The way I read it, Universalist isn't a school, it's the result of not choosing a school.
CRB, p. 205 wrote:
If you don’t choose a school, you’re a universalist,...
That's why Universalist isn't listed in the Arcane Schools section. (CRB, p. 207-208)
And the new wording for the Wizard Multiclass Dedication forces you to select a school.
CRB, p. 231 wrote:
Select one arcane school of magic;...
I don't see how you can take the dedication and still not have a school.
So with six squares between the caster and the enemy, all three effects fall just short of the enemy.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
Yay! It's been a while since I was this excited about a book!
It's funny how such things can make a big difference when it comes to taste, isn't it?
I loved the D&D 1st edition 'earthy' gnomes, but I've never had any interest in the Pathfinder 'troll doll' version. But now that PF2 has introduced keenspark gnomes, gnomes are back on my favorites list.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
It's possible that it doesn't have a point. But it did have a point under the prior interpretation of 'unarmed attack.' I'm trying to see whether this newly proposed definition makes more or less sense than the old one when we apply it to other game elements.
Please cite the text stating that Handwraps only apply rune bonuses to attack rolls. I can't find it anywhere in the Handwraps entry.
If the unarmed attack has the trip trait, it should work like a weapon and give you the item bonus. I don't see how it would work any differently.
I think everyone agrees that a trip attack made with an unarmed attack with the trip trait gets the Handwraps bonus.
As I stated before, that has been the longstanding explanation for why wolf jaw attacks benefit from gaining the trip trait.
Once again I feel the need to point out that there is a logical inconsistency in telling people what they shouldn't post while simultaneously complaining that they are policing speech.
One person corrected your use of an out of date term. How is that "filling a thread full of anger?"
Timothy Ferdinand wrote:
That was the exact error that they made with the Aldori dueling sword in the World Guide.
You do see the logical inconsistency here, don't you?
CRB, p. 160 wrote:
If you’re flanking a target while in Wolf Stance, your wolf jaw unarmed attacks also gain the trip trait.
Now your hand has to be free to make wolf jaw unarmed attacks anyway, so whether you are flanking or not you could just use that free hand, rather than a wolf jaw unarmed attack to trip. So what is the point of sometimes gaining the trip trait on wolf jaw unarmed attacks?
The argument has always been that it helps you because Handwraps of Mighty Blows don't grant their item bonuses to athletics attacks made with your free hand, but they do grant their item bonuses to athletics attacks made with unarmed attacks possessing the trip trait.
CRB, p. 283 wrote:
Trip: You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand. This uses the weapon’s reach (if different from your own) and adds the weapon’s item bonus to attack rolls as an item bonus to the Athletics check.
Although unarmed attacks are explicitly not weapons, they benefit from weapon traits as if they were. If you are wearing Handwraps with potency runes, trip attacks made with wolf jaw unarmed attacks get that item bonus while trip attacks made with your free hand do not. So there is a benefit to wolf jaw unarmed attacks gaining the trip trait.
But now we have the argument that athletics attacks made with body parts are unarmed attacks.
If that were true then Handwraps would grant item bonuses to athletics attacks made with a free hand because the Handwraps entry uses the phrase 'unarmed attacks' rather than limiting itself to 'unarmed strikes.'
So what would be the point of getting the trip trait on wolf jaw unarmed attacks?
Side Note: Magic Fang also uses the phrase 'unarmed attack' rather than 'unarmed strike' so the arguments made for Handwraps also apply to that spell.
There is a gladiatorial arena in the city of Arena in the Shackles.
Taldor has a gladiatorial arena in Oppara.
The Song'os have a stick-fighting arena in Estad de Bomaye, but that doesn't sound like what you are looking for.
Casmaron has the Hanging Coliseum.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
PF1 had the Lucerne hammer, so I guess Baba Yaga already brought some. :)
Two Int options? Very cool. I'm really getting excited about having our first Int-based spontaneous caster.
The wording can be a bit difficult to follow at first.
You only have one mechanically relevant draconic exemplar, and you choose it. Your character might, or might not, view that exemplar in spiritual terms. Your draconic exemplar might, or might not, be the same as your community's exemplar.
If you are considering the Dracomancer feat line, you might find my little guide useful.
Oh, I was confused. I thought you meant access because you said 'access.' My mistake.
That's my plan. Investigator/Psychic MC to make a PF1-style psychic detective.
