Errenor's page

D&D and the flexible casting archetype both greatly reduce the number of different spells a caster might cast in a day.

So... Don't? Who said it must be done? Who said this is the only way?

But taking away the ability to create plans for heists or dungeon invasions or village defense or for a public assassination or body guard duty or standard dungeon crawl or downtime kingdom operation day would be a loss for the game.

So... Don't? Who said it must be done? Who said this is the only way?

You've got me there. Whom to ask what pain is if not a Kuthite?

Errenor wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

SuperParkourio wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

But is that really the same "massive" as a level 3 ogre against a level 1 wizard?

It doesn't even have to be a wizard. The ogre warrior's ogre hook does 1d10+7 piercing damage and has the deadly d10 trait. Its maximum damage is 44. Only a character with at least 23 max HP is guaranteed to survive that attack.

So you would need an ancestry with 10 HP, a class with 10 HP, and a Con of 3. That is basically the only kind of level 1 character guaranteed to not be obliterated by this attack.

To be fair, getting to 44 damage is 1 chance in 1000, not counting the chance to hit.

Eh? Not fair. It's 1 chance in 10. Literally. [on a crit of course] And also there are additional 1 in 10 chances to get 42 and 40 (38...) which are not small numbers either.

Then a chance of a crit is calculated separately.

The Deadly die also rolls 10 to get that result. That's a specific result on 2 10-sided dice. That's not 1 in 10 or 1 in 1000.

Damn. I forgot that the second one is also a roll :( Yes, it's actually 1 in 100. Not 1 in 1000, but not that often. And receiving 42 or more damage looks like 4 chances in 100 (to not look only at the maximum).

SuperParkourio wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

But is that really the same "massive" as a level 3 ogre against a level 1 wizard?

It doesn't even have to be a wizard. The ogre warrior's ogre hook does 1d10+7 piercing damage and has the deadly d10 trait. Its maximum damage is 44. Only a character with at least 23 max HP is guaranteed to survive that attack.

So you would need an ancestry with 10 HP, a class with 10 HP, and a Con of 3. That is basically the only kind of level 1 character guaranteed to not be obliterated by this attack.

To be fair, getting to 44 damage is 1 chance in 1000, not counting the chance to hit.

Eh? Not fair. It's 1 chance in 10. Literally. [on a crit of course] And also there are additional 1 in 10 chances to get 42 and 40 (38...) which are not small numbers either.

Is there anything in the strict RAW text of the Core Rulebook or Technology Guide that actually stops this, or have I successfully achieved Universal Malicious Compliance?

Absolutely! It goes like this.

Great question! I suppose there should be a distinction in the rules between hurtful pain and painful hurt! The designers clearly fell short of the target!

Yeaah... To me, fireball seems very painful.

TheFinish wrote:

Theroxenes wrote:

a) Multiple sources of same-type persistent damage on one effect

If a Strike has more than one persistent damage rider that share a type, do they combine? For example, a Knife-group weapon with a Wounding rune on a critical hit deals 1d6 + X bleed from critical specialization, and 2d6 bleed from the Wounding rune. Does the target take the greatest bleed amount of each rider, or 3d6 + X?

This one at least is answered in page 445 of Player Core, under the Multiple Persistent Damage Conditions header:

"If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount. If it's unclear which damage would be higher, such as if you're already taking 2 persistent fire damage and then begin taking 1d4 persistent fire damage, the GM decides which source of damage would better fit the scene."

So it'd be the biggest between two of them, which IMO in your example would be the 2d6.

That is a totally reasonable reading, but I still think it would be useful to clarify. To my knowledge the damage roll rules don't specify if or how same-type damage should be pooled together, and that's where the ambiguity lies. If you treat Bleed as one damage type that can be pooled together on a single Strike/effect, like many tables do for non-persistent types, you can come to a reasonable conclusion that the knife example would deal a single pooled persistent bleed damage condition as described in my knife example.

For what it's worth, I and many others play on Foundry VTT and the PF2e system automates persistent damage as pooled in this way. To correct my original example, the knife crit is automated by PF2e Foundry as a single persistent damage condition dealing (2 * 1d6) + 1d6 + X [Wounding's 1d6 doubled on crit + knife crit spec's 1d6 + X]. For tables playing in person, explicit guidance on how multiple instances of persistent damage on one effect behave could help keep things quick and consistent.

It's not the 'reasonable' reading, it's the only one. Persistent damages never add up (unless some effect explicitly does this, blah,blah,blah But I know none such effects). And this case is even more clear: it's not even 'one effect'! At least a simple one, there are clearly two sources of bleed, the spec and the rune.

Yes, it's true that holy is more like an associative property, in that it's really the individual who has it and it applies to everything they do...

That's not true though. Holy/unholy at a baseline only affects the bearer of the trait and how they interact with incoming effects. Like spells which cause additional damage to holy/unholy targets. But even weakness to the opposite trait in effects must be clearly stated to work, there's no default.

Per campaign.
Per player.
Sorry for offtopic. Good question.

Very good discussion. I think RAW is clearly as TheFinish states and I have serious doubts about the RAI being in line with RAW. I would say this is a severe issue because some player facing options are directly related to this discussion.

No it's not RAW.

While it makes sense that Pharasma disallows dedicated holy or unholy followers, the fact that holy water remains the primary low-level mundane option for anti-undead consumables means Pharasma's church no longer gets to fill a (admittedly minor) narrative role as a ready source for anti-undead equipment to townsfolk and adventurers alike.

Technical solutions for this include importing holy water from other churches, but this is unsatisfying to me especially in adventures where the local temple of Pharasma is the only game in town re: major divine services.

I don't see the problem. Could you elaborate? Yes, Pharasma doesn't allow holy or unholy followers. She also can provide her followers with anti-undead weapon if she wishes. And she probably does. She certainly has the power. That weapon is usually considered 'holy', but what of it? She can set the rules for herself.

'Immune for 1 <anything>' never means 'immune for nothing at all, you can continue next <something> without delay'. Whatever reason rules lawyers try to invent. So no, no continuous using anything, not demoralizing, not breath weapons on 1.
If you want an excuse - 'immune to <something>' is never a real game effect in such cases, it is just a plain language condition. So any rules for durations of game effects are not applicable.

I also think, for the example of spellcasters being able to craft scrolls of spells before they can even cast them, it's thematic.

What? Casters can always cast their spells from scrolls (and wands). 1st level wizard can cast Cataclysm from a scroll.

It also solves one problem I've always had with spellcasting services. WHY ARE SPELLCASTING SERVICES SO EXPENSIVE IF IT COSTS THE CASTER LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO IT?

Man, that's such an extremely bad take from so many angles. WHY ARE SPECIALISTS' SERVICES SO EXPENSIVE? THEY ONLY SPEND A LITTLE OF THEIR TIME THEY MUST DO IT FOR A PITTANCE!!!

Easl wrote:

Where things really go out of whack is with Charlie the Cleric. Making him flexible with no other change means that Level 5 Charlie can daily prepare 8 of any R1, 2 or 3 spells on the Divine list. Charlie is like a wizard who got to add every common spell to his spell book, for free. Same with Dan the Druid. So Arcane sorcs may feel like they are in a good place vis a vis balance against the wizard, but primal and divine sorcs are probably very unhappy at this point.

I never seen a single spellbook caster buy spells in PF2e. Usually what they get from leveling up is more than enough. The difference between having all the spell in your spell list available and a few that you select is effectively a flavor thing in PF2e.

That's a bizarre statement (and probably experience). Absolutely EVERY wizard I've seen in PF2 filled their spellbook at every opportunity. Me included. Buying spells when there are money (mostly lower ranks but still) too.

I see, "The change drastically weakens the animal, diminishing both its strength and its vitality." This explains it.

By the way, are levels of the creatures the same? -2 to DC, AC and to hit look a bit suspicious on the creatures of the same level.

I do not know the specifics of the 5e Wizard but from what I gathered reading this thread, I did not think they had such a small list of daily spells known.

In the initial 5e they had a lot. They prepared more spells every day than sorcerers knew at all. Significantly so. And sorcerers' spells known number was very restricting. It hasn't changed in early stages of 5.5e. I have stopped following a long time ago though.

Errenor wrote:

Scarablob wrote:

The intention is for the sense not to pick up entirely unmoving object, but it's unclear about what a creature need to do to count as moving or not.

...But what do they need to do to count as *not* moving, and thus invisible to tremorsense? Do they need to completely skip their turn, spending all three action standing still? Do they need to spend only a single action at the end of their turn to "freeze in place" (meaning you essentially forego an action each turn to avoid being detected by tremorsense)? do "freezing in place" make you off guard?

It's very easy. As with all senses, they need to Hide and Stealth (successfully). If they do neither they are automatically detected. Done.

Notably, the Using Stealth with Other Senses sidebar refers to using Sneak against tremorsense by stepping lightly, but it makes no mention of using Hide against tremorsense. But that could just be because almost all tremorsense is imprecise.

