Errenor's page

Stitch Flesh makes your Treat Wounds work on undead:"You can use Treat Wounds to restore Hit Points to undead creatures". Battle Medicine almost completely refers to Treat Wounds: "You can patch up wounds, even in combat. Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP". Your Treat Wounds works on undead, so 'corresponding amount of HP' is not zero. So Battle Medicine with Stitch Flesh works on undead very much RAW.

Thanks for all the replies...they helped. I still think it's unnecessarily complex...however I do now understand the logic of it better.

These rules are actually the only TTRPG ones I know that work well and are sensible (and interact well with vision). 5e's are a terrible mess which does not work. And it really has obstructed play when I still has been playing 5e.

Warped Terrain - 1 to 3 Actions - Very good for preventing enemies from running at you or away from you. Great against flyers at level 4 (Flying up becomes Greater Difficult Terrain in the area)

Maybe you could find where it says that two difficult terrains stack to make greater difficult? I want it to work like that, but I couldn't find it.

Errenor wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

'Morality clauses' aren't attached to SRDs. SRDs were licenced by OGL before and (presumably) will be licenced by ORC in the future. Exclusively.

'Morality clauses' are commonly attached to trademarks and IPs not included in SRDs, which is a different licence/contract.
So stop panicking, please ;)

That's how I expected it to work, but "there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises" implies otherwise.

Though Leon Aquila could have gotten it wrong, I suppose. Or I could be misreading it.
And I'm not panicking, I'd just hate to see this approach taken in the ORC.

Leon did get it very wrong and mixed up two different things.

magical effects with the healing trait have no effect on you

Nice, another type of characters that can't be un-blinded, un-deafened, un-cursed, cured of disease, poison, paralysis, or resurrected. :-\

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Based on the interview w/ Erik Mona, there will be no clauses in the ORC license itself, but there may be clauses related to such things in the SRD caches that give you permission to use IP from various franchises.

Even that seems like it could lead to serious problems. If there's a mechanism in the SRD caches to restrict use beyond the actual ORC license, isn't that just a way to change the licensing without changing the license?

'Morality clauses' aren't attached to SRDs. SRDs were licenced by OGL before and (presumably) will be licenced by ORC in the future. Exclusively.

Errenor wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

What kind of street thug uses a rapier? Well, that depends on the setting. Golarion has a wide range of fantasy settings within the same world. Anything based more around 15th - 16th century or later instead of Middle Ages might make sense, which I assume is why it was included (beyond being a legacy weapon, why it might have become part of the legacy weapons in the first place).

A setting is not a problem at all. The problem is, clubs and knives are much cheaper, easier to conceal and use in pretty much every setting. At least it's how I understand the remark.

But that also relegates Rogues to only people...

I only commented on 'street thugs', settings and rapiers, not rogues in general. I don't consider rogues only street thugs or untrained street kids. And don't think martial weapons should be prohibited for them.

I think books are more or less clear, you can read it on the page 219 of Core Rulebook or there AoN
If you have access (common are always available) and meet requirements you just take an archetype’s dedication feat instead of a class feat. Then you take feats of this archetype as much as you like and at the levels you like (though not lesser than a feat's level and meeting all requirements, as always). Most dedication feats are taken instead class feats, but some are skill feats, you should seach for the 'skill' trait.
You can't take another archetype's dedication feat until you've taken at least two archetype feats (so three in full with the dedication feat). You can always take class feats of course.

What kind of street thug uses a rapier? Well, that depends on the setting. Golarion has a wide range of fantasy settings within the same world. Anything based more around 15th - 16th century or later instead of Middle Ages might make sense, which I assume is why it was included (beyond being a legacy weapon, why it might have become part of the legacy weapons in the first place).

A setting is not a problem at all. The problem is, clubs and knives are much cheaper, easier to conceal and use in pretty much every setting. At least it's how I understand the remark.

I am writing because I am a recently retired software engineer (Apple) and have been looking at what I would like to do for the next few decades. One thing that strongly appeals is to write digital tools for my favorite TTRPGs. These might be things like digital character sheets or random encounter + treasure generators for the iOS store.