I'm really hoping that Psychics still have the Ancestral Mind feat. Using ancestries to get Cha-based Arcane or Primal cantrips like Electric Arc, and then casting them as Int-based Occult cantrips would be really nice for an Investigator/Psychic MC.
I've come to think of them as magical constructs that don't require the removal of any material.
Rather, they etch symbols into the item by converting that part of the original material into a different material: silver, mahogany, weirdly glowing red gemstone, etc. When the runes are removed, the sigil converts back to the original material.
Thinking of it this way doesn't make any mechanical difference, but it helps me visualize things.
I don't see anything in the book that supports that designation, so I'm going to assume that Archives of Nethys simply made a mistake in placing it there.
It's easy to see how they could have missed the rule that I cited and simply assumed that any magic item that is a weapon would automatically be a magic weapon.
But even if the scrollstaff is a specific exception to the rule, the general rule remains: a potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon.
So a +1 striking, ghost touch sword isn't a magic weapon if you remove it's potency rune. From what I recall from various comments by Paizo staff, the striking rune would still function, though.
You could, of course, use the magic weapon spell or doubling rings to temporarily give the sword a potency rune and make it a magic weapon again (and also "wake up" the property rune).
It's also possible that this is another case of Paizo having two different meanings for the same phrase. It's possible that the categories of 'magic weapons' and 'specific magic weapons' contain items which are not 'magic weapons.'
After all, in PF2 all actions are actions, but not every action is an action.
It sickens me.
I don't see any inherent reason why creating good deities couldn't serve an evil, long-term plan if one was clever enough.
For example, creating such deities might lead people to believe that you don't have any nefarious plans. ;)
Is it an oversight that the Throwing Shield has no legal way to have Weapon runes, or intended?
I think it does.
When thrown in this way, the shield is a martial thrown weapon...
So I don't see why those modified shields can't have weapon runes just like a javelin or chakram can.
I like how Geb, despite his vast expertise regarding the undead, somehow doesn't realize that his inability to travel is tied to his ghosthood.
In that spirit, I was thinking of making a skeleton who was completely in denial that he was a skeleton. For example, he'd try to eat food and then complain about how full he was while the food just fell out of his torso.
(And I want to have him take the medic archetype then say things like "Damn it! I'm a doctor, not a skeleton!")
Just for fun, I made armor tables that include the armored skirt options.
I think the Armored Skirt was an interesting addition. You can basically create new styles of armor by combining it with the allowed armors. I wouldn't be averse to more options like that. Sets of greaves, for example.
They will be revealing everything... psychically.
Since we are getting pretty far into the details on this topic, I thought it might be helpful to have a quick reference for the exact wording of the main elements we are relying on. I've included both the Bestiary and Book of the Dead versions of Negative Healing.
Core Rulebook pg. 632 wrote:
Core Rulebook pg. 634 wrote:
Core Rulebook pg. 635 wrote:
Core Rulebook pg. 637 wrote:
Bestiary pg. 305 wrote:
Book of the Dead pg. 44 wrote:
Book of the Dead pg. 45 wrote:
Book of the Dead pg. 44 wrote:
I came across another rules contradiction. The Undead Trait states that Undead "don't benefit from healing effects."
Yet Spirit Link, which has the Healing Trait, states...
CRB, p. 371 wrote:
Since this effect doesn't involve positive or negative energy, spirit link works even if you or the target is undead.
So here we have a Healing effect that explicitly can benefit an undead target because it doesn't have the Positive or Negative traits.
Also Soothing Spring, which has both the Healing and Positive Traits, includes this line...
Secrets of Magic, p. 129 wrote:
Any creature that spends the full hour soaking in the hot spring or basking in the mud from the bottom of the pit regains 10d8 Hit Points and feels refreshed, losing the fatigued condition.
Undead are certainly part of the class of "creatures." Would this specific rule would override any restrictions on undead benefitting from Healing and Positive effects?
So Soothe, Elixir of Life, and Treat Wounds all lack the positive and negative traits, have the healing trait, and state that they only work on living creatures.
But the sidebar states that Soothe works on undead PCs while Elixir of Life doesn't. So there must be some hidden criteria that is being used to determine which effects heal undead PCs.
Without knowing what those criteria are, there isn't any way to determine whether Treat Wounds (sans Stitch Flesh) works on undead PCs.
Druids can't take Druid Multiclass.
CRB, p. 219 wrote: