Eaten by Chyzaedu's page

I turned the page and it does Domain Initiate does state you can take it multiple times.

Everything else I said still stands uncorrected. Advanced Domain does not give clerics extra points in focus. Only by selecting Domain Initiate can one gain focus points.

This was a big necro- since 2020, the remaster rules have made some clarifications and adjustments to focus pool:

The maximum number of points in your pool is equal to the number of focus spells you know or 3, whichever is lower. This counts only spells that require Focus Points to cast. For example, a bard’s composition cantrips don’t count toward the size of the pool.

I think it seems intentional to me, as someone in a campaign with a bow-using Mastermind Rogue, ranged weapon sneak attack seems to be the least supported of the rogue sneak attack options. It could be just an oversight, though, as there are plenty of those in the rules at large.

We can see what happens to the archetypes such as Mauler, Martial Artist, and Archer in the remaster, but I think if anything they may have their proficiency/critical specialization rules tightened rather than loosened.

If you plan on taking any other bleed damage effects for a rogue, the crossbow specialization may be a bit redundant anyway.

The remastered "lifespan measured in centuries" thing in Elf Atavism I think addresses, at least partially, the concerns and clarifications from the original printings about Ancient Elf:

I would say that Dwarves' and Gnomes' lifespans are "measured in centuries," as they are typically described as living 300 or 400+ years, so I would allow them to take Elf Atavism - Ancient Elf. Goblins, Orcs and Humans, however, are described as not living over a century, so I would not allow it for them.

I believe Leshies would qualify as they don't age.

Races with a typical lifespan between 100 and 200 years, such as Halflings and Lizardfolk, present a bit of a grey area, but I would say that it doesn't qualify as a "lifespan measured in centuries." Other people have disagreed on other forums, however.

At the end of the day, I think they did leave some space in the remaster to allow for Elf Atavism- Ancient Elf, but the fact that they tied it to something relatively nebulous such as "lifespan measured in centuries" leaves it up to a table-by-table interpretation. I wonder if PFS has updated its stance on it. It's also somewhat of a contentious issue because it is a very appealing feat selection for people who want to optimize for an early multiclass archetype.

Some monsters have similar reactions to Reactive Strike but disrupt on a success and critical success- Fighters in a disruptive stance can disrupt manipulate or concentrate actions on a success or critical success. Casters can counterspell spells with the Attack trait.

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.

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?

Disrupt is a defined game term in PF2e, and I think Reactive Strike, Counterspell, and their variants are common enough that it probably comes up in most campaigns at least occasionally.

On a tangent:
There are feats that specify that certain effects (or the checks related to them) have certain traits; the one I recall seeing the most often is "this is an incapacitation effect," such as Dazing Blow.

But there's explicit GM fiat for the consequences of what happens to a disrupted action, so I'd say there's RAW support for either interpretation- however, I would say that MAP advancement is akin to a "cost" of an Attack action, and advance it regardless.

Also, I just had a thought that if you fail an Exacting Strike, you don't advance your MAP, but if it were disrupted, or critically failed, you would.

It would've been so easy to add the reach requirement to Grapple in the remaster, like in lots of other feats and featues, or have the agile maneuvers sidebar not explicitly talk about agile and MAP only, but because they didn't, I still see these as legitimate issues. The rules go out of their way to say two things that will end a Grapple action specifically, but nothing about teleporting or reach.

Also, the Grabbed condition exists separately from the Grapple effect, so I don't think that it's a case where they wanted to leave Grapple open-ended for spells or magic.

That, plus the fact that Grapple "takes care of itself" if the aggressor can't repeat the action on successive rounds, makes it seem like this is a case of implied rules rather than explicit- which is why it'd be nice to get some context from an author. It does seem like sometimes even the authors have different interpretations or expectations of what is actually a rule (see: remastered wounded condition, or the leaping thread currently also up).

... how does reach for the stars even work? What does expending additional ammunition mean? Can you consume ammunition that's still in your bag? Is it intended to only work with magazine weapons?

I thought the last sentence made it pretty clear: you have to be holding the ammo/powder or wearing it to use it with the feat. So "no" to stowed in a bag, but "yes" to "worn" in a bandolier, belt, or pouch (which is where I believe most people usually keep their consumables and ammo).

So there are some features that appear to let you Leap (or even Stride) regardless of your speed, such as burning jet:

The maximum distance of the Stride is 60 feet. You can choose to Leap up to 40 feet in any direction instead of Striding.

But there's also this feat, Malleable Movement, which says:

As normal, this can't increase the distance of your Leap beyond your Speed.

even if that would exceed its normal maximum distance for leaping.

But is that really a rule? Or just an incorrect assumption on that feat's part?

(by the way, Burning Jet and Jet are from the same book.)

