Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

I'm inclined to think that, technically no elemental blast cast from the bonfire can trigger the fire junction since that attack is just a ranged wood blast that happens to be on fire, and happens to originate from a different location than usual. While the bonfire itself definitely is a fire impulse, it doesn't seem like anything says that the wood blast launched from the bonfire gains the trait--albeit it probably should considering it will deal fire damage on arrival.

Of course, I have a feeling the discussion of what is or isn't technically correct may be about to get quite contentious and I'm not about to defend this reading considering that I would probably allow the bonfire bonus to go up to d8 for the fire junction, albeit at the stated maximum of one impulse junction per round.

Hi!

Some of your thoughts makes me believe that you're of the opinion that a junction can only affect an impulse of their own element. Am I understanding you wrong?

As far as I can see (and I may be missing something, feel free to point it out to me!), fire junction may affect any fire damage die of any impulse. My only question is if we have any way to define "other impulse effects" to conclude if the additional damage die from Living Bonfire should be able to be upgraded by the fire junction, or if the fire junction is attempted to be applied before the fire die is added.

I read it the way Sibelius does too because of the lines, "In addition, you gain an impulse junction, a benefit that occurs when you use an impulse of the chosen element that takes 2 actions or more."

So if you want to benefit from the fire impulse junction, you need to be using a fire impulse. That's why I said in my last post that you would need to fire infuse the wood blast to increase the Living Bonfire's damage die size. You pointed out, correctly, that Living Bonfire doesn't do the damage, but says the wood blast does the additional damage with the lines, "When you make a wood ranged Elemental Blast, you can have it come from the bonfire instead of you, flinging burning logs. This blast deals an additional 1d6 fire damage."

@Sasha If your point is that Living Bonfire doesn't do any damage on its own, and that's why it doesn't qualify for the fire impulse junction, then I accept that interpretation. That just means you need to fire infuse to use the fire impulse junction each time you use a wood blast with Living Bonfire to upgrade the additional damage die from d6 to d8

Living Bonfire is the most straightforward answer. It is a fire impulse that takes 2 actions, so qualifies for the fire impulse junction. When you use Living Bonfire, you increase the damage die size of fire damage dealt by the impulse by one step. "This blast deals an additional 1d6 fire damage." So increase that die to 1d8

If you use two-element infusion on a wood elemental blast to combine it with fire and activate your fire impulse junction, "The blast gains the traits of both elements and uses the highest range and damage die among the two elements." The highest range among the two elements is 60' from fire, and the dice are tied between 1d8 bludgeoning or vitality and 1d8 fire due to fire junction raising the damage die size of fire damage by one step. Regardless of which die you choose, you roll the dice, add modifiers, AND THEN split the total equally between bludgeoning or vitality damage and fire damage with any remainder from an odd total going to the type of your choice. You do not split the DICE before rolling, you split the DAMAGE after rolling and totalling. "Half the blast's damage is the damage type of one element, and the other half is the damage type of the other element. If the total damage is an odd number, you choose which element deals the higher damage."

If you emit that blast through the Living Bonfire from my first paragraph, it would do an additional 1d8 fire damage, which is not increased again by your fire impulse junction because you're not "using" the Living Bonfire impulse again, you're just benefiting from its existing effect

So, as a practical example, if your kineticist was level 5 and used a 2-action ranged elemental blast through a Living Bonfire which they used on the previous turn, the blast would have a range of 60' and it would do 2d8+status_bonus_equal_to_your_Con_bonus damage split between bludgeoning or vitality and fire, and an additional 1d8 fire damage because of the Living Bonfire

>Is the intention of the fire junction to only work with the base fire Elemental Blast, then?

No? Every 2-or-more-action fire impulse that does damage qualifies to have its fire damage dice increased by your fire impulse junction

Clever spambot, replacing breith's name in the quoted text with a link

You're saying that the weapon's damage die is 1. That I understand, but am I to interpret that as 1 of any die or of 1d1? If my PFS Cleric of Picoperi who takes the Deadly Simplicity feat, how does my blowgun's damage dice change? If the RAW states, as you say, that its weapon dice is simply 1, then shouldn't I be able to refer to the rules to adjudicate this without interpretation?

