Deth Braedon's page

So my question is, why we don't have answers?

I think this is a reasonable question/request.

Please note: I am not asking how to handle a rule I find unclear or am uncertain about. I’m asking what was the author’s specific intent for that rule. Saying there is a rule that, in essence, says ‘do what is best for your bunch’ is repeating what is well known and a tangent to “when you [the designers] wrote this rule, how did you envision it being implemented?”

and yes, I understand the number of people who can directly answer, as opposed to providing supposition and opinion, is very few

++ there are many views and opinions as to how it should / should not be, how this should be handled by any individual or table, how ... and, in essence, opinions vary widely and there is no consensus

true story from me childhood:
- team snowballs fights
my group was coordinated (yeah, my fault for that)
and, collectively, we would each lob a snowball, like really high, arching toss at the other peeps
then when they were looking up we’d fastball a batch right at them
yes, the fastballs thrown second arrived first

However the velocities involved with that returning javelin means it is definitely magic and not following the rules of physics.

or perhaps it is following Golarion physics, which is similar yet not perfectly synonymous with real world physics

for example, the sound barrier could be an order of magnitude different
for example, the magical rune on a magical weapon could have near instant acceleration and near instant deceleration

so it might, maybe, be something sort of kinda like this
- the character throws the magical weapon which has a returning rune etched on it
- the weapon (after arriving at & hitting or arriving near yet missing the target) then
— near instant accelerates to dx below [Golarion] mach
— flies at that speed to dx before the characters hand
— near instant decelerates to zero speed then
- the character has their weapon back in their hand

had already flagged this as in the wrong forum
thanks for also flagging it to be moved

... implies some period of time. How long is unstated in the rules.

this is a misuse of the word implies

the concern here is that this really hasn’t been how Paizo has authored their material, implying stuff (we are trying to imply some time is required for this but leave that aspect and it’s details to be inferred) vs explicitly stating what happens (“after the Strike is complete, it flies back to your hand”)
so no, nothing is being implied, it is being explicitly stated (“flies back to your hand”)

there is no need to infer anything (in part because nothing is being implied, in part because what happens is explicitly stated)

No action requirement, but the "flies back to your hand after the Strike is complete" implies some period of time. How long is unstated in the rules.

However *making* the strike takes 2 sec (1 action), and the thrown weapon has to make a return trip to the hand before it can be thrown again. Practically speaking strike/strike/strike seems hard to credit vs strike/do_something_else)/strike

RAW would allow either, which is why we had the discussion initially.

lots of presuming facts not in evidence

as always, you’re free to make anything up and play at your table with whatever you have made up
but yeah, requiring an action to grab that Returning Weapon falls into that

When you make a thrown Strike with this weapon, it flies back to your hand after the Strike is complete.

I am unsure how one reads that and says there’s an action requirement in there (other than the “make a thrown Strike” one).

A turn of Strike, Strike, Strike seems completely allowed (and not unreasonable) with a thrown weapon that has a Returning rune.

Here's the thing with that though: They already made every GM an official rules arbiter, ...

this is a gross misrepresentation of what is going on

so no, the quoted statement is simply off base

aren’t the scroll savant scrolls ‘free’?

During your daily preparations, you can create two temporary scrolls containing arcane spells from your spellbook. These scrolls follow the normal rules for scrolls (page 564), with some additional restrictions. Each scroll must be of a different spell level, and both spell levels must be 2 or more levels lower than your highest-level spell. Any scrolls you create this way become non-magical the next time you make your daily preparations. A temporary scroll has no value.

whereas the other method described requires potentially non-trivial (less trivial than free scrolls each day) expenditures?

You can gain access to a new spell of your tradition from someone who knows that spell or from magical writing like a spellbook or scroll. If you can cast spells of multiple traditions, you can Learn a Spell of any of those traditions, but you must use the corresponding skill to do so. ...

