Bluemagetim's page

Climbing a rope in a hurricane sounds like a very stressful, difficult, and for most impossible task. In fact probably just holding on to the rope and not flying off may be difficult. Maybe its ok that it still takes a roll for the best of the best at climbing in that condition.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Just as a recollection, a level 1 wizard in any edition ive played have never been fun or fulfilled the class fantasy because the class fantasy is always a higher level wizard.

The class fantasy of the apprentice barely learning magic wizard is not what anyone is thinking when they pick the class. I mean they used to be a 1d4 hp class with one spell at level 1 that had to endure and survive low levels to eventually become the wizard fiction depicts them as.

True, the 1st level PF2 wizard is probably better than any previous edition low level wizard.

But because magic in PF2 is generally less powerful than previous editions, and in comparison to other classes in PF2, the wizard fails to deliver in expected flavor as you level up too.

Good point.

neat multi-class synergy.
Main classing ranger you get natures edge at level 9 with dedication in guardian and hampering stance means any enemy in 5 feet of you while the stance is up is off guard to you.

Noticed there is no arcane school with haste and slow and this would be a concept to throw them in with. So here is a homebrew I would use for a time and to a lesser degree space themed school.
Theme is around bending time and space to your will. A lot of spells fit the theme if looked at with the right angle. Surestrike fits if thought if as your targets movements seem to slow allowing you to see past their defenses with ease. Blur fits if its thought of as your phasing in and out of the current moment in time leaving waves of visual residuals. Others like time sense or synchronize fit on the nose.

If youve taken the time to create a school yourself youve seen why RAW they are not strict lists of exactly what is written. As you go through spells to pick only 2 at each rank beyond 1st you notice more than 2 usually fit well into the themes of the school. GMs and players are supposed to work together to add or swap in spells that strongly fit the theme but didnt get to be one of the two listed spells.

Curriculum Spells

Cantrip: Time Sense, Warp Step
Rank 1: Surestrike, Synchronize, Fleet Step
Rank 2: Blur, Loose Times’s Arrow
Rank 3: Haste, Slow
Rank 4: Morass of the Ages, Vision of Death
Rank 5: Quicken Time, Rewinding Steps
Rank 6: Cast Into Time, Necrotize
Rank 7: Contingency, True Target
Rank 8: Clockwork Devotion, Quandry,
Rank 9: Foresight

School spell
Took a crack at focus spells.

Initial spell: Bend Entropy - 2 actions - You have studied the ebb and flow of time knowing how to bend it slightly to your will. Choose a target within 30ft, that creature either gains the quickened condition until the end of their next turn or becomes slow 1 until the end of their next turn with a basic Will save.

Advanced spell: Draw on Future Selves - 3 actions - once per day- Your future selves lend you their aid going back in time advising your past self on a spell to prepare changing one spell prepared. Choose one of your unspent spell slots select a different eligible spell from your spellbook for that spell slot. Change the prepared spell to the new selected spell.

Bluemagetim wrote:

consider the wizard at level 13 can casting group haste and eclipse burst in 3 encounters straight, a sorcerer is making choices with the 3 rank 7 casts they have the wizard is choosing to do both every encounter.

It's not the first time you said something like this, you also mentioned it earlier:

Bluemagetim wrote:

The level 5 example I gave looks to me to clearly be better as a wizard with 6 level 3 spells to cast in that extreme encounter than the sorcerer that only has 3 of them

Unless I missed something, at level 5, a spell blending specialist wizard has 2 regular spells + 1 specialist spell + 1 blended spell + 1 arcane bond spell.

That's 5 slots, not 6, to the sorcerer 3.

At level 6, he'll indeed get 6 slots but then the sorcerer has 4.

Likewise for your level 13 example.
And since you're a specialist, you only have one arcane bond per day so at level 13 your list looks like this:

1 - 2 spells
2 - 2 spells
3 - 3 spells
4 - 3 spells
5 - 3 spells
6 - 5 spells
7 - 5 spells

In comparison to a sorcerer having 4 spells everywhere and 3 level 7. So the difference is not as big as you make it out to be. I did tout that in my guide, but the remaster changed everything.

And even 6 top level slots aren't what they used to be.
- A divine or primal sorcerer can get 5 slots as early as level 4 and 6 slots at level 16 (+1 n-1 slot).
- An oracle can get 5 slots at level 6 and 6 slots at level 18 (+1 n-1 slot).
Sure, one of them is fixed, but the other ones have 13 or 14 distinct choices per slot, giving them flexibility the wizard can only dream of. And they also have a dozen more lower level slots which, while not as impactful, are nothing to sneeze at.

Thanks for correcting me. I didn’t notice spell blending says each bonus slot must be of a different rank so you cannot blend up both 2 rank 1s and 2 rank 2s into 2 rank 3s

If you dont want to change up things day to day a wizards abilities will feel useless to you.
Its really that simple.
The whole thing with wizards is manipulating and customizing not only the spells they bring but even the allocation of slots.

