HammerJack's page

Perhaps I'm treading old ground here, but....

Given Paizo's involvement with organized play, it is simply not credible to believe that, over the entire time, that Paizo saw zero Alchemists being played, using Quick Alchemy to create Elixirs/Mutagens/Tools/Poisons, have their durations last more than the one turn, even if consumed, and not say something if that were the incorrect way to use them.

Especially given the amount of errata published concerning the Alchemist class that is already in existence.

While I agree completely that the OP's reading doesn't hold up, I dont think this logic really holds well. Organized Play sessions are run by GMs running the game to their best understanding of the rules of the system. There's no special qualification involved, and not generally anyone from Paizo checking in to make sure rules were handled correctly. Rules mistakes being made in organized play happens as much as in home games, and without much more chance of it turning into an errata.

Ah, yup, I misremembered.

Eidolon doesn't apply. When it's at zero, it is unmanifested and you are dying.

I'll definitely take that over ever seeing "just use Divine Lance as Detect Evil" again.

There is nothing in the PF2 Guide saying "in this campaign, you cannot act on a specific character's previous experience". So we can look at this as a question that isn't Org Play specific, since it's about the general concept of metagaming, not about some campaign rules on the subject.

So, if Bob the Fighter has fought a bunch of zombies in his early adventures and seen the slashing them with his greatsword is a better call than stabbing, and encounters mobile rotting corpses, is it metagaming to Slash them? No, of course not. It's acting in character, based on in-character experience. Same if he says something about how he learned this lesson during his last mission in the Gravelands, for other people's benefit.

If Bob's player were to instead see a Flesh Golem that Bob has never fought, recognize the art used, and assume this rotting corpse won't cut easily and maybe he wants to Power Attack through its Resistance, instead, then the player is metagaming.

I'm not sure why this thread was revived after so long, but the fundamental logic was flawed. There's no reason that the thesis would bother to say that you need to meet prerequisites. That doesn't need to be restated. I can't see even calling this ambiguous.

Vitality hurting the living and void hurting the undead? No.

As for Holy and Unholy, those aren't damage types so that question doesn't quite apply. The damage type is Spirit and will work on anything with a soul. So animal, sure, animated statue no. Holy and Unholy sanctification will make some modification to your Spirit damage, and mechanics like fiends that used to have a weakness to Good should run off of sanctification.

Obviously for complete details that don't leave anything out, ask again in November.

1 Action: 1 ray, low damage
2 Actions: 2 rays, increased damage per ray
3 Actions: 3 rays, increased damage per ray

MAP counts all rays and applies to all rays, but you do not increase your MAP from any rays until you resolve all rays. So if you cast 2 actions scorching ray and then Strike, you would have;
1. Ray at full bonus
2. Ray at full bonus
3. Strike at -10

So, I enjoy spontaneous casters... but I enjoy spontaneous casters BECAUSE I like to try to tune my repertoire and scroll collection and do the micromanagement to try to maximize my preparation for as many cases as possible.

So it isn't a shock that I also really enjoy prepared casting.

The official rule is that clerics must have a deity. The class has always stated that in 2E, and nothing has said otherwise (unlike pantheon, presented in the same part of Godsand Magic that do have a rule for clerics following them).

Filling in details for clerics of a philosophy is a houserule question.

Kelseus wrote:

I don't think its a bad or worthless feat. A ranger that is going to up his Nature skill at the first chance he can is now able to heal 2d8+10 to an ally with the cost of only one level 1 feat.

You still need Expert medicine to heal for 2d8+10.

Which makes it kinda pointless.

That said, I prefer to either leave it as it is, or remove it, rather than making it fully count as Medicine.

This is false.

Per the official clarification on the FAQ/errata page:

When I use Natural Medicine, can I attempt the higher-DC checks even though I'm not using Medicine?

You absolutely can. Essentially, you replace any mention of “Medicine” in the activity with “Nature” if you’re using Natural Medicine. You do still need healer’s tools.

Also, note that this feat applies only to using Treat Wounds. You would still need to be an expert in Medicine, not Nature, to select the Ward Medic feat. If you did qualify for and did select Ward Medic, you would be able to use Nature to Treat Wounds for two targets. You’d still need to become a master or legendary in Medicine to treat more targets than that.

