Baarogue's page

Yeah, if you're hoping for a dev to actually post... well just don't hold your breath

>Swipe double dipping the crit specialization of axes encourages degenerate play where it's better for the PC to have an enemy mook near the boss

lol, I call people out for munchkin-like questions but Swiping two enemies - literally the only use-case for Swipe - is "degenerate play" now?

>an allied caster summons a low level monster nearby so the axe wielder swipes the summoned minion and the boss

Too bad the writers already thought of that

compare the attack roll result to the AC of up to two foes

Yo OP, you should look up one of SwingRipper's wrestler guides for your next character. Your GM will love it, and it's ironclad - no fiddly "interpretations"

Must have fallen off in editing. Maybe they'll fix it when they remaster G&G

They did not

If there really isn't any guidance on this already I would run the sword's attempt to take control as a counteract check

I brought this up ages ago and I support future errata making seasoned count towards impeccable crafting. Please make this happen, Paizo

Baarogue wrote:

Just FYI, it is the rule that it is situational whether you get your reaction before your first turn

Reactions in Encounters, PC1 p.436 wrote:

The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens.

Nice. I'm learning something today.

From the look of it, that was added in the Remaster. The Legacy CRB doesn't have that section in it or any specification of using reactions before your first turn.

So it went from accidentally ambiguous to deliberately ambiguous and left up to the table to decide for each battle.

No, it's been in since 1st printing of the CRB p.472

The line from GMC that Norr quoted is new to me though, and I can't find it in the GMG. They might have added that to address "on initiative" reactions and the like

Just FYI, it is the rule that it is situational whether you get your reaction before your first turn

The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens.

I agree with everything else said here so far. TTP, your GM should be making the call encounter by encounter and should be applying their reasoning to both sides of the table consistently

Here's more information from a sidebar in PC chapter 8 about Sneak and its relation to senses.

Using Stealth With Other Senses wrote:

The Stealth skill is designed to use Hide for avoiding visual detection and Avoid Notice and Sneak to avoid being both seen and heard. For many special senses, a player can describe how they're avoiding detection by that special sense and use the most applicable Stealth action. For instance, a creature stepping lightly to avoid being detected via tremorsense would be using Sneak.

In some cases, rolling a Dexterity-based Stealth skill check to Sneak doesn't make the most sense. For example, a PC trying to avoid being detected by a creature that senses heartbeats might meditate to slow their heart rate, using Wisdom instead of Dexterity for their Stealth check. When a creature could detect you using multiple different senses, use your lowest applicable attribute modifier.

So if a Disappeared target is successful Seeked (or... Sought... I guess), I wonder if ordinary Sneaking would be enough to become undetected again. After all, the creature that Sought the target relied on some means other than sensing the target directly, so perhaps the target would have to do an improvised Sneak against the specific way they were Sought.

Then again, that would be a ridiculous burden to meet, since the target has no consistent way of knowing what gave their position away.

I would not require it unless my players found it more fun. As disappearance says, they count as Invisible no matter the sense used to detect them, and according to Invisible all they need to do is Sneak to become Undetected again once found. According to the examples in disappearance, it's not like they're being detected by something the target can or even needs to control about themselves (like their heartbeat or life aura), but by a telltale sign that they're near (like the disturbed dust) or a void in the surrounding stimuli. Normal Sneaking should be enough to shake the trail, but creative traps set to reveal an invisible foe might be a good use for it

"Relying on sight as their only precise sense" is a load-bearing clause that doesn't apply to disappearance, unfortunately. I don't think you can just strike it through and expect everything else to apply.

The authors of disappearance didn't appear to think so. If we replace the struckthrough wording with the text in disappearance related to Invisible we get

"A creature with the invisible condition (by way of an invisibility spell, for example) is automatically undetected to any creatures relying on sight as their only precise sense. Precise senses other than sight ignore the invisible condition., no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have."

disappearance goes on to confirm that Seekers can still find the target using examples that are sight and sound based specifically, and ends by indicating those aren't the only methods that can be used, which is still compatible with the rest of Invisible's text re: detection and Sneaking

That's an argument for not requiring a Sneak check until they reveal themselves or are found

At the bottom of the Perception and Detection page in AoN it quotes Invisible from PC1 p434. If we strikethrough all the references to sight, we still end up with usable, non-inferred rules that should be followed for disappearance

A creature with the invisible condition (by way of an invisibility spell, for example) is automatically undetected to any creatures relying on sight as their only precise sense. Precise senses other than sight ignore the invisible condition. You can Seek to attempt to figure out an invisible creature's location, making it only hidden from you. This lasts until the invisible creature successfully uses Sneak to become undetected again. If you're already observing a creature when it becomes invisible, it starts out hidden, since you know where it was, though it can then Sneak to become undetected.