So yeah sorcerers need to pick spells they know they will use everyday especially as they first get a new rank of spells while wizards get to try out more the arcane list since they have the ability to learn and the ability to swap daily.

And about the school slot, its identity forming. Why even pick a school that has a list you dont want to use? And if all the schools have lists you dont want to use work with the GM to adust one thats closest. Adding or swapping spells for others that also fit the theme of the schools is RAW. At that point having a list you mostly like is no longer a drawback.

Give wizards a class ability that lets them cast any spell from their spellbook as a 10 min activity. No slots used to do this. Maybe they can use this ability a number of times per day equal to this formula
Top rank 1/day
-1 is 2/day
-2 is 3/day
4/day for any spell -3 or under

Slots get reserved for combat uses and any spell you want to use for utility.
If the number of uses of the ten min spell activity is too much give them less to start and let feats unlock more uses to spec into a more utility capable wizard build.

With all the in class options Im not sure archtyping is the best way to go unless you are playing FA.

There is another possibility we could understand that when they say punch its allowable to re-flavor it as any unarmed attack as a thing we just do in this game. If can be descriptive and inform what happens without being literal.
Piercing the the arrogant eyes of the gods can be alluding to jumping higher than mortals should be able to effectively sticking it to the gods.
So it can be allusory and descriptive at the same time.
But we still understand what its saying someone who uses the ability can do.

OK Ive started reading the section and I noticed a few things that popped out.
Page 159 has a sidebar that explains what they were going for with this subsystem. They talk about the scale of these battles.

So it does seem like there is a new lever for encounter budgeting in how we pair troop level and leader level. giving the party higher level troops would add even more experience to budget than giving them on level troops for example, leaving more to work with for the enemies.

I also like that you can throw in some big creatures like a Dragon or something and they can be a threat on their own without a troop.

Another interesting angle is a troop having two leaders taking turns leading the troop and making so that troop can completely switch up the leader side of the actions mid fight.

I'm also just starting to go through my copy of Battlecry!
So far the guardian looks amazing. Even the dedication looks great.

I also want to have some time to really look at those skirmish warfare subsystem. It seems like a great way to keep the focus on the PC characters while bringing in the sense of a larger scale conflict.

I deny reactions when it makes no sense for PCs to have them.
Any situation where they used an exploration activity like scout or defend they may still get one even in situations where they were surprised since those actions represent being prepared for a fight.
Its situational so expect it to be a possibility you don't get one no matter how often you do get one.

Bluemagetim wrote:

I would say if the ability doesn't explicitly say the spell slot is consumed it doesn't consume one.

Specific Overrides General. But if the specific rule doesn't override the general rule, then the rule still applies. So I would say that the general rules for Casting Spells still apply. Casting a spell slot spell consumes a spell slot.

Well if you go back to the chassis entries that give the cast a spell activity to classes that have it they explicitly tell you you use slots when you cast spells. meaning there is no general rule for spell casting, there are classes that are given slots and spells along with the cast a spell activity and tell you what happens when you cast one.

A familiar doesn't have a spellcasting ability on its own, its just this ability saying do this thing and it doesn't also say to use any slots to do it.

I would say if the ability doesn't explicitly say the spell slot is consumed it doesn't consume one.

Try against an Ancient adamantine dragon a +3 creature for a level 15 party.

I keep coming back to the idea of an archtype as the best way to make ninja happen.
Give it feat access to alchemy and basic spellcasting, and tracking. A core unifying feature can be few focus spells that are on theme for ninja and expert stealth and you have everything you need. As a class it falls over itself trying to distinguish out from rogue. And the ideas so far as a class make it try to be too many things at once. Its as if all the ninja trooes are being combined instead of looking at each trope as its own kind of ninja.
Want to be the stealth assassin ninja? Be a rogue and get the ninja archtype.
Want to be the ninjitsu master? Be a wizard with the ninja archtype.
Want to be a hybrid? Go magus with the ninja archtype.
Want to be a ninja scout? Go ranger with the ninja archtype
Blue_frog’s swashninja is pretty ninja as it is but if there was a onestop shop archtype to get the casting and alchemy stuff while upping stealth and adding some ninja focus spells it could make things easier.

Kineticist damage from flying flame is ranged so the point of comparison would need to be what a rogue is doing at range too. Melee already will have a single target damage advantage over ranged.
Also since flying flame can hit multiple targets and isnt a limited use ability it has to be less damage for that reason as well.
Comparing it to the damage of a melee rogue is apples to oranges.

I was suggesting feat buy in to some basic alchemy and maybe a later feat to get more.
Same thing with spellcasting.

I would think of the ninja class as a martial that has a class gimick around concealed and hidden conditions that strongly impact playstyle, a set of ninjalike focus spells, and feat buy in options to either alchemy stuff or spellcasting stuff but I dont see either as the main thing a ninja does. I dont see ninja as a main spellcasting class myself, at most maybe a wavecaster.

