Bast L.'s page

Say, the Calamity Caves map, even with map tags off, shows the location of all the traps. For VTT people, this is an issue.

I don't think the errata made this any more confusing (though I admit it didn't make it much less), but this is still a good point. If you need two hands for Battle Medicine (which you shouldn't, but check with your GM), then this combo gets a lot worse.

I don't think it's too confusing now, but I disagree with how many hands it now takes, so I guess it's confusing for at least one of us.

"This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287."

Under hands, page 287, it says "This lists how many hands it takes to use the item effectively."

Since Battle medicine now requires you to use healer's tools, and using healer's tools requires 2 hands, battle medicine requires 2 hands, unless I'm missing something (and I very well may be, as the FAQ apparently doesn't include everything that's updated, and it's weirdly mixed together).

Which makes battle medicine very bad, and not worth taking.

This errata...

Exocist wrote:

Errata wrote:

Several classes were accidentally missing an important limitation for 10th level spells. In the following class features, add “You can’t use this spell slot for abilities that let you cast spells without expending spell slots or that give you more spell slots.”

Page 121: Miraculous Spell

Page 133: Primal Hierophant

Page 207: Archwizard's Spellcraft

I was right, wizards weren't supposed to be able to have that many 10ths.

The main awkwardness from this is that Cleric's Divine Font now caps out at 9th level. It's a minor nerf to heal focused Clerics, but more importantly weakens the top end of the damage curve for harm Clerics.

I believe that, by the rules, this actually removes font for clerics who can cast 10th level spells. I would house rule it to allow 9th level font though.

"You gain additional spell slots each day at your highest level of cleric spell slots."

(of course it's intended for 9th, but by the rules...)

I think the worst part is the added "you still must have a hand completely free." Like, this was so good without that addition? It would've been the Toughness of class feats, where it's not really a choice of whether you take it or not?

I think some class feats could be combined. Silent and subtle spell, eschew materials + something else (and drop the free hand req). Bake clever counterspell into regular.

Turn undead needs some work too. Has anyone ever turned an undead with it? (has anyone ever taken it?) It's just so anemic, compared to any other edition of PF/D&D.

I hate to try and push my players towards certain things, or away from others, but I think I'd need to step in if one of them took Eschew Materials. There's always retraining though.

Class feat to save 5 sp and L bulk? Pass.

I stopped running it after book 1. I'd say it was more combat heavy than most adventures, or maybe it just seemed that way because of the combat difficulty. I'm not sure if/when players are supposed to rest for the night, but I just let them do it whenever, because it would've been a lot of TPKs otherwise.

All of the players were like, "I thought we could try diplomacy, or other methods, and have less combat." Because the player's guide makes it seem that way. I tried to let them do things that weren't exactly by the book, like use mage hand on a melon to lure a creature into a cage, but there was a fight where, if they tried to talk, the book has the encounter difficulty become about 2*extreme (with level being 1, per the advancement track, it was still beyond extreme when I let them level to 2 before then).

Maybe book 2 has more investigation stuff, but book 1, aside from a club scene, is mostly just fighting. One of the players remarked that they were more like soldiers than investigators.

I think it could use some tuning. Also, the loot system throws everyone off.

They did avoid a few fights by talking, or being clever, but it was still pretty combat heavy.

graystone wrote:

If direct interaction is stressful, would it be possible to set up an announcement thread to post updates that's locked to normal forum posters? That way you guys could get info out without direct reactions.

As nice as that would be, someone would likely ruin it for the rest of us by starting a separate thread to "discuss" the announcement.

I was going to say, "they could always just not read that thread," but it's too tempting. You have to know what they're saying. Still, at least it's (kind of?) clear: there's not much intent from Paizo to post on these forums.

Internet hostility is such a difficult issue. One person might see one poster as belligerent, another might see the other as such. And moderators just make people mad when they delete carelessly. Sometimes a comment is made in jest, but it's not clear to every reader. It's easy to say, "grow thicker skin," but mine's pretty thin, so I can't say that.

It's too bad, but it looks like we won't get much back and forth on here with the devs. I'm not into twitch, so I guess that's about it for offering feedback and asking questions.

I can't remember where but Erik Mona commented before it's release that one of the hopes for PF2 was that it would require fewer errata than PF1 did.

My interpretation was that they were going to shift more towards a philosophical approach similar to what you outline here - that the rules are intended to be more fluid and malleable so that "what's the REAL answer?" is not a valid question in many cases.

I kind of figured theyd achieve that by moving back to "ask your GM" and leaning into the rare category for complicated/potentially synergistically overpowered options.

I hope not. Rules specificity is one of the best things PF2 has going for it, imo. Clear rules covering many situations. "Ask your GM" is just lazy. It puts more work on the GM, and makes it unclear what characters you can play, and how they'll work in a game where it's useful to plan your character out many levels in advance.

One example of PF2 being very good about rules specificity is the Prescient Planner feat. Someone wanted to take it in my game, and I was like, "ugh, I hate all those matter creation feats, they're always like, 'ask the GM if the item is okay,'" but then I read it, and PF2's version is not up to me at all. It's very clear what you can make, and no input is needed from the GM.

