Errenor's page

B

ScooterScoots wrote:

There’s good evidence the broader interpretation is true, there are printed features that don’t work at all if it isn’t (i.e. Kracken’s multiattack) and numerous cases where stuff just sucks if you can’t use it after an activity/meta-action.

I looked at the Kraken, but I didn’t understand how the strict interpretation would prevent it from using Double Attack. Would you be willing to walk me through it?

It doesn't even matter. It's only GM-facing content, obvious how to use. And yes, it even explicitly allows Grab to work. They found a couple of slightly incorrectly written creatures in the whole throng of them and pretend it means something. It doesn't.

But do you think it’s worth taking a vanilla Strike for Gossamer Blade rather than using the Sniper’s Aim feat? I’m partied with a Sniper Gunslinger in one of my games, and it seems they use Sniper’s Aim at every opportunity.

Do you want Gossamer Blade effect? Use simple Strike and get its effect. You want special action with its own special effect? Use it (without the Gossamer Blade). The choice is yours. Choose.

Everything discussed here is a 'layer 8' problem. This is humans discussing human game created by humans for humans which humans play with humans. Completely irrepressible desire for a third +1 is also a human problem.

Please explain why the Manifest Eidolon activity has the Teleportation trait.

You are being completely unreasonable and I don't want to discuss this further with you. I said more than enough. But this one I will answer: to make this ability mechanically interact with things which interact with teleportation. Well, and something does appear during manifestation, but it's not a 'real' body of the eidolon. That's quite enough as a justification.

Why does targeting explicitly require a target entry or the word "target"? How can you use an action on a specific creature without targeting it?

The rules for spells, which more explicitly declare whether they are targeted or not, are the rules for spells, not all actions.

Targeted non-spell actions almost always contain the word target but not always. And I am not aware of any general rules that require the literal word "target" to be targeted. Though actions which affect a target do usually use some word or words that make it clear a single creature is being affected such as "choose a creature" or "make one of your thralls ___."

Command an Animal also does not have the word "target" anywhere in its text, but it is very clearly an action with a target.

If you're choosing target, it's targeted. That should not be a statement worthy of debate.

There are rules for effects in general which are in agreement with rules for spells. 'Target' is a term, not a general expression in this game. It interacts with rules on senses for example. You can fail targeting and lose an action completely if you aim at concealed or hidden target. If you are not explicitly 'targeting', you can't fail an action because of concealment. That's why 'targeting' effect or just selecting something for it is an important difference.

I agree that banishment working on an eidolon seems a bit unfair to summoner PCs and I think it's reasonable to houserule that it shouldn't, but I think by both RAW and RAI it is meant to.

I do think this is the kind of thing that a player might rage quit and never come back to the table from.

I'd like to remind you that it's a crit fail result of the spell which could also be used on PCs. Whole PCs can be lost for (more than) a week somewhere random. It's a normal part of the game. Rage quitting because of this is very excessive.

Errenor wrote:

This is ridiculous. Do you seriously need explaining that 'suffer' is just an expression? Would you turn off fire resistance if a target must 'suffer' persistent fire damage because the target doesn't suffer enough?

I wouldn't go that far, no. But why bother saying the unmanifested eidolon suffers the adverse effects if those effects would basically never matter?

Because if you manifest it earlier than effects pass (or anytime with frozen effects like sickened), they will start working. Including persistent damage. Yes, you keep missing this.

What that means is that they removed the last vestiges of anything in the rules even hinting at the idea that an unmanifested Eidolon doesn't have a physical form somewhere. ...

But I am seeing no rules wording at all that supports the idea that an unmanifested Eidolon has no physical form. What are you seeing that supports that?

Really-really? Not at all? Nothing? O_o

Errenor wrote:

SuperParkourio wrote:

There's also still the summoner's precaution spell, reprinted in Impossible Magic, which unmanifests your eidolon to prevent one instance of damage (unless it's a death effect), "though your eidolon still suffers any other adverse effects that accompanied the damage."

This spell was already strong evidence in SoM that the eidolon still suffers adverse effects while unmanifested, and the new Unmanifested Eidolon section further supports that by clarifying that those effects are still there.