For multiclassing into this ninja you could pick up the focus spells but not the class gimick around concealed and hidden. Would probably improve stealth to expert.

But what the gimick should provide? I havnt had great ideas for it so far.
Someone suggested a gimick around foes with conditions and that could be good as an advanced benefit in chassis or a level 6 class feat.

I want to explore YuriP's troll example a little more. Trolls are, according to their stats, not very smart (-2), but have similar awareness and survival instincts to any animal or the average human (+0). However, the remaster added a new weakness: they're gullible (-4 to perception checks against being deceived). We can use these stats along with flavor text to paint a rough picture of what's going on inside a troll's mind.

So the troll walks up, and sees two individuals: a big, bulky one and a smaller, less physically intimidating one. Trolls are very territorial and always hungry, so they're likely in the mood to turn both these intruders into their next meal.

Now, a predator generally knows to go for weaker prey to maximize the odds of a successful kill while minimizing the chance of getting hurt themselves, so the troll's original plan is likely to take out the wizard first to guarantee a meal, then either kill or chase off the big one. But then, the big one starts hooting and hollering and threatening them in a language they probably don't understand. This behavior is distracting, but also clearly some kind of challenge or threat.

So, does the troll:

A.) Stick the plan and go for the easy meal first, or

B.) Respond to the direct challenge to demonstrate dominance?

Which answer is correct depends on the personality of this specific troll. Are they more of an opportunist who'd grab what they want and run, or are they prideful and overconfident? The taunt prompts the GM to make a roleplaying decision in the moment about whether the troll is more on the "hungry" or "angry" side of "hangry."

On a meta level, the GM has to consider which would be more tactically engaging. If the trolls swings for the wizard first, then the guardian gets to pop off with their reaction and powerful attack, which is fun for the guardian and marks them as a dangerous obstacle. If the troll attacks the guardian, then the party gets a little extra time to get into position, while the guardian gets...

I love this analysis. This is how I want to GM.

YuriP Lets put it to the test.
Your the GM and set up an encounter for a level 4 party that includes a troll. The party is exploring a room, the troll is patroling the area and will enter the room after 10 minutes of activity. You ask players what they are doing for exploration.
PC 1 is a wizard, they decided to explore the southern area of the rooms odd writings on the southern wall. Your creature is a forest troll maybe there are some adds depending on the budget you wanted. Exause of player choices in exploration and the conditions you preset for the encounter your troll comes in from the secret entrance at the southern wall closest to the wizard. Less than one stride away bad times. No one succeeded on the perception check to hear it coming worse times.
PC 2 is a guardian was doing something a little over a stride away from the wizard and got to be first in initiative. Your troll is next followed by the wizard. The other two PCs whatever they are, are further away at the start of the encounter. And go after the wizard.
The guardian pc taunts your troll raises a shield and moves in as close to it as they can placing them 5ft away from the wizard and 15ft from the troll.
The troll goes next what does it do? Ignore the wizard now and go for the Guardian behind the wizard? The troll does’t know the consequences of ignoring the taunt and probably isnt going to rk about guardian abilities. What would the troll do here.

If you decided the troll went all out on the guardian then this happens. The wizard then feeling safe and assuming fire works on trolls(metagaming a bit but people do it) has ignition prepared. Being bold and reckless they move to flank the troll with the guardian then with its last two actions uses ignition.
You get the trolls reaction for the fire damage. Who do you attack with it?

is this a prepared or spontaneous caster?

That's not my point. What I'm saying is that the GM tends to respect Taunt for both thematic and mechanical reasons.

With this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that expect the GM to try to disrespect Taunt?

There's a high probability that feats like Proud Nail and Ring Their Bell will never be used because the GM can simply make the provoked creatures attack the guardian (what is the main intention of Taunt). Unless there are two guardians in the group, which would effectively make the creature negatively affected by both guardians, these feats would be the only thing preventing it from ignoring them and attacking other PCs, since it will suffer the effects of Taunt anyway.

So, with this in mind, is it really worth investing in feats that will never, or almost never, will have its requirements met?

i would consider a GM that never has any creatures assess their priorities and decide to disrespect taunt to not really be playing all creatures to their best benefit.

Just to make sure this ninja class would have key stat as Dex right?

shroudb wrote:

From the little I've seen, the main offensive capabilities of Guardians are against those who's ignore your Taunt.

So it seems counterproductive to try to build without it.

While I'm at it, if the GM (almost) never makes attacks that don't include the guardian, don't these punishing feats end up being a bit useless?

Because the punishment for attacking others without including the guardian is already quite high by default, and in roleplay terms, it probably means the enemy will hate the guardian a lot and will focus on it. Won't this mean that most of the punishing feats almost never have their requirements met?

Conceptually, it's a cool idea. But I can't really see it being used in practice except by GMs who attack randomly.

If the GM targets the guardian most of the time the party will do really well because more attacks will miss and weaker members will be able to get more aggressive. So win win.

