Errenor's page

Also, I've never understood how Psychic Spellcasting then interacts with Attacks of Opportunity, so I feel like some clarity of how it effects spellcasting mechanically would be helpful.

Completely as normal? It changes nothing in relation to triggers of reactions. They don't react to speech.

There's even examples of really cheap magic items which are used in certain regions which are widely accesible to even the townsfolk, so why make it so non-mages can't activate certain magic items other because it used be like that in older editions?

Because casters are special. Really special. And must be.

Yeah, without any wording that it affects only enemies in the area, it affects everyone in the area.
But it is very badly written. They also put 'targets' there which is a game term and area effects don't have them by default.
But frankly it has much better area than the old spell, 10ft burst is easier to put not affecting allies than bigger bursts and it's generally better than lines in catching enemies.

I think we can agree Trick Magic Item should be a baseline feature that didn't require a skill feat

Some things maybe shouldn't need skill feats. But casting any spell from spellcasting items? Yes, this absolutely looks like a special skill and deserves to be a feat.

Nobody really knows, it's a mess.
But most I suppose just count all of the terms as more or less synonyms for single action activities/actions.
And so Ready can be used with anything which takes 1 action.
There are (or were?) people who are more restrictive about it, but personally I don't see any sense in it.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like some of the problems might be to simply remove the following line from Psychic Dedication:

Dark Archive pg 48 wrote:

If you already have a focus pool, increase the number of points in your pool by 1.

If you don't have a focus pool, you gain a point. So that way you can use the Amp you've gained. If you do have a pool, you have a new option, but your resources don't go up.

Oh, nonononnononono. No way. Not again.

Aren't they supposed to be easier to manage than multiple individual creatures? The more I read about them, the less that seems to be the case.

Still easier to manage than 16 creatures. Or 10. Even if it becomes much more abstract than is common for pf2.

I wouldn't say what rules intended is unclear: "prerequisites" and "all Medicine checks" are very telling. I'd say that intent is so clear we should stop nitpicking the wording and interpret all Medicine checks as ... Medicine checks! (even if you use Crafting for it) and apply all modifiers as needed.
As The Raven Black suggested above.

As per the video @13min41sec he states, "Resistance to Evil becomes Resistance to Unholy". So seems pretty straightforward, someone wearing the spellheart would gain resistance to unholy damage. But if the wearer doesn't have a weakness to Unholy damage, would I be right in thinking this'll likely never proc/trigger/benefit the recipient?

Any damage can have holy or unholy traits (if the creature inflicting it has these traits on their damage, just having a trait on the creature is not enough). Resistance and weakness are independent. So if you have resistance to unholy and no weakness to unholy, you get resistance to unholy. Very simple.

Also, at the same timestamp in the video he shared "Creatures with Resistance to Evil gain the Unholy Trait" does this mean that affixing this spellheart to your armor - which makes you Resistance to Unholy - results in your character gaining the Unholy Trait? or does the Unholy trait only reside on the item? Or does this not apply since he wrote Evil and not Unholy?

No. I won't watch the video, but he probably talked about converting creatures. Magic items do what they say. If they say you get resistance to unholy - you get it. And not holy/unholy traits.

Ruling that affixing this spellheart gives the wearer resistance to spirit damage seems too much of a let down. Where's the Unholiness of this device factoring in?

I imagine most GM's would rule that the resistance granted is to both Spirit (from Chaotic) and Unholy (from Evil). Thoughts?

Resistance to unholy is a functional rule. I don't think you need to also add Spirit to that.

Mangaholic13 wrote:

Admittedly, part of this came about because I was looking at Psi Burst and noticed how it doesn't mention if the DC for the reflex save is based on Class or Spell.

Yeah, that is a bit of a problem.

The ability doesn't specify.
Psychic does have proficiency ratings in both Class DC and Spell DC.

Eh, Class DC where, btw? Some errata? Because it definitely didn't have it at launch (and still hasn't at AoN; or I can't find it). So, here there's absolutely no question it should use spell DC.

...Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps the Remastered Magus will get higher proficiencies in Class DC and Spellstriking will let them use that in place of Spell DC, like with Attack rolls?

