Errenor's page

My reading in the example of Lethargy poison is also that you can be awakened despite being in stage 3-4, but the benefits of this is dubious at best if you are at risk of falling unconcious again.

Well, stage 4 gives you one or several hours of action before that, without any penalties even. Not bad. If we don't suppose that this is a rule oversight and the poison should be harsher.

I do think the idea would need a lot of refinement to work. My biggest concern would be giving one player an activity that takes much more time then anything else the party wants to do. Even the shorter rituals have a 1 hour cast time.

There are few examples of gaining innate spells. They usually tied to ancestry and limited to once per day. Classes seem to just get a feat that is very similar to a spell, but never the exact same thing. I would not be surprised if the Necromancer had a feat like Kineticist's Voice of Elements to let them speak to mindless undead.

Well, the spell (Talking Corpse) is already 10 min cast normally. Also, speaking/diplomacy with actual creatures is the easy one, yes. There are examples and the impact is rather limited. But speaking to corpses is really different, it has much bigger narrative impact and harder on GMs (which is why it's a slotted spell and uncommon).

1 yes
2 yes*, but in the specific case of sleep I'd say that the victim just continues sleeping, but can we waken up normally. Including perception checks because of noise.
* Though again this stays relevant:
"Conditions affect you when you reach the stage and last for their normal duration. For instance, if you were drained for an affliction with a maximum duration of 5 minutes, you remain drained after the affliction ends, as normal for the drained condition. A condition that automatically changes its value or ends under certain circumstances, like frightened, still does so. Any condition that doesn’t have a default duration, such as clumsy or paralyzed, lasts as long as you’re at that stage unless noted otherwise, as do any penalties or any other effect of the stage that doesn’t list a duration."
So drained would remain for example.

Being able to use more spells as rituals looks like it could help the class feel less restricted by the limited spell slots. Only having 2 per rank makes it hard to not just pick the greatest hits at each rank. Giving more access to rituals, especially necro spells missing from the occult list, could really flesh out necromancers casting.

Funny reading this as authors of the mod converting BG3 to PF2 are approaching converting spells and one the the biggest differences with dnd comes into the light: there's no mechanics in PF2 to cast slotted spells without limit. Either they should become a cantrip or a focus spell and both should be written individually anew. And in BG3 a some very important spells became rituals which aren't this in the actual rules. Like Speak with Dead. And I'm not sure that general PF2 needs this even for just Necromancer. Maybe just give access to it for Necromancer (it's uncommon) and make a feat or feature to use this 1/day for example. But not unlimited times per day.

Errenor wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Yeah. I'm kinda hoping the GM rules that it can't be used on worked stone. Otherwise, it's WAY broken in most published APs.

Good thing it's an AP feat and so extremely easy to never even allow. Not that it would be always disruptive for a high-level play (maybe actually not...), but it could I suppose.

Care to guess which AP I happen to be playing in? :P

Ah, in this case have fun! :)

Trip.H wrote:

Uhhhhh, wow, I'll leave that up for other readers interested in burrow shenanigans, but I had no idea that ghoul PCs got a free pass to both burrow through stone, and to leave navigable tunnels. That's a great feat.

Yeah. I'm kinda hoping the GM rules that it can't be used on worked stone. Otherwise, it's WAY broken in most published APs.

Good thing it's an AP feat and so extremely easy to never even allow. Not that it would be always disruptive for a high-level play (maybe actually not...), but it could I suppose.

Let me ask you guys this: Back in P1E, has "Automatic Racial Weapon Proficiency" broken games and rules?

This is just so extravagant on several levels: you ask in a PF2 topic for comparison with PF1, and it seems even with some variant rule. There shouldn't be many people who know. Of those almost nobody would care.

If it was used on a normal (non-Quick Capture) leaf Strike w/Improved Grab, the damage and Improved Grab Grapple would be separate triggers. If Liberating Step is triggered off the damage in that scenario, the Grapple would not have yet taken place; and if Liberating Step was held until the Grapple, the resistance could not be applied because the Strike's damage would have already been resolved. They would only get the Escape attempt

BTW what if the Strike&Grab target made a Step after champ reaction triggered by damage and turned out out of reach of Grab/Strike? Grab formally doesn't have requirement of being in reach (probably because normally such thing can't happen due to its trigger). Or does it?

Maybe require a disarm action on the part of the 'stuck' person to wrest control of it from the original wielder, before they can wield it?

