Claxon's page

Yeah this is poorly written.

Silencing Shot says that:

A creature hit by a silencing shot is subject to the effects of a 4th-level silence spell (DC 25).

The problem being that the Silence spell can only target willing creatures.

So the too bad too be true interpretation is the ammunition does nothing, but obviously paying 300 gp for a level 11 item to do nothing is too bad to be true.

The most reasonable interpretation, IMO, is that Silencing Shot modifies how the silence spell normally works, allowing it to be placed on an object (ammunition).

And I would rule that with a DC 25 fortitude save you can remove the bullet from your body, allowing you to walk away or throw it to avoid the 10ft emanation that a 4th level silence spell should have.

I would also allow someone (including the target) to make a DC 25 medicine check to remove the bullet as a 1? action thing.

But as written, the thing doesn't work or make sense.

Claxon wrote:

The ritual takes a day, in my game anyone who decides to wish for divinity is going to have the most powerful servitors of others gods coming to say hello during the 24 hours you have to perform this ritual.

And honestly, with Wish being a rare ritual, I'm just not going to let players access it all honesty. Or outright tell them that certain kinds of wishes, like divinity, are more likely to get them killed before the wish can be completed.

It's purely DM fiat territory.

Honestly, attempting to Wish for Divinity seems like the kind of thing that would get you Achaekek's attention, one of his big things is Gatekeeping Divinity. And to quote his Major Curse from Gods and Magic, well...

Achaekek's Major Curse wrote:

The Mantis God doesn’t waste his time toying with or tormenting those who truly anger him, or those who dare to consider themselves divine. He rips open a portal to your location, kills you, drags your soul to judgment in a way that prevents resurrection magic, and then leaves.

Emphasis mine. Unless you've got another Deity sponsoring you or something, you're probably not making it that full day...

Agreed 100%. I wish it wasn't something Paizo had written into the spell.

Perhaps they could have written it instead as making the wisher into a "quasideity". Like you don't catch mortal diseases, you don't age, or die from old age, you can start recruiting followers (if they do anything for you mechanically), and maybe have like one domain or something.

But full divinity being out of the reach of any mortal magic makes more sense.

Otherwise it seems like Razmir would have done it a long time ago.

The ritual takes a day, in my game anyone who decides to wish for divinity is going to have the most powerful servitors of others gods coming to say hello during the 24 hours you have to perform this ritual.

And honestly, with Wish being a rare ritual, I'm just not going to let players access it all honesty. Or outright tell them that certain kinds of wishes, like divinity, are more likely to get them killed before the wish can be completed.

It's purely DM fiat territory.

All I can say is, yes when over analyzed in a scientific way it doesn't make a lot of sense.

So don't do that.

This is fantasy game with magic.

Next are you going to tell me you can't play wizards because it's scientifically inaccurate?

And who's to say Golarion doesn't have vulcanized rubber?

They have magic and eldritch knowledge. There's even super advanced science weapons and stuff floating around. A modern style slingshot is not impossible (but would probably be uncommon).

Claxon wrote:

But you're still incorrect. ...

I think you're just hung up on using only technical Game terms (in my Rules forum post) and my post is more conversational (using common terms). It's why I edited to 'some sort of move' rather than 'a move action'. I clearly consider hovering in your square a move(common usage term) which requires a fly check even if the character chooses a delay action. Other than that we agree. The Game assumes a PC is going to take some sort of action every turn during combat even if it is a delay(or delayed action) which can be nothing but standing there. I don't like the implication that as a non-action the check doesn't need to be made or (that as an abuse) the GM could ask for 10000 checks a round.

The Game simplifies facing and moving in your square to no action but there's a difference between flying and staying aloft from walking(speed) and staying in your square. So a fly check is needed when staying in a square during flight (as that's hovering) to stay aloft. I believe RAW casts the check as a non-action as the Game doesn't want PCs expending actions to do nothing.

I think we're on the same page then, but using the word "move" is "dangerous" (not exactly what I want to say but I can't think of a better one at this moment) because people will think of move actions.