Not at all? It suffers them and they do nothing while unmanifested (but the time still ticks per the new paragraph).

What "suffering" is being done if the effects do nothing? Like, if your eidolon crit fails against banishment and their physical form is now banned from the Universe for 1 week, is your eidolon still "suffering" if the ban just... doesn't count?

This is ridiculous. Do you seriously need explaining that 'suffer' is just an expression? Would you turn off fire resistance if a target must 'suffer' persistent fire damage because the target doesn't suffer enough?

There's also still the summoner's precaution spell, reprinted in Impossible Magic, which unmanifests your eidolon to prevent one instance of damage (unless it's a death effect), "though your eidolon still suffers any other adverse effects that accompanied the damage."

This spell was already strong evidence in SoM that the eidolon still suffers adverse effects while unmanifested, and the new Unmanifested Eidolon section further supports that by clarifying that those effects are still there.

Not at all? It suffers them and they do nothing while unmanifested (but the time still ticks per the new paragraph).

I'll just note that Acavna's entry in Divine Mysteries lists a divine font (heal) and divine spells, among other things she "shouldn't" have.

Also Akorian was born before Earthfall, and brought forward in time as part of the events that resulted in the founding of New Thassilon.

Her attributes are listed as they were in the past. It doesn't mean she still has them (or can support them being dead).

The Appendix to Divine Mysteries is a terribly poorly formatted (for a pdf anyway) list of many gods, with several subdivisions. One of those is "In memoriam," covering "other dead, missing or unaccounted-for gods". Aroden is there. So is Gorum. Acavna is not -- she's listed under "Azlanti gods". Which makes me wonder: are the other Azlanti gods, the ones not killed by Earthfall, still around, or have they died out? I'm guessing still around, though I wonder where they live.

Let's just say there's a lot of holes in Paizo's canon.

It's not a hole. Acavna is dead. Note the other in "In memoriam", this is the key. It's not all dead gods, only which weren't placed in other categories. But even PFS is confused here and treats 'other dead gods' as all dead gods it seems.

I suppose if I can't have Acavna I'll take the Empyreal Lord Arqueros and if I can't have battle-trained human I'll take skilled human and add Intimidation to his trained skills.

If you want spear, there's also Tsukiyo (Moon god!), Lorris, Cihua Coatl, and yes Arqueros. Seem as all great choices for not evil gods.

I think this entire thread is a red herring.

The easiest fix is to explicitly ban Command a Thrall from the list of abilities that you can use on your creatures summoned from Conjurer of Corpses. It avoids any rules wonkiness and avoids a trap option for players in the process.

Or, if they want something more rules-based, Command a Thrall never 'targets' any thrall. And Conjurer of Corpses only allows targeting and destroying. Targeting is a specific thing which requires a 'target' entry or the word 'target' at least. Yeah, that's probably a little wonky as they sometimes forget the word or use it in the wrong place, but still.

___
And in PFS rulings are still allowed when needed and not contradicting PFS guidelines.

Errenor wrote:

Besides, I simply don't see unmanifested eidolon as existing at this time, so nothing really can affect it. That paragraph just says that durations aren't freezed with it (unless they take actions to remove).

Unmanifested eidolon still exists though : "Your connection with your eidolon allows you to communicate with them telepathically at all times, even when they aren't manifested."

Ok. Doesn't exist 'physically', so most effects still don't work. I guess there is some leeway to allow mental effects working. Which only muddles the case to my taste.

Manifest Eidolon no longer says that the eidolon's physical form dissolves, just that it unmanifests.

Here I see absolutely no difference in meaning. Maybe they wanted to use less different words for the same thing.

Plus, if the eidolon automatically unmanifesting if they "were to die" is really enough to actually prevent them from dying, couldn't you completely trivialize every hazard in the game by having your eidolon march ahead of you? For instance, if a spinning blade pillar deals 34 damage to an eidolon with max HP 18, then that eidolon unmanifests and the summoner starts dying. But if that same pillar instead deals 36 damage, enough to kill the summoner and eidolon outright, then the eidolon just blinks back to their home plane and the summoner is unscathed?

Firstly, most hazards out of combat are already trivialized, but this is a different topic. I hope you don't always (or at all) use massive damage rules to make hazards matter more.