Interesting thought, but definitely not. They won't muddle things to the extent that spells would use class dc.

You’re making immature trees that probably won’t have much wood value for decades.

Yeah, exactly. You've got basically a lot of saplings. Now welcome to growing those trees for decades until they become a real forest.

Though then there's Proliferate of Extended Kinesis...

That casters are trained in Class DC is there on the first page of any class. But only in new books.

As much as I'd love for it to work like you say (my current character build depends on it) there are logical and lexical inconsistencies in your explanation.

No inconsistencies at all, read the rule which NorrKnekten quoted.

This is an official rules question, I need the PFS answer for this so I'd LOVE to have a weigh-in from the authors or devs, but if anyone else can point out any other explicit interaction that accounts for this?

You can try PFS forum. You still won't get definite answer, but you could get some opinion of PFS organizers. Maybe.

That concentrate trait on Taunt doesn't even make sense to me. Smashing your weapon on your shield and screaming provocatively seems less "concentratey" than giving explicit trained orders and those don't have the Concentrate trait...

It's a game. With somewhat arbitrary rules. But also Taunt is NOT "Smashing your weapon on your shield and screaming rovocatively". Only one class in the game can do it with it having specific effects, it's a special skill.

By the way, a Taunting Strike without using Taunt is just a Strike with Flourish. Worse in every possible way.

So what? Who cares? Don't use it then. You are not entitled to the best possible circumstances in the game in all cases.

it does not worsen the poison on a Failure, but it still would on a Critical Failure

No? Critical Failure is definitely "a failed save". When they want to exclude this, they use something like "on a Failure (but not Critical Failure)".

>When a character uses Taunting Strike are they *using* the Taunt Action as well?
-Yes, but it's modified by the Taunting Strike: "you Taunt the target"

>Does that mean that a character uses Taunting Strike and with Group Taunt they get to pick three targets to be taunted?
-No. "you Taunt the target".

>Does a character who is Raging lose the ability to use Taunting Strike and Armored Counterattack? Shouldn't those feats then have the Concentrate trait as well?
-No, you can use them as they don't have Concentrate trait. But Taunts inside of them don't work. No, they shouldn't, you are free to use or not to use them as you like. Combined activities in the game don't get traits of subordinate actions (and shouldn't).

>Does a character with Shielding Taunt and Group Taunt choose three enemies when they raise their shield?
- No. "then Taunt a creature".

It makes me wonder if some of the designers thought that using them should be one of the standard build choices, not an exceptional one. As in, maybe half of all characters should be willing to pay feats to "multiclass". Even without free archetype, like in PFS, multiclassing is worth it.

Yes, I'm pretty sure they designed multiclassing to be actually used and not as dead weight in books :) You can live without it, sure (for some classes a bit worse than the others, but still). But if you can spend a bit of mind effort on studying dedications you probably would find something useful, absolutely.

Oh, noes! You did it.
Now we have to count:
attacks are only:
melee
ranged
spell
(impulse, secret type when we remember that kineticists exist)

So,

what about flanking in this scheme? Because I think it must work. Melee? Melee. Against AC? Yes. Off-guard, then.

It would also be very unusual for a crit effect to rely on something that cones from another player.

It doesn't.

Stupefied is a pretty powerful condition, because it can interfere with casting (and other concentrate actions). However, the "if already stupefied" clause does hint at an intent to try to get in multiple crits, maybe over multiple turns.

A whole minute feels kind of extreme, but 1 round maybe too short. Another commonly used duration is "until the end of your next turn", which might be the right in-between amount.

Or it maybe could be the other way around, the intent could be for the item to NOT 'stack' with itself and rely on combos with your teammates instead (and stupefied is not hard to apply, there are spells and probably abilities). And I don't have the impression that crit effects are generally very long in the the system. So until the end of your next turn looks more likely.

I know of one where said Ring can be found, but now that you mention Chronicles I don't know if it's "available." I don't wish to risk the wrath of mods by identifying the AP.

Yeah, what is available inside an AP and what's available in chronicles of that AP are different things. Most often in a chronicle is a tiny subset of what's in AP (also because the vast majority of things is available normally). Rarely it's interesting unique things on the theme which aren't copies of what was in AP. If I remember correctly.

