That means that, RAW, the Spellstrike Ammunition (which normally requires two actions for activation) could also be activated with Spellsling.
Strict RAW is a troll ruling.
Search Posts
As for balance concerns, I am fine with this. One, this is best done with teamwork - the party's spellcaster is the one casting Haste on the Fighter - rather than having one character trying to do it all. And teamwork is supposed to be more powerful than anything a character can do on their own. There are also some items that can give the Quickened condition. The best option that I can see is Propulsive Boots. Everything else is either Rare, a banner that affects your allies, or something that is circumstantial to activate rather than something you could reliably do on command (like Frenzied Quintessence). But in all of these cases, you are giving up the benefits of the Quickened condition in order to allow your Fighter to use their reaction before the start of their next turn. Which is not bad. But it is also not overpoweringly good. There are significant costs involved that make this into an interesting tactical tradeoff scenario.
Yes, I would run it the same way. Definitely if they are going to Avert Gaze again, then the bonus would apply. It is more debatable if it would apply if they are not going to use Avert Gaze on their current turn, but I would probably still allow it . For rules precedent, I would point to the change in how spells with long durations can be renewed for subsequent days. Previously, such spells would end at the start of daily preparations and could only be cast again after daily preparations. That left an hour long blind spot where the spell would be down. The rule was changed in order to make such spells able to be kept up continuously. However, if you don't spend the spell slot keeping the spell going, then the spell ends at the start of daily preparations as normal because that is when the spell's duration ends.
Short answer is that most of these questions come down to an understanding of the Rarity system, or are something that is covered by the Lost Omens lore books rather than the core rulebooks. Rarity is a guideline for what players should expect their characters to know about already. But for each section of the official world, and for each campaign at each table, the Rarity settings can be adjusted. A Katana is Uncommon in the default Inner Sea region, but likely should be changed to Common if the adventure takes place in Tian Xia. A) How does the presence of magic granting flight, flying creatures, airships, and thousands of years of explorers, cartographers, and historical records revel how much of the overall geography, population centers, national borders, and “monster threats” are known to the people of the current age? There are two things in play here. One is the rarity of the creature or technology in question. Common creatures are going to at least vaguely be known about by pretty much all adventurers. A Bloodseeker is going to be recognized in general, though the characters may not know the details of its stats. But an Akata is probably something that none of the characters have ever even heard of before. And of course, similar with technology. A longsword isn't going to be an unexpected sight. A flintlock pistol may raise some PC or NPC eyebrows. The other piece of this is the Recall Knowledge action. Once the PCs become aware of something, they can dredge their memory (as represented by the Recall Knowledge action) to give the player the information that the character would have in-world. B) How does high level magic like Teleportation, Raise Dead, Summon Spells, Wish/Miracles, and similar spells affect the baseline technology (Culture, Transportation, Security, Manufacturing/Commerce, Legal Structures, Property Rights…) of “Earth’s Middle Age, but with Magic” that underpins a lot fantasy stories, and have these topics been addressed in any of the Lost Omen 2E/2ER sourcebooks? Again, Rarity is a big part of this. For example, the Teleport spell is now Uncommon. The in-world expectation is that people are not blipping from one spot on the globe to another on a whim or as a general purpose covert ops mission plan. In general the guidance for world technology is part of the lore of the setting rather than game mechanics. And it should be fairly close to what you are accustomed to from PF1 already. 3) How does a PC go about upgrading their weapons, armor, and gear with Property/Potency Runes (and their equivalent) if they have enough treasure to do so? This is a mechanics question. The game math demands that PCs have level-appropriate gear. Most campaigns can handle that with shops that sell runes for weapons and armor. The PCs could take care of it themselves with the Crafting skill and Magical Crafting feat, but doing so doesn't really save them any meaningful amount of treasure cost. There are some variant rules that can be used instead if you are wanting to run a campaign that would have Ye Olde Magic Shoppe be out of place. High-Quality Equipment would be useful for a no-magic setting. Automatic Bonus Progression is a popular option that can also handle low/no magic or wilderness/no-settlements campaigns. The table from Automatic Bonus Progression is also a good baseline for when every PC should have that level of equipment. So for example, by level 4, every PCs should have one primary weapon that has both a +1 rune and a 2-dice Striking rune - even if they are buying such runes out of their loot money. 4) Is there a resource that shows on a map where raw materials are mined (like Iron, Copper, Gold, Silver…), refined, and tied into trade networks? That would be a lore question. I'm not aware of anything like that, but I am not an expert on the setting lore either. 5) Previously with 1E resources, I could figure out what Race/Class combinations most cultures would see used on a sliding scale form “Extremely Common to Unheard Of” with regards to Martial, Spellcasters, Skilled User, Warriors, Experts, and Adepts. The way that I think of this is that class only describes how the character fights. It doesn't describe how they look or behave when not fighting. So class choice is rather free and permissive for every ancestry (race). A Barbarian isn't just an angry musclehead. That is only one representation. They are usually rather strong because STR is one of their most valuable attributes. But Rage can be represented in a lot of different ways, especially for some of the more exotic Instinct options that are available now. So an Elf Barbarian is completely reasonable.
I would point you to Subordinate Actions. Abundant Vials gives you the Quickened condition with the restriction that the action can only be used on Quick Alchemy. You cannot substitute the granted Quick Alchemy action for the Quick Bomber action to use that instead.
Psychic spellcasting removes the need for incantations, not the Auditory trait. Only spells that make sounds have that. That is also a good point that I think needs more attention. So an example would be Bullhorn. A Psychic could cast the spell without uttering any incantations, but would still have to speak in order for their voice to be amplified and heard by all creatures in the spell's range.
That first sentence is what I call the narrative description. It isn't meant to be strictly literal rules text. It is intended to be memorable and interesting. In the context of a rules discussion, "nothing but thought and will" would be called out as hyperbole. The rules for Psychic Spellcasting would only override the normal spellcasting rules where they say that they do. In this case, only the incantation requirements of the Cast a Spell activity are removed and replaced with what is noted in the Subconscious Mind class feature. So the Psychic would still have the need for the gestures part of the Cast a Spell activity (even though it is not mentioned) as well as still causing the visual and audible manifestations that is mentioned in Psychic Spellcasting.
I blame Finoan :-p Always a safe thing to do. B-)
Makes sense, when I think about it. It specifically creates a hybrid concoction. It's one Elixir that grants the effect of both, not an action compresser that lets you down two separate Elixirs at once. No. Actually that doesn't make it make sense. What that does is cause a place where the rule - or more specifically in this case the listed example - is contradictory and therefore needs errata. It isn't the first time. Oh yeah, one last thing: All Mutagens are Elixirs. Every one of them has that trait. It's just that not all Elixirs are Mutagens. **grin** That is actually irrelevant. the Mutagen trait doesn't get ignored just because something applies to the Elixir trait. Consider the Humanoid trait and the Dhampir trait. Dhampir has Void Healing. And most Dhampir characters will also have the Humanoid trait. But a spell that does vitality healing and targets specifically a Humanoid target is still not going to work on a Dhampir. Because you don't get to ignore the Dhampir trait and rules just because of a more general trait that the target also has. Some additional counterarguments: The Research Field text cited is specifically for Mutagenist. Specific does not define general - that is a disguised form of the Affirming the Consequent fallacy. So at best, that ruling would apply only to Mutagenist characters, not all characters that have the Combine Elixirs feat. And it might only apply to the Mutagenist after they have the Greater Field Discovery that allows them to use two Mutagen effects at the same time and does override the Polymorph trait. That Research Field text does not override or even mention the Mutagen or Polymorph trait. It says that it applies to Elixirs that have drawbacks. Which does imply Mutagens, but only because current Elixirs don't have drawbacks. It is not very explicit.
