Finoan's page

First, "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."

That is the part you're incorrect about. You are creating an effect with an area with the fireball spell, a burst effect with an origin point. So that first line applies

We might disagree on that. But that does not prove that I am incorrect.

A visual line of effect is still a line of effect. So the first line applies and is required, but is also satisfied.

>So my conclusion is that a spellcaster only needs a visual line of effect (often called "line of sight") to the opposite side of the wall of force in order to target the origin point of the burst successfully. They need line of effect for the fire damage only between the origin point of the burst and each target within the area of effect.

It's not "often called" Line of Sight. Line of Sight is its own rule defined in its own named section on p.427 of PC1 after Line of Effect on the page before.

The two are defined in (very slightly) different places in the book. But they are defined to be mechanically identical. Right down to the 1-foot square gap rule and the example of a portcullis.

As far as I can tell, listing the general line of effect rule and following it with a separate line of sight rule specifically for vision effects is done for historical reasons - so that people familiar with previous TTRPG games who go looking for line of sight rules will find it successfully.

So, second challenge (and don't think I haven't noticed that no one has attempted the first challenge yet): Define a mechanically significant difference between a visual line of effect and line of sight.

-----

Alternatively, how about a proof by contradiction.

Let's assume for the moment (because that is how proof by contradiction works) that line of effect and line of sight are two distinct and separate game mechanics. Which leads to the conclusion that the caster casting Fireball needs line of effect to the origin point of the burst, but not line of sight. Therefore the invisible but physically obstructing Wall of Force blocks that line of effect and prevents the spell even though it does not block line of sight.

Now we have a problem with a different wall spell: Wall of Shadow.

Fireball only requires line of effect between the caster and the origin point of the burst. Wall of Shadow does not block that line of effect since it is not a physical barrier. So now the caster can successfully target a point on the opposite side of the wall even though they cannot see it.

Being able to target an area spell to a location that the caster cannot see is a violation of the rules for Targeting.

Which concludes the proof by contradiction. Assuming that your interpretation is correct, we logically come to a contradiction in the rules. Therefore your interpretation of the rules is not correct and visual line of effect and line of sight are the same mechanical concept.

1. Is the wall undetected due to the invisible condition?

I'd never actually thought of the wall being completely invisible - just clear and transparent like a thin pane of glass or cellophane.

But yeah. It does say invisible. So it would not be against RAW to run it as actually invisible.

It might be annoying for your own party at that point though...

2. If no one successfully identifies the spell, is the wall unnoticed?

Either unnoticed or undetected. I'm not sure what the difference would be for an inanimate object. Those conditions are usually for creatures.

3. Does targeting the wall require a DC 11 flat check? The phrase "missing the broad side of a barn" comes to mind.

Targeting objects with things that don't specifically say that they target objects is something that has to be ruled on by the GM for each scenario.

Yes, "can't hit the broad side of a barn" is one extreme. But Strike doesn't target objects, nor do most spells. The rules explicitly say that damage to objects from AoE spells is up to GM discretion.

4. If someone tries targeting an enemy on the other side of an unnoticed wall, does the wall get targeted instead?

It wouldn't get targeted directly, no. Trying to cast Daze on a target on the opposite side of a wall of force probably wouldn't work because of line of effect. But it wouldn't attempt to Daze the wall itself.

5. If someone tries placing an area effect (like a fireball) on the other side of an unnoticed wall, does the origin point appear on the near side instead?

I've discussed this before. I am in the minority opinion on this. But I'll present the argument anyway. I still haven't found anyone who can successfully refute it (no, having a different opinion and conclusion doesn't refute the validity of the argument no matter how many people also agree with you).

One:

Line of Effect states:

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.

and

In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected.

Two:

Different effects can have different line of effect types, especially when dealing with Wall spells. For example, an arrow fired from a bow will not have unblocked line of effect to the target on the opposite side of a Wall of Wind. However, Daze would not be affected by Wall of Wind at all--both targeting and the spell's effect could pass through the wall with no obstruction.

Three:

Spell Ranges, Areas, and Targets states the following:

Some spells allow you to target a creature, an object, or something more specific. 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.

and

A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately.

Analysis:

Fireball has two different "line of effect" calculations that need to be made.
* The first is between the caster and the point of origin of the burst area.
* The other is between the origin point of the burst area and each creature inside the burst radius who would be within the area defined.

Fireball also does not specify what effect type is needed for each of these line of effect calculations.

The rule for Targeting does specify that the type of effect needed for targeting "a creature, an object, or something more specific" is a vision (or other precise sense) type of effect. I maintain that the origin point of a burst area on the ground falls into the category of "something more specific" and would fall under this rule. If targeting the origin point of a burst does not fall under this rule, I challenge anyone who claims otherwise to list what other rule would specify the type of effect better.

So my conclusion is that a spellcaster only needs a visual line of effect (often called "line of sight") to the opposite side of the wall of force in order to target the origin point of the burst successfully. They need line of effect for the fire damage only between the origin point of the burst and each target within the area of effect.

Yeah, basically the reason is because the spell itself has the Attack trait.

I tend to think of the Cast a Spell activity as being a separate activity from casting any of the spells. Though the wording of the rules is in conflict with that idea. The rules instead say that the spell itself becomes a specific instance of the Cast a Spell activity. I haven't found any cases where the distinction becomes important.

