Baarogue's page

I default to FIFO unless an ability specifies different timing

Finoan is correct. As with all abilities, reactions do what they say they do and no more or less. If it doesn't say it disrupts, it does not. These are Pathfinder reactions, not MtG interrupts

I'd allow it. It's not too broad IMO. There are only 51 monsters with the swarm trait on AoN. That's only 10 more than those with the giant trait, the largest of the three examples given for a "narrow category of creatures"

Release drops an item. I think it's taking liberties to assume one could aim the drop on another item or creature 5' or further away from where they're standing. I would have required at least an Interact action to drop something on a specific object in a different space, and more likely would have asked for a check of some kind, probably with the improvised tools penalty. They are technically attempting to Disarm the trap, even if it is by way of harmlessly setting it off. That should come with the risk of it going badly

Baarogue wrote:

Look at remastered gunslinger Clear a Path

Close, surprisingly close.

"or activity included a ranged Strike" means that the Strike can happen at any point during the activity, and does not need to be last.
And because not all actions are activities, that phrasing excludes standalone "Strike," so you also need the "If your last action or" part too.

Clear a Path's dev-goal is to allow a match for any and every (gun/xbow) strike and meta-strike possible.

To be clear, the exercise is intended to show how the text never uses "subordinate" actions as a term. (if "sub-actions" don't actually exist as an alt type of action, then it makes no sense for "action" to exclude it by default.)
In the rare times the text does want to key into that concept of sub-actions, which Clear a Path does help me to evidence, the text uses things like "activity included ___"

Still a helpful find I'm happy to read, tyvm.

Lol I don't need you to tell me how close I was. I know how Clear a Path works since we discussed that ability in the first pages. I was doing what we call giving you the benefit of the doubt that you'd read it and realize they could easily word an ability to meet your challenge, so you hadn't found an argument-ending point. 9_9

Thank God Claxon spelled it out for you. I guess I won't leave anything to chance in the future

Coming back to my desk, I think I've lasered into a very precise question.

Statement: Actions with requirements of "Your last action was a Strike" are not compatible with any meta-Strike. That requirement is only compatible with a "standalone" 1A Strike action.

A dev understands the above to be true. They want to create a 1A followup action that is compatible with all Strikes, meta and standalone. How would they word the "previous action" requirement text?

Like, I'm on the more permissive side of this argument (as in I support backwards looking abilities seeing last subordinate actions) but you've painted yourself into a corner with this one Trip. Look at remastered gunslinger Clear a Path

Baarogue wrote:

Most of the load for hazardous terrain appears to be in the text of the specific hazardous terrain effects. The ones I skimmed through appeared to share some form of "creatures passing through the terrain take X damage for each square they enter."

Unless I'm overlooking a rule that contradicts me here, I would apply that to mean if a larger-than-medium creature entered more than one square of such terrain during a single space of movement, they would take the sum of however many squares they entered worth of damage. And even when they begin exiting the hazardous terrain, they would still take damage for squares their trailing body spaces have to "enter"

I would total the damage of all squares entered before applying IWR, not treat them as separate instances

Edit: so to answer your specific examples; 1. I would give them two squares worth of damage as one, not two instances for the first space of movement, 2. Four squares worth of damage as one instance for entering fully, and 3. One square of damage for their trailing space that had to "enter" an affected square

It's not as straightforward unfortunately.

While RAW initially would make the damage per square, the subsequent Large PC rules seem to flip that rule.

Quote:

When moving through an area that is only 5 feet wide, a Large PC can move through the space but treats each square as difficult terrain. Moving through a narrower space that does not obstruct Small creatures requires Large PCs to Squeeze. This is typically relevant only in encounter mode; when shopping in town, a centaur can typically enter a building intended for Medium-sized creatures even if it takes them a little more time to duck through the doorway. When a Large PC moves through hazardous terrain or a similar obstacle that causes damage based on the number of squares the PC moves through, they take damage only once for each 5 feet of movement—a minotaur shouldn't take four times as much damage for crossing a burning field as

...

Yeah, that would be the rule I overlooked. I thought I'd read something like that somewhere, and I checked everything I could find on AoN under a search for "hazardous terrain", but didn't find it so decided I'd imagined it or conflated it with other movement rules. Thanks

Most of the load for hazardous terrain appears to be in the text of the specific hazardous terrain effects. The ones I skimmed through appeared to share some form of "creatures passing through the terrain take X damage for each square they enter."

