Chawmaster's page

You could use a D8 for the scatter around the Target square..

So, that's kind of what I was originally thinking, but then I realized it would probably give an unrealistic and unintended advantage to an alchemist by letting him still do automatic damage to a target he can't see. And if that target has a weakness to certain bombs, then it's even worse.

I think it'll just miss everything and/or get an appropriate narrative.

Thanks for the quick reply. I guess the next question is where did it land then?! For simplicity's sake, I have no problem saying 'nothing to see here' and moving along, though the 1e GM/player in me has the urge to generate a table to randomly determine the landing spot and slow my game down...

Last night the alchemist in the group was Blinded and his target became Hidden to him. He threw a bomb but failed the flat check. Does the bomb still land in the target's square as if he had simply missed the target?

That sounds about right, yes, assuming you meant "addiction" and not "affliction", which is a generic term for long-term problems that can get worse or better based on consecutive saves (including poisons, diseases, curses).

Haha. Yup. Addiction, not affliction.

Hi y'all,

I'm trying to wrap my head around drugs as a mechanic in PF2. Specifically, I am confused as to whether a drug is a poison or a disease. Here's my current understanding:

Drugs are poisons; Afflictions are diseases.

Is that correct?

I'm primarily using the following three quotes as my basis:

Drug (trait)
"An item with this trait is a drug, a poison that conveys short-term benefits in addition to harmful side effects and long-term consequences. Each time a creature uses a given drug it must also attempt a saving throw against addiction to that drug."

Zerk: "Alchemical/Consumable/Drug/Injury/Poison"

Afflictions (listed under Diseases on AoE): "and suppressing addiction by taking the drug only avoids the effects—it doesn’t remove the disease."

If my understanding is correct, then a person under the short term affect could be subject to Treat Poison (medicine skill) and a person under the long term affect of an addiction could be subject to a Treat Disease or Remove Disease spell?

Chawmaster wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I use Microsoft Word. It makes characters just fine. XD

Check out some of these amazing results! ;)

Those are outstanding!

When you say 'it makes characters', what do you mean? Do you mean it is great for final presentation of your character (but you generate the stats and descriptions with another software)?

I was joking. I created design styles for final presentation in Microsoft Word. I actually use Microsoft Excel and PathBuilder 2E to ensure accurate stats.

Ok. Wasn't sure if you maybe used an Excel file that then linked or imported those values into Word or something like that.

Between Pathbuilder 2E and Wanderer's Guide, I should be good to go for my current needs. At some point I may want to expand into more GM-related software for monsters, NPCs, or overall campaign building. Currently, I use Word and Excel for that stuff.

With the exception of AP 163 and Abomination Vault Player's Guide all of the adventure path material is in Pathbuilder 2e. Some of the items are occasionally renamed to remove Golarion specific names, as it operates under the Open Game License.

Thanks, Redrazors. Once The Raven Black pointed out how I had missed some stuff, I went back and realized I wasn't using your software as effectively as I could be (the filters, for instance). The app is SO intuitive and easy to use. Thanks for putting it together!

I use Microsoft Word. It makes characters just fine. XD

Check out some of these amazing results! ;)

Those are outstanding!

When you say 'it makes characters', what do you mean? Do you mean it is great for final presentation of your character (but you generate the stats and descriptions with another software)?

Chawmaster wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Chawmaster wrote:

I don't think the information from the Adventure Paths is in Pathbuilder. I completely understand why, but there's a lot of cool stuff in there that I would also like to have one-shot access to. I am prepping a city-heavy campaign to start about a year from now and loved all the Agents of Edgewatch feats, items, etc. Then I also thought about the other APs that are currently out and that will come out between now and then, and it started to get overwhelming... This is one of the things that led me down this path of looking at digital options.

I found the Bladed Diabolo weapon from Extinction Curse on Pathbuilder. So I guess it is only a matter of time before the AoE things are there too.

Just checked. They have the Fingerprinting kit from AoE 1.

