really* hard to read as non-contradictory. While I think this is totally ambiguous RAW, I'm going to use the additional context of the second quote to imply that this merely means that using the activity itself does not count as the subordinate actions, but you do actually use the subordinate actions as part of using the activity. It gives haste as an example, saying that if you're hasted, you couldn't, for example, using sudden charge. That doesn't violate anything we've stated above. But there's nothing saying that once you could use Sudden Charge, it wouldn't also involve you using a Stride action.

I don't think one exists (an official ruling). I have a GM who runs it the other way (creatures must be within 30' of each other), and that's fine, but I'm of the opinion that RAW only requires 30' from you.

Dirge is already *extremely* good. Yes, some things are immune, but to things that aren't, it's the best debuff in the game. That being said, I'm in the camp of assuming the Frightened ends immediately if you stop performing, otherwise you'd get this:
* Bard sings Dirge
* Bard sings Inspire Courage (Dirge ends, but frightened persists)
* Bard does whatever

That's a way to get the effects of 2 compositions on your turn. Even if you only get a partial benefit from dirge (no penalty to the enemies AC/saves after it's had its turn), I still think it wasn't intended to work that way

Rage is not a good comparison as it explicitly tells you "you can't voluntarily stop raging" while stances can be ended voluntarily.

It is that ability to voluntarily end a stance which creates the implication that - unlike rage which states it's literally impossible to take an incompatible action - taking an action you aren't supposed to will end the stance.

Perhaps the first part is the case, but I read "you can't" as "you can't". You potentially can voluntarily end a stance, but at the same time, you can't do that by making a strike. You'd have to end your stance (whether as a free action or as an action), then make a strike. There is no wording about it being a "requirement" around strikes during a stance and the means of ending a stance, even if incomplete, are pretty clear. The requirements section for a stance is also pretty clear, and none of them indicate the strikes you are making.

Any roll you make as part of an action with the "attack" trait is an attack roll. Finesse weapons let you substitute your Dexterity for your Strength when you make an attack roll using them. Honestly, I don't see how this really needs any clarification, unless it's to state it is in fact the intent. You can substitute your Strength for Dexterity on Athletics check to trip when using a whip, for example.

The only *real* question regarding RAW is whether you are "using" the weapon to trip when using it with the trip trait: "You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand." This seems pretty cut-and-dry to me though.

I'll grant you, the way to figure this out is convoluted, but once you do, I think it's pretty clear RAW.

EDIT: I guess what I'm asking is by what interpretation of the rules is the above *not* true?

Yeah, so I'd agree this is an odd one. I think you should just be able to drop a stance as a free action, but agree that the rules, strictly speaking, don't permit it. Only being able to make Crane Wing strikes isn't a requirement of the stance, strictly speaking, as there's a specific section for stance requirements, and that even got adjusted for Mountain Stance (what used to be a Trigger became a Requirement).

That being said, this falls into the realm of "if something seems obviously wrong, fix it!", and I think it's reasonable to allow you to simply drop a stance assuming it's your turn.

Clever. Though only really works if the enemies aren't staggered between party members. And you do need lingering, as the duration would run out when you went into delay otherwise.

Note, another interesting approach for cases like this could be:
* You play inspire courage
* Ready inspire defense for enemies turn.
* Allies go.
* Enemies turn starts, your readied action goes off.

Wash, rinse, repeat. Note that this allows Inspire Courage/Defense to be up during "relevant" times each round, but also uses all of your actions (including your reaction)...

tivadar27 wrote:

You *may* not threaten if both of your hands are occupied with a ranged weapon/non-weapon while flanking.

But how about that I do threaten, even when using a crossbow (2 hands), simply because improvised weapons are a thing? And I think especially a crossbow makes for a mighty fine improvised club of some sorts.

So unless you are dual-wielding soft cushions or wet noodles I guess flanking will be justified.

Nope, improvised weapons are not weapons :-P. By definition. Flanking states you must be wielding a melee weapon or capable of making an unarmed attack. If it simply said "capable of making a strike" you'd be fine.

You have a free hand with a bow. In fact it's required to have a free hand to use the bow.

You don't when you fire it, because firing the weapon requires you to use your free hand to retrieve, nock, and fire. You'd *provide* flanking with a bow, but you couldn't benefit from it when firing the bow.

