Errenor's page

If there was a situation specific idea for how you're Aiding that could reasonably call for setting something up to do it multiple times, I might allow it.

That example of "I will prepare now to be ready to help 3 times over the next 18 seconds if this melee stays next to me", with no further narrative explanation to support it, is exactly the sort of thing that I would definitely not allow.

Yeah. "I'm prepared to help you climb this wall until you succeed" is one thing and "I'm prepared to aid you with this enemy once and forever" is another.

MC bounded spellcasting feats are already a scam and you want to make them worse?

He is talking about 12th level, that would make it better not worse.

Its worth remembering that shields will still take mental/spirit damage when blocking an attack that does both physical and mental/spirit if we treat it the way Foundry does it. But at the same time IWR on the shield itself cannot apply during the block in that implementation.

I myself believe these shields are either inteded to;
A. Not take that part of the damage after the player takes the blocked damage.
B. Effectively provide immunity when blocking against that damagetype (Which still needs to be physical attacks unless feats say otherwise)

It absolutely falls into to bad to be true otherwise as its effectively just a less sturdier shield with an 400gp cost not counting the cost of runes.

A. I just can't believe anyone at any time would apply Spirit, Mental, or Poison damage to any shield even if they apply non-physical damage when shield-blocking. Objects are immune already, always. This just can't matter however you rule Shield Block.

like how shields with immunity or resistance to damage don't have those immunities or resistances taken into account. Dragonhide shields for example.

(WOW O_O Dragonhide is so mind crushingly terrible it's not even funny: 3 of 4 types give absolutely nothing as objects are already immune to Spirit, Mental, and Poison by being... objects. Not even talking about that you can't even block against any of those types unless you have some feat or other ability)

Are there any rules (official or 3rd party) that allow for undead parasitic symbiotes that give abilities like extra spellcasting and which grow in power as the host grows in power? I ask as I have a PC who wants to play a crimson haired female Dhampir Thamaturge with an parasitic symbiote hand (aka somewhat similar to Vampire Hunter D).

Almost any reflavoured spellcasting archetype.

processed trait

doesn't have to be connected with food. It only means that Quick Alchemy for it isn't really quick. For example Invigorating Soap has it. I hope it won't count as food :)

If they wanted Emanations to automatically move with you, then why would they need the Aura trait? The Aura trait exists explicitly to allow effects to move with the origin of said effect.

Player Core pg. 453; "Aura" Trait wrote:

An aura is an emanation that continually ebbs out from you, affecting creatures within a certain radius. Aura can also refer to the magical signature of an item.

Emphasis mine.

Means nothing. Yes, auras do that. Also simply continuous emanations do this too. No contradictions.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

What rule is that? I did not read that change.

The Aura Trait has been added to a lot of spells, like Bless for example. Before the remaster, it was rather clear that Bless was following you despite the lack of the Aura trait, making people wonder when an Emanation was supposed to follow you and when it was not supposed to. With the remaster putting the Aura trait in a lot of places, it's now crystal clear: If an emanation has the Aura trait, it follows you, otherwise it doesn't.

Bard Compositions haven't inherited from the Aura trait and as such are just affecting creatures inside the area at the time of casting and that's all.

Yeah. So you have absolutely and utterly nothing. Apart from feelings. As I thought.

Errenor wrote:

BigHatMarisa wrote:

-When you use the action, it slaps down a static 30-foot emanation. This emanation lasts one round. It's not an Aura, so doesn't follow the Bard.

No. "An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions." Unconditionally. Always, in any case. So the moment continuous effect doesn't move with its moving source, it's not an emanation anymore. There're absolutely no exceptions.

So continuous emanations always move with their sources. Doesn't matter if they are auras or not.

No, Emanations don't follow you unless they have the Aura trait. Otherwise, it's just a static area that emanates from you at the time of casting and doesn't move afterwards. Remaster solved this issue as in the past it was unclear when an effect was supposed to follow the caster or not.