Unless I'm overlooking a rule that contradicts me here, I would apply that to mean if a larger-than-medium creature entered more than one square of such terrain during a single space of movement, they would take the sum of however many squares they entered worth of damage. And even when they begin exiting the hazardous terrain, they would still take damage for squares their trailing body spaces have to "enter"

I would total the damage of all squares entered before applying IWR, not treat them as separate instances

Edit: so to answer your specific examples; 1. I would give them two squares worth of damage as one, not two instances for the first space of movement, 2. Four squares worth of damage as one instance for entering fully, and 3. One square of damage for their trailing space that had to "enter" an affected square

The incorporeal trait doesn't confer immunity to the grabbed or restrained conditions at all. The spell is described as creating "snakes made of shadow" and causes its effects based on a reflex save, so doesn't run afoul of incorporeal's limitations on str based checks. The mechanics and the fiction both support it working. I see no reason or justification to deny it arbitrarily

Take note that the specific incorporeal creature you use it on may affect the answer. If grabbed or restrained are on their immunity list, then that's final. They may also be resistant or immune to the damage, though that doesn't affect the condition effects

Nobody is inventing rules except you, Trip, with your "attempting to reframe and communicate" something that was already perfectly legible in plain English. Specific only overrides general when it says so, specifically

"Some archetype feats in other books have the skill trait, allowing you to take them in place of a skill feat rather than a class feat. A skill feat still counts to satisfy the requirement of the dedication."

>You total the spell, etc,'s capped damage first

This is what I mean by your "examples" being false equivalences. What is this spell you're referring to that caps its damage? Is this spell a subordinate action being capped by the activity it is a part of? If so, name the activity capping the spell's damage. Or are you referring to simply rolling a spell's damage before adding external bonuses? If so, there are no "caps" involved except the maximum result on the dice. These are not the same

>even the placement of a sentence can genuinely change its meaning via that nasty issue of context.

Context can change a sentence's meaning, but that is not the case here. It is a simple sentence with no referential text. It doesn't say "the result of your check before bonuses is limited to your speed" or anything else you'd like us to believe. It limits how far you can jump on a success, and that's it

Any cases of being able to exploit bonuses to get a longer jump out of a Long Jump failure are arguments for Leap's text, Long Jump's failure text, or the text of other items and effects to be tightened up in errata. But there is NO ambiguity in Long Jump's current success text

Yeah I may have been hasty about the Blast Boots. They would probably be limited by speed like Cloud Jump is. It doesn't support his argument either way so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Kneejerk response is they're from the divine list but treated as occult spells because that's the simplest, but I'm open to discussion

The limit in Long Jump says nothing about it only referring to the distance override. It simply sets a limit

Blast Boots do not support your argument. Its bonuses to Long Jump and High Jump do not refer to the Leap distance, or to a generic "jump", but specifically to Long Jump or High Jump. Thus they fit neatly into Specific Over General and work exactly as described and expected

We are the ones fully considering the context. You are trying to bend it to your narrative

Trip, your various "examples" are straw men and false equivalences. The relevant rules here are the Long Jump action, its subordinate Leap action, and the Subordinate Action rule:

"An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action."

I agreed with you that the subordinate Leap could be modified by effects that modify Leap. But after those modifications, according to Subordinate Actions, it is still subject to the limit imposed by Long Jump, "You can't jump* farther than your land Speed." That is what those above me mean by "order of operations." You can alter the Leap, but in the end you are still performing a Long Jump and must adhere to its rules. The "illogical" nature of a failure potentially being more desirable than a success is also irrelevant, and something for a GM to address at their prerogative

*I feel it is also worth noting that it says "jump" here instead of "Leap." It is referring to the final, practical result. Not the calculations and modifications of the Leap

I would allow Leap bonuses to be used for High Jump and Long Jump, but no, I would not allow them to break Long Jump's speed limit. Nothing in Long Jump says the limit is "pre bonuses." That rule is its final word on the distance jumped, and so I would rule it as final unless an effect specifically overruled it such as Cloud Jump does when you spend extra actions as it describes

Could this result in a scenario where normal Leap is better than Long Jump if you stack every bonus you can find and have a speed of 15? Sure. So what. Edge cases don't define the rules

So it could be a way to consistently get the max distance out of your Long Jumps, but not turn them into "Cloud Jump at home"

How about some examples

Counteracting

"If you're counteracting an affliction, the DC is in the affliction's stat block. If it's a spell, use the caster's DC. The GM can also calculate a DC based on the target effect's level."
"What you can counteract depends on the check result and the target's counteract rank. If an effect is a spell, its rank is the counteract rank. Otherwise, halve its level and round up to determine its counteract rank (minimum counteract rank 0). If an effect's level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature's level."

