CrisprCass9's page

Maybe there's a specific reason for this I'm unaware of, but combat grab not having any built-in exception for the grapple trait is a major feel bad. Like in the fiction, I don't see why a kholo who can grab with their jaws can't use their teeth instead of a free hand to grab on to someone after their strike, or a kobold with a fangwire can't wrap it around their foe and pull them in as it cuts into their flesh. But RAW you have to use a free hand and grab them with that free hand. And I know you *can* grapple instead of using combat grab, but against high fort foes it's much more likely to fail.

I was wondering about the discrepancy between new and old Lore ancestry feats (new giving additional lore, old giving only training). I recently posted about this topic here , and I thought it might also make sense as a PFS ruling, so I am reposting it here so the PFS rules people might see it.

Yeah, the PFS ruling seems the easier route. I’m unsure if there’s a thread or something to suggest stuff for PFS specifically, but if there is feel free to mention this thread there.

Feature: Multiple level 1 ancestry feats from pre-remaster, titled “Blank Lore”.
Problem: These lores only give trained in a lore, while new “blank lore” ancestry feats give additional lore for that lore.
Solution: Either individually or blanket declare that lore skills give additional lore for any lores they give.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs5xsyx?-Lore-Errata-Request

Here is a thread where I proposed this originally.

Something I recently realized that bothers me is that certain older ancestries are worse in an easily fixable way. Currently, Elf Lore gives Additional Lore for Elves, while Vanara lore only trains you in Vanara Lore. This also hurts fetchlings, kitsune, nagaji, androids, and more. It would be really easy to put out errata that says “If your ancestry lore feat would train you in a lore, you instead get additional lore for that skill.”

Similar thread here to see how several people have proposed handling this.

So long story short I could put PS runes on it but not B runes, and the PS runes apply to either damage type RAW? Cool.

2 main questions: if I have, say, a clan dagger (p vers b), does it count as a “bludgeoning weapon” for things like the crushing rune? Conversely something like the switchpick (b vers p) clearly would be bludgeoning, but does a weapon’s “being a damage type weapon” depend on its primary damage type or all of its damage types?

Second question: if I have a switchpick (b vers p) and use the piercing damage, do I still get the effect of crushing? The description of the rune doesn’t mention being based on dealing bludgeoning damage, just being applied on a bludgeoning weapon.

Also this is all based on descriptions from AoN, I haven’t looked if they updated this for PC2.