Thanks for pointing that out. I just checked and saw they have the Recording Rod, too. I clearly didn't look carefully enough. I had looked for the Edgewatch Detective Dedication feat and didn't see it. I just checked again and still don't see it. But I could custom add those fairly easily with the very small upgrade price.

Interestingly, the Wanderer's Guide mentioned by Alfa/Polaris seems to have all the AoE stuff, too.

In Pathbuilder they call it the Detective dedication because IP I guess. Just as the Pathfinder Agent dedication is called Guild Agent dedication ;-)

Hmm. You're good at this detective stuff (see what I did there...).

Chawmaster wrote:

VestOfHolding wrote:

I know that Pathbuilder is missing some of the GMG things like the relics, but as far as general options what is really missing?

So, yeah, the buying of the information multiple times is the next level of the discussion for me. I don't think I would need to purchase four versions of things but even one digital version in one of those systems means I would essentially purchasing the material twice.

Stupid question maybe: Do people buy straight from those providers and skip buying the hardcopy materials from Paizo? Is that why the prices are so close to the hardcopy prices?

I wouldn't expect most people to buy as many online tools' data packs as I do, but I GM a lot, and see a lot of value in the roll20/Fantasy Grounds data packs. I tend to GM on FG and play on roll20, just due to how the numbers of players/gms work out.

For instance on Fantasy Ground, I can have a new PFS scenario ready to run in under an hour in terms of time to extract images/grid the maps, handouts, custom & non custom creature stat blocks, and prebuild all scaled low & high tier encounters. That doesn't need any of the data packs (except maybe the Bestiaries). So I wouldn't "need" the player facing content myself. But Fantasy Ground works best when you have the characters built with their full built-in automation. And since a GM w/ an Ultimate license can share content with free clients while playing, it incentivizes me to get all the content. (Most players prefer Roll20, as a GM I strongly prefer FG, so anything I can do to make the experience better for players is important). I haven't liked FG's prebuilt PFS modules, but I have liked their prebuilt APs, those are definitely worth it from the GM's perspective, and it comes with the player option stuff too.

Some places (FG at least) provides a discount on the data pack if you bought the hardcover or PDF from Paizo directly which helps a bit.

All three (Roll20, FG, HLO) contain all the rules content...

Thanks for all the info. I have started doing more educated research at this point, focusing on the character creation point of view for now. I'll try some of the free demos to get a better feel.

Chawmaster wrote:

I don't think the information from the Adventure Paths is in Pathbuilder. I completely understand why, but there's a lot of cool stuff in there that I would also like to have one-shot access to. I am prepping a city-heavy campaign to start about a year from now and loved all the Agents of Edgewatch feats, items, etc. Then I also thought about the other APs that are currently out and that will come out between now and then, and it started to get overwhelming... This is one of the things that led me down this path of looking at digital options.

I found the Bladed Diabolo weapon from Extinction Curse on Pathbuilder. So I guess it is only a matter of time before the AoE things are there too.

Just checked. They have the Fingerprinting kit from AoE 1.

Thanks for pointing that out. I just checked and saw they have the Recording Rod, too. I clearly didn't look carefully enough. I had looked for the Edgewatch Detective Dedication feat and didn't see it. I just checked again and still don't see it. But I could custom add those fairly easily with the very small upgrade price.

Interestingly, the Wanderer's Guide mentioned by Alfa/Polaris seems to have all the AoE stuff, too.

Oops, I think I hit 'Reply' to the wrong post...

I know that Pathbuilder is missing some of the GMG things like the relics, but as far as general options what is really missing?

So, yeah, the buying of the information multiple times is the next level of the discussion for me. I don't think I would need to purchase four versions of things but even one digital version in one of those systems means I would essentially purchasing the material twice.

Stupid question maybe: Do people buy straight from those providers and skip buying the hardcopy materials from Paizo? Is that why the prices are so close to the hardcopy prices?

