Not a fan of the new errata on damage resistance either (and by either I me the old new errata on resistance).
At this point I'm probably just going to completely ignore anything Paizo has to say on the matter and run as I see fit.
Search Posts
I don't know that the errata on how resistance/weakness works is settled yet. As I understand the situation, Paizo released a statement that would errata the function, but there was a lot of blowback and players being disappointed and providing examples where the ruling really broke down and didn't make sense. I say all that to say, I don't think there's been anything else official since that. With Paizo likely still reviewing how to handle it. However, I might have missed an additional official release of errata. Hopefully someone else better attuned to this topic can chime in.
Again: Are you also forbidding Dispel Magic to work on spells like Fly in the air? No, but I rarely see NPCs actually using flying magic for flight. For monsters, it's almost always a built in fly speed. Not to say it's a 0 amount. In any event, narratively speaking it makes sense that a creature using magic to fly would also have some sort of preparation for an emergency where they magically cannot fly anymore. You can also mitigate the problem to an extent, by having NPCs fly at reasonable heights. Sure, falling 40ft isn't a picnic, it's only 20 damage. With teleportation spells, any cliff can become a serious danger if the fall is long enough and there's less NPCs can do to mitigate that threat. I'm honestly not sure why this bothers you so much. You run your games as you see fit, I'm going to run mine as I see fit. You're not going to convince me to allow teleportation spells to work as potential insta-kills spells. Whether it's because teleportation into the air simply doesn't work, or if its because it doesn't work on unwilling creatures, or whatever narrative/mechanical reason is selected.
Players rarely get to control where a fight happens. Maybe what you're suggesting is for GMs not to make fights next to cliffs, just to avoid wizards teleporting NPCs off cliffs.... And all I can really say is I feel like it's still better to just adjust how teleportation magic works so you can still have cliff side battles without either side trying to turn it into insta-kill magic.
It's absolutely true that top-rank scrolls are expensive relative to expected wealth. But, DCs/spell attack rolls are consistent across spell ranks. So even rank-1 or rank-2 spells can be equally effective from a spell DC/attack roll can still be effective. But ultimately I agree, don't expect to use 4 top rank scrolls everyday. You might do that, but only on the day you're expecting to fight the boss. You can pry level from my cold dead ambiguously used hands.
Most PCs use magical items or feats to avoid falling damage. Not that you couldn't say every enemy has snap leaf....but I'd rather not make that the solution. Also teleportation magic isn't really niche.
It's absolutely true that on-level scrolls are expensive relative to expected wealth. But, DCs/spell attack rolls are consistent across spell level. So even level-1 or level-2 spells can be equally effective from a spell DC/attack roll can still be effective. But ultimately I agree, don't expect to use 4 on level scrolls everyday. You might do that, but only on the day you're expecting to fight the boss.
I didn't really think about teleporting off a cliff. My group does have a pretty strong "good for the goose, good for the gander" rule at the table. As do I, but all that really means is everyone is trying to one shot one another via teleport kills and that's not really what the game was meant to be. Good for the goose, good for the gander is usually the kind of thing I would say to deter players from using it, if they insisted it should work. Other times I would just declare, "No that's not how this works when I'm the GM".
Do you have other examples of "don't get to choose where a creature goes" teleport spells? I would argue you do have some amount of control, because you get to select which creature to teleport with. And, a similar problem to other instances already noted. If you were flying in the air, off the edge of a cliff within the range of a non-flying target. By your guidance you could teleport with that creature and doom them to fall, and potentially death depending on the drop. I still consider this not acceptable. I think all teleport spells need to inherently have the restriction "can't teleport non-flying creatures into the air". I think if you remove this issue, you block the majority of issue with teleport. That said, if you go around with an allied caster inside of a wooden cage waiting to cast unexpected transposition, you're one failed save away from taking prisoners. And while I don't like it, I can't find a specific reason to disallow it. It does mean you likely need some sort of cart and a well enough built cage to keep hostages from easily breaking out.