Here, in either case, it makes no sense to say that the Attack trait of the spell should only apply MAP to the first attack when the spell is cast and not to any of the later attacks when the spell is sustained.

The general rule you are looking for is the Subordinate Actions rule.

The entire rule is important, but the most relevant part of it is this:

This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects ...

So to answer the direct question in the title: no, the Sustain action does not gain any traits of the subordinate spell attack action.

However, that spell attack action does still have its normal traits, and those traits do still take effect. So the Attack trait of the spell would apply the MAP to the attack roll and increase the MAP by one stage, as normal.

The text in Spiritual Armament about using and contributing to MAP is reminder text. It restates the results of the general rule.

Also this lack of the Attack trait on combination activities is typical for actions that have subordinate attack actions. Sudden Charge itself doesn't have the Attack trait. But the subordinate Strike action that it contains does. Flurry of Blows is the same way. It does not by itself have the Attack trait, but both of the Strike actions that it creates still do.

Another point to note about things that interact with subordinate actions is that Reactions can still trigger on the traits of those subordinate actions. So the Stride actions of Sudden Charge, for example, can still be reacted to with Reactive Strike for being movement actions. Similarly, anything that could react to the ranged spell attack that Spectral Blade adds to the Sustain action can still be triggered by that subordinate action.

I feel it is quite similar to the old Ancient Elf + Eldritch Trickster conundrum of RAW builds with incompatible abilities.

Note though that the Commander feats chain and the Drake Rider feats chain are very explicit that they provide their advantages only to the Companion that came with the starting feat of the chain.

That's fair.

Though to be complete, Ranger also has some rules language specifically improving its own Animal Companion - the Ranger's companion can benefit from the Ranger Edge. If combining that with Beastmaster archetype, does only one of the Animal Companions get that bonus?

It is an open question.

This leaves us with 16 Recall Knowledge checks that have DCs for one or more Lore Skills and one of the general skills.

And how many of those have a separate listed DC for "absolutely any Lore skill you happen to have"?

so what happens if you do take an archetype which grants you an animal companion when you already have one? Presumably the actual granting of an additional companion is just a dead feat, but do the subsequent upgrades from feats later in the archetype apply then to your already existing companion, or are they also dead feats? Should you even be allowed to take the archetype/feats?

As far as I know, the rules aren't very clear on that.

For the reasons that you mentioned already, I would say that the feats that you get that improve your companions all apply to the one companion that you have. So the Commander character with Drake Rider archetype given as the example should work.

The lack of any rules guidance saying that Ranger and Druid (both core classes with built-in support for Animal Companions) aren't compatible with archetypes that grant or improve companions indicates either that the interaction is intended, or the game developers haven't thought about or considered this possibility in the many years that the game has been released.

So yeah - even with the ambiguity, if the GM doesn't want to allow it, they should be up front about the incompatibility before players start taking archetypes.

Strictly by the rules:

You can have only one animal companion at a time.

So having two different companions with different abilities would not be allowed.

Beastmaster Dedication has a very explicit override of that general rule. "Contrary to the usual rules for animal companions, this feat can grant you a second animal companion."

The DC adjustment for appropriate Lore skill really needs to be taken in context and with the particular wording in mind.

One place that it is mentioned is in Recall Knowledge down at the bottom under which skills to use.

Using an applicable Lore to Recall Knowledge about a topic, such as Engineering Lore instead of Crafting to find structural weaknesses in a bridge, typically comes with a lower DC. Your special interests can pay off!

Another place it is mentioned is for identifying creatures.

Lore skills can also be used to identify a specific creature. Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).

So, if the stated purpose of the DC adjustment is to reward your character's "special interests", using a feat or class feature that gives you a bonus to skills generally (which happens to include Lore skills), that really isn't a "special interest".

The point of this Lore skill DC adjustment is to briefly give a reward to a player for building a character that has Lore skills appropriate for the campaign. It isn't intended to be a replacement for being trained in skills used for Recall Knowledge to allow you to know everything.

Combining a feat for general purpose minimal proficiency-like bonuses (such as Untrained Improvisation) with a DC adjustment to compensate for the lack of actual proficiency bonus - just feels like gaming the system and is too good to be true.

Being allowed to roll RK at the lowest DC possible isn't as insane as you think it is.

I'm not saying that it is insane. I'm saying that it is cheese and I oppose it on principle.

"Because realism" is a bad reason to argue for game mechanics changes. Very little else in the game matches up with reality. Have you ever cast magical spells? Soared through the air using a jetpack or your own wings? Flown through space on a starship? So why should an undermounted grenade launcher's game mechanics match up with your own personal experience either?

If you have your shield raised, then you should be allowed to use Shield Block.

Yes, you can react to reaction actions such as using Shield Block against Reactive Strike.

It doesn't really matter what action you are doing that gets interrupted with Reactive Strike.
* If you are Striding and trigger RS, then you can Shield Block that.
* If you are Flying or Swimming and trigger RS, then you can shield block that.
* If you draw or swap a weapon and trigger RS, you can Shield Block that too.
* If you Sneak and someone spots you and your movement triggers RS, you can Shield Block that.
* If you use Sudden Charge and trigger RS, you can Shield Block that.

So I see no reason why Stand should be treated differently.

And yes, I can narratively describe standing up with a shield raised and readied to block an incoming attack. So I am not sure why that would be a reason to justify changing the rules in this case either.