Errenor wrote:

SuperParkourio wrote:

and can continue to suffer from: - persistent damage

Extremely unlikely. Time goes by, but that effects happen nothing is said.

I can't in good faith read the new rules to come to this conclusion. I don't like that persistent damage keeps on ticking along while the Eidolon is unmanifested. But it takes some special pleading to think that the Persistent Damage condition should be handled any differently than the Frightened condition is. It continues progressing as time goes on.

'Continues progressing' and 'has an actual effect' during it are different things. The rule says "The duration of anything affecting the eidolon still passes." Not "Anything affecting the eidolon still has normal effects and continued duration." For example. I see this as crucial difference, and not 'pleading', particularly 'special'.

That "or your eidolon were to die" part is a new thing from Impossible Magic, huh? That does clear up a bunch of things. Nice.

Yes, Manifest Eidolon

But now it seems that the eidolon does, in fact, still exist on their home plane

Very unlikely

and can continue to suffer from: - persistent damage

Extremely unlikely. Time goes by, but that effects happen nothing is said.

- dying

- wounded
- being dead

No, no and no: "If forced beyond this distance, or if you are reduced to 0 Hit Points or your eidolon were to die, your eidolon's physical form unmanifests, and you need to use Manifest Eidolon to manifest them again." Eidolon is never dying, wounded or dead, only unmanifested.

Why take undead eidolon for the +2 bonus to saves vs death if eidolons can never die?

To have more protection against it become unmanifested by death effects, obviously. There could be other bad consequences from such effects too.

Errenor wrote:

Does anyone stand for the long dead Acavna in providing divine power? Typically it's not the case. Worshippers of Aroden don't have powers from him and aren't clerics.

I wondered about that myself. All I know is that Herolab doesn't seem to care that she's dead.

Yeah, your GM could very well have objections. And I don't think they would be obliged to allow this. Dead gods don't give magic and very rarely have stand-ins.

Does anyone stand for the long dead Acavna in providing divine power? Typically it's not the case. Worshippers of Aroden don't have powers from him and aren't clerics.

Have a look around

I hadn’t considered the stationary issue and haven’t seen it discussed. I’d probably rule they can’t be shoved if they also can’t be commanded to move. Fixed difficult terrain would enhance their value.

They are immune to physical because they are liquid I suppose. We can think of them immune to shoving just like incorporeals are.

Errenor wrote:

Yep. There's absolutely no way I'd allow pseudo-darkness. Not an actual object. They probably should've clarified the spell can imitate things which consist of Golarion material elements, you know, wind, earth, metal, wood, fire, water.

Though I'm sure there still can be exploits.

You’re not making an illusion of darkness. You’re making an illusion of a solid object colored black with whatever cosmetic affects (illusionary object can do animations, spell says so) help it superficially look like a darkness spell. It’s basically just an animated matte painting on a black sphere, as a starting point.

Ok, that's better. But you are getting automatic disbelieve checks each turn just for being inside of it because you constantly interact with it. That would be enough I suppose. Being inside illusory wall would work mostly the same for example.

Fun thing to consider: what happens when you use Illusory Object to make a campfire in a dark room?

You can't even see it unless you have darkvision. You can feel warmth or even burning if inside it if it's rank 2+ I suppose.

It's very dangerous as it is. I'd leave it alone. For a 4 character group it could kill someone or even cause a TPK. For 6 characters I suppose it would be just fine. They are new players. And it wouldn't be an issue at all if the fight would be on the easy side.
Also it may be a bit over-statted already, as I vaguely remember. Maybe wrongly though.

No, I didn't. I initially read that, and still read that, as that the thrall is destroyed as an after-effect of the spellshape. After the free action spellshape and the spell it modifies resolves, then the thrall is destroyed. Narratively, it is hard to think of the already destroyed thrall as being the origin point of anything. What, exactly, does that look like?

That's not an issue at all. The thrall starts to dissolve and disintegrate and then a spell coalesces around it and flies to its target, thrall is just a pile of dust now. There, done.

Realistically, part of running an illusion-heavy character is checking with the GM if you want to bust out anything that relies on edge-cases. They're flexible spells, but you probably don't want to rely on anything overly technical without checking first. Anything where an illusion interacts with light or illumination is something to check with the GM. That stuff gets weird.