EDIT: by the logic of people who argue the above... as I said, I wouldn't apply it myself, but I think the notion that you do need 2 hands to fire a bow is correct. For example, if someone readied an action to shove you off an edge as you went to fire your bow and succeeded, I'd definitely rule you needed a critical success to grab the edge because you didn't have a hand free.

I actually appreciate someone posting this. I hadn't considered the possibility previously, but it can matter in some cases, so it helps to have thought it through, even if it was a fairly easy answer for me, before it comes up in game.

@Nefreet: Actually I found it unclear as well, though I was inclined to think you were referring to Siro's post. Still, given the timing of the posts, I wasn't sure if you were indicating the "upgrading" approach suggested by the original poster was possible.

To the original issue, I *thought* there had been a statement at some point that the reason they did groupings like this was to make upgrading easier. I've been assuming upgrading is possible, though must admit, it hasn't come up in play to this point, so I haven't looked into it in any more depth.

I mean, the short answer here is just buy shield boss and don't worry about any potential ambiguity regarding a shield without it... It's ridiculously cheap and there's really no reason not to grab it. Sure, you might run into the corner case where you find a shield and want to use it immediately, but this is at least one of the potential ambiguities that can be mostly avoided.

Once you have spikes/boss attached, we have proof that it works as a weapon according to Paizo's Valeros pregen.

I totally agree with you OP. I wish Darkvision was a fairly rare monster ability, rather than something that half the players have, and the other half feel like they should have because of it. This is pretty much the exact same problem 5e has, except there Darkvision is even *more* prevalent, which is both good and bad, because it means that there's more pressure to have darkvision (bad), but also easier to get it on the party member that doesn't have it via a spell (good), so everyone is at the same level at that point.

I also don't love that the best perception-granting item in PF2e also grants darkvision... For those who already have it, that feels like a waste, for those who don't, it feels like a required item even if you don't value perception (stealth for initiative for example).

Umm, the OP wasn't asking for a dev response to their post... They were asking about links to previous dev comments about alchemists. No one here seems to actually be commenting on that.

In response, to my knowledge, there's been no discussion about the current state of alchemist. The last I can remember was before the first errata came out when, I believe, they acknowledged that there were some problems with alchemists either when or before they released the errata. I don't have a link to that particular video, does someone else?

I think you're underselling Storm Retribution. Sure, you never want to see it triggered, but you're 100% gonna get crit at some point, and getting a free two-action attack out of it isn't too shabby. It's something that will be triggered rarely, but feel good and useful when it is.

I'm not saying it's amazing, but it's probably better than Nimble Dodge, IMO

Yeah, strong disagree here. If I get attacked and have the option of Nimble Dodging ahead of time knowing I won't be able to use Storm Retribution if I do, I'm 100% Nimble Dodging...

As for Liberating Step, yeah, I understand it can definitely be useful, and I don't think it's bad, I just think the other two tend to be better. Honestly, I might rank those two reactions above all the others in "best" tier... But everyone's going to have different opinions.

YogoZuno wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

Note: You can use Dexterity in place of Strength on the Athletics check to trip as well because of the finesse. Trip is an attack roll, and finesse lets you use dexterity in place of strength on all attack rolls with that weapon, not just strikes. This I actually love and would not change :).

Are you able to support this with rules at all?

The Trip action has the Attack trait, but I don't see that meaning any rolls made with the action are Attack Rolls.

CRB, p. 446 wrote:

When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll.

Thanks for piping in :). I actually didn't realize this either until it was pointed out to me in another thread. It has other implications, such as being able to True Strike a trip attempt, but this is definitely one of them, and I think it's kinda awesome!

I like the new bard for what it is: a spellcasting class that can also buff the entire party at the same time. I dislike the bard for what it isn't anymore: A class that can hang in there with some of the fighting types while also doing a bit of spellcasting and being good at a variety of skills.

I don't think the new bard is a bad class, but it should be viewed similar to "enchanter" in a lot of other games, and not be viewed through the lens of what it was/is in other editions. Something was lost, and I miss it, but I don't poo-poo the 2e bard either.