If Runesmith gets an honorable mention, then Kineticist definitely should as well.

It is a bit vague. So ultimately, the decision of how exactly to run it is going to be up to the table in particular. Different tables may end up running it differently.

How I am thinking of it (and you can take my idea or not, as you see fit), is that Hologram Skeptic should work on illusions and such, but only on the actual illusion part of it.

Holoskin is, as noted previously, the high-technology equivalent of a disguise kit. In the Starfinder rules, Holoskin is part of what is needed in order to disguise yourself or use the Impersonate action. However, like with the disguise kit, that is only part of what is needed to do those things.

So, for example, if someone is wearing a red wig and a skeptical investigator rolls high enough on their perception check to notice that, they would know that the person is wearing a wig. But they wouldn't know what color that person's hair actually is, or how long it is.

Similarly if someone in Starfinder is using holoskin to make their hair look long and red, and a PC with Hologram Skeptic detects that this is because of a hologram, then that PC would know that the hair is due to a hologram. But they wouldn't know what color the person's hair normally is or how long it is.

So tying this back to traits:

For Hologram Skeptic, its ability triggers off of two components: The primary one is that the effect requires the PC to Search or Interact in order to be allowed a check to disbelieve. The other one is a restriction on the categories of effects that qualify to be only those effects with both the Illusion and the Tech traits.

So yes, by RAW neither Holoskin or the Impersonate action have the Illusion or Tech traits and would therefore not have any interaction with Hologram Skeptic.

Which in one sense, seems reasonable since the hologram portion of Impersonate or Disguise is only one piece of the action. If the intent is only to disguise your appearance so that you can't be identified later, the holoskin making your hair look long and red accomplishes that even if everyone knows that it is just a hologram.

But on the other hand, it can be a bit disappointing to have Hologram Skeptic have no effect whatsoever on a hologram. Which is why I suggest giving a bonus to the roll (especially in this example case since the normal benefit of Hologram Skeptic--allowing the check without spending a Seek or Interact action--seems a bit useless to use between two PCs in the party).

If this is between two PCs...

First, bin the rules. Let the players determine between sessions how they want it to play out. Chances are they can come up with something amusing and entertaining. There is no reason to let a silly little thing like the rules get in the way of that.

If the players decide that they want to play it by the standard rules (as though they are opponents), then it looks to me like:

A holoskin is the equivalent of Pathfinder's disguise kit. It allows the user to use the Impersonate action to disguise themselves.

Hologram Skeptic is for things that are equivalent to tech-based illusions.

Allowing Hologram Skeptic to give some benefits on perception checks to pierce the disguise is probably a good ruling. You might allow the check, at least initially, to be made without needing to spend time interacting (though since these are PCs we are talking about, they are likely not going to have any lack of time together to spend interacting). You could also give a +1 or even a +2 bonus to the check to defeat the disguise.

If the disguise is defeated, then the one PC would be aware that something is not as it seems and is expecting it to be malicious.

If the disguise is not defeated, that could be something like the PC with Hologram Skeptic is aware of the hologram illusion, but thinks it is just harmless minor changes made in the name of vanity (like wearing makeup).

But even with all of that, it is going to be up to the players of those two PCs to determine how to form a party after all of that shakes out.

This is a bit of rules shorthand. Writing the rules out in full in a way that can't be rules lawyered to death would take too much page space.

The intent is that the Clumsy condition from the Barbed Spear does stack with other Clumsy conditions that the target has.

Normally, that isn't the case. The general rule for redundant conditions is that conditions with values do not stack, you only apply the one with the highest value. Though you do still have both conditions and may have to track their durations separately. Also generally, if you remove one instance of a condition, you remove all instances of that condition along with it.

For the Barbed Spear, Clumsy 1 for 1 minute is easy enough to apply (and is the most likely scenario in standard gameplay). However, with the general rules, it would not stack. The Barbed Spear rules attempts to override the general rule to say that it will stack with other Clumsy conditions that the target may have.

But that doesn't cover all of the edge cases.

Personally, I would rule that if the target already has the Clumsy condition with a value of "n", the Barbed Spear applies "Clumsy n+1" for 1 minute or until the spear is removed. I would probably also rule that removing the spear also overrides the general rule about other Clumsy conditions and does not remove those conditions.

So if a Raging Giant Instinct Barbarian using their oversized weapon (and therefore has Clumsy 1) gets hit with the Barbed Spear, the spear would apply Clumsy 2 for 1 minute or until it is removed. But when removed, it does not remove the Clumsy 1 condition that the Barbarian normally has while using their giant weapon. Same if you have a mutagen that is applying Clumsy 1 - hitting them with a Barbed Spear and then removing it doesn't end the Clumsy 1 condition from the mutagen.

The much harder question is: if a spell doesn't require a saving throw, does the targeted creature know that in time to be willing?

As a reasonably creative narrator of game and spell effects, I can definitely come up with ways of describing a beneficial spell effect in a way that anyone being targeted with that effect would know immediately that the spell is harmless at worst and likely beneficial.

So it really is solely a matter of game balance to decide if a 3-action Heal effect will target and heal living creature enemies or not.

Game narrative arguments saying that 'in reality, enemies wouldn't know that the spell was helpful, so they wouldn't be willing,' mostly just show how that particular person thinks the game narrative is required to be. It doesn't provide evidence of how the game mechanics are supposed to work.