While I agree that a 6th level spell causing 15 damage isn't a problem, if you allow this, then by extension a player will likely at least ask: "Well, what if this all happens next to a cliff? So the enemy and I are 10ft from each other, and 5ft from a cliff. I choose to target a square off the cliff. What happens?"Now the enemy is likely to take substantial falling damage and be out of the fight for long enough they are no longer a relevant part of the encounter. The may even be outright dead depending on the fall. Is that appropriate for a 6th level spell? I would argue no. As a result, I think you have to rule no teleporting creatures into the air unless they can fly. Because while a simple 30ft fall from this particular spell wouldn't be a problem, if you don't stop it from teleporting creatures into the air (if they can't fly) then you have no good reason to stop them from teleporting off the cliff. Aside from knowing one is a broken use and the other is not, but it's not internally logically consistent.
Not exactly. Play a spontaneous caster. Choose a variety of spells that target fort, reflex, and will saves. Make sure that includes your Signature spells too. Those are the ones that you can heighten as you desire. So if you choose spells that cover the various saves, you'll always have something worthwhile available. And you can absolutely ask which save is the weakest when recalling knowledge. The GM shouldn't tell you the exact value, but should tell you which is weakest. Frequently the weakest save is like 3 points lower than the best. And honestly it's far worse for prepared casters than spontaneous. Because you don't need to plan for how many spell slots of a thing. Just access to a variety to deal with fort/reflex/will. And as far as implements go, you missed the most important one. Scrolls. Scrolls are the most useful thing for combat. Wands aren't really for combat. They're for spells you'll want to use often (everyday) but don't need multiple castings of each day. Something like a 2nd level wand of Tailwind for 8 hours of +10 movement speed without using a spell slot. Scrolls are best for combat, because you'll use a lot of them. Where martial classes spend money on weapons and runes, you should be spending that money on scrolls.
If your whole group agrees the game is too hard (and early AP were overtuned) then the GM should adjust the challenge level. Either weakening the enemies a bit, or increasing the PCs level relative to what the game expects. +1 or even 2 levels to the PCs can really shift the math in your favor.
As I said earlier, a thread discussing your groups overall tactics may be in order to understand exactly what's happening. There's also a possibility, that occurs to me, is your GM making adjustments from the AP based on previous (PF1) experience? If they experienced how OP characters in PF1 could be, they might be making adjustments that they don't realize make the game exceedingly harder than they think.
Where is all of this talk about other classes using Grudge Strike coming from? That feat can't be taken via multiclass archetype. None of the Wandering feats can. True, I was just trying to say a fighter would love to pick it up (if they could) and that it wasn't a bad feat inherently.
I've always pegged striker options in caster classes as being for striker classes dabbling in the MC AT, not for the pure caster to take for themselves unless they also have means to better their attack rolls like druids do through their form spells Grudge Strike is honestly great, in the right circumstances. It's not a use every round feat (Paizo has tried to eliminate feats/actions that are so good you always want to use them every round in ever situation) but under the right conditions it's great. A 2 action attack that gives you a +2 circumstance bonus to attack (which also increases your likelihood to crit) and an extra 2d6 damage which are either less commonly resisted or trigger weakness. That's great. I can imagine a fighter using this against a higher level boss monster to really lay into them. That +2 to attack enhancing their already better than normal attack proficiency, and then bonus damage to top it off? Yeah, this is great against bosses. Perhaps you might start an advice thread discussing what you're playing and what you've been doing and how that's not working for you. And then people can make suggestions about what you could do alternatively. Very likely it's about your strategy and approach. PF2 is very tactical. You have to use the right tool for the job. You can just select one favorite tool and use it all the time, you're going to fail if you do that. It is worth noting that spellcasters do generally have a tough time than martial characters in PF2. You need to use a spell that has a save your enemy is weak with. Not just whichever spell you like. And I would also generally recommend spontaneous casters over prepared casters in this edition. If you want access to utility spells (or less commonly used spells), wands and scrolls are your friend. Unlike PF1, in PF2 spell casting items use your save or attack stat so they as effective as if you used a spell slot. Edit: OP, did you have a lot of experience with PF1? If so, you probably have a lot of ideas about strategy and approaches from that that are terrible ideas in PF2 because they simply don't work. It took me over a year to like PF2 switching from PF1 (and honestly it was partially I had to quit playing TTRPG because of life stuff and forgot a lot of details) before I was able to come back to PF2 and enjoy it (because I stopped trying to play PF2 like pF1).