But you're still incorrect.

Flying characters can hover, it's not action and not attached to any movement or other action.

Assuming all situations don't have additional issues, like high winds:
Flying at least half your movement speed means you don't need to make additional fly checks, but does cost you movement.
You can fly less than half you movement (5ft step qualifies) but need to make a DC 10 skill check.
You can hover, no movement, but need to make a DC 15 skill check.

Azothath wrote:

...

{comments on starting/initializing spells/spell effects}

Fly is a form of movement, like Speed, Burrow, Swim.

{comments on wings and such}

it's been about starting(instantiation), movement(which of course takes a move action), and other stuff.

I'd like to point out that fliers have to spend a move action each round or fall (spellcasters have options). A 5ft step is Fly DC 10, hover Fly DC 15 which gets incorporated into Full attack actions. Once in a blue moon natural filers will fail the DC on a charge or flyby attack...
Fly skill relies on Dex and a few invested ranks. People that don't do the latter can experience unexpected turbulence lol.

The wind spells... well, go for it as they're mostly a tactical delaying move. Summoning a large/huge air elemental (or the usual fireball response) might be more effective.

Your post is worded a little confusingly, but I want to point out that you can hover as a non-action, the only "difficult" part is meeting the DC. You can also 5ft step with the typical cost of making a 5ft step, but again have to make a fly check (at a DC lower than hover).

I point this out because if you actually had to spend a move or standard action every turn while flying, it would be much more balanced. As I consider flying in PF2 to be much more balanced because of the action cost.

Claxon wrote:

Short answer for PF1, no it doesn't require an action.

But if you look at PF2 it probably should require some sort of action for balance. But the action economy of PF1 doesn't make it so easy.

Then again, depending on how you feel maybe spending a move action to hover (or move) while flying would make the game more balanced.

Wouldn't be the worst idea ever.

The Fly skill has many of the rules for flight, and hovering (remaining flying without moving at least half your speed) does require a Fly check, regardless of the source of the flight, magical or otherwise (unless specific text in the spell or ability overwrites this). Hovering is a DC 15 Fly check, though it isn't an action in and of itself.

This can be somewhat difficult if you haven't actually taken ranks in the Fly skill.

Yes, on a character that has put no investment into Flying skill and has low dex chances are that they will not be able to hover. In my experience, those characters are ones who are rarely flying in the first place, and honestly are the ones I worry about less in terms of "creating problems" for the campaign. Players off characters who fly frequently tend to be aware of the hover rule, and usually have some investment into it. And honestly, magic items that will give you a bonus to flying are relatively cheap and easily accessible after a certain point in a typical game. Not to mention the fly spell gives a bonus to the fly skill.

Which I guess is a long way of saying, I've never had the hover rule be a serious impediment for a player.

Short answer for PF1, no it doesn't require an action.

But if you look at PF2 it probably should require some sort of action for balance. But the action economy of PF1 doesn't make it so easy.

Then again, depending on how you feel maybe spending a move action to hover (or move) while flying would make the game more balanced.

Wouldn't be the worst idea ever.

Claxon wrote:

OmniMage wrote:

I've seen many ways to increase the maximum dexterity bonus of a suit of armor, but no way to fully remove it. I'm wondering if there is any way to remove this cap?

What are you actually trying to accomplish? If you tell us that we might be able to help you achieve that goal without doing the impossible (eliminating max dex bonus).

Nothing right now. I find the dex cap inconvient. I'm looking for options.

Inconvenient in what way?

Most characters wearing light armor wouldn't be bumping up against the max dex of their armors in the first place.

Not that their probably ways to go crazy to try and mix max the heck out of dex but I feel like you're really going out of your way to do it.

Rules be damned, I don't really care what they say, instead I go with this logic:
When a creature is hiding (perhaps it simply doesn't want to interact with the world) and another creature stumbles across it a check happens of stealth vs perception. Not sure if it should be stealth DC vs active perception check or perception DC vs active stealth roll (I usually have players make active rolls, but assuming the walking creature isn't actively looking for the hiding creature I think it makes more since to test against their passive perception).

Anyways, my ultimate point is that a highly perceptive creature should have a chance to notice a creature hiding in the woods, even they aren't looking for them.

So any rule that says that a check doesn't happen at all, is just outright wrong in my book.

I've seen many ways to increase the maximum dexterity bonus of a suit of armor, but no way to fully remove it. I'm wondering if there is any way to remove this cap?

What are you actually trying to accomplish? If you tell us that we might be able to help you achieve that goal without doing the impossible (eliminating max dex bonus).

I don't know any official answer.

My best guess is that its class design is in a strange place and does not work with Free Archetype, which seems to be a very commonly played rule.
ET is basically "you get free archetype, but only for the dedication".
Sneak attacking with ray spells was really good in PF1 due to "touch AC", it doesn't really work in PF2 due to proficiency and dice scaling.

Playing a caster with the rogue dedication gets you much closer to the original arcane trickster design, if you want to be a rogue with a few magic tricks its rogue with a caster dedication.
Or laughing shadow magus.

This is basically my answer.

What isn't there an Eldritch Knight or Eldritch Trickster? Because ignoring specific abilities that existed in both, you can build a multiclass fighter/wizard or rogue/wizard that fulfills most of the fantasy. And consider the significant changes between editions we shouldn't assume that those old abilities in PF1 could be balanced within PF2.

If they end up being published it's probably a matter of needing more time to figure out how they could present it as an option that wasn't broken (either overpowered or underpowered).

Out of combat I'm not sure anything beats Wonder Worker from Thaumaturge, one of the most "wait WHAT" capstones any class gets.

It's cool, but you have to build around it to get the most out of it. Since it requires being legendary in the associated skill. Being a level 20 feat you have very limited time to benefit from it and couple that with the fact that you have Diverse Lore as a level 1 feat....most Thaumaturges I've seen don't invest heavily in any of those knowledge skills, let alone multiple ones.

Although I might be forgetting a bit about how everything works out, you may need to invest in one of the traditions but not multiple.

Yeah, the level 8 item version (Greater Preserving Rune) seems like a good comparison. If it can keep food good indefinitely, it seems like a similar level rune placed on a book would be able to protect it from any typical mundane damage. Honestly because the level 8 item version allows for once per day purify food and drink effect, a more proper item level might be 5 or 6 for just protecting an item effect.

I feel like this should just be a low level ritual.

Arguably inherently magical items are probably protected from natural degradation, I can't imagine magical swords and armor should be falling apart when not used, but that was more explicitly outlined in PF1 than PF2.

Anyways, I suggest negotiating a ritual with your GM to cover this kind of thing.

It's been a long time since I purchased a physical book....didn't purchase (from Paizo) of physical books also come with the PDF? Or am I recalling incorrectly?

And all of that is why I look at the Diplomacy's Make an Impression, and note that Charming Liar is trying to accomplish the same thing but using deception, so I would rule that it takes the same amount of time (1 minute).

Yeah, if the OP wants to accomplish this kind of thing, the Emissary of Peace feat is a good place to start. Now, the OP might not want to be a part of that archetype, but if I were the GM I would likely come up with something similar that could be accessed by OP without needing the Knight Vigilant archetype. But that feat makes pretty clear the limitations of trying such a thing, and whether or not you use Deception or Diplomacy doesn't change that for me (Charming Liar pretty much just lets you Make an Impression using deception).

Emissary of Peace specifically says it works against only 1 enemy, but if someone were to also have Group Impression diplomacy feat I would expand it to work against more because I think the writing of Emissary of Peace was phrased with respect to how Make an Impression normally works (1 enemy) but unfortunately they hardcoded the number of enemies if works on by doing so.

As a GM, I would rule that using Charming Liar takes as long as using Diplomacy to Make an Impression (1 minute).

I would say it's as possible to use Charming Liar in combat as it is to use Diplomacy to make a regular Make an Impression check, bearing in mind it will take 1 minute (which is 10 rounds). It would be exceedingly unlikely, but I can imagine a situation where you are essentially trying to sit out combat and get the attention of 1 enemy (who happens to be in charge) who also doesn't immediately engage in fighting. I won't say this is likely, but not impossible. It's also worth noting that Charming Liar seems to only allow you to influence one individual, which would limit its usefulness.

Assuming you successfully make them friendly or helpful, you can probably then attempt to make a request, which follows normal diplomacy rules. Though if they were willing to fight you before, there's a strong chance you only made them indifferent at best (thus not a target for Request). I can again imagine a scenario where you have some mercenary who is indifferent to you who is made friendly that you then might make a request of.

Overall, while it's not forbidden to try to use, from a practical standpoint I don't think it's going to be useful.

Claxon wrote:

To be clear, I don't have a problem if another character has spent actions to lift you up and then you would fall, or otherwise if a character is spending actions to enable movement on your part.

I only have an issue with a player who would intentionally "fall" while flying to get movement without spending an action. I simply don't accept the concept of "I'll do 3 other actions, then fall, and get some free movement" as an intended operation with the feat.

I mean it does work with the rules as written, but I don't think Rolling Landing was written taking into account how a flying character might try to use it.

Your table your rules, but personally I’d allow it. Turning off gravity when a player uses it tactically seems a little petty - dive bombing is common enough in real life flight that it has a name, and any pc with a fly speed can already tuck, fall up to 500 feet, and reaction Arrest a Fall anyway. If they have cat fall, the strix ability, or another similar ability, all they have to do is not fly on their turn to get “free” movement by falling. If they want to invest in two skill feats to add an extra step or stride for their reaction, I’d let them.

Also remember the flip side of not allowing them to fall when they want to - since a flying pc falls after not using a fly action on your turn, the easiest way to fall intentionally on your turn is to just not use a fly action. If you said I didn’t get to, I’d jump for joy - the action tax of using Fly each turn just got thrown out the window.

The problem I have is exactly getting rid of the action tax of flight. I'm not turning off gravity, I'm just saying they wont get the free movement.

Rolling Landing was written in mind of someone having to physically move themselves into a position where they could jump and fall more than 5ft. If you only have ground based movement, you maybe get that once per combat (and probably not even most combat) without deliberately going out of your way to make it happen. But a flying creature could basically utilize it every turn. If you don't have any other reactions, this is extremely an attractive option.

And personally I would say dive bombing requires spending an action. It's not simply a free fall. Birds that do dive bomb attacks are very much doing specific things to set themselves up to do it that do not translate to the turn based 3 action system that PF2 runs on.

I guess ultimately what I'd say is, if you want to intentionally fall and use rolling landing I'd make you spend an action.

To be clear, I don't have a problem if another character has spent actions to lift you up and then you would fall, or otherwise if a character is spending actions to enable movement on your part.

I only have an issue with a player who would intentionally "fall" while flying to get movement without spending an action. I simply don't accept the concept of "I'll do 3 other actions, then fall, and get some free movement" as an intended operation with the feat.

I mean it does work with the rules as written, but I don't think Rolling Landing was written taking into account how a flying character might try to use it.

That is an important point, immobilized doesn't equal paralyzed and I was conflating the two because I was (erroneously) thinking that paralysis gave you immobilized but it doesn't.

To the above poster point, immobilized probably shouldn't impact Cat Fall or Strix ability to negate fall damage. If you got paralyzed (or petrified) while flying, as GM I would rule it does negate Cat Fall or Strix's racial ability.

However, immobilized would prevent you from using Rolling Landing (because all rolling landing does it let you move, and immobilized prevents movement).

If you want to "fall" for free, just end your turn without taking a Fly action. Or have a Geomancer caster move you with the Sky power up. You would then fall at the end of that caster's turn (unless you have a fly speed), allowing you to use your Reaction to Step/Stride without triggering reactions.