I don't think the information from the Adventure Paths is in Pathbuilder. I completely understand why, but there's a lot of cool stuff in there that I would also like to have one-shot access to. I am prepping a city-heavy campaign to start about a year from now and loved all the Agents of Edgewatch feats, items, etc. Then I also thought about the other APs that are currently out and that will come out between now and then, and it started to get overwhelming... This is one of the things that led me down this path of looking at digital options.

Thank you. I'll check it out.

Howdy folks,

I'm not sure if this is the proper forum but I thought I'd start here.

Short version:

I am looking for the best software/online options for the purpose of character creation for PF2e. I would simply like to be able to mess around with the many great options for character creation and print out basic stat blocks.

Longer version:

I own the CRB, APG, and GMG, and have a subscription for the APs. And I'm sure the materials will keep coming and I'll keep purchasing new content. But each of these sources has different options for ancestries, backgrounds, classes, feats, equipment, magic items, spells, etc., such that I am finding it overly tedious and time-consuming to peruse options and make the variety of builds I would like to try. Honestly, it's starting to be a deterrent. To combat this Int drain, I've decided it's time to take a look at the digital options. I need all of those character creation options in a single, easy to use place.

I love the Pathbuilder2e app but it has a limited amount of the content I would like to draw from.

Many of you have so much more experience with this topic; any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hi y'all,

I'm toying with some concepts for a future campaign (like, a year from now) and found myself thinking about different scenarios related to dreams. I would love to hear any and all thoughts related to the following scenario/questions:

Let's say Freddy Krueger type villain exists and is haunting and/or hunting a single individual in his or her dreams:

1) What steps would a simple commoner try to take to deal with this (other than, hire a band of adventurers to fix the problem!)?

2) What steps would a low-mid level adventurer (with limited access to the dream world) try to take to deal with this?

I have fleshed out ideas for myself but I'd love to hear the ideas of other players and GMs.

Chawmaster wrote:

My other question is this: do undead have souls? From the description in the undead trait (infused with 'soul corrupting evil magic') and the description of the Devourer (who have 'the ability to bind other souls to their own'), I am thinking the answer is 'yes'?

A non-mindless undead has a corrupted soul; the fact that this soul is kept behind as an undead and disrupts the metaphysical cycle of souls through the multiverse is why Pharasma is so anti-undead.

A mindless undead has a fragment of a soul, as mentioned above, but it's the negative energy and magic that really animates them, not a soul fragment. A dead body can be animated into a mindless undead after its soul has been judged, but a sapient undead cannot rise in this manner.

Thank you again for the clarifications. These answers related to undead dreams and souls will help me solidify the plans for my next campaign (insert evil grin here...).

My other question is this: do undead have souls? From the description in the undead trait (infused with 'soul corrupting evil magic') and the description of the Devourer (who have 'the ability to bind other souls to their own'), I am thinking the answer is 'yes'?

Unless we specifically say in a creature's description, any non-mindless creature can dream. Undead included. Normally, a creature dreams when it sleeps. But things that don't sleep can dream at other times. A vampire dreaming in their coffin while they rest the day away is a great example of this.

Thank you for clarifying that for me/us, Mr. Jacobs!

So, I guess liches do daydream about world domination...

Basically, I was thinking about a mythos that included Great Old Ones and such, wondering if undead would be immune to interactions and influences that come through dreams, and if they would be unable to enter the Dreamlands through means of dreams. It seems simplest to simply rule that undead can't dream and are immune to such influences.

Depends on the type of undead.

Mindless undead are, well, mindless and so don’t have any cognitive functioning to speak of.

Sapient undead also vary a lot.

Lichs (actually most undead) for example, cannot become unconscious. One would assume that being unconscious is required for true sleep and thus true dreaming.

Vampires are immune to sleep, but can become unconscious. Would they dream while unconscious? Who knows.

Under the Unconscious condition, the CRB says, "You’re sleeping, or you’ve been knocked out."

That seems to imply that you can be unconscious without being asleep - which would be consistent with the vampire description.

Except I'm not sure what it's referring to regarding a difference in some undead resting, and some never resting.

Yeah, that's interesting. Not sure what that language is in there for.

Hi y'all,

So, yeah... In the PF2 system, do undead dream? Or, if the rules don't state one way or another, do you think undead dream - why or why not?

I like feeling powerful and independent.

I think this statement hits on another of my early feelings about the game; it feels like it's built intentionally towards teamwork or the tighter numbers system naturally encourages/demands more teamwork. Is this true? I'm not judging this as good or bad, I'm just wondering (I actually might prefer this in a way, not sure). If it is the case, then having a PC that feels more powerful and independent will depend more on the campaign design than the pure PC design.

In contrast, if any (or most of them anyway) of my PF1 PCs ended up alone in a scenario or was the last guy standing in an encounter, I always felt I had options (creative or powerful or both) that gave me realistic hope I could save the day in some way (it didn't always work out that way but I FELT that way!). In some of these early PF2 scenarios (most of which have been on the higher difficulty end from what I can tell), I've felt very limited in how I might change the tide of a battle on my own or get us out of a tight space.

@Liegence: I would say that there are adjacent concepts at work.

On the one hand you have taking big risks, making a stand, staying when it looks safer to leave, doing the long shot roll etc.; on the other hand you have taking actions with big effects, like a spell that changes the combat dynamic, a critical hit taking out a monster and so forth.

Those things aren't the same, but it tends to be especially sweet when they go hand in hand. I think we feel especially heroic if we take a risk making another attack at long odds and low HP, and get a crit that kills the monster just before it can kill us.

To me, all of the above are versions of heroic. My small amount of play time in PF2 - most of it one shot scenarios - has probably significantly limited many of these opportunities and given me a skewed view.

Thank you all for your input. The PF community continues to be generous with its knowledge! I've got a lot to chew on and definitely need more personal experience with the game to solidify some of my thoughts and opinions.

Pretty much. In short, because the player isn't rolling for the critical and instead the bad guy is rolling for failure, it creates and focuses on the impression that the bad guy screwed up instead of the player being awesome.

Yes, martials have bad rolls, but the difference is that the success/failure hinges on the bad guy's rolls and not the player's rolls, which creates the...

Yes. This. Psychologically, it's a different experience. Don't get me wrong, I'll still feel awesome that my action lead to a cool result but it is a different awesome than the fighter awesome.

Thanks for highlighting that, it definitely puts into words a chunk of what wasn't sitting right with me.

Personally, I've been pretty impressed with spell casters early on. At level 1, they don't have much I suppose, but cantrips can do better damage than a short bow and magic missile is really nice for clinching wins in tough fights. By third level, things like Invisibility come into play which redefine how certain issues are approached, and Dispel Magic just straight up one shots certain encounters.

By level 5, fireball and lightning bolt let you start really blowing stuff up. We just finished Age of Ashes book 2, and while the martials did tons of damage, I think the draconic sorcerer had the biggest impact between shutting down hazards and wiping out creatures. I'd call him the clear MVP, but the Ranger did a really good job of scouting and providing intel to let those spells be applied well.

I think my disjointed experiences with the 'one shot' scenarios has given me much too narrow a view of the overall capabilities of the various spellcasters. I felt the spellcasters were reasonably well designed, versatile (in the case of the wizard), and ready to contribute to any number of scenarios, but the lack of game time spent on scouting, researching, gathering info in town, etc. (due to real world time constraints), resulted in the less than ideal spell selections, pre-fight tactics, and pre-buffing. In addition, the lack of experience we all had as a group too often resulted in us sort of getting in each others' way at times (such as martials charging in before spellcasters could use AoEs, for instance).

I still feel the critical failure spell results were essentially non-existent but that was probably more luck than game mechanics.