Yep. There's absolutely no way I'd allow pseudo-darkness. Not an actual object. They probably should've clarified the spell can imitate things which consist of Golarion material elements, you know, wind, earth, metal, wood, fire, water.

Errenor wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

I can never wrap my head how some think that X character from X ancestry with X weapon of X class should go through super duper GM screening and approval process becasue "omg, its' uncommon".

That's extremely easy. Because any GM has the right to say: "I want it so".

Because in my campaign set before Gods Rain incident, not set in Tian Xia, I don't want a Tengu Exemplar katana master because it doesn't make sense for where and when my campaign is set.

Why is that so hard to understand? GMs are allowed to create and modify a setting as they desire.

If you can come up with a story of why your character from the backwater town of Sandpoint knows what Katanas are or how an Automaton came to be there we can talk about maybe approving your concept.

And yes, I oversimplify a bit, it must be a dialog of course. But the case here demands ultimate simplicity.

I can never wrap my head how some think that X character from X ancestry with X weapon of X class should go through super duper GM screening and approval process becasue "omg, its' uncommon".

That's extremely easy. Because any GM has the right to say: "I want it so".

I think the issue is Uncommon by default means you could get them as part of regular spell-taking if your GM allows it (note we have rare focus spells) but in this, and only in this case, it actually means 'no, you can never take it unless a feat or feature grants you this spell'. It calls for a kind of 'access-only' trait instead.

I have decided that focus spells should be neither Common nor Uncommon (nor Rare unless the feat to gain them is Rare). We need a new rarity category for them. I propose "Granted." Granted means that these things cannot be obtained by normal means; instead, they are granted by feats or features. They do not need special GM permission.

I mean that they are also Uncommon for the sake of Recall knowledge for example and this is valuable and this interaction should remain.

Theaitetos wrote:

But you can't add spells via Learn a Spell, only the ONE spell you get to choose with the Basic Spellcasting benefits.

Why? “You can only add cantrips to your keepsake with the Learn a Spell activity or by other similar means" only limits learning cantrips. It never mentions higher spells and the default is that a prepared spellcaster can use Learn a Spell to add spells to their repository of spells.

Learn a Spell:
"If you're a spellcaster, you can use the skill corresponding to your magical tradition to learn a new spell of that tradition."
"A spell you learn is added to your repository of spells, such as a spellbook for a wizard, familiar for a witch, or spell list for a cleric or druid."

The phrase is ambiguous to the extreme. They really did botch this completely. It can be read both as:

I suspect people would want to know what are you optimizing the sorcerer for.

BTW a lot of Mathmuse's Lore entries won't get through licensing. Maybe in AoN they would. But definitely not in Pathbuilder. 'Magaambya Academy' and such.
So maybe they need to be more generic?

My only suggestion its that I still think that focus spells doesn't need the rarity tag as general rule. Just like happens to normal spells and catrips and any other game option. By default you already can only pick a focus spell via class feature or feat. Like the same way you need a casting feature the specific declares how much cantrips and spells your character can know and prepare, the focus spells already restrict you. Focus spells already have rules that says that you cannot take them without a feature ou feat that grants them. There's no reason to have a rarity tag for them at all.

They actually do need rarity. In the rarity sense: focus spells are uncommon... because they are. They are not part of spell knowledge of every spellcaster of a select tradition.

Suppose you cast an Illusory stone wall. If the caster can auto-disbelieve it, then he is immediately hidden to everyone on the other side of the wall but he can see and target them with no wasted actions to disbelieve.

Oh, you missed another thing which I would absolutely enforce:

Like it's my expectation that if you're playing something outré, you would like that to be acknowledged at some point in the narrative.

As if. In my experience the most possibly edgy characters are created and then NPCs are supposed to just be perfectly at ease. Killers, thieves, psychopaths, undead and undead-adjacent (yes, dhampires), summoning demons (eidolons) - nothing should ever matter :-\

Correct. Signature Spell just says "one spell of that rank" ... so you pick any spell.

Then at a later level when you have more room in your repertoire you learn the spell so you can y'know, use it and do all your stuff. No hot swapping required.