I read it as simply a value of 1. No rolling. Its "damage die" is simply 1. Paizo expressed that as 1 instead of "d1" in 1e. Apparently they didn't see any reason to change that now. If you slap a striking rune on, it does 2 damage

If you're playing with a strict, absolutely by-the-books drill-GM, then the fact it doesn't fall on the Increasing Die Size progression list is unfortunate because they're justified in not increasing its die from 1. As I said above, a generous GM might increase it, but that's their call. At PFS I would defer to my venture-captain, who is usually at the game with me. I suspect he would increase it to d4 because that is the "next larger die" even if 1 is not mentioned in the examples, since that is what the text of the rule says to do. Any time an example doesn't account for every situation, go with the text of the rule. The templates for area effects don't account for many situations, such as the widen spell feat, but the text tells us what to do so we can work it out

I agree that it would be grape if they put 1 in the Increasing Die Size progression list below d4 to account for the blowgun. But maybe they left it off on purpose and they truly intend for it to be stuck at 1. I'm not saying some clarification or other mention wouldn't be welcome, especially for anyone wanting to play that cleric. I just believe it's clear the way it is for purposes of striking runes, gravity weapon, the ranged weapon damage calculation formula posted upthread, and anything else that refers to a "weapon damage die"

There is no need to attack other posters in general, but if you are responding to my posts, it's rather distracting for you to hold this conversation with me as the middle man. I have said my piece on this. I own both the book and PDF but linked it to make it easier to access for others in the thread.

Rules As Written has a very different meaning than you are implying. You are asking for us to interpret rules in a way that makes things easier to understand. I think it's fine to do so, but this falls under RAI, not RAW.

No, I'm asking you to read the rule that is written on page 276. It says plainly that the entry in the damage column is the "weapon's damage die", and that's it. No interpretation needed. Not RAI, but as actually written

Also lol at me pointing out Darksol's bullying as attacking him. Nah, he knows what he's doing and I'm just one of the people who isn't cowed by it. But yeah I should have stuck to responding to your points instead of getting distracted. My bad

Baarogue wrote:

No, it is RAW in this case of the blowgun because it occurs in the damage column on the weapon chart, which is what PC1 p. 276 is referring to. It doesn't follow that ALL cases of flat damage are a "damage die."

I wanted to link the sidebar you're referring to and provide some context to this as to why I still would say that this is not RAW and is certainly open to GM interpretation.

You're saying that under the "Damage" heading for weapons, what follows is its damage die. It would then stand to reason that since "1" is in the blowgun's Damage heading, that its damage die is 1. However, this still exists as an anomaly in the system as if we're taking that idea at face value, someone needs to define what that damage dice actually is.

Further down, damage dice are defined as the dice from 1d4 through to 1d12. This even makes certain not to include 1d20 or 2d6 as damage dice because of how they would interact strangely with the rules. I would say that "1 damage equals 1 damage dice" is incompatible with the idea that "The rules support this."

Now, I fully agree that peopel can and should rule as they want at their tables, but I strongly oppose the idea that "1 damage is 1 damage dice is a statement supported by RAW." It is, to the best of my reading, RAI.

Darksol is just repeating himself now and not making much sense so I'll respond to you

1. That's not a sidebar. It is a rules entry. Do you own the book or have access to it, because I feel like you're getting the wrong impression by reading it from AoN. This applies to the blowgun's entry on the weapon tables as well
2. The "further down" you're referring to isn't defining damage dice. That's already defined with the initial sentence under "Damage", "This entry lists the weapon’s damage die and the type of damage it deals"
What you're referring to further down is the Increasing Die Size progression, which as I answered Darksol, doesn't have any bearing on the rule. Just because "1" doesn't fall on that progression doesn't invalidate it as the blowgun's "damage die." That just means it doesn't fall on the die progression, which could mean its die doesn't increase. I don't know where Darksol is pulling a decrease to 0 from instead, but w/e. It's best to ignore him when he starts posting nonsense like that in desperation
3. Nobody is stating "1 damage is 1 damage die." We're stating that since the "1" occurs in THAT column on THAT table, which the rules state: "This entry lists the weapon’s damage die and the type of damage it deals", then THAT is why "1" is the blowgun's "damage die." This has no bearing on any other flat damage from any other source, let alone some random 75 that Darksol is pulling from who-knows-where, unless it is published in a future book for a future WEAPON in the same format on its weapon table. There are no further implications from ruling 1 as the blowgun's damage die. Spells and Weapon Specialization aren't on the weapon tables, so their damage doesn't qualify as "damage die" under that rule

