Elicoor's page

How does the Unified Theory feat fit into all this, I wonder?

It's going to be a bit long, but there are 2 elements to explain.

The first part of Unified Theory is when the wizard finds the explanation that connects every type of magic, breaking every concept of magic down to fundamental rules that can be explained through Arcane. Through Unified Theory, one would be able to explain how deities grant magic, how sorcery can stay in the blood, skipping generations, how witch patrons can grant them abilities through a familiar, how embracing nature can give you druidic abilities, but also why every spell is locked to some traditions.

You can see it the same way fundamental physics tries to find a theory that connects every fundamental interaction, connecting general relativity & quantum mechanics, that would give you the capacity to describe anything in a physical sense. Except... it would apply to everything magical.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part of Unified Theory, one that most people seem to occult (pun intended), is the ability to use that theory to describe any magical phenomenon in a matter of seconds (the time of a Recall Knowledge), as if you had some supernatural ability to break down these phenomena into their component blocks, blocks that you can then explain through the theoretical model defined in Arcana.

It's as if, as a theoretical physicist, you somehow acquired the ability to solve extremely complex equations about any physical phenomenon in a few seconds without external help. You're no longer an astrophysicist, a quantum physicist, or a specialist of air movements : you now are able to understand, describe and break down every phenomenon in the Universe to an accurate mathematical description.

As a Legendary-level feat, you have to consider it as some supernatural accomplishment, something impossible to do, but that your character did anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, Unified Theory gives you 2 things :
- a deep explanation of all types of magic (the Theory of everything in physics)
- an innate perception and understanding of it (the supernatural ability to mathematize everything in seconds)

You forget another asset of Sentinel: It gives you access to one of the best (if not the best) skill feat in the game for medium/heavy armor users: Armor Specialist.
So, it's not 1-3 class feats. It's 1 class feat and at most 1 useless skill feat. Armor Specialist is not something you want to let behind.

The main issue here is that Armor specialist is currently written as having the Skill tag, despite being completely unrelated to skills in any way.

And it's probably a mistake, due to a template copy/paste from Steel Skin, which has a Survival prerequisite. Another point making me think it's a mistake is Mark having made an errata note for the feat in that thread..

In the current environment, I concede that Armor Specialist is a very strong Skill feat, as it grants access to defensive options for a small price. But it's probably going to change very soon, along with the APG errata.

Anything incorporeal, most air, water and fire elementals, some other creatures that have no physical substance for sound to bounce on.

Ravingdork wrote:

So if I hit someone three times, inflicting 1d6 persistent bleed each time, on their turn they roll 1d6 bleed three times, taking only the highest result?

What if, instead of compare dices and use them each time persistent damage is about to be applied, we use the rolled value.

This follow the "step 1: Roll the Damage Dice and Apply Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties" and solve all comparisons.

(Examples)

That would actually be a nice way to work with... Except it's contradicted by CRB621: "Instead of taking persistent damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your turns as long as you have the condition, rolling any damage dice anew each time."

I'd be very glad if some of the full caster classes had a bit more than 3 feats at many levels (yes, I'm talking a bit about wizards and their very low number of feats, especially considering the fact some of them can be gated behind other options, shortening even more the list of available feats, while lacking many options about magical knowledge).

Brysun wrote:

Page 205+ Was Polar Ray intentionally left off the Elemental Spell List? If so, why?

Almost all Cold and Electric spells where, which is weird because I consider Lightning Bolt and Cone of Cold etc to be "elemental" but I guess Golarion or the lore or the game doesn't.