I would use the creature's level to calculate the DC and rank of the effect if it doesn't list a DC

I have to say I'm a big fan of premaster Faerie Fire: no save, and it just makes things more visible, no dazzled. I strongly suspect anyone who likes to be invisible of also having decent reflex saves, after all.

But I guess revealing light is a bit more in tune with PF2 design philosophy where there are very few "sure things" that you can put on an enemy without a save.

That's why I'm glad they gave this new spell a different name than the two spells it 'replaced' in the book. If you prefer the old ones, keep using them

I don't agree with your take on Untamed Form feats. In fact I would say you're plain wrong about them. Very FEW Untamed Form feats are prerequisites for higher level ones, so I see no need to keep them besides as a choice. The narrative of retraining them is that you've learned a new form that you prefer so you forget the old ones in favor of other, useful feats at their level. You're not erasing your past. You're growing. Or you can keep the old forms if you have a use for them or just enjoy them

I can't comment on Helpful Halfling except to point out that it's from one of the first 2e books released. Paizo design has come a long way since, and your observations about it might be related to why it hasn't been reprinted in 2r books. Or maybe they like it as it is. Either way, one bard feat making an ancestry feat redundant is irrelevant to its design

I do agree that it feels good to have feats be usable your entire career, but finding a new favorite feat and retraining out of something you're unlikely to use again is a good option to have. They have addressed some cases of a feat becoming nothing but a "feat tax" in the past, so they appear to agree with some of your sentiments

Yeah, I'd recommend spontaneous casters too. Or, if having caster-like abilities and lots of HP appeals to you, have you looked at kineticists?

And animists are a caster with multiple ways to better their attack rolls. Such as the apparition you mentioned, which is one that qualifies you for Grudge Strike - Witness to Ancient Battle. So I would say Grudge Strike could be usable by an animist built like a striker. Might not be better in melee than a real striker, but won't be useless

But IMO there are more effective ways to build an animist

As for your struggles to find a satisfying caster, I get it. They can be challenging if you don't vibe with the one you pick. I like the lore of wizards but I had trouble finding a purpose for mine until I rebuilt him with the spell substitution thesis so I could have ready access to a number of niche utility spells when we need them. I memorize your standard blasting spells for combat along with a few contingencies like air bubble, gentle landing, and revealing light. Since then I've felt quite useful, but next time I set out to build a blaster I'll probably try sorcerer instead

What was it you liked so much about your monk? That'd be a clue about what role you click with. Maybe you can build another character like that

Man this system feels so oppressive.

So, what's the point of taking something like Witch's Armaments or the Witness to Ancient Battles if they're just going to give you a subpar mediocre option that ultimately ends up being a waste of feats?

I've always pegged striker options in caster classes as being for striker classes dabbling in the MC AT, not for the pure caster to take for themselves unless they also have means to better their attack rolls like druids do through their form spells

Pretty much all of my characters to date have felt very useless at all times except the time I built a Monk. He felt great.

That will depend heavily on your subjective opinion of what is fun and useful, and which roles you enjoy. I've played many different classes that were great, but I enjoy playing many different roles

It's all in the Spells chapter now on pgs. 296-297

Duplicate effects do not stack

Teridax, what you quoted on page 27 does not say that all class abilities use class DC, nor does it say that it is the default. It says "certain" abilities. The definition for class DC in the glossary says "some" abilities, so since you're claiming it is the default it is your responsibility to show us where it actually says so

I would not substitute spellcasting DC for something that actually called for class DC, as you appear to be claiming I said. I said in this case of an oversight where a psychic's or other spellcasting class's magical ability did not specify class or spellcasting DC, it makes more sense for it to use spellcasting DC. The precedent I refer to is in other spellcasting classes using spellcasting DC more often than class DC for their magical class abilities. Add to that the fact that pre-remaster the psychic class was not trained in class DC, and the claim that they would intend for those abilities to use an untrained DC becomes even less credible