Other effects might partially foil invisibility. For instance, if you were tracking an invisible creature's footprints through the snow, the footprints would make it hidden. Throwing a net over an invisible creature would make it observed but concealed for as long as the net is on it.

It's a lot easier to keep track of someone after you've found them, which is why the burden is on the invisible creature to Sneak after they're found. Once they succeed, the ball is back in the Seeker's court to discover their location, etc.

Quote:

I still don't see where in the rules it says that an invisible creature automatically becomes undetected again if it was already hidden from you. The rules I have read says that the creature must successfully sneak to become undetected again.

It's a consequence of the senses rules. When invisible, you become hidden after performing actions because you're detected by an imprecise sense— typically hearing. Disappearance changes that; you can no longer be detected in that way. So you just become undetected when you move again. There is no need to sneak if they can't perceive any evidence of where you went or how you moved.

Can you quote the rule that says sound is the reason an invisible creature reveals their location when they attack? According to invisible, if they're found, and thus hidden, they need to sneak to return to undetected. Even with disappearance, because their foes can follow the "disturbed dust, hearing gaps in the sound spectrum", etc. they used to find them in the first place. And sneak says when you fail, "A telltale sound or other sign gives your position away, though you still remain unseen."

"or other sign" can be anything. Doesn't matter what senses you're invisible to. You don't need to make a sound when disturbances in the dust or an errant movement of the air can just as surely be used to track your movement especially when the spotter has already found you

I still don't see where in the rules it says that an invisible creature automatically becomes undetected again if it was already hidden from you. The rules I have read says that the creature must successfully sneak to become undetected again.

I think part of this boils down to how people read the spell. I see two different readings of it myself. The one that seems to be more popular seems to be that the Undetected condition as only being applied at the beginning of the spell. After that you apply the general rules of invisibility. The thing is, invisibility doesn't make you undetected again without sneaking, regardless of what senses you have access to, so once you lose the undetected condition you have to get it back with sneaking, as that is the only way to go from hidden to undetected.

This is how I read it as well. Some folks are logicking their way into the farce that a victim is oblivious to the target's blows, but that's an overreach of the rules. Spells only do what they say they do. It says they count as Invisible, which only says they can't be Observed, not that they can't be located at all. If they can be found via the purely nonmagical, noncontact act of Seeking, then yes they can reveal their OWN location via attacks, and being grappled BY the target definitely counts as "some other way to discover the presence of an otherwise-undetectable creature."

If you decide to allow it, don't forget that Readying preserves the user's MAP

Yeah, that first sentence is what I just quoted. The second sentence is not how it does what it does in the sense that people here have been theorycrafting (as in, deleting from observers minds, preventing observers from sensing the target, or stopping the target's stimuli at the source), it's the game mechanics of the effect. Of those three examples I listed, the third is the most like the description of, "You shroud a creature from others' senses," but it's still not certain that's what's happening. All we can say for certain is that ~it's magic!~

The reason why "The target becomes undetected" is not redundant with saying they "count as invisible" and they didn't just say "the target becomes invisible" is probably because of a rule in the invisible condition

"If you're already observing a creature when it becomes invisible, it starts out hidden, since you know where it was, though it can then Sneak to become undetected."

So disappearance has an advantage in that it skips straight to undetected instead of hidden. The "count as invisible" is not a "clause" but a reference to how the spell works after that initial undetected because undetected by itself doesn't do what invisible does (allow the invisible creature to return to undetected by Sneaking, for instance) but more importantly it is an indication of how to counter it by way of other effects that interact with invisible

Paizo is not wordshy about saying when an effect "counts as" something in only specific cases, like "for calculating MAP," "for purposes of weapon proficiency," "when calculating resistances, weaknesses, and immunity," etc. They didn't limit this spell's "count as invisible" for any purposes. They widened its scope to include all senses, but did not cripple it from being detected by invisible-foiling methods. People on this board are in all the other threads chanting "natural language! natural language!" but here they're all "oh uh well ackchually no now the words don't really mean what they say" and that's just silly