The feat isn't a full replacement for medicine, and isn't the best pick for everyone, but it can be useful to some characters who wanted to raise Nature already. The most important feats to improve Treat Wounds do require Expert Medicine, but there are a lot more ways to get an extra skill to Expert than to raise an extra skill all the way to Legendary.

HammerJack wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Mechanically the tree is a spell effect until the spell duration ends and it becomes a regular tree. So as the spell mentions, it doesn't take up the space that it is in and doesn't impede movement. It also can't be targeted directly. Not even by AoE effects.

Once it becomes a mundane tree, then it is subject to the normal rules for unattended items and terrain.

Being a spell effect doesn't make it untargetable. See also Wall of Ice and Illusory creature.

While that's true, having an AC doesn't necessarily mean that it is targetable. There are plenty of spell effects that are very tangible, but are not targetable - Spiritual Weapon, Flaming Sphere. Most don't have an AC listed, but that isn't specified as a requirement.

There are other spells that do specify that they have defenses and can be targeted - such as Illusory Creature, Phantom Steed, and summoning spells.

Similarly to Protector Tree, could you target Wall of Ice with Fireball? If so, what save bonus does it have?

Protector Tree seems to be in a strange half-way place in the rules. It only has AC and doesn't mention saves. It doesn't actually count as a summoned creature, so I guess it isn't limited by the 'one reaction' action like creatures are. So if it has the HP for it, it could block multiple hits per round.

But since it doesn't follow the rules for a creature, I tend to think of it as a spell effect - or maybe terrain like the wall spells.

Sure, in all of those cases, the GM needs to determine what they want to do about the save, just like for any object or structure without a statblock. Those answers will vary from table to table.

I've had it come up in PFS a few times, too. There isn't any campaign rule that modifies the impact of AoEs on environment/unattended objects being at GM discretion.

An example not unlike that is even used in the PFS Guide:

But what if your players accidentally or intentionally kill an important NPC who was supposed to give them a crucial piece of information that’s needed for the scenario to progress? This is a tough problem for the GM and requires improvisation. Don’t decide the scenario is over just because the old man with the letter was caught in a magical crossfire and roasted alive, destroying both him and the important letter. Reveal that the letter survived by some twist of fate (it was in a fire-proof pouch in his pocket) or perhaps that the old man had a lackey who was watching from a nearby alley and knows everything the old man did, or another similar explanation. Improvisation will keep your scenario moving forward and help you work around unforeseen obstacles. For more guidance on handling the PCs’ treasure and rewards when they use creative solutions, see the Treasure Bundles section.

I've absolutely run big, indiscriminate AoEs as having some impact on the environment. I don't understand why you wouldn't ever do that. And I've been a player and seen someone totally ruin our whole goal by throwing a fireball into the study full of loose papers that we were even there to acquire instead of using an appropriate spell.

It's there for summoning spells.

Mechanically the tree is a spell effect until the spell duration ends and it becomes a regular tree. So as the spell mentions, it doesn't take up the space that it is in and doesn't impede movement. It also can't be targeted directly. Not even by AoE effects.

Once it becomes a mundane tree, then it is subject to the normal rules for unattended items and terrain.

Being a spell effect doesn't make it untargetable. See also Wall of Ice and Illusory creature.

It falls back on the general AoE rules from page 456. Specifically "Many area effects describe only the effects on creatures in the area. The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects."

It's no safer from collateral damage of AoE explosions than everything else in the environment.

I dont think that one can actually be called an issue. If you can conjure the berms in the air, nothing implies that they would stay airborne instead of falling. (You could then say "but then I can drop them on people" but a RAW nonscaling DC15 reflex to avoid the falling object would prevent the idea from having a lot of impact.)

One thing I just noticed it says "3 creatures" not "3 DIFFERENT creatures"

So why can't the target of the second attack be the same target as the first?

Because the same creature 3 times is not 3 creatures. There is no meaningful difference between saying "3 creatures" and "3 different creatures".

You can have one, two or three targets. But the number of attacks that you're making is the same as the number if targets.

You make an attack against up to three enemies.

You don't make three attacks against up to 3 enemies.

The wording is set up in a way that allows you to attack less than 3 enemies, just in case you don't have three valid enemies. The only reason it is three attacks is because it's three targets, it's not three attacks that can target three creatures.

Basically, it's one attack per creature targeted, and it's "up to" to allow for less targets.

Also, they already revealed in the remaster preview that Magic Missile is being re-named to Force Barrage. It's still exactly the same spell.