"certain abilities" does not mean "all abilities", so I agree with those saying you're incorrect. I would rule that a psychic using a magical class ability such as that would use their spellcasting DC because it is the most logical choice and there is more precedent for it

Holy crap adjectives and context are not 30+ posts complicated guys

Strikes use "melee attack rolls" and "ranged attack rolls", depending on the weapon or unarmed attack used, PC p.402 first fing sentence. So if you're not making a STRIKE, you're probably not making a "melee attack roll" or a "ranged attack roll" is described on that page

Spells may use "spell attack rolls", which may further be described as melee or ranged for purposes of flanking and other rules and abilities that interact with melee and ranged. Spells are they're own special little PITAs of specific rules though so some might break format. Just do what they say in the spell description and no more. Don't OVERTHINK it and pull "unwritten rules" out of your butt based on how one spell works

Impulses may use "impulse attack rolls" (defined on RoE p.16), which may further be described as melee or ranged for purposes yadda ditto etc. They're less likely to have weird unique rules like some spells do but don't get complacent

Baarogue wrote:

Even the most "strict RAW" ruling would not work that way. The most technically correct reading is that you may not cast heal on a dhampir unless they were willing, and that you could cast harm on them even if they were unwilling; in which case they would take the void damage because they're a living creature, which in this pedantic scenario would be converted to vitality damage by Mastery of Life and Death,

That's true. Mastery of Life and Death would throw a further wrench into the works and cause Harm to actually cause damage to the Dhampir creature or other living creatures with Void Healing.

Baarogue wrote:

and then they would be healed by the void healing because "If the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of Hit Points." is clearly a "void effect that heals undead."

I'm not sure on that. Unless something has changed recently that I am not aware of.

Last I saw, that was a bit of reminder text in the Dhampir heritage itself, not part of Void Healing.

A creature with void healing draws health from void energy rather than vitality energy. It is damaged by vitality damage and is not healed by healing vitality effects. It does not take void damage, and it is healed by void effects that heal undead.

Even the most "strict RAW" ruling would not work that way. The most technically correct reading is that you may not cast heal on a dhampir unless they were willing, and that you could cast harm on them even if they were unwilling; in which case they would take the void damage because they're a living creature, which in this pedantic scenario would be converted to vitality damage by Mastery of Life and Death, and then they would be healed by the void healing because "If the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of Hit Points." is clearly a "void effect that heals undead."

The point I'm trying to make, Finoan, is that you should think critically about how changing what you call something in the name of "logic" and simplification might confuse how you and others think about it. If you did not call them "focus cantrips" in your head or to other people, you and they might not be confused about how they don't cost focus points

Simplification is only productive when it doesn't cause confusion and delay. "Logic" is not a good reason for it. It is a bad excuse

Baarogue said wrote:

They are unarmed attacks, and specifically NOT weapons of any sort.

Oh. You're right, indeed. It's stuck to me since 1e, apparently.

no worries. It's done that to a lot of players. I just wanted to mention it before you got too deep into that thinking because I remember from when I was considering an unarmed attack swashbuckler that there are several feats which require a weapon

"aw shoot, that guy has a whip. You know how hard those are to use? I split my own lip when I tried. He MUST be dangerous"

Search, Archives of Nethys: "focus cantrip"
Showing 0 of 0 results

So, I know they're introduced in the composition spells and hex spells sections of bard and witch, which are focus spells, and they're described in the focus spells section of the spells chapter of the book, but they're not called "focus cantrips" anywhere I could find. I feel like calling them that instead of what they're called in the books has the potential to cause more confusion and delay rather than relieve it. Just sayin'

First thing anyone here is going to do is umm actually you on the use of the phrase, "natural weapons." They are unarmed attacks, and specifically NOT weapons of any sort. So they won't count for various swashbuckler feats that require you to be welding a weapon, for instance. As for your question re: the deadly trait, as you already said, the bestial mutagen answered that already

It's almost like that's exactly what I said

This staff ends in a Y-shaped split that cradles a sling. The length of the staff provides excellent leverage when used two-handed to fling rocks or bullets from the sling.