Jumping from low level to high level as a caster can be a little tricky because you don't really get to feel out your spell list and see how your different level spells can work together. It can be easy to end up just picking some random spells that sound cool, but that you haven't learned how to get them best to stick yet, and pass up some spells that are better than they look on paper. I think if you keep playing you'll start to get a better feel for your wizard.

I totally agree about the lack of spell familiarity. I think I had a false sense of comfort with my spell selections due to my PF1 familiarity.

As I look back at my original post and think about what folks have said, I am starting to think that maybe my expectations of the new critical success and critical failure opportunities and frequencies isn't matching up with reality. I LOVE the idea of this new crit system; it seems like what should offer more 'wow' moments as a results for all types of PC builds. But my experience with it so far has been the martials and the martial-themed enemies dropping some awesome crits, not the spellcasters.

The main campaign I am in now (PF1) will run at least another year, so I'll hopefully have more time to gain experience with PF2. I'll be DMing the next campaign, so the more PF2 experience and insights I can gain by then will help my group and me make our best decision.

I've had a few heroic moments at higher level, not much at lower level. Low level casters feel pretty terrible. If you get some bad saving throw rolls on an AoE spell, you can really hammer.

My bard blew off his wand of vampiric exsangination and the main BBEG rolled a 1 critically failing, I did 104 damage to her along a few hundred damage spread among her henchmen. Then had a nice big pool of 52 temporary hit points that gave me a nice buffer.

I had the same happen with a phantasmal calamity against a group of mooks. Stunned the crap out of a few of them.

My bard has really turned the tide of battle with Inspire Heroics combined with Dirge of Doom or Inspire Defense along with haste here or there.

You get more heroic as a caster as you rise in level. But it is sure tough getting there for sure. Martials tend to do tons of damage almost from level 1. Whereas casters build slow until they get to start landing some big AoE hits and effects.

It takes some time and some lucky or unlucky rolls.

Thanks for the reply and highlights. Obviously, the massive damage scenario is always a blast (pun intended!) but the versatility of the bard seems intriguing.

You're experience of becoming more heroic at higher levels gives me hope because my experience with the 10th level wizard didn't go so well, lol. I don't think I've played enough to have a pool of experiences where the Baddie rolled a 1 on my spell and I got watch it get whooped a little.

Maybe I’m biased, but I’d give the Cleric an A. Team with a Cleric versus Team without a Cleric is night and day. Cleric healing is not matched by any other class, with effectively +4/5 of your highest spell level a day. Lots of options for stacking bonuses to attack or penalties on enemies, and utility spells as well.

If you want to build a Warpriest, you will generally want to dump Wis. It sounds weird, but all Wis does is affect your spell attacks and DC’s, but as it turns out you can rock a Cleric without using any spell attacks or DC’s. Your Font works via Charisma, and healing is the most important thing you bring. Then you’ll want to dedicate to Fighter for AoO, or Champion for the reaction. The shield block is ok at earlier levels, but the dedication reactions are much better In the long run. Cleric feats are pretty lackluster so dedicating is fairly easy to do without feeling like you’ve lost something.

My current Warpriest is probably my fav character I’ve played to date. Ragathiel as deity, I generally come in with a shield and when it breaks I switch my bastard sword to 2-hands and start leveraging true strike and weapon surge. In Fall if Plaguestones, most heroic I’ve felt is that my Warpriest, assuming 2hand mode, downed that one thing everyone complains about with weapon surge with my sword bolstered with magic weapon, and turned around the next turn and downed its maker with a crit off true strike, after healing the party through the encounter’s ample damage.

Sounds like an awesome Warpriest who can shine in multiple ways when needed! We'll have to take a more careful at how to build to our particular vision/role of a future Warpriest.

Building on what's already been said:

Teamwork is incredibly important in PF2.

Another thing to consider is whether you're facing mostly above-PC-level foes, or just below-PC-level. It makes a huge difference, especially for the wizard. Age of Ashes has a LOT of fights against foes that are one to three levels higher than the PCs, and the wizard in our group would get pretty frustrated.

PF2 really rewards planning and intelligence-gathering, but this falls into an area that's mostly under control of the GM.

As for healing, my group has two PCs capable of in-combat healing (cleric and bard), so they can split that responsibility and still get to do cool stuff of their own, most of the time. As a GM, hand out extra healing potions and elixirs of life every so often, so the melee types can take care of themselves when they need to. And be...

I think you've hit on several of the things that have had the biggest affect on our experience to date: 1) one-shot style scenarios limited GM prep, role-playing, and info gathering opportunities, 2) I think we all built individual characters we were interested in playing, rather than building a team, and 3) most every fight has been against higher level foes.

The bard/cleric sharing of duties is a great idea!

Some cool things I've done as a primal sorcerer the last few games:

Turn into a stag in order to charge a trap thingy and disable it with my boosted Athletics.

Earthbind a vrock to drag it down to the ground, which made it stop its Dance of Ruin which was really doing a number on us.

Speak with Animals to talk to a trapped really big dinosaur, so we could point it in the right direction before setting it free.

Kill two or three out of six foes at the start of an encounter with a Widened Waterball.

Slow has also done some amazing things against strong foes. Even if they succeed at their save, me giving up two actions to take away one of theirs is a fair trade, and if they fail they're just completely borked. Many monsters have special abilities that cost two or three actions, and shutting down three-action abilities entirely and not allowing them to combo two-action abilities with a move is super juicy.

Staffan,

Sounds like you've had better luck with spell selection than I did with my wizard too many times! I love the stag move and the use of Earthbind.

You are the second response I've gotten in this thread about the awesomeness of Slow, so we'll have to give it a closer look in the future. Our experience so far is that the Baddies have been rolling very good saves which has probably discouraged us from taking or using certain spells more often. We'll need to look more closely at the effects of spells even with a successful save. We've probably been under-valuing that.

Ubertron_X,

Thanks for the thorough, thoughtful answer. A few thoughts come to mind as I consider your comments:

1. PF2 seems more team oriented than PF1, which may take some adjustment on my/our part. That's not to say PF1 can't be played that way (my last campaign was played exactly that way with massive fun-factor) but I think PF1 has more spells and abilities that can be 'sudden' and change the course of the encounter more quickly and/or more severely. I don't think this teamwork style is bad but I think it's a different expectation.

2. It sounds like you had a clear and realistic goal for your battle priest, based on what a PF2 cleric can be down that path. One of the side groups I was in didn't really have much in-combat healing capability and got their buttocks' kicked hard at times because of a lack of a cleric!

3. Your description of the wizard's experience has been similar to ours. I played a Universalist in the level 1 and level 10 scenarios and found myself solid at level 1 and too often underwhelming in the level 10 scenarios (memmed 'wrong' spells, too squishy, fought a golem,etc.).

I love the increased grittiness (sp?) of the PF2 experience and think that has to be built into expectations when going into it, including during session zero building and planning.

Regarding your experience with your cleric: How often do you find yourself camped next to the fighters and healing every round? I ask because a) that is often the life of a cleric in PF1 and b) that was the experience in a number of the PF2 scenarios we ran (to be fair, we were running a lot more combat encounters than we were role-playing and story scenarios due to running these sort of 'one shots' vs a campaign.)

Darksol,

The examples you cite seem in line with the types of things our spellcasters were doing.

"That being said, I do agree that spellcasters needing to, more often than not, require the bad guys to roll horribly, to be cool and effective gives the illusory detractment of heroism."

Your phrasing, "illusory detractment', seems to imply you feel linking heroism in any way to the critical failure results for spells is not a great idea? I'm not sure I disagree but I wanted to make sure I was understanding your sentence properly.

Darkness can wreck a battle against humans if everyone in the party has darkvision. It's... Not hard to get darkvision.