And the thing is, Darksol KNOWS how ridiculous his arguments are getting at this point. He's grasping at nonsensical straws to "win" this argument now that he's entrenched himself. I haven't seen a lot of your arguments yet but from what I've seen you seem like a more rational sort. Look in the BOOK - not AoN, READ the rule, look at the tables, and SEE why we're ruling it this way for the blowgun, and ONLY the blowgun

Baarogue wrote:

it is literally the RAW. Blowhard all you want, but that's the way it is

Unfortunately, stating that damage (i.e. 1=1) equates to weapon die does not mean that it is RAW. That would then mean that any other case of flat damage would also mean that they function in a nebulous realm of dice

No, it is RAW in this case of the blowgun because it occurs in the damage column on the weapon chart, which is what PC1 p. 276 is referring to. It doesn't follow that ALL cases of flat damage are a "damage die." Though maybe that's what Darksol meant when he made what I thought was a non sequitur about Weapon Specialization ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And I don't mind how acidic he gets. That's just his way, especially when he's cornered. I've been salty sometimes here too, so I should be able to take it

"Did you also accept the Daikyu being Reload '-'? Sounds like you did because this is basically the same thing."

lol, you claim I used a strawman in the same post you throw that out there? Hilarious

"Then what happens when it is subject to damage dice increases? Can it even be subject to damage dice decreases, making it do 0? And what makes "nothing happens because there is no dice value involved" an invalid interpretation?"

Since it isn't in the Increasing Die Size progression list, if you want to be a stickler then its die size simply doesn't increase, staying at 1. Where is your 0 even coming from? More generous GMs might raise it, but that's their call and not in the book nor something I'm arguing for or against. It is irrelevant

"it's not RAW"

>This entry lists the weapon’s damage die and the type of damage it deals
>Blowgun Damage 1 P

it is literally the RAW. Blowhard all you want, but that's the way it is

If it wasn't reprinted with the same name it's still usable as it was, especially if you're playing at your own game. But if you're worried about PFS it's spelled out even more clearly there. "The nephilim trait is interchangeable with either the aasimar or tiefling trait and vice versa, but aasimar characters may not treat that trait as interchangeable with the tiefling trait (or vice versa)."

If your character was created as a "tiefling" then it is STILL a tiefling and qualifies for tiefling AND nephilim (but NOT aasimar) feats. If you can't rebuild it in Pathbuilder then that's a Pathbuilder problem, not a game system problem. All "legacy" 2e content is still compatible with 2r content. As a tiefling, due to that line I quoted above, you can take "nephilim" remastered feats you qualify for or legacy tiefling feats like Fiend's Door, since you only technically don't qualify for Slip Sideways

And it all works with RAW/RAI since Paizo have said it over and over

Or... the simplest and most logical solution is you just accept that the "1" in blowgun's damage column is its "damage die" even if it isn't expressed as usual, as the rules quoted upthread by graystone state that's what that column means

Not falling on the progression listed under "Increasing Die Size" doesn't invalidate that, it just means it doesn't fall on the increasing die size progression list

Frankly this is a pretty weird hill to die on, since it's nowhere near OP or broken to read it that way. What are you even imagining could occur? That's the only thing that could convince me to see things your way btw. No amount of hot air is going to make a difference unless you can make a case for some unforeseen abuse to spring from interpreting "1" as blowgun's "die size", because THAT is what is "airtight RAW"

This might be better asked in the Organized Play board, but if I were asked to make a call on this I would say that as long as the legacy version of the spell had the qualifying traits they're good to go. If you had built a ghost hunter character before the remaster it's not like anyone would audit it now and say, "welp, you need to delete these spells since they no longer qualify"

Again, ask in Organized Play and run it past your GM before the game to be sure it's cool

Most likely they'll errata this archetype and others like it to have curated lists of specific spells you can choose from, much like how they changed wizard spell schools

"with its light ray" seems pretty clear it's an exception since that's a ranged attack but I would still enforce the "both w/I 15'" req of Retributive Strike

"The DC is usually a standard-difficulty DC of a level equal to the highest-level target of your composition"

They do sometimes use the word "target" when referring to those affected by area effects. Whoever has the highest level in the effect sets the DC

Yes, you can pull some minor shinanigans like cast it out of reach of the higher level PCs for a lower DC then move to get them too but who really cares

The adventure I'm planning to run has crocodiles in it, which have the Aquatic Ambush action. A monster with this action can move towards its target quickly and make a Strike against it (against which it is off-guard), but this requires the monster to be undetected by the target.