>I think this would just downgrade undetected to concealed
That's all any of the common invisibility detecting abilities do, like everyone's boogeyman see the unseen, and revealing light (which was glitterdust and faerie fire premaster), both rank 2 spells (so they cost slots); and thaumaturge's lantern adept benefit (level 7 but constant while used) for instance. Unless I'm missing something, you don't get actual negation until you get to dust of appearance (level 6 magic item but consumable) and truesight (rank 6 spell)

Revealing mist's true value lies in its low level and common, alchemical nature. Any alchemist can make it, and should

Everyone describing how disappearance works are just speculating and sharing their own headcanon*. We don't know whether it deletes the target's presence from everyone's mind, "blocks light, casts a shadow and such," or what. The spell did not exist in editions prior to 2e so we don't know which subschool of illusion it would have been. Dust of disappearance existed, a 7th level magic item which in true olD&D fashion was only counterable by dust of appearance. But there has never been any description of how our disappearance accomplishes its effect in 2e aside from the brief, "You shroud a creature from others' senses." It just works, almost as if it's magic!

>so concluding that the creature is undetectable is just BS.
amen

*I'm not saying that's bad, but it's not rules discussion. Personally I like how The Silence in Doctor Who were portrayed

1. Counterspell: Trigger A creature Casts a Spell that you have prepared
When a foe Casts a Spell and you can see its manifestations

Nothing in Counterspell says you need to perceive the creature casting the spell and nothing in disappearance says it hides spell manifestations, so I would not disallow Counterspell from working

2. They could write in the dust or dirt, or steam (say from their own breath) on a reflective surface, etc. It is a challenging scenario but doable

3. "The target becomes undetected, not just to sight but to all senses, allowing the target to count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have."

The "count as" wording means it CAN be countered and detected by effects that counter or detect invisibility. It's that simple. Anyone arguing otherwise has to torture the language to justify that "count as invisibility" doesn't count as invisibility this time because of reasons. Mostly they just don't like a low rank specialty spell being able to shut down an an 8th rank spell but that's what specialty spells are for. And that addresses your concern that it's a mean spell for a foe to have. A well prepared party should have stocked some (if not many) ways to counter the many ways monsters can get the jump on them by that level of play. Saying "no it doesn't do exactly what it says on the tin" because of a rank difference is lame. There are many ways to counter invisibility because it is such a disruptive effect. Saying see the unseen doesn't work but truesight does... Why? How about dust of appearance, or revealing light? Why? The answer is they all work

I'm not sure I understand the question. Roll the dice and add whichever amount was higher. Are you asking if one weapon has priority over another?

If your GM insists you need to pick one before rolling, pick the d4

Sometimes you might become trained in the same skill from multiple sources, such as if your background granted training in Survival and you took the ranger class, which also grants training in Survival. Each time after the first that you'd become trained in a given skill, you instead allocate the trained proficiency to any other skill of your choice—though if the skill is a Lore skill, the new skill must also be a Lore skill.

So it's just redundant to state it. You have to treat it like any MCDs.

right on. Thanks SB

The players at my Beginner Box table asked me something similar to this the other day. I think it was if they could open a door with their hands occupied by a weapon and a shield. I told them it would depend on the situation. If they weren't in combat and in no danger I wasn't going to be a stickler about needing hands free for simple stuff like that when they could easily release their shield (which is strapped to their arm so not dropped), open the door, and wield it again before any potential enemies beyond could react. But if we were counting actions under the duress of encounter mode or a trap attacked them in that moment it might be relevant

I was going over Inventor Dedication and noticed it lacks language common to every other MC Dedication that grants a skill (aside from Animist, whose "granted" skills are gained from which spirit they're bonded to each day - they don't gain a permanently trained skill like other MC Dedications which grant skills)

"You become trained in [x skill(s)]; if you were already trained in [x skill(s)], you become trained in a skill(or skills) of your choice."

Instead Inventor simply states, "You become trained in Crafting and inventor class DC." and then continues on to the Inventor skill feat and the rest of the Dedication's features. The legacy printing had this same omission and I don't recall it getting errata'd, so perhaps it IS intended or maybe simply overlooked this entire time

Due to the precedent of literally all the other MCDs with granted skills giving "a skill of your choice" I plan to run it the same as them, but thought I'd report this here in case it has gone unnoticed by the editors. If this has already been noted please forgive me for repeating it, but I did not find a thread about this topic with a search for "inventor dedication crafting"

>For example, may I ask how the party gets into position to benefit from cover unnoticed before the encounter starts?