This is correct. The impulse does not allow for focusing 3 attacks on one target.

Fighters are in a funny place. They're genuinely excellent, and also constantly overrated in spite of that.

People saying fighters are really good? Definitely correct.

People saying fighters are so good there's no point to the other martials? Pure nonsense.

Don't go outside during the day. That's the one thing that you can be absolutely certain will work.

Parasols, super heavy clothing, etc dont have any kind of sun-blocking mechanic defines in the rules and all fall into "Ask your GM" territory, with different tables having different answers.

This isn't a "where do the rules say it doesn't work" so much as a "nothing about the Striking rune implies that it would".

Also, even if it did work, the only case where it would have any theoretical benefit is with a level 19 Major Striking rune for a level 1 or 2 caster. Otherwise the number of dice that a striking rune increases Strike damage rolls to is LOWER than the number of dice the spell already deals.

No. It's a Class Archetype that modifies the spellcasting class feature of the class the archetype is applied on.

The spellcasting abilities of a multiclass archetype are separate from your class's spellcasting feature.

What they do is just add the spells to what you can prepare. That's why they aren't normally something on the Divine List. This specific case was probably a mistake. Possibly Detect Metal wasn't on the divine list when they were written, then they weren't updated when that changed.

Sorry these links don't help.

Where is a table for this?

CRB page 503

The point of using staff nexus (or of the base prepared caster ability to convert a spell slot into more charges for their staff) is not "have more slots total" but "convert more slots into charges for the slightly more flexible use of your staff".

If you aren't interested in that, you wouldn't choose stuff nexus.

This thread is not in the correct forum. That's a 1E rules question.

1. Grapple, in general, requires a free hand.

2. Being a monk does not directly change that.

3. Having an unarmed attack that is not made with hands that does have the Grapple trait allows you to Grapple with the applicable body part with no free hands. (Gnoll's Crunch feat giving a bite with Grapple is a good example)

4. There are monk stances that grant an unarmed attack with the Grapple trait, like Gorilla Stance and Clinging Shadows stance. They aren't explicit about what anatomy is used for the Strike. If the GM agrees with the interpretation that that unarmed attack could be done with legs, then grappling with legs would be part of that ruling.

Definitely a target of the spell.

There's a slight misconception there. That symbol on Nethys does not mean it is accessible in PFS. It means "Standard Availability".

This means that if the option is Common, you have Access and that if it is not Common, you can only use it with something granting Access. It also means that printed Access Conditions any, of there are any to meet.

It doesn't actually imply that an Access method currently exists, for character options that don't have one printed. Many things are Standard but Rare, with no boon making them available. I would suggest clicking on that symbol, the next time you're on Nethys, since it is also a link to a page that includes the full explanation of what those availability categories mean, copied from the Character Options Page.

The current answer is simply that you can't. There's no way to gain Access to that archetype in that campaign. That could change in the future, but I'm no time traveller to say for sure.

As a side note, this should probably be
in the organized play forum.

I don’t think there is one, no.

HammerJack wrote:

Losing a prerequisite for something you already have is only covered in the rules under retraining, since that's the only way it's been possible before.

Incorrect. It's been possible since at least the Lost Omens World Guide as the Hellknight Armiger archetype has as a prerequisite "member of a Hellknight Order" and you can absolutely get kicked out of the Hellknights by, for example, doing a bunch of crimes and promoting revolution against a lawful government.

It just hasn't come up much, since people don't usually take archetypes related to organizations with the intention of getting kicked out of those organizations.

Ok, that is accurate. I was thinking of mechanical character option prerequisites and RP prerequisites as separate things (since violating them really is something that happens very differently, not because the rules actually draw a line between them), and the latter have been possible to lose without Retraining. It is still accurate, though, that the only "what if you lose the prerequisite?" rules are the ones under retraining. And I'd still say that planning to lose a prerequisite and expecting to keep the things it was prerequisite for doesn't make sense and shouldn't be expected to work, with the rules that do exist saying what they say.

Losing a prerequisite for something you already have is only covered in the rules under retraining, since that's the only way it's been possible before. In that case of retraining into not meeting a prerequisite, you cannot use a feat that you don't meet the prereq for, anymore.

This case isn't retraining, but I would still suggest that you not expect to be able to use that ability in this case, since the only rules we have addressing the concept of "lost prerequisites" at all are those ones.

