Claxon's page

I think you have the actual routine there, I was going from memory and was thinking Divine Favor was a swift action spell for some reason (my memory has failed me).

I know there are a lot of options the Magus has that are swift actions, forcing competition instead of being able to do multiple in the same turn might be relevant.

In any event, as a GM I'd probably consider allowing conversion of swift actions into standard actions on a case by case basis, with an eye at looking at how it compresses an overall routine vs what is can be done with a standard action by the same character.

But that's why I also say I wouldn't look to generally allow it. Because as a GM I would want to review case by case, not just generally say I'm okay with it.

Claxon wrote:

I actually quite agree that we generally shouldn't allow swift actions to be done as standard actions.

I'm asking this out of genuine curiosity. No attempts at "gotcha!", not trying to set anyone up. Hoping for genuine, respectful discussion.

What swift actions would be too powerful/disruptive to be allowed as a standard? My personal opinion is that it would be a fine house rule. Giving up the standard action is a pretty big sacrifice.

The big thing I can think of, is not an individual swift action but being able to do multiple things that are normally swift actions on the same turn, allowing you to get "buffing turns" done more quickly.

The first example that I can think of comes from Inquisitors. (I may be a little rusty because it's been a while since I played PF1) Judgements are swift actions, bane is a swift action, and there are some buff spells that are swift actions. The difference in allowing a swift action to be done as a standard action can mean a difference in the ramp up time to peak damage for the Inquisitor. I think you run into similar constraints for Magus (Magi) too.

If you allow the Inquisitor to do swift actions as a standard, yes the potentially waste turn 1 buffing, and start turn 2 with their swift action buff, but they get full peak damage on turn 2 attacks.

Meanwhile, if you don't allow then they have to wait until turn 3. When combats often only last 4 to 5 rounds, not reaching peak damage until turn 3 isn't inconsequential. It was enough that I recall as an Inquisitor I would rarely use Bane unless the enemy was really tough.

Claxon wrote:

Man, this thread got crazy.

Very swiftly, too.

Toshy and others gave the RAW, legalistic interpretation for the original question.

RAW arguments aside, there are probably swift actions that should not be available as standard or move actions, and others that it probably won't be an issue to allow. Smite evil is the ability that probably should have just been made a free action (like rage). But here we are, reminding paladins that they are LG, and shouldn't be looking for workarounds.

I actually quite agree that we generally shouldn't allow swift actions to be done as standard actions.

However, LOH is a special case because the default usage of it is as a standard action, with a caveat of being able to do it as a swift action on one's self. Unfortunately they didn't use a slightly more permissive wording to say "may use lay on hands on self as a swift action", which I believe to be the intent.

Also because it doesn't make sense that you could touch someone else as a standard action, but can only touch yourself as a swift action.

I think the OP was asking more from a like a fictional lore perspective, not from a mechanics perspective.

Still it depends on what you're doing with the ship, but I think something like the Millennium Flacon, space for recreational activities, storage, real beds, etc are all available.

Basically, I imagine whatever space ship you have to be your home, and I would want my home to be comfortable.

I believe their body would slump down on the floor.

While a creature’s consciousness is within a mindscape, that creature’s body in the real world can take no actions and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC, but it isn’t considered helpless, as the unconscious parts of the creature’s mind still provide resistance to the creature’s destruction.

While in an immersive mindscape, the mind gets no information about what the body sees, hears, smells, or touches. Thus, if the body takes damage from an attack in the real world, the mind remains unaware of it. A binary mindscape, however, allows a creature to monitor its own condition in the real world.

At the very least, only the characters consciousness enters the mindscape, the physical body remains behind. And given that you lose your dexterity bonus I would imagine it's basically like being unconscious.

Well, let me take the back. I think a creature in a binary mindscape might be able to remain standing, but otherwise take no action. They have an awareness of their physical surroundings that makes me think maybe they don't fall over. But for sure in the immersive mindscape there's no awareness and I think you would probably fall down and drop anything that was held.

Man, this thread got crazy.

I feel like only an insanely strict GM would interpret the rules of Lay On Hands as saying that the paladin can only use it on themselves as a swift action, precluding them from using it as a standard action as they would on anyone else.

Swift actions are basically free actions, with the restriction that they can only be performed once per round. The idea of allowing paladins to LOH as a swift action was/is supposed to be benefit to the character, so they spend less combat actions doing it.

To read the rules of LOH and say "The Paladin can never LOH themselves as a standard action" just screams to me of someone looking for ways to screw over players.

Coming back to this thread, I did have the thought that in a 15pt buy campaign it might be somewhat hard to make a successful Paladin.

The 2 handed weapon using paladin I'm imagining needs Strength, doesn't need dex, but doesn't want to tank it either. Needs con. Doesn't need int, but could feel limiting with basically no skills. I won't say needs wisdom, but doesn't want to tank it either. And needs charisma for abilities.