Goblins are very popular in my pfs lodge, so this has happened a lot. We haven't been fighting humans as much recently though, but I still prepare it in case we do. If it gets any more rare I may just start keeping a couple scrolls of it around.

Sounds like a great tactic where appropriate. Was this a party plan from the get-go or did you guys stumble across it along the way?

The witch I GM for has had her fair share of heroics, primarily with Slow and Lightning Bolt. Slow singlehandedly won them an encounter, and she really enjoys being the party's primary blaster.

I guess it also depends on your view of what heroic is. The cleric I GM for absolutely loves throwing around fat heals every which way.

Thanks for the reply. I agree healing-focused clerics are legit but my PF1 players have been salivating for a battle-capable version of a cleric (which one of the PF2 players tried but found lacking in his particular experience).

Now I'm intrigued: I'd love some details of the Slow awesomeness, if you'd care to share.

Hi y'all,

My primary gaming group plays PF1. We love it for many reasons but, like many others, we don't love the action economy system and some of the imbalances that have developed over time with the many splat books. Since PF2's release, I have had the opportunity to play as a PC in a total of approximately a dozen sessions with a separate side group (level 1 and level 10 scenarios from Plaguestone and AoA). I've also DM'd a 5th level homebrew scenario with that same group to get a feel for what it's like on the other side of the screen. In general, I am very happy with many aspects of the new system, especially the action economy, the critical hit/spell result system, PC build-flexibility, and ease of teaching/learning the rules. I could see my main group converting to PF2 for these reasons and others.

Having said that...

Something about all of these sessions has felt 'off' and I only today figured out what it was: none of the spellcasters have had moments when they felt 'heroic'. That is, unlike the martial PCs who have their fair share of critical hits that do excellent damage and sometimes finish of the Baddie or change the tide of the battle in a single Strike, the spellcasters (especially wizards and clerics) simply haven't had any such sudden impacts. Yes, the spellcasters have done some different, creative, interesting things but overall, they seem to be seem to be moderate damage, 'support', or 'cool, I gave the Baddie a status 1 thingy'. In general, spellcasters have felt like adventurers, not heroes. I think the Critical Failure effects of spell DCs has the makings of the possibility of feeling more heroic but we never had that happen in any of the sessions.

So I wanted to hear from the broader, more experienced PF2 community about their opinion/experience. Am I missing something about spellcasters? Have our spellcasters simply had bad luck with rolls in comparison to the martials? Do I need to define being heroic as something very different for martials and spellcasters? I WANT to switch to PF2 but I can't see myself of my group doing so if being a Hero is not as heroic as we think it should be.

Thank you in advance for sharing.

No, they don't. Check line of effect on page 457:

Quote:

In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected. If there’s no line of effect between the origin of the area and the target, the effect doesn’t apply to that target.

I was reading that the same way but wasn't sure. Thanks.

Do spells (such as fireball) spread around corners? If you have a page reference for your answer, please provide it. Thank you!

“When wielding such a weapon in combat... you have the clumsy 1 condition because of the weapon's unwieldy size. You can't remove this clumsy condition or ignore its penalties by any means while wielding the weapon. Increase your additional damage from Rage from 2 to 6.”

If you rearrange the the rage bit, the sentence structure is fairly clear. The second sentence is there to specify that the condition can’t be removed by any means. The “but” is used to contrast the rage benefit from the condition detriment.

Thanks for the clarification. I speak 'math' better than I speak English...

The second. The last sentence you quoted is your answer.

Read on its own, the last sentence seems clear and I agree with you.

I think what's throwing me off is the "but" in the previous sentence, which seems to imply the condition is based upon the Rage.

I am confused about the wording of the last two sentences of the Titan Mauler instinct, which state:

"When wielding such a weapon in combat, increase your additional damage from Rage from 2 to 6, but you have the clumsy 1 condition because of the weapon's unwieldy size. You can't remove this clumsy condition or ignore its penalties by any means while wielding the weapon."