It's worth noting that the Warpriest is balanced in part by only ever achieving master weapon proficiency with their deity's favored weapon, and only then at 19th level six levels behind when a normal Martial gets that upgrade (you also get expert weapons two levels later). There are some good weapons that are favored weapons, but it's not like you can go shopping for the exact weapon you want since there are a lot of good weapons that aren't the favored weapon of any deity.

I'm just not sure that people who want to play a ninja want to be appreciably worse at using weapons than the ranger, rogue, monk, inventor, investigator, barbarian, thaumaturge, magus, etc. Like I don't think that would satisfy a lot of people's desire to play "a ninja."

The other downside to "use the warpriest template" is that any time you give someone full strength casting you're going to make their KAS their casting stat, thus like the Inventor, Thaumaturge, etc. you're going to be -1 to hit behind a normal martial for fully half of your levels. Basically, "swinging your weapon" isn't that much fun for a warpriest in my experience. It's a fine third action, but you know this isn't your wheelhouse.

How would the idea of the +1 hit and DCs while concealed going to +2 while hidden change that?

Well if a player wanted to move through the string slimes space they really dont need to be fancy to do it with its dc. If they insist on backfliping over the slime then the 15 sounds reasonable.

What if the class was warpriest progression vlike you suggested Ryangwy but the class gimick was improved to hit and DCs while concealed adding improved precision damage while hidden.
Concealed is easy to gain and doesn't go away after attacking so the bonus shouldn't be much. But hidden is easier to lose until higher levels so the bonuses can be a bit better.
maybe only a 1 shift for hit and dc while concealed but while hidden it increases to 2 and melee attacks while hidden gains scaling precision damage.
Ranged and spells wouldnt add precision damage while hidden. they should get something different than just damage.
Maybe an action compression to sneak before or after using certain spells like illusions.

Ryangwy aren't you basically suggesting a full caster with full martial scaling?

I think a starless shadow witch could be a great starting class for a full caster ninja with the boost from a ninja archtype too.

So I’ve been following this thread with great interest, and I want to weigh in not just from a theorycrafting standpoint, but from actual weekly gameplay experience. Mind you, I am not well-versed in this system, so some information may be incorrect.

I'm currently running a 9th-level "Ninja" in a Kingmaker campaign — built as a Palace Echoes Kitsune Rogue using the Thief Racket, with Assassin and Shadowdancer dedications layered on. My focus is stealth, mobility, evasive resilience, and alpha precision damage. On paper? It works. But in practice? It exposes just how much the current system lacks to support the Ninja fantasy as its own thing.

You can preview the build here: https://pathbuilder2e.com/launch.html?build=1177828

Let me give you a sense of what this character can already do:

• 90 feet of movement per round while remaining fully stealthed, climbing, swimming, or even crawling — thanks to Fleet, Mobility, Cat Fall, Nimble Crawl, Rolling Landing, and Swift Sneak.

• Greater Darkvision, +2 to Stealth in dim light or darkness (Palace Echoes heritage), and Shadow Rune on armor (+1 stealth, +1 saves).

• Deny Advantage, Rogue Resilience, and Evasive Reflexes for potent defense — plus crit success upgrades on Reflex and Fort saves.

• Mark for Death + Sneak Attack + Incredible Initiative + 90ft of stealth movement = a very cinematic opener.

In-character, I lean heavily into the trope of the ever-absent shadow: unseen until spoken of, then suddenly there. Thematically? It hits. Mechanically? It’s patched together with duct tape and prayer. Everything I do had to be carefully picked from dozens of sources and weighed against what I had to give up to get it. I can get Taijutsu — the physical aspect — to work, but that’s where the support ends.

Where this “Rogue with archetypes” approach collapses is when I try to dip into Ninjutsu or Genjutsu:

• Want to throw a kunai with an ofuda talisman to cast Darkness or Fireball? Requires investing in another archetype with multiple feats — a...

This could be done actually by giving the class the doctrine treatment that clerics got.

All get the mechanic revolving around improving their chosen paths abilities while concealed or hidden.
That could be cool

Bluemagetim wrote:

I think it would be a waste to make a new class and just have it do exactly what other classes already do.

I think a new class would need a distinct mechanic not a conglomeration of rogue ranger and wisdom caster.

Except it's not doing exactly what other classes do, because other classes cannot even do it good. It's okay for there to be ven diagrams of strategic and tactical overlap. If the best one can say is "You can kind of be a ninja with all these concessions with this class," that's not "what other classes already do." That's "what other classes can partially do"

what you are describing sounds more like it would be best done with archtype that can be taken by any class to take on the ninja like skills and abilities.