But this bit is exactly what I'm saying a GM shouldn't let a flying player do with Rolling Landing. Getting extra movement, especially (potentially) extra movement that doesn't provoke for "free" (spending a reaction) is too good to be true in my opinion.

The prerequisite of Cat Fall would be kind of a wasted feat for a Strix.

But I don't see any reason why Rolling Landing wouldn't work as written. The requirement for using Rolling Landing is that you fall more than 5 feet and don't take damage. Strix does that automatically for all falls, so they always meet the requirement whenever they fall more than 5 feet.

I guess I was confused by the way the OP wrote the question.

If it's unclear, I see Rolling Landing being as useful for Strix as it might be for anyone else.

But the prerequisite is a waste for Strix. And as a GM I wouldn't allow a Strix to fall (as a free action) to then allow the reaction for "free" movement.

Personally I don't think spending a feat on cat fall to maybe sometimes get a movement advantage (again assuming you don't allow free action deliberate fall) to be worth it.

If your GM does rule you can fall as a free action, you could definitely abuse Rolling Land to get extra movement, assuming you don't want to use reactions for anything else. Which honestly, you can probably find something better to use reactions on.

Overall, the utility of rolling landing would depend on what class/build the OP is planning to play.

If they're wanting to play a flying archer...rolling landing doesn't really seem all that useful at all.

If the Strix is immobilized I don't see how they would make use of rolling landing.

Keep in mind the prerequisite for Rolling Landing is Cat Fall, which would be the thing typically preventing you from taking falling damage. In the case of the strix, they never take damage from falling. Although there's an argument that it's because they can flap their wings, and if paralyzed/immobilized maybe they should take damage. But cat fall has a similar issue, that it could be argued that if you're unable to move that you can't move in the way Cat Fall describes to soften your landing.

Anyways, if you were immobilized and the GM didn't remove your ability that reduced fall damage, I definitely wouldn't let you move using Rolling Landing, which is what rolling Landing does at all. Cat Fall is the feat that reduces falling damage.

Now where Rolling Landing could be useful, is if your GM let's you fall as a free action you could use Rolling Landing to use your reaction to get some "free movement". Of course, IMO as a GM you shouldn't let falling characters fall as a free action and then the whole thing remains as useful as it would be to a character who wasn't flying. Where in theory your character jumps off a cliff (at least one action) and lands in such a way that they turn the momentum from the fall into additional forward movement.

Additionally, if I were a GM who ruled that Strix take falling damage while immobilized I would almost certainly rule that Cat Fall wouldn't work either.

Hunt prey could just allow free action transfer to a new target when the last one drops to 0.

Even if it was a feat, and wasn't a free/extra reaction, it would still be the best feat a ranger could take.

Reworded, a feat that allowed the ranger to hunt prey on a new target when their current target reaches 0 hp (or is destroyed/killed) as a reaction would be a must have for every ranger.

Honestly flurry rangers aren't fun or good unless you only want to stand in one spot and shoot arrows, which is an incredibly boring play style to me.

It can potentially deal a lot of damage, but needing to do anything other than shoot arrows craters your damage output.

Precision I feel is the default ranger and has the flexibility of being either ranged or melee and doesn't lock you into trying to only attack.

Outwit...I struggle to see a use for.

That said, I feel like Ranger is the poster child for average.

Loud enough that it is audible but no so loud that it cause (temporary) deafness (which a thunderclap originating in close proximity probably would).

I realize that still gives a wide berth to how loud it is.

If it mattered, I would probably rule it to be similar to gunfire, although as far as I know (off-hand) gunfire isn't stated to be extra loud in a mechanical way, but I could be off. I think it would just fall under the DC of "typical combat noises" but I wouldn't be upset if someone gave a -2/-4 to the DC to represent it being extra loud.

James, what are you thoughts on casting Plane Shift/Interplanar Teleport twice as a means to get "close" to a target destination on the first plane?

Like I shift to the ethereal plane (or wherever) and then shift back to the material plane but with the destination of Akiton in mind? Sure it takes 2 spells slots, but they're lower level spells. It also takes 20 minutes, and is less precise in arrival destination.

Still, it seems like it should work, but the existence of the higher level versions of teleport make it feel like it shouldn't work.

Edit: Actually never mind, the dev team did build in something to stop this. Plane shift now takes you to the last location any one of your targets was at (with error) on the plane you're shifting to. No more using plane shift to get to other planets it looks like. Unless you meet a traveler from Akiton in the other plane and decide to visit wherever they left.

That would be one of the questionable things regarding the word 'entering' that you are going to run into if you become too wrapped up in this. As Errenor and Claxon mentioned.

I work with programming languages - where an incorrect variable name or mixing up a constant will have disastrous consequences on the results that the program creates.

Pathfinder2e is not written in a programming language. Don't read it like it is.

I agree we shouldn't read it like a programming language, but we also shouldn't have multiple ways to interpret the word "entering" from various abilities.

If the "common sense" way an ability should be played conflicts with the way a trigger of "entering" is interpreted for other abilities then one of them should be changed.

If air bubble is meant to give you an ability to use your reaction anytime a creature isn't able to breath, which I think it's what it's supposed to do, using the word "entering" isn't appropriate.

Same for a dragon's frightful presence. If at anytime I'm within range of the dragon, I should be hit by frightful presence (and it already has a built in limitation that makes it so you can be affected only once per minute).

Ultimately we shouldn't use the word "entering" to mean things other than entering. If I enter a building, I'm presumably outside and go inside. If the building (in this case the dragons aura or the unbreathable air) moves such that I'm inside of it, it does really fit the normal definition of entering because it's not something I did.

It does present an issue, that the word entering is being used inconsistently. By interpreting a dispelled water breathing spell to count as entering, it makes other things that use the word entering come into question.

I think the real answer here is the trigger should probably be changed. Maybe "a creature within range is not able to breath normally".

Actually I agree that paying for an "upgrade" to the DC is reasonable and a good idea. I will have to start implementing that.

Unfortunately I think Errenor is correct.

If you somehow had a vorpal rune on a +1 weapon, it would benefit from a very high DC (relative to the expected level of enemies). But once the party progressed beyond the level of the rune, it would become less and less effective.

I personally really hate this, and usually allow item's DC to scale as though it were class DC. However this has meant I also have to adjust how often some items can be used, but this is more a case by case basis that I handle it on.

Considering it only triggers on a nat 20, I would automatically allow the DC to scale with class DC. Nat 20s are rare enough.

I'm going to go with a completely different route than I think what anyone else has suggested (unless I missed it).

Gorum, in the midst of this war of the gods is having the time of his existence. This is what he was made for! But something happens, something that makes him realize that fighting, that combat, isn't the answer and shouldn't be what he's doing. And then he unmakes himself because a deity focused on fighting who suddenly realizes that fighting isn't always the answer is a contradiction that simply unmakes his existence.

I think someone or something killing him in combat is honestly way too boring and expected a death for a god of war.

I concur, if you make a melee attack with your elemental blast, with the way enlarge is written you gain the +2 status bonus to damage (along with the default melee damage bonus).

If you were to use the 2 action version of elemental blast which adds a status bonus equal to your con modifier it wouldn't stack with the bonus from enlarge and you would get which is higher.

I don't really understand this "not being locked into a course of action" thing- are you saying like someone casts a spell at you and you react to get +2 to your saving throw, but then someone counterspells it, so you would let the first reactor take back their reaction?

Eh, I probably can't give a simple explanation because it's a complicated issue.

Things that are a simple "either it did or didn't happen" aren't what I'm really talking about. I'm talking more about a case where someone decides to move toward a target, and that target has a reaction that allows them to move, or do anything really. The originally mover might decide they no longer want to move to the person that was their target. They'll have expended the movement up to the point where the reaction triggers, but can decide what to do with their movement after that point.