Lots of people seem to be countering with "I'm in favor of the change". Note that I, too, am in favor of it. As Adam has pointed out, however, now is a pretty bad time for it. I'm one of the people who would step up to run tables when there was an overflow of players previously, but the fact is that I'm not yet comfortable running online via roll20/fantasy grounds. Yes, I'm working on it, but for the time, we definitely have a lot fewer GMs to run that we used to. Combine that with reduced table sizes, and things are compounded.

I'm confused as to why you think katanas being an option for Unconventional weaponry is arbitrary, weird or problematic in the first place tbh.

It's arbitrary because it's specific to Katana. There are lots of other weapons that fall into the same category as Katana that are currently in ambiguous territory. The fact that it's unclear is the real problem. Even in a fixed campaign world (Golarion), it's completely unclear which weapons are "common in another culture".

Also, it falls under the area of "ambiguous" for Humans with "Unconventional Weaponry"... It'd be really nice to have clarification on that one for PFS.

Sorry, to further explain, the sentence has two conjunctions in it:

Any creature that (moves, opens, or touches the target container or enters the target area) that (doesn't speak the password or that matches the trigger) activates the glyph, releasing the harmful spell within.

I'm referring to the first conjunction here, which state the actions that can activate the glyph. The second conjunction list the actions that will prevent it from activating. So no, you can't literally do anything.

It's a little odd because the last sentence has both a positive and a negative, but basically, the trigger matching means you couldn't say "don't explode for us 5 people", you'd have to say "explode if it's someone outside of us 5 people". The things that activate it, however, still remain the same in this case.

Honestly, I think the intent here was to drop the "that" from that sentence, saying "that doesn't speak the password or match the trigger". This would mean that "doesn't" applies to both parts, so you'd set exceptions for avoiding the activation, rather than setting conditions under which there are no exceptions for avoiding the activation.

Regarding your reading of "touches the target container or enters the target area" is the one that I've heard called into question. For me, and probably others, these require actions on the part of the individual. Note that they didn't say "comes in contact with" or "is within the target area". While I'd agree this is ambiguous, I assume the RAI requires intent by the target, so hurling a grenade at an enemy wouldn't work, as they aren't touching it, they are being hit by it.

For a more amusing way of looking at this, it's like when my sister when we were younger used to lean over and push herself against me and yell "he's touching me!" My parents didn't buy it, and neither should you :-P.

Yay, they did something worse than not posting them at all! :-P. They posted something that's inaccurate and won't let you do anything, and at the same time, breaks existing functionality...

Serious advice, PFS1e operated on a primarily paper system, with your online reporting essentially being a backup. Perhaps it's best to stick to that system when it seems like any online system you attempt ends up backfiring.

Like, it actually doesn't bother me that Paizo seems to be terrible when it comes to technical stuff. They're a TTRPG company, I get it. But unless you're seriously willing to invest in the infrastructure to get good at this, it seems like a horrible idea to try to move over to an online system.

Sorry if this is overly negative. But I just don't understand why they're blocking all this new content on something that just doesn't seem anywhere near ready to work.

I've been assuming any of the traditions the spell is of, rather than the tradition it's being cast of. Partially because I think it's more fair, and partially because there are ways to get spells that aren't tied to a particular spellcasting tradition.

My experience in this is that I've come to a table with a 2H fighter, a giant instinct barbarian, a dual wielding rogue, and a 2H ranger where I was playing a cleric and have them talk about the necessity of a cleric...

Sure, clerics are "necessary" if all you build for is DPR, but there are a lot of other viable strategies such as, I don't know, picking up a shield :-P that make a cleric a lot less necessary.

Juggernaut would affect only the roll, but I think I agree with Rysky, the effect of Incapacitation is on the result, which you could apply after Juggernaut without a problem. I think it's a bit of a gray area, but I'm inclined to think that "treat the result of the roll" stacks with "treat the result of the check". Still, not 100% certain here.

Agreed with all the discussion above. I've always viewed this as on-par with the whip, though likely without the reach and lethal rather than nonlethal. Just got the book myself and was surprised by the mechanics of the scarf.

Incidentally, the "Skill Split" is:
Int: 5, Wis: 4, Cha: 4, Dex: 3, Str: 1, Con: 0