Aratorin's page

Alexander Woods wrote:

Looking through this, I am forced to concede to the idea it auto works if targeting the golem directly. As Effects, as called out and described in the core book on page 453, range, targets, area of affect, attack roll modifiers, etc. are all called out as part of the Effects portion.

Further, it calls out Targets and Areas as seperate components of effects, and Effects make it clear that not everything has all the listed components. Areas specifically state they "spread out from point of origin" and never mention a target. As such, much like tags in this system, I am forced to conclude that AOE effects do NOT have targets. As the golem antimagic specifically calls out "any magic of this type that TARGETS the golem" then fireballs do nothing....

This leads to the situation where a entourage of golems is much more deadly increase than a single one, as you can't just fireball-equivalent into the crowd.

I believe you have misread the section, specifically about targeting. If a spell has an area and doesn't call out specific targets, it is assumed to target all creatures within equally. Fireball still hits a group of Golems and does damage.

Except it doesn't say that. It says that it "affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately." The word Target does not appear.

In fact, at the beginning of the Targets section, Target is defined as something you choose to hit directly.

Targets

Some spells allow you to directly 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.

If Fireball or Burning hands did have Targets, you would not be able to hit Invisible or Hidden Creatures with them at all, as you must be able to see a Creature to Target it.

Aratorin wrote:

While I initially agreed with you, this creates an issue for Spells that don't have Targets, like Burning Hands or Fireball

I disagree. There is no reason to believe that when the Targets paragraph on page 304 says "A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately." is meant to be interpreted as not saying all creatures in the area are targeted by the spell - especially because the understood table-talk version of the scenario could easily be a player saying "I'm gonna cast burning hands targeting the golem."

So as I said, I do generally agree with your interpretation that Spells of the appropriate Type do not need to roll to hit a Golem.

That being said, why is it that the specific words in the Rule only seem to matter to you when they match your interpretation of the Rule?

Why is the inclusion of the word Target in Golem Anti-Magic any more meaningful than the exclusion of the word Target in Area Spells?

That doesn't make sense to me. We have to assume that in both cases, the words were chosen intentionally, and because they don't gel, unless the intention truly was to make Golems immune to AoE Spells while also being extremely vulnerable to Attack Roll Spells, one of them needs to be issued errata.

I don't think any of us can say for sure which one needs to change, or which way it is intended to work.

Martialmasters wrote:

People think bard is near overpowered.

Meanwhile I've been thinking it's the only balanced caster lol

I'm with you on this one.

I also find it funny that Fighters and Rogues whole design niche is being best at fighting and being best at skills, which is basically what every other class is trying to achieve, but can't. Both classes have insane base chassis AND a lot of interesting feats (a lot of them as well) on top of it and I've yet to see it mentioned (except me, a couple of times, but I'm not as present as other members here, so maybe it's on me).

I mean, Bards are pretty good, they're interesting to play, they engage well with the action economy, all of the class' paths inspire different playstyles that realize them well and feel rewarding, they have a lot of unique options in their feats (House of Imaginary Walls, Allegro, Esoteric Polymath, Fatal Aria, etc) and is flavorful as hell. They're what every caster should be. I didn't mention their spell list because it's quite limited (mostly buffs, some healing and a lot of Will spells), because other classes get it and it's not what makes it one of the most well designed class.

Fighter's schtick is being best at Accuracy specifically. That doesn't mean they are the best at "fighting". Barbarians do more Damage overall, and Rangers do more damage to single targets.

Apparently this thread is no longer sticky.

Yes it is. The sticky mechanism of these forums is just weird in the way that it works. If you are within the Rules Discussion subforum, it will always be at the top, but if you are in the Pathfinder Second Edition overview, and you have already checked it, so that "new" posts notifications show, it will move around within the Rules Discussion section on that page like any other thread.

These are truly the oddest forums I have ever seen. I'm not sure why they didn't just go with phpBB.

Golem Antimagic says this: "Harmed By Any magic of this type that targets the golem causes it to take the listed amount of damage (this damage has no type) instead of the usual effect."

I've added the italic to emphasize the part which says, functionally "Once you have picked the golem as a target, ignore everything else the spell actually says - it takes damage instead" - it doesn't mention "if it hits" or "if it fails the save" or that there's a basic save if that's what the spell normally would do and an all-or-nothing save if it wouldn't, and the reason why it doesn't cover any of that information is because the details of spell stop mattering at "can you target the golem with it?"

You don't get the "crit fail your attack, but still hit" scenario because you don't roll any attack roll.

And yes, it is absolutely by design that having the right tool(s) will make taking the golem down easy - that's because it's also very hard to take the golem down without said tools. Pick any golem and imagine fighting it with a party that doesn't have any adamantine weapons and also can't trigger the harmed by, slowed by, or vulnerable to portions of that golem's antimagic. It'd be a very rough fight.

While I initially agreed with you, this creates an issue for Spells that don't have Targets, like Burning Hands or Fireball,

As Golems are Immune to all Spells, except for Spells with specific Traits that Target them, it means that an Ice Golem for example is completely Immune to Fireball, but gets wrecked by Produce Flame, which does not seem like the intention.