We're also "generous" in that if you have an action (for example) that allows multiple attacks that (assuming there is no restriction on who can be a target) you can change targets if the target does something that would make you want to change.

Overall, it's in player's favors because it gives them flexbility in situations where they might otherwise say "okay, I do nothing then".

Evil still exists, it's just not a metaphysical entity you can detect with magic. The current version is probably more workable because if you encounter an evil person who is buying fruit at the market, you are not obligated to just murder them in the town square because your evil detector pinged.

Now it just works like: If you become aware of an evil person or an evil scheme you should stop them or it.

Further caveat, if it is even feasible for you to do so. Or perhaps if not you should attempt to engage others who are capable.

Just because the first level champion is aware the 20th level evil necromancer is just on the other side of a wall, doesn't mean they should suicidally charge in and try to take them on.

Claxon wrote:

I'm just curious about the conditions that are causing disrupted actions.

The simplest one I can think of is Reactive Strike crit against a spellcaster casting a spell with the Attack trait.

Reactive strike is the only example I could think of, and specifically why I made a note about "unless it would break the ability's purpose".

I'm just curious about the conditions that are causing disrupted actions.

I'd thought second edition got rid of a lot of that.

But my group has also ruled things to be more like Starfinder where purely defensive reactions happen before triggers and offensive reactions happen after triggers*, but also said no one (neither PC or NPCs) is locked into a specific course of action and ignore the logical problem of "you took a reaction a thing that didn't happen" so we kind of ruled away things being disrupted in the first place.

*Unless it would break the ability's purpose for it to be that way

Claxon wrote:

alijen wrote:

It is behaving like a Mindless Construct, following the programmed commands. color blind test

I think this might be some sort of AI chat bot. The account was created ~7 hr ago and has no other posts.

It's linked something that is definitely unrelated (I WOULDN'T CLICK IT, could be malicious).

But man these things are getting harder to spot.

Considering it copied part of my post word for word, even my capitalization and breaking apart of "it's" to "it is", to post what it posted, it's a bot yeah.

I hadn't even realized that, good catch.

Is there any particular reason why your so opposed to selecting a fiendish lineage feat?

Slip sideways works with any of Grimspawn (NE daemons), Pitborn (CE demons), or Hellspawn (LE devils).

Without selecting one of these, your Nephilim doesn't have a clear distinction of being a "tiefling" it's a "planar scion" of indeterminate origin manifesting no real features/traits.

If anything, I think there's an argument to be made that you should get one of the lineage feats (for free) and be required to select one.

If things weren't written as they are, you could end up with Celestial nephilim taking something that was meant for evil descended characters.

It is behaving like a Mindless Construct, following the programmed commands. color blind test

I think this might be some sort of AI chat bot. The account was created ~7 hr ago and has no other posts.

It's linked something that is definitely unrelated (I WOULDN'T CLICK IT, could be malicious).

But man these things are getting harder to spot.

So, I don't know if it's the odds per se, but unambiguously there are some undead who rise as a result of improper respect shown to their remains. Planar Adventures likewise corroborates that it matters more what the soul's convictions are regarding the appropriate procedures of their afterlife journey than what those procedures are.

Absolutely there are plenty of cases within Pathfinder's written cannon of disrespect of remains being the source of undead creation. And also plenty of cases of "unfinished business", or the conditions of one's death being so awful that it gives rise to undeath as well.

But I guess what I'm saying is, not every case of one of these results in undead. And it's pretty much entirely the demands of the story that results in an undead being created.

For the OP who is interested in whether or not their character might become an (NPC?) undead I would say it depends on what kind of story your GM and the other players want to tell.

Honestly if I was the GM I would say no. Mostly because I wouldn't want anyone thinking that generating undead is guaranteed under any specific condition that isn't mechanically outlined via spell/ritual. And also because it doesn't sound fun for other players. If I was one of the players in the group, and our former companion came back as undead I would be annoyed more than anything.