Of course, an arbiter is needed, as no finite rules set can cover every conceivable situation in an RPG, but clarifying what the ambiguous or confusing rules actually mean can help GMs out a lot, prevent table disagreements, and allow for better cross-group play.

Bast L. wrote:

It's never been my position that they're under any kind of obligation, other than providing us with the products we pay for. Saying that I think they should, and saying they are obliged to, are different things. You mentioned disingenuity?

You didn't say that you think they should, you said that them not having done so was them not meeting expectations. If you feel that you should justifiably criticize them for not meeting an expectation, that means that you feel it is something they should be compelled to do - i.e. an obligation.

No it doesn't. "Something is to be expected" is not the same as saying they are obligated (morally or legally bound) to do that thing. A waiter, for example, is not obligated to provide good service, but neither am I obligated to reciprocate with a good tip. My position, as stated earlier in the thread, is that "It's hard to say they owe us anything other than what we paid for, but a lack of communication, and seemingly no rules clarifications for a year, is not encouraging."

Editing in the "Stop being an entitled child" is disingenuously adding words I didn't say in an effort to paint yourself as superior in a conversation about "hostility" that you brought up.

I didn't mention you in my post, ExOichiThrow said that "some people are being actual children about it, in my opinion."

Edit:

They are under no obligation to update you when their plan changes.

It's never been my position that they're under any kind of obligation, other than providing us with the products we pay for. Saying that I think they should, and saying they are obliged to, are different things. You mentioned disingenuity?

One thought on forum toxicity/hostility: those terms don't refer to people who disagree with the hosting company, who ask about updates, or who think more communication about the product, from the company, would be a good thing. They're more general, and can definitely apply to people who defend the company. It's not a good thing to have hostile people on your side, because then people can point to them as examples of "your side," however unfairly.

The posters in this thread don't want Paizo to fail, and for the most part, we're not saying it's a bad company. I really like that they sell their PDFs. I think PF2 is an almost great system (magic and magic items aside). AoN is so useful, I wonder if it's not detrimental to them (loss leader maybe?). I think AP authors are pretty damned good, for the most part, especially at designing encounters. And most recently, it was said that they would better support VTTs by giving us higher resolution maps.

But they just aren't communicating on here very much. The last response I saw was a response to Rysky saying that swearing makes it hard to respond (it was, ironically, the only response in the AoE book 1 thread :).

Missed deadlines are a thing that happens, all gamers know this, and expect it. Not communicating about it in the months that follow is not to be expected though. And after finally hearing something about it in a Starfinder thread, people asking, "why wasn't this cross-posted to the Pathfinder threads?" is a reasonable question.

Just a reminder, this thread started with a simple, "Any news? ETA?", and the response now from some posters is, "Sit down, wait for the errata, and stop being an entitled child." And you want to talk about hostility?

Yeah, it used to be 2nd level (pf1, all D&D that I recall), but they bumped some spells up. It also doesn't affect unwilling creatures, so it's not like you could use it on a strong melee enemy.

As a second level spell, in various editions of games, it saw a fair bit of use. I haven't seen anyone cast it in PF2 yet though (one long running game, several short games). I don't know what the reasoning was to bump it up, but a spell that's never considered for use seems a waste (this is just my table experience, maybe others are using it all the time).

Raveve wrote:

If that one errata had fixed all the problems then this thread wouldn't even be necessary but there are many more things that have to be addressed by paizo in order for the core game to be error free. There are many, many threads on this very forum that are raging in debate about a number of issues and it is causing problems within the community. Depending on who your gm is a vast number of things can be different in pf2 simply because it is up to the gm to figure out what the intent is for certain rules as paizo left the them ambiguous or the rules don't cover every situation. This is the responsibility of paizo to fix and I cannot in good conscious recommend pf2 until they fix their game.

Your expectations are wonderful, and you mentioned earlier that they are based on the model of other contemporary TTRPG’s. Which games are these?

The obvious example would be the RPG dominating the market atm. One could object by pointing out that numerous conflicts exist in the off-the-cuff Sage Advice answers, but some answers are better than silence, and they did, I think, compile numerous errata pdfs fairly regularly.

As for wonderful expectations, I think the expectations were based on statements by Paizo reps, in twitch streams and the like, on when errata would be published.

As Greystone said, even 1 answer per month would be better than the nothing we've gotten for the past year. How many battle medicine threads is enough to warrant a clarification?

But it's not even just the errata. There seems to be very little interaction at all on the forums. I mentioned Jalmeri Heavenseeker being a broken archetype in one post, and someone responded that someone from Paizo said it was on their to-fix list. But said where? Hunting down comments in a discord or twitch stream is a lot more difficult than having a single place to go (the forums, or blog posts, or FAQ page).

Maybe the errata drops tomorrow, maybe a year from now. We have no idea, because Paizo seems to have gone quiet on the matter. Okay, maybe they're having difficulty with it. Some answers could be given though, no?

I think more communication on the forums generally could be good. I get that wading into sometimes hostile forums is rough, but I've tried to just tune certain people out (skip over their posts, not respond), and interact with the more reasonable posters. I'm sure they could do the same.