Does this mean you only have the clumsy weapon while raging? Or do you have that condition whenever you are wielding the weapon.

HammerJack wrote:

If your second grapple is a critical success, yes.

Because you used a second grapple, no.

Ok. Thanks.

A couple of other grapple-related questions...

The description of a grapple success is as follows:

"Success: Your opponent is grabbed until the end of your next turn unless you move or your opponent Escapes."

1. Does that mean that if the opponent doesn't escape the grapple on their next turn that I don't need to use an action the grapple him on my next turn?

2. Does that mean that the opponent automatically escapes my grapple at the end of my next turn (unless I let him go and attempt to grapple him again before the end of that next turn)?

If your second grapple is a critical success, yes.

Because you used a second grapple, no.

Ok. Thanks.

jquest716 wrote:

Grappling is fairly easy now in 2e (unlike that flow chart of doom), so the quick and dirty of Grappling: On your turn you take a single action to use the grapple action (yes its a single action so hit them with your sword a few times before you grab them). Next you will roll your Athletics vs their Fort DC (DC are 10 + the mod). If you succeed you give the opponent the grabbed condition (you are flat-footed and have immobilized condition. If you attempt a manipulate action while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; roll the check after spending the action, but before any effects are applied). And there you go. Additionally it is untrained so you don't have to be trained in athletics but it doesn't hurt to be trained in it.

if you hit them a "few times with your sword" before grappling them, you will have a -10 on your grapple check.

grapple has the attack trait so it uses MAP

Is there a 'next level' to a Grapple? For instance, if you grapple a grappled person again, do they become restrained?

Sorry it took so long to get back... work... gets... in... way...

Thank you all for your responses. I appreciate the feedback.

It seems that we are all in agreement that there is no clear rule on this one way or another, so it's up to us DMs to decide. Fair enough.

I think what's influencing my thinking the most (insert enchantment spell joke here) is the fact that if the subject of the spell fails his Will save he is under the affect of a Compulsion for its duration. To me, this means that he is not aware that he is being forced to take his particular actions each round; his mind has been defeated for the duration of the Compulsion. Even on a round in which he is to "act normally", he is still be compelled to do so and, therefore, not truly acting normally (the spell hasn't ended; he is still Compulsed).

I looked back at the spell description, which says this: "This spell causes confusion in the targets, making them unable to determine their actions."

And, under the confused condition, it says this:

"A confused creature is mentally befuddled and cannot act normally."

This seems to imply that the creature is essentially blissfully ignorant and will act normally, without knowledge he is Confused. Acting normally might consist of continuing to fight his enemies or heal an ally (even one he just injured).

The two views from DM Blake and Anguish about the memory ramifications is an interesting one. I would probably rule that unless the subject of the spell knew that he was the subject of that particular charm person, he wouldn't be angry about something he was never aware of. So, if the storekeeper was a wizard, was able to observe the spellcaster, and made a successful Spellcraft check (and then failed his save), then when the charm person wore off, he would remember that a charm person had been cast and probably have a clear opinion on the matter. Or, if the storekeeper's wizard friend observed the event and made a successful Knowledge Arcana check, he could tell his friend after the spell wore off that he had been charmed. But if the victim was a lone, nonspellcasting merchant, he would probably not know what had happened.

If you were a player in my campaign, how unreasonable would my logic sound to you?

Is there a clear Pathfinder rule to the following question:

If a PC fails a save versus an enchantment spell, is he aware that he is under the affect of the spell?

My gut reaction to the question is "No, of course not! That would almost defeat the point of the spell!" Yet, I can't seem to find validation for my gut.

The question came up when I looked at the APG spell, Cleanse. Cleanse has a range of 'personal' and one of its effects is that it cures the confused condition. Would anyone in the confused condition use the spell? I would think not because I don't think they would know they were confused. But some might make the case that a PC is not confused on a round in which they can 'act normally', so they would cast the spell at that time. That doesn't seem right to me.

So, there's my short question made long...

Thanks for any help.