In my mind no character would willingly be affected by a hostile spellcasters magic without first knowing what the spell actually is, which is this case would be the occasional undead caster or intelligent undead who identified the spell on an earlier turn.

What makes sense to me is that an effect designating only "willing" targets is intended to supersede saving throws. Healing an ally doesn't require overcoming their Will save DC because they are able to decide to accept the spell effect willingly.

So by contrast, if a spell effect does require overcoming the target's defenses (AC or save DC), then it shouldn't also rely on the target being "willing".

Easl wrote:

it's why the devs have come out and said they use regular English and not to treat the rules like a computer program.

Side-note: Does anyone have a link to a prominent version of this statement? I've seen this mentioned a few times but only ever indirectly. I'd like to have something to point to if I ever need to argue this point. ;)

The Ambiguous Rules rule.

It doesn't say exactly that quote of, "we write the rules in plain English, so things may be ambiguous and subject to interpretation sometimes," but that is clearly what it means.

And it is written in the rulebook itself, not in a blog post or FAQ or something like that. So that makes it even harder to argue against.

Yeah, there are several things in Heal and Harm that don't really behave the way that they should when they interact with several other things in the game already - most notably Living creatures with Void Healing. And that is before we even got Necromancer.

To list the problems (again), they would be that:

* Heal/Harm requiring a willing target to do their healing effect.

* Heal/Harm change their behavior automatically and algorithmically based on the type of creature.

Neither of those are a benefit to the spells.

How often does it come up that someone tries to forcibly heal an unwilling target? What is the plot and story purpose for needing that written into the spell's mechanics?

And switching based on living/undead status of the creature does nothing but cause unintended side-effects. It would be so much better to switch based on how the target reacts to Vitality/Void energy. Much fewer edge cases in that scenario.

So any arguments that use either of these rules bizarrities in Heal/Harm as 'evidence' of how the game should work are pretty much automatically suspect to me. We don't agree on the basic premises of the argument presented; there is no way we are certain to agree on the conclusion.

- For the undead enemy: Make Harm deal vitality damage. Since they are undead, Mastery allows me to target them for the damage effect, and the flipped vitalty damage deals damage to undead. But Harm still also attempts to heal them as normal?

There is a RAW argument that it could do that by what the text says. I don't think that this is intended though.

If choosing to have Harm deal vitality damage, and still having it cause the enemy to be healed is the intent...

For example, you could have the harm spell deal vitality damage to undead enemies, but it would not be able to heal living allies.

they really should have mentioned that in the example that goes over this exact scenario.

If you want it to work, you don't want to go with a word-definition type of argument here. Go instead with a game balance type of argument.

Is it really necessary for game balance? Is Mountain Stance really so powerful that it needs a ruling that causes it to not work in the large majority of terrain environments of the adventure?

It really isn't all that powerful. The AC that it allows isn't any better than other AC values that can be gotten by other characters. What its purpose is, is to allow a strength-based martial character that doesn't use Armor items. There are other ways of accomplishing that, to varying degrees of success. Mountain Stance has its own limitations that it imposes - it doesn't do so well once the PCs and enemies have access to flight, for example (which happens very quickly in Starfinder).

So the nerf ruling isn't really necessary. Yes, it says "ground". No that does not necessarily mean "dirt". Any permanent terrain that supports the character's weight should be able to qualify. That doesn't break game balance any.

As written in both the previous and current examples of complex immunities seems to be entirely up to the GM to determine what is and isn't covered under the immunity as it is frankly a bit contraditory.

Yeah. That.

I don't fully agree with saying contradictory, but it is close.

It is certainly left pretty much entirely up to GM and table discretion on what parts of a complex effect are going to be removed by an immunity and which parts are still going to have their effect.

Everyone else, including your thralls. You can choose individually for them too.

Similarly, you don't have to choose the same way for all of your allies as a group. If you happen to have a PC party member with an Undead Ancestry, Undead Archetype, or Void Healing you can choose individually for that specific ally.

Crafting Rules, which are used for basically all items: magical, mundane, alchemical, or otherwise. It is an alternative way of getting the items rather than just simply buying them. It doesn't really save you any money.

Magical Crafting feat which as mentioned above is needed for crafting magical items such as rings, scrolls, and wands.

Tattoo Artist feat also mentioned above, which will let you create tattoos.

-----

Rings are a type of standard magical items. They have effects, and sometimes an activated effect of an item will create a spell effect. But that isn't required. There are also rings that don't have activated effects (just permanent effects when worn), or have activated effects that aren't spells. You don't have the option of creating a ring with any arbitrary spell effect on it.

Scrolls and wands are the items that you can pick a spell and put into the item.

We were hoping to see if there are any declarative rules on the subject. We were specifically discussing the Tool item, and not say, a random stick you find on the ground.

There is not clear RAW on the matter. You and your GM already have both sides of the discussion fairly well established. And whether the item in question is a tool, such as a shovel, or just a stick doesn't make a difference.

-----

That's not how it's written and is in fact it's stated in the opposite. "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." Not 'are counted as simple weapons' but are simple weapons.

That's not the argument that people are making.

Yes, "Improvised weapons are simple weapons," but also items only count for their usage while they are actually being used in that way.