IN PF1E they were half undead. Is that still the case in remastered?

You kind of got the citation in the post you answered to. No, they are not, they are living creatures. With a specific quality "void healing". Mechanically, that is. In fiction they are still living creatures: they need to eat, breath, they function as living creatures and respond to normal medicine. It's just ther internal magic works differently (in the sense life essence has two sort of aspects, void and vitality, and is part of the world's magic, also being fundamental force). That can be interpreted as being half-undead I suppose, but this is more an in-game philosophy and doesn't matter for playing.

Well, I admit that in this case I adhere to the maximal permissibility. But I don't think it's just the RAI, as I was saying. It's also RAW (with an interpretation) when the general principle of the game is "you get what's written". Yes, when you take the dedication, "you don't get anything else", but you need explicit requirements (or maybe implicit but obvious like in the case of psychic) or prohibition for it to matter at 16th level when you can take the feat. They do it some way or the other for other things when they want to.

TY Errenor, much appreciated.

"But as far as I know there's absolutely no way to obtain Rings of Wizardry in PfS."

Are Adventure Paths available for PFS gaming?

Not exactly. APs are completely unrestrained games for a GM, completely under their control, no PfS restrictions apply. But they are also completely separate - you can't play APs with PfS chars and vice versa. (You can make 'copies' if you like, but they have no mechanical connections at all)

And btw, I answer the questions here because they are really basic and mixed with rules questions, but for anything more specific there's a PfS forum.

I can only say that I don't agree at all. It's not that kind of a feature. Nothing is written that there should be some 'on' switch to use this effect. If you have it - you can use it (and you also need bloodline focus spells for that, I'm not sure taken slot spells from bloodline count as "sorcerous gifts"). You just repeat same things where nothing supports your view.

It is much like the Psychic archetype. The dedication does not give you the Unleash Psyche class feature, and no archetype feat grants it. So you can technically take the Psi Burst feat, but will not be able to use it since the action has the Psyche trait.

And, they are not even close. Because Unleash is the only way to use Psyche actions, and you can't get it. But to use Blood magic you just need bloodline focus spells - and you can get them. There's no Blood Magic trait which says you must have Blood Magic feature from your bloodline, there's no any other restrictive language anywhere.

I have PFS adventures that were not properly added to the database here, for a variety of "not paying attention" reasons. Is there any way I can get those chronicle sheets corrected & assigned to the proper character? Getting in touch with the GMs for those sessions might be problematic, so if I need their assistance I'm probably hosed.

Reporting games is solely GM's responsibility and capability, you can't do that as a player.

Just to make sure I'm doing this right ... my Wizard has an Endless Grimoire, his familiar has Spell Battery, & I'm a Battle Wizard. As I understand it, I have 3 1st level slots for being an 8th level Wizard, then +1 additional 1st level slot for the Endless Grimoire, another for Spell Battery, & a third from the Battle School, so a total of 6 1st level slots. Am I doing that right?

Yes, looks correct

Related question: if I obtain a Ring of Wizardry, do those additional slots "stack" with the Grimoire & Spell Battery, or is there some feature that forbids that? & is it at all possible, with PFS rules, to craft a Ring of Wizardry? I know I need the "formula" to do so, but not how or where to obtain one. If this question is seen as asking about "farming" I apologize, but I only want a "yes" or "no," not the actual details :)

Yes, slots would stack. But as far as I know there's absolutely no way to obtain Rings of Wizardry in PfS. At least last time we checked. And this of course includes crafting, for this matter there's no difference between an item and its formula.

Another "spell slot" question. My 8th level Eldritch Trickster has Spell Breadth. I understand that feat gives me one extra 1st level spell slot. When I get to 12th level & take Expert Spellcasting, that gives me a 4th level slot. Does Spell Breadth give me another extra 1st level slot, & another 2nd level? The wording implies it does, but I don't want to be wrong.

Yes, for example "increase the spell slots you gain from wizard archetype feats by 1 for each spell rank other than your two highest wizard spell slots" means exactly what it means.