One that prereqs stealth acrobatics and athletics probably. Allows you to make one of them expert at dedication.
Might also need to preq +2 str and Dex cause no matter the class you start as a ninja has to be athletic and stealthy.
Adds proficiency with some specific weapons make this a regional archtype and specific weapons becomes kind of sensible for the archtype (yes probably wasted on martials but thats the usual.) The weapons then are also a feature of the region in Golarian the archtype is from and not reality.
because its an archtype it can focus solely on the things you think make a ninja a ninja and leave the combat bent to the class you chose as your chassis (combat expressions vary quite a bit in existing tropes). That way you can make a laughing shadow magus to fight the way you want but the ninja archtype to be better at stealth and maybe add some ninja specific focus spells and feats. Some of the feats can focus on tracking, some on advanced focus spells, some on alchemist items like smokebombs. Be the ninja you want to be at the cost of class feats.
But this way anyone can pick the level of magic to martial they want by choosing their class and still be a ninja. And more importantly its balanced because its not creating some super character amazing at too many types of proficiency(the ninja it seems everyone wants is a full casting martial), its just using feats to add in level appropriate abilities to diversify an existing class.

Call the archtype Living Shadow? This way when you make one you might be thinking ninja but not everyone making one has to concept it as a ninja.
Edit: looks like someone copywrote that name already.

I think it would be a waste to make a new class and just have it do exactly what other classes already do.
I think a new class would need a distinct mechanic not a conglomeration of rogue ranger and wisdom caster.

These are some ideas for first level feats.

A feat to gain a level 1 Ninjitsu focus spell
A feat to dabble in alchemical items so they can have a daily supply of things like smokebombs

This would set up a choice to have no magic and still produce interesting effects.

We can make a solid ninja already with the existing game options but it wouldn't come on line at level 1, at least the character would need some levels in them to get the skill feats for movement and a spellcasting dedication for magic. If one were to be its own class and not a higher level archtype (which might be another way to go) then there are going to be a lot of what makes a ninja a ninja slowly given as you level.
Much of the class concept are already skill feats. Can a ninja character be a ninja if they can't do these things? And if no then would they be included in the class budget and gained at certain levels? maybe including class features that interact with jumping climbing and maybe even crawling in some way.
Skill feats like:
Quick Jump
Wall Jump
Rolling Landing
Quick Climb
Water Sprint

Conceptually I think sneak attack is not really their thing, at least not in every way a rogue does it. For a ninja stealth feels like the key to their precision damage not off guard.
maybe the ninja's thing could be playing into conditions like concealed, hidden, undetected, and unnoticed. Maybe they gain some baseline benefit as long as they are at least concealed and get more for being hidden, and something additional for being undetected or unnoticed.

Bluemagetim wrote:

That clears up a lot Guntermench. Thank you for posting those sections.

And I can see now there is no such parallel for the phrase You’ve become senseless.

The thing is...this has always been the wording. This has been the case since release, it didn't change with the remaster.

People just ignore it.

Well thank you. I'm caught up at least.

That clears up a lot Guntermench. Thank you for posting those sections.
And I can see now there is no such parallel for the phrase You’ve become senseless.

MTG is a game I'd say I have a good deal of familiarity with. Ive played it since revised. The key wording and technical language of it is not without its own ambiguity. Rules questions do come up all the time, and as the person who taught most people I have played with over the years I still get rules questions today. And those have changed overtime like damage no longer going on the stack or the way blockers are assigned. That game has its owns issues too but technical language suits its needs well. Using natural language isn't a weakness of Pathfinder that would be shored up with more technical language. Its a tact that was chosen intentionally for the brand, for its audience.
Here is what I can see as a major difference in this type of game vs MTG. MTG needs to be exactly the same in terms of outcomes every time especially for tournament play or you are indeed cheating. Pathfinder just needs to be right for the group playing allowing them to play the game their own way. Natural language can as we have seen create more table variation but table variation is not a weakness of the game. it is only a problem for people arguing about it here. Natural language makes the game accessible to a larger audience that doesn't need to learn even more technical language to play it. MTG has new technical language to learn every set as its gimmick but you only need to learn a few per set to play that set.
With the stunned example I can go with my interpretation and as long as my table is having a good time and we are consistent then it works.
NorrKnekten can stick with their interpretation and that's also good.
PFS situations has their interpretation for society play and decide it GMs have any leeway or not and thats good.
I just like to argue here. Probably do it too much. For those whose I have bothered with it, I do apologize.

Bluemagetim wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

I mean you’re right about MTG, a computer can run a game of MTG and resolve everything that comes up.

I would hate for Pathfinder to get so restricted in its writing and the outcomes it can provide that it becomes like a card game and it no longer needs people to GM it.

Pathfinder having MTG like rules would be a boon, not a bane. You can have all the flavor text you want and have clear mechanical rules. 1st edition Dark Heresy did it (really, all the FFG 40,000 games), 4th edition D&D did it, LANCER did it, etc.

Having a situation like Stunned, or boomerangs, or what an "instance of damage" is, as well as many others, doesn't add anything to Pathfinder besides needless ambiguity that detracts from the game.