Not sure if this has ever been asked or where it would be better asked, but I was curious....I have a Taldan fighter who sees Taldor almost as its own religion. So if he wants to use the traditional Taldan blade (the falcata) since it basically has the same stats as a longsword, is there anything that says I can't just use the longsword but for flavor say that it was forged to resemble a falcata?

Not really, no. You can call it an ear if you want, as along as mechanically, it's a Longsword.

Gorbacz wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

Does anyone really believe that they would require you to have Healer's Tools but not use them? I mean, other than it not specifically saying that in excruciating detail, that's really just a silly position. The Tools don't heal the target by emitting positive vibes from within your Bandolier.

It's a wonder the Paizo team doesn't just say "We're done with this nonsense." and close up shop.

I find it completely plausible that the Healer's Tools emit positive vibes which, enhanced through the omni-channelling connection with the universe the person with the Battle Medicine feat channels, leads to the "carry but don't hold" effect. It's a fantasy game, after all.

After some consideration, this feels like the most reasonable way to run it, yeah.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

The errata needs errata. It needs to say "Add the Requirements entry" not "change."

Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.”

There is no Requirements entry in the Battle Medicine feat. Therefore, as written, there is nothing to change and the errata does nothing.

Pg 18 Shows that all Feats have a Requirements entry. They just don't print it if it's blank. Just because a variable doesn't have a value doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sapient wrote:

Only a character that has really trained for that sort of athleticism should have a non-zero chance of doing it, really. In the real world, 10 feel horizontally (with no elevation change) is about what a typical person can do. Only a small percentage of the population could jump up 5 feet and land on their feet, running start or not.

They SHOULD have to have invested experience into appropriate abilities. Most characters in a typical party should find this jump impossible without grabbing an edge.

To clarify, I am assuming that yes, players will have items and feats and spells which improve their ability to jump. It's honestly one of the best ways to avoid or cheapen difficult terrain as well as small gaps in terrain, compared to either running around or climbing up, which may be a bit more difficult, or not even feasible depending on the gap.

But what I'm saying is that the mechanics for jumping as a whole aren't very fluid. A player can't jump both 30 feet distance and 10-15 foot height as part of the same activity (discounting Jump spell of course). Granted, I can see the arguments behind why that is from a realism standpoint (as they are certainly different types of jumps), but considering this is a fantasy realm where players are doing all kinds of superhuman feats, I don't see why they can't jump like this.

I suppose the real question here is: Is this actually possible to do within the rules? Let's assume a 30 foot gap with a 10 foot height difference, you being on the lower end. Can the PC possibly make this jump check? [Bonus question: What are the average limits a PC can do with this kind of skill?]

Long Jump then Wall Jump to High Jump then Grab an Edge. Nothing other than Master Athletics and a single Skill Feat required.

Once you grab Cloud Jump you don't even have to Grab an Edge.

Cottoncaek wrote:

Samurai wrote:

Cottoncaek wrote:

I mean, when one feat is something *EVERYBODY* needs to take, that's just as imperfect.

Everybody doesn't need to take it. Battle Medicine can only work once per day per induvial. It says after the HP are healed, the target then becomes immune to Battle Medicine for 1 day, as it says on pg 258.

Boy are you in for a surprise! The target becomes immune to *your* battle medicine, friendo. Everyone can have it, and everyone can use it on everybody, once per day, per person. Four person party? Each person can be Battle Medicined 4 times per day, and if you end up with Godless Healing->Mortal Healing, it gets even more insane.

I asked my GM about this and his ruling was that each additional attempted Battle Medicine only allows the single highest result rolled to apply each day, (same way Temporary HPs work), even if you have since lost those HPs because of recent damage. The limit resets each day after you sleep.

If every single PC can apply Battle Medicine to every other PC every day and they all stack, without limit, then why force multiple characters to all take the same feat? Just allow the same character to do it multiple times a day.

That's a fine house rule, but it's not how the Feat works.

Long Jump modifies the basic Leap, so you can go up to 3 feet vertically on a Long Jump, as Leap allows for that.

LEAP [one-action]MOVEYou take a careful, short jump. You can Leap up to 10 feet horizontally if your Speed is at least 15 feet, or up to 15 feet horizontally if your Speed is at least 30 feet. You land in the space where your Leap ends (meaning you can typically clear a 5-foot gap, or a 10-foot gap if your Speed is 30 feet or more).If you Leap vertically, you can move up to 3 feet vertically and 5 feet horizontally onto an elevated surface. Jumping a greater distance requires using the Athletics skill.

A 5 foot vertical move during a Long Jump would be a bit much. You're getting into Kung Fu movie flying at that point.

Does anyone really believe that they would require you to have Healer's Tools but not use them? I mean, other than it not specifically saying that in excruciating detail, that's really just a silly position. The Tools don't heal the target by emitting positive vibes from within your Bandolier.

It's a wonder the Paizo team doesn't just say "We're done with this nonsense." and close up shop.

If something says "make a Strike", you cannot make a Twin Feint, because Twin Feint is not a Strike.

If something, like Sneak Attack, applies to all Strikes, it applies to the Strikes contained within Twin Feint, because they are Strikes.