It's basically true for all energy derivatives :

However, a lot of element-based spells have unstable behaviour towards elements/energies :

- Elemental Zone (SoM) applies to Electricity and Cold
- Elemental Betrayal applies to Cold (APG) but not Electricity
- Elemental Confluence (Air option) (SoM) has the Air trait and deals Electricity damage without having the Lightning trait, while dealing no non-electricity damage
- Element Embodied (SoM) doesn't have any elemental trait by itself, only the resulting form ; the Air option deals Bludgeoning or Lightning damage ; the Water option doesn't deal any Cold damage.
- Elemental Absorption (Water option) (SoM) gives resistance to effects with the Cold trait, but the Air and Earth option do not apply to their derivative energy
- Elemental Tempest (CRB) talks about elements, but only applies to energy derivatives.

And at the same time, there is some illogical behaviour in the composition of the Elementalist spell list :

- You have Mantle of the Magma Heart, which is OK as a Fire spell... But at the same time you have Mantle of the Frozen Heart, which doesn't have any Elemental trait, as it's a purely Cold spell. (The word "Water" is not even present anywhere in the spell description)
- Why do Snowball, Frigid Flurry and Wall of Ice have the Water trait in addition to the Cold trait, where other Cold spells don't have it ? It seems somehow arbitrary, and not completely linked to damage types (Snowball deals only cold damage for example)

I'm mostly certain it's a way to avoid having a single class with all damage-dealing spells, but the spells themselves are lacking some internal coherency.

This is a first edition question obviously, but still an aside: "in second edition you double the dice" is not correct. You roll normal damage and then double the result.

That part is very important, as it makes rolling high damage even more important in case of a critical hit, unlike before, where doubling the number of dice made your damage roll tend to follow a bell curve, and thus get more average results.

Then again, their philosophy on page space now seems to be "lots of repetition".

The problem when you try to reduce page space to squeeze more options in a book, is that it increases the number of elements that require DM validation. And that starts to become a problem when it becomes about character creation, which is a process you're supposed to be able to do on your own (for example if you want to prepare a character for PFS).

If you have to sort out every sub-variant of the eidolon type you chose, it quickly becomes something complicated to read or to understand. Having mutually exclusive variants without a lot of subvariants makes things clearer.

Plus, having repetition between both helps players familiarize themselves with the way eidolons stat blocks are written, and it opens doors to make more specific eidolons as uncommon or rare options in future books.

I find it logical for Raging Thrower not to have the rage trait, as it's not something you use, but something you passively have.
Plus, as Claxon said, bonus damage from Rage only applies while raging. The feat only expands the list of weapons to which the Rage bonus damage applies.

Usually, mundane effects do not have the fire trait, and magical/alchemical/non-natural effects or items have it.

And as we know that some things in SoM might have interactions with those traits (Elementalist class archetype), it might have its importance.

Using Divine Lance as an alignment detector is completely an evil act: you cast offensive spells at people who didn't attack you (and might be completely innocent, but of an opposing alignment by nature).

Would you find it ok to cast Produce Flame at random people, considering some might have innate Fire Resistance, just to detect those who don't ?

Yeah, it also feels that way for me. Shipping fees have become so high that it's often far more interesting to buy the pdf and the book separately.

And what was true about a pdf only subscription 9 years ago might not be true nowadays. The evolutions that happened these one and a half last years towards more virtual tables, more long-distance play and less in-person play, especially in Europe where more restrictions apply (like curfews and forbidden gatherings), shaped a world in which more people would like to subscribe to pdfs to get the books.

9 years ago, pdfs were somewhat more of a bonus for PFS players who didn't have to bring 20 pounds of books due to picking options in multiple supplements. Now it makes things easier for a lot of people who use VTTs on a weekly basis.

Plus, I really do think some of us (people in non-English speaking countries) would like to subscribe to pdfs to have the newest game elements in the original language and having paizo earn money for it a bit sooner, while buying the books for their collections in their own language, making it easier to play at a table with new players who do not always have enough skill in speaking other languages.

Besmara : Dhelmise
Brigh : Klinklang
Ylimancha : Wingull
Norgorber : It's a secret

Making enemies lose actions is most of the time a good tactical move, even if it costs the group more actions than it makes lose to an enemy : you have to see it as a ratio of action cost to action lost, relative to the total number of actions available to each group.