Anyways, this thread wasn't meant to be a demand, or an ultimatum to get the errata. I don't think I'm "entitled" to an errata, just to the titles I purchased. But PF2 seems to be very rules-specific, and an errata to fix the problems that exist could greatly benefit the system. Mostly, I was just hoping for an update, or some kind of news regarding the matter. I'll hazard to guess that the same is true of the others here, looking for more communication from Paizo about the system.

It's hard to say they owe us anything other than what we paid for, but a lack of communication, and seemingly no rules clarifications for a year, is not encouraging. 2E can be something great (especially if they un-ruin magic), but I don't think a "publish and forget" process is a good way to go about it.

graystone wrote:

Should we get less communication because it's about a product we've already paid for?

Yep. Or, rather, we should get less communication because it's about a product that's already out.

The new stuff is interesting to a greater number of people, and it's what most directly gets them their money to keep making new things and supporting the old things.

Aye, but PF2 is a very rules-specific system, where things are laid out clearly, and for the most part, consistently. This facilitates multi-group play (PFS), and generally can avoid a lot of confusion. However, there are several glaring issues, where people vehemently disagree because of wording, intent arguments, or order of operations issues. And these issues carry through any future products too, so it affects any upcoming content.

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of communication on the forums. For example, there are currently several battle medicine threads, with hundreds of posts in them, including at least one large thread after the stealth errata (stealth errata itself being an odd thing to do). Not worth commenting on? I actually think battle medicine is clear, rules wise, but it's obviously not so to everyone.

But okay, maybe they don't want to do piecemeal rules answers, and instead give us one large errata. However, it's months past when they said it would be available. I guess I just wanted an update on it.

Any News? ETA?

I think these points have been made already, but I'll chime in with them anyways.

First, "True Strike is the answer," isn't really an answer, since not everyone gets it, and it kind of locks you out of other options by either forcing a specific staff, or using a bunch of low level slots.

Second, NPCs all have cheating spell attack bonuses, suggesting Paizo knows it's a problem, but isn't concerned about that for PC casters (NPCs don't just have attack bonuses higher than level would suggest, but higher than their DC - 10).

That said, there are some options (not counting primals who don't MC, or divines who don't get the right gods or MC). Invisibility, especially heightened, is possibly worth casting on your first round of a boss fight, assuming the boss doesn't have true sight or the like. That will make them flat-footed. Also, maybe a divine caster will put heroism on you (unlikely). Or if the boss doesn't have AoO (and you somehow know this), you can arguably flank, with a spell attack (more about this below).

I think disintegrate could be useful. Especially if you have contingency, "when I say 'abracadabra', heightened invisibility casts on me," and a true strike staff. If you're a divine Wiztch of 16th level, you could cast heroism (lvl 6) on yourself in that first round, contingency invis (lvl 4), and maybe PW: Blind the boss, or send in your beastmaster pet.

Of course, a boss +3 will probably crit on the fort save anyways...

I've also seen disintegrate take down caster walls a couple of times to good effect in AoA. I'm not sure what happens if you cast it on a hazard, "An object you hit is destroyed (no save), regardless of Hardness, unless it’s an artifact or similarly hard to destroy." The "Damaging a Hazard" section on page 521 suggests treating them like objects.

As for flanking, you are flanking if you're in the right position (and an ally is as well), with the ability to melee attack (or unarmed attack) the enemy (and your ally is as well). This makes them flat-footed to you, not with regards to a specific attack you make, but just generally. This seems weird, but I think it's RAW.

But it's not a trip. It says "When you use Knockdown, instead of making a Strike followed by a Trip, you can attempt a single Strike. If you do and your Strike hits, you also apply the critical success effect of a Trip."

You're not doing the trip action, so you don't have to meet the requirements of the trip action.

Reasons it's not a trip:

No MAP from doing a trip (unlike the regular knockdown).
It says it's not a trip.

One could argue intent. I truly don't know the intent. If you compare to a monster's knockdown or improved knockdown, those don't have size limitations. Also, a druid's wolf pet doesn't worry about size, just automatically knocks down on a hit (at 8+).

One could also argue that the effect of a critical trip on a too-large opponent is to do nothing, but that's not strictly correct. The effect doesn't have the requirement, the action does. Page 18 details what a requirement means: "Requirements Sometimes you must have a certain item or be in a certain circumstance to use an ability. If so, it’s listed in this section.".

I think, given that a wolf pet can do it automatically on a hit at 8+, and that the rules as written don't forbid it, it's neither broken, nor illegal.

Edit: regarding why they didn't say the target is knocked prone, the critical success effect of a trip also damages the target, which is better than just knocking it down.

Further Edit: Something even more glorious about Improved Knockdown is that you don't have to worry about free hands, or trip traits, or using a 2H weapon (well, 2H affects the damage, but you can apply trip critical with any kind of strike).

This allows for a sword and board, flickmace, fighter champion with many reactions knockdown monstrosity at 15+ (use Improved Flexibility to get Knockdown and Improved Knockdown). Champion reaction from MC, Combat Reflexes for an extra AoO (useful when foe is getting up), Quick Shield block for extra reaction to block, Dwarf adoption for unburdened iron, dwarven reinforcements, mountain's stoutness, and telluric power (though that loses effect when you knock them down?). Also, the flickmace critical effect is to knock them prone too, (no size limit there either), so decent chance to knock them down when they stand up, with your AoO.

I really want to play it.