Edit: Reach for the Stars may be a better example of a very large Leap distance.

Yes, an argument can be made that, by RAW, teleporting out of a grapple doesn't remove the grabbed condition. However, this is clearly absurd and not RAI - though there are some ways of inflicting grabbed that you plausibly couldn't shake by teleporting, like Grasp of the Deep.

I would say it would be patently absurd if the Grapple action didn't have a finite duration already, but since it ends after a round unless another Grapple action is taken, I don't think it's quite so clear-cut. It could be that some relevant text about ending the effect early, a la Snagging Strike, was omitted, but teleporting away from a Grapple doesn't create a clear paradox in my mind, because it will most likely end within the combat round, which is already an abstraction of what's actually happening "in real time" in the game.

Part of the problem with RAI is you never really know what was intended without going to the primary source. Failing a specific rule saying that teleports (or other outside/forced/non-"move" movement) in PF2e can end the Grapple effect early, a note from the writer stating something about their intent would serve a similar purpose, but I haven't come across that yet either in my research.

Inescapable grasp describes that exact situation, implying that the normal interaction is for a teleport effect normally getting you out of a grapple.

You are still in a position to trigger an attack of opportunity and get disrupted from the kind of character that likes to grapple. Dimension door and most teleport spell/actions except flicker will provoke.
It's helpful for grapple effects that don't come from characters tho like black tentacles.

Your grasp has a supernatural quality to it, preventing your foes from easily escaping—with or without magical assistance. If a creature you have grabbed attempts to use a teleportation spell or effect, it must succeed at a DC 15 flat check or the spell fails.

By my reading, it seems to strongly imply that the writer assumed a teleport might break a grapple, but it doesn't outright say that this is the default behavior. Imposing a flat check on a teleport doesn't go as far as to say that this is to prevent the teleport from breaking the grapple, unless you link it up with the first sentence, which people often cite as "flavor text" for a lot of abilities, and then making a small leap that this must mean a teleport ends a grapple immediately.

Conversely, one might say that teleporting away from a grapple and remaining grappled until the end of the grappler's next turn is a way to "escape" the grapple (small "e"), as it's unlikely that they'll be able to sustain a grapple if you teleport away. (Unless, of course, the grapple action has indeterminate range as was pointed out earlier in this thread.)

I think the intent seems to be that maneuvers such as grapples and trips use the actor's "default" or unarmed reach (when not done with a weapon trait), as well as moving away from a grappler's reach ending a grapple immediately, but the rules never explicitly say this as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, the best I can still see are some assumptions providing strong indications of the design intent but never actually codifying that intent in the rules.

I'd argue that if you have to make a concealment/hidden flat check in addition to an attack roll or saving throw to affect a concealed/hidden target, you should have to make an immobilize check as well as a skill check to, e.g., reposition a creature (ally or not).

If you rule that you can reposition an ally with less effort, that'd be a separate consideration in my mind.

My version of "take the highest DC of multiple flat checks" in this instance would be a creature immobilized by two different effects- in which case only the highest DC check would need to be beaten.

Coming from other games and editions, it makes intuitive sense to me that a victim of a grapple could escape by teleporting away or being shunted by a forced movement effect. However, in PF2e, I cannot find any specific rules stating that any movement of a grappled party ends the grapple early. Here's what I've got:

Critical Success
Your target is restrained until the end of your next turn unless you move or your target Escapes.

Success
Your target is grabbed until the end of your next turn unless you move or your target Escapes.

Both of these only say that the grappler has to move (or perhaps be moved), or the victim has to take the Escape action, or else the Grapple lasts until the end of the grappler's next turn.

You are incapable of movement. You can't use any actions that have the move trait. If you're immobilized by something holding you in place and an external force would move you out of your space, the force must succeed at a check against either the DC of the effect holding you in place or the relevant defense (usually Fortitude DC) of the monster holding you in place.

To me this seems like a repeatable check to bypass an Immobilized effect, akin to a concealment check, rather than something which would end the condition, like a counteract check, since it doesn't mention ending the condition.

Teleportation effects instantaneously move something from one point in space to another. Teleportation does not usually trigger reactions based on movement.

Nothing about ending grapples or immobilized.

Again, coming from other systems, the idea that moving the victim out of "reach" should end a grapple seems intuitive, but a strict reading to me seems that the "until the end of (the grappler's) next turn" does most of this lifting, sort of how sustained spell effects don't end immediately if the caster is incapacitated. Unless I'm missing a rule somewhere, it seems like being teleported away from a grapple would still result in being grabbed/restrained until you escape, the grappler moves (oddly), or the end of the grappler's next turn.

I did some searching, but couldn't find any citations of the missing rule(s) about teleporting or forced relocation breaking grapples.