HammerJack's page

Finoan wrote:

That's also not the player problem that Ravingdork is talking about in the OP.

The problem is that a player wants to use Avoid Notice, but doesn't want to join in with the rest of the party in using Follow the Expert to follow the person who has Quiet Allies.

Sometimes, it's more than one player.

Finoan wrote:

They instead want to roll their own Avoid Notice Stealth check because ... reasons.

Those reasons often being little more than "because my modifier is higher!" *rolls eyes*

I can't speak from experience to how that would have devalued the feat. I never encountered it, since my players understood Quiet Allies.

That feat actually ended up paying off a decent number of times for my players in Age of Ashes. Enough that they took the extra effort to have the 10 DEX fighter who was their least stealthy party member carry a stealth boosting item to help with group stealth attempts.

They weren't Avoiding Notice at all times, but when they wanted to try to sneak up to/by/through some situation they didn't do badly.

Squark is correct.

What you might want