If we're going wild, a Magus with Medic dedication might be fun. With Trick Magic Item, Assurance : Religion, and scrolls of Divine spells for Heal and other healing/buffing needs. Are there even spells on the Divine list that would qualify for spell strike? Edit: Rereading the requirements of spellstrike I think there should be a good number of spells that qualify. If your GM would let you play a magus with the divine list and wisdom as your casting stat, and multiclass with the cleric dedication then that would be a great solution to what the OP wants.
100% Any time players think they've come up with something, I ask them how they will feel if the NPC use that against them in the future.
As a GM, I simply say that you can't teleport (even voluntarily) into something nor can they voluntarily teleport someone into the air unless they can fly. Basically, I'm never going to allow you to instantly kill someone using a teleport spell. It's also worth noting that teleportation isn't movement. You are moved from one place to another, but you aren't moving yourself. It's not even movement like falling. You simply are in one spot one moment, and in a new spot the next moment. That said, the forced movement rules are still a good guide to help understand how you might want to handle scenarios. Ultimately, the spell description creating the teleportation effect should also have some guidance. If the spell doesn't mention causing damage via teleportation, I pretty much don't allow a player to cause damage via teleportation.
A rare spell from an AP is a absolute deal breaker IMO. As a GM, I don't allow material from APs that are not currently being played, unless there is a very good reason to. Wanting access to Greater Darkvision via spell isn't a good reason. As a player, I don't expect access to module/AP specific items (or rare items in general) outside of the AP the character is being played in.
I just suppose I don't really understand what you consider to be competent enough as a martial. A Warpriest is basically equal or a little behind in accuracy compared to a typical martial until level 13. At low to mid tier of games it's perfectly competent at martialling with it's base kit, and has some nice feats to complement that playstyle. Well, I guess to that I would say "competent" at striking isn't acceptable to me if you want to be a martial character. It's also the additional feats and options that martial characters get that make them good. Fighters with their proficiency and feats, barbarians with their rage and feats are both classes that I consider to be top-tier martials. A ranger I consider to be a good martial. It's not as good as the previously mentioned, but still solid. Below ranger like performance, you would have those who are competent at striking. A champion is only competent at striking (they have good proficiency but lack offensive feat support compared to other martial classes [to clarify they have some options, but not as many], but their role isn't about striking). Does that help you to understand my evaluation? I don't think the Warpriest is supposed to be like a replacement for playing a martial, just with a caster flavour. It's primarily still a caster, and is able to supplement that competently with martial prowess. I can agree with that I personally don't really see a Fighter with a caster dedication to really be that much of a caster. And this. A fighter with caster dedication is dabbling in being a caster. For me personally, that's enough. But the OP wants more. With the Alchemist thing, when I say in the dumps I generally just mean a class that is basically unplayably bad. The Alchemist is bad, but it's not so bad that you can't be a useful member to the team, unless you build it poorly. I think there is a level where hard to build counts against the class. Though I also think it's also reasonable to say that if built competently, the class is at least comparable to the other classes in the game and consider that as less of a point against the class. I agree that class isn't unplayable, but that if you choose 1 or 2 things to do with it you would likely find you can do those more easily by playing something else. The alchemists greatest strength is actually their utility via quick alchemy, which can change a battle through the wide range of alchemical effects. However it's very hard to use in that it requires a broad knowledge of all the items you could make and how they could be applied in various situations. Ultimately, I think the OP needs to answer what being "efficient" in martial pursuits means to them. If just being able to hangout in the front lines and not trying to develop their strikes is a path, then a cloistered cleric with champion dedication could be a good path.