I've literally never had a whole party be unnoticed at the beginning of combat and you don't need to be unnoticed to sneak anyway. If they're traveling long-distance I don't typically put figs on the table until the encounter starts. When it does, I tell them which area of the map they're in and the spaces they can place the party, including where any cover or concealment might be. If their foes didn't ambush them the party knows where they are too. If we were already on a map, such as between encounters in a dungeon, I allow them to place themselves near the encounter when initiative is rolled as long as they weren't explicitly splitting the party doing something in another area. I'm not some stickler for exact movement between encounters unless warranted by hazards or other surprises so I usually allow them to reposition themselves w/i reason using the information available to them when an encounter begins, which includes shifting to take advantage of cover or concealment so their Avoid Notice doesn't feel useless

>And a roll for perception is more likely to have them act earlier than if they had kept their roll

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Maybe non-thief racket rogues will have a higher Wis than Dex and not max Stealth but the typical rogue at my tables has been thief racket, and properly pumped their Dex and Stealth to max. Stealth has always been their better bonus for initiative. If it wasn't, they always have the option to roll Perception once I ask the party to roll initiative, as I said

But again, I'm not here to convince you. I'm not arguing that you're wrong - I understand why you read it the way you do and would not argue with a GM who ran it that way -, only that I don't read it the same way and I've found my way to be perfectly serviceable and abuse-proof

@Witch, I'm not here to argue for you to use my way, and none of the "it's two rolls" arguments have compelled me to reconsider. I'm just sharing that how I read it and how I run it jives with Ravingdork's initial understanding

If the player wants to use a different skill for initiative they can do so when I ask them, "are you using your Avoid Notice roll for initiative," which I ask when I tell the party to roll initiative. AFAIR the answer has been invariably "yes" because most of the players using Avoid Notice have played rogues and hoped to take advantage of their Surprise Attack class feature, which doesn't even care if they're hidden at all. I'm not hiding their initiative order. They can see that after I get all the results sorted so they can strategize with the party. They're usually able to surmise that their late entry compared to other players probably means they rolled low but unless they placed their character out in the open they still begin hidden as a consolation prize, "as normal for Sneak." I do remind newer players that they need cover relative to their foes or concealment to gain that benefit. I try to run a strictly no-gotchas table

I only do one roll when the player declares they're Avoiding Notice which is used for both the "moving around" and for initiative at the onset of combat, but it is a secret one. It will gain a bonus upon combat if the player places their character in cover, "as normal for Sneak." You all should know by now that I hate unnecessary secret rolls but I feel this is an appropriate case for the GM fiat to declare a roll be secret

This way the players don't need to do repeated rolls with the risk of rolling great for the "moving around" and badly upon initiative (or vice versa), and I don't get the players fabricating ways to justify fishing for better rolls when they saw they rolled badly the first time

The way I read Avoid Notice is that the first sentence summarizes the benefits and cost of the activity, and then it goes into detail about what that entails mechanically when an encounter begins, not unlike several of the other exploration activities detailed there

I would not argue with a GM who chose to make it separate rolls though, unless they were inconsistent to the point I began to suspect their goal was to create a worse situation for the party

Baarogue wrote:

MC bounded spellcasting feats are already a scam and you want to make them worse?

He is talking about 12th level, that would make it better not worse.

Ah, my bad. I still maintain that the feats are a scam and should be reworked so that the earlier feats don't just end up as vestigial feat taxes to gain the later ones

But Paul's suggestion is a decent one if we get nothing else

MC bounded spellcasting feats are already a scam and you want to make them worse?