Holy property rune. Downside is that it is a level 11 item, so not available at low levels. There is also the Righteous Call Relic Ability, but then we are talking about Relics, and those require some serious amounts of GM buy-in. And it is one fight per day after all of that.
with Combine Elixirs apparently allowing combined Mutagens, Wait, what? What part of Combine Elixirs overrides the restrictions in the Mutagen trait or the included Polymorph trait? Yes, you can combine Elixirs... with the Combine Elixirs feat.
Oh, so Slow stacks with Mind Games? ?? Not following here. What am I missing? Mind Games is not cast as a reaction. If your opponent is Slowed 1 and you cast Mind Games on them during your turn and they get Stunned 1, then they are going to resolve that at the start of their turn as normal. Pay one (non-stacking) action to both Slowed 1 and Stunned 1 and have two actions left. Unless you are talking about casting the spell yourself while Slowed 1 and the target crit succeeding at the save. But at that point you are playing Mind Games and winning Mind Prizes. Also, you would have lost one action at the start of your turn to Slowed 1 and already spent your remaining two actions for the turn. You don't have an action left to pay off Stunned 1 early before the start of your next turn - at which point you would be the one paying one non-stacking action for both conditions.
I'm not even sure what counterplay exists. Partially that should be something that the GM considers when using this creature. But yes, there are likely options that are available to an approximately level 19 character to handle being drug under the muck of a swamp. I'm not sure what they are currently either - I rarely play at that high of level.
If you get stunned during your turn, that is because you did something that provoked a reaction that causes stunned. If you do that while already slowed, that is kinda harsh, yes. RAW would be that you could pay your third action to remove the Stunned immediately so that you could use your reactions during the time before your next turn. That is probably how I would run it. This is something that is going to happen very, very rarely. And it requires an opponent having an ability to inflict Stunned as a reaction. The opponent is paying additional build cost getting that ability, it should have some meaningful effect. Other GMs may think that this is too much and relax the strict RAW ruling.
Glamorize is an even better example of this. The duration alone lists how long the spell will last. A duration of Sustained means that the spell needs to be sustained each round or else it will end. A fixed duration will last its fixed duration, even if there is an effect that happens if the caster chooses to spend an action on Sustain.
For a pedantic rules answer, there is a clothing item for 1sp. There is also Explorer's Clothing, but that is actually a type of armor rather than regular clothing and mechanically it imposes a Dex cap (where non-armor clothing would not). And Ravingdork is right. None of the Class equipment kits contain clothing of any sort - only armor. Same with the rules for starting equipment - no mention of buying clothes. Regarding monster and NPC stat blocks, the clothing may just be omitted for space and because they have no mechanical impact. The guidelines for NPC stats do say to avoid invisible abilities, and listing clothing may qualify for that... but at the same time, being naked may be something that is going to be narratively ... evocative and engaging... o.O
I hope we get a fey ancestry / heritage! Like Sprite and Fey-touched Gnome.
Mechanically you need to not be prevented from using Manipulate actions (such as from Restrained) and will suffer any failure chances from conditions like Grabbed. And since the spell has a range of Touch, then the target will need to be in your natural reach. But don't add more mechanics restrictions than that because of narrative description. The Manipulate trait lists making gestures as qualifying, and you can do that with your hands full. And you can make contact for delivering the spell with any body part. So yes, you can cast Lay on Hands or Vampiric Feast with your hands full. I vaguely remember it being mentioned as a deliberate clarification that spellcasters are supposed to be able to cast their spells with their hands full. Maybe in the Remaster announcements and summaries of changes? Or maybe I am just hallucinating that.
Right but Barbed Spear breaks that rule by saying that it increases the clumsy value by 1. That's a good point. I also do agree that it does not seem right that Clumsy 1 + Clumsy 1* = Clumsy 2 but Clumsy 1* + Clumsy 1 = Clumsy 1 While that is exactly what strict RAW says, I probably wouldn't run it that way. The order of application of Barbed Spear (with its override that it does stack) with other Clumsy condition shouldn't matter.
