If they hit, yes.
Search Posts
There's only weird edge case stuff, like if they get bit by the orichalcum head of a skymetal striker and make the fort save.
Your summoned creature is a Minion. If you go to the Minion rules, you'll see at the end that they do not normally get any reactions. A minion has only 2 actions and 0 reactions per turn, though certain conditions (such as slowed or quickened) or abilities might give them a reaction that they can use. Alterations to a minion's actions occur when they gain their actions for the round. A minion can't control other creatures.
So Summoners automatically heighten all their spells. Specifically it says if a Summoner knows a spell they can freely heighten it. It does not specify a spell known via the Summoner class. So if I take a multi-class archetype, let’s say sorcerer, are spells I learn through the spell casting feats freely heightened? Or do they stay the levels granted by the feat? Of course they aren't.
Cold Iron is still a distinct weakness from a weakness to Slashing hence why only the highest weakness applies. I cannot find anything in the core rules to supports the view that each damage type constitutes a separate instance of damage.Cold iron isn't a distinct damage type from the slashing. It's a modifier to it. See the rules for precious materials: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2308The example on page 408 has an attack with multiple types of damage exactly like the fire and slashing damage you mention here. In the case of the example cold iron and slashing rather than Fire and Slashing as you mentioned. The example specifically states that in these circumstances only the highest applies. Aside from what was already quoted, it's symmetrical with resistance, and how you'd resist both slashing and fire from a flaming longsword if you have Resist Fire and Resist Slashing or just have Resist All. And we did get official confirmation that yes, one Strike really can trigger multiple weaknesses that way all the way back in the PF2 playtest. That isn't a statement made under current core rules, but these specific rules about weakness and resistance were written the same back then. If the text hasn't changed, it would be strange to think the meaning has. It doesn't answer every question and edge case like a rigorous formal definition might, and you can find awkward interactions that you need to make a ruling on, but it answered the basic "are multiple damage types in one Strike multiple instances" simply and directly.
Intimidating Glare is also not compatible with remaining Undetected, of course. It makes your Demoralize Visual, so if they can't see you, you can't Demoralize them.
Roll Stealth for Initiative and then Battlecry? Sure. Obviously, you'll no longer be undetected if that stealth roll was good, since you're giving away your location with that not-at-all stealthy battle cry. If the enemies couldn't hear you, and you didn't give away your location, then the Demoralize wouldn't work, because it is Auditory. Spring From The Shadows requires you to be Hidden or Undetected to the target before you use it, so you could use it only if there was a reason for you to still be Hidden after giving away your location (like if you were in a place the target couldn't perceive with a precise sense, were invisible, etc).
I don't immediately recall a "the target cannot take reactions" result on a non-mental spell. But a target that is Stunned can't act, and therefore can't take reactions. So a target that critically failed against Stormburst, for example, which is not Mental. You "in other words" seems to not limit it to spells, though. If you include non-spell effects, there are some things that specifically prevent reactions without going through another condition, like Scoundrel Rogue's Tactical Debillitations, or a Marshal with Devrin's Cunning Stance.
Yes, or it suggests that you could climb in an emergency, just needing to fix your grip on the shield afterward, instead of needing to ditch it first. That's always seemed more like a feature of the change than a bug.
To be honest, I'd treat the "need to be strapped on" as flavor text and not rules, since the action to strap on a shield is undefined. It doesn't really make sense. If we look at the actual quote: Raise a Shield is the action most commonly used with shields. All shields, unless specifically noted or described otherwise, must be strapped to your arm and held in one hand, so you can’t hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield’s benefits if that hand is no longer free. A buckler, however, doesn’t take up your hand, so you can Raise a Shield with a buckler if the hand is free (or, at the GM’s discretion, if it’s holding a simple, lightweight object that’s not a weapon). Nothing about that is written like it's flavor text, and not rules.
Yes, the CRB always had an action cost for unstrapping shields, but adding a rule that ALL shields must be strapped is a big change. Before, they only ones that definitely always had to be strapped on were bucklers.