How does the monster know that this requirement has been met? Avoid Notice is not a secret roll, but Hide and Sneak are. How does the monster know if it has succeeded on both Hide and Sneak? Does it just guess? What happens if it's wrong? Does Aquatic Ambush fail? Does the movement still happen but the Strike fails? Is the target simply not off-guard against the Strike?

(As an aside, I noticed that this action doesn't have the move trait, and it technically doesn't rely on subordinate actions like Stride or Swim which do have the move trait. I'm pretty sure this is unintentional and the action still uses Swim and Stride. That way it still provokes Reactive Strike, is unusable while immobilized, etc.)

1. If you're running the adventure, then presumably you're the GM and will know if the crocs are undetected by anyone in range. There's no need to agonize over it. If there are no valid targets... don't use that action. If you absolutely have to justify it to yourself, chalk it up to animal instinct. They just know

2. You can run it how you want, like if you want to add in subordinate actions, etc. But the aside about it not having the move trait nor subordinate move actions simply means it doesn't provoke. Since it's supposed to be used against foes it's undetected by it's a moot point, since they wouldn't know which square it's in anyway. Maybe they'll change it in Monster Core (I haven't looked at any previews, in case it's already out there), but for now it is what it is

So there's two methods you can try to reason this out, both with their own problems

First method: Hardness is not an immunity, a weakness, nor a resistance despite using terms very similar to resistances so it doesn't belong in Step 3. That makes it a penalty, which is in Step 1. BUT, penalties can't reduce damage below 1 so there would be no complete blocking of damage, and you can only Shield Block one attack so you wouldn't be able to Shield Block the second attack of multiple attack feats like Double Slice unless you had extra reactions in a turn usable for Shield Block. This means chipping attacks like Flurry of Blows become more effective against a Shield Block user, but it gives you the answer you're fishing for. I would not argue against this if a GM told me this was how it worked because it makes sense of a sort and is fair

Second method: what everyone here has been saying, which is that YOU would not take damage until step 4, which is Shield Block's trigger, but that means your shield suffers if you have a weakness or is buffed if you have a resistance. It doesn't "make sense" in that respect but it's nice and neat and fits tidily in the damage calculation routine

Pick one unless you're playing a PFS game, in which case ask your chain of command and accept their answer

and HPs are lost after Shield Block happens. Whether they are temporary or not is irrelevant. Shield Block is a choice. If you have enough temp HPs to soak a hit, don't Block it

I would apply "treat falls as X feet shorter" effects first since they create the baseline for the damage taken and are an effective penalty to the damage. Unless something I'm overlooking says snow drifts, etc. and Cat Fall can't stack, I would allow them to stack. I would then apply Unbreakable Goblin since it effectively halves the damage, which is done after applying bonuses and penalties during Step 1: Roll Damage Dice, NOT during Step 3, Apply immunities, weaknesses, and resistances

So from your example, 30'-10' from Cat Fall makes the fall 20'. Reduce the damage as if you fell half the distance, so 20'/2 = 10' = 10 dmg

If you fell into a snow drift, it would be 30'-20'-10' = 0' = 0 dmg

Nelzy wrote:

If they wanted Shield block to trigger before Resistance and Weakness they would have said so, or had another trigger on it.

They could have easily have it say

" Trigger While you have your shield raised, you are hit from a physical attack."

Cause if its before resistance there is no distinction on a hit and taking damage, since nothing can reduce the hit to 0 damage.

to me its clear that the devs want it to happen after resistance and weakness, and have prob balanced shields with that in mind.

Yes some instances might feel wierd that the hard bones on a skeleton helps the shield, but its also the other way around.
buff spells that give resistance would reasonably also protect your gear, but would in that case not since the shield would take damage before resistance.

but sometimes you have to paint with broad strokes else we would have gotten tons of special cases on how mutch damage a shield takes,
and this way they dont have to bother with resistance runes and material for shields.

So, if I hit with a sword a zombie (weakness Slashing 5) who can block with its shield, I will inflict 5 more damage to the shield than if I hit the zombie with a staff.

inb4 "um ackchually zombies can't use reactions"

but yes, that is fundamentally correct

Use a staff charged by other is not normal too.