What's neat is, unlike regular knockdown, you don't actually trip the enemy, you just apply the effect of a critical trip on it. So, maybe you don't even need titan wrestler to use it on big enemies? After all, the trip action has a requirement, but you're just applying a critical success effect from trip... and that effect has no requirements...

Maybe

Targeting is targeting; you can make an argument for casual language but the argument should also be made for *consistent* language.

Yeah, there seems to be some inconsistency in the book. Sometimes they distinguish "targeted by" from area spells, other times not.

Examples:

Ring of counterspells trigger: "You are targeted by or within the area of the spell stored within the ring"

Ring of Spell Turning trigger: "You are targeted by a spell" (so no to areas? yes?)

Spell turning spell itself: "Spell turning can’t affect spells that aren’t targeted (such as area spells)."

Reactive Distraction trigger: "You would be hit by an attack or targeted by an effect, or you are within an effect’s area."

Reactive Distraction text: "In the case of an area effect, if your Sneak doesn’t move you out of the area, both you and the decoy are targeted by the effect."

Reflect Spell: "When you successfully use Counterspell to counteract a spell that affects targeted creatures or an area"

They often distinguish the two, and sometimes (at least once) don't. The area descriptions (burst, line, etc) all refer to affecting creatures, not targeting them. Meanwhile Reactive Distraction Text (though not the trigger) specifies being targeted for being in the area. It's true, they could be using inclusive or, and just typing loads of redundant text (if areas targeted creatures, there's no need to specify "or within the area of a spell"). The area section in "targets" also refers to affecting creatures, not to targeting them.

I guess if I was going to argue about casual language, I would say that "affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately," is the opposite of "targeting".

So, are the rules wrong? Not strictly logically, as they could be using inclusive or, with redundant language, but it certainly makes a lot of effort to distinguish "targeted by," from "in the area of," if they intend for the latter to also be the former. Especially since they could have just said in the area section: "targets all creatures in the area indiscriminately."

I think I'll go with the quote until it's clarified that they are using inclusive or with redundant text. Targeting is targeting.

Anyone able to find examples other than the Reactive Distraction text that show creatures in an area being targeted by a non-targeted area spell? I thought Selective Energy was one, but then saw that heal/harm are targeted spells (1, 2, or 3 action).

Bast L. wrote:

I'm thinking of running one on Thursday (6 PM Eastern maybe), but on Foundry, rather than Roll20. Would prefer the players be Magus or Summoner (summoners can be healers, but if needed, I can give an NPC healer cleric).

Sorry, I can't afford to shell out $50 on a vtt right now. I'm currently between jobs due to COVID.

Oh, the reason I said I had vanilla builds I wanted to try was because I figured everyone would want to play a summoner/magus and I wanted make it known I didn't mind letting someone else play with the new shiny toys :)

It's free to all but me. Some system requirements though. And probably a decent internet connection, since I'm going to be using some animated maps.

System Requirements

Yeah Ediwir, I'm not sure. You do get more chances to hit with the attack, but you could still miss, and it seems the only non-feat benefit is the crit bonus, but they also have the lower casting proficiency, somewhat offsetting that.

It could be a decent way of getting more likely crit fail effects on some spells. We might see some of those qualitative effects happen.

@Capn: Hmm, that's a bit better, though still rough. As for the proficiency, it is odd that you would get mastery in arcane spellcasting faster if you went wizard MC than if you just had Magus.

Yeah, talking about Heaven's Thunder. Looking at some options, temple sword, d8, or even d6 monk weapons would quickly outpace any others, with + level to damage, animal instinct barbarian, monk dedication + ancestral weaponry, the Sky and Heaven stance from Heavenseeker dedication.

Attacks with Heaven's Thunder aren't too limited.

Also, it lasts until the end of your next turn. Nothing compared to this, like smite evil. I guess Giant instinct barbarian keeps up for a time (and even exceeds at certain levels), but it has a steep cost. You could even combine them if you used moment of clarity, though that's an extra action, and a feat.

I'm pretty sure it's athletics DC, not fort DC for escaping grapple.

I always thought war priests should get mastery in weapons. They lose legendary spell casting. Bump them up to master weapons? Maybe too good.

If I played a war cleric, I think cloistered + champion is the way to go. You'll have the strength (if you use a str weapon from your god), and you'll have the cha, since you need it for font. You get all the armors, and expert with level 14 feat. Also, that champion reaction is great for a front-line cleric.

War priests need something to make up for lower spellcasting prof, and fort save isn't enough, imo.

Haha, I'm now imagining loads of guards hiding around the temple of Abadar, looking for any infractions, maybe getting into scuffles with each other, "this is my spot!"

Bast L. wrote:

So, ran game three last night, and the players went to the Pagoda. Unfortunately for them, they tried to negotiate with Doopa, who, as the book says, "asks the agents to wait here while she goes to fetch Rekarek (who brings her cadre of guards, as well as Cheel and Josk from area C3, and attacks the Edgewatch agents, claiming they are imposters regardless of any evidence to the contrary)."

Doopa has a +1 Deception bonus. Total. Did you give the PCs a Sense Motive (which is to say Perception) roll to see what she was doing? Because you really should've and they really should've passed, given the likely disparity in bonuses. I mean, either that or had her roll Deception vs. their Perception DCs. Either has really low odds of success.