Just a little suggestion. I would suggest thinking about making a spellbook. I don't know anything about the state of PF2 support apps on iOS, but on android, there's basically only one and it's abandoned and hopelessly outdated (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fyjham_ts.pathfinder_2e_ spell_db&gl=US). [Ok, there's at least one more, but it's unfinished and even older, from the authors of the 5e's below]

Secondly, as you said, hustle has a limit: so what do you do after that?

For example, no more hustle until at least 10 minutes of rest. Or 30 minutes. Or until next 8 hour rest in the extreme case. They did forget to make condition to remove the restriction...

Errenor wrote:

What I don't understand in this table at all is where this 'default' 8 hours of travel causes fatigue comes from. Why 8? I can't find anything like this anywhere else in the book. We have that 16 hours without sleep causes fatigue, but where 8 hours come from?

It's in Core Rulebook pg. 517, Table 10–13: Normal Temperature is listed as 33º F to 94º F (1º C to 34º C), 8 hours of overland travel before fatigue and no damage. Mild to extreme temps drop the time to fatigue to 4 hrs and incredible drop it to 2 hrs.

You are quoting the table to me. I know where it is and I can read it. I don't understand why there's no text support for this table anywhere else in the book. There's no even a couple of sentences like 'Travelling makes characters fatigued faster, after 8 hours at normal conditions and even faster in a bad weather'. For example in Chapter 10: Game Mastering/Running Modes of Play/Exploration or in Chapter 9: Playing the Game/Exploration Mode sections. These 'default' 8 hours just suddenly spring up only in Chapter 10: Game Mastering/Environment/Temperature and only in this table.

"Particularly hot and cold weather can make creatures fatigued more quickly during overland travel and can cause damage if harsh enough, as shown in Table 10–13." So the more quickly is clearly the time it takes to fatigue.

What I don't understand in this table at all is where this 'default' 8 hours of travel causes fatigue comes from. Why 8? I can't find anything like this anywhere else in the book. We have that 16 hours without sleep causes fatigue, but where 8 hours come from?

Quoth the raven... WAIT. There's a character class that functions like a hard magic Pokemaster? Remember the Mage-Knight minis? Dude. A mage-knight. Did Paizo make character customization like, infinite? Plus the infinite 3pp. That's like, infinite mojo. Thank you!

Pokemaster? Heh, yeah, I guess Summoner could be that if you like. They have one hit point pool for both Summoner and Eidolon, btw.

Speaking of boycotts: does anyone know if buying Baldur's Gate 3 (Larian Studios) or minis from the Icons of the Realm line (WizKids) will be giving some amount of money to WotC? I hope not, but if so I won't be spending money on either of those things from now on. Which I will find sad but necessary.

BG3 is definitely done with some specific contract between Larian and WotC, and I very much doubt it's non-monetary (or that WotC only give money without getting anything back).

Also, as you plan to play a wizard, Secrets of magic has a bunch of nice and useful spells, two spellcasting classes [Magus, a warrior-wizard and a Summoner with a combat Eidolon companion (not a summoner of creature hordes)], really great lore articles on the world's magic and its works, unique (for now) magic items and more.

In fact, you have 2 readings:

- Either you consider that, as it is a "shared hp pool", the Summoner hp pool is also the Eidolon hp pool. So in that case the Eidolon would die, which in my opinion creates more issues.
- Or you consider that the Eidolon doesn't have an hp pool as the mechanical description of "shared hp pool" just indicates that all damage and healing done on the Eidolon is applied to the Summoner hp pool. In that case no one dies when the Eidolon takes a Death effect and the Summoner goes to 0 hp. I think it's more in line with the class in general as the Summoner avoids a lot of Conditions when they affect their Eidolon (Controlled, Confused, Doomed and even things like Frightened can be side stepped by just not playing the Eidolon during the duration).

Yes, and as 'Eidolon died' has no meaning in the game quite literally, there's no mention even of possibility in the book (aside from extreme plot events), we just have to use your second option.

Who dies? The Eidolon? But then how to get it back? The Summoner? But how come the Summoner is turned to dust despite not being the target of the spell?