Making a solo boss enemy lose an action is good : they only have 3 actions a turn to your (standard group considered here) 12 actions. If you lose 2 to cast slow, unless the enemy critical successes, you payed 1/6th of your actions to make the enemy lose at least 1/3 of their actions in a given turn. The real action cost looks bad, the relative is good.

Doing the same to a basic enemy when you have 6 or more of them is a bad move.

Maneuvers are good. Not perfect, not all the time, but overall they are good.

Another very important tactics is the use of Delay. It helps your group setting up things when the initiative is not in your favour. For example, casting Fear/using Intimidate just before the enemy's turn is not very useful, as it only makes them weaker for the duration of their own turn. If you Delay your turn, play after them, you can use your frightening effect for the whole round duration, weakening them against all of your team's moves AND their next turn.

And as Unicore said just before : There's no absolute winning strategy. Have a good score in your main stat, adapt to the fights, check your environment (chances are you're not fighting on your own turf), and don't expect every roll above a 5 to be a success all the time.

graystone wrote:

Michael Sayre wrote:

There are a total of 62 firearms and supporting weapons in Guns & Gears, including all the magical firearms but not including any of the siege engines or the non-firearm gears weapons. All of the traits used for all of those firearm weapons are-

Michael Sayre wrote:

Thrown

I have to admit, I'm quite curious on the firearm that you have to throw. ;)

"For those people who hated the Gunslinger feat that threw a melee weapon and shot it for more damage, we present to you a gun you just straight-up throw instead."

As one of the first authors of that kind of post back during the playtest... Well at least I'm curious to know if it's supposed to be some kind of TORGUE-style reload on a specific magic weapon (in which case I wouldn't find it that farfetch'd :D)

Well, that's not true, Ruzza.
According to the panel Focus points from multiples sources from the CRB pg. 300, if you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, you gain additional points.

Example pg 300 "For instance, if you were a cleric with the Domain Initiate feat, you would have a pool with 1 Focus Point. Let’s say you then took the champion multiclass archetype and the Healing Touch feat. Normally, this feat would give you a focus pool. Since you already have one, it instead increases your existing pool’s capacity by 1."

And Healing touch contains the following text : "If you don’t already have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point".

Thus, whenever you gain an ability that makes you gain a Focus point or a Focus pool, if you already have one, you increase your capacity by 1, up to a maximum of 3.

I'd love to see it as a class archetype. For different types of casters, removing the spell slots chassis, and make it a cantrip-based caster, with focus spells to improve blasts, and all elemental powers in class feats.

And absolutely not based on Constitution, which always had this illogical feeling to it. Having the class be a polyclass archetype, a bit like Arcanist-style casting is supposed to be in SoM, is the way to go. Plus, it would give other approaches to existing classes, instead of increasing the number of available classes.

I see a lot of people saying the kineticist is not magical... Well, by nature it is. Blasts and other powers were SLA and Su in 1st edition, not Ex. Making them nonmagical would be a total nonsense.

There's no absolute interpretation. Making it another game point to discuss with your DM, without forgetting that if it feels too good as an option, it probably isn't intended.

However, you have to distinguish two cases.
Some interactions call for a roll, some don't.

- In the case of Improved Knockdown + The harder they fall, the second only calls for a successful/critical success. No reference to rolls. Same for Magical Trickster that only needs for the attack to be a success, however you got that success.

- But it's not always the case: for example, when you consider feats like Assurance, the text tells "You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of...". In such a case, some feats that call for a rolled success/critical success might not be able to trigger, as you purposely decided not to roll.
For example, Assurance (Crafting) + Impeccable Crafter: the first one makes you forgo your roll, the second says that when you roll a success, you get a critical success instead. As you didn't roll, you shouldn't be able to get the increase to critical success. That point is still debated once in a while, and in the meantime: ask your DM.

Lastly, I've been digging a bit more about specific traits on spells, and I found out 3 spells that might have an issue with their traits :

Clownish Curse, Savant's Curse, and Daydreamer's Curse all have the Attack trait, though never call for attack rolls of any kind, thus never applies to anything from the spell. And I also checked, the trait doesn't apply to other curse spells with similar wordings.

Do you think it's an editing mistake from the Paizo staff ?

The activation is "Recall Knowledge". So this is how the item is specifically activated.

In other words, if you lost the ability to Recall Knowledge, maybe because of a curse or something like that (Some kind of memory curse, for example), you wouldn't be able to activate the item due to being unable to perform the action.

It also means the activation has all the traits of the Recall Knowledge action (Concentrate, Secret).

But, as a magic item, the effects are specific. You don't need to make a Recall Knowledge before. And the effects of the item have you make a Recall Knowledge. To which everything relevant would apply.

The problem here is that the chase was resolved in encounter mode, making your DM completely logical in having you use actions for your animal companion.
However, if you left it behind for a full minute, it would probably follow from a distance, according to CRB634 ("If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. 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.")

If that chase was resolved as the special Chase subsystem from GMG, you probably wouldn't have that to handle until the real confrontation part which would play in normal encounter mode.

When the wergeld/weregild has official specified values depending on the age and gender of the murdered person, as it was at some period with the Wisigoths, it's more like damages to compensate for the loss and less like a bribe.
Or, like the salian franks, when you have specific damages amounts to compensate for wounds, and murders. I know that these kind of damages existed to avoid using the faide laws (compensating blood by blood), but they are still a form of damages.

In that way and among the wealthy, the values could be equated to the price of a resurrection spell/ritual. Though, many cultures might not want to try such rituals, by fear their beloved ones might become feral undead due to failures. (It might be an interesting plot starter though: a ritual that went wrong, and paid for by weregild might be a good call for investigation and adventure).

As there's no encumbrance unit in either the imperial or the international system, you cannot evaluate how much is 1 Bulk in either.

Bulk being an abstraction of both weight and encumbrance, it's kind of easy to convert from a weight system to the Bulk system, but the reverse is not.

In the real world, Encumbered starts when you slow down due to what you're carrying. It depends on your strength, on the way things are carried (in a bag, in a box), and on their dimensions. That's why 1 Bulk doesn't translate well in other systems. And Str 10 is an average person between the 16th and the 18th century. Taking account of the fact most of the world population at that time was composed of farmers, who would logically have a Laborer background.

But I completely agree with Malk_Content. Bulk being its own system is finally a way for people who use books and references in multiple languages to ensure there are no conversion/adaptation problems between lbs and kg.

I think you tend to overvalue Darkvision. However, its value highly depends on which type of campaign or scenario you are playing.

If you do a lot of underground adventures and delves in deep dungeons, yeah Darkvision can be strong (by removing the need to have lights, and allowing you to see without giving out your position).

But, don't forget that a lot of situations don't play out in total darkness : at night, unless around a new moon in an unlit place, you're only in dim light. In a cave full of goblins, there's most probably a fire giving out light somewhere, providing light in a good radius, and dim light somewhat further.

And darkvision has another problem : you cannot see colours when looking in dim light or unlit spaces, making a lot of riddles and puzzles far more difficult. As a DM, you can use that limitation of darkvision.

Humans not having darkvision is not a problem by itself : torches, lanterns are common enough to be used by people who don't see in the dark. And a few levels higher, you have better items and spells allowing you to have darkvision. Plus, don't forget that they're no longer the only ancestry to have neither low-light nor darkvision (hi, halflings, iruxi). Basically, the lack of light is a trope for low-level adventurers.

I'd personally advise you to use more places with integrated light (natural light sources, enchanted lights, eternal flame spells used to lit places) if you want to make the lack of darkvision less of an issue for your players, rather than trying to tweak the balance of the game.