Not the problem though. In the original nobody even wants to actually wield the weapon.

Dr. Frank Funkelstein wrote:

"as part of the action" means that no other action (interact, draw, whatever) is required.

There is a limit to the amount of tools you can wear (2 bulk), but with only a healers toolkit you just need the free hand.

Placing a hand back to a 2h weapon is not part of the described interaction, it is an interact ation to "Change your grip by adding a hand to an item"

My question then is, what does "replace" mean in the context. If you need a free hand to draw and then use the item with the action to use the healer's toolkit and you can do nothing outside of that, you don't "replace" anything, making the term redundant as I understand it.

It means nothing. Only that you can use the item freely and don't need any additional actions for healing. Re-gripping a weapon takes another action still.

Tried to but couldn't find any mention that such auras could be turned off generally. Which could be absurd in some cases, Frightful Presence isn't magic even. Though I suppose if it was it would be hypothetically easier to turn off. But at least FP is temporary, 1-2 turns only, gives immunity and there is specific mention as an example of auras which allies could be immune to. There could be worse cases I suppose.

(I'm starting to feel like Holly)

( Plant Christmas decoration which somehow talks and states the obvious? Stephen King's character for some reason (I'm not familiar)? )

I still think equalizing feats and other abilities and game effects on characters is wrong. And so is equalizing becoming affected by effects and getting abilities for your characters. You guys yourself demonstrate here that this only muddies things and needlessly complicates discussion.

However, for spontaneous casters, that's pretty much exactly what the rule text says too.

Cantrip Connection wrote:

if you have a repertoire, designate a cantrip to add to your repertoire every time you select this ability; you can retrain it but can't otherwise change it.

You get to designate one cantrip that you get every time you pick this familiar ability. You can change the cantrip through Retraining only. Otherwise it is locked in.

Why do you cut the first part of the sentence? "You can prepare an additional cantrip or, if you have a repertoire, designate a cantrip to add to your repertoire every time you select this ability; you can retrain it but can’t otherwise change it." I absolutely see the second clause referring to the cantrip in general, not spontaneous only, so including "You can prepare an additional cantrip ...; you can retrain it but can’t otherwise change it." Especially when the second clause is in the same sentence after semicolon, not after comma or in a separate sentence. It looks like they put extra effort to make this reference the previous clause in full, not only its second part.

Errenor wrote:

If you are about Special entry in the rules element format - it's kind of wobbly, pet/familiar abilities aren't full selectable rules elements, they are part of ones (twos?).

Player Core pg. 399 Game Conventions Sidebar wrote:

Game Conventions

Pathfinder has many specific rules, but you'll also want to keep these general guidelines in mind when playing.
...

Duplicate Effects
When you're affected by the same thing multiple times, only one instance applies, using the higher level or rank of the effects, or the newer effect if the two are equal. For example, if you were using mystic armor and then cast it again, you'd still benefit from only one casting of that spell. Casting a spell again on the same target might get you a better duration or effect if it were cast at a higher rank the second time, but otherwise doing so gives you no advantage.
...

Is the actual text im talking about, The rest of the conventions handles rounding, multipliplying, specific vs general and how to handle ambigious rules.

Yeah... This is wobbly too, as it speaks about effects and things you could be affected by. Feats and pet abilities aren't that at all. They are not effects and you (or familiar) aren't affected by having their abilities. Frankly simply referring to common sense seems more valid to me than pretending this rule works here.

Common understanding is not a concept to rely on...

In this game it is. Probably for the worse. It's not written tightly/precisely enough. Of course there's also that thing that perfect rules are impossible.

And times where the reading of the rules goes against the intent such as with the discussion of Dhampirs being the target of Heal/Harm

And this is exactly the case where we have to use common sense/understanding for now (and where clarification really needed though because it's not that straightforward like here): like vitality damage probably have to do something, that void healing property should be symmetrical to vitality healing and so on.

I am still of the mind that the Game Convention is the general rule in this case, And that it applies to everything unless otherwise stated.

If you are about Special entry in the rules element format - it's kind of wobbly, pet/familiar abilities aren't full selectable rules elements, they are part of ones (twos?).

The problem as said is how does one confirm/convince someone that said text does not only apply to feats when its specifically feats that are stated,or rather it doesn't tell us what cannot be picked more than once just that feats will typically have a section stating that if they can.

It's easy: GMs must have some common sense. And tell the players it's bullshit when it's bullshit. And players shouldn't do this stupid rules-lawyering. "Choose n from a list" doesn't include "choose one thing several times" in common understanding.

Agonarchy wrote:

The item's magic is gone for a week, there's not really a remedy.

Your GM might allow a Wish ritual to do it.

Yeah I was going to say Wish too. There isn't really a "remagick item" spell but Wish is Wish

Yeah. Though Wish is rare, takes 1 day itself, is risky with side effects and 100000 gold is almost enough to buy a new maxed-out magic item :)

They are binary

Hello, is it possible to take several times the manifold modification ?

Feats can only be taken several times if it's written in them. In this one I don't see it.

Are there a feat to take other breakthrough or revolutionary modification ?

You tell me. It's done like this: you open the feat list and read them one by one. Or search them. As you like.

Thanks for your future answer.

You are very welcome.

I completely fail to see any advantages. More hassle, restrictions and bookkeeping for... what?

Spells that have a duration, have discrete effects such as damage, and can cause their effects to repeat more than once should specify when and how many times the effect can be repeated.

In addition to what others said: "whenever". (Talking about Alarm, but you most probably follow :) )

I was going to list Contingency, but it also appears to be ambiguous. And probably like Glyph of Warding it would be too good to be true to have it repeatable for the entire duration. But it doesn't appear to say that - if it does, feel free to quote the rules text like you did for Glyph of Warding.

Why has this appeared? I haven't said anything about it to 'feel free' to quote about it. Ok. Well, it doesn't say 'once', it's true, but it does say "a spell that will trigger later", "a trigger under which the spell will be cast" and "the companion spell to come into effect as a reaction with that trigger". And we know that one specific instance of a spell can be cast once and has an effect once (even if the effect itself is complex and has repeatable parts). I hope that's enough.

Errenor wrote:

And for Alarm it's firstly not as consequential and secondly looks like intended actually. Why would this spell stop functioning after its first mostly narrative action? It's like if an illusion stopped working after first affected creature.

It is still ambiguous. It doesn't say one way or the other.

It's not actually ambiguous. There are general rules on duration, they work, this spell would work normally with them ("whenever"). And in this case we could be very satisfied with the result (and not in a TGtBT way). So it's just some expectation from you. Don't know from where, dnd ans pf1 spells don't end on triggering either.

Errenor wrote:

10 dmg per rank is normal scaling. More so 10+10/rank. 2d6 is 7.

Making sure I understand this: If 10 damage per rank is normal for a direct damage spell, then that would be 60 damage for a Rank 6 spell. So having Suspended Retribution dealing 70 damage repeatedly for one casting (and not even a sustaining cost) is way too much, yes?

It would be a good spell if it only triggered once. It has higher than normal damage, but with the drawback that the target can avoid taking any damage by choosing to use different combat methods for the rest of the combat, or by wasting 3 actions.

Yes, this is a good summary I think.

Edit: I think Glyph of Warding and Alarm also both fall into this ambiguous category. They don't specify if they can be triggered multiple times during the duration of the spell.

"Glyph of warding's duration ends when the glyph is triggered." I think arguing that the stored spell somehow wasn't spent would be too much. And for Alarm it's firstly not as consequential and secondly looks like intended actually. Why would this spell stop functioning after its first mostly narrative action? It's like if an illusion stopped working after first affected creature.

Errenor wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

Minor Magic does need a reprint though.

BTW, it was always* a bad feat (*there are nuances). Why wouldn't the player take any magical dedication instead?

I thought the entire point of its existance was for Eldritch Trickster from the same source.

Nope. Yes, ET gives dedication, but all magic classes (almost?) have Cantrip Expansion feat which already does the same thing MM does but is connected to the archetype spellcasting normally. Well, Cantrip Expansion would be 4th level feat in this case but I'm not sure that's very important. There are probably some situations where you just MUST get two more cantrips when you already have 2 strictly at 2nd level, but this is rather a rare case I suppose.

Minor Magic does need a reprint though.

It probably won't get it as remaster is here (and PC2 even; though at least two very 'magical' books are coming, so who knows). But yes, we also should somehow take into account that this is a legacy feat and that when it was published "You gain the Cast a Spell activity" absolutely wasn't enough to use magic items. And now it just got even muddier.

It can go off multiple times.

O_O wow, you are right. I strongly suspect they forgot ", and the spell then ends." after "the target takes 70 mental damage with a basic Reflex save". I don't think any other spell like that gets to apply damage more than once.