Any rule citation at all? Including what exactly remaster changed?

-When you use the action, it slaps down a static 30-foot emanation. This emanation lasts one round. It's not an Aura, so doesn't follow the Bard.

No. "An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions." Unconditionally. Always, in any case. So the moment continuous effect doesn't move with its moving source, it's not an emanation anymore. There're absolutely no exceptions.

A spell attack modifier or spell DC are "the relevant statistic" here. And you can have proficiency in them incidentally. Attribute modifiers don't come into the equation at this step, and you also can't have proficiency in them.
John R., you really should've used the full feat text as you stripped all the context out of it. "Success: For the rest of the current turn, you can spend actions to activate the item as if you could normally use it." For a spellcaster that means you use your own spell attack or spell DC. So yes, if you have that you completely ignore that paragraph about not having them. You have them and you just use them.*
You do still need to have the needed skill and make a (successful) check paying an action. Also the DC could be modified almost arbitrary by the GM ("depending on the item or situation").

*There probably could be a corner case when your spell DC is less than expert+max(Int,Wis,Cha)?

For me "can choose" very exactly allows to choose not. So yes, you can keep base types.

Thank you for you input!
Well, I guess in the future I would make it 16 total/8 travelling or being extremely active.

Is there any rule that says all these decent heal spells can be swapped over the their "dark" verions?

No.

Soothe heals undead because it's not Vitality. It's Occult only though.

Why Harm isn't enough? Heal is enough for living, everything else is just a nice bonus.

I wanted to make sure how much time adventurers have to explore before they got fatigued. I vaguely thought it's 8 hours. Then I looked it up:
Resting
"If a character goes more than 16 hours without going to sleep, they become fatigued."
Rest and Daily Preparations
If you go more than 16 hours without resting, you become fatigued (you can't recover from this fatigue until you rest at least 8 continuous hours).
Some AP says it's 16 hours, Ruby Phoenix I think, in its hexploration rules.
So far so good, right?
Temperature
Normal Temperature - 8 hours until Fatigue sets in. That's the maximum.
So which one?
And if they actually always meant 8, why not to say that everywhere in relevant places?

Errenor wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I concur with Squiggit. That is how I would see it as a DM. Spell was never cast. It's a spell effect to simulate an innate ability of the creature.

Not exactly. As Finoan said, it is actually a spell. Which means that when it's dispelled (and it can be), it has to be actually cast again.

It doesn't say it's cast though: it's activated using the same actions. In fact it says it's NOT cast.

Constant Spells
Source Monster Core pg. 358
A constant spell affects the monster without the monster needing to cast it, and its duration is unlimited. If a constant spell gets counteracted, the monster can reactivate it by spending the normal spellcasting actions the spell requires.

So if the Jann has Truespeech dispelled, it can spend 2 actions to reactivate it. It goes out of its way to say it's not cast but activated.

Highlighted relevant part. It's not "normal number of spellcasting actions", it's "normal spellcasting actions". While it does say it's kind of not casting, when you need to spend normal spellcasting actions I would rule it is almost like normal spellcasting, with all traits and effects. So maybe Counterspell won't work (though it's extremely strange when it's a spell which can be counteracted), but other reactions based on traits absolutely will work.

I concur with Squiggit. That is how I would see it as a DM. Spell was never cast. It's a spell effect to simulate an innate ability of the creature.

Not exactly. As Finoan said, it is actually a spell. Which means that when it's dispelled (and it can be), it has to be actually cast again.

YuriP wrote:

I had already understood this point, my real doubt was whether the wounded would actually increase infinitely.

Then, yeah. That would work.

Yeah, but if it was Doomed instead, that would be different :)

This needs Errata/FAW section because it either makes Thaumaturge/Thaumaturge Dedication absurd. Apply Weakness 2 which in fact than bounces off of all damage types you currently have? We have an old post from Pathfinder Second Edition Playtest from Mark Seifter, an ex-designer of PF-2E

Is this still valid?

Not to discuss or dispute, but I don't understand at all what you consider a problem. What exactly needs errata or FAQ in your opinion?

I think that the Shadowrun system can work well, though bringing it into D20-likes would take some work. If you're not familiar, there are three key things to understand:

1) There are separate Physical and Mental damage tracks/HP. Mental damage overflows into Physical once it's full, and you drop unconscious.
2) Mental damage cannot be healed by anything other than natural rest.
3) Basically all spells can be the equivalent of heightened or lowered. This means that a lot of similar but different spells in D20 systems can be combined into a single spell. e.g. a Fire spell that can be anything from a low damage touch attack to a high damage AoE depending on what "rank" (Force in SR-speak) it's cast at.

With that said, heres the kicker: Spellcasting does mental damage to the caster, proportional to the Force of the spell. The damage can be somewhat mitigated by choosing lower level versions of the spells, but sometimes you just get unlucky. So there is often a big, meaningful choice as to what Force you want to cast your spell at. Go big and hope you don't knock yourself out or even kill yourself? Or go small and hope it's enough to be effective?

That's interesting, but doesn't look like a pure mana system (pay X from a common pool to cast a spell). That mana is also kind of health is maybe not a problem, but then there are checks it seems and other mechanics. So I can't make an opinion. Apart from this: "Go big and hope you don't knock yourself out or even kill yourself" - that's an instant NO from me. I won't play games with magic which can kill the mage by itself and randomly.

Are they just going to shorten the book? I hope they put some additional content like new archetypes and more variant rules in a SoM remastered instead like more variant rules or more class archetypes (I've always wanted an official MP system or a rechargeable magic system with cooldowns similar to breath weapons and the ability to summon the Demilich, do you think the designers will ever do something like that?). I don't really care about lore in rulebooks like SoM because I think they make more sense within Lost Omens.

Well, firstly I (and we) don't even know that they would re-print and remaster SoM. And I really don't like guessing games :) They could do that, they could make another combined book, they could make several books, they could do absolutely nothing. I don't know.

Yup this is exactly why SoM remaster is going to be a challenge. Going forward to get off the OGL they almost would have to for any future printings because some very big parts of that were stuff that had to get changed with the whole OGL mess. The two classes/spells need remaster work but not crazy amounts but a huge chunk of the lore/info in the book is no longer valid. They would probably need to rewrite a quarter of the book just to make sense with the changes to the spell schools.

That's a very interesting and important lore, but this huge chunk is just 22 pages. From which 8 pages are schools of magic which don't exist anymore, and what does exist was described thoroughly in Academies I suppose. So 16 pages. That's not a huge volume.

Hi! I wanted to ask if phantasmal minion maximum duration is 10 minutes.

The spell duration is sustained, and under the Sustain action rules specifiaclly say, that if effect does not state the maximum duration of an ability it can be sustained up to 10 minutes.

The legacy version Unseen servant also stated that the spell lasts until you stop sustaining it, so, it could theoritically sustained from rest to rest. I just want to understand, if the 10 minute limit is intentional by Paizo or unintentional.

Firstly, that's a wrong place for the question. That's a rule question and the topic is about setting books series.

I'm aware that the example has problems. The point isn't that it is perfect, the point is that it illustrates the problem with the ruling.

If you could trigger an action that is intended to be used during your turn and only lasts until the end of your turn, should you be allowed to somehow manage to get it active before your turn starts and have it last for the entire duration of your next turn?

Yeah, sorry, but I'm with Squiggit and Castilliano here and don't really see a problem yet.