A 1-hand weapon is intrinsically a 1-hand weapon, even if it has the 2-hand trait. A 1-hand weapon (with or without the 2-hand trait) is only a 2-hand weapon while it is being used in that manner. So even though you could use a Frying Pan as an improvised thrown weapon, doesn't mean that you can etch a Returning rune onto it.

Similarly, a shovel is not a weapon intrinsically. A shovel is only an Improvised Weapon while it is being used as a weapon.

Whether that means that it is an Improvised Weapon only during the Strike action, or if it counts as an Improvised Weapon for the entire time it is being wielded as a weapon is not important. The point is that while the weapon is being etched with a rune, it is not being used as an Improvised Weapon, so the etching process will fail.

Remember that this is a comparison argument. And I feel like people aren't making the comparison that I am asking about. I'm asking about having to choose between Ancient Elf Heritage and Class Archetypes - not between Ancient Elf Heritage and other Heritage options (or other Class Feats).

And I'm not just comparing to the listed Class Archetype of Beast Gunner.

Compare to Runelord and Battle Harbinger.

Which one (Ancient Elf, or all of the Class Archetypes) is, overall, more valuable to the character creation options?

Or to put it another way, which one would the game system as a whole be more limited for not having?

And why. Don't forget to show your reasoning for the choice.

So an interpretation of the rules where ancient elf and class archetypes can coexist poses no balance problems, and really the opposite is a kick to something that’s already down (class archetypes).

I'm curious why it is a kick to Class Archetypes instead of the Ancient Elf Heritage.

Because I have found absolutely no use for that Heritage. Class Archetypes are at least interesting, even if not particularly powerful.

So why, when the two conflict, is it the useless Heritage that is considered as the preference, and the many Class Archetypes that get called the problem?

Clearly everything can ultimately be solved at the table, but this is true for virtually any rules discussion.

I was wondering if in the past year or so some more material might have come up that helped settle this in a more formal way,

The printing of the Ambiguous Rules rule cited above is the formal way that this interaction is cleared up with. (And for those of you wanting to create such characters, be very glad of that.)

Personally I don't have a problem telling players to pick options that work correctly for the entire level range of the campaign. If you want to play a character with a Class Archetype, then Ancient Elf isn't the heritage to use with that.

"The character is now soft-locked for no fault of the player" is a pretty weak argument. The player's fault in this case was: not bothering to consider the implications of the rules beyond level 1 even though the Class Archetype general rules and the Archetype Dedication general rules make it pretty clear that having both interact with Ancient Elf is going to be a problem at level 2.

Do you really think that it is an unreasonable expectation that the players read and understand the general rules of the character build options that they are selecting?

Finoan wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Good to know.

But that doesn't mean that we aren't deep into houserule territory. It just means that the houserule was created by a scenario author and published.

Which leaves it up to the PFS GM running the table to do their best to figure out what to do with that.

okay, sure. Do you have the impression I'm disputing your conclusion?

No, I don't. That isn't my intent with quoting you. If anything, I am quoting you because your post supports what I am saying.

My point is that since this is a custom homebrew effect created for a creature in a PFS scenario, that we on the rules forum here aren't really going to be able to give a definitive ruling on the matter. We can't say for certain how it should be run, and therefore we can't say that this GM in question ran it incorrectly.

** spoiler omitted **

Good to know.

But that doesn't mean that we aren't deep into houserule territory. It just means that the houserule was created by a scenario author and published.

Which leaves it up to the PFS GM running the table to do their best to figure out what to do with that.

One of my more recent PFS GMs ran a combat in which ranged attack rolls were impossible.

And we jump right off the deep end into homebrew territory immediately.

I mean, as a GM, I would apply wall of wind to needle darts or telekinetic projectile for sure, and might apply it to hydraulic push

Not calling you out for criticism, but for providing the perfect example.

None of these make attack rolls impossible. They make the ranged attack not able to be successful. There is a difference there.

For Wall of Wind specifically, it lists out which types of ranged combat effects can go through the wall. Hydraulic Push is in a bit of a grey area. I would rule that it is blocked by Wall of Wind since the spell effect does create a physical projectile. I could be persuaded to treat it as a large projectile and allow the effect to pass the Wall, but with penalties.

Hmm... Indeed that is a bit strange.

Chelaxian Scion definitely wouldn't grant Devise a Strategem to characters that choose house Sarini. Not that anyone was suggesting that.

It isn't required that all feats for an Archetype are useful for all characters who take that archetype. It is certainly better if they are. But it doesn't always happen. As another example, Corpse Tender Archetype does not require any spellcasting ability. The Command Corpse feat does require the ability to cast the Harm spell, so that feat is not useful for characters that take the Archetype without any spellcasting ability.

But ultimately, I do also agree that allowing the feat to be used without the need for the attacker to be the target of Devise a Strategem doesn't seem overpowered. I thought there was a Rogue feat that did something similar, but I am not finding it currently.

I'm looking at a similar ability from Ghoul Archetype (from Pathfinder2e): Replenishing Consumption (an upgrade of Consume Flesh).

Replenishing Consumption also gives temp HP (in a different amount, though relatively similar in most cases) when you consume something of no value that you likely acquired from an enemy. Interestingly, Replenishing Consumption does not give a duration of the temp HP.

However, the Consume Flesh ability does list that it costs 1 action.

So that is the houserule that I would recommend until we get errata for the ability. I think Consume Decay should cost 1 action.