The only way I could see this being unbalancing is if a creature had weakness to spirit damage, and you treated each die as a different instance. Yes, and there was a recently reverted errata about that too. Anyway, as far as rules go... There is a rule for not stacking effects with the same name. And not stacking conditions with the same name. But there is not a rule for not stacking effects that are different but have the same damage type. So those should both take their full effect.
The rules say that you can't have the same effect with the same name. More than that, there are also rules specifically for redundant conditions. In the case of Clumsy, we are looking at Redundant Conditions with Values. In short: Clumsy 1 + Clumsy 1 = Clumsy 1.
I've used Needle of Vengeance on a character played for quite a while. It isn't all that reliable at damage dealing. But when it isn't dealing damage, it is acting as a damage deterrent and anti-focus-fire countermeasure. So it is doing work in either case.
And there are other sorespots with ABP that are deserving of house rules (if someone is playing the relevant character, like pet classes (Druid) or Summoner) Alchemist. Or anyone using alchemical items. Blanket removal of item bonuses pretty thoroughly cripples alchemical consumables. ----- As for OP, I agree with the others. The wealth for starting characters rules are pretty limiting, but they are just guidelines for GMs to work from. Each GM is going to have different ideas for their own starting point for character equipment.
*checks into feat* Looks like yes. "You no longer need to have cover or be concealed to Hide or Sneak." That is a complete and independent sentence. There appear to be no restrictions on it. The narrative description mentions something about crowds, but the rules mechanics don't require the existence of a crowd.
If you are looking for a gap fill feat at the level 8 range, I would take a look at Ceremonial Knife. An extra slot spell cast is always good even if it is lagging in Rank.
Spirit Familiar (or Stitched Familiar for other traditions) at 8th is pretty good. Cauldron can be decent too now. Depending on party composition and how the campaign goes. I'm not sure how important Steady Spellcasting will be. Interrupting spells isn't a common thing to do. It requires doing something to provoke reactions 1) from an enemy that has Reactive Strike who 2) then crits their attack roll. Again, this depends on how the campaign goes, the party composition, and how your GM builds encounters and runs enemies.
I would use the normal cover rules as far as drawing lines to determine if a creature has cover against another creature. What this overrides is the standard rule saying that the lesser cover from a creature can't be used to hide in. You do still have to actually have the lesser cover though.
Be careful on encounter design, the running few but strong enemies tends to not be fun even if it's technically "balanced" exacerbated at low levels (though I just wouldn't do it at low levels as I'd say it's not balanced). Seconding this. When you run for large parties, you forego the option of 'solo boss' fights. The problem is that the math isn't mathing. There are two axis for encounter balance. One is party vs party balance, the other is character vs character balance. If the character vs character balance is good because your solo boss enemy is only a level+2 enemy, then the party vs party balance is off. The boss battle may very well be over before the last PC gets to take their first turn. If the party vs party balance is fine but the boss enemy is at level+4 to do that, then the character vs character balance is off and the combat is a slog of frustration that the party will statistically win but no one will have any fun doing it.
the ability is literally called "Flying Tackle", it would be rather strange if... Hurl at the Horizon says hi. You shouldn't use a feat's name as having mechanical impact that overrides other rules elements. The name is for narrative guidance and being memorable.
This seems to be a variation of the standard open questions of if you can attack something mid-jump, or if you can jump to a target point in the air rather than a point on the ground. The Simultaneous Actions rule sets the general expectation that you have to finish one action before starting another. That does cause problems in some edge cases, so GMs may relax that rule a bit in certain circumstances. However, GMs probably shouldn't relax the rule too much because doing so devalues other feats that are created to specifically override this and allow the desired behavior, such as Flying Kick. Personally how I would rule this is that you could target a jump to a point in the air, but you will end your movement there - you can then make the attack if you ended your jump adjacent to an enemy. You will fall at the end of your turn unless you have some means of movement that you use before then. And unlike Flying Kick, you don't have any protection against the fall damage if you jump high enough.