Clearly separating how the game wishes the effect to be perceived (flavor text) from what the effect actually does (mechanics text) is better for everyone. You can still run into problems with them having conflicts, but it is much easier to adjudicate, and it also makes it much easier to ignore one side or the other if you don't find it fits with your game mileu.

And it will in no way lead to GMs no longer being required, anymore than clear rules have led to MTG now only being played by computers, against computers.

Wasn’t one of the stated goals of the remaster project to move away from flavor text in rule books?

My claim for stunned at least was that the first sentence is not flavor text.
It seems it wasn’t considered important to describe the condition by those who decided what would go on the GM screen. So maybe it wasn’t consequential and should be cut out as well is what I came after the conversation. But this wouldn’t be the only time the GM screen differed from the final remastered rules.

All due respect, are you sure you're responding to the right post? You've pivoted into completely unrelated territory here and it's incredibly jarring.

As for whether having less flavor...

I appologize.

Bluemagetim wrote:

I mean you’re right about MTG, a computer can run a game of MTG and resolve everything that comes up.

I would hate for Pathfinder to get so restricted in its writing and the outcomes it can provide that it becomes like a card game and it no longer needs people to GM it.

Pathfinder having MTG like rules would be a boon, not a bane. You can have all the flavor text you want and have clear mechanical rules. 1st edition Dark Heresy did it (really, all the FFG 40,000 games), 4th edition D&D did it, LANCER did it, etc.

Having a situation like Stunned, or boomerangs, or what an "instance of damage" is, as well as many others, doesn't add anything to Pathfinder besides needless ambiguity that detracts from the game.

Clearly separating how the game wishes the effect to be perceived (flavor text) from what the effect actually does (mechanics text) is better for everyone. You can still run into problems with them having conflicts, but it is much easier to adjudicate, and it also makes it much easier to ignore one side or the other if you don't find it fits with your game mileu.

And it will in no way lead to GMs no longer being required, anymore than clear rules have led to MTG now only being played by computers, against computers.

Wasn’t one of the stated goals of the remaster project to move away from flavor text in rule books?

Bluemagetim wrote:

You've become senseless and You can't act are both consequential statements.

They are categorical ones.
They are not ambiguous.
For me reading those two statements is clear about what they mean. And if we were not trying to find some in game mechanical key terms and just taking them at face value we all would know the creature cannot sense anything and cannot take actions while this condition is up.
If a stunned creature wants to try any action it can't, if it wants to see hear or smell it cant, a senseless creature cannot do those things., and thats true of either definition of senseless you want to use. You don't have to define a categorical statement any further and doing so will be a long list.

Bluemagetim wrote:

If the writers were putting text together that was meaningless at conveying what the thing does then it should not be included, they could save on word count. If they want to use descriptions that are not meant to say what the thing does but as flavor I would be in favor of just not having it there. The content should always be consistent. Like in food preparation its taboo to put inedible things on the plate.

Its a word used in context of being stunned meaning as not having all your faculties but i'll give you that meaning as you put it wouldn't work to mean without senses in the physical sense (albeit it wouldn't make much sense to think that was the meaning they were going for)

Taking the meaning it has to be in context and the natural language does work in this case.

While consequential they are not unrelated in neither meaning or mechanics. The first line is being explained by the second.

Unresponsive happens to be both a synonym for Senseless and the word used in the original text. It was changed from "your body is unresponsive" to "You've been rendered senseless" due to paralyzed vs stunned confusion really early on. "It's only my body that's unresponsive so I can still recall knowledge"

An unresponsive creature can still take...

If the GM screen omitted the language and that is the meaning they wanted then I withdraw my assertion that the creature is actually senseless when stunned.

Thejeff I was saying because the creature is senseless another creature could use sneak and become undetected.

I mean you’re right about MTG, a computer can run a game of MTG and resolve everything that comes up.
I would hate for Pathfinder to get so restricted in its writing and the outcomes it can provide that it becomes like a card game and it no longer needs people to GM it.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Its a word used in context of being stunned meaning as not having all your faculties but i'll give you that meaning as you put it wouldn't work to mean without senses in the physical sense (albeit it wouldn't make much sense to think that was the meaning they were going for)

Taking the meaning it has to be in context and the natural language does work in this case.

Even in that context, it isn't clear what effect "senseless" should have on a creature. Can an Ooze be knocked senseless? A skeletal Undead? Neither type of monster has the CNS needed to experience shock or the brain to have a concussion. Can a senseless creature take simple instinctive actions, like continuing to punch a foe or maintain a guard, as we see happen fairly commonly in the UFC?

You see how if we follow this rabbit hole, it just leads to a mess? If senseless were a keyword with a known rules meaning we wouldn't be having this discussion about a single status effect.

Oozes are a whole nother bag of worms. Like how does one even trip them? Why does it matter to the ooze what part of its...ooze is on the floor, its all ooze. Yet you can by the mechanics of the game trip one.

Bluemagetim wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Aware but unable to act is paralyzed not stunned. Stunned is being unable to act and not being able to make sense of whats coming in, that's the senseless part.