Reaction scenario:

↺ Blood Vendetta
◇ Bespell Strikes (assuming that the GM doesn't shoot this down for shenanigans)

Unlike Analyze Weakness, this can't work even without GM banning this: Bespell Strikes doesn't have a trigger. And: "A free action with no trigger follows the same rules as a single action (except the action cost). It must be used on your turn and can't be used during another action."

eject from Ikon 1 to other Ikon (ex : Ikon 2)

Round 2 : Ikon 2 (already Immanence without shift Immanence ?)...

Is it all ikons with activated Immanence or one of the ikons with activated Immanence ?

There aren't and can't be 'ikonS with activated Immanence'. I don't even see a feature or a feat which does this. There can't be either just 'ikon with activated Immanence'. There can be an icon empowered with your one single spark. This activates Immanence. There's a spark in an icon - there's Immanence. No spark - no Immanence. There's only one Spark. It can be only in one icon.

Finoan wrote:

The Total Package wrote:

Is there any point of getting Deeper Dabbler? I could just buy the extra talisman couldn't I rather than spend a feat to make them myself?

Yes. You can skip Deeper Dabbler if you want, or if you can't fit it into your feat list for the build. It will cost you more coin to have those extra talismans every day though.

The same thing can be said of Talisman Dabbler entirely. Same with Thaumaturge Talisman Esoterica. Or even the entire Alchemist class. You can just replace those with an unbounded amount of wealth spent on items.

Not quite, I need to take Talisman Dabbler dedication (for Talismanic Sage) to be able to put two talisman on one piece of equipment, no amount of gold will let me do that correct?

Yep.

You definitely shouldn't just add them. You need Shield Block reaction to even consider Shield's hardness. But then, Shield Block's position in normal damage assigning procedure is undefined. So, some people say your shield takes (and reduces) all initial damage of the attack and some say that your resistances and weaknesses work first so that shield modifies this increased/decreased damage.
Well, anyway, the damage to you is more or less universally considered reduced by both hardness and resistance, yes.

No, reading the spell I think it very well may be intended. It's all for allies, holiness and escaping both. A selfless spell. Looks consistent.

If you want a pawn, take a thick cardboard rectangle of the right size and glue on both sides of it any printed (colour) picture. You've got a pawn. It should be much cheaper and accessible than 3d minis.

And I already really dislike surface-only spells in this game full of flying enemies. Then people start saying ground isn't a surface...

Yep, I don't think speed of characters in pf2 is insufficient somehow.

Errenor wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Try 520 feet per round for an elf monk with Furious Sprint from Barbarian archetype. Without magic. Last I checked, the equivalent of 173.33 feet per action more than doubles Usain Bolt on his best day.

And the hero can do it ALL DAY LONG WITH GEAR.

Well, if you are counting it as 3 actions per round, then no, actually (unless there are some feats which allow that). Travelling speed is counted at about 1 action per round as far as I remember. And Hustling at about 2 maybe? And it's not perpetual, but could be longer than 10 minutes for such character I suppose.

Usain Bolt isn't travelling or hustling either, I'm not sure why people insist on using the peak performance of a person in a situation where there is nothing to focus on except running and comparing it to the combat speed of game characters expected to hit those values even when they are bleeding, on fire, trying not to get backstabbed by a goblin...

I'm not insisting that btw. Just reminding that characters can't keep 3 actions/round speed all day, nothing else. Unless all day long meant 'on each encounter in a day', which is true.

RPG-Geek wrote:

To beat Usain Bolt's record, you'd need to hit 70 feet of movement per action. A level 19 human monk with Fleet tops out at 65 feet per round without magical aid.

Try 520 feet per round for an elf monk with Furious Sprint from Barbarian archetype. Without magic. Last I checked, the equivalent of 173.33 feet per action more than doubles Usain Bolt on his best day.

And the hero can do it ALL DAY LONG WITH GEAR.

Well, if you are counting it as 3 actions per round, then no, actually (unless there are some feats which allow that). Travelling speed is counted at about 1 action per round as far as I remember. And Hustling at about 2 maybe? And it's not perpetual, but could be longer than 10 minutes for such character I suppose.