If you have Access to buy boomerangs, you can buy large boomerangs.

You're not wrong. No special Access is needed. Giant Instinct guarantees Access to one oversized weapon, even in a game where they are Uncommon, but Large weapons being Uncommon is NOT the standard, and is not a campaign rule laid out for PFS.

The short answer to all of these is that we don't know yet if any of those problems exist.

Concentrate and Manipulate on the spells could be the whole rule. It seems just as likely that the formatting is changed to put the traits in a more intuitive place, but that details like needing to speak are listed elsewhere, with something in a class's specific spellcasting feature saying "for you, this is what a concentrate component on a spell means".

But the questions are simply too early to answer, because the small preview document is not a complete picture of the new rules.

The feat says you improve one. You only improve one. It is as straightforward as you thought.

TTRPG guides having things written into them that are simply wrong isn't that uncommon, as they have fallible human authors and rarely a whole team checking their work (though more diligent authors make corrections when they learn of mistakes.)

Yes, the requirement to own the source is there normally for any option from outside the Core Assumption. That includes deities, spells and weapons.

(Unless the deity or spells in question are from an adventure, and you have some boon granting Access, in which case not needing to own the adventure is normal, and these options still work the same as anything else).

I've seen it come up in discord questions before a few times. "Fall prone" and "fall and land prone" are common terminology, not something special to trip. Even becoming prone due to to Unconscious condition or deliberately using an action to Drop Prone use "fall".

No. They are not.

And trying to claim they are is less "strict reading" and more "deliberate bad faith reading". The difference between the falling mechanics being referred to, where ending prone happens on taking damage, and trying to pick apart the wording of trip is fairly obvious.

Are you talking about merfolk in the book that won't be out until next year? No one will have rules for those for you.

The start of turn rules clarify that already.

Step 1: Start Your Turn

Source Core Rulebook pg. 468 4.0
Many things happen automatically at the start of your turn—it's a common point for tracking the passage of time for effects that last multiple rounds. At the start of each of your turns, take these steps in any order you choose:
If you created an effect lasting for a certain number of rounds, reduce the number of rounds remaining by 1. The effect ends if the duration is reduced to 0. For example, if you cast a spell that lasts 3 rounds on yourself during your first turn of a fight, it would affect you during that turn, decrease to 2 rounds of duration at the start of your second turn, decrease to 1 round of duration at the start of your third turn, and expire at the start of your fourth turn.

You can use 1 free action or reaction with a trigger of “Your turn begins” or something similar.

If you're dying, roll a recovery check.
Do anything else that is specified to happen at the start of your turn, such as regaining Hit Points from fast healing or regeneration.

The last step of starting your turn is always the same.
Regain your 3 actions and 1 reaction. If you haven't spent your reaction from your last turn, you lose it—you can't “save” actions or reactions from one turn to use during the next turn. Some abilities or conditions (such as quickened, slowed, and stunned) can change how many actions you regain and whether you regain your reaction. If you lose actions and gain additional actions (such as if you're both quickened and slowed), you choose which actions to lose.

People are just trying to argue about the punctuation of that bolded section to read the "or something similar" as "or a similar trigger" instead of the broad, loophole-catching statement it is.

Yup. What kind of skills can be used to earn income, what task level it can be done at, and the narrative of that task are all at GM discretion. So no one who isn't your GM can give you an answer of whether any of those ideas will work in your game, in the place where you currently are.

You absolutely can. The PF2 rules say that you can and Organized Play has no campaign rule overriding that and saying you can't.

"Weapons requiring two hands typically deal more damage. Some one-handed weapons have the two-hand trait, causing them to deal a different size of weapon damage die when used in two hands. In addition, some abilities require you to wield a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement while holding the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait." -CRB page 279

I'd say that "you lose the prerequisite, you can't use the feat" should apply here in exactly the same way as if you ceased to qualify via retraining. If something has a prerequisite saying it's for single element kineticists, then it's only for single element kineticists. I don't see any reason to think that trying to loophole in with build order is valid.

It's an item that provides an item bonus to kineticist's impulse attack modifier, but not their DC. So the OP wants an item bonus to spell attacks but not spell DC.

(In general, it's probably better to give some explanation when citing things from a book that isn't out yet).

That's not the only way. Mauler and using a weapon with the two-hand trait has been commonly used for that for a good while.