my real problem is that the definition of instance of damage should reverberate into persistent damage. It doesn't make sense that a knife critical specialization with bleeding finisher and a wounding rune does the same persistent damage, then a critical bleeding finisher with a regular weapon. Well, then I think you are going to have to houserule it for your table then. Persistent Bleed + Persistent Bleed + Persistent Bleed = highest of the three Persistent Bleed damage values. That isn't even up for errata at this point. That is from the redundant conditions with values rules that have been in place and stable for a long time. The previous iteration of the definition of 'instance of damage' was sort-of heading in the direction that you want (where each source of Bleed damage would count separately). But with the change in direction announced by this thread, it is not doing so any more.
For my part, I am mostly interested in having a good baseline definition and understanding of what the rules are. The details of how this particular ruling go are less important to me because it can always be houseruled by tables that don't like it - even if that is the vast majority of tables. But it is hard to have constructive discussions about the rules and the balance considerations that it causes if the rules are not understood the same way by everyone. Here we have a case where the rules were not defined and there was a large amount of table variation in how the game was played. So the devs defined the rules better. So, of course, the community analyzed those rules and came up with possible builds to use it, and balance concerns that this may cause - because we can now have those discussions with the rules being consistently understood. The devs looking at the community discussion and potentially having to revise the rules definition, while it may be unfortunate, feels like a healthy thing to do.
And what's the rule to chose what's the bigger persistent damage when dealing with something like 2d10 ( min 2, max 20, avg 11 ) and 5d4 ( min 5, max 20, avg 12.5 ) That one does already have an answer.
And my understanding of persistent damage is that the damage type is also part of the condition, not the value. So you can have multiple persistent damage types such as persistent bleed and persistent electricity at the same time. Otherwise feats like Root To Life affecting each source of persistent damage don't make much sense.
It is weird. But I don't think you are missing anything. I also don't see anything in Continuous Flair indicating that you can keep Panache when not in combat. While not equal to your panache in combat, you have a dramatic flair about you in any situation. The circumstance bonus from Stylish Combatant applies in exploration mode. In fact, it looks rather explicit that it reinforces that it's bonus is not the same as having Panache. It allows you to gain the bonus from Panache on specific skill actions (not even all checks using that skill). Very few of which can be meaningfully used outside of combat. But you aren't paying any significant build cost to get it, so just ignore that it is there and play on.
If it is for PFS, my understanding is that any class options that weren't overwritten by something of the same name are still available. So while I might personally recommend against Eldritch Trickster Racket, it would still be available as it existed before Player Core. If this isn't for PFS, you would need to talk to your GM. But I can't think of any good reason to not allow Eldritch Trickster if your heart is set on it.
Given the example listed in the rule, I don't think that is the intent. All the damage being done as a part of the effect, regardless of its source, is combined before processing the immunities, weaknesses, and resistances. For example, a Spellstrike using thunderstrike and a shock weapon would combine all the electricity damage. Strangeness of combining Strike and Spell damage from Spellstrike aside, the intent is to group the damage by damage type before applying weaknesses and resistances. Not to combine all of the damage and then apply the weaknesses and resistances to the entire total. So in my standard example of Blazing Armory sword, Flaming Rune, and Energy Mutagen (fire) - all of the fire damage would be combined and be reduced by resistance once. If it was a regular sword with a Flaming Rune ad Energy Mutagen (fire) - then still only the fire damage would be combined and reduced by the resistance. The slashing damage from the sword would only have any slashing or physical resistance applied.
Edit: I also just realized I was mistakenly thinking it was 5 rolls when it is actually only 4. Corrupting Spite is at worst 2 consecutive crit-success saves. It only has 4 stages, so at worst you are at stage 4. The Affliction is not virulent, so a crit-success will reduce the stage by 2. I think we are looking at a binomial probability problem in order to find out how likely it is to get 2 consecutive nat-20s within a certain amount of time. Which is something I don't feel like looking up right now. But instinctively I think it is closer to the 0.05 * 0.05 = 0.0025 which is 1 in 400 attempts. Probably noticeably less than that since that would be independent rolls (roll 2 d20s and they have to both come up 20) rather than any two consecutive 20s in the entire stream of rolls.