What's not clear, is if an attack that deal one kind of damage, and a creature is immune to that damage, if other "rider" effects should still happen. I disagree. The rules about immunity aren't clear about "complex" affects. If you had a immunity to slashing damage, does that mean you should ignore an attack that does slashing damage but has a rider of causing trip? Like a fighter using a slashing weapon with Crashing Slam? Or a wolf (which has knockdown on their jaw attack?). That's the kind of situations I was referring to. I would absolutely never rule that just because a character was immune to the damage from a wolf's jaw, that they avoided the knockdown as well (the wolf would still need to make an athletics check as normal, but I'm taking your statement to mean that theoretically you would avoid the knockdown affect altogether).
I suppose you're referring to me and my post 10:33 Server Time. I think at the time I wrote that I forget about your earlier post requesting a build with buffing and casting at level 1 in addition to other things. But also that you should be more flexible in what you want. You won't get everything you want at level 1 (at least not to be good).
This is a solid way to evaluate things that I hadn't thought to express in this manner. I agree, a war priest is "competent" at striking (and I would define competent in this case as being not actively a bad idea on the surface) at the start of play, slowing slide towards bad but never quite become bad or "incompetent". And their spell casting is between top-tier and good. They are still primarily a spell caster. I don't personally find the trade off in terms of reduced spell casting to actually be worth what you gain martially. At best your competent. When someone says to me they what a "martially capable" character, I assume they want good or better martial capabilities, which I would never place the warpriest at. Though looking back, the OP did seem to focus more of the buffing and healing aspects, and I think I missed that focus somehow. They also say they want to be able to "step and fight efficiently". I suppose how you interpret what "efficiently" means would influence your interpretation of the OPs desire. If OP were to rate their desire for striking and spellcasting that might help (in terms of bad/incompetent, competent, good, and top-tier). If striking weren't important to OP, but simply being able to hangout on the front lines, playing a cleric with the champion dedication might be the way to go. They could work with low-ish dex, moderate stength, high wisdom cloistered cleric. If OP wanted to be good at striking and good at spell casting...I don't think that's an achievable combo in PF2 to be honest.
These are two separate claims. It can't be hitting the minimum and also be considered "not remotely capable".They get the bare minimum, which I consider unacceptable. What makes martials good at being martials are the extra class features and feats that help support things. Armor and weapon proficiency are just the most basic pieces. Then I suppose my point was insufficiently clear. What you called the bare minimum I was effectively saying is not the bare minimum (IMO), though I didn't directly say that in my response to you. The warpriest is a less capable caster than the cloistered cleric, but isn't enough better at martial pursuits to make it actually worth it IMO. Any more capable as a martial and it's gonna be way too powerful. Maybe. You are right that if was actually much better at martial stuff it would probably be too good of a class. But I still find it to be insufficiently strong enough for martial pursuits if I want to have a martial capable character. For me, martial class + caster dedication hits the right feel of martial + casting pursuits, because I expect to primarily be doing martial things. A fighter with cleric dedication is 80% martial and 20% caster so to speak. But a warpriest cleric is like 30% martial and 70% caster. They're more martial capable than the cloistered cleric, but IMO not enough so to make the tradeoff in terms of spellcasting actually worth it.
To me, hard to build and not being good outside of being a bomber is pretty much how I would define "in the dumps".
Yeah, if you could get a whole party on the same page about using Greater Darkvision and 4th Level Darkness and make that your tactic, ten it could be very valuable. But in a random party, no one else is likely to have Greater Darkvision. And they're rightfully going to be upset if you keep casting 4t level Darkness.