All my casters have a knife, so they can flank for a melee character if needed.

You don't need that btw. "Fist" is enough for flanking and you have it even if your hands are full (kicking and so on). So you just have to stand in the right place (well, and be able to Strike).

Errenor wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Errenor wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Actually, having access to a magical wikipedia is a Level 1 spell. Pocket Library.

I mean, these are physical books. you could easily spend the whole time just looking for the right book. You go though the index looking for "elephant" when it's actually under "pachyderm" for some reason. A success is actually finding the right page and book.

This started with magical wikipedia :)

Errenor wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Actually, having access to a magical wikipedia is a Level 1 spell. Pocket Library.

As if. It actively refuses to give any answers. +1 to a skill you already have can't represent encyclopedias. They should give a skill you don't have at least.

I know, I know you are joking and I'm picking on trifles.

Just because you can look up a scientific document does not mean you're initiated enough to understand it.

Look at this day and age where you can look up anything on the internet, yet look at how much technical knowledge is actually known by the average joe despite this.

Things that pf characters want to know about in the game almost always aren't comparable with advanced science. You can look up an elephant on wiki and you just get a trove of information about it: size, some anatomy, some biology, some behaviour - anything pf character would want to know about a creature and much more. And you don't need to be a biologist for this. Moreover you could know nothing at all about elepants before this - and now you know enough.

Actually, having access to a magical wikipedia is a Level 1 spell. Pocket Library.

As if. It actively refuses to give any answers. +1 to a skill you already have can't represent encyclopedias. They should give a skill you don't have at least.

Never mind, it looks like in this edition players are encouraged to ask questions about the creature, which is different from PF1 and how I remember knowledge checks working.

As a GM, depending on their successes and what they ask I'd probably still tell them about it's senses. Like if you ask "what are it's weaknesses?" Can't see you if you're not on the ground, is actually a pretty big one.

Yeah, depending on what they ask. So, I think always answering the question 'what is this?' and giving some general info is very advisable even if player's question was specific and not about that. But more specific details need some nudge like in your example.

I've always fell into the camp that shove it only ever in the direction created by drawing a straight line through the two characters center of squares from the person starting the shove into the person being shoved.

Otherwise, it's a reposition which allows you to move them anywhere in reach. To me, if you can move them in any direction it's simply better than reposition in every way.

However, I now agree with a cone template of position options, but Finoan's first diagram example in this thread I would not consider a valid shove. Bluemagetim's first example diagram is how I view this working.

Well, you probably can keep your ruling on Shove and allow these things above for Aggressive Block because it explicitly allows some choice of direction. Or yes, make them uniform.

However, it also means that aside from trying to free themselves it makes sense for the party to recall knowledge against the thing. As a player, I'd say knowing that it is visual blind and only has tremorsense would be the top thing I'd want to recall about it.

The question is though whether they would ask the right question. Its senses shouldn't be given for free unless this question was asked I think.

It is a bit strange because Shove doesn't let you pick a direction. So Aggressive Block saying that the blocker uses Shove for a 5 foot distance, but gets to pick a direction doesn't make a lot of sense. This would all make a lot more sense if Aggressive Block itself chooses the direction and moves the attacker directly away from the blocker the way that Shove does.

Using Finoan's graphic representation there are three spaces I would think Red could be shoved into for a 5ft shove.

I could also very well see these directions for diagonal shoving (more so than for straight shoving even):

Quote:

A creature that's hidden is only barely perceptible. You know what space it occupies, but little else. Perhaps the creature just moved behind cover and successfully used the Hide action. Your target might be behind a waterfall, where you can see some movement but can't determine an exact location. Maybe you've been blinded or the creature is invisible, but you used the Seek basic action to determine its general location based on hearing alone. Regardless of the specifics, you're off-guard to a hidden creature.

The creature wouldn't even know what square a flying PC was in. The creature could use Seek to try to determine location based on hearing, I guess.

So at the start of an encounter, the creature (after it is attacked presumedly) would use the seek action to try to locate the flying PCs using hearing. They would start as Undetected and a successful Seek would make them Hidden.

So if you're fighting this creature, pack some flying and silence spells . Honestly it will probably just burrow and run away, but it can be pretty easily countered, unless you stumble upon it underground where there isn't room to fly.