Conversely, the fighter needs strength and con, has the same issues with dex and int. Arguably needs more wisdom than the paladin, but only for saves, and can relatively safely drop cha.

I feel like the paladin might be harder to feel good with than the fighter due to the point buy.

Many GM’s hate the feat and may ban it so check with you GM about it.

Yeah, I'm not personally a fan of the feat but I don't actually ban it. But I have told players in the past that if they pick up the feat, they can expect to see enemies with it. Players tend to really not like having decisions like who to attack made for them, so they usually opt not to take the feat out of the realization that the thing they're doing to me (as the GM) is a thing they also don't like.

Xenocrat has covered it well IMO.

But it basically boils down to "if the authority isn't following their own rules or isn't upholding their duties to the people they're ruling over" then they aren't a legitimate authority.

I want to clarify something. Tanking in Pathfinder doesn't really exist. There are a couple (literally like 2) of feats that will do it IIRC, but I think they're Halfling only. The reason I say this is because "tanking" is general seen as being durable and getting the enemy to focus on you.

Pathfinder doesn't have any direct mechanism to make the enemy focus on you, other than being perceived as too big a threat to ignore.

So I think you need to clarify exactly what the player expects their character to do.

Being durable is great, but it is worth noting that if you're too defensive your damage output can be minimal making the character one that will be ignored by intelligent enemies.

Personally, I do think Paladin's make great defensive characters because of their ability to self heal. Smite will let them deal great damage against evil enemies. And they can always wield a two-handed weapon with power attack so that their damage is always relevant with minimal investment.

Yeah, short answer is "suck it up butter cup".

Other than just purchasing new armor there's nothing to be done.

Depending on exactly what armor it is, you could maybe take off the temporarily un-magic'd runes off the armor and replace them. Putting on temporary +2 potency and resilient runes on the armor should be cheap enough to do temporarily. I assume the armor has +3 runes on, but straight replacing them might be too expensive. But being down by 1, while not great can be survivable.

My thought here is that "normal" armor is not itself magical. It's the runes you put on your full plate that make it magical. Take the runes off and put new on, and you've got functional magic armor again.

Worse case, buy replacement armor with +2 fundamental runes on it and get back to work.

Innate spells are a replacement for Spell Like Abilities of old.

Creating a class of "spells but not spells" was a bad idea that caused a lot of problems (SLAs). Innate Spells function like spells, except for how you get them and how often you can use them. Innate spells are granted often as a racial feat or as part of class kit/feat, but differ from gaining spells through normal class progression. Innate spells don't let you qualify for things that require spell casting.

But yeah, otherwise they function like Spell coming from spell slots.

There are some specifics (that vary class to class, source to source) between when and how Innate spells progress. The aforementioned attack/DC proficiency and spell casting attribute being charisma (unless otherwise mentioned).

Here is a bit of math I did about 5 years ago now, about using Power Attack vs Attacking twice.

In that case using power attack dropped expected damage from 11.975 to 11.075 but for a lot of reasonable cases increased the % chance to drop the enemy.

With +9 Glaive (1d8+4, Deadly d8, Forceful) vs AC 17

The 2 attack % to kill is better against 1hp - 8hp
PA takes the lead for 9hp - 14hp
From 15hp - 24hp 2 Attacks gives you better odds
From 25hp - 42hp PA once again takes the lead
43hp - 66hp 2 Attacks takes the lead with Power Attack capping out at 48 damage.

Funny thing is though, this isn't the way I'd analyze the use case.

The actual use case for Power Attack/Vicious Strike is when the enemy has a relatively high AC compared to your attack bonus (and no, I haven't done the math to see exactly where it kicks in). But if you're already at a disadvantage to hit at all, using Power Attack to deal more damage on the hits you're likely to make versus taking a lot of second attacks that you will miss because of the enemy's high AC + MAP.

And no, I am not an AI. I have been active on these forums for decades.

That's misleading Mysterious Stranger! I can look at your post history and see your first post was in 2011. So saying decades is misleading. You've been posting here for over a decade, but not two!

;)

To me Recall Knowledge is one of those weird spaces. A player doesn't necessarily know (really shouldn't know) all the creatures they're going to encounter. But in theory somewhere along the way, the PC encountered bits of knowledge about creatures, that's how they're able to identify them. From my perspective, however they gained knowledge about Sturztromers one of the first things I would think would be mentioned about them is their blindness. Other big things about it would be it's weakness to area/splash damage, along with it's Earthquake, Earthbind spells, and Landslide and Grasping Bites abilities.

If a player starts asking me "does it know any languages" I'm probably going to tell the player "in the heat of battle with this obviously hostile creature, you can't recall what if any language it speaks, but you know...."