To learn the spell, you must do the following:
• Spend 1 hour per level of the spell, during which you must remain in conversation with a person who knows the spell or have the magical writing in your possession.
• Have materials with the Price indicated in Table 4–3.
...

why did the forum duplicate my post?
I’m blaming bad connectivity sending then disconnect/reconnect and double sending

If the GM doesn't want the skill to be useful they should at least be up front about it.

not my point

and other game systems have provided more than the “next to nothing” version here (including this company doing it better previously; with better defined in this instance as “significantly more detail for how to use this subsystem”)

so when a subsystem has little more than “make it up!” no one should be surprised by the occasional “uh, er, it’s hot” result (or even more than occasional if the players are all pinging on the various and widely numerous ‘so vague, you will have to make it up’ rules within this addition so as to be repeatedly overburdening their GM)

Well, GMs wanted more power and more freedom from rules that players would bash them with. PF2 gave them their wish.

I’d argue the venn diagram of all GMs and all GMs that want this is a circle inside of which is a relatively smaller circle (<20%, likely even single digits)

The rules ARE ambiguous.

Where the rules are unintentionally so, the powers that be should clarify them.

In my experience, allies are not only rarely quiet, they are often seeking attention non-stop, insisting on being the life of the party.
Virtually impossible not to notice that.

I do not believe one can catch jungle fever in a coniferous forest.

Quickened feet are, IMO, best used for dancing.
Of course, others might recommend giving Usain a run for his money (pun unintentional).

I believe Conan still holds the title of biggest barbarian, with biggest defined here as gross box office (excluding budget).
As for the rest of the OP, it’s a lot of extraneous irrelevancies (even the thread title had excessive word count).
And no, Paizo does not officially comment on box office totals.

It isn't hypothetical - ...

given my various ramblings fall into the

Let me just preface my main point by saying something about how this should actually be handled:

Player: ASKS if entering a square of the fire wall and then exiting on the same side later in their turn is going to cause damage, quoting or providing the spell's description if they deem it necessary for the GM to make their decision.
GM: Answers
Player: Accepts the answer
...

so if I make an attacked does it add to my MAP?

yes, it will

ok, thx; I get barkskin cast on me, do I gain fire weakness?

yes

ok cool; when I cloud jump can I use all my actions to leap really far?

yes

sweet! now what if I -

hold on there, Spanky, you’ve been asking a lot of questions which I feel seem pretty obvious - what’s going on?

well, I both am a native speaker and have a master’s in English literature but ever since that one time when ‘crosses’ suddenly included ‘enters’, my character got rocked and we got TPK’d, I’m doubting my mastery of the tongue I’ve spoken all my life and studied for many years at a higher learning institute and this one guy on the forums says asking the GM instead of assuming the rules are written to be read literally is how ‘things should go’, so I’m doing that ‘should’ - asking if the rules about to impact me mean what their verbatim meaning is or if my mastery of English is again failing me because, you know, for Paizo reasons

and a few weeks later the GM does not stop but changes to a diff system where there is zero doubt that crosses does not include enters

well, my peep said

I don’t know. I’m sure Paizo put that in there somewhere, as there is no way they would not have properly covered that. Just give me a lil time to figure out what the Paizo designers intended for this and I’ll get back to you.

the rules are silent and incomplete in so many areas

instead, we have gone with not playing the parts where that is the case
no, we are not gonna write a single sentence, not pull a single ruling out of our backsides, to cover what should have been covered
we want to play the mechanics of the game as Paizo designers intended those basic game mechanics to function
and if a rule is absent or ambiguous, then we are following their lead of

this section is so secondary, it can be done without, so no need to write it up - just skimp/skip over it and move on to the actually important stuff

so that’s what we’ve been doing - ignoring the stuff that was clearly so trivial it was left out and moving on to the parts which matter (and are properly covered)

Deth Braedon wrote:

the GM has to virtually non-stop “come up with a solution”

In every table-top RPG ever to have a GM role, forever thus far, regardless of whether the text in the book presents itself honestly by acknowledging that a GM is going to have to ...

uh, no

of course the GM has to be deciding things like

I want to look around town, see if there are any bounties posted and the like type stuff

as I follow the path this large group of orcs took - you said it was easy to follow, right? - I’m looking for signs that a small group or even a single orc split off from the rest

The creature notices you Palming the Object, and the GM determines the creature’s response.