You can act while paralyzed though only trough purely mental actions, Stunned is can't act, full stop.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bluemagetim wrote:

A senseless creature can act so being senseless on its own cannot mean you cannot act. It means its own thing.

Except Senseless is not a synonym to having your senses impaired but rather a synonym for unconcious or unresponsive, Which is the issue. Even if you were correct in its meaning it would still need to define what "senseless" means in game terms. Just like Blinded says a whole lot more than "You cannot see". It also says

You can't detect anything using vision.
You automatically critically fail Perception checks that require you to be able to see.
if vision is your only precise sense, you take a –4 status penalty to Perception checks.
You are immune to visual effects.

It's not repeating itself just for the fun of it, This is also why conditions exists to codify and define common effects to effectively infer the same meaning elsewhere with a single word.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bluemagetim wrote:

In fact here you cannot act is not saying the exact words you cannot use actions yet it still means it. You are senseless means the in context most obvious meaning too.

Unlike "Senseless" we do have "You can't act" as a game term defined both in the rules regarding turns and The same thing is repeated in Gaining and Losing actions. We do not need Blindness to tell us everything that the Blinded condition contains for the same reason.

"Player Core pg. 436, Turns wrote:

Some effects might prevent you from acting. If you can't act, you can't use any actions, including

...

Its a word used in context of being stunned meaning as not having all your faculties but i'll give you that meaning as you put it wouldn't work to mean without senses in the physical sense (albeit it wouldn't make much sense to think that was the meaning they were going for)

Taking the meaning it has to be in context and the natural language does work in this case.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Aware but unable to act is paralyzed not stunned. Stunned is being unable to act and not being able to make sense of whats coming in, that's the senseless part.

You can act while paralyzed though only trough purely mental actions, Stunned is can't act, full stop.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bluemagetim wrote:

A senseless creature can act so being senseless on its own cannot mean you cannot act. It means its own thing.

Except Senseless is not a synonym to having your senses impaired but rather a synonym for unconcious or unresponsive, Which is the issue. Even if you were correct in its meaning it would still need to define what "senseless" means in game terms. Just like Blinded says a whole lot more than "You cannot see". It also says

You can't detect anything using vision.
You automatically critically fail Perception checks that require you to be able to see.
if vision is your only precise sense, you take a –4 status penalty to Perception checks.
You are immune to visual effects.

It's not repeating itself just for the fun of it, This is also why conditions exists to codify and define common effects to effectively infer the same meaning elsewhere with a single word.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bluemagetim wrote:

In fact here you cannot act is not saying the exact words you cannot use actions yet it still means it. You are senseless means the in context most obvious meaning too.

Unlike "Senseless" we do have "You can't act" as a game term defined both in the rules regarding turns and The same thing is repeated in Gaining and Losing actions. We do not need Blindness to tell us everything that the Blinded condition contains for the same reason.

"Player Core pg. 436, Turns wrote:

Some effects might prevent you from acting. If you can't act, you can't use any actions, including reactions and free actions.

...

Ok so back to this.

Um that first point. about paralyze allowing mental actions, you could be generous enough to assume we both know that. And really it again works against your point. A paralyzed creature has their faculties but cant flail about which is to be fair again the context I was arguing with right?
A stunned character doesn't have their faculties and cant even take mental actions. More to my point than yours, since a paralyzed creature keeps their ability to perceive and use purely mental actions.
Thing is if your writing these rules for people who are not trying to be overly technical and just reading them to know what they do, they wouldn't simply ignore the first line of text assuming it cant be part of the rules especially if that first line is saying something consequential.

You've become senseless and You can't act are both consequential statements.
They are categorical ones.
They are not ambiguous.
For me reading those two statements is clear about what they mean. And if we were not trying to find some in game mechanical key terms and just taking them at face value we all would know the creature cannot sense anything and cannot take actions while this condition is up.
If a stunned creature wants to try any action it can't, if it wants to see hear or smell it cant, a senseless creature cannot do those things., and thats true of either definition of senseless you want to use. You don't have to define a categorical statement any further and doing so will be a long list.

If the writers were putting text together that was meaningless at conveying what the thing does then it should not be included, they could save on word count. If they want to use descriptions that are not meant to say what the thing does but as flavor I would be in favor of just not having it there. The content should always be consistent. Like in food preparation its taboo to put inedible things on the plate.

I mean those are some serious circles to get to, the condition says it sure, but we dont have to do it because the writers didn't mean what they said.

To borrow some words from Obi-Wan
It's over Anakin, I have the highground.

Added in: Aware but unable to act is paralyzed not stunned. Stunned is being unable to act and not being able to make sense of whats coming in, that's the senseless part.

So what does this mean part. Its actually working against your point.