Aratorin wrote:

mrspaghetti wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

I mean when it comes down to it, personally, I disagree with the assertion that Darkvision allows you to see when absolutely no light exists.

The only situations where absolutely no light exists are a sealed environment at absolute 0, and within the gravitational pull of a black hole.

I don't think creatures with Darkvision can see in either of those circumstances.

All other environments have some amount of heat, and therefore, some amount of light. That light just happens to be in a spectrum that we cannot see, but that Darkvision can.

Whether or not that light is capable of producing a noticeable reflection or refraction is really up to the GM.

As for Darkvision being black and white, that really has nothing at all to do with what spectrum of light it picks up, and is entirely based on how the eyes transmit that light to the brain.

It's definitely not Magical, as it doesn't have the Magical Trait

So the spell Darkvision is not magical? And it doesn't actually do what the spell description says? I guess the devs will need to address that in the next errata.

Yes, of course the Spell is Magical. That was never under debate. The ability that it grants is not, nor is the natural ability of Dwarves. Just like the Goblin Pox inflicted by Goblin Pox is not a Magical Disease. It's a mundane thing created by a Spell.

mrspaghetti wrote:

"You grant yourself supernatural sight in areas of darkness. You gain darkvision."

So darkvision is supernatural sight, whether granted by a spell or ancestry. There is no "non-magical" darkvision (assuming 'supernatural' and 'magical' can be considered synonymous).

Evocative descriptions are not Rules. Magical abilities have the Magical Trait.

Interesting that spells themselves do not actually have the Magical trait... so I guess no spells are magical.

OR, the devs didn't give it the magical trait because they don't want Dispel Magic to be able to...

Spells have Tradition Traits, which make them Magical.

Lots of people describe the abilities of Bruce Lee, Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps, and the like as "supernatural". That in no way means Magical.

Yup; that's part of what makes them a leshy. Same reason that goblins are small, elves are medium, and trolls are large.

Feel free to change as you want in your game, but for PC ancestries that are medium plants, we've got the ghorans already.

How would you feel about something like General Ancestry Feats that could be taken only at Level 1, by any Ancestry, to represent genetics or other conditions that make you 1 size larger or smaller?

Joe Pesci made a career as a small intimidating guy.

Aratorin wrote:

A Frightened AC can never reduce its Frightened value, as it doesn't have a Turn. But on the plus side, they can't take Persistent Damage, for the same reason.

I'd say that the AC's turn ends when the Druid's turn ends for both of those effects. There's RAW, and then there's rulings that make sense. Saying that ACs are immune to persistent damage because they don't have an "end of turn" step doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

I was not making any comment on how I think it should be played. I was simply pointing out additional things that need errata because they do not work properly by RAW.

Aratorin wrote:

I mean when it comes down to it, personally, I disagree with the assertion that Darkvision allows you to see when absolutely no light exists.

The only situations where absolutely no light exists are a sealed environment at absolute 0, and within the gravitational pull of a black hole.

I don't think creatures with Darkvision can see in either of those circumstances.

All other environments have some amount of heat, and therefore, some amount of light. That light just happens to be in a spectrum that we cannot see, but that Darkvision can.

Whether or not that light is capable of producing a noticeable reflection or refraction is really up to the GM.

As for Darkvision being black and white, that really has nothing at all to do with what spectrum of light it picks up, and is entirely based on how the eyes transmit that light to the brain.

It's definitely not Magical, as it doesn't have the Magical Trait

So the spell Darkvision is not magical? And it doesn't actually do what the spell description says? I guess the devs will need to address that in the next errata.

Yes, of course the Spell is Magical. That was never under debate. The ability that it grants is not, nor is the natural ability of Dwarves. Just like the Goblin Pox inflicted by Goblin Pox is not a Magical Disease. It's a mundane thing created by a Spell.

"You grant yourself supernatural sight in areas of darkness. You gain darkvision."

So darkvision is supernatural sight, whether granted by a spell or ancestry. There is no "non-magical" darkvision (assuming 'supernatural' and 'magical' can be considered synonymous).

Evocative descriptions are not Rules. Magical abilities have the Magical Trait.

I mean when it comes down to it, personally, I disagree with the assertion that Darkvision allows you to see when absolutely no light exists.

The only situations where absolutely no light exists are a sealed environment at absolute 0, and within the gravitational pull of a black hole.

I don't think creatures with Darkvision can see in either of those circumstances.

All other environments have some amount of heat, and therefore, some amount of light. That light just happens to be in a spectrum that we cannot see, but that Darkvision can.

Whether or not that light is capable of producing a noticeable reflection or refraction is really up to the GM.

As for Darkvision being black and white, that really has nothing at all to do with what spectrum of light it picks up, and is entirely based on how the eyes transmit that light to the brain.

It's definitely not Magical, as it doesn't have the Magical Trait

This applies to more than just the items mentioned.

For example, my AC becomes Confused. RAW, if I just don't Command it, it won't try to kill me, as it has no Actions.

Same for Controlled and Fleeing.

A Frightened AC can never reduce its Frightened value, as it doesn't have a Turn. But on the plus side, they can't take Persistent Damage, for the same reason.