So, who dies? Because in any case I just don't see any way for the Summoner to die from this if the Eidolon was the target.

"10-foot radius ring" is not really defined in the game.

Exactly. Which makes your first two sentences not the indisputable truth and so basically false.

Though to be fair, the 15 foot burst has 12 squares in the outer ring - which matches the 60 foot distance of the straight line version of the Wall of Fire.

Good catch. And an argument.

Basically, you take a 10-foot burst and remove a 5-foot burst from it. While I agree the rule can be read multiple ways when you really get into it, I think my interpretation is the most straightforward one.

Taking a 15-ft burst and removing a 10-ft burst is not in any way less straightforward one. But mostly nicer to the players.

Illusory disguise all seem to be limited to impersonating types of creatures rather than specific individuals.

Heightened (3rd) You can appear as any creature of the same size, even a specific individual. You must have seen an individual to take on their appearance. The spell also disguises your voice and scent, and it gains the auditory trait.

Useless feat should not be an option.

How would you implement this in a book format? It's not a computer system. You need to evaluate things yourself most of the time anyway.

Errenor wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Firerox broke after one FAQ. Chrome broke after 4 ish.

Yep, it's completely broken on (my) Firefox: when you open one list, it doesn't allow you to scroll up or down anymore at all, even if you close the list. Only reloading helps.

I can't replicate this: seems to work ok on mine. Is your firefox updated? Mine is a fresh install and updated.

Mine(s) is(are) (not) working like this for more than a year on both Windows and Linux on different PCs both frequently updated, so on several versions. Even if the problem is some addons, it's the only site I have problems with. And as I run only the absolutely essential ones, I'm not even going to search which are the (possible) problem, because I need all of them anyway.

P.S. Also it's not even addons OR even settings: it's (not) working like this even with all addons turned off, even in troubleshooting mode!

I would not allow someone to benefit from the unarmored APB armor and resilience bonuses without either explorer’s clothing or bracers of armor equipped. Simone dedicated to dexterity builds could get the +7 ability modifier normally, but cannot benefit from runes with the full ability bonus. No reason to change that just for APB.

Yeah! Take that, Simone!

Firerox broke after one FAQ. Chrome broke after 4 ish.

Yep, it's completely broken on (my) Firefox: when you open one list, it doesn't allow you to scroll up or down anymore at all, even if you close the list. Only reloading helps.

Looks to me like the RAW would be that a Battlefield Medicine check is a check with the same DC as "treat wounds" and has the same effect as "treat wounds" but is not really "treat wounds", so the Plaster would be of no use.

Not the same effect: Battle Medicine doesn't remove the wounded condition.

Will the PDFs be updated with the 4th printing errata and the new bi-anually erratas? I would like to use the PDF rather going through a list of erratas.

With new printings yes, only with bi-annual erratas no, too much typographical work. (There was a post from the Paizo employee somewhere...)

Part of the problem is that people trigger social checks without realizing it. A player who let's themselves slip into character and get immersed in the fiction might make a suggestion, point something out, or make a lie of omission, without realizing they are making a Request, Coerce, or Lie check by the rules of the game, and their character sucks at those.

I've made a whole topic "Untrained (social) checks" about this some time ago. People gave several interesting suggestions, but I wouldn't say that the problem is completely solved. At least it really demands a work from the GM.

If it helps, the battle flow has the potential to be this.

Unpleasant, yes. But if you are the GM you could prevent at least the part with constricting swallowed creatures, if you want. You have now some options and answers this way or the other.

There is no "swallowed" condition to parse what is "primarily" or secondarily anything. There is a grabbed condition, which conveniently is explicitly applied upon the successful utilization of Swallowed Whole. There is no "grabbed but normal grabbed not weird grabbed" status to hem and haw about when you can use what abilities.

It's unambiguous. If you are swallowed whole, you are grabbed. Greater Constrict doesn't have the attack tag. You can use it when things are grabbed, and also when they are swallowed whole. Like when they're in your gullet.

If you want to talk about RAI I think it makes perfect sense that an apex predator like the Froghemoth which is "capable of devouring dinosaurs and even dragons" would have an ability to render that prey disabled rather quickly upon consumption, rather than give it a chance to claw its way out.