If you look at the game balance, Humans don't have a special sense, but :
- their Heritages and 1st-level ancestral feats are a bit stronger and adaptable than those from other ancestries.
- they also have an extra language, a choice among all common languages, - their ability boosts are both free, which is not the case for any other ancestries with only two boosts (using orcs Str/Free and tengu's Dex/Free as examples)

Removing darkvision or downgrading it would imply rebalancing a lot of heritages and/or 1st level ancestral feats for all ancestries the removal was applied to.

That was a logical ruling on the fly, however things are a bit more complex. There are multiple different cases here.

Striking runes: They increase the number of weapon damage dice. So every rank of striking rune increases the circumstance bonus by +1.

Deadly adds a weapon damage dice on a critical hit. As a critical hit-conditional effect, it's not doubled. And the +1 from jousting should follow the same rule.

Power attack: "You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit unsteady. Make a melee Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty. If this Strike hits, you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least 10th level, increase this to two extra dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, increase it to three extra dice."
As such, jousting should apply to these dice too.

There's no clear difference between "damage dice for the weapon", "weapon damage dice", "extra die of weapon damage". But if we try to consider only the logical aspect, you always add weapon damage dice, and jousting should apply every time (except for doubling the +1 from deadly in case of a critical).

When you want to Treat Wounds, you have to choose before rolling which DC you want to aim for. If you choose the Expert DC (DC20) and miss, you have the results of a miss for Treat Wounds, relatively to the aimed DC.

This chart (taken from reddit) gives you an average value of Medicine rolls depending on your modifier.

Except it's not magic and not supposed to be magic. And the "cool" factor doesn't compensate for everything that feels off in these class features.

The goofy side of the inventor didn't impact me as much, especially as you have Explode as their first class feature, and their Unstable keyword, that immediately says "things won't work as expected"

From a quick read-through, my first impression about the class is very mixed : there are a lot of nice options, like Cauterize, or Blast Lock, that give color and depth to a Gunslinger character type; but on the other side, a few options give a really cartoonish feeling :

- Black powder boost (especially the vertical boost)
- Rebounding assault (I can accept the damage combination and 1d6 precision damage when both weapons hit, but the throwing weapon that rebounds into the gunslinger's hand breaks the suspension of disbelief for me, even in a fantasy world with magic)
- Instant return (this one really made me think about old warner bros. cartoons in which bullets could be intercepted in the gun cannon and shot back before exploding)

I think a lot of these effects come from balance issues, but they tend to break immersion due to being too implausible.

I'll try to complete this post later, after making tests in my playgroup.

I'd advise you to refrain from houseruling it, as the whole Dying mechanic has a small chance to turn on the players (don't forget that only significant NPCs don't die instantly on reaching 0 hp from a lethal blow).

Let's suppose this rule didn't exist. Your character has low HP, and plays just after an enemy.

• - The enemy strikes, and your character falls from taking a critical hit.
• - Your character instantly goes to Dying 2.
• - Your turn begins. As you're Dying, you have to roll a flat check against 10+your dying value, so 12 in your case.
• - You roll a 2. You miss the DC by 10, it's a critical failure. So your dying value increases by 2.
• - You're at dying 4, your character dies, and nobody or nothing could have done anything to save you between the time you were struck and the time you died, making the whole dying system useless and extremely frustrating

Even in its lowest possible probability, there's a minimum 0.5% chance for that scenario to happen (an enemy crits, then you critfail at dying 2). And if that happens, it means that for the whole turn, noone in your group thought useful to help you in any way. Which means that the group made a conscious choice not to save you.

A whole part of PF2 is about avoiding frustration from Save or Die effects, that's also why the incapacitation rule was created. And having your character die from sheer bad luck without any chance for anyone to do anything would be bad design in a game talking about heroes going through epic adventures. And if you look at it, anyone can save you : in 3 actions, another character can Stride next to you, Interact to draw a potion, and Interact to make you drink it while you're downed.