Making her auto-succeed at masking her clear intention to directly screw them over is not supported by the rules at all.

Nothing suggests Doopa is trying to screw them over, or deceive them. It says she's receptive to them, and goes to fetch her boss. It's the boss that's unreasonable.

It's just a fun roleplay thing for a witch, maybe. Don't they always change from crone to maiden, for some deception?

More weird spells please!

So, ran game three last night, and the players went to the Pagoda. Unfortunately for them, they tried to negotiate with Doopa, who, as the book says, "asks the agents to wait here while she goes to fetch Rekarek (who brings her cadre of guards, as well as Cheel and Josk from area C3, and attacks the Edgewatch agents, claiming they are imposters regardless of any evidence to the contrary)."

It was a pretty bad fight, with several crits from the great pick, including when it was picked up by Tiktal, after Rekarek fell (as per page 27).

So, with the party defeated and dying, the kobolds offered to let them surrender, and give up their gold (in true Absalomian fashion), which they did. They retreated to the Precinct, where some guards mocked them, and the lieutenant gave them hell for running, tail between their legs, from construction workers, and bringing shame to the Edgewatch.

It just felt unfair to the players. They were trying to play good guards, who make an effort to de-escalate the situation, and the reward was a beyond extreme encounter (40 + 4*20 + 3*30 = 210 xp, ignoring the trap). There were mutinous grumblings from the players after that would-be TPK (I don't normally pull punches, but this fight was too unfair).

This is the day after the boss gauntlet of the menagerie, which was itself after several encounters on their beat.

The AP gives a lot of treasure, but it seems pretty rough so far.

Edit: Is Rekarek not supposed to know Common? Her listing only shows Draconic. My party may be the only one to ever not know Draconic, so I just had Doopa translate.

While I'm not using the non-lethal rule, I am giving enemies death saves/dying condition. I also stressed the non-escalation, try to resolve things in better ways idea to my players.

We're only through the menagerie, but so far, the players have been trying to do things in better ways, and often succeeding. When they do fight, they try to take things alive, and (almost) as the book says, "everything you fight is trying to kill you," so if they do use lethal force, it's justified (and even then, they try to stabilize). The only thing other than the skeletons that's died so far was a weak hyena that was critically hit (enough to kill it outright).

All of this to say, they're trying, and pretty well succeeding, at playing good character guards.

Except for the robbery/loot system. That's just hilarious. After they talked the adventurers down in the bar, I explained the fines (I'd done so previously too), and they all started laughing at how silly it was. "Glad we could be reasonable, now give us all your stuff!"

I don't get to play much, but even though I hate what was done to magic (qualitative effects => knob adjusting), I think Wizard is my go to. Specifically Wiztchorcerer (Wiz, Witch MC full, Sorc MC for dangerous sorcery) now. I tried it in a 1 shot someone ran for high level on foundry. He sucked, but that was more due to the nature of the game session, where we had basically no preparation, or understanding of what we were getting into, and fought something that negated everything he did so well, that it may as well have had an anti-magic field up.

I am playing a storm druid with order explorer animal companion. It's nice having a useful third action. He's also Wizard MC (ancient elf), but not high enough level to do much with that yet.

I like the idea of clerics, but it seems pretty boring in this edition. I think I'd go cloistered MC champ if I was playing one.

I want to play a knockdown fighter. Seems like it would be very effective.

Edit: As for why wizard, I like options. I played a champion half-orc fighter in 5E once, and he was very effective, but so boring. I also like the idea of wizards, I guess. Most fun options have been ruined by duration decrease, range or area shortening, or some other means, but some are still there. As an example, in that 1-shot, I managed to block off a second boss who would have killed us when the two were working together, using a wall of force.

If extra 10th level spells were disallowed, would clerics lose their font power once they gain 10th level slots? It says "You gain additional spell slots each day at your highest level of cleric spell slots."

Since that level is 10, and bonus spells aren't permitted, font erased? It wouldn't be 9th level, since that's not their highest level of cleric spell slots.

Obviously, if one were to house rule away the bonus 10th level spells for wiz and clc, they would set font to 9, but that's 3 house rules now, if we assume that intention.

Anyways, maybe we'll see on errata day. I hope they both keep their stuff :)

Edit: for my earlier post, I said no transmutation cantrips, but there is one, sigil. Not sure how I missed it. Anyways, could always heighten other spells for the 10th level school slot. Too bad I can't edit my old post.

You would have to assume that they missed it for both wizard and cleric in both the original print, and the errata. It's certainly possible. I'm not guessing at intent for the moment, and just running the rules as written.

@Cyder: By the rules as written, as a specialist wizard with spell blending you:

- do not gain more 10th level spell slots as you level up
- gain an extra spell slot for each level of spell you can cast. You can prepare only spells of your chosen arcane school in these extra slots (specialization)
- gain the ability to cast one spell you prepared today and already cast, without spending a spell slot (bond)
- can trade two spell slots of the same level for a bonus spell slot of up to 2 levels higher than the traded spell slots (blending)

Nothing that I know of says otherwise, or discludes 10th level slots from being used with these abilities.