Not sure why Fighter with Cleric dedication isn't acceptable, but Champion with it is. If that's the case, then go Champion with cleric dedication. You do seem to have the correct understanding about a Warpriest not actually being a martial.
Yeah, they killed off innate spells fulfilling anything (as was the case in PF1). Also, Greater Darkvision is nice if you can get it at low cost, but not worth spending much to get it IMO. Basically the only thing I know of where its relevant is somebody casting a 4th level greater darkness spell (or something that replicates that). It's not very common at all.
In fairness they'll need to break away from the locale-centric nature of Nymphs to have them as a player-character option, anyway. Hard to go adventuring if you're intrinsically bound to a specific location, after all.I know Hesperids are tied to "a place where the sunset is especially beautiful". I guess my difficulty is meshing Pathfinder's interpretation of nymphs with something like clouds- but I guess you can have places like the windward side of a mountain where clouds naturally form. Agreed, to be adventurers you can't be bound to a location. However, I think this provides an opportunity to narratively describe why Nymph PCs don't have all their Nymph power, because they lost it in order to overcome their being bound to a specific place.
#2, Immunity even states that having immunity to fire doesn't stop acid damage from an ability that does both. Just like divine immoliation still affects targets with either spirit or fire immunity despite it haivng both traits. It's more clear when an attack does multiple kinds of damage, that the immunity should only block the type of damage that the creature is immune to. What's not clear, is if an attack that deal one kind of damage, and a creature is immune to that damage, if other "rider" effects should still happen. But I admit, in light of the whole "water weakness" when water doesn't normally deal damage makes a compelling argument that despite being immune to spirit damage, the creature could still take damage from holy weakness for being exposed to an attack with the holy trait.
They get the bare minimum, which I consider unacceptable. What makes martials good at being martials are the extra class features and feats that help support things. Armor and weapon proficiency are just the most basic pieces. The warpriest is a less capable caster than the cloistered cleric, but isn't enough better at martial pursuits to make it actually worth it IMO. Ignoring the levels at which you get access, I think fighter with cleric dedication hits the power level that I would personally want in terms of martial capability with spell casting utility. And yes, I (and many others) consider the Alchemist to be in the dumps. It's not a martial character. It's a utility character (primarily) with quick alchemy, and can decent-ish with bombing. But outside of bombs....not so much.
Absolutely, the divine spell list lends itself well to buffing and utility. You can be pretty successful with divine casting without having max wisdom, so long as you understand the limitations of what kinds of spells you should use.
Warpriest gets basically nothing that makes them even remotely capable in martial combat though. Sure, they get access to better armor and weapon options than a base cleric, which isn't much. There are a few feats that can help would be martial combatants, but nothing compared to actual martial classes. Prior to the battle harbinger, I would have told someone to play a fighter and take the cleric dedication or be a Champion. Depending on whether they wanted a tankier or more offensive character with divine power. The battle harbinger isn't the best martial, I will agree. But it does bring stuff to the table that a Warpriest doesn't. If I wanted moderately martial character, I would absolutely be disappointed with the warpriest doctrine. Edit: I will say, I haven't had a chance to play Battle harbinger (and probably wont, but I'm just never inclined to play a cleric). I guess, depending on what exactly you want I might suggest Fighter with cleric dedication.
Warpriest is actually pretty bad (IMO). It technically make you more martial, but not enough to actually make you effective at martial pursuits. What can be worth it though, is taking the Battle Harbinger dedication (which actually starts at level 1, and is more like a cleric doctrine than an actual dedication) which actually makes you into a martial character with very light casting ability.