That's more rules-lawyery, elegant, crazy and funny than mine crude solution, I like it.

2. Common sense says you don't need to try to disbelieve something that you already know with absolute certainty is fake.

Common sense doesn't really matter for PF2 illusions: they are explicitly designed that if even you DO know it's an illusion you MUST make disbelieve attempts still. In light of this, your argument is very weak.

You still can't see through it in the example because the magic is still blocking the area, but you know it's not a door and you're not going to bounce off it if you try to walk there.

There's also difference between knowing an illusion is present, and knowing the exact specifications and details about it because you're the one creating it. I can know an illusion is somewhere in an area without knowing exactly what the illusion is, and that's a different thing from "Goblin #3 is illusory because I'm the one sustaining Goblin #3 right now."

Hmm. What are you trying to say exactly? Because I agree that you know that what you've cast is an illusion (and where is it and what its qualities are). I'm just saying that without disbelieving you still can't see through it and can feel it as solid if the spell allows it.

SuperParkourio wrote:

you are only getting one spell of your new rank, which would mean that there's only one option for that signature spell.

Signature spell says spell of that rank not spell of that rank in your repertoire.

You suggest adding as signature a spell which you don't know at all? And then learn it later? Or what do you mean?

Errenor wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Did the pdfs ever get updated to include this errata?

I just downloaded the Player Core and GM Core from the Store library, and they don't include any of the changes. But I'm still trying to get a handle on the new Store so maybe I'm just doing something wrong.

If you mean Spring 2026 errata, then pdfs are still updated only after new printings.

That's what I was wondering about. The Blog made it seem as if a second printing was imminent back in March so I thought I might have missed an update.

Maybe I missed something too, but I don't think I missed an actual reprint.

Sure, but that means they knew how to do it but opted to do it in a way that made it less user friendly instead... I'm not even talking about the FAQ a post, just the FAQ page. Now you have to KNOW the book and errata date or you have to open up every collapsed FAQ section so you can search for what you're looking for. It just seems bizarre they went for a worse setup.

It's also broken (most of the time) on (my) mobile: opened sections forbid scrolling the page, you need to collapse everything first.

Are the signature spells just chosen at some other time?

I decided that you don't need to choose signature spells for your highest rank years ago, thinking about sorcerers. So you choose one when you gain next spell rank.

It's 'I want it' 'question'. It was never clarified because the answer is no, they do not disbelieve automatically. Exactly because there was nothing written about it.

Errenor wrote:

I'm also not sure that 'regaining HP' is the same as 'healing'.

Soothe also says "regain hit points"

Soothe also has 'healing' trait, but still good point I suppose.

It's 6d12 for 3 actions turn 1. So you did pretty much nothing in 1st turn for all your actions. And we are at minimun here on level 15 facing enemies level 14-17 and you used 3 actions to do 6d12 damage. Sorry but thats just.. not a good turn. At all.

Are you serious? You ALSO got effects of Fly (6) with 2x-3x speed and Unfettered Movement 6 for those 2 actions. If that is not action compression, I don't know what is.

I actually really like the errata for Palm-Held Sun. A third rank spell that counts as real sunlight was way too powerful.

I did notice yesterday while reading that the hedge mage didn't get a way to add spells to it's not-a-spellbook, so happy they added that.

I agree that many of these errata pull things back from being must haves. but that is exactly why errata exists.

Yeah, I don't need to forbid Palm-Held Sun anymore. Nice.

Did the pdfs ever get updated to include this errata?

I just downloaded the Player Core and GM Core from the Store library, and they don't include any of the changes. But I'm still trying to get a handle on the new Store so maybe I'm just doing something wrong.

If you mean Spring 2026 errata, then pdfs are still updated only after new printings.

I'm also not sure that 'regaining HP' is the same as 'healing'.

I will say after reading my PDF there is one aspect of Impossible Magic that bugs me. Like, I love almost everything in it, don't get me wrong, but it feels like the book is very light on the "lore" or "worldbuilding" aspect, with most of that being the fiction at the head of each chapter. Especially when compared to Secrets of Magic

Yeah, I hoped for new updated portion of magic lore after much of it became outdated in Secrets of magic.