Errenor wrote:

No. That's not logical. You terribly over-stretch. There's a difference between a real creature and implied one.

It's a creature with no physical form. It offers NO resistance and requires NO effort to move past. It offer as much resistance as an successfully disbelieved illusion.

Secondly, I don't see why it would work differently than attacking a square as described under Undetected. "If you suspect there's a creature around, you can pick a square and attempt an attack." If you disallow this then you make it so you can never make it past undetected creatures.

So,IMO, it's a quite logical conclusion and well within reason. I don't see a logical reason you can an attack roll to attack an empty space but can't roll to tumble through an empty space.

Third, you yourself said "attempts and checks matter, not effectiveness." How if an attempt to avoid an invisible creature not an attempt even if it proves ineffective by guessing wrong on the space? IMO, it makes more sense than getting to roll vs a creature that doesn't have a physical form: that's sounds more like a "terribly over-stretch" going into 'bag or rats' territory. At least the Undetected rules have you make a roll, unlike moving though the space of an incorporeal creature. :P

Resistance doesn't matter for this both mechanically and "visually". The aim could be no touching, jumping over or slipping underfoot (if there are feet) or any other cool trick. But there should be something to trick. You can get panache in an empty space through Acrobatics I guess, but this is a custom action case, not Tumble through. Also, there's not much difference I guess, mostly in setting DC.

You have to have the Blood Magic feature first to use feats that give an alternate Blood Magic option.

You've just invented that. Where's this coming from? Why?

And I don't understand why you are so hell-bent to not allow spending 16th level feat on some very conditional 8-level ability. When the logic here is absolutely clear-cut and straightforward.

Blood Magic though IS a "benefit from your bloodline" since your Bloodline is where the Blood Magic is described.

So the archetype saying "you don't get other benefits from your bloodline" would exlude getting the feature "blood magic" altogether is my reading.

Explosion of Power is not from your bloodline. It's a feat. You can get feats. It doesn't demand anything from you, not even having a bloodline. Blood Magic "Explosion of Power" is not a "benefit from your bloodline", it's a benefit from this feat and this feat only. You get what's written.

Errenor wrote:

graystone wrote:

I then answered his question about tumble through in the second part of my original post: ""A corporeal and an incorporeal creature can pass through one another, but they can’t end their movement in each other’s space." This answers it all: there is no check asked for with this movement."

Although I think they can still make a check if they want and get panache. As is in line with normal gameplay for Swashbuckler: attempts and checks matter, not effectiveness. But there still should be a creature, even if incorporeal. If they want a check and panache 'just because' they need a custom action and a GM's agreement.

Yeah, like the 'swing on chandelier' example. For Tumble through though, if they can roll for an incorporeal creature then rolling for an 'Undetected' foe should also work by picking a square and rolling even if that square ends up not having a creature in it: After all, neither one offers any resistance to movement.

No. That's not logical. You terribly over-stretch. There's a difference between a real creature and implied one.

No,

you get trained in skills, the spellist and can later pick up bloodline spells with a feat, but you get no other benefits from the bloodline.

Guys, Explosion of Power is a feat. It doesn't have any prerequisites. Dedicated sorcerers can take feats and bloodline spells through feats. We know how blood magic effects work. The feats says: "You know the following blood magic effect. Blood Magic—Explosion of Power". So you do. I don't see absolutely any reason to forbid that. Yes, PCs with sorcerer dedication can get their first (?) bloodline effect at the 16th level for a 16th level feat. You don't need any "other benefits from the bloodline".

I then answered his question about tumble through in the second part of my original post: ""A corporeal and an incorporeal creature can pass through one another, but they can’t end their movement in each other’s space." This answers it all: there is no check asked for with this movement."

Although I think they can still make a check if they want and get panache. As is in line with normal gameplay for Swashbuckler: attempts and checks matter, not effectiveness. But there still should be a creature, even if incorporeal. If they want a check and panache 'just because' they need a custom action and a GM's agreement.