How about crafting one? Are tgere specific rules pertaining to making one? Or is that also prohibited within the given set of rules? You're now outside of the rules completely. Crafting items that aren't listed isn't something the rules approach in any capacity. There are no rules for crafting custom items in PF2. And a GM who is aware that aside from the specific companion items, and the rule that items can only affect AC and speed, should probably logically rule that companions aren't getting any attack and damage bonuses from items. Are companions effective in PF2? At high levels, not really. The math doesn't work in their favor. At low levels, it's better but not great. Personally I think that's okay, and that's how it should be. They shouldn't be able to outshine anybody else's dedicated character. That said, I do think we should fold the higher level feats for progression companions into like 1 single extra feat (beyond the class feature or initial feat to unlock the companion) because spending several class feats to have the companion not keep up feels bad. Ultimately, unfortunately, animal companions aren't meant to be strong.
I am currently roleplaying a Commander with Cavalier archetype and have a Riding drake as my animal companion, I was wondering if there are any official rules or errata that would allow use of items that dont have the companion trait like handwraps and such. Woyld greatly appreciatte any rules clarifications most specially from the authors and admins of this game. Thanks IN PF2 this is very straightforward. Absent the companion trait, companions cannot use items. Now, there are actually a few items which are obviously intended for companions that lack the trait, which is likely an editing issue. But outside of this, there's nothing to discuss really. The devs didn't intend for animal companion attacks to be buffed (generally speaking).
Do we even have an actual creature with an immunity to spirit damage and a weakness to holy or unholy?
To answer the thread title, sustaining a spell is always optional. But there are sometimes consequences (and benefits) to doing so. Sustaining isn't always tied to duration. The other posters already provide good examples. Some spells have a written duration, and they will last that long regardless of if you sustain (but give some benefit if you do).
Believability within the system/real life aside, the mechanics are very straightforward. A fall from 400ft is basically a death sentence to anyone.
But what do all of these foxes say? Ring ding ding
I feel like the reason there is generally that consumable weapons can't benefit from runes, because when the weapon is used it should also destroy the rune. Which would be too bad to be true. And also more generally, they weren't balanced around getting a bonus to attack or damage from the basic runes. I honestly don't find this a compelling argument to disallow the aeon stone which grants the effect of a rune, but isn't a rune. Granting the effect of a rune is just a shorthand way of saying what happens without having to rewrite that entire text.
Well, it does take an action to activate and can only be used once per minute so there are some limitations. And it's not cheap. But if it's something you're encountering regularly it might be a good solution.
Generally speaking, sources of "holy damage" are things that deal spirit damage and have the holy trait. But this instance is confusing because this creature has immunity to spirit damage, but also has a weakness to holy (which is basically a subtype of spirit damage). How is this supposed to work? I'm honestly not sure. Do you have an actual creature that has immunity to spirit and weakness as an example? If it was merely a resistance to spirit damage and a weakness to holy, my ruling would be that it still triggers the weakness and grants that additional damage, regardless of if the resistance fully negates the spirit damage. But with immunity....I'm not sure how it should function, since it the immunity should stop any spirit damage from happening. It honestly mostly seems to me like an editing error that should have been caught creating a contradiction. Because spirit is basically a combination of the old "good and evil" damage types, which weren't really damage types but dealt damage based on a creatures alignment. But with alignment removed, and the damage types rework not everything works quite as intended if you didn't pay close attention. Likely such a creature pre-remaster would have has a resistance to evil aligned damage and a weakness to good aligned damage. And when editing it, someone just simply replaced the evil aligned resistance to spirit. And didn't notice the contradiction they create in giving a weakness to holy.
I just hope we can get some funny/tricky stuff. Like a feat that lets fey characters do some tricky stuff like "May I have your name?" shenanigans.
Agreed, looks legit. One of the few ways to grant your bombs ghost touch. I'm not sure it's all that interesting, but I suppose it does let you bypass the typical damage reduction.
Exactly. Falling damage was kind of joke in PF1. But in PF2, it's relatively deadly unless you have something to negate it. And there are relatively ample ways to negate fall damage. But, at level 7 which is a reasonable time to encounter a challenge like a ROC, you're not guaranteed to have those. You could afford a Snaplead, but did you buy one? For that same 7th level character (if we look at the treasure for new characters table) to see available currency (baseline expectation is you have a certain amount of higher level permanent items and currency is used to be consumables) then the snapleaf is 9 gp of your 125 gp currency budget. Which is about 7% of your cash for that one item. It's a good item, but there are lots of good consumables out there. Did you decide to buy this one? Did you have any idea that you needed to have this because otherwise your character might die?