Same for Stunned,
What has happened?: You have been rendered senseless.
What does this mean?: You can't act, and lose actions as described later in the text

A senseless creature can act so being senseless on its own cannot mean you cannot act. It means its own thing. In fact here you cannot act is not saying the exact words you cannot use actions yet it still means it. You are senseless means the in context most obvious meaning too.

Grabbed
What has happened?: You're held in place by another creature
What does this mean?: you have the off-guard and immobilized conditions. Manipulate actions has chance of failure.

Being held in place does mean being immobilized and does result in not being able to defend yourself as well as you would want for that reason. The description is further defined rather than two separate affects being described.

The difference here is you cannot act and you have been rendered senseless have a lot more conditions and specific restrictions to list if they were to do it that way and they would have to invent some.
They would have to say you cannot take move actions, strikes, cast spells, or use any activities, you have the blind condition, deafened condition, make up a new for not being able to smell.
its easier to say you have been rendered sensless, you cannot act as long as people just take you at your word instead of getting so overly litigious/"flavor" text boxing your words to no longer mean what they would mean if you just took them for their common in context meaning.

Bluemagetim wrote:

If you need stunned to also provide other conditions then stunned isnt the condition doing it. Stunned is the condition that removes all senses by that first statement so it would not do something redundant and apply blind or deafened.

You are missing the point that "you are senseless" does not mean "your senses does not work". Besides, are we supposed to treat it as mechanical text when its interpretation is vague and has vastly distinct meanings like being knocked unconcious,insanity or being unreponsive? But yet we are somehow supposed to connect the correct meaning to game elements on an individual basis?

Even if that were the case we do have examples in the other conditions where there is the case that it does give conditions along with descriptive text. Such as Grabbed giving you the immobilized condition while also saying "You are held in place, giving you the Immobilized condition" and invisible stating "you can't be seen. you are Undetected to everyone", Not only to show where the relevant rules for being 'held in place' is but also to remove the very ambiguity that you are infact not restrained, just immobilized.

The context is being stunned so I would go with unable to sense your surroundings. Why make it more complicated?

Besides think about this for a sec. You are in effect taking the position that the words you are senseless is meant to mean you can sense your surroundings rather than the clear meaning you cannot.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Thing is there is no ignorable text. Its all part of the description for the thing.

We should run stunned taking into consideration both that the creature cannot act and is senseless.
That means while an enemy is stunned you can sneak to become undetected to it and then strike the stunned creature now that they are offguard to you.

While I tend to agree that you typically cannot ignore text, You really can't say thats the case here. What does 'senseless' even mean in this scenario?

Because then by using natural language we either have them unconcious which is alot more than just blinded, or just dazed which means all their senses still work but the character needs to spend time regaining their bearing which makes sense with the rest of the condition's text.

We know it doesn't knock you unconcious, and it doesn't blind you since it doesn't include the blinded condition, Can it make you unable to benefit from certain effects because you cannot think proper? Probably... GM call.

"A blast of roaring fire" doesn't deafen you, but its so much more effective at setting the scene than "range 500; area 20ft burst; Defence basic reflex save; You deal 6d6 fire damage"

If you need stunned to also provide other conditions then stunned isnt the condition doing it. Stunned is the condition that removes all senses by that first statement so it would not do something redundant and apply blind or deafened. Also its the only one that removes olfactory and tactile as there are no specific conditions for those. Besides most of blind and deafen affect actions which cant apply when you also cant act. Its not ambiguous, its an absolute statement. Ignoring it because they didnt spell out how to apply it though makes stunned much less impactful.

Thing is there is no ignorable text. Its all part of the description for the thing.
We should run stunned taking into consideration both that the creature cannot act and is senseless.
That means while an enemy is stunned you can sneak to become undetected to it and then strike the stunned creature now that they are offguard to you.
Where as you could not do this as easily and without checks against a slowed creature. Stunned is stronger in this way and it loses this if you treat the first sentence as meaningless verbiage assuming it was only ever meant to give “flavor” to the condition and not impact what happens.

So if you don't want to ignore that text you have to basically use the second meaning as the first one is a different condition entirely. And in that case, yeah suddenly someone could hide in plain sight against you because you're not aware of anything going on temporarily. But it works fine if you do. (Having been hit hard enough to suffer a severe concussion and lose awareness in real life, it definitely fits realism for me. That was a bad time.)

I'm sorry you had to experience that.

I think y'all are missing the point of Xenocrat's example. The first line of stunned isn't "you can't act". That's the second line. Its "You've become senseless".

Now I don't think I've ever heard an argument by someone that stunned means you no longer have sight, scent, or other special senses. But now that I've said that I'm sure someone will decide to do so in a couple posts.

That is a great example.

Stunned
You’ve become senseless. You can’t act.

If that first line is ignored than stealthy characters cannot sneak off and become undetected from stunned creatures with just the sneak action. if a stunned creature is sensless then stunning has more value.

If you ignore the second line which some people have wanted to do in the past then we get into the discussion between slow and stunned again.

Lol and there is a possibility with some of these things in the game that many people have just been running them wrong.