Yes, TMI is the specific rule that allows you to "activate the item as if you could normally use it." Normally you could not use it because, second sentence under Staves on GMC p.278: "A staff is tied to a person during a preparation process, after which the preparer, and only the preparer, can use the staff to produce magic." If some want to claim this general rule is what prevents a TMI user to use charges, it also prevents them from casting cantrips from the staff. I've seen a lot of the anti-charge-use faction chime in in favor of using it for cantrips. But you can't have it both ways, and I'm not in favor of giving staves a blanket immunity from TMI when their use is not OP. It is a simple transfer of power from one player to another at the cost of the TMI feat, at least one skill investment plus optionally its Assurance feat, and one action every turn it is used

(replacing your quote with the GMC version) "You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate rank or higher, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell's rank."

>This is all one sentence. One that makes no distinction between which are a 'restriction' and which are a 'resource'.

If TMI said anything about bypassing restrictions or resource costs, such a hyperbolic argument might have merit. But it doesn't say that. TMI's power and limits are all in one succinct line

"For the rest of the current turn, you can spend actions to activate the item as if you could normally use it."

So all you need to do is simply compare what you want to do with a normal use-case for the item. If they match, go ahead. I would not rule casting spells from a staff without expending charges normal use

My take is that "as if you could normally use it" means the TMI user can use charges from the staff because that is the normal use case for staves

There are some exploits that could be made using a transferred staff with charges.

For example a Staff of Divination could be charge by a caster and transferred to a martial to it make multiple uses of True Strike specially if this staff was prepared with extra charges by a prepared caster (and even more if is a wizard with staff nexus).

Maybe you can say that this is already possible with scrolls and wands but it won't work so well because with these items this martial needs to draw another scroll or wand every time while with the staff it could easily used dozen of times every turn.

I'm not seeing how this is an exploit. Trick Magic Item costs a feat investment, and an action on the turn you want to use the item. Then it costs one action to cast True Strike from the staff, and still costs a charge from the staff. That's leaves only one action to benefit from the spell. Hardly an OP situation IMO and certainly not usable "dozen(s) of times every turn." Even if you meant "fight" instead of "turn", I doubt any fighter would be willing to risk wasting an action every turn to TMI just to get a 1-action attack with advantage (to use a D&D term). The DC of the 6th level staff would be 22, which means the fighter would need to wait until 7th level to be able to use Assurance - assuming any fighter would waste Assurance on a casting skill. But it's possible. Still, yet another feat investment for a marginal advantage

TheFinish wrote:

You could have an argument if you said "Well, you could have a Druid prepare a staff and give it to a Wizard who has prepared their own staff, and the Wizard could use TMI to use two staves!" And...yeah, so what? The Wizard's going to be much worse at using the staff than the Druid...

Well.. Not exactly. If this variant of using TMI is allowed, wizard could be as good using TMI on druid's staff as casting their own spells. If the wizard is casting a spell from the druid's staff which exists also in arcane tradition (and there are a lot), they would be using their own spell DCs and spell attacks, not TMI's. While spending the druid's charges.

And again, this situation - while possible - does not appear OP to me. It still costs the druid's charges from their prepared staff, and one action to TMI on the druid's staff. Again, a lot of investment and costs for the marginal advantage of having access to another staff

All this fiddling with the definition of "instances" wrt reducing someone to dying or taking damage while dying is pointless and will only cause confusion and delay. Guntermench posted the correct answer in one of the first replies, but I will elaborate

"Instances of damage" are only important in the immunities, resistances, and weaknesses step (step 3 of 4) of Damage Rolls. Step 4 is "If any damage remains, reduce Hit Points the target has by that amount." It happens once, and it happens ALL at once - not per instance of damage

Full text for Step 4: Reduce Hit Points on PC1 p.407 are: "Any remaining damage reduces the target's Hit Points on a 1-to-1 basis. More information can be found in the Hit Points, Healing, and Dying section on page 410." The phrase "instance of damage" does not appear in that section

No

Thread Necromancy, engage. Apologies if it's bad form.

The GM of my PFS group, as well as his mentor, is absolutely positively convinced that you can 'attack' someone with the Kineticist's Wood Elemental Blast and heal them with it. I know this doesn't work, if for no other reason that it's RIDICULOUSLY stupidly overpowered.