I guess I'm saying that the game does not define how a mirror works. In the absence of such a definition, other rules that define how abilities work and how characters interact with the in-game world are all we have to go by. Darkvision explicitly grants the ability to "see in darkness and dim light just as well as...in bright light". So if a character can see an image in a mirror in bright light, they should be able to see the same image in the absence of light, but in black and white.

I really do understand your point of view, I just think the game is served better in this case by suspending your understanding of real-world science. Why can there not be a kind of light in Golarion that is present everywhere but can only be seen by those with Darkvision? And maybe still another type that is invisible even to those with Darkvision, but not Greater Darkvision. And mirrors reflect these light varieties just as they do the mundane kind. Poof, problem solved.

So then, if a prism is in a room with no light, does someone with Darkvision see a greyscale rainbow being emitted from the prism, despite the absence of light needed to create the rainbow in the first place?

Cut out a length from the center and connect the ends with rope. You will have turned your Bo Staff into a Nunchaku, thereby giving it the Finesse Trait. ;-)

So I ran into an odd problem, How does the use of Aligned Oil (holy) work for the once per day ability the holy rune grants. Key part would be if more then one Aligned Oil (holy) were put on a weapon in the same day. I can see it playing out in two different ways at least.

1 The holy once per day ability will only trigger once no matter how many times you add oil to the given weapon.

2 Each new use of the Aligned Oil is treated as a different Holy rune for the day. And you are spending money to make it happen so why would you get less then what the Holy rune says it gives you.

I am thinking it is 2 over all. But I felt unsure and would like some feedback.

Aligned Oil doesn't have a daily restriction. The effect lasts for 1 minute after application.

Once that minute is up, you could apply more Oil for another 1 minute of use.

edit: Oh, I see, you are talking about the Activation portion of a Holy Rune.

It appears that it would work one time during the 1 minute duration of the Oil.

A new application of Oil would be a new effect, and you could then use it once during that new duration as well.

Man, all this time I've been beating enemies over the head with my Longbow to get the benefits of my Striking Runes...

CRB states:

A character gains training in certain skills at 1st level: typically two skills from their background, a small number of predetermined skills from their class, and several skills of your choice granted by your class. This training increases your proficiency ranks for those skills to trained instead of untrained and lets you use more of the skills’ actions. Sometimes you might gain training in a specific skill from multiple sources, such as if your background granted training in Crafting and you took the alchemist class, which also grants training in Crafting. Each time after the first that you would gain the trained proficiency rank in a given skill, you instead allocate the trained proficiency to any other skill of your choice.

Does this apply also after first level? If, say, you take something like an archetype, feat, or otherwise that gives Trained proficiency and you are Trained, does that phrase above still apply? Or does it only apply at first level?

It doesn't specify either way it seems.

Yes, but it only applies to becoming Trained, not any levels above that. It's implicitly mentioned in the sidebar.

SKILL INCREASES

Skill increases improve your
proficiency in skills of your
choice. You can use these
increases to become trained
in new skills or increase your
proficiency rank in skills you’re
trained in (from trained to
expert at any level, expert to
master at 7th level or higher,
and master to legendary at 15th
level or higher). Unlike when
you first become trained at a
skill, if two different abilities
would make you an expert,
master, or legendary in a skill,
you don’t get to choose a second
skill to become expert in—the
redundant benefit simply has
no effect.

Not sure what's hard to understand, it's a way to gaurantee the target is flat footed on your second attack at level 1.

A Rogue isn't always going to be adjacent to an ally and can often find themselves solo with an enemy.

What better option for flat footed does a level 1 rogue have?

Rogue wins initiative, moves into range, twin feint and gets to sneak attack right away.

Rogue's have Surprise Attack at Level 1. If they win Initiative, all of their Attacks get Sneak Attack that turn.

whew wrote:

Pathfinder retraining is always like that - last week you could do something, but now you can't. If you've been using that something regularly, then it's probably not going to feel very realistic.

Good point. That is very true. Retraining in general does massively stretch character development realism.

"What do you mean you forgot how to speak a language that you knew flawlessly last week!?"

I just assume they got a head injury while retraining.

Malk_Content wrote:

I think the devs when making Ancient Elf valued it perfectly fine expecting people to follow the rules normally. The level 4 dedication feats are level 4 feats because that is the power level they felt appropriate. Ancient Elf is a perfectly strong heritage as is (a bonus Lvl 2 Feat at level 1) without musing that it should also reduce the level requirement of further multiclass feats (which ones, just the level 4s? What about level 6+ feats, do they all go down 2 levels too?)

If ancient elf does NOT let you take other multi class feats a level or two sooner than normal then it seems like a bit of a wasted ancestry to me.

I would not give up dark vision for a level two feat. But maybe that's just me. I like darkvision.

It essentially gives you a free Class Feat. That is never a waste. Even if it made you wait until Level 2 to take the Dedication, it would still be great.

Ring of the Ram.

This one came up a while ago, but I'm just now getting around to posting it.