Unless chars Stealth, no need to Seek. Especially if the creature was already attacked. As contrary wasn't stated the creature still has hearing (besides it's logical for tremorsensing one too), which is enough. Of course at 19th level advanced stealthing and a lot of concealing spells are already in action, which would make the fight trivial if PCs would want to make it so.

If the term "golem" had to be dropped in order to be used for the actual Jewish creature, why didn't Paizo come up with another name to categorize them?

Spell Construct? Magiconstruct? Magimaton?

Do they need to? Constructs themselves are already almost all magical. New golem replacements don't seem needing additional categorization.

The flipside is that a feat like Mythic Strike has text saying it counts as mythic for overcoming resistance, which almost never does anything if mythic characters already count as mythic since you need to be mythic to take it. "This text does what is already true in almost all cases" doesn't mean its wrong, but it does create doubt.

On the other hand, if it really does something, you have 3 attacks per session without resistance. If you don't spend MP on something else. Isn't this too bad to be true actually? MP are restored only by considerable quests ("mythic deeds") otherwise.

I noticed that the Mythic rules use 'characters' and 'creatures' in a way that makes them seem like different things - is this distinction made anywhere in the core rules?

No. Or depending on what you mean: characters are always creatures, but not all creatures are (player) characters.

It depends on the phrasing whether the instances are distinct, separate.

So "apply alongside" is a no, and in Draconic Barrage, the energy damage is added to the Strike damage, so not separate. Since it's a spell doing fire damage, it would get the Burn It! damage, yet it's all a package added to the Strike so other Status bonuses to the Strike would not stack. You'd benefit from the larger of the two.

If it were phrased as "and then they take" or similarly, it'd be muddy, but I'd allow it. But even Spellstrike considers the effects combined, so I'm unsure there is such a thing. Maybe if you had a Strike that then did Persistent fire damage from a spell/alchemist item?

It is phrased "additional damage of the chosen type" so the damage of the spell itself is not a status bonus at least. Besides, if the other status bonus is to Strike and of different damage type they absolutely add up. I'm not sure only if the damage types are the same.

To clarify my previous post, because the Struztomer has no regular vision only tremorsense, it is effectively blind to anything not touching the ground. Therefore, it is unable to target anything not touching the ground.

Well, you could should allow it the usual targeting of Hidden targets I guess.

Eoran wrote:

Quote:

It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a written version of that spell over the course of 1 hour. This can be a scroll of that spell, or you can prepare a written version using the Learn a Spell exploration activity.

To acquire spells from a spellbook, the Learn a Spell activity is still required in order to create uncastable special scrolls that can then be given to the Familiar.

The old pre-master text made that clear yes, But it was changed in remaster. Heres the old text.

Quote:

It can learn any spell on your tradition's spell list by physically consuming a scroll of that spell in a process that takes 1 hour. You can use the Learn a Spell exploration activity to prepare a special written version of a spell, which your familiar can consume as if it were a scroll.

Not going to argue grammar or semantics that differ between the two texts but Paizo could've been more concise with less words if they just kept the "Physically consume a scroll of that spell" or change the "Can be" to "Must be"

Please show where is the difference. I don't see it at all, nothing has changed. What's here to make erratum for?

Squiggit wrote:

UnforcedError wrote:

Given that this is linked to higher levels and feats I'd say that you cannot utilize the same icon for multiple immanence abilities as they would according to the rule all activate at the same time (which is linked to the higher level feats).

I'm not sure that's really a problem. The feats are tied to ikons, so even if we allow one item to contain multiple ikons, the feat would only acitvate if the spark was assigned correctly.

The problem is it would confuse the vast majority of the players. If you say, hey it's legal to select three weapon icons for a single greatsword (say one in the blade, one in the hilt, one in the handle) it would very quickly come to new players asking whether they could have the three immanence abilities active all the time

Well, say to new players 'No'. It's already extremely strained reading to allow several icons in one item. I absolutely won't allow it. But then extending that to make multiple icons active at one time can't be argued in good faith at all. Icons are distinct features in a list, "Each ikon has both a passive immanence effect and an active transcendence effect. Both of these effects require your divine spark to be in the item. ... You shift your power, filling one of your ikons with your divine spark. ... granting you that ikon’s immanence effects for as long as your divine spark is empowering it." If players are confused you just explain what 'singular' means.