It's been a problem since Player Core added "must be strapped on" to all shields. They never defined the actions involved in strapping on shields, anywhere, making it a point of table variation how and if a lot of things even work. Things that end up in a limbo of table rulings include, but aren't limited to:
Second Shield, from Viking (which was strangely reprinted with no changes to account for the new rule) Every variation of throwing shields (some address having quick releases to unstrap them as part of throwing, none talk about strapping them back on when it's back in your hand) TLDR: Paizo never answered this, and you'll have to talk to your GM about a table ruling
Natural Weapons are only a separate category in 1E. Claws, Bites, Tail slaps and Laser Beam Eyes are all Unarmed Attacks in 2E.
Yes, clerics have a Sanctification feature (which does not include affecting Strikes in its text. Yes they can be Holy or Unholy. Holy and Unholy are defined on pages 457 and 462 of Player Core 1, with the text below. holy (trait) Effects with the holy trait are tied to powerful magical forces of benevolence and virtue. They often have stronger effects on unholy creatures. Creatures with this trait are strongly devoted to holy causes and often have weakness to unholy. If a creature with weakness to holy uses a holy item or effect, it takes damage from its weakness. unholy (trait) Effects with the unholy trait are tied to powerful magical forces of cruelty and sin. They often have stronger effects on holy creatures. Creatures with this trait are strongly devoted to unholy causes, and often have weakness to holy. If a creature with weakness to unholy uses an unholy item or effect, it takes damage from its weakness.
I didn't bold that line because it doesn't apply. It is describing what different ways of writing a duration, that aren't used by the ability we're talking about, mean. The duration given is "for 1 round" not "through the target’s next turn", not "until the target’s next turn."
Baarogue is 100% correct about what the rule is. It isn't an ambiguous one at all. For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect. Detrimental effects often last “until the end of the target’s next turn” or “through” a number of their turns (such as “through the target’s next 3 turns”), which means that the effect’s duration decreases at the end of the creature’s turn, rather than the start. But yes, I've seen that a lot of people are houseruling it as lasting until the monster's next turn, instead.
"Too weak to be worth mentioning" isn't a concept that applies, here. It's worth mentioning even if only downsides ever come up.
You still would apply it to sanctified spells, right? Yes, if you have any.
The champion archetype is still really strong, even with the sentinel-esque nerf. So I don't have that much room to complain. It doesn't have any frequently relevant effect. There are edge cases, like the Holy Light and Chilling Darkness spells having some extra effect on targets with one of those traits.
My friend's argument is that it gets you the "deity's sanctification," which is not technically the same thing as the Champion's "Sanctification" ability. Just the Holy or Unholy trait. On PC1 page 36, in the Deities section. Because it is something that happens with the archetype, even though it isn't particularly valuable to the PC.
The Sanctification entry on PC2 pages 88-89 is a specific class feature, and the sanctified Strikes in it fall under the "you gain no additional abilities" clause in the dedication. The general definition of your deity's sanctification, not specific to cleric or champion, is on page 36 of PC1 and doesn't add the trait to your Strikes. Captain Morgan's friend is correct to make the distinction
...apparently. I typed abjuration, confirmed that it was abjuration, and then posted it, since it had done that already. Then I fixed it twice in this post, because it tried to do the same thing again.
Was supposed to be aberration (for clarity), but if you actually wanted to make an aberration themed caster, there is also a sorcerer bloodline for that which you could look at.
Necromancy was a school of magic. You aren't seeing necromancy in remastered spell entries for the same reason you aren't seeing evocation, aberration, transmutation, etc. Schools of magic aren't used anymore. You will still see Illusion, since the trait has a purpose outside of designating schools. Negative was a damage type, and Void is the remastered equivalent. For an item referring to schools of magic, you need to either go off of the old spell writeups or make case by case rulings.
You don't get an extra feat for it. If you want to take a lineage feat, you must spend your level 1 ancestry feat on it.