Telekinetic projectile can throw any item of Bulk 1 or less. Bombs are bulk L items. So can you use Telekinetic Projectile as a magical grenade launcher? I see this going one of three ways

a) You do the bomb damage but not the damage from telekinetic projectile.

b) You do the damage from telekinetic projectile, but not the damage from the bomb

c) You do the damage from the bomb *and* the damage from telekinetic projectile.

Personally, I'm in favor of a. That gives them some benefit from combining the two without the player feeling they're wasting the bomb. C feels just a touch overpowered.

You can throw a bomb, but it will just do the Telekinetic Projectile Damage.

No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage.

A Telekinetically hurled bomb has the exact same effect as a Telekinetically hurled flower.

Not being able to take a level 4 fighter class feat until you are a level 4 fighter is obviously the case, both as written, and I'm sure as intended.

But for non class specific feats it seems that the written rules and the authors intent may be somewhat inconsistent.

The page 18 quote certainly suggests that you can't take a "level 4" skill feat until you are a level 4 character.

Yet the line on page 255 "The level of a skill feat is TYPICALLY the minimum level at which a character could meet its proficiency prerequisite." [Emphasis added], would seem to suggest that the authors are open to the possibility that a character might somehow manage to qualify for a feat before a "typical" character would, and in such case would be able to take the feat.

For example, any feat for which expert level skill proficiency is a prerequisite is listed as a level 2 feat. Because typically, no character could be an expert in a skill before level 2 (and only if that character was a rogue).

But what if a later book introduced a new background or ancestry that allows a character to be an expert in a skill at level 1. Then that character would meet the feat prerequisites at level 1, sooner than a "typical" character would be able to. Can they take the skill feat at level 1 because they meet the prerequisites? Or must they wait until level 2 because it's a level 2 feat.

Although it's not a skill feat, a similar issue is created by the "ancient elf" elven ancestry. This ancestry gives you a "typically" 2nd level feat at level.1. Say you take cleric dedication. Typically you'd have to be 2nd level to take that. But now you get it at level 1.

Say you then want to take "basic dogma" as another multiclass cleric feat. Basic dogma has cleric dedication as a prerequisite, and is listed as fourth level feat. Why is it listed as a fourth level feat? Because for game balance a character should need to be fourth level before taking it? Or simply because a "typical" character would not be able to qualify for...

That's not a hypothetical. It's a thing that exists. Ancient Elf specifically lets you take a multiclass dedication that you do not meat the Level Prerequisite for. The only reason for it to say that is because the Level is a Prerequisite that you must meet to take it, unless an ability specifically says otherwise.

In your long life, you’ve dabbled in many paths and many styles. Choose a class other than your own. You gain the multiclass dedication feat for that class, even though you don’t meet its level prerequisite. You must still meet its other prerequisites to gain the feat.

Character is an arcane bloodline sorcerer.

Crossblooded evolution lets him add a divine spell to his spell repertoire. Say Heal. He now has heal in his spell repertoire and he can cast heal "as a spell from [his] arcane tradition." So he casts heal as though it was an arcane spell.

Arcane evolution lets him add all the spells that he has in his repertoire to his spell book. So he adds heal, as an arcane spell, to his spell book.

The heal spell, which he learned through crossblooded evolution, can be swapped out of his repertoire "as you could any other sorcerer spell."

The section on swapping spells in the repertoire says that a sorcerer can use retraining during downtime to swap out the spells in his repertoire. So this includes the spell added using crossblooded evolution.

He retrains, removing heal from his repertoire and replacing it with any other spell from any other tradition. Say, neutralize poison.

Heal is no longer in his standard repertoire. But it is still in his spellbook, as an arcane spell. Arcane evolution lets him add heal to his spell repertoire for the day.

He also now knows neutralize poison, treating it as an arcane spell, so he adds that to his spellbook too.

Retrain neutralize poison to some other spell, and repeat.

Given enough retraining time, he can add every spell, of every tradition, to his spell book treating them all like arcane spells.

So using arcane evolution, the character can pick any one spell, from any tradition, to be one his known spells for the day. And he can change which spell that is every day.

Thoughts?

I think it sounds an awful lot like that Sorcerer is sitting at home Retraining endlessly while his buddies are out adventuring, and not gaining that much of an extra benefit.

It's the first line of Sneak.

SNEAK [one-action]

MOVE SECRET
You can attempt to move to another place while becoming
or staying undetected.

The rules for Undetected also make it clear that the target has to Sneak.

Undetected

If a creature is undetected, you don’t know what space
it occupies, you’re flat-footed to it, and you can’t easily
target it. Using the Seek basic action can help you find
an undetected creature, usually making it hidden from
you instead of undetected. If a creature is undetected,
that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re unaware of its
presence—you might suspect an undetected creature is in
the room with you, even though you’re unable to find its
space. The unnoticed condition covers creatures you’re
entirely unaware of.
Targeting an undetected creature is difficult. If you
suspect there’s a creature around, you can pick a square
and attempt an attack. This works like targeting a
hidden creature, but the flat check and attack roll are
both rolled in secret by the GM. The GM won’t tell you
why you missed—whether it was due to failing the flat
check, rolling an insufficient attack roll, or choosing the
wrong square. The GM might allow you to try targeting
an undetected creature with some spells or other abilities
in a similar fashion. Undetected creatures are subject to
area effects normally.
For instance, suppose an enemy elf wizard cast
invisibility and then Sneaked away. You suspect that with
the elf’s Speed of 30 feet, they probably moved 15 feet
toward an open door. You move up and attack a space 15
feet from where the elf started and directly on the path
to the door. The GM secretly rolls an attack roll and flat
check, but they know that you were not quite correct—
the elf was actually in the adjacent space! The GM tells
you that you missed, so you decide to make your next
attack on the adjacent space, just in case. This time, it’s
the right space, and the GM’s secret attack roll and flat
check both succeed, so you hit!