What about Star shape? I heard Star Foxes are pretty cool
Honestly, I'd almost rather call it a ritual that summons back a soul (creating effectively a ghost) but then the magic gives it physical form to interact with the world in ways a ghost normally couldn't. Also ghosts have the most leeway with not being evil. And ghost also don't have an undead hunger, instead being bound to a place and purpose. So maybe it's literally a ritual to summon an appropriate protector ghost with a special caveat that it can temporarily assume physical form to combat enemies (if it's advantageous). Maybe allowing it to switch between ethereal and not mid combat. Well except ethereal isn't a PF2 status but you get the idea.
You get a fox! You get a fox! Everyone gets a fox!
I think if it's not animated by void energy it's not an undead. But that's a whole can of worms that doesn't have an actual answer because it's up the lore of your univese. I think if you were to ask James Jacobs he'd say undead have to be animated by void energy. And that something that isn't animated by void energy doesn't qualify as undead. Certainly that's how I'd run it, because that's how my universe (my version of Golarion) works and I think matches relatively closely to the baseline expectations of the setting.
I heard this same analogy over the weekend from @clair_hawkins. Is that where you heard it? But anyways, I do somewhat agree about the sense of "if your character can be killed with little to no recourse then the GM needs to make you aware of that threat before having you encounter it and also provide a reasonable means to access a solution to that problem prior to the encounter". Of course, this places a higher burden on GMs because it means some monster should never be used as random encounters and that requires a GM to understand what kinds of abilities are potentially problematic for their party. Even a simple roc can be a deadly encounter if the roc picks up and flies away with a PC. Especially if the roc is "smart enough" to carry them far away from the party. Which is potentially doable if the roc lives near a mountain, like they normally do. And sure, you might have enough rounds to potentially break the grapple/restraint. But can you survive the fall? Do you have cat fall? Or featherfall? Or a snap leaf? Can the wizard cast a flying spell on you before you're out of range? A few things go wrong and now you're a 7th level PC fighting this Roc on your own and having to contend with it potentially dropping you from high enough to kill you.
That said, assuming PF1 and animal companion with 3 intelligence or more...the companion in theory could take item mastery feats, but They need to meet the requirements, which generally requires ranks of Use Magic Device. Which as a GM I'm not 100% sure I would let an animal take, even an unusually intelligent animal. And then beyond that you also have to have the fortitude (less of an issue). And then beyond that I would only allow the animal to be wearing/using magic items normally intended for mounts/animal companions of their type (I can't find the rules text on AoN but the slots an animal companion has available is dependent on body type). So they don't have access to all magic items. And I also don't allow for magic items to be "refit" so that they fit into a slot for that companion's body type. So you will be quite restricted in what items can be used, which would limit which item mastery feats would be available to them. So....yes an animal companion could use it. But there are a lot of restrictions I would place on it.
I think you're seeking an answer on the PF1 Rules Forum; this if PF2's. I would agree, this looks like a PF1 question that has accidentally made it into the PF2 subforum. In PF2 animal companions can't increase their int, doesn't get choices of skills, and doesn't get feats.
Yeah, the wording here isn't very precise unfortunately. When worded as "or increasing the clumsy condition by 1 if it is already clumsy" to me read as though it could increase it even if the source is another barbed spear. But, I don't think that was the intention. I think it was the intention that barbed spear would increase clumsy to 2, if the target already had the clumsy condition from another source. However, the poor wording as mentioned doesn't preclude it from self stacking and its somewhat unclear if the duplicate effects rule should take precedence. I mean, IMO it definitely should, but the wording isn't as clear as it could be. |