Nothing about this is removing them as the official source for rules. They just aren't getting books as early as they once did and aren't having all the art they once did.

Eh? What? If there's no official partnership, they aren't official source of the rules. It's in the name. I guess paizo could still call them that (and AoN couldn't do much about it) and leave link redirection, but that would be unbelievable hypocrisy.

So to say that they BOTH are biased toward Paizo and not the fans is a jaundiced take at best and shows that maybe they didn't actually watch the entire video in question?

Well what you described definitely sounds like their view isn't balanced at all, and they probably attribute some intentional malice to AoN people. Do they have any more info of the situation then we do? Do they personally know AoN leader and group? If it's 'no' to both it doesn't matter what they know about the industry. Their judgement is no more important and valuable than of any people who became familiar with the situation.

Not sure if you are accepting stuff from Impossible Magic yet but here goes

outlier the new Palm-Held Sun counting as constant and portable source of Natural Sunlight completely nukes vampires regardless level due to the sunlight vulnerability, something that has previously been seemingly avoided. It completely neuters Vampires and similar creatures despite being a 2nd rank spell. And while I love the idea of a spell that can be used to exploit a creatures thematic weakness, this is seems more like an easy win button.

I think some incapacitation like effect for whether it counts as Natural Sunlight and a cap on the sunlight exposure for the spell.

P.s. this is one of my first posts like this so I apologize if I overstepped by suggesting an errata fix

WOW. This is an absolute madness! They spent YEARS being completely and utterly terrified that any item and effect would count as an actual sunlight. Almost nothing does (if anything). They introduced items which shine like a sun, but then wrote painful explanations that they don't actually generate sunlight for any case that matters apart from plot tricks which GMs must invent themselves. They wrote spells which are kinda sunny but actually don't even think about it.

For some reason, in recent years there's this odd idea that to get someone to listen, you need to be able to get some kind of leverage or threaten someone's livelihood. Which is why boycotts come up so much because that's the main leverage customers have over a company at all.

There's an (usually) unsaid assumption that if you don't do so, someone won't take you seriously at all, in the same way SMCiv2's Gandhi says their words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS, or C&C Generals says great leaders solve their conflicts with 'words' like Nuclear Missile, etc etc.

Ehm. Why are you so mystified? Just above, several people provided the exact reason, and it seems a popular way of thinking in industry: you don't pay - you don't matter. You paid but stopped - you stopped to matter. On one hand there's some logic, but this exactly makes people to want leverage (even when to go through with it means to lose it). On the other hand, this thinking completely ignores bleeding out of people that 'matter', meaning customers, and the reverse process - gaining them. So, it ignores dynamics almost completely.

Yep. I don't think I even understand the point. In any meaning. Also don't really care about 'official'. The indentity to books still important of course.
When they assign the new 'official' will you only post those links, Finoan? Demiplane for example? When everyone else would still use AoN (unless it collapses for some reason of course)?

It does explain that though, this is what that is:

the blog post wrote:

Licenses take resources to manage—lawyers to review and follow up on contracts, finance employees to review and enter royalty statements, and licensing staff to provide assets and other support. Those resources must be balanced against other business demands.

Remember that Paizo is very small, and with the recent layoffs, they're even smaller. Every minute spent on a license is one that can't be spent elsewhere, and payroll that has to be paid.

Unchanged continued licence and contract to review? Unconvincing. Sending pdfs to one more address? Either. Unless they compile a set list of art which could be used themselves. That's some effort. Accounting would definitely exist, even it's all zeroes. How much work this is, not sure. Still doesn't look like much.

Claxon wrote:

I don't know what Bluesky is, but that certainly isn't the kind of response I'd want to see.

Was the post made from an official Paizo account, or as the personal account of a Paizo employee saying this "on behalf of the company"?

I ask only because there is a difference between an employee being concerned for a coworker, and an official statement/stance from the company.

It was the latter, though it wasn't on behalf of the company.

That being said, seeing as we have one consistent line to Paizo and no options for alternatives were offered, it was less than effective at dealing with the firestorm Maya no doubt walked into this morning.

Claxon mentioned the options twice in different order. So 'the latter' became ambiguous. What was the case?