It's also called out in the Invisible Condition.

Invisible

While invisible, you can’t be seen. You’re undetected to
everyone. Creatures can Seek to attempt to detect you; if
a creature succeeds at its Perception check against your
Stealth DC, you become hidden to that creature until
you Sneak to become undetected again. If you become
invisible while someone can already see you, you start
out hidden to the observer (instead of undetected) until
you successfully Sneak. You can’t become observed while
invisible except via special abilities or magic.

You can't go from Hidden to Undetected without taking an Action, like Sneak, that specifically says you do.

As has been brought up before on these forums, cannibalism in a fantasy setting (such as Golarion) doesn’t just mean eating one’s own kind, it means eating any fully sapient species, so yeah a human eating a kobold would be a cannibalism, probably need a better name for it though.

Not only is that not the definition of cannibalism, it's not even a workable definition of cannibalism.

Dogs aren't sapient, but a dog eating another dog is cannibalism. A dog eating a human is not cannibalism.

Wargs are sapient carnivores. Are you saying they are all inherently cannibals if they eat a goblin or kobold? That's ridiculous.

Aratorin wrote:

EC has an encounter with 3 Boars, so I'm not sure how "If you think that fight with 1 Boar is hard, try this much easier AP where you fight 3 Boars!" makes any sense. EC is an unrelentingly difficult AP. Every encounter is extremely deadly. Especially in the first 2 chapters.

It is one boar the same level as you with two juvenile boars two levels lower than you, in worse terrain for the boars to boot.

The PCs also enter the combat 100% aware that they will be fighting or driving off boars and have that extra safety net of a level of padding.

The boars aren't going to be oneshotting level 2 characters either.

Aratorin wrote:

If your group is not absolutely min maxed, you're gonna die, unless the GM pulls punches.

Strongly disagree, the major challenging encounters have elements that specifically lower their difficulty in favour of the PCs.

In fact I will go through a chunk of the book.

** spoiler omitted **...

We'll have to agree to disagree. Most of the fights you listed aren't even the deadlier ones.

As a player, I have no problem with the AP at all, as I myself am a min/maxer who enjoys an actual challenge.

But as a DM, I feel like Jigsaw, constantly tormenting the hapless party with blatantly lose/lose scenarios and having them moan as they get downed by the first enemy to move, and have to make sub 50/50 saves multiple times in virtually every fight.

As a player, I find AoA to be much too easy, to the point of being a bit boring, but it's a much fairer and more accessible AP.

Words cannot describe how much I HATE that old Hex, and it baffles my mind that it would be described as an iconic Witch Hex.

To be fair, I don't mind dark stuff, heroes who are deeply flawed and have done terrible things, Game of Thrones like characters and scenarios, or anything else terrible and dark.

But there is a HUGE difference between that and "So my Witch eats people, LOL!". I would straight refuse to play in any game where a player elected to have such a feat. Even the most evil character I've ever played, a Yaun-ti Barbarian in 5e whose entire life's goal was to commit genocide on his own people, would have refused absolutely to work with such a being and would likely have killed them on principle.

I might be a little biased on this one in particular, because cannibalism particularly freaks me out. No idea why, but even typing in this thread is making me sick to my stomach.

Now to clarify, have the Hex. I'm not ever going tell people that the thing that they want to play as is wrong. I believe absolutely that people should have the options to create the gaming experience that they seek. But I really, really hope that this sort of fringe Hex isn't one of the ones that is a priority.

A Human Witch eating dead Kobolds isn't cannibalism. They aren't the same species. It's comparable to eating a dolphin, which is perfectly acceptable in many cultures (I'm not advocating eating dolphins IRL).

We have to remember that this is a game. "Ancestries" aren't ethnicities of the same species. They are entirely different species altogether. It's no more cannibalism than a cat eating a squirrel would be.

If they limited it to dead creatures of another species, I don't see how it could be a problem. But if you were playing an evil character, even live creatures could be ok. I mean humans do it to lobsters and crabs and lots of other things.

As for the Front Door hazard: it is not that hidden: Stealth DC20 (trained), meaning anyone (with trained Perception = everyone) who is looking for it gets a check to find it.

With about +5 to perception on average, that's only a 25% chance, but all members of the party can try so a failure would only be around 32% (75%^4).

If they are all using the Search Exploration Activity. Which is unlikely.

Aratorin wrote:

If your group is not absolutely min maxed, you're gonna die, unless the GM pulls punches.

No. That was not the case in PF1 and it is even less accurate in PF2.