Wield both at the same time in the same hand? No. Read the Free-Hand trait for specifics. Can you wield a short bow in the same hand you're wearing a gauntlet bow? Yes

If you want to count as wielding both at the same time, wear the gauntlet bow on your other hand. Since short bows are 1+ hand weapons the hand you're not holding the short bow with is considered free until you're actually firing the short bow. The only catch is you would not be able to reload the gauntlet bow unless you drop or stow the short bow. Since they're capacity 4 weapons I doubt that'd actually become a problem in one fight though

A key point for combination weapons when asking "can I do X with it" is whether the ability requires that you be "wielding" instead of only "holding" the weapon type or mode in question. Wield is clarified in its definition as being ready to use, not just being held. So if you're wielding a combination weapon in one way, you're not wielding it in its other way

(3d12+STR)x2 unless the GM allows them to roll double dice instead of doubling the result of the normal amount of dice, in which case it would be 6d12+(STRx2) as you say

They're both the "same", only the normal way is swingier and the double-dice way is a smoother curve of results

Considering Channel Smite didn't include that wording in the Premaster... How much you all want to bet that Remastered Spellstrike might also include a "the spell doesn't have the manipulate trait when cast this way" in the text?

Channel Smite didn't have that wording premaster because you didn't "cast" the spell as part of Channel Smite at the time. The cost was "expend a harm or heal spell", which wasn't casting but was an awkward way to do it and still led to some arguments. It was probably changed to being cast so it would synergize with abilities that altered or rode along with casting a heal or harm spell, which then necessitated the further changes

But it would be nice if Spellstrike gained such wording

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'd say it's fine unless they errata it since it's been that way forever. It just makes the target Grabbed, skipping any check aside from the Strike. The size limitation only exists for Athletics actions, not the conditions

I'm not jumping boards just to argue with someone. Rules cover how everything works, not only character abilities. If a monster has been reprinted in remaster, everything in its stat block are its new "rules"

But at the end of the day as the GM you're the one who makes the call about running the adventure, not us. You're directed to use remastered rules "where possible". Figure out for yourself where it's "possible" and just do it. If you don't like an adventure because it's boring af like Crocodile's Smile or it has unusable or broken monsters or hazards due to the author not knowing how things work like a boss who is supposed to cast silence on the "nearest caster PC" at range (a touch spell that requires a willing target) then don't run the adventure

YuriP wrote:

Good point yet it's strange that the fascinated condition could be broken but the other effects still running. Probably is poorly written and now that we get a remaster this will no more have a chance of an official answer once that remastered harpy lost this ability. Now they no more sing they pull the target in a forced movement using winds.

I would love nothing more than to use the remastered stat block and not bother with Captivating Song. The singing doesn't even have anything to do with the scenario. But in PFS, we are apparently not allowed to deviate from the monsters' written mechanics, not even to use the remaster stat blocks.

Whoever is telling you that is wrong, but more importantly- if they insist and you don't want to, tell them to GM it themselves

here's my citation: Pathfinder 2e Remaster Guidance
This is the page on Lorespire on converting characters and adventures to Remaster rules

Game Rules

Players and GMs must use the remastered rules of the game immediately where possible.
Example: Recall Knowledge has been updated with additional guidelines. These take effect immediately at all PFS tables.
Example: The Refocus activity and the focus spell rules have been updated to be more intuitive. All characters immediately begin using these rules.
Example: Monster abilities like Grab are no longer automatic; instead, they require a skill check as part of attempting the action. GMs immediately begin using this new version of the rules.

So since harpies have been reprinted, and you "must use the remastered rules of the game immediately where possible," you must use the remastered harpy stat block

First comes the trigger for your Martyr's Shield's Shield Block which is "...you would take physical damage..." except for an ally instead of yourself and is resolved before the damage is taken

Then the trigger for Retributive Strike is "An enemy damages your ally..." which would only trigger if any of the remaining damage gets through after the Shield Block. It would not reduce any of the damage your shield took. That is already resolved

Whether the shield counts as a different entity than yourself is a little too pedantic for me to say for sure but I as aGM would not allow you, if you had one, to use a theoretical reaction that would allow YOU to also Shield Block for an ally just like your Martyr's Shield does

I too agree with Squiggit. Particularly because making the activation part of creating it with QA avoids giving any advantage to using non-QA-made special ammunition like making it a part of reloading would do

I faved it above but I wanted to call out Easl's note about the box on PC1 p.231 again here because I think it's quite significant. Having the untrained improvisation bonus might help a player succeed at the check but there's only so much they can get from it. It's not going to let a dabbler overshadow someone who's actually trained or better in a lore

Oh and Finoan, I'm not sure why it's not in the AoN page you linked but the description for Lore on PC1 p.240-241 ends with the line, "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge."

Yes

lol this is one of my favorite unanswered questions, and I agree with Finoan's ruling for hand of the apprentice

but now look at weapon storm

No

"All other creatures and objects are invulnerable to your attacks, and you can't target or affect them with anything."