The method by which the reach for monsters is defined: Step 1. Then person creating the monster decides how much reach is appropriate. Step 2. They decide if any of the creature's attacks should have a different reach. There is no overlap with PCs in this, at all, and the concept of feats doesn't apply. The idea of "defending" why a monster has the amount of reach that it does also does not apply.
Martial performance does not give you Courageous Anthem. All bards get Courageous Anthem at level 1 already, so they don't need Martial Performance to give it to them. A character of a different class taking the bard archetype needs to pick them up separately.
Then it's a confused goose. There are several mechanics shared with armor. Talisman and spellheart attachment is not one of them. That some mechanics are the same as armor does not imply that other ones must also be.
I believe that the correct and intended answer is that "Fist Strike" includes unarmed attacks with many body parts, not only hands. The way this archetype is written suggests that the people involved in writing it thought the same. But I have seen enough resistance to this understanding of what Fist means that checking what page your GM is on will be a good idea. It isn't really leniency or a lack of leniency. It's more "what is their understanding of the intent of underlying rules?"
And because Clothing is not armor, it can't accept talismans or spellhearts, as I understand it.Why not? I didn't see anything that make Explorer's Clothing different from any other armor in this respect. Did I miss something? You missed the item description of explorer's clothing clarifying that while it shares a table with armor, it is not armor at all. Explorer’s Clothing: Adventurers who don’t wear armor travel in durable clothing. Though it’s not armor and uses your unarmored defense proficiency, it still has a Dex Cap and can grant an item bonus to AC if etched with potency runes (as described on page 226 of GM Core). Also GM Core listing it as a alternative to armor, not actually armor:
Some of this text is already in this thread.
I should probably also note that I referenced monk's Powerful Fist as an example of how the distinction in those two readings has come up before, but it isn't actually part of the question in this thread. This is slightly different, since with Powerful Fist there is a point of crossover (you could say that a kick isn't a Fist Strike but shares the stats of Fist after your Fist is upgraded by the Powerful Fist feature). For Overwhelming Combination, there is only "all of these ARE Fist Strikes and can be used" or "they share the stats of Fist, but AREN'T a Fist and can't be used".
Spirit Warrior brings up a question of the intent of fist Strikes and needing a free-hand, as well as using the parry and disarm traits added to a fist when both hands are occupied. I won't regurgitate the whole discussion but it would be good to have clarification on the general intent. One of which can benefit from weakness. I won't say that isn't a lot of damage, but the Strikes are combined for weakness/resistance if both hit.
I would say the same. I personally hold with reading 2, as the author of Spirit Warrior seems to, but I've seen number 1 enough that I think it wouldn't be a very honest answer of me to not lay it out. I've seen A LOT of people very thoroughly convinced of that reading, from the same rules.
So, basically this comes back to long running arguments about Fist attacks, that often refer to the rules describing unarmed attacks. The Player Core 1 text is below for reference.
People have been arguing about that passage for some time, with two basic readings: 1. Fist on the weapons table is an attack with your actual fist, but you'd use the same stats for a kick, elbow strike, headbutt, etc. Other abilities that affect Fist attacks, like monks and martial artists increasing the damage die to D6 only apply if you are making the Strike with a hand. Monk kicks (without a stance) are still D4. 2. Fist is used generally for all sorts of unarmed Strikes that are available to anyone, whether it is actually a punch, is a kick, is an elbow, etc. Monk kicks deal D6 damage, just like monk punches. The requirement in Overwhelming Combination reads like it was written by someone who holds with reading 2, not reading 1. Under reading 2, Overwhelming combination could be done with a two-handed Agile/Finesse weapon as one Strike and a kick, elbow, knee, headbutt, or other general unarmed strike under the Fist umbrella as the other. Under reading 1, the requirement of Overwhelming Combination has to be wrong, because it would only ever be usable with a 1 handed weapon, regardless of Agile or Finesse traits, and it would never work for a thaumaturge who had an implement in their other hand. EDIT: It is also important to include the Unarmed trait and the Free-Hand trait here, since it explains why, if reading 1 were correct, the thaumaturge would have an issue, and why punching with a choked up grip and a weapon-bearong hand wouldn't work.