I can't pretend to know what's intended. They have language in sorcerer which prevents you from using feats and such to cast more 10th level spells. They don't in wizard. Oversight? Intentional? But as written, the rules are clear (unless you know of a rule that does address bond, specialization, and spell blending, to prevent wizard from using them for 10th level slots).

None of those abilities impart more spell slots as you level up. They all kick in at 19, but even if they didn't, they aren't granted by leveling up.

Edit: one might point at the lack of illusion or enchantment 10th level spells, but then, you could equally point at the lack of transmutation cantrips.

Heh, my players didn't step into the store, and looked around for a particularly fine melon to tempt it with (luck check (d100 > arbitrary x), plus perception), then used mage hand to make it float through the air just out of reach of Hoots, and into one of the cage wagons.

The only thing that bothered me was wondering if a melon is 'L' bulk.

Does anyone know Absalom's settlement level? Maybe it will be in the Absalom book, but I don't see a release date for that.

A level 20 wizard can (if they build for it),

cast 4 level 10 spells per day

Looks to the other spellcasters with pity, "I am sorry your patrons limit your power."

5: 1 base, 1 feat, 1 school, 1 spell blending, 1 bond.

But I think I'd take spell mastery over an extra 10th.

Another neat thing is, they get 4 by level 19 (all but the feat).

Edit: but clerics get more (8 with feat, counting font).

Clear as day errata/f.a.q. on all the argued issues: Battle medicine, witch MC familiar (2 abilities? 1? 2+x for leveling? I think 2, but maybe 1, probably not 2+x), shifting rune staves, free hands needed for tool abilities generally (I think it's clear, but maybe only 2 people agree with me), slots allowed for use in spell blending (school? MC? MC other tradition?), what happens on a successful (but not crit success) basic save against a spell that does persistent damage, clear rules on what familiars can do outside of combat, how many 10th level slots does a wizard or cleric get (upwards of 4+bond for wiz, 8 for cleric?). I'm sure there's more. Just look for 100+ post discussions in the rules subforum.

Settlement levels/details in books where it makes sense (world guide, APs). AoA book 4 has a good example.

Fancier other armors (wood armor, tower shields, anything neglected).

Higher level chase cards? I dunno, just started using them, and it seems fun, but they go up to 8. Maybe it should get easier though.

Animal dentistry rules for putting adamantine crowns on animal companion teeth :)

I don't know if I can find a civil way to respond this.

Hey that's my condescending line!

You thoroughly explained your position, as did I. In my view, it's too limited. The worst part is actually the range, though the low HP and hardness certainly don't help. You say that if the enemy martial goes first, he runs up to you, range issue solved. Except it isn't. Would the cage block the entry way? That's a problem, if the boss is now in the back, happily casting spells or whatever, and untouchable by your martials. Did the martial who ran up move into your group, or did your team flank the martial? Well, you trapped your own side now too.

In many ways, the smaller sized windowless option of old would be better, depending on the situation.

Bast L. wrote:

if we look at, for example force cage. Measly 30 ft range (can't reach it, either, since it's 3 actions), which means you'll very often not be able to cast it when it would be useful (the beginning of a fight, to separate enemies), it's sustained, for some reason, it's very easily destroyed (red dragon, cr 14, breaks it in 3 attacks on average, and auto hits it), and you can't even make it windowless. That's a 7th level spell.

Compare Force Cage to Resilient Sphere. That is a spell in the same system, a much better comparison than 1E.

+1 action

+3 spell level

same range

no effect on a success

blocks less effects

+2 sizes effected (20x20 is Gargantuan minimum)

can contain multiple creatures

Double base hardness

immune to dispel magic/other countact effects

There are upsides and downsides to both, but I wouldn't call Force Cage 'weak'. It is a non-incapacitation effect that can remove a whole group of melee monsters from a fight for a round or more, particularly minions with weaker attacks. Resilient Sphere is better for a single target, but Force Cage trades up significantly if you can hit multiple targets. Even if it 'trades down' with 2-3 stronger attacks against a boss, I'd consider that a win. You traded one of your turns for the bosses turn, letting everyone else get hits in for free.

For an example of what the spell can do, imagine stumbling onto eight Bugul Noz as a combat encounter, to pull a random minion level creature for a level 14 party. Separating 6 of these into a Force Cage would delay them significantly, allowing a party to easily dispatch the remaining 2.

How easily could they get out? Well, there higher damage attack (claw) deals 19.5 damage per hit. It is reasonable that you could easily keep them contained for as long as you'd like. Not only does this set up AoE spells (Fireball), it allows the party to mostly skirt clear of their Flail and...

They don't necessarily get hits for free. The bars are half an inch apart. Most weapons can't pass through. Anything that can pass through, goes both ways.

The accommodatingly grouped up low level minions, that are also in close range to you (remember, you can't move and cast it, unless you're hasted), call for an AoE, not a control spell. They have ref as their highest save, but at least with an AoE, they take half damage, not the no effect of the Force Cage on its ref save.

Resilient Sphere is 3 levels lower, and I always saw it more as a defensive spell to combine with contingency. It has actual utility, unlike Force Cage (the game is pretty new still, and the APG very new, but I'd be curious if anyone ever actually casts Force Cage, and has it be effective).