In grittier settings, with a high chance to die from almost anything, I think that rule would be less useful, but still interesting to have.

At two actions, the spell has 2 variations depending on its being used for damage or healing :

Healing 1d8+8 to a living creature
Dealing 1d8 positive damage to an undead creature.

Thus the specific wording.

To answer your main question, you have to consider the number of different combat styles that exist in PF2.

You have:
- Two-Handed (a weapon wielded in two hands)
- Two-Weapon (a weapon wielded in each hand)
- Weapon+Shield (a weapon wielded in one hand, the other using a shield)
- Thrown (some weapons that need to be drawn and thrown at the enemy)
- Projectile Weapon (a weapon that throws projectiles at the enemy)
- Fencing (single weapon, other hand empty)
- Unarmed

The fighter has a lot of feats that are dedicated to a single style among these seven. Playing a fighter implies you have to choose between those styles to define your main attack style. A few examples:

- Guardian's Deflection is related to Fencing
- Double Shot is related to Projectile Weapons
- Double Slice is related to Two-Weapon
- Aggressive Block is related to Weapn+Shield
- Brutal Finish is related to Two-Handed

Plus, you have to remember that the class dedicated to Fencing, Swashbuckler, only arrived with the APG, so some feats had to be dedicated to that style, especially considering that the Aldori Dueling style is quite known and prevalent as one of the setting-defining points.

On another topic, but also related, that feat by itself has a lot of issues. As its reaction needs you to know if the attack should have missed with a +2 to AC, if your DM usually rolls behind their screen, or simply by not having access to the stats, you can never tell if the attack would have missed. Making the trigger extremely DM-fiat sensitive. I can totally understand the fact that the Paizo team didn't want to make a 5e shield-like reaction, where adding a +2 might have no effect besides using your reaction for the turn, but worded that way, it somehow implies you should know the exact roll, instead of just knowing if your ally was hit/crit/missed/critfailed.

In the APG was introduced a non-weapon item: the net.

It can be used two different ways : attached to a rope to grapple enemies or unattached, as a ranged immobilizing item.

There's a problem with that second part : "When the net is unattached, you can attempt a ranged attack roll against a Medium or smaller creature within 20 feet."
It specifies that you attempt a ranged attack roll... without specifying any kind of proficiency. Was that part overlooked, or are PCs automatically considered as non-proficient with the net ?

If your players tend to look for buyable spells from spellbooks, you can determine a few npc thematic concepts (The chain wizard, the fire wizard), and look at the big spell lists and select spells. A typical NPC spellcaster will have his "specialty" spells but might not be inclined to share them, and other, more common spells that don't mean as much to him.

A few months later, a necromancer comes and announces :

If you want to use both systems at the same time, I'd advise you to apply :
- grazed when you've lost more than half of your Vigor, or if you've taken at least a hit to your Wound points.
- wounded when you've lost all of your Vigor, and at least 1 Wound.
- critical when you've lost at least a quarter of your Wound
- disabled should be applied when the character is in the W&V "wounded" state, in other words when they have less than their Con left in WP

Let's consider a level 1 rogue with 14 CON.
She has 28 Wounds and 8 Vigor

Grazed : 4- Vigor or 27- Wounds

Wounded : 27- Wounds and 0 Vigor

Critical : 21- Wounds (Vigor irrelevant)

Disabled : 14- Wounds (Wound threshold)

Question 1 : The Burn effect is active on 1 character. It gets attacked by anyone using unarmed/natural weapons : the new attacker does not get the Burn effect, but the Catch on fire rule.

- The Burn effect doesn't spread directly.
- Only the character which has the Burn condition can spread the fire.
- The Catch on fire effect does not spread.

Question 2 : If a burning creature attacks a non-burning one, the non-burning one does neither Burn not Catch on fire.