Yes, if the (tremor)sense is imprecise (and the only sense), you can Stealth at once and remain hidden on failure, even critical. But the principle and the rule remains the same.

The intention is for the sense not to pick up entirely unmoving object, but it's unclear about what a creature need to do to count as moving or not.

...But what do they need to do to count as *not* moving, and thus invisible to tremorsense? Do they need to completely skip their turn, spending all three action standing still? Do they need to spend only a single action at the end of their turn to "freeze in place" (meaning you essentially forego an action each turn to avoid being detected by tremorsense)? do "freezing in place" make you off guard?

It's very easy. As with all senses, they need to Hide and Stealth (successfully). If they do neither they are automatically detected. Done.

I have no objections :) I was just confused. Frankly I still am, the context is rather vague even after the explanation. But it's not a problem.

Tridus wrote:

Counter Thought wrote:

You expend one of your spell slots to counter the triggering creature's casting of a spell with the mental trait.

What you're doing here is spending a spell slot to cast a counter. You get to pick the rank of the spell slot. It does not have to match the caster exactly. Like if they're casting an 8th rank spell, you can attempt to counter it with anything from 5-10th rank (anything lower than 5th can't possibly succeed). Ideally you want to use a 7th if you can because that's the lowest expense with decent odds, or a 9th+ if you REALLY want to counter it.

I have a different reading than you do here. I think you've left out the far more important sentence of Counter Thought, which is one one that comes right after your quote.

Your reading is incorrect and Tridus is right. Yes, you found a bad wording in one place (per ability). They've made a mistake. But then you ignore everything else the abilities say and the context of how Counterspell and counteracting in general works and make wrong conclusions.

Errenor wrote:

What is the question and why is this here?

It doesn't have to be a question! The Rules Discussion section is a place to discuss rules, statements included.

Question or no question, there's still nothing to discuss here. And no rules either.

What has provoked the question? Have you found any hint of crafting working like this anywhere?
Because the answer is "obviously not". You can only craft existing specific items. If your GM creates their own item, they can allow you to find a formula and craft it too. Or they could not allow it.

What is the question and why is this here?

NorrKnekten wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

Just to be clear, I am on your side! But I think I can demystify the thought process their GM might be following, and it doesn't have to involve inventing a DC. They could be starting from "auto success to hit/failure on saves" then simply rolling the die to see if it rolls a nat 1/20, which then would change the degree of success according to those rules. No DC required, just a crit check

Which I agree is still overthinking it, and wrong

That would still require a check to be made, Pretty much the closest to the example with a flat check with DC 1

Getting a Nat 1 or a Nat 20 does not in any way depend on the DC though.

And is not a game mechanics at all. There's no game mechanics 'just throw a d20', only various checks.

The key point I get is the increased reach for touch spells.

The restriction seems to only be flavor. Or maybe to proactively prevent people from arguing for more than 10 feet for the increased reach.

I read it that 'touch spells' part is completely separate and does not interact with the previous 'ability' whatsoever: "In addition". And it is a clear and obvious 'mechanical' ability.

Errenor wrote:

There's more: "spells you used to meet this archetype’s prerequisites" when the archetype doesn't have any prerequisites. Or maybe AoN scrambled it?

And I like "You can manipulate the size, shape and movements of your shadow as you desire, though it can’t stretch beyond twice its normal size." Shadows have sizes from zero to infinity. What's the 'normal size'? Obviously, I can assign one, for example, height of the character. But this is so sloppy and thoughtless...

"Twice its normal size" is defined in practical game mechanics terms in the same ability, so I'm not too concerned.

Eh? Ok, let's assume I missed it and re-read it:

At all times, the Midnight Guard tries to project an aura of stoic otherworldliness. They wear drab black robes with low hoods and take pains to hide any mortal weaknesses."
Ok, I guess we can take the current size of shadow depending on the sun's position. So the ability doesn't help you at noon and at night. And the 'ability' is narrative, not mechanical anyway. Why the restriction then, though?

There's more: "spells you used to meet this archetype’s prerequisites" when the archetype doesn't have any prerequisites. Or maybe AoN scrambled it?
And I like "You can manipulate the size, shape and movements of your shadow as you desire, though it can’t stretch beyond twice its normal size." Shadows have sizes from zero to infinity. What's the 'normal size'? Obviously, I can assign one, for example, height of the character. But this is so sloppy and thoughtless...

And you also must not allow using Treat Wounds on you or healing to full HP and waiting 10 min (well, 'resting' actually, but non stop action rarely happens).
And other ways to remove wounded.
Unless the archetype somehow prevents this.