I believe it was intended, because of legacy Holy Castigation and abilities like it

You combine holy energy with positive energy to damage demons, devils, and their evil ilk. Heal spells you cast damage fiends as though they were undead.

Holy Castigation has a different effect now

Your deity’s grace doesn’t extend to your sworn enemies. When you cast a harm or heal spell, you can add your holy or unholy trait to it. If you do, the spell deals damage to creatures with the opposing trait, even if it wouldn’t normally damage them. The spell deals spirit damage when used this way. For example, if you are holy, you could add the holy trait to a heal spell and deal spirit damage to a fiend that has the unholy trait.

I feel it might be simpler if you just remember that it's a spellshape, and so the range it's referring to is that of the spell it's altering

Just one note for clarity

Splash no longer does damage to surrounding creatures on a miss. The wording in PC1 is correct; the wording in GMC was errata'd to match it in the Fall 2024 errata

Yeah, I read it as in range of the 2-action Heal you're currently casting

Baarogue wrote:

you're all going in circles now. There's a side that feels it's okay for a witch to be able to keep multiple targets sickened at little-to-no cost and a side that thinks that's a bit too much. There can't be any "winner" now. Everyone is too entrenched

FFS, this is why we can't have nice things.

If one's argument is the spell is too good to be true, they need to say that.

Attempting to twist the RaW to fit one's preconceived balance ruling is the definition of disingenuous bullsh.t that directly causes arbitrary & inconsistent rulings while leaving an incorrect and problematic record on the public internet.

Having a pre-chosen outcome is completely incompatible with attempting to figure out what the actual RaW is.

Instead of that BS, people need to be confident enough to houserule things they find non-viable RaW.

We all know the game's not perfect. That means both textual errors and balance errors. Get over it and have the balls to disagree with the text, or honestly engage with trying to figure out what the text really is.

In an earlier post, I edited out an accusation of SBdidi's argument coming from balance worries, because any concern about balance is completely separate from trying to explain/discover the RaW.

If he's being intentionally disingenuous and hiding his real argument, that's not something I'm going to be able to know for certain, and making the accusation provokes a whole lot of irrelevant clouding of the waters.

No, my argument has always been a rules one stated in agreement with SB at the beginning of the thread. I just wanted to get a little dig in at how ridiculously OP the hex is if exploited your way

Baarogue wrote:

There's a side that feels it's okay for a witch to be able to keep multiple targets sickened at little-to-no cost

Wait, what? Why 'multiple'? Yes, one target per turn with failing(!) a save.

P.S. Ah, sustaining and casting one more. Ok, maybe two targets in two turns realistically. And you are Slowed 2. I'm fine with that.

If not constrained by evil eye's duration, the sickened condition does not expire on its own like frightened does. It is not even an auto-removal, and its save is subject to its penalty. A witch gets one guaranteed full round sickened target from the first casting, then if, as you say, the sickened sticks after not sustaining it, they can cast it on a different target the next turn without even sustaining the first. The first target is still sickened, and must use an action to *try* to shake it. Meanwhile the second target now can't reduce it below 1 until the witch's next turn. Turn 3, maybe target 1 has, maybe they haven't lost sickened. If they have, the witch just switches back to victim 1 and they've still got 2 sickened targets at 1 action per turn while still casting big spells. Or target 1 might *still* be sickened, in which case the witch sickens a third victim, etc.

ORRRR, they combo it with Cackle at the cost of a few focus points over multiple turns to eventually get as many targets sickened as they can, and drop it when they run out of focus points to sicken a 4th, then refresh it on a victim who shakes it each turn. I'm not partial to this strategy though

Still a rules argument though, and as I said at the start I'm with "spells with durations that don't state their effects linger, don't"

The usual options for Exploit Vulnerability are Mortal Weakness or Personal Antithesis

After identifying a creature's weakness, you use a thematically resonant bit of esoterica to attune your attacks to your discovery. Your unarmed and weapon Strikes activate the highest weakness you discovered with Exploit Vulnerability, even though the damage type your weapon deals doesn't change. This damage affects the target of your Exploit Vulnerability, as well as any other creatures of the exact same type, but not other creatures with the same weakness. For example, when fighting a pack of werewolves you might use silver shavings or crushed moonstone to deal damage that applies their weakness to silver to your attacks against any of the werewolves, but you wouldn't apply this damage to any other monsters with a weakness to silver.