I understand 'healing doesn't damage and damage doesn't heal', but I am apparently incapable of explaining that to someone else. Could I pretty please get some specific rule quotes, or something from the devs, that *absolutely* dispels this misconception?

just report them in the PFS board. Let their heirarchy handle it. Don't name names in public though. Get in touch with one of their higher ups in PM

Chatgpt is not a source. The books and Archive of Nethys, the official prd, are sources. Chatgpt is wrong. Raise a Shield is not an interact action, and lacks the manipulate trait and anything that would give it that

If they're using a hero point to reroll a dying check, you might want to remind them that if they would die due to dying value they can spend all their hero points to automatically stabilize without raising their wounded value. Feelsbad to fail the dying flat check on a hero point reroll when that was your last hero point

Talon Stormwarden wrote:

So a RK check might fail to learn new info about Wolf #2 because it didn’t beat the higher DC, but still beat the standard DC and so trigger abilities like mastermind?

Wait, what higher DC?

'If Robbie later tries to Recall Knowledge against Bob, they would use the typical DC, not an increased DC for a subsequent check against the same creature. Similarly, if Robbie is later attacked by two new wolves, the checks to Recall Knowledge would start at the typical DC.'
Yes, it's not actually in the book, but the intent seems clear to me. We've been always running it like this: no increased DC against new creature of the same type.

c'mon man. Read the whole post

So when the player rolls RK against Bob (from the example in the FAQ I quoted) would you have them simply ID Bob and say "yep, that tharz a wolf arright" and give them the same info you gave for the first successful RK? Or would you give them NEW information even though they haven't beaten a higher RK DC that would normally be required to get more information about the same creature? Or would you do as this person asks and have the check be a two-tiered one; let them ID the creature type at the base DC ("For the purpose of abilities that require successfully identifying a creature using Recall Knowledge"), but require that the check beat a higher DC in order to get new useful information about the creature type?

Another reason to open with trip without assurance that I forgot to mention is that in addition to getting your full proficiency+attribute bonus on the trip check, you also get the item bonus from whatever potency runes you etch on the shield's augmentation

As YuriP says, your success with assurance isn't assured, but I would recommend trip without assurance because that'll make them prone for the strike if it succeeds, then everstand strike at -5 MAP +raise a shield if you hit, then shove with assurance or raise a shield if you missed and that's important to you

@YuriP

https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1430

I would allow it since they can be etched with weapon runes, but...

How do you figure that everstand strike is at no MAP? Assurance doesn't mean you didn't take two attack actions already and are thus at -10

I don't see any conflicts between your character's edicts and anathema, so just try to fulfil the edicts while avoiding the anathema. As long as you keep a way to deal non-lethal damage at hand you shouldn't have any trouble with them. There shouldn't be any need to codify everything into a prioritized list. What's most crucial might change depending on the situation. If a villain is about to shoot a child, you might not have time to turn it into a teachable moment

Don't overthink it, and don't let anyone else overthinking it tell you you're playing your character wrong. Characters are supposed to be people. Just do your best to roleplay them doing their best

There are feats that allow you to perform "trained" actions despite not being trained. Perhaps those hazards have the (trained) note as an extra layer of specific gatekeeping to prevent those with such feats from being allowed to disable them

In four printings, they "forgot" the trait? They gave it to Iron Command just fine first try. Looks intentional to me. Maybe that will change in PC2, but until then, nah. I'm not going to assume I know better in a clear-cut case like this. No mental trait = not mental, or you open the door to people claiming you can't use Glimpse on anything immune to mental because of the flavor text

Being shielded from mental effects (in the case of non-mindless mental-immune creatures) or not having a mind to comprehend the "visions of redemption" and make the right choice doesn't equate to the champion's deity not delivering the visions and consequences at all

>official guidance that there is no delineation that should ever be made between descriptive flavor text and mechanical phrasing.
I'd like to see this, if someone has a link. It stinks of quoting out of context

What constitutes an object in PF2?

Does Razing work against a wall of force or a wall of stone? Does it work against a door or a hazard like a trap that is made of materials versus say a haunt? How you do you adjudicate this trait and what it works against?

I don't think this is exactly rocket surgery or an especially nuanced call

>When you target the same creature with two Strikes

And btw "30' in any dimension" at max is a 15' burst so no area was lost. The new wording is just more flexible and gets rid of the less effective and never-picked (at least at my tables) cone option

Heck, I meant Inquisitor, not Investigator.

But now it's too long to edit.

Yeah that had me scratching my head and I was planning to read up on Investigator tonight to see what I'd been missing

Ok, I think I'm starting to get my confusion. I only just realized that not all impulses have the stance trait and I'm guessing it's not a stance impulse unless it has the stance trait. Maybe it's just a bias coming from my realization, but that makes safe elements a lot less cool than I thought it was.