To preface my response: I don't have any problem with raising grievances. In fact, I am trying to help by weeding out weak arguments so that the resulting list of grievances that you have are more meaningful and better supported.

So, to critique the critique:

Static Item DCs

...
Bulk & XP

Yeah, that is my feelings on those too.

Having Items with fixed and unchanging DCs for their abilities isn't by itself a problem. The problem comes when there is no way for the characters to buy upgrades. That results in having a nice item that becomes central to a character's play--that then gets obsoleted with no recourse.

Bulk isn't a terrible system, but even that can probably be handwaved away with a player's agreement to simply not go overboard on what the characters are carrying. XP is a system that is best replaced with milestone leveling.

Lack of common 1 action skill choices

Don't forget about Aid. At low levels when you have nothing better to do, it is worth making the attempt. At higher levels, the bonuses that you can give to your allies can't be beat. This is PF2's response to Chrono Trigger's Dual Tech and Triple Tech abilities.

Just don't houserule nerf Aid to make it so that it doesn't give those bonuses like it was designed to.

Counteract spells

Counteract is supposed to be difficult and unexpected. Yes, that might make it annoying to a player who wants to build a character optimized for it.

But do you know what the most annoying use for Counteract would be...

Having enemies counteract your party's spellcaster casting Heal on you.

Skill Feats & General Feats

I feel like this is a misunderstanding of what those categories of feats are intended for.

Class feats are what you use for combat.

Skill Feats and General Feats are what you put on your character so that you can be more useful and powerful when the campaign asks you to do something other than kill things.

Yes, there are some Skill Feats and Class Feats that are useful in combat. That doesn't change the game design concept that the game should be about more than just killing things, and that these feats are intended to let you build your character for those other things. So if your campaign doesn't feature those other non-combat encounters and challenges, that is a campaign problem, not a game design problem.

Difficulty Scaling: doubling in power every 2 levels might be a bit too fast, maybe we want that every 4 levels?

That is something that can only be handled with houserules. The game has to have a chart for this. One chart. For all non-houserule games. Yes, it may have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily. But something had to be chosen, and this was it.

Lores

For the most part, they are opt-in. You get one for free from your Background. That is all you need for many campaigns. If a campaign rewards a particular Lore skill, you can get that one if desired. But you aren't required to spend build resources getting Lore skills that aren't going to be useful.

Exploration Activities

...
Downtime Activities

Similar to Skill Feats, this is a feature of the game being designed for more than just combat. If your campaign doesn't value anything other than combat, then you won't find much value in these systems. But that is a campaign problem, not a game design problem.

Consumables

...
Buff Spells

The other option is to rebalance the game math around the expectation that the party is going to be coming into every fight with their buff spells and buff consumables in effect.

It won't change the actual difficulty of the game. It would just punish those players who don't understand that pre-buffing with spells and consumables is mandatory in order to succeed at combat.

Archetypes

Similar to Lore skills, these are also opt-in. The intent is to allow you to customize your character based on playstyle goals.

The PF1 style of archetypes tended more towards minmaxing and tinkering with the game math. Which is a character build goal that was actively designed against in PF2. PF2 archetypes are not intended to increase character power.

Stealth

Yes, the rules are very complicated. The difficulty is that it can't be too easy or else the enemies would be able to do it too well. Being TPK'd by a small group of stealthy ambush predators that the party can't even successfully detect would not be a fun way to end a campaign.

Vancian Casting

My problem with Vancian Casting is that it is pretty much the only place left in PF2 design that uses daily attrition for something that is a significant portion of a character's overall combat power. There are some other things that are using attrition, such as 1/day abilities like Halfling Luck or a basic version of Battle Medicine. But those are not a major portion of a character's contribution to combat.

Ending up as the only character in a party where you have an actual need to retreat from the dungeon to rest for the night in order to continue being useful in combat, but none of the other characters do ... doesn't seem very fun.

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Necromancers aren't uncommon. You are justified in having suitably intelligent enemies identify thralls and react much more tactically.

My necromancer would be THRILLED to have intelligent enemies take an action out at the start of combat to roll Recall Knowledge on my Thrall. ;)

Not so much of a benefit to the Necromancer if the enemies are spending that action before the battle starts when a Thrall wanders into the room and mindlessly stands around.

As far as timing of actions and which actions get which bonus from which Immanence: The previous Ikon is active during the Transcendence action. Only 'immediately after' the Transcendence action does the new Ikon become active.

But yes, the new Ikon becomes active without any further action cost.

The difficulty here is that there are two very different ways to play the game. One is to play it like a computer game where everything has fixed rules that you can choose from in order to accomplish what you want. The other is more fluid where you have much more freedom to do what you want, but you have to negotiate out exactly how that is going to work.

Now, I'm not wanting to be disparaging towards that first way of playing. There are a lot of really good computer and video game RPGs that I have loved over the years: Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, etc. And there is nothing wrong with running PF2 the same way. But by doing that, you are going to have to stick to the simpler and better defined aspects of the game.

The game rules cover combat extensively. Mostly because that is where character deaths generally happen. No one wants to lose their character due to a misunderstanding of interpretations of rules. Players want to be able to approach combat in a way that they can accurately predict how much mortal danger their character is in.

But there are a lot of other subsystems to PF2 besides combat. And nearly all of them do not have the level of rules rigor that combat does. The rules really are more like guidelines.