If you're not okay with just treating it like the staff it is described as, then how about an improvised staff?

I decided to post this thread after a situation came up in PFS. I wanted the enemy to be off-guard before my eidolon used Furious Strike, so I contemplated having the eidolon Feint. But that inflicts off-guard on a crit fail, so I instead went with Create a Diversion. Then as I was about to have the eidolon Furious Strike, I realized it wasn't actually a Strike, and I questioned whether the eidolon would immediately reveal itself before the attempt. I even wondered if this was an intentional limitation of Create a Diversion to make Feint more appealing.

tch. So you did the stick in your own bike wheel meme. How much of the table's time did you waste on this thing?

Unless you're shouting "Furious Strike!" when you do it, what is it about starting an activity that would break hidden? The GM can determine that other actions don't break hidden, and I have never encountered a GM who would make such a troll ruling that just starting an activity breaks hidden. That breaks practically everything a rogue can do and also cripples way of the sniper gunslingers so it is surely not the intended reading

Area Fire weapons can't normally be fired as a Strike. But as with the Primary Target soldier class feature, I would rule that this feat allows it as a case of Specific Overrides General. Even in the playset, the unwieldy trait only forbids Strikes as part of a reaction - not altogether. So I doubt it was misunderstood for this feat

Given that its a 4th level feat, my guess is that the reference to increasing the amount you transfer increasing at 5th level is a typo of some kind. Perhaps an artifact from the feat being level 2 initially or some other design change.

My guess it's they just copy/pasted the wording from the mystic class feature but nobody checked the math

You gain a vitality network with 10 HP and can transfer up to 10 HP
Increase your max network by 10 HP at 10th, 15th, and 20th levels
Increase the amount you can transfer by 5 at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels

So at 5th level you have a max network of 10 HP and can transfer up to 15 HP at once? Am I missing a way to raise your network max?

Squark wrote:

I don't see anything that would indicate the soldier loses their strength bonus. Everything I see indicates you should use your normal melee damage.

I don't, either, but there are a lot better 2nd edition rules lawyers than me around; with things like Boost being clarified as single-strike only I wanted to be sure.

where has Boost been clarified as single Strike only?

As for area melee attacks, I would allow the Str bonus. Nothing says it's a ranged attack, and the rules for damage rolls only differentiate between melee, ranged, and spells, grenades, and similar items

So, for Dusty Rose Prism, we have "This aeon stone allows you to cast the 1st-level shield cantrip as an arcane innate spell, surrounding yourself in pink energy."

--> can this be done at will, 1/day, 1/hour, etc. 'As an arcane innate spell' means what?

2e says "Innate cantrips are cast at will and automatically heightened as normal for cantrip unless otherwise specified," which suggests you can use the shield cantrip at will (although in this case, the Dusty Rose Prism wording specifies it's the 1st-level version, and so you can't heighten it).

Just want to confirm this basically can be done each round on your turn if you want to...

until it's used to Shield Block. The stone's text doesn't say it overrides that limit

It's in the errata on the FAQ. This error was fixed after the first printing was finished.

tch. I checked the errata three times before posting this. I don't know how I didn't see it. Thanks

GMC p.262, Magic Scroll item table in the physical and pdf copies has a Frequency entry of "once per day, plus overcharge;" which I assume is a copy/paste leftover from the Magic Wands table, since scrolls are one-use consumables and did not appear in a table like this in the legacy Core Rulebook. This error is not duplicated in the magic scrolls entry on AoN but I could not find it corrected in the errata

Yes, I would raise the bleed damage too

The Guns & Gears Remaster Errata changed the wording on Clear a Path to allow it to benefit from Actions or Activities that include Strikes, rather than only a plain Strike. The fact that they felt the need to make this change tells me that things that say "Your previous action was a Strike" only work with basic Strikes.

Additionally, I think it's very intentional that every weapon Ikon ability is either 2 actions or a basic Strike + 1 action follow-up.

I read the change as allowing Clear a Path to work after activities that included but didn't end with a ranged Strike since so many gunslinger feats are "Strike and then do something else." I don't see it as proof that backwards looking abilities only see basic actions

As Specific Overrides General says, some rules might include reminders about the normal rules. Since, as the others pointed out, it was changed to work against darkvision and then changed back to not in the final release, I'm going to assume that's what this is and stick with my original answer