Yes, it can, possibly, have some use, sometimes. But it's a 7th level slot, and the range, the low hardness, low hit points, the 3 actions, and the sustain, make it just too difficult/ineffective. It seems like it would be too rare to have it be in a good position, and have it be useful in the situation. Fixes are obvious: 60 or more ft range, 2 actions (or 3 with increased range, either way), sustain or not, increase hardness or (inclusive) hp (more hp than hardness).

The range and the hp are the worst parts about it. It should be difficult to get out of it, not automatic (ignoring level -1, level -2 minions, since who cares). Picking the first 5 level 13 and level 14 monsters from AoN,

Action count to get out
Level 13: 3, 4, 4, 5, 6
Level 14: 3, 3, 3, 8 (but high ref), 4

Hardly taking them out of the fight, and many of them are using breath weapons and such, which still affect the players outside. If it simply removed those actions from the creature, sure, it would be good, but they're as protected from you as you are from them. Lasting 1-2 rounds is vastly different than an older style control spell, and you may as well just blast them instead.

Hmm, assuming blending can use any spell slots, a wizard with a caster MC gets a lot of max level spells (non-univ wizards at even levels get 4 + 1 + bond), while still keeping many of their lower level slots. Since wizard feats suck so much, it's not a great sacrifice (still get spell penetration, effortless concentration if you cast concentration spells, and I kinda like scroll savant).

Even if you can't use MC slots for "the rug" (my friend calls spell blending "the rug" under which you sweep all your low level garbage), you can MC Rune witch, and keep max prof/stat for your extra spells, and just sweep your wiz slots under the rug.

Counting bond and scroll savant, your top 3 slots are pretty healthy, and your low level slots are as if you didn't MC (well, +1 for levels past 2, except level - 3).

For me, the issue isn't damage, and it's not slots. It's spell effects. The "break spell effectiveness" design of them seems to be continuing, if we look at, for example force cage. Measly 30 ft range (can't reach it, either, since it's 3 actions), which means you'll very often not be able to cast it when it would be useful (the beginning of a fight, to separate enemies), it's sustained, for some reason, it's very easily destroyed (red dragon, cr 14, breaks it in 3 attacks on average, and auto hits it), and you can't even make it windowless. That's a 7th level spell.

Or you can look at Transmute Rock to Mud. 2 10-foot cubes, not 2 per level, like in 1E. But the mud to rock effects are so weak. It only lasts for a round? What? Maybe I'm reading it wrong (because it sounds too bad to be true), but given that the failure grab only lasts for 1 round, it sounds like they're not grabbed after that round passes. Similarly with the critical failure.

The weakness of battlefield control and other interesting spells funnels wizards into damage spells. And blasting, while sometimes useful and fun, is not, for me, the appeal of a wizard.

So, I'm pretty uncertain on it myself, but supposing you could shift it and still have it function as a staff, what happens if you shift it into a gauntlet? Are you both holding it in one hand, as its usage requires, while also having that hand be free for other things (due to the free-hand property of gauntlets)?

Saving on bulk is nice, and it would free up a property slot on your real melee weapon (or allow the use of a ranged weapon, while holding the "staff").

"trained in martial weapons" is the phrasing used by classes like the Barbarian and options like the weapon proficiency general feat. While it's not explicitly stated, that language seems to be what they use for general proficiency rather than specific.

Weapon proficiency says "You become trained in all simple weapons. If you were already trained in all simple weapons, you become trained in all martial weapons. If you were already trained in all martial weapons, you become trained in one advanced weapon of your choice."

Strictly speaking, trained in martial weapons, without clarifying text of what that means, could be satisfied by something like elven weapon familiarity. The "All" text in the weapon proficiency feat suggests it was sometimes considered? I really can't find anything to back it up though.

edit: Ehh, the class text does suggest that "trained in martial weapons" means all though. Maybe they just put in the "all" text in the feat to make sure people understood, and neglected for Marshall.

Haha, my players couldn't stop laughing at the civil asset forfeiture, when I stressed in the listing that they needed to play good (or at least Lawful Neutral) characters.

I offered the following mental gymnastics, to try and get our brains to accept it: The city doesn't really pay you, except that it lets you keep these "fines". If you just fined them for their crimes, and then turned the fines over to the city, and then the city paid you from those fines, it might seem less objectionable. So, they're just cutting out the middle man.

Of course, the idea of stealing peoples' stuff without even giving them a trial, whether it goes to the city, or the guards' pockets, is a problem in itself.

In the end, I just said, "look, just kinda let this one go."

Bast L. wrote:

It just tells you the number of hands needed to wield the tools, while the text on 272 (and the requirement on the action) tells you you don't need to wield them.

I think page 272 and 287 create a square & rectangle sort of rule:

using an item requires a certain number of hands (rectangle)
wielding an item is a more specific thing (square)

You don't need to wield your tools, but you do have to use them. You also don't have to "wield" a potion to use it, just hold it in one hand (and drink).

Of course, I could be wrong and the entire paragraph on page 287 could be a waste of text that could instead have been an additional sentence on page 272 referencing the hands column (and maybe even the hands section on page 279 could have been cut out too).

You cut too much. Also, the text on 279 is about weapons specifically. Also, hands do matter for any abilities which require that you "use" the tools (as some do).