I'd say that Frightened means such strong fear that it's actually physically felt and so it affects all your performance and represented by a status in the game mechanics. When it ends you aren't suddenly unafraid, you are just more in control. Or maybe you are relatively unafraid, depends on a character. But the thing is, the effect still exists and the mental pressure builds up until it's almost unbearable again.
Another thing is, it's all mostly abstract game mechanics and at some point we need just to accept it as it is.

Even if Frightful Presence is not explicitly magic it's very close at least most of the time.

I mentioned Harm first and then had a suspicion I wasn't quite correct, checked and yes, Necromancer doesn't have a way to get Heal or Harm spells in class for now. Necromancer is occult but Harm and Heal are divine (and Heal is also primal). But they can get them from some dedication, and as written Mastery of Life and Death still works for spells from dedications.
And also I don't know what Nectarian meant by healing, I assumed is was Harm, but if not, it's true that damage can never heal.

The only thing about the attack in the feat is a benefit for the PC: if it's a two-handed weapon, you do not need a free hand to trip.

Also no MAP for Trip on attack success.

All we have for now is:
"You have studied the delicate balance of life and death to such a point that you can dance between them with ease. Whenever you cast a spell or use an ability that would deal void or vitality damage, use the weaker of the target’s resistance or immunity to void or to vitality. For instance, if the creature were immune to void and had no resistance or immunity to vitality damage, it would take vitality damage from the spell or ability. Resistance or immunity to both (or to all damage) applies as normal."
I don't think that Sneak Attack is strictly analogous even though the abilities are worded structurally similarly. But I still agree with you on both points.
Even though traditionally spells have a rigid way of working, we should use this ability's flavour text and allow intention to matter for Harm. No, we can't do this solely by the rules' text, but we must do it to make the game work.
Otherwise we would get what one forum user here likes to call a 'troll ruling' and a model one at that :)

A wizard could befriend a druid and learn a lot of spells from the druid, who automatically knows the whole primal spell list. The wizard can just ask about all the spells that also happen to be on the arcane list.

It should be interesting scenes in the world (especially if you've read in Secrets of magic about spellcasting for druids and wizards) :)

Errenor wrote:

Eh? I know only one AV game and it's a diabloid. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Needless to say a diabloid is ... not helpful for testing TTRPG rules.

Unless of course there's a secret second AV game based on an actual PF2 game system and I didn't hear about it.

They've made at least two posts about it on the community blog page. Last one was October 20th, see "Tabletop to Hack and Slash - Level Design in BKOM’s Pathfinder: Abomination Vaults".

Yeah, that's a diabloid. See OceanshieldwolPF 2.5's post.

Yes, I know about those, but thanks.

Will this update allow us to troll the spambot posts and still let you nuke the entire thread afterwards?

In case you don't know and Maya didn't answer the question: no, forums won't change for now as far as they've said.

I don't think Hide is referring to "next" or "previous" actions at all. You could easily Hide, then Step, then Strike and still benefit from off-guard.

Ehmm. Now I've made a discovery I ignored all this time! You can Step without breaking hidden! I always glazed over it for some reason.

Thinking about it, a lot of this is technically solved if "your next action" or "your last action" is always parsed as "the next thing you spend actions to perform" or "the last thing you spent actions to perform." As in, it only checks for named actions you paid actions to perform, not those you perform at no action cost as subordinate actions or in response to triggers as free actions or reactions.

Several people were saying this already, including me. Only not 'tecnically solved' but 'always meant by the rules'. Also not necessarily paying actions, free action without a trigger also counts as 'the last/next action'.

Paizo is working on a video game version of AV. If they go full on-line, with data collection and rapid update pushes the way many mmorpgs function, then they could very well get a fully empirical, 'big data' driven evaluation of current class and feat balance against one of their hallmark APs...and they could test run system changes in the electronic environment before committing to them on the very much slower pen and paper cycle. Is the video game going to be designed to collect such data from users? I don't know. If it is, will the pen and paper devs use the data provided for updates to the tabletop 2E system, or will the video game just be a separate product evolving on it's own? I don't know. But the possibility of big data collection from thousands (tens of thousands?) of hours of play of the PF2E system in AV offers some tantalizing opportunities for future updates.