To some extent I like that players are given the opportunity to ask questions. Because in the past bad GMs would tell their players things that technically fulfilled the knowledge check success requirements, but would be relatively useless to the party. The situation here is the players ask something that they don't realize is useless and the GM giving them something much more relevant.

Well, it wouldn't be a will save to disbelieve (or be foiled by something like truesight). But it would make sense to allow for a perception check of some sort to realize something was up.

Claxon wrote:

However, it also means that aside from trying to free themselves it makes sense for the party to recall knowledge against the thing. As a player, I'd say knowing that it is visual blind and only has tremorsense would be the top thing I'd want to recall about it.

The question is though whether they would ask the right question. Its senses shouldn't be given for free unless this question was asked I think.

It's not really a question players get to ask. They recall knowledge, and the GM decides to tell them what's relevant. Knowing you enemy is blind and only has a limited range tremoresense is a very relevant thing to know IMO.

Edit: Never mind, it looks like in this edition players are encouraged to ask questions about the creature, which is different from PF1 and how I remember knowledge checks working.

As a GM, depending on their successes and what they ask I'd probably still tell them about it's senses. Like if you ask "what are it's weaknesses?" Can't see you if you're not on the ground, is actually a pretty big one.

I've always fell into the camp that shove it only ever in the direction created by drawing a straight line through the two characters center of squares from the person starting the shove into the person being shoved.

Otherwise, it's a reposition which allows you to move them anywhere in reach. To me, if you can move them in any direction it's simply better than reposition in every way.

However, I now agree with a cone template of position options, but Finoan's first diagram example in this thread I would not consider a valid shove. Bluemagetim's first example diagram is how I view this working.

Claxon wrote:

Fair point about Disguise Self technically allowing for different subtype, but the end result (as already noted) is that you don't gain any abilities. So even if you changed your subtype to one with a bite or claw attack, you don't actually get those. Somehow you superficial have features that look like those, but they don't actually function. And same if you have those features and turn into something that doesn't have them, you new form will make it look like you don't have those features, but they still function. It's not until Assumed Form start to function like Alter Self where that might happen.

1] Attacks are not abilities.

2] Assumed form is a polymorph effect sisnce level seven.
3] The polymorph rules state that you get any attack your form has.
4] Assumed form lets you turn into creatures of your subtype that can have other attacks.
5] If you turn into a creature with attacks you don't have using Assumed form you gain those attacks.

These are not points i'm discussing, it's written in the rules.

What i asked is: Does Malleable Flesh work the same? cause if it doesn't you can attack with invisible appendages and since the transformation is real the enemy cannot disbelief it, making the situation absurd.

I understand what the polymorph general rules say, but you don't gain natural attacks from it. Because that's not how Disguise Self works. I get that this is a weird quirk of adding the polymorph trait to Disguise Self, but as a GM you would never convince me the ability is intended to add the attacks of whatever humanoid you transform into, because the base spell version doesn't. If it was intended to add Natural Attacks I would say it needs to call that out more specifically, than expecting people to draw the conclusion "oh because this becomes a polymorph effect, they'll totally get the natural attacks at that point". No, just no.

Now, when Assumed Form (at 15th level) allows you to use it as Alter Self, then you would get the natural attacks of that form.

The way I imagine a combat going (because long lasting flight isn't easily available) is the creature will attack the party when they are in contact with the ground. Most likely it moves into the party's squares, and uses Grasping Bites trying to restrain all the enemies. It's a pretty bad start for the party. However, it also means that aside from trying to free themselves it makes sense for the party to recall knowledge against the thing. As a player, I'd say knowing that it is visual blind and only has tremorsense would be the top thing I'd want to recall about it. After that point, it's really a question of can the party free themselves and take appropriate action. Silence isn't necessary, it just trivializes the encounter when combined with flying. Silence isn't one of those spells you prepare, but it's great in a wand or scrolls. Still, if you can get flying going using stealth so the monster is wasting actions trying to find people will be very effective.

Conversely if the party knows they're going after a Sturztromer and does any preparation they are likely to be flying and have silence ready to go when needed. Trivializing the encounter from the beginning, if the party can find it. Because honestly the thing is most likely to stay burrowing through the ground.

Distribution is interesting, and can be useful to talk about in terms of how it effects TTK.

But one problem is that generally speaking SD isn't really a factor in how features are designed.

Like with weapons, a d12 weapon has a wider distribution than the d6 weapon... but that's mostly just a quirk of the larger die size. The minimum for both is the same, and the average and peaks are higher on the d12, it's just better but also happens to come with more variance.

There aren't a lot of situations in PF where you get to make meaningful choices about your damage distribution on its own.

So while distribution is a factor in actual play, it's somewhat harder to theorycraft around because it's just a thing that happens, imo.