And the game still doesn't really need to say 'one icon - one item', those are enough in my opinion: "You can focus this divine power through special items known as ikons. Ikons are items or bodily features intrinsically linked to you—sacred vessels forged from your divinity that are capable of conducting its power. Select three ikons from the list" and "Weapon and worn ikons are tied to items of power. When you select one, you gain a non-magical, level-0 item of your choice that matches its usage entry." Again, icons are unambiguously distinct features in a list, you can't blend them together (unless there's a feat explicitly for that...)

update to disallow alchemist archetype to take efficient alchemy. it is just better than advanced alchemy feat

No, it's not because it simply doesn't work on its own for the archetype (well, normal crafting part does work): the archetype doesn't have Advanced alchemy feature by default so you can't "increase the number of items you can create each day with advanced alchemy" when you don't have the feature at all. But you can take Efficient alchemy after you've took Advanced alchemy archetype feat which gives you the feature of the same name (with 4 items per day). So either Efficient alchemy should have an errata which gives it "Requirement: Advanced alchemy feature" or some mention for clarity that the first part of the feat doesn't work without it.

From the rule: "The multiple attack penalty applies only during your turn" I would say that if you have multiple reactions that you can use to make attacks with or if your reaction lets you make multiple attacks (aside from Readied actions because of the override of the general rule), then MAP does not apply to any of the attacks.

Yeah, this is explicit and clear. It's just they used 'a single turn' earlier and only after that wrote 'your turn'. But this is determinate.

This is following the standard rules writing design of giving both a rule and an example or two.

Quote:

The multiple attack penalty applies only during your turn, so you don't have to keep track of it if you can perform a Reactive Strike or a similar reaction that lets you make a Strike on someone else's turn.

The example is not exhaustive. Reactive Strike is not the only reaction that lets you make an Attack action when it is not your turn.

The rule is that "The multiple attack penalty applies only during your turn".

Btw what about MAP of several attacks during one someone else's turn? Like Flurry of Blows? Or several reactions on one turn (is it possible? maybe for fighter?)

Issue: What is an "instance of damage", for the purpose of applying multiple weaknesses/resistances?

Can one attack do multiple instances of damage? For example, a flaming cold iron axe, would it do an instance of cold iron slashing + another instance of fire damage, or is all of that one instance? If the enemy has weakness to fire and slashing, are both of them triggered or only the biggest one?

I'd add to that the question of several different sources of the same damage type, like fire rune, fire kineticist buff, some fire buff spell on a magic weapon in the same Strike. One instance or not? How do weaknesses and resistances work?

Occult representing the unknown magic, supernatural forces and the most obscure and less know parts of the magic where you don´t fully knows or control where it comes, why it comes and what fully dangerous and wondrous are their sources.

It's not that. I'd even say it's misconception and mischaracterization. In the current lore occult is about stories, thoughts, ideas, world of Ideas, imagination, collective subconsciousness, emotions, beliefs, intentions, dreams and so on. Occult is basically is the primary mental tradition. That's why bards are occult. And psychics. That's why the Dirge, I suppose. Yes, it's a bit vague, and for some things it's a bit strained. But stories should be the focus, not 'unknown' and 'obscure'.

Unless it's reprinted somewhere in a recent rulebook, it's from AP and it's rare. Demiplane also says so.

Errenor wrote:

And given that I'm rather irritated with these form spells becoming sustained I'm very much inclined just designate this as a compensation. And it also could very well be the intent.

It sounds rather like you don't actually believe that this IS the intent, you're just latching onto a loophole because you don't like the rule.

You are right, I don't believe that. Because I genuinely don't know in this case. But I do believe that it absolutely could be.

Castilliano wrote:

Throwing on more thought into the pot, Sustain provokes Reactive Strike.

It doesn’t.

Yep. Absolutely.

I agree that the words CAN be taken to mean that but the simplest quickest reading of the words (IMO) is that the temp hit points occur once when the spell is cast. You have to really read the words very carefully to even see that there is an ambiguity. Admittedly, the words were written when sustaining the spell wasn't an issue.

I don't know, it's extremely easy to read "When you transform into a form granted by a spell, you gain all the effects of the form you chose", then read in Animal Form "You gain specific abilities based on the animal you choose: <...> 5 temporary Hit Points. <...>" in the list like any other effect and so apply temp HP every time. There's nothing wrong in this reading rule-wise. You can get temp hp repeatedly, there's nothing wrong with that (they just don't stack). And given that I'm rather irritated with these form spells becoming sustained I'm very much inclined just designate this as a compensation. And it also could very well be the intent.