You improvise a custom weakness on a creature by forcefully presenting and empowering a piece of esoterica that repels it on an individual level; for instance, against a tyrant, you might procure a broken chain that once held a captive. This causes the target creature, and only the target creature, to gain a weakness against your unarmed and weapon Strikes equal to 2 + half your level.

Breached Defenses gives you a third option aside from Mortal Weakness and Personal Antithesis when you succeed at Exploit Vulnerability

You can choose this benefit only if you succeeded at Exploit Vulnerability and learned the creature has at least one resistance that can be bypassed. Choose one such resistance. Your unarmed and weapon Strikes bypass the chosen resistance.

As you say, by RAW, it is not mentioned in Sympathetic Vulnerabilities so does not function with SV

How your GM rules on it is their prerogative of course. I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow it to work like the Personal Antithesis option of Sympathetic Vulnerabilities, since it would make sense that bypassing the example creature's resistance to physical damage except silver would work against other creatures "of the exact same kind." I would not give you any miscellaneous enhancements that might exist for Personal Antithesis in such a ruling though

you're all going in circles now. There's a side that feels it's okay for a witch to be able to keep multiple targets sickened at little-to-no cost and a side that thinks that's a bit too much. There can't be any "winner" now. Everyone is too entrenched

So no inscribing a returning rune on my major alchemist's fire then? XD

⚗ > ☄ > ☠ > ⚰

I like the idea of treating it like a shifting weapon.

Yes, Final Fantasy elixirs might last forever but Pathfinder consumables are not inscribable :3

I agree with Baarogue, Hurl at the Horizon doesn't turn your weapon into a permanent thrown weapon because it's an Immanence effect that only exists while your spark is in it. The item needs to have a permanent thrown to allow this. Follow a more updated rule:

Transferring Runes - Source GM Core pg. 225 2.0 wrote:

...

f an item can have two or more property runes, you decide which runes to swap and which to leave when transferring. If you attempt to transfer a rune to an item that can't accept it, such as transferring a melee weapon rune to a ranged weapon, you get an automatic critical failure on your Crafting check. If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.
...

I welcome agreement, but I think if you reread my post you might see that I believe it should be allowed. I would rule that the "permanent" in the sentence I quoted refers to its object permanence vs. an item that is conjured or otherwise short-lived like one created with daily resources

I agree with SB. evil eye has a duration entry and doesn't say that the sickened condition outlasts that duration, so it doesn't

You cannot etch a Returning rune onto a non-thrown weapon, and attempting to transfer it to one auto crit-fails. However, from what I can find, immanence effects are passive and "While your spark dwells within an ikon, you get that ikon's immanence effect continually." If there's no limit to how long an ikon can be empowered during downtime, then I can't see anything preventing an ikon imbued with Hurl at the Horizon from having the Returning rune etched or transferred onto it*

Usage imbued into a thrown or melee weapon ikon

Immanence Your weapon gains the thrown 15 feet trait, or increases its thrown distance by 10 feet if it already has the thrown trait.

As a reminder, the thrown trait does not make the greatsword (or any melee weapon) a ranged weapon until thrown, so no ranged weapon combo shenanigans

You can throw this weapon as a ranged attack; it is a ranged weapon when thrown.

*The only pedantic sticking point I can anticipate is in the entry on GMC p.222 under Etched, "Runes must be etched onto permanent items, such as armor, shields, weapons, or runestones (found on page 269) to grant their benefit."

A greatsword is a permanent item, and while imbued with Hurl at the Horizon it is a thrown weapon. But it is not permanently a thrown weapon. It is up to the reader (i.e., the GM) to determine where the burden of permanence lies in the context of the sentence

While trying to sort out how a ‘wheelman’ style character can fit a party, I looked over the driving rules. Badly explained, each action spent on Drive gets you the vehicle’s speed in movement, but greater risk for the twox and three-action versions. So what would stop someone from just using three single-action Drive actions? I didn’t see a once a turn limit on AoN.

>I didn’t see a once a turn limit on AoN.

Because it's not written in the Drive action

GMG p.175 and GMC p.212, Piloting a Vehicle

In encounter mode, a vehicle moves on its pilot's turn, and the pilot must use their actions to control it. A vehicle can take part in only 1 move action each round, even if multiple creatures Take Control as pilots on the same round.