Also, as far as I understand, curses with stages can be cured by just succeeding enough saves to get a stage to 0: I haven't found anything contrary, it was probably written they work as all afflictions with stages (or was nothing written on staged curses specifically at all, only poisons and diseases?). That is what I am reading as well. The Curse trait says that you can't remove a curse using effects that don't specifically target Curses. But that doesn't override the standard way of removing Afflictions by making enough successful saves to reduce the Affliction stage to 0. Against Corrupting Spite:
Or even one rune that has a different damage type than the base weapon it is etched on. If a sword with a Striking rune is still one instance of damage, is a sword with a flaming rune one instance of damage or two? And Ghost Touch is an interesting case as well. Ghost Touch isn't a damage type. It wouldn't fall under the instance of damage rules in the same way as damage types do. It might fall under the instance of damage rules in the same way as Holy does, but that is harder to adjudicate because Ghost Touch it is not triggering a weakness, it is overcoming a resistance.
Yes. Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don't automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points.
Unblocked refers to the normal meaning of “blocked,” can I walk through it or put my fist through it? It is not a restatement of line of sight. Glass, walls of force, and maybe a sheet of transparent gauze (ask your GM) block line of effect but not line of sight. And how does Wall of Water match up with that line of normal meaning? You can walk through it (well, swim technically). You can put you fist through it (does not block melee attacks). But it does block line of effect for bludgeoning and slashing projectiles. And arguably a 'fire' Line of Effect.
The question is if you could target the Fireball's origin point on the opposite side of the transparent barrier because you only need line of sight to target the origin point of the burst. Most people don't read it as pedantically as I do. So I am generally in the minority on this. To fully spell out the argument: Targeting only requires being able to see the target - you need a visual Line of Effect.
The target must be within the spell's range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it. Line of Effect requires an unobstructed line to the target. When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect's area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called a line of effect. A transparent barrier such as Wall of Force, a pane of glass, or the spell effect of Dispelling Globe does not obstruct a visual Line of Effect (often called 'Line of Sight'). The open question is if you need more than a visual Line of Effect to target the origin point of Fireball when casting. So far I have not found anywhere in the rules that states that you do. Do you need a 'magical' Line of Effect to the origin point in order to cast Fireball at that location? Or a 'fire' Line of Effect? If so, what does and does not obstruct those Line of Effects?
Are you trying to block a fireball or a firearm bullet with a glass window pane again?As someone who only had hair and a little bit of skin burn when a fireball exploded around me, but kept my eyes from damage from a pair of safety glasses, I would think a pain of glass would probably protect from fireball. That wasn't the old argument. There wasn't much debate about whether the fireball effect would go from the origin point of the burst to a location on the opposite side of a Wall of Force or a pane of glass. That is rather explicit in the Line of Effect rules, which even uses Fireball as the example. The question is if you could target the Fireball's origin point on the opposite side of the transparent barrier because you only need line of sight to target the origin point of the burst. Targeting the origin point of Fireball on the opposite side of Dispelling Globe would run into a similar question.
A reaction that disarms is a cute hypothetical situation. But I don't feel like that is the purpose of the question. In the hypothetical, I would probably rule that it only disrupts Twin Takedown if the disarming ability says that it Disrupts. Ask again once we actually have an actual ability to look at. For Twin Takedown with thrown weapons, I would extrapolate from the clarification on intrinsic properties and as-used properties of items and requirements. For abilities that count the number of hands for a weapon while you're using it, such as an action with "Requirements You are wielding a one-handed melee weapon," count the actual number of hands you're using at the time. Twin Takedown is requiring melee weapons. Using a melee weapon with the thrown trait to make a ranged Strike means that you are using a ranged weapon. I wouldn't allow it.