So if you want to run the game by following the rules exactly as written, that is fine. But it will leave a lot of the more rich content on the table. Yes, hazards and haunts are one of those subsystems that doesn't have fully specified rules. It is expected that different tables--or even different hazards in the same campaign--are going to be using slightly different game mechanics. The specifics of the mechanics for a particular hazard or haunt should be founded on the game rules for hazards and haunts so that the players have a general idea of what to expect. But it is not required, or very entertaining, to have every hazard or haunt encounter run by the exact same rules.

Think of it like how combat with creatures have fairly well defined rules, but the creation rules for the creatures themselves is more of an art than an algorithm. That is what keeps combat interesting. Two different creatures--no matter how similar they are--may have different special abilities.

So to relate that back to hazards and haunts, it is not so important to have fixed rules for how to identify them or how the characters learn what is needed in order to disable them. That would limit the creativity of building a hazard or haunt encounter. Remember that the rules for the Recall Knowledge action are designed for identifying creatures while in combat. Using that action for identifying a haunt is allowed to have different rules - for example it could have no penalty for repeating a check in order succeed after a previous failure, or in order to gain additional useful information.

The important thing is to run the game in a way that is enjoyable and entertaining. That is the RAW as recorded by The First Rule. Don't let any other RAW overrule that.

The logic of "Well, it doesn't cause any problems at my table, so I am going to ignore any and all counter arguments as irrelevant and repeatedly state my table's ruling as the objective truth." ... isn't very helpful.

I don't really see how Dual Studies or Skilled Partner have anything to do with this, tbh. Neither reference class features or anything like this.

It isn't the strongest RAW argument, but it is there so I felt I should note it.

The idea is that class features and feats that the Summoner has don't generally transfer over to the Eidolon. A Summoner with Investigator Archetype doesn't grant the Eidolon to use Devise a Strategem. A Swashbuckler with Summoner Archetype doesn't grant the Eidolon to gain Panache or use Finisher attacks.

As for Skilled Partner specifically, the point is that the Summoner taking Cat Fall doesn't benefit the Eidolon. The Eidolon still takes full damage from falling. Similarly, the Summoner taking the Streetwise feat could use their Society skill for Gather Information actions, but the Eidolon could not and would still only be allowed to use Diplomacy.

So following that logic, a class feature such as Bardic Lore would not be transferred either.

I don't see how this is a problem at all when you consider how Summoner actions work and the fact that all the printed Eidolons have unremarkable INT (the highest is +1).

True. But consider that the example is not the only scenario we are ruling on.

A better choice would be Thaumaturge's Esoteric Lore class feature, which not only creates the Lore skill, but also overrides the attribute used to use CHA. A Fey Eidolon has a +3 CHA at base. (Yes, likely so does the base class Thaumaturge if they don't instead have a +4 at level 1. But the point is that this ruling is applied to more than just Bardic Lore.)

I would also say that this is allowed by RAW. The Eidolon would have the special Lore skill and would be able to use it for the Recall Knowledge actions that it normally allows.

As a DM, I only allow special Lores to be used in their special form by someone who has the feat or class feature that enables it; otherwise, it looks like the player is using a loophole to get around the rules.

I instead think that this ruling is also RAI and narratively consistent with the intent and description of an Eidolon rather than an exploit of the rules.

Your eidolon is no mere minion.

...
Your connection with your eidolon allows you to communicate with them telepathically at all times, even when they aren't manifested.

Everything that the Summoner or Summoner Archetype character knows, the Eidolon knows as well. If the Eidolon is better at putting that information together into something coherent, correct, and relevant to the current situation, then that is the very reason why that character would go out of their way to acquire the companionship of an Eidolon. And since Recall Knowledge is a universally available action to use, there is little reason to prevent the Eidolon from using it for any of the skills that they have proficiency in.

-----

There are some RAW counterarguments though.

The existence of the Dual Studies feat indicates that it is possible and, to an extent, expected that the Summoner and Eidolon can have different Skill proficiency ratings. While a skill boost of a regular skill gained from a non-Summoner class or class archetype would almost certainly be ruled to transfer to the Eidolon, that does not mean that it is intended that special skill proficiencies are included in that.

Also, the existence of the Skilled Partner feat very heavily implies that by default an Eidolon cannot use the skill actions granted by a skill feat or non-Summoner class ability that the Summoner has access to use. So even if it is ruled that the Eidolon is proficient in Bardic Lore, that doesn't necessarily mean that they can use the Recall Knowledge action for that lore.

Claxon wrote:

Are you saying that when the mirror image disappears and the enemy is grabbing nothing, that the real thaumaturge somehow remains grabbed because they did nothing to end the condition?

Cause that makes 0 sense.

When the mirror image disappears, there is no creature that is being grabbed any more and the condition should end.

I'm saying that "Grabbed" has a specific effect and a specific removal condition and that when you aren't doing anything to fulfill those conditions you shouldn't assume you're entitled to just break grapples for free whenever you want.

And as Tridus mentioned, killing the enemy grappling you also does not meet any of those specific removal conditions. So by strict RAW that you are wanting, you would still be grabbed and immobilized by the now dead enemy until the end of that enemy's next turn unless you use Escape successfully before then.

Killing an enemy is not an edge case. Neither is Mirror Implement. When the image that the enemy is grappling vanishes, the real you that is not adjacent is not going to continue to be grabbed by that enemy.