This thing is incredibly powerful. It is especially potent for Wizards focused on damage, buffs, or debuffs; combining two lower-rank spells into a single 2-action cast that consumes only one spell slot is highly efficient. The feat truly shines because there is no limit to how many slots you can use to do this.

There's a limit: it's 8 slots, one per 3-10 ranks.

I'm biased though, because I assume that would also make Thrall strikes magical. It irks me there's no way to do that currently.

Traits don't descend even for actual Subordinate Actions, and thrall's actions aren't even really Subordinate. So this wouldn't work (unless written explicitly of course).

And if those are unavailable...what can a GM reasonably do if the players say "We put the armor in a bag of holding and take it out daily and destroy the regenerating body". That works indefinitely until they're high enough level to have access to spells that trivialize it.

Sufficiently insidious GM? A lot :-D An obvious thing is to steal a bag from them and release the vengeful grave knight.

As an aside, I find it odd that a Graveknight Captain is level 6, but a regular Graveknight is level 10. I'd think it'd be the other way around.

I think they mean that 'normal' graveknight is actually Graveknight General by their description.

Tridus wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It might be worthwhile to clarify that Command Thrall is a grave cantrip like Thrall Charge.

I don't think it is. Create Thrall is.

Command Thrall is listed separately, is not mentioned in the Grave Spells, and doesn't technically have a trait that would make it magic.

It's a class ability, not a spell.

My observation is more that this should be errata, since the Necromancer ordering their thralls around should not be subtle, so as to avoid situations where an intelligent opponent might not realize that the problem is "the person responsible for them" rather than the 1 hp things that fail every check.

Yes, it either should be explicitly magic that it obviously is even now and gain magic traits, or become explicitly verbal command and gain the needed Auditory trait. We shouldn't have to guess, even if it's kind of obvious.

Errenor wrote:

"most graveknight armors can be destroyed with the standard means of destruction"

You can destroy their armors with a cantrip. Or a hammer. Of course Disintegrate works!
But I would use a cantrip.
When it's not 'most', it's a special quest and an armor kind of is an artefact, which is also completely fine. But this is a thing a GM can do, not must do. And a thing GMs could always do - introduce a new artefact to a game.

Worth noting, the "standard means of destruction" that you are referring to, is:

Quote:

Rejuvenation (divine) When a graveknight is destroyed, their armor rebuilds their body over the course of 1d10 days—or more quickly if the armor is worn by a living host (see Graveknight Armor). If the body is destroyed before then, the process restarts. A graveknight can only be permanently destroyed by obliterating their armor (such as with disintegrate), transporting it to the Forge of Creation, or throwing it into the heart of a volcano.

Ah, ok. AoN page for it is a bit hard to parse. Something more thorough, then. But

Earlier I was thinking about whether or not a forge (typical metal working force) would be sufficient if you completely melted the amor. But I don't think that would count as obliterated.

melting it completely definitely counts as obliteration. And such armors aren't written as something hard to destroy and melt (by default). Acids are also fine.

"most graveknight armors can be destroyed with the standard means of destruction"
You can destroy their armors with a cantrip. Or a hammer. Of course Disintegrate works!
But I would use a cantrip.
When it's not 'most', it's a special quest and an armor kind of is an artefact, which is also completely fine. But this is a thing a GM can do, not must do. And a thing GMs could always do - introduce a new artefact to a game.

Consequently, sticking to RAW as strictly as possible—even when it seems absurd in certain situations

But not in this one, mind. Spells failing because they were cast 'wrongly' is completely normal even for narrative and plot. In this game magic is already almost competely reliable (it can only 'fail' due to misses or successful targets' saves and really fail because of stupefied or interrupted casters, but almost never randomly or due to caster's lack of sleep). Which is needed because a large part of the game is tactical combat, but still.

So, second challenge (and don't think I haven't noticed that no one has attempted the first challenge yet): Define a mechanically significant difference between a visual line of effect and line of sight.

You started just mentioning your point of view and now it's suddenly a challenge we must participate in. It doesn't work like this.

Perfected Thrall wrote:

You create a perfect thrall that’s the conglomeration of all aspects of necromancy. The perfected thrall is made of pure, dense muscle, covered in a layer of hardened bone, and inhabited by the spirit of a mighty warrior.

Eh? Is this the real quote? "muscle, covered in... bone"? What?! It has an exoskeleton? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Ok, now I'm a bit afraid.