no one had any dispute about that (that I am aware of)

what is being discussed is, for example
- what is meant by unattended in the phrase “up to two weapons, each of which must be wielded by you or a willing ally, or else unattended” and is that the same as in this sentence “If the slippers are left unattended for a while, they tend to attract spiders that nest inside.” or in this one “If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don’t act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please.”?
- what is meant by “special statistics” in “If you take on a battle form with a polymorph spell, the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties.”?
- how are animal companions and familiars supposed to be handled in exploration mode?
- if the party has to disengage and runaway during an encounter, and the only viable option is every player character will need their three actions to accomplish escaping, are animal companions and familiars supposed to be left behind? especially is not mature or have the independent ability?

the list of incomplete or excessively vague game mechanics is so long it is well past the statistically significant level
again, not talking about the storytelling elements that every GM is expected to be deciding every session (though this is almost always the aspect, like above, which is commented upon)

Though this does give me a fun idea for a possible intelligent item, perhaps connected to the archdevil Mammon or the circle of Erebus, that only operates when the party sacrifices wealth to put in Hell's vaults.

this one time at DnD-derivative camp, we had an item ...

hey buddies, look, it takes a lot of effort and energy to provide you all these special abilities and use my powers ...

uh, what do you mean? don’t you just do those? like this staff I have here? or Billy’s sword? or Wendy’s boots?

oh puh-lease! that’s just insulting comparing me to those - how would you feel if I compared you to a worm or a bug? “don’t you just walk like a rat? swim like a fish?”

oh you’re right, our bad; what should we do?

I’m so glad you asked ...

...

a full share?!?

and hilarity ensued

a 1-inch-thick wall of fire feels like something a character can jump through and merely be a little singed

one could argue that given

4d6 fire damage would often be “a little singed”

I just took 18 fire damage!

::slaps PC:: ::auto heals them for 2d8+10:: snap out of it!

thanks - I needed that

Why are rules questions not getting answered?

I have ranted about this other places, and more than once (no link additional links)

they are exercising their right to remain silent, and doing so rightfully so

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

the game is not internally consistent

given that is what has been memorialized in published form, no one should be surprised by the vast silence of Fifth Amendment invocation
surprised, no
disappointed, yes

in 2e I feel there has been a shift of power from players back towards GMs

I think you mean PF2e has seen a significant shift in increasing the burden on the GM

besides the non-insignificant places where the rules actually say “the GM will decide”, or “the GM will usually”, or a like phrase,
there are so many vague, ambiguous, incomplete, or more than one of those aspects of the game throughout the CRB (and subsequent publications ) that these occur to the degree where
the GM has to virtually non-stop “come up with a solution”

if all we want to do is tell a story, we need zero rules for that
my group has even played that game where ‘storyteller’ is in the subtitle
however, that is not what we wanted to do when, well over a year ago, we picked up PF2e and started that as the game we’d play during our weekly sessions

what we we wanted was to play the next iteration of Paizo’s flagship game
to know what the designers were up to when they designed their game
not some ‘here is some stuff, though these blanks will need filling; you know, a do-it-yourself kit where you have to provide many of the needed materials as you go about doing it yourself’
we want to play a game where, at every turn, how the designers intended the systems mechanics would work was obvious
yeah, yeah, yeah, someone will whine about an encyclopedic sized rule book, or that this is impossible, or some other nonsensical rationalizing about why Paizo couldn’t do what many others (including themselves) have done at other times
I am not asking for perfection, or every nuance and oddity be covered
nor am I asking for ‘what should the NPC say here?’ or ‘this monster do there?’
what I mean is the common, banal, ordinary, everyday, encountered in many if not every session type aspects be covered and not in the ‘gee, what is going on in the latest thread on battleforms and special statistics?’ way we have see so very much of what is in the CRB et al and how it was [not] covered

an objective, disinterested review of the past year plus strongly suggests
- there was no comprehensive, internally consistent vision
- a bunch of various ideas were hodge-podged together without regard for how they dovetail with each other (or even if they do or can seemlessly fully mesh)
- there is next to zero interest by the-powers-that-be in clarifying any of the various ambiguous and incomplete portions of the rules (and zero interest in doing so in any way even vaguely resembling a ‘timely manner’)
- this lack of vision and providing clarifications is not the industry norm, seemingly unique to this entity

that’s how kobolds role

I am at a loss

The official book doesn't list it.