Claxon wrote:

It doesn't even say flat surface, it just says surface.

It does say 'flat surface' in the targeting line. So if the surface isn't flat, then the creature would not be a valid target and the spell would be disrupted. ...

Ok, let's assume that. What's the criterion? How non-flat a surface should be to break this condition having in mind the fiction of the spell? Because I'm having trouble to imagine how even extremely jagged surface could prevent this spell from working. It should be a surface though. So dense shrubs won't do for example. Or water. Anything else though?

Well, spells could be made nonlethal with a feat. Great hammer's or greatsword's Strike can be made non-lethal taking -2. It's a very abstract concept anyway. So there's not much of a problem I think.

Basically that it's a very good game. I found and read CRB before I could/would play it with someone and thought that is really fixes all the things I dislike in dnd5 rules. I even thought the rules were perfect at that time. dnd5 campaign/games ended and I didn't want to start new ones. Then there was a disastrous campaign in Witcher (Talsorian's) and I thought I don't want to play any TTRPGs at all. Then at last I tried PF2 and it was a relief: actually good rules and anventures. Well, and the company I guess.
Now I don't think the rules are perfect, but I manage :) And it doesn't make the game worse.

No, you can't sustain a spell effect that is on a different plane of existence from you.

This I can agree with. While extraplanar is not an explicit trait (?), it has an additional meaning in the game, and effects which aren't explicitly extraplanar don't work through planes. Anything else is fair game. No, thousands of miles don't matter. Besides this is just such an edge case.

Errenor wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

I would allow Anatomy Lore to determine whether or not a living creature was susceptible to Precision Damage, but that is the only Weakness, Resistance, or Immunity that strikes me as appropriate.

Good idea, but the problem is outer sphere creatures are living, kind of. And elementals. And aberrations. I think that's too much as I wrote above.

If it can ONLY tell you if a creature is immune or not (and maybe vulnerable) to precision damage it's so niche at that point that I wouldn't care if it worked on every creature.

No, I thought it as a 'guaranteed' possible question in addition to anything else you could allow for it. Not the only question you can get answered.

Errenor wrote:

Finoan wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

I strongly disagree with putting any unfounded limits on Sustain. It doesn't have limits.

But you still sometimes can't manage effects fully if you can't see the area for example. So you can Sustain Fire Sphere (or how it's called, plus it's an example for analoguous things) from another end of town in being in a basement. You just don't know where to move it as you don't see the area. Unless you do. Things like this.

That "need to maintain indirect L o Effect" ruling came about when we realized the lack range limit when using Blood in the Water.

That is a creature-targeted focus spell that is annoying to land due to 30ft + prerequisites, but once it is "attached" to a target, allowing it to be Sustained without limits is genuinely problematic. ...
Once tagged, the caster can get themself safe with one more spell, and then spend 9 turns spamming 3 sustains each for 27 Reflex saves of damage.

Let's see... Ah, yes, the spell is broken. They forgot 'first time you sustain it on your turn'. Insert it back. Done. Why are we talking about changing working general rule because of one broken spell, again? [Or maybe it's not even broken considering +2 scaling and 2d6 dmg at 3rd rank, which gives at max normal 6d6 per turn, but that's a norm for instant spells not sustained...; need to calculate and compare]

It's better than Captivating Song in just about every way. There's no incapacitation trait, and there's no clause for ending it with hostility.

And the wording for extending the duration is identical. This was written after the remaster, so it doesn't make sense for this to be "Sustain but for nonspells". Are we sure the extending just automatically works?

I guess remaster doesn't prevent you from making new broken monsters... :-\

I would allow Anatomy Lore to determine whether or not a living creature was susceptible to Precision Damage, but that is the only Weakness, Resistance, or Immunity that strikes me as appropriate.