Condition or "condition" as a game term? :) Anyway, yes, I did not try to find strict RaW answer (which would be most probably as you say), because the game again and again demostrates that it can't satisfactorily be run RAW in a lot of cases. This is one of them, I strongly believe.

I suspect it's unintentionally designed to be stupid. So if you are a GM you could make it work, if you aren't you can ask a GM to do that. That returning is on the list suggests that it should work somehow by intention.

I think you need to look only at the high level. Swallowed whole creatures are primarily swallowed (and only then grabbed). And Greater constrict works only on those grabbed normally, as a primary condition from attacks with Grab and other things which apply this condition as primary. So no, Swallowed creatures aren't targets of the Greater Constrict.

Errenor wrote:

There's not very precisely worded restriction on the 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots' (again, by default) with the reference to the table and no mention of any 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' at all.

Speaking of acquiring over-leveled items, this ruling would mean that a level 1 Magus with a Type III ring could be Spellstriking with level 3 spells.

No, for this especially there's a 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots'. And the ring does give spell slots.

This stops them technically from being able to use low level spells in staves - as staves have the casting restriction.

Staves have the restriction of 'able to cast spells of the appropriate level' (without even 'from spell slots' addition, but that wouldn't turn on the restriction either). As I (and the rules) said above, there's no 'you can't prepare spells of lower level at all', no 'you can't cast lower level spells at all' and no 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' restrictions in the rules. So nothing prevents staves from working either. At all.

I got to actually reading the rules on that and completely lost sight of the problem.
Magus rules don't say 'you can't prepare spells of lower level at all', you just don't have lower level spell slots by default.
They don't say 'you can't cast lower level spells at all', again, you just don't have lower level spell slots.
There's not very precisely worded restriction on the 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots' (again, by default) with the reference to the table and no mention of any 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' at all.
Now, the ring: "It does nothing unless you have a spellcasting class feature with the arcane tradition." Check, you have that.
"While wearing the ring of wizardry, you <...> have two additional 1st-level arcane spell slots each day." Ok, just do what is written because that's how magic items and rules work. You now have those slots. Can you cast from them?
Yes, you can: "You prepare spells in these slots <...> just as you normally cast your spells." Normally you could have no slots of these levels, but the ring gives them to you, nothing prevents you from preparing spells there, as I mentioned above.
So, everything just works. What is the problem here?
Ah, yes, '-' in the table don't overwrite the actual text of the rules. And, well, don't even mean much to me here.

At 1st level, you can prepare one 1st-level spell and five cantrips each morning from the spells in your spellbook (see below). Prepared spells remain available to you until you cast them or until you prepare your spells again. The number of spells you can prepare is called your spell slots.

As you increase in level as a magus, your number of spell slots and the highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots increase, shown in Table 2–2: Magus Spells per Day. Because you split your focus between physical training and magical scholarship, you have no more than two spell slots of your highest level and, if you can cast 2nd-level spells or higher, two spell slots of 1 level lower than your highest spell level.

I’m reminded of the Disney cartoon Alice in Wonderland when Alice is asked if she would like more tea. She hadn’t yet had any and asked how she could have more when she has had none. The March Hare and Mad Hatter told her she could always have more, she just can never have less.

Returning to roots (hopefully, if the quote was correct):

'Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.

'I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, 'so I can't take more.'
'You mean you can't take LESS,' said the Hatter: 'it's very easy to take MORE than nothing.'

Is it a bad sign when you are inclined to agree with the Mad Hatter?

"The circumstance bonus you gain to Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidation increases to +2, as long as you have master proficiency in each skill."

Natural language. I can read this as "For each skill with master proficiency your bonus for this skill is +2" even now. But yes, the wording is ambiguous. An unambiguous restricting wording would be "master proficiences in all these skills".

Hmm... That's odd. I'm not finding the Dark Tapestry defined anywhere.

A couple of mentions and references to it in a couple of places. But no definition.

Will this do:

With bloodline mutation, there are :

Quote:

You gain the appropriate trait or traits for those types of creatures

So, it's possible to obtain the dragon, earth, elemental traits with a crystal dragon bloodline, no ?