EDIT: Well, moderatly less cool anyways. Having to use that extra action for safety can be a pain, especially if it's a three action impulse.

good news then. there are no three action stances. All of the existing kin stances are a single action, and will typically be entered when the kin channels their elements

In PC1 the rules for hex spells in the witch class section says, "as such, you can use only one hex each turn, and any attempts to use a second hex on that turn fail and the actions are lost."

Then under hex cantrips it says, "so you can cast them as often as you like, though you can still use only one hex each round."

Which is it, turn or round? Incidentally it's the same wording as it was premaster

We have conflicting terminology in their descriptions of the limitation on hex castings that makes this class feature reaction (every witch gets this or patron's puppet) borderline unusable

I would allow phase familiar to exceed the "one hex per round" limitation mentioned in hex _cantrips_ because the primary hex _spells_ rule says "turn" and the hex cantrips rule is written as if it's a callback to the hex spells rule. Or you can rationalize "once per round" as a limitation on hex cantrips specifically even though it says "still." Whatever you like. Fundamentally for me it's just feelsbadman to say "you have all these cool spells you can use but nah, you gotta save that hex casting every round in case your familiar gets targeted." That's just bad design and I don't believe it was what was intended by the limit

It's not a duration. It's a ban

No, patron's puppet says "You Command your familiar, allowing it to take its normal actions this turn."

Minion trait says "Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands."

Patron's puppet doesn't say it allows you to command the familiar twice, only "take its normal actions this turn."

Blade Ally doesn't say the item "gains" or "has" _the rune_. It says the item "gains the effect" of the rune. The exact wording of Blade Ally is more cumbersome than it's worded on the spellheart, and I find that significant

Runic Impression similarly says "Your unarmed attacks or weapon gain the benefits of a weapon rune you choose" but then later says that it also suppresses existing property runes to reduce the target to its legal maximum. No such language has ever been added to Blade Ally and there has been at least one errata pass on the CR since Secrets of Magic, not to mention the remaster compatibility errata that probably would have mentioned it if they intend to change it - but I guess we'll see in PC2

Sorry, but there are a few things wrong with this

First
"As a beastmaster, it's possible for you to have more than one animal companion at one time—up to four companions—but only one of those companions, your “active companion,” follows you during exploration and in encounters; the rest are nearby, usually foraging or hunting for food."

So there's no "two wolf animal companions" in an encounter at once

Second
You don't gain access to 2nd rank spells until 3rd level, so heightening summon animal doesn't become available until then

Third
Animal companion wolves don't have knockdown (now changed to takedown with the remaster) until you gain their advanced maneuver, which comes from their nimble or savage upgrade, available at level 8. They also don't have the +1d4 to damage against foes in range of 2 allies that summoned wolves get. They may attempt the trip action itself but it's not part of their jaws attack

The creature ability Knockdown itself is no longer automatic with the remaster

Knockdown and takedown both cost an action, taken after a successful jaws strike. So they may Stride up and Strike, but not knockdown or takedown on the same turn

Other than those details, unless I'm missing anything, coordinating your minions' attacks like that seems legit

No, not even the duration version takes your actions immediately if you are stunned during your turn. You don't gain or lose actions to stun until the beginning of your turn

Already done and dusted with the errata

We need an "Atalius questions about grab and grapple" superthread to collect all these things in one place lol

Baarogue wrote:

Farien wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

>Readying Flurry as an example

a-are you trying to trigger me?

Do you want to be triggered now, or after three forum pages of heated arguments?

*reeeeeeeeee*

Aaand? That's all?

I disappoint.

Yeah, sorry. Low effort rage today. Refer to my post history for previous rants on the topic I guess

Baarogue wrote:

>Readying Flurry as an example

a-are you trying to trigger me?

Do you want to be triggered now, or after three forum pages of heated arguments?

*reeeeeeeeee*

Meatshed wrote:

I would probably just give her occultism or arcana, giving a specific lore as a divine skill doesn't feel great because of how narrow it is. To give you an idea there is one thing you can worship to get a lore skill and its whatever lore you want and even then it lets you pick performance instead.

I looked through the deities in the Players Core book and didn't see any that gave Lore as a divine skill. Which being are you referring to? I'd like to read on it.

if you don't own a lot of other books you can refer to the Archives of Nethys site. It's the official prd for Pathfinder