The GM is forced to repeatedly and monotonously make foes constantly "act dumb" and take futile actions in the face of the thralls; the player is constantly asking me "why are they ignoring my horde?", "Do they know that thrall is harmless?", "How do they know it doesn't have a reaction?", "Why is he attacking me when all those thralls are in his face?", "Why would he prioritize the fighter in his face over the thralls in his face? How can he understand one is mechanically more dangerous than the other?", "Why isn't he trying to whittle down the thralls? How can he know I have a cap and can't overwhelm him?" and it just goes on and on in... every. single. encounter. forever.

There ARE no satisfactory, in universe answers to these questions.

Well, maybe. But there's a real-universe one: stop this bulls&%*&% or go away from this table. What's written here is 98% player problem, not a class problem.

No. If it were only damage, we could've discussed "and the like". But there's also 'fire' trait. Fire immunity gives immunity to the trait and the effect. Also it only has this damage ray as an effect. No some side effects without a tie to fire.

Are paizo.com and store.paizo.com accounts different with different passwords? I'm confused. I can login here but not in the store.

Yes. All pages of common official GM screen are useful. Maybe their layout would not be very good for you though.
Add to that pages with quick numbers for custom creatures and hazards from advanced official GM screen.
And make custom tables with Earn Income, Basic services and Cuisine, Cost of Living, Spellcasting Services, costs of scrolls, formulas, and learning spells.
This would be mostly enough.

My Organizer play number is in my profile. Please go ahead.

It's not though? 'Gray Warden has not created a profile.' Unless I don't know how to look. Not that I ever intended to make an issue. It does need to be resolved though. When they both add cooldown to the old spell and forget that the new one exist it should be reconciled somehow.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Honestly in my experience "being stealthy" is relevant a lot more often than "avoiding traps" and Thralls are fantastically bad at "not giving away the fact that there's a Necromancer nearby."

New Exploration activity : Broadcast the party's presence.

It also has a premium speed - a full one! Extraordinary!

I would add contingency + containment to this list, for the characters who can cast contingency off wand. Use it to block line of effect on the most dangerous attacks targeting you. You’ll be stuck in the containment but that’s well worth blocking a big scary melee monster crit or a boss’s spell. And the enemy will sometimes break you out...

If you meant it like this, I will never allow this combo to prevent any attack or spell. You get hit and then it puts you in containment.

Upgrade rules don’t fix anything. The static DC items that have upgrades are just as bad, because the upgrades simply cost too much.

Doesn't make sense. If upgrades (would) cost too much, it's just 'items cost too much' because upgrade cost would be based on it most probably. And items do not cost too much. Characters have quite enough of them by default. Often more than a lot of players can remember and manage using effectively.

For the full picture we need to know what 'ranged attack rolls were impossible' even means. What was the effect and the narrative?

I think it is about as good a rule as allowing stealth with full plate armor while wielding greatswords or axes. I think casters should benefit from stealth and deception when using their weapons which are spells. I've never been quite sure why they can't. I see no reason why a spell can't be cast quietly.

Silent Spell used to counter silence, but now Subtle Spell is a catchall for it. So that has nothing to do with casting spells quietly outside a door. If you deal with silence a lot, then subtle spell can be more valuable.

I want casters to have more interaction with skills in similar ways to martials where their weapons interact with it as in casting spells quietly. There's no reason why a caster with skill in magic could not learn how to do it stealthily more as a skill without having to use a Spellshape....

I stand by my thoughts. But two additional points: first, it's not only incantations, any spell is also a sound and light show by itself (psychics' remain so even without saying spells), and probably even smells. Shining runes floating around and other special effects.

Errenor wrote:

Conceal spell is not a conceal-spellcasting-feat (even though it's an obvious use). It's a casting-in-stealth, casting-underwater and casting-in-silence and -while-deafened (if you force flat checks for casting here) feat.

I genuinely can't remember any of these ever having been an issue in the last 8 years. Not saying it never happened at all (8 years of play is more than I can remember in detail) but if I can't think of a single situation, it might just not be worth a feat.

It's really bizarre for me that your casters basically never in 8 years wanted to be inconspicuous, cast from stealth or underwater and never encountered silence effects (this is more believable though). It's game dependent of course, but never having these stituations is strange for me. Also having this feat may change player's behavior by itself, but still.

Calling Conceal Spell mandatory is extremely wrong. I have yet to see any caster taking this. I also can't think of many situations in 8 years of play where I though "I wish I could conceal my spellcasting". It's likely group- and playstyle-dependent. But please don't call a situationally ok feat mandatory just because it feels like it to you.

Conceal spell is not a conceal-spellcasting-feat (even though it's an obvious use). It's a casting-in-stealth, casting-underwater and casting-in-silence and -while-deafened (if you force flat checks for casting here) feat.