I do think this is a place that does need some further clarification. I think the intent is that there are some damage boost abilities that add to existing damage instances and that there are other damage boosting abilities that create a separate instance of damage. Unfortunately, there are also some damage boosting abilities that are kinda in the middle and can go either way. Rage damage being one of the first that comes to mind. Currently I am going with:
Most everything else would be creating a separate instance of damage. This would include:
And I am dead certain that other people are going to have different rulings on some of these things.
It is going to be unfortunate for the party that goes hard into fire damage and doing all this weakness proc stuff on a final boss who ends up being unexpectedly resistant or immune to fire damage. That is another side to this, yes. A build designed around doing multiple instances of the same damage type are going to do fantastically well against a creature weak to that damage type. But they are also going to do fantastically badly against a creature resistant to that damage type. There are two more things to consider in the balance analysis. One: there is a lot of build cost and often action cost involved in setting up these builds that do multiple instances of the same damage type. Two: how often does the party actually face a creature that has that particular weakness in real gameplay? Not just in theoretical or hypothetical encounters designed to show just how bad the math is and how horrible of an idea this and how Paizo really screwed this up. Because if the answer is that a Cold damage instance stacking build only encounters a creature weak to Cold damage once or twice in the campaign, then that build with 4 different instances of Cold damage is probably doing worse overall than a build with 4 equivalent damage boosts of different types - the chances that a creature is weak to one of those various types is higher than it being weak to the one chosen type when you put all of the type weakness eggs in one basket. So I feel like I am seeing a lot of "the sky is falling" mentality, but without much practical gameplay reason for it.
That's not what I am talking about. What I am pointing out is that there is still confusion being caused on threads like this one because people are being lazy about how they describe what the new rules even say. When the poster in that thread said "instances of damage are any given damage that has a distinct damage type" that is incorrect. Damage type is not what causes separate instances of damage. Damage source is. It doesn't matter if the damage type is the same or not, if the source is different then it will be a separate instance of damage. A Spirit Instinct Barbarian using a weapon with the Holy rune has two different instances of Spirit damage with each Strike (Rage damage being Spirit damage, and Holy rune damage being Spirit damage). Even though that is not a "distinct damage type".
Does anyone else notice that this isn't what the errata says? The two instances of cold damage come from different spells, so each sets off cold weakness individually Even if the damage amounts have the exact same damage type, they are still different instances of damage. That same Reddit thread says the same thing: So weapon specialization damage and vicious swing dice aren't instances, but inventor's offensive boost is -- even if you make it the same damage type as your weapon Same damage type -> still a different instance of damage.
I played a Thaumaturge for a few battles of book 2 of Extinction Curse. I didn't find them to be too squishy. I was building as a ranged/melee switch hitter, so I didn't always charge into the front line. That may make a bit of difference. AC is pretty much universal across classes with a couple of outliers (Monk/Champion on the high end and no-armor casters on the low end). Thaumaturge is an 8HP class, so the same as Magus, Rogue, and Inventor. Those classes aren't shying away from melee range, but they aren't powerhouses at it either. Thaumaturge feels to me like it fits in that category as well. As for Implements, yeah you can certainly work with the GM for things. Even without GM intervention, the Implement items don't need to be manufactured/crafted items. A Chalice Implement can be just a rock in a fancy shape. Regalia Implement can be this particular tree branch.
Occult/divine is really were this stuff lives. Agreed. Not only for the spell list, but for the class options too. Arcane class options to fit this theme we are looking mostly at Sorcerer or maybe Witch. Witch only has one option for Arcane tradition but I guess it does kinda fit the theme (Discern Secrets wouldn't be a bad spell to have in this case). For Sorcerer bloodlines we have Draconic, Genie, and Imperial. None of which are particularly fitting. But for Occult/Divine we have Oracle (Lore most likely and there are several Cursebound feats that are on-point), Animist, Psychic, Bard, Spinner of Threads Witch (Both Nudge Fate and Balanced Luck), and Harrow bloodline Sorcerer. Speaking of Harrow, the Harrower archetype seems fitting for this character as well.
|