Agreed, and you're rarely going to have the extreme kinds of distributions that were given as an exaggerated example, to illustrate in an obvious way how it makes a difference. The difference does exist at less extreme ends, but usually isn't going to be terribly obvious.

Anyway, thanks for your input, it seems most people think it's viable so I'll try it out and tell you how it works out ^^

I think most people have said "You don't even need a caster to be the main healer"

So yeah. I would encourage you to tell your party members that they should also take healing potions/elixirs with them and be at least partially responsible for their own emergency healing needs in combat, rather than expect you to be their band-aid.

Agreed 100%

Fair point about Disguise Self technically allowing for different subtype, but the end result (as already noted) is that you don't gain any abilities. So even if you changed your subtype to one with a bite or claw attack, you don't actually get those. Somehow you superficial have features that look like those, but they don't actually function. And same if you have those features and turn into something that doesn't have them, you new form will make it look like you don't have those features, but they still function. It's not until Assumed Form start to function like Alter Self where that might happen.

I also vaguely recall there was some kind of subsystem for gauging your opponents level/abilities using some skill but can't remember what it was at this point.

Edit: Recall Intrigues

Recall Intrigues (Knowledge)
Source PPC:SpyHB

You can identify feats and the class features of various classes with successful Knowledge checks when you observe the feats or class features being used.

Check: You can attempt a skill check to identify a feat or class feature when you observe it in use, similar to how Spellcraft can be used to identify a spell. The feat or class feature must have some observable effect in order for you to attempt the Knowledge check. For example, you can’t see the internal determination of Iron Will, so this ability can’t identify that feat. In general, if a feat or class feature creates a noticeable effect (such as the extra attack from using Cleave) or has a variable modifier a character must choose to use (such as Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, or Enlarge Spell), it can be identified. If it creates a static bonus (such as Dodge or Lightning Reflexes), there’s no telltale sign to give it away.

Task Knowledge Skill DC
Identify a class feature from a class that grants arcane or psychic spells Arcana 10+ class level when the feature is granted.*
Identify a class feature from a class with access to the druid or ranger spell list Nature 10+ class level when the feature is granted.
Identify a class feature from a class that grants divine spells Religion 10+ class level when the feature is granted.
Identify a class feature from any other class Local 10+ class level when the feature is granted. *
Identify a combat feat being used Local 10+ character’s level
Identify a metamagic feat being used Arcana 10+ character’s level
Identify teamwork feat being used Nobility 10+ character’s level
*Add 10 to the DC if the class is a prestige class

The Knowledge skill required to identify a feat or class feature varies depending on the type of feat or class feature to be identified and is outlined in the Recall Intrigues (Knowledge) table above, along with the DCs of such skill checks.

They absolutely don't work the same.

Assumed Form spells out pretty clearly what it does.

It works like Disguise Self. At 7th level it's a polymorph effect, instead of illusion (you're body is physically changed), At 11th level it last indefinitely. At 15th level, you can also gain the size bonus change to your ability scores, as if you were using alter self (meaning you can get a bonus to strength or dex depending on what you chose) and darkvision, low light vision, scent, and swim if the thing you're turning into has that.

The main thing with the polymorph tag onto Assumed Form is it prevent you from using any other polymorph effect. You would technically gain any natural attacks (once you get to 15th level, because prior to that you can only use the disguise self version which doesn't allow for changing of creature type, just changing your appearance). And again with the "polymorph size change" bit, it would only apply at 15th level because again your creature can't be changed with disguise self. At 15th level, as a GM I would rule the effect from Alter Self override the normal part of polymorph ability score changes.

I guess prior to level 12, the abilities work very similarly. At 12th level Malleable Flesh allows the user to slip through tiny cracks. And then at 15th level Assumed Form works like Alter Self.

I guess your question is, should you apply the restrictions of polymorph to the Malleable Flesh ability...and if that's the case then yes I think that makes sense. Of course they're mostly not relevant, since Disguise Self only alters your appearance to the same creature type (including subtype), it does not allow for different races. So you can look like a different human, but still a human.

Of course at 19th level advanced stealthing and a lot of concealing spells are already in action, which would make the fight trivial if PCs would want to make it so.

That's ultimately my point. If you're high enough level to be bumping into one of these things, chances are you've got the tools to trivialize the fight. It's really as simply as flying and silence. And assuming the PCs can identify that it's blind and only has tremorsense as a precise sense it isn't unreasonable to think the PCs would end there turns by using stealth. Cause yeah, if the creature does locate you and get you on the ground you're going to have a real bad time.

Claxon wrote:

DPR calculators are immensely helpful when evaluating two specific character options.

For example, how will Vicious Strike (formerly Power Attack) impact my characters abilities...