While the two Mirror images exist, it is ambiguous if grappling one will cause the grabbed and immobilized condition on the other. But it is not really a stretch to say that Strict RAW is a troll ruling if you claim that grappling an image that vanishes still imposes the grabbed condition on a creature 15 feet away.

IMO the sensible way to run this is that the second you isn't grabbed, so if you then move, the grabbed you disappears. That seems like the intent of how mirror should work, and is what your player is doing.

That isn't what the player is doing. OP's player is playing according to your first ruling scenario - when one of the images gets grabbed, both gain the grabbed and immobilized condition.

What the player is doing is invoking the rule that the effect has an absolute maximum duration that ends at the start of their next turn and that when the effect ends that way they get to freely choose either of their images to keep. And they are obviously going to choose the one that isn't grabbed by an enemy.

Some events force you to determine which image is the real you, and then end the effect and cause your mirror self to disappear; this happens automatically at the start of your next turn.

And that is very clear RAW.

For singe classes magus is pretty nice GISH. I do consider the druid with untamed form a GISH.

Agreed. I also consider Kineticist a Gish under certain builds.

Ranger/any Caster - precision edge triggers the first time you hit anyone in any particular round, which does work with spells

I recommend checking with your table and GM on this one. I don't disagree with the ruling, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who consider 'hit' and 'critical hit' to be a game term referring to physical attack rolls - not spell attack rolls and certainly not spell damage that uses saves as defense.

But 'hit' is not explicitly defined that way, so the rule is ambiguous enough that both rulings are valid.

TBF "fastest out of combat healing" is relative depending on the party.

TBH "fastest out of combat healing" is not an optimization goal worth pursuing.

After a certain point, faster party heal times aren't of any additional value.

Yeah, the targeting rules don't prohibit targeting the same ally for both the initial damage and the healing. So as long as you sustain the Hex for at least 4 rounds you are going to come out ahead that way.

It probably isn't useful to do that in combat. The initial damage is going to do more harm than the healing over time helps.

it definitely allows you to hook the entire party up in one big circle of life energy being passed around to heal everyone anyways.

You do still have to account for the Sustained duration. In a party of 4 you would need to use a free sustain option to keep it going. Cackle probably wouldn't work. Not only does that cost Focus Points, but is also a Hex and will prevent casting another Hex cantrip. So I think you would have to wait for Effortless Concentration in order to get a 4-person daisy chain going. And you couldn't add a 5th person.

You could do a 3-person chain from level 1 though. It may not be the fastest out-of-combat healing, but it works.

Yes, it works fine.

Spellstrike was updated in Remaster errata to work by default with spells that require saves from the target. That isn't relevant for Crystallized Vapors, but it is good to know.

There is also no requirement that the spell of Spellstrike lacks a duration, or that it does damage. In fact, one of the example spells in the rules is Tangle Vine, which does not deal damage and also has a duration.

Since Spell-Woven Shot has practically identical wording to Spellstrike (just without the long list of example text explaining it), then it would work the same way and with the same spells.

Hmmm . . . interesting point. I wonder if I should expect table variation in Society play. Many of the eidolons that I would expect to be able to make combat maneuvers (angels, demons, fey, phantoms) don't explicitly say they have hands in their description, so it would just me saying they have humanoid form and hands with no rules backup.

That is how I would run it as a GM and to an extent what I would expect from PFS - that no matter what shape the Eidolon has, it mechanically has two 'hands' as normal for a PC.

That is also how Starfinder works. Even Ancestries that don't appear to have literal hands, still mechanically have two 'hands' that they can use to do things that require a hand to do.

So a snake Beast Eidolon would still have two hands worth of body/tail that they can use to do combat maneuvers or use Interact actions to do things like open a door.

But if your GM isn't as relaxed as I am, then you could still use Eidolon feats to give them a bite attack with the Trip or Grapple trait.

If your Eidolon doesn't have hands, then you wouldn't be able to use those combat maneuvers without an unarmed attack that has the trait.

But that seems like a self-inflicted nerf that you can just avoid giving to your Eidolon.

For Protector Tree and Timber Sentinel, I would be putting that in the category of anti-damage. So it would be competing against things like Champion Reaction or the temp HP of Flamekeeper Witch. I'm with QuidEst that it seems reasonable for its limits and the opportunity cost of choosing that Impulse.

For Germantria, I can see it being used in combat. Tracing a Rune at melee reach is 1 action, and invoking the rune is also 1 action. So you could heal both yourself and an adjacent ally for 20 points with 2 actions and no resource cost and still have one action left over for the round.

Since this is a direct healing ability, I would compare it to things like Lay on Hands and Ocean's Balm. At level 9, or Rank 5, Lay on Hands would be healing 30 points for 1 action, but it also costs a Focus Point. Another comparison would be the Impulse Oceean's Balm at level 9 which would be healing 5d8 points (or about 25 points) for one action, but also has a 10 minute cooldown.

So yeah, it does appear that Germantria should have some limitation on it. Since Runes don't cost Focus Points and are more like Kineticist Impulses, the 10 minute cooldown on the Invocation healing would be appropriate.

You are overestimating the level of language precision in Pathfinder2e.

It is still written in English, so there is and forever will be some vagueness and ambiguities simply due to the language and variations in how different people phrase and interpret it.

Always remember that the Ambiguous Rules rule is also RAW.