Ah, yes, this 20th lvl feat does seem like a way to acquire some traits. But this is still GM judgement, and I don't think that in this particular case 'dragon' trait is appropriate. You don't become a dragon with this feat, it's too specific trait compared to 'aberration' or even 'angel', I think.

Hello, I have a question about crystal corruption.

1/ Does this afflicition remove with a remove curse ?

2/ Can a creature without elemental and earth traits but with immunity petrified condition be carrier and suffer no ill effects except vulnerability to sonic ?

3/ Does "all Strikes" mean all the (special) attacks with an attack bonus ?

4/ Is it possible to gain earth and elemental traits ?

Thanks for your future answer.

Based only on what you cited:

CHA 10

<...> I wanted to lean into both Athletics and Intimidation <...> by all means lower the Charisma

How much lower could Charisma be? :) What do you mean leaning into Intimidation with CHA 10? What am I missing?

You do not have to take a Lineage feat at 1st level, but I do not know if you can retrain in one later on.

"You can have only one lineage feat; you can select such a feat only at 1st level, and you can’t retrain into or out of this feat."

My biggest frustration about Foundry is also its greatest strength: it is an opensourced product

What Foundry are you talking about? This one doesn't look like opensource at all. Or do I miss something?

The only thing that I have found when I went and looked for it is the line in Champion Code about priority of Tenets. But that doesn't really match up with what Errenor is remembering.

I would be interested in reading the exact wording. Note that what I described above is not actively misleading people. Just letting them draw their own conclusions.

Yes, I searched too, and found almost nothing. Either I've read it somewhere else or our GM said that. But there's at least that in GMG, Ring of Truth:

Giving incomplete info and letting people make the wrong guesses is not lying. It is also dreadfully efficient.

I definitely saw somewhere in PF2e anathemas an explicit mention that it's the same as lying. The designers of this game aren't naive. :)

The issue I see with clever villains is how their plans can be revealed too easily by the players.

They're one Detect Thoughts away from spoiling their plans :S

If you are talking about Mind Reading then it's uncommon, spellcasting is obvious, and it still gives only 'vague surface thoughts', so a GM could avoid any spoilers they want to avoid.

Teleportation is absolutely one of the things that people expect to be an exception.

And it's absolutely never is, unless it's explicitly written. Tree Stride works perfectly well and doesn't need LoE because it's written as such.

When teleportation effects are limited to line of effect, it seems to be when explicitly stated, or when you need to pick a target.

It's the other way around, as normal: LoE is the default (and LoS if there are targets) and anything else must be explicitly written.

QuidEst wrote:

It's purely a response to your question of "is there anything that stops this?", which is, "a pedantic reading of the line-of-effect rules". (Even then, the rules just say line of effect is usually required.)

If you want to be even more pedantic, couldn't you argue that Transpose is not a spell, not creating an effect, doesn't have an area, and doesn't have a target, and therefore you can just skip over LoE entirely because none of the conditions LoE references apply?

Transpose definitely creates an effect "you and your eidolon switch places". And I'd completely agree with everything else there, but I've read the Transpose text:

Ah, never looked at the PFS Guide before, thank you. I thought it was just rules for organized play, and I've had the same group for over 20 years. It's a place to start, at least.

But... none of the Gortle's links are to the PFS guide. They are to the Archives of Nethis which is just the game's rules.

Did I accidentally write the exact opposite of what I intended?

Did you? Now I'm not sure what you actually meant if not expressing almost certainty that AI would be much more than just a novelty trick. Which I suppose it would be eventually (more than just a novelty trick). I think a lot of people here (and out there) considerably and arrogantly overestimate what a human thinking even is.

I'll base an adventure off a fever dream I had involving a Jimmy Buffet song and thaumcraft. How the hell is an AI ever going to make those connections? I don't even know how I made those connections.

Do you really doubt AI could make random and weird connections? O_o That is a thing it definitely and constantly demonstrates even now. That AI art all is a kind of an electrical fever dream, for example.

What are the exact rules for oversized creatures in small rooms or hallways?

There aren't any. At least I and some other guys here couldn't find them.