The text explicitly saying you don't need to wield (as in hold in the number of hands needed to use the item) something to satisfy a "have" requirement can't be escaped. I think I said it clearly, but here are some syllogisms:

1: An ability with a "have item" requirement doesn't require you to wield it. (page 272)
2: Wielding an item means holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. (page 272)
C: An ability with a "have item" requirement doesn't require you to hold the item in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. (unless there is an additional requirement, or text, requiring that you "use" the item)

1: Using an item effectively requires that you satisfy the hands requirement (as in wield it). (page 287).
2: Some abilities require you to use an item.
C: Abilities that require you to use an item require the number of hands listed in the hands column of the item table.

So, the hands text, and the hands entries on the table are not superfluous, but they do only apply to certain abilities. Other abilities are excepted by their "have" requirement alone, without a "use" requirement or text.

Of course, this could all be errata'd out tomorrow, but the rules as written on this issue are clear, and would not require errata.

I will ask, to what, do you think, the "have item" text on page 272 does refer? I'm trying to think of an example, from your perspective, but I can't think of one.

Page 272, under wielding items:

"You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to merely carry or have an item. These apply as long as you have the item on your person; you don’t have to wield it."

So, for treat wounds, or pick a lock, the requirement is that "You have X Tools"

For such a requirement, you do not need to wield it, which is defined as "holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively"

Which is to say, you don't need to hold it.

It may seem silly, it may be hard to imagine, or it may be some weird abstraction, but, by the rules, you explicitly do not need to hold your healer's tools in order to treat wounds.

Drake has said in another thread that the hands listing in gear tables, and the "Hands" text on page 287 overrides this rule, but does it? It just tells you the number of hands needed to wield the tools, while the text on 272 (and the requirement on the action) tells you you don't need to wield them. Also, some tool actions do require that you "use" them.

Additionally, the text on 287 reads, "This lists how many hands it takes to use the item effectively," mirroring the text for wielding, which is explicitly excepted for items you merely need to "have." That is, yes, you need to hold healer's tools in 2 hands to use them effectively, which means wielding them, but actions which require that you merely have them do not require you to wield them.

Battle medicine is also explicit, you need to hold or wear them.

Hopefully, we get an errata, and they make it even more clear, but the RAW is clear, even if the RAI isn't.

As for bandoliers reducing hands to 1, nothing in bandolier says this. Ikarinokami, if you're saying that's your interpretation, I can't argue with it, but if you're saying that it's in the rules, please let me know where.

Someone, maybe Criticking, had an idea of letting it bump crit fail to fail, and fail to success, but not success to crit success. That way, it can have some effect, some of the time. Seemed like an interesting house rule.

My group is playing by-the-book, and at 14th level, my players aren't using incap spells anymore (haven't since low level, except a charm attempt around 7, I think).

@Metric, players who want a qualitative (rather than dial turning) effect from spells aren't necessarily trying to break the game. It's probably a good thing that bosses aren't disabled from a single spell. It's probably a bad thing that those spells do nothing to the boss, 95% of the time.

So, the saving throw says "Fortitude", not "Basic Fortitude" as most spells with basic saves do, while the damage section mentions a basic fortitude save.

I'm wondering, how exactly does the spell work?

Possibility 1, fort save vs effect, basic fort save vs damage:

You (the target) make an initial fort save versus the effect, if you fail the effect is on you, you're fatigued, and you make a basic fortitude save each time it would cause damage, including the initial damage, and whenever it's sustained. Whether you make any of those basic saves, the effect is still on you, so you're still fatigued.

Possibility 2, basic fort save vs effect and damage:

You (the target) make basic fort saves vs both initial effect/damage, and any time it's sustained. If you make the basic save on any round, is the effect on you still? If you crit succeed on the basic save? Does it matter if you make the save on the initial, or sustain round?

Possiblity 3, fort save vs effect and initial damage, basic save for sustain damage:

You (the target) make a fort save vs the effect and the initial damage (not sure what a non-basic save vs damage is, no effect? Crit fail, no doubling?), but make basic saves vs each sustain damage, which does not remove the effect (and thus the fatigue?).

Any thoughts? Other possibilities? I think it's possibility 1, but not entirely sure.

Hey, didn't see one up, so here it goes.

No precinct map yet, but I wanted one, so here it is. Probably not right/missing stuff. I made it before I read very much.

Precinct Map

can this discussion go in to the bread intended for it that already got linked

There's no knead for that, it's related to the overall discussion, imo.

I dunno, the wording seems pretty clear. "You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to merely carry or have an item. These apply as long as you have the item on your person; you don’t have to wield it."

While we might think one uses healer's tools, the wording in treat wounds clearly says "You have healer’s tools", which matches the "have" text above.

I think it's a bit abstracted, and you don't, by the rules, have to wield the tools, though that would raise the question of why healers tools even says it takes 2 hands.

However, if we did go with your idea, that a "have" requirement implies a wield to use, then again, Quick Alchemy becomes impossible. Cottoncaek says quick alchemy gives an exception, but it doesn't. It simply lists 2 requirements, which are incompatible with each other (wielding in 2 hands, and having a free hand, that is, assuming you only have 2 hands).

Hopefully a detailed errata will put this to bed. (maybe tools and handedness need a rework)