Good idea, but the problem is outer sphere creatures are living, kind of. And elementals. And aberrations. I think that's too much as I wrote above.

That is more up for debate. I could be convinced to allow Strike with a weapon with a rune that deals Vitality damage to work.

Even in the case of the weapon, the Rune itself is not one of your abilities but the Strike you use to ultimately deal void/vitality damage is one of your abilities. So, yes, every time you deal such damage you benefit from Mastery of Life and Death.

Oh. At first I wanted to answer exactly like that. But then the definition of ability says: " rules that provide an exception to the basic rules". But Strike is one of the basest of the basic rules. Using this definition Strike absolutely can't be an ability at all.

Trip.H wrote:

There is no direct rule, but the tables I play at do require that you maintain "line of effect" to sustain, which is basically one step more permissive than "line of sight." If shooting an arrow is line of sight, then throwing a boomerang around a corner is "line of effect".

I don't disagree with putting some limits on range for the Sustain action. It doesn't come with any limits. Which does allow for some strange things that could be considered shenanigans or cheese. And I think it is fine if that limit involves being able to sustain around corners.

I strongly disagree with putting any unfounded limits on Sustain. It doesn't have limits.

Ryangwy wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Except that a Fighter who picked the Sword group cannot apply the Versatile trait on all associated weapons... or getting rid of the Volley trait on all Bow weapons... or adding the Jousting trait to all Spear weapons.

... You're describing the Inventor now, you realise? Why would the a weapon master add more traits to weapons, instead of having feats that key off the existing traits on weapons like, IDK, the Fighter?

Also, they can already get rid of volley, it's called Point Blank Stance. Do you actually read the Fighter before you make such weird complaints?

Hey, now; manners, please. Not everybody is 100% familiar with the available content in the game, even in Core content. The books are damned thick, after all, and dense with stuff to boot! ...

When you are complaining about Fighter (ridiculously) you really at the very least should've read the class completely.

so you can recall or deduce that a red dragon is immune to fire due its scales and leather

Yeah, this is what I was talking about in "nothing in anatomy of a creature provides some specific weakness or immunity". All dragons have scales and hide and rather similar! So why red one is immune to fire? Is it ... color? :) Why black one is not immune to fire? Why isn't it immune to ... electricity? Why is it acid? It really looks like a magical attunement and NOT anything anatomical. (Which aligns with the lore I suppose)

⬜⬜⭕⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
VVVVVVVVVVV
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⭕⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜
Or
⬜⬜⭕⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
VVVVVVVVVVV
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⭕⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜

Well, firstly and definitely Anatomy Lore won't say anything in any case about creatures which don't have anatomy or have exceedingly weird anatomy like constructs, incorporeal, outer sphere creatures, aberrations, probably all elementals and a lot of undead. For undead only where it doesn't matter if it's dead or alive.
Anatomy is studying internal structure of living (initially at least) natural creatures. If you want to learn anatomy of aberrations or outer sphere creatures (like angels, devils and so on) you take such specific Lore.
This Lore is given in one place of the game as I see and it's Secular Medic (Rahadoum) background. It's not a standard Lore.
And then if GM thinks that nothing in anatomy of a creature provides some specific weakness or immunity, they don't allow answer with this skill. Also Anatomy Lore probably doesn't know anything about Will saves.
From this point we can discuss what it actually can give when RK.

I think most NPCs should have a passing familiarity with magic, but an understanding of how a specific class works should be exceedingly rare. Like "understanding if you stop the Summoner, you stop the Eidolon" should be like "understanding that the Witch's familiar is the source of your curse."

Ehm... but "understanding that the Witch's familiar is the source of your curse" is completely obvious without any magic knowledge. The moment it growls and you immediately feel bad, you want to swat it. Do you want summoner-eidolon thing to be this obvious?

I have only one question. What would THAT

worrying about being a multi eyed paranoid horse-thingy

be? O_O I'm worried.