1. Gaining a focus spell always gives you a focus point if you don't have 3, yet. Specific feats never need to restate that you gain a point. 2. Yes, you are subsisting on ambient qi, not needing to have food and drink available. 3. Nothing says that either the Exploration or Manipulate traits are lost, but since it still takes 10 minutes, it would be a pretty rare case where either of those traits being present or not actually matters.
Not really, no. But, to me, it was never really used like "pick alignment, act accordingly" anyway. It was more "picture character and how they'd act, pick alignment that seems like the closest fit, write that on character sheet". So I didn't expect a change... but I haven't noticed a change that I didn't expect, either.
Hotly debated? Nothing ever even vaguely suggested that psychic spells didn't have manifestations. There was never an ambiguity about that to resolve. Purely flavor is also false, since not needing to speak incantations was very important if you were underwater, swallowed whole, etc and speaking an incantation would mean.losing all of your air.
There are some incorrect assumptions there. Minotaur starts at 5ft reach. Making its weapon huge has no impact on reach, so still 5ft. A reach weapon makes it 10ft. If you had a feat that extended the reach by 5ft, that would be 15.
Interact always has the Manipulate trait. This specific case doesn't need to restate that.
You should not have been convinced. Easl is incorrect. Unarmored proficiency is not an armor proficiency. Using the idea that Explorer's Clothing is armor as a supporting argument is especially strange, because it is explicitly not.
Making binding rulings on what is a legal character and what isn't simply is not what Venture Agents/Venture Lieutenants/Venture Captains do, at all. When the rules of Pathfinder are ambiguous, and there isn't a specific campaign rule addressing it, the game runs by the best understanding of the GM running it. This does mean that if you find a case of "I'm not sure if this is legal", it is a character idea that would be better used in a regular home game where the single persistent GM can give you a ruling, instead of in a campaign where you'd be putting it in front of many GMs, some of whom may read it as not a legal character.
Player Core 2's entry on the Character Options page states "All options are of standard availability unless otherwise stated" and does not mention daikyu anywhere below. The daikyu being Uncommon and Standard means that you cannot take it without something saying you gain Access. That something can be a boon, a feat, a chronicle, etc or it can be meeting a printed Access condition if the daikyu had one. The lack of a boon wpuld not imply automatic availability. However, looking at the Pathfinder Society FAQ, which lists the items and options that can be Accessed by ACP purchased boons, it says that Avid Collector - Advanced Players Guide can give you daikyu Access. The daikyu was changed after APG when it was reprinted in PC2, but that change is treated as errata to the weapon, and Access from the older boon would still be perfectly valid. I double checked and the Avid Collector- APG boon is still up for purchase.
A readied strike doesn't disrupt anything, no.
Deadly Dice have nothing to do with ruffians die limit. Fatal does. There was nothing like an official resolution on that. There are still people who try to claim that Fatal and Two-Hand traits bypass the limit. Those claims are still not correct. Fatal disabling sneak attack still feels wrong.
The alchemist archetype is just feats, not your class chassis. You use the new version of feats that have been reprinted with the same name, treated like errata, whether you do the remaster rebuild of the character or not. There is no option to keep using the old version off the alchemist archetype in PFS.
No. Monster Hunter is on the list of feats for the archetype. Master Monster Hunter is not.
It no longer has the line about increasing your unarmed proficiency. PC2 archetypes that could be used to expand a fighter's increased proficiency to additional weapons or unarmed attacks outside of the group they chose before seem to have been changed across the board to remove that interaction (at least from the ones I checked like Archer, Mauler, Martial artist, Gladiator and Bounty Hunter).
The elemental no longer has immunity. The elemental now has some resistance equal to its level instead of immunity. |