To summarize

A -> B : A catches on fire
W -> B : W does not catch on fire
B -> D : D does not catch on fire
A -> F : A does not catch on fire
F -> D : D does not catch on fire
W -> F : W does not catch on fire

with:
B burning creature,
F creature under the catch on fire rules
A non-burning attacking creature with natural/unarmed,
D non-burning defending creature,
W non-burning attacking creature with a real weapon

I assume you didn't really understand my question, as I didn't spoke about humans becoming outsiders, but about native outsiders that are really close to humans through a racial trait. (Those who are available as player races)

And you specifically eluded the point of the question : these native outsiders who count as Humans through traits, do they have ethnicities ?
The real question is equivalent to :
Can my Scion of Humanity Aasimar be a Kellid Scion of Humanity Aasimar ? Can my Mostly Human Sylph be a Taldan ?

Concerning characters considered as humans through traits, like Scion of Humanity for Aasimars, or Mostly Human for Elemental-blooded outsiders (Suli, Sylph, Ifrit, Undine, Oread) :

Do these characters get to select an ethnicity, just like Humans (and thus getting access to these ethnicities Race Traits) ?

In our playgroup, we tend to make a difference between NN and TN.

NN is the undecided guy who does not balance towards good/evil/law/chaos, but without fluctuating between alignments. In that way, he's not opposed to anything alignment-wise.

TN is the "guardian of balance" type, clearly opposing anything extreme.

This difference affects what could be cast by a character of these alignments.

Yeah, but you don't meet prerequisites for Extra Wild Talent before level 6, so you shouldn't be able to take it... no ? I mean, it would work the exact same way as preventing from taking an FCB for not having access to a class feature.

Sorry for the Expanded Defense, I forgot it.

Basing my interpretation on how the Tactician works for Cavaliers, Fighters(Drill Sergeant or Tactician), I'd suppose it only works with feats you got as bonus feats, as the Greater Tactician feature you get at 17th level allows you to grant any of your teamwork feats, not only those you got through the Tactician class feature.

And what about the Human FCB ?

1. I can take that FCB from level 1 on, getting Extra Wild talent at level 6.
2. I have to wait until I can take the Extra Wild Talent feat.

Second question :

Can I take the Defense wild talent for my expanded element ? If so, how, as it's not an utility talent, nor an infusion, and the specific text of Extra Wild Talent prevents me to do so ?

Be careful there's already an Ioun Stone that gives +1 morale bonus to everything covered by a Heroism spell, and that it costs 30000 gp.

To evaluate a correct price on a slotted item (and not an armor) :

30000 / 2 = 15000 gp (as slotless doubles the price)

To follow the usual rule for bonus evolution, if +1 is 15000, +2 will cost 4 times as much, thus making it 60000.

Hi !

Does the Elemental Strike feat from Inner Sea Races get its damage multiplied on a critical hit ? Not sure, as it's energy damage, but not defined by an extra damage die.

Chet : Undead are unaffected by things requiring a Fort save. Or did I wrongly understand the problem ?

But is there something good for human ethnicities somehow linked to winds/storms/mountains ?

By the way, another question on the topic : can you include yourself in the Area created by the spell ?

I was specifically wondering about things like Will of Giants, which has "Wis 14, Iron Will, giant subtype" as prerequisites.

Thus, do I count as a giant for feats/traits requiring the giant subtype ?

Hi guys.

I have a question about Racial Heritage and its interactions, when taking a Giant race as specifics for the feat.

Due to not getting the Giant subtype, how does it interact with things like the dwarves' Defensive Training racial trait or the rangers' Favored enemy class feature ?

Hi guys and gals!
I was wondering if there was an extended version of the elementalist's school spell list including things released after UM, and including more recent things such as thunderstomp for Earth elementalists, and so on?

If so, could someone give me a link to that extended list, or do I have to rule depending on each spell ?