I’m calling shenanigans on this

as for the pet peeve ... if you’d raved about they should say corrigenda and not errata, I’d be more sympathetic
but no, a list of corrected errors is a list of corrected errors and that should be sufficient, even if you dislike the format of those listed errors, or that they are on a web page whose URL includes “FAQ” and not “errata” (or “corrigenda”)

An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty.

that’s quite clear

There is inaccurate language in the Multiple Attack Penalty section implying it applies only to attack rolls that will be receiving errata.

but that is literally the last sentence in that bullet point, and neither contracts, precludes, nor invalidates any aspect above it (like the first quote in this post)

I see your point but I’m sticking with:
- that posting on the website is official
- not ‘plan to make this official, but is not yet official’

it is right there:
Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata
Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata (Part 2)
Pathfinder Bestiary 2 Errata

do you consider those other two, the ones the Part 2 deal is wedged between to be “ACTUALLY errata” or are they in your “a pseudo-faq pretending to be errata” category?

I too took “crosses the wall” to mean “makes it mad”.
That certainly seems to be what was being described in the original post.

It's only when you check the errata specifically for this do you see they intended to change it in the future

I don’t grok this

The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll. Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.

yes, the errata clarified that “ The multiple attack penalty applies on those skill actions as well.” but the original wording was far from obvious that wasn’t the case (or the intent)

I'd rather have the designer's thoughts than not.

this is me

not sure how knowing that is controversial
yet trying to get that here has been shown to be exceptionally challenging, if not simply all but impossible

I commented on this recently, and I’ll say essentially the same thing here:
- many many game companies and designers, both larger and smaller, are much more pro- and re- active to rules questions
- in many cases, getting responses within days clarifying what the design intent was when a rule was written

why that is not the case here ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
none of the suggested reasons for why this is so which have been posted in this or the other various threads where this has been commented upon hold any weight - at least not with me

in my gaming experiences of the past decade plus, where online access is near universal, what has happened with PF2e is an anomaly
oddly unique to this gaming corner

If you give a mouse a cookie...

I’ve called shenanigans on this claim and I’m doing it again

the sophistic reasons for ‘why they cannot and we should not expect them to’ seem virtually unique to this entity
this reluctance to clarify all but certainly is

is the a Pathfinder Second Edition question?
or a first edition one?

I find that’s aimed more for L2 than L1
though now I wonder if that’s a factor in this imply/infer mix up

I saw someone make a post replying to Gortle and got confused for a moment scrolling through the thread wondering why I couldn't find any of their posts...

I wish that was the only confusing thing in this thread.

Wow, what a narrow point of view of the English language you have, that you can't see a rotation and keep moving.

I recommend the OED.

I have April 2028 in the pool

I said that Mark was implying.

No

With this demonstrated level of lexical understanding, I’m going to say all your interpretations of the written word need to be placed under the
- Requires Verification
umbrella

and this one especially so

Most of the points listed at the top of the thread are about additional damage - for which we have some satements from Mark that implies that additional damage adds.

Only the speaker can imply.

So yes, we - you and I - are in complete agreement that

the actual right answer is obvious

because the designer even implied that “actual right answer” last fall

and you say Paizo is “not responding to these questions in any sort of reasonable time frame” - they’ve been doing it preemptively for months
if you are able to infer all they’ve been implying

fortunately, I’m here to help
cause I grok what they’re slingin

there is an example in the rules of how poison works
what the poison is is irrelevant to the validity and general application of the example provided
did the CRB include an example which began with

To see how a poison works, let’s look at the arsenic alchemical item (page 550).

that was intended only as an example of that specific poison and not as an example to be applied broadly to how all poisons work?

I’d argue that’s not the novacula Occami interpretation
yet if that’s how your table wants to roll ...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

official ruling?
is the example included in the rules considered ‘official’?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

try a / instead of a \

I suggest rereading the Afflictions rules on CRB pp457-8, and the Conditions Appendix on CRB pp618-23
Wasp Venom is not as problematic as the original post supposes

Conditions are persistent. Whenever you’re affected by a condition, its effects last until the condition’s stated duration ends, the condition is removed, or terms dictated in the condition itself cause it to end.