The vast majority of calculations I've seen done merely calculate average. Now that's useful, but not the end of the story. Distribution is important. Multiple attacks vs. vicious strike is a good example; because multiple attacks derives more damage from crit hunting (and lower chance of complete miss), you can get situations where it's calculated average is higher but the most probable damage amount you get in any given round is lower.*

Using "average only" to decide what feats or strategies to use is particularly problematic given that you may only make 9-12 attack rolls per session. Thus, basing your feat choice or combat strategy decision solely on the average is to somewhat fall for the small numbers fallacy. I mean, it's a definite step up from no information at all, but it's not necessarily giving you the optimal strategy for every situation or every play style.

*For those who don't understand this, here is a toy example: imagine two feats each of which lets you roll a d20 and apply some damage. Feat #1 says: a roll of 1-18 causes 1 damage, a roll of 19-20 causes 22 damage. Feat #2 says: a roll of 1-20 causes 3 damage. The average damage of Feat #1 is 3.1, which is higher than Feat #2's average of 3. So all those calculations people run? They're going to tell you to pick Feat #1. Every time, all the time. No matter what. Because they only consider the average and base everything on it. But if two PCs are using these two feats head-to-head, the PC who picked feat #2 is going to do more damage most of the time i.e. on most rolls. So depending on your play strategy and the sort of combatants you face, Feat #2 could often be your preferred choice. The average is not the end-all, be-all of metrics.

Yeah, this is good example of the problem and applying it beyond where it's useful (even though it might look like it's useful). Because the effect is so extreme of feat #1 in the example, it's not really a useful comparison because we need also need to look at the probability distribution (which is not a part of typical DPR). And that is where people will run into a difference between actual play experience and expectations. Yes, that chance to deal 22 damage is amazing, but it happens only 10% of the time. 90% of the time that will deal less damage. And in many cases the 22 damage would be overkill, or not occur in the fight at all.

And that's why some people calculate DPR over not just one 3 action turn, but over say 4 rounds of combat because it can help to illustrate these issue.

Claxon wrote:

To clarify my previous post, because the Struztomer has no regular vision only tremorsense, it is effectively blind to anything not touching the ground. Therefore, it is unable to target anything not touching the ground.

Well, you could should allow it the usual targeting of Hidden targets I guess.

Thing is, the PCs wouldn't count as Hidden.

Hidden says:

A creature that's hidden is only barely perceptible. You know what space it occupies, but little else. Perhaps the creature just moved behind cover and successfully used the Hide action. Your target might be behind a waterfall, where you can see some movement but can't determine an exact location. Maybe you've been blinded or the creature is invisible, but you used the Seek basic action to determine its general location based on hearing alone. Regardless of the specifics, you're off-guard to a hidden creature.

The creature wouldn't even know what square a flying PC was in. The creature could use Seek to try to determine location based on hearing, I guess.

So at the start of an encounter, the creature (after it is attacked presumedly) would use the seek action to try to locate the flying PCs using hearing. They would start as Undetected and a successful Seek would make them Hidden.

So if you're fighting this creature, pack some flying and silence spells . Honestly it will probably just burrow and run away, but it can be pretty easily countered, unless you stumble upon it underground where there isn't room to fly.

Claxon wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

I will have to disagree with the ruling, its not RAW, RAI and I feel like it detracts one of my favorite parts about the Ready action.

You are free to disagree with me.

I will admit your interpretation is more likely supported by the rules, to the detriment of the game in my opinion. It's one of the worst parts of the rules in my opinion. Something they got right in Starfinder, and forgot the lesson in PF2.

Except that Starfinder also allows you to use Guarded Step with Ready an Action, is that not considered defensive and would happen before a melee strike that trigger them? Or is that rule you mention from another source?

Otherwise.. yeah, "fun" is subjective and your table is not my table.

Starfinder rules say:

The example given of a purely defensive action is total defense. My group's evaluation of things we decided that readying to move didn't qualify as a "purely defensive action".

To clarify though, we do allow Reactions to interrupt if that is the intended point of the reaction, akin to the Rogue's Reactive Distraction.

WatersLethe wrote:

"DPR is incredibly misleading and not very useful".

And I think a lot of people are mislead by this assertion, thinking that DPR calculations are actually misleading and not helpful.

The problem arises because some people try to take them out of the context the belong in.

DPR calculators are immensely helpful when evaluating two specific character options.

For example, how will Vicious Strike (formerly Power Attack) impact my characters abilities.

I'm not going to do all the math, or find the break points, but you could use it to evaluate how much the enemy's AC needs to be above your to hit value such that Vicious Strike is an increase in damage per round over making two regular strikes in a turn.

However, people could mistakenly come to a conclusion that oh, they should make 3 attacks in a round because that leads to a greater DPR (but it will be miniscule because of poor chance to hit) rather than doing something like moving away from the enemy or raising a shield.

DPR is a useful tool within a certain context. The problem is that people often try to use the tool where they shouldn't.

The truth is that people who overly focus on DPR forget the wider context of the game, and that damage isn't the only thing you should care about. But the decriers of DPR forget that dealing HP damage is the primary and common way of dealing with threats to the party (in combat). So it makes sense that you should evaluate how options impact your ability to do that.

However the truth is in the middle ground. Understanding the limits of DPR as a tool, and knowing that DPR isn't the only thing you should concern yourself with. And I suspect many people realize this. It's just those voices in the middle ignore the extremes at both ends and decide not to bother trying to correct either of them.

I will have to disagree with the ruling, its not RAW, RAI and I feel like it detracts one of my favorite parts about the Ready action.

You are free to disagree with me.

I will admit your interpretation is more likely supported by the rules, to the detriment of the game in my opinion. It's one of the worst parts of the rules in my opinion. Something they got right in Starfinder, and forgot the lesson in PF2.

To clarify my previous post, because the Struztomer has no regular vision only tremorsense, it is effectively blind to anything not touching the ground. Therefore, it is unable to target anything not touching the ground.

Again, personally the best way to play (in my opinion) is simply to state that unless an ability explicitly specifies that it can disrupt, that you cannot separate the start of an action (for example setting a trigger of "starts to attack") from the resolution of the action.

From a GM and player perspective it's the more fun way to play.

Players are always looking at this issue from the standpoint of "oh, I love interrupting the enemy this way".

But I taught my group a lesson around this topic, which is how we settled on our house rule.

Run a combat with several enemies that are 1 level below the party and have them all readying actions to interrupt all typical things they do. Part way through the extremely frustrating combat, the players realize the point and agreed that it was frustrating for them to deal with and understood it was frustrating for a GM to deal with as well.

Yeah, it's a pretty strong ability. At the same time, a Sturztomer has only tremorsense and no regular vision. You defeat it by flying above the ground and shooting it to death (or it runs away).

It funnily enough has a spell to counter flying, but it can't actually use it unless the creature is touching the ground.

Can you clarify?

Are you looking for a deity that will support a character who simply doesn't care what others do or think?

Or does you character not care about their relationship with their deity. They're just kind of like "eh, whatever, guess I have these magical powers". Cause I struggle with the concept of a cleric doing that (but an oracle I don't).

If it's the first one, you just need to find a deity that focuses more inwardly that outwardly.

I think there a lot of deities that could fit it. So tell us a little more about what the character is interested in, besides minding their own business.

Ineligibility doesn't make sense, because if they're unable to take the action, then they can't... take the action.

Either the creature has spent an action on a strike, in which case of course they'd make the strike because that's what they're doing, or they haven't and they don't 'lose' an action because they haven't spent it yet.

Trying to argue the action should both happen in response to a trigger yet also pre-empt that trigger doesn't really make sense and isn't supported by anything either.

Disrupt is a specific mechanic operating in its own rules space, and trying to extrapolate anything general from it is a mistake.

Either they Strike or they don't.

Yeah, it's a logical problem that existed in PF1 and was never sufficiently resolved.

It's why I mentioned my group just imports the rule from Starfinder that precludes this issue from happening. Readying to do something from an attack is generally not going to be helpful if you goal is to make the attack not happen. If you want to use a defensive action that increase your AC or something like that then you're going to be alright, but this scenario simply isn't possible with our clarification/houserule. No paradoxes! You can't have an attack start to trigger a readied action, but be unable to complete the attack.

Claxon wrote:

the rules that I can find on readied actions are pretty silent on whether or not they can "interrupt"

The rules actually aren't silent on the matter.

There is a defined game term of Disrupt that is used for all reactions that can cause the target to lose the actions spent and have the effect of those actions not take place.

Ready does not say that it can Disrupt actions.

So if the trigger is 'an enemy starts an attack' then the Ready reaction cannot Disrupt the attack that has already started.

Both the Strike that the enemy is making and the Readied Stride that the ally is using are events that are happening at the same time. And the rules for Limitations on Triggers mentions that if things are happening at the same time, the GM can determine the order that they happen in.

So in the case of a Readied Stride to move away from an enemy after they start an attack, having the Stride take effect first and then causing the Strike to be used to no effect is an incorrect ruling. It is causing Ready to Disrupt the Strike action when it does not have that ability.

That's a very reasonable way to interpret it, but the problem is needing to know and agree the disrupt trait exist and agreeing that something (like a readied action) lacking that trait or mention in it's description means that it can be used to disrupt. And then you also have the problem of a player trying to come up with a trigger that is different enough to achieve the same result.

If you use a trigger of an enemy ending their movement in melee range of an ally, you can't force them to "waste" their attack action, but you could force them to need to spend another action to move or have no available target. However, this example is probably intended usage.

Personally, the group I play with took the general rule from Starfinder first edition that purely defensive triggered/readied actions happen before the trigger, and offensive triggered/readied happen after. It removes these kinds of issues and makes things simpler.

However, the base rules do seem to allow for you to set of trigger of "when they attack an ally" and use the action to move the enemy away from your ally.

Edit: There is some question whether or not the trigger would need to be "moves next to ally" or "attempts to attack ally" as the rules that I can find on readied actions are pretty silent on whether or not they can "interrupt" but you can achieve very similar results by changing the trigger.

What about 2 handed weapon fighting, like a maul? If there’s nothing good for that might stick to warhammer and shield.

Two-handed weapons are so good on their own that they don't really need any additional feats to make you better at it. There's not a lot of feats that are based on requiring two-handed weapons.

But there are several feats that are weapon agnostic, and two-handed weapon fighters can pick those up to expand the repertoire of what they can do.

At level one, especially because you're a dwarf, sudden charge is attractive to be able to cover more distance to the enemy.

There is also Power Attack, but power attack is much more situational in PF2. It's good if you have a high AC enemy and are having trouble hitting, because it gives you extra damage on a single hit. However it takes 2 actions, so if you can regularly hit on your second attack in the round, you deal more total damage that way.

Intimidating Strike and Shatter defenses are also good with a 2 handed weapon built.

And lunge is great with two-handed reach weapons. I'm a big fan of the guisarme for a 1d10 reach weapon with trip.

And blind fight is a great feat for any fighter.

The best part of playing a 2 handed weapon fighter is there aren't any feats "required" to make your build work. It just works. Other fighting styles need feats to keep up with what that can do by default. You get to pick feats to do whatever additional things you want.

I'm personally a big fan of Intimidating Strike and Shatter Defenses. Also blind-fight is an incredible feat in this edition.

Yeah, fighter is pretty straightforward.

If you tell us a little more about what you envision your fighter doing, we can help you pick a some class feats to help ensure your character is effective.

The only thing I would mention in advance is some things already mentioned.

You probably want to build for melee, strength is your primary focus followed by con. Take Unburdened Iron Dwarf feat to not be slower in armor. You wont be able to afford full plate at level 1, but you should be able to by level 2.

Whether you want to wield a one handed weapon and shield, or two handed melee weapon, or even use brawling weapons there are things that make all play styles viable for a fighter.

...it might be the reddit effect...

I used to use Reddit a lot, but the quality had gone down over time and when they killed off third party apps I quit using it altogether.

I suggest you avoid Reddit for Pathfinder (and D&D) related things.

Considering the feats could be "slid" around I would simply pretend that's the case, and pretend the only need to retrain the armor proficiency for another feat that they could have selected at level 11.

I'm only of this opinion though because they could have taken the other feats rather than taking armor proficiency. In the end the build is still legal and the character only have 1 different feat.

If you follow RAW it's a huge headache to reach essentially the same result.

I honestly hate when things that could have been text are instead turned into a video, but maybe I'm just old.

Especially for lengthy detailed things.

I cut portions of text to respond to. I can think and make a detailed response myself.

With a video....none of that is happening.

I only like video where a visual of something can be incredibly helpful in ways that words cannot describe. Like the assembly or disassembly of something.

Also (and not saying this was OP's intention) but a ton of people post youtube videos trying to get internet famous/clout and get "youtube monney" and I'm not interested in participating in that.

Most healing, in my experience, is done out of combat with the treat wounds or a focus spell (like Lay on Hands). When you would use spell slots or other non-renewable resources to heal is "during combat, as needed." So to be a main healer, basically all you need is a good Medicine skill modifier and the Continual Recovery skill feat.

But in terms of "healing with spells" the downsides of the warpriest vs. the cloistered cleric are:
- If someone was inclined to counteract your heal spells they're going to have an easier time because of your lower proficiency.
- You might have some other combat loop you'd rather be doing than keeping people up, which is why you chose warpriest.
- The rare AoO, which is honestly not something you need to worry that much about.

But I've been in parties where the barbarian was the main healer, so a warpriest can do fine.

This is what I came here to say basically.

The baseline for "good healer" in my book is having the medicine skill and picking up the appropriate skill feats. Potentially taking the medic archetype too. Getting people back up to full hit points is for outside of combat and should be done without using limited resources (like spells).

Spells are emergency healing. It's good to have it for when things go poorly, but in my mind it shouldn't be the main plan. Potions are also valid to fill this role. And everyone in the party should carry a few (though I understand sometimes the action economy of actually using them mid combat can make them cumbersome, but equally so for a caster to use healing magic).

In any event, I say that to say don't worry about "healing". If you're already good with taking medicine and possibly the medic archetype everything else is icing on the cake. But make sure the party understands you're not a band-aid and they will be at least partially responsible for keeping themselves up in combat.

So play what you want to play.

Claxon wrote:

That sort of falls in line with my thinking above. A blowgun is a light (and relatively small) weapon so it makes sense that it might be able to drawn unobtrusively. However, even though a javelin is also a light weapon, javelins are generally long weapons. At least the kind of javelin I'm familiar with, so I wouldn't allow that to be drawn inconspicuously. Even atlatl darts that I'm familiar with are so long that I wouldn't allow them to be drawn unobtrusively.

I don't think bulk alone is good enough guidance.

Although...maybe in the sense of "throwing your players a bone" you just allow anything of Light bulk even if some items don't really fit in my mind.

If you're out of line of sight when you draw it there's a good chance that an IRL guard wouldn't even notice the end of a javelin sticking out past a desk or pillar. Unless you're actively looking for something people are remarkably change blind and prone to flat-out ignoring things they don't expect to see.

I'd generally err on the side of the player trying to be stealthy in light of the very real examples of how often people fail to see things.

I understand what you're saying, but drawing a weapon isn't even specifically an example of things that count as an unobtrusive action. Reloading specifically was the example given. We're already looking at extending that to cover more things.

As a GM, if a player pushed too much or if I was worried about balance between players I'd be more likely to rule no one can draw a weapon than allow only some weapons. Or maybe I'd just say screw it and allow all weapons. Probably just a gut check as it's happening.

Claxon wrote:

In my mind, I think the shield even when not held, interferes with using a weapon.

That’s my take as well, but I don’t think the rules back me up, so I’m probably going to keep letting the Champion PC two-hand his bastard sword with a shield strapped to his arm.

With needing to spend an action to grasp either sword or shield, and even if you allow releasing as a free action twice in one turn, the player will be spending 2 actions on grasping (if they want to have the shield benefit) and will need to spent a feat to get a free Raise shield action.

Honestly losing a single action to grasping is probably enough of a penalty on its own that everything else doesn't matter.

I think the Bastion feat Nimble Shield Hand can give us some clarity.

Nimble Shield Hand wrote:

The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. You can also hold another object in this hand (but you still can’t use it to wield a weapon). This benefit doesn’t apply to tower shields, which are still too cumbersome.

The way I read it, this feat allows you to have a "free hand" and still be wielding the shield. So the implication is that without this feat, you can treat your shield hand as a free hand, but then you can't also be wielding your shield.

This does imply that the OP is doing it correct, as long as you use an action to regrip the shield before using it.

The way I read this is, for the OP's player who doesn't have this feat (probably) that by releasing the shield they could mostly treat is as a free hand, but it does have the specific caveat that it can be used with a weapon.

In my mind, I think the shield even when not held, interferes with using a weapon. There are a couple other places that I think support this interpretation (specifically the buckler rules). If you wear a buckler you can benefit from it while holding an item in it (kind of like Nimble Shield Hand feat) but it still specifically precludes using a weapon.

Although maybe the benefit with a buckler/Nimble Shield hand is that you can use your shield (via Raise) while still having items in your hand and potentially doing other things.

It may be allowed that if you're willing to forgo benefits from your shield altogether that you can wield a weapon with that hand. It's not super clear to me whether or not a shield does/should interfere in such a way that it stop you from utilizing a weapon in that hand even if you give up it's use (but still have it strapped to your arm).

Since this thread was brought back up, I feel I should point out the recent Errata/Clarification on the subject.

Player Core (Fall 2024) wrote:

Page 245: We've added a couple examples of unobtrusive actions that don’t cause you to become hidden or observed. This should make it clear for a couple common circumstances and help guide the GM in deciding what other actions might qualify. In the Being Stealthy sidebar, after the examples of things that make you observed, add “Unobtrusive actions, such as Recalling Knowledge or reloading a weapon, allow you to remain hidden or undetected.”

If drawing ammunition to reload a weapon is unobtrusive enough, drawing a light bulk weapon probably should be as well.

Still questionable if drawing a 1 bulk or larger weapon would be.

That sort of falls in line with my thinking above. A blowgun is a light (and relatively small) weapon so it makes sense that it might be able to drawn unobtrusively. However, even though a javelin is also a light weapon, javelins are generally long weapons. At least the kind of javelin I'm familiar with, so I wouldn't allow that to be drawn inconspicuously. Even atlatl darts that I'm familiar with are so long that I wouldn't allow them to be drawn unobtrusively.

I don't think bulk alone is good enough guidance.

Although...maybe in the sense of "throwing your players a bone" you just allow anything of Light bulk even if some items don't really fit in my mind.