Tactical play is required to defeat tough challenges in PF2. The keys to tactics are insight and adaptability. And the first place to apply adaptability is to adapt to the quirky characters run by one's fellow players.

Min-maxing for combat could minimize teamwork. That is a common flaw with characters designed in isolation. It could also minimize being able to exploit an unusual weakness on the enemy.

I have no need to pull punches because my players have hero points. Instead, they know my weakness: a plan that amuses the GM is more likely to work. (I run this game for fun, after all.) When Sam--goat herder, scoundrel rogue with sorcerer dedication, expert in Deception--decided to mimic a goat's sounds to lure a sentry into an ambush, I decided that the sentry was not particularly professional and gave the ruse a reachable DC. But to lure the second sentry out, Sam had to mimic the voice of the first sentry, so a harder DC. The party could have fought both sentries fairly easily, but the deception was hilarious. That is how quirky characters succeed.

I never played PF1, so I can't comment on that. As the GM for EC, I've had to pull punches several times to avoid TPKing the party before they even get a turn. Tactics aren't the problem when 1-2 guys go down before their first turn every other fight.

Again, this is an AP that thinks it's perfectly balanced for a Level 1 party to face a minimum of 3 Low, 7 Moderate, and 1 Severe encounters back to back over the course of 1-3 hours, depending on how long you think a circus performance takes. This is while the PCs are simultaneously running/performing in the circus show, so not only is there no time to rest, but 1-2 members of the party are otherwise engaged during several encounters.

Foeclan wrote:

I'm hoping it evens out a bit in part 2. It's a bit demoralizing.

It doesn't, I would advise moving to a nicer adventure like extinction curse (you can run the first book like its own stand alone adventure pretty easily). The only real threat in that are some demon encounters that have clear advice for the GM to make sure that they are nerfed tactically.

This is not blaming you of course, it is the adventure and sometimes companies just release the wrong adventure in the wrong place (imo).

If you think your players are a bit gungho it is easy to have a fireside story before that point and have someone talk about the dangers of the demon in question. Heck even giving them access to some holy water would be fine if you are concerned (splash good damage is great for triggering weaknesses)

There is another encounter which could be dangerous but the demons won't fight unless pushed/harassed and one of them continuously pushes players rather than optimally getting them in two AoE blasts and maximizing fear effects.

Oh and I always suggest reading a full adventure book before running it. It can give a lot of insight into what you will need to do to make the adventure fun for the players if you are running something prewritten.

Agents of Edgewatch might also be worth looking into, but I am no longer a subscriber and haven't seen the PDF yet :)

EC has an encounter with 3 Boars, so I'm not sure how "If you think that fight with 1 Boar is hard, try this much easier AP where you fight 3 Boars!" makes any sense. EC is an unrelentingly difficult AP. Every encounter is extremely deadly. Especially in the first 2 chapters.

If your group is not absolutely min maxed, you're gonna die, unless the GM pulls punches.

Which is very unexpected from a campaign premise that encourages quirky, unoptimized characters.

Given the popularity of things like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Dexter, The Walking Dead, etc..., I think people are more ok then ever with fantasizing about, and roleplaying as, "heroes" who are terrible people.

It's not my personal cup of tea, I like my heroes good and my villains evil, but clearly the populace at large loves it.

Leaving them out would be a huge blunder.

Bongo BigBounce wrote:

Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.

Inspire Courage has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action. Other actions must be taken, by other characters, for any harm to result. And you didn't take those actions.

But then that counteracts the previous argument about summons/companions. The act of sustaining a summon/commanding a creature has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action.

Another creature has to take actions for any harm to result. You didn't take those actions.

Especially if it's a summon you can't communicate with, and therefore cannot command. You have no control over what it chooses to do after you take the passive action of sustaining its existence.

For creatures that have spells that do some damage roll plus primary casting ability modifier, what is that modifier? Is there a default stated somewhere, like divine spells always use Wisdom? Given that creatures have their own rules for their bonuses, I'm not sure I can reverse engineer the bonus from the Spell DC or Spell Attack.

Unless the Spells are Innate, which always use CHA, I use the creature's highest mental stat, as I assume that is their "Key Ability" for casting.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Losing +3 Greater Resilient unarmored clothing to a critical hit from a corrosive rune is immensely lame.

Yeah, it sucks. I'm not entirely sure the Corrosive would work on Explorer's clothing because it's not technically armor, but the Wrecker Demon's ability would work, which still sucks.

If you're willing to house rule (not sure how your table feels about it), you can copy PF1s system, where every +1 (in this case it'd be potency) gave +2 Hardness and +10 HP.

So your +3 greater resilient explorer's clothing would be Hardness 7, HP 34 and BT 17. It'll hurt when hit with corrosive, but it won't destroy it completely even on max damage from Greater Corrosive, or an Abrikandilu's Wreck (unless it crits, I think).

(I was unable to find any similar rule in PF2, hence why I'm defaulting to PF1)

Greater Resilient Runes are a Level 14 Item. A Wrecker Demon is Level 4. By the time you get the Runes, that will not be a thing you have to worry about.

10th level slots being their ‘specialty’ would be a big sadface for wizards at levels 1-18.