Condition Values

Some conditions have a numerical value, called a condition value, indicated by a numeral following the condition. This value conveys the severity of a condition, and such conditions often give you a bonus or penalty equal to their value. These values can often be reduced by skills, spells, or simply waiting. If a condition value is ever reduced to 0, the condition ends.

“These values can often be reduced by ... simply waiting.”

Since the poison has a maximum duration of 5 minutes, you recover from it once the 5 minutes pass, no matter which stage you’re at.

no, the GM isn’t required to “since the poison has a maximum duration .., you recover from it once the [duration has passed], no matter which stage you’re at”

I too am trying to help people understand the rules.
As they are written.
Not as someone infers they should be interpreted.
In a prior post, I quoted many of the related rules.
No where in there is anything which supports the claim that what a piece of ammunition is or is not made out of limits the benefits of the fundamental runes of the ranged weapon which fires that ammunition.

Low-grade items ... can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items ... can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items ... can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes.

Arrow: These projectiles are the ammunition for bows. The shaft of an arrow is made of wood. It is stabilized in flight by fletching at one end and bears a metal head on the other.

Bolt: Shorter than traditional arrows but similar in construction, bolts are the ammunition used by crossbows.

Sling Bullet: These are small metal balls, typically either iron or lead, designed to be used as ammunition in slings.

I’m not seeing what you’re seeing.

Low-grade items ... can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items ... can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items ... can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes.

somehow applies to items that do not have runes etched on them ... I cannot connect those dots

I can see how one could think that there are dots there which should be connected
yet the rules do not explicitly state anything like that

It's entirely relevant to the conversation and you all keep disregarding it because it helps prove you wrong. You keep disregarding a lot of points I make, and only try to latch onto anything you can turn around and make it seem like I am reaching.

I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means

and your argument is a clause in the blanches entry was intended by the designers to have broader consequences that are not stated anywhere else?

that’s a long way to go to infer something
so I’m sticking with:
- nothing is explicitly stated [about non-blanched items]
- no, the designers are [still] not implying anything (nor leaving anything for you to infer)

is there any chance that phrase means
- bolts for a crossbow (“ammunition for such a weapon”; i.e., not non-bolt ammunition for a crossbow)
- arrows for a bow (“ammunition for such a weapon”; i.e., not non-arrow ammunition for a bow)
- and so on

How about instead of looking up logical fallacies to throw around you think up an actual argument to my question about the Blanch?

if I understand your argument correctly:

do I have that correct?

if so my counter is:
- nothing is explicitly stated
- no, the designers are not implying anything (nor leaving anything for you to infer)
- this item is useful in many ways, not only the one you have singled out; as such, the rules are clear for all of the ways it can be used (even if you feel used this one way is saying more that what the words explicitly say)

Low-grade items can be used in the creation of magic items of up to 8th level, and they can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items can be used to create magic items of up to 15th level and can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items use the purest form of the precious material, and can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes. Using purer forms of common materials is so relatively inexpensive that the Price is included in any magic item.

Ammunition

Some entries in the ranged weapons tables are followed by an entry indicating the type of ammunition that weapon launches. The damage die is determined by the weapon, not the ammunition. Because that and other relevant statistics vary by weapon, ammunition entries list only the name, quantity, Price, and Bulk.

When using magic ammunition, use your ranged weapon’s fundamental runes to determine the attack modifier and damage dice.

There are other details, like magic ammunition not using any of the ranged weapon’s property runes.

Precious Material Weapons

Weapons made of precious materials are more expensive and sometimes have special effects. You can make metal weapons out of any of these materials except darkwood, and wooden weapons out of darkwood. To determine the Price of 10 pieces of ammunition, use the base Price for a single weapon, without adding any extra for Bulk.

A magic weapon is a weapon etched with only fundamental runes. A weapon potency rune gives an item bonus to attack rolls with the weapon, and a striking rune increases the weapon’s number of weapon damage dice.

The Prices here are for all types of weapons. You don’t need to adjust the Price from a club to a greataxe or the like. These weapons are made of standard materials, not precious materials such as cold iron.

I can go on and on quoting rules.

... or are you going to keep attacking me personally? I think there's a name for that, hmm...

you made a classic logical fallacy

and I stated such, each time

I am unsure how that is a personal attack