Eh? I know only one AV game and it's a diabloid. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Needless to say a diabloid is ... not helpful for testing TTRPG rules.

I appreciate wisdom of the person who advised Geb to send a skeleton as an envoy (or maybe of the Geb himself). Skeletons don't need to drink blood or eat any flesh, they are quick and not stupid, not as spooky as ghosts, don't have a stench, are probably the least disgusting form of a corpse, not as flammable, rare or bound as mummies, and probably more accessible and manageable than liches. Better could be probably only living necromancers, but I guess there were other political reasons.
Or maybe that's just a happenstance.

That means when resolving the second subordinate strike you still get off-guard because the previous action is sneaking closer and not the first subordinate stealthbreaking strike. You are in stealth and sneaking, then you do Double Slice, and after Double Slice you are observed.

I did want to write that things like Double Slice could actually be considered one whole activity even for stealth* (but the forum ate my addition to the previous post). Not for this reason though but because if you are looking at the fiction a Strike could be seen as several weapon strokes, and so Double Slice as several simultaneous weapon strokes with two weapons. So two heavily modified Strikes in the activity are just mechanical representation of this, there's no such thing as first and second Strike (also remember damage addition) and so they both either work for stealth or both don't ("If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act").

* not saying I do this, two consecutive Strikes I think are more stable in results and easier to understand.

While Sorcerers is a spontaneous and needs to learn spells at the rank they want to cast it.

Also what Vlad_tromsoe means by 'learn'? I hope it's just adding to repertoire at some rank, not Learn a Spell at all ranks.

Edit: Unfortunately when you look up hide on AoN it doesn't give you that rules text.

That's because SP imagined it. Or drafted it if you like.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions

As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action

be? Arguing that 'next' counts but 'previous' doesn't is completely absurd. And you can't fix or fight absurdity, only ignore it.

But which is stealthy and which is not is a completely different question. This looks not (only) at the rules, but at the fiction: is it stealthy in the imagined reality? Thinking (Recall Knowledge) is, but spells very much not both in fiction and in the rules.

Similar with Spellstrike - I don't think it qualifies by strict raw (the Strike subordinate action isn't even the first subordinate action, Cast a Spell is), but I think you should be able to Spellstrike from hiding and have the benefits from the hidden condition.

I wouldn't generally allow it if there is something else that happens during the activity before the Strike. Such as Sudden Charge (Stride, Stride, Strike). You can definitely Sudden Charge out of a hiding spot, but you won't benefit from still being hidden when you Strike at the end.

There is something else that happens during the activity before the Strike in Spellstrike - it's casting a spell. So unless it's a subtle damage spell (which probably would never appear) it's showy and noisy. So, no, I absolutely don't think you should be able to Spellstrike from hiding and have the benefits from the hidden condition.

Personally I suspect it's more likely that oozes being included is an error than that thos suddenly allows Precision Damage to work on them.

I don't think creating an item that increases damage against various creatures is an error. And this is the idea of the item, not some additional precision damage.

I assume its the numbers from Pathfinder Nexus and Pathfinder Society, but how do the number of people that play either on Pathfinder Nexus or in Pathfinder Society compare to the people that use Pathbuilder?

PFS does not even record PC's classes. Unless of course the majority of the people see a form for characters and dutifully fill it when nobody asked them. Which I don't believe in, people are lazy.

As for how "intelligent" mindless creatures are, I'll reiterate my previous comment: You don't see them mindlessly wack on rocks while there are creatures around, do you? So they are "intelligent" enough to understand what's a creature, and what's not.

Yeah, exactly. Their unlife gives them murderous instincts, like animals have, but not exactly. And that is not even my invention, more like interpretation or even citation of official lore.

I just had a thought....what is we did kill Vancian casting in a way. What if we just remade the wizard to be a bit like the Arcanist of PF1.

What if wizards prepared a number of spells known per day, rather than individual spell slot. The wizard memorizes X many spell per rank per day, and can cast any of those spells out of their slots.

I think the whole "I forgot my spells" thing as soon as they were cast was something that most people didn't actually like.

You just described Flexible Spellcaster, only without its costs: cantrips, spell slot per rank and 2nd level feat.