It's not just 10th level. They get more high level spell slots than all other casters for their entire careers. Assuming they take Spell Blending, which let's face it, isn't really a tough choice.

The description of Recall Knowledge seems to directly contradict the idea of multiple checks being unnecessary on a creature:

Someone said wrote:

For example, Arcana might tell you about the magical defenses of a golem, whereas Crafting could tell you about its sturdy resistance to physical attacks.

Also - yes, normally Knowledge checks are individual actions except here - where the spell specifically says that they are part of the action of casting the spell.

Yes, they are part of that Activity. They are still individual Actions within that Activity. The game does not have any framework for multiple Actions occurring at once.

I quoted the rules on Additional Knowledge. I don't know what else to say on that. It would be up to the GM to determine if he feels that Golems(Arcana) and Golems(Crafting) are different subjects.

Captain Morgan wrote:

ArchSage20 wrote:

the issues is that perfect preparation is being used as a argument to claim the wizard is perfect and need no balancing

Not in this thread they aren't. Certainly not before you went off. This thread was not about balance. It was made to talk about wizards (and alchemists and sorcerrs) perceived lack of niche to be the best at a particular thing. That's a lot less about balance than it is about a class being interesting. The most balanced you could have classes would be every class working the same, and it would also be boring.

The giant totem barbarian deals the highest damage in the game and has the best reach. That's a unique niche and draw of the instinct which can't be denied. But some people still think it is poorly balanced because it sacrifices its AC and reflex saves to hit just a little bit harder than the other instincts.

The conversation was about what wizards could do better than anyone else, not if they were overall weaker than the other classes. Cintra's answer was: taking advantage of planning and intelligence gathering. Saying "not everyone gets to plan" doesn't refute the idea that wizards are the best when they do.

An actual counterpoint would be that that clerics and druids can prepare their spell selection with a day's notice too, and have access to a much bigger chunk of their spell list. The wizard has a more flexible and powerful spell list, but probably has fewer spells in their spell book than the cleric and druid can call upon. I think the wizard only clearly pulls ahead if they have spell substitution.

The conversation has pivoted a little to general balance stuff now, at least among a few people. But that's largely because you started talking about balance. Until then it was just about the class having a niche. I don't know what you've experienced in other threads, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with this one.

i would find it hard to argue that having a niche and doing that niche...

They are the only Class that gets five 10th Level Spell Slots. They are the undisputed champions of high Level Spellcasting.

Recall Knowledge checks are Secret, so you never know the results, other than a standard Failure. The DM should be rolling the checks. A Critical Failure acts just like a Success as far as the player knows. Typically, after a Success (or Critical Failure), the DC for further Checks would increase. A normal Failure prevents further checks.

Making 6 checks against 1 Creature is unlikely to be useful. You would want to spread the checks out among multiple Creatures.

Additional Knowledge

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

Hypercognition doesn't have a Target. You just make 6 Recall Knowledge Checks, 1 by 1, as they are individual Actions, about whatever topics you choose.

"Explorer’s clothing can have armor runes etched on it even though it’s not armor, but because it’s not in the light, medium, or heavy armor category, it can’t have runes requiring any of those categories."

Nothing says it can't have property runes. That second part doesn't make sense if it can't.

You're right, that is in the text on page 581. I was going by the text of Explorer's Clothing itself, which only mentions Potency Runes.

Explorer’s Clothing: Adventurers who don’t wear armor travel in durable clothing. Though it’s not armor and uses your unarmored defense proficiency, it still has a Dex Cap and can grant an item bonus to AC if etched with potency runes (as described on page 581)

I really wish they would put all the rules for an Item in one place, instead of listing parts of them in multiple places.

Just ran into a situation that was quite harsh. An enemy critically hit my monk wearing +1 unarmored clothing with a corrosive weapon property rune weapon. The run says it does 3d6 acid damage to the individual's armor. This isn't much damage for a plate wearer, can be dangerous for a chain wearer,and is absolutely devastating for a cloth or leather armor wearer. It completely wrecked my armor.

So a few questions came from this:

Do armor potency or resilient runes increase hardness or hit points of armor or unarmored clothing?

If your armor is destroyed, are the armor potency and resilient runes destroyed?

This type of attack which is automatic as a corrosive rune crit or can be done as part of an Abrikandilu attack completely destroys unarmored clothing with no save or defense. If the runes are destroyed, that means any class using armor can have a major investment of their wealth immediately and irrevocably destroyed with fair ease. This makes plate wearers the main way to go for defense as investing in for example +3 greater resilient unarmored clothing only to have it easily destroyed a single critical hit from a corrosive rune or similar attack seems like a real liability when playing a defensive monk type.

Anyone know if there any rule that allows higher level magical armor to have greater hardness or hit points?

You can't have +3 Greater Resilient Explorer's Clothing. Explorer's Clothing is not Armor, and only grants an exception for Potency Runes. You can't put Property Runes on Explorer's Clothing.

The Philosopher's Stone allows you to Craft elixir of rejuvenation, which can restore life to any creature dead less than a week. As long as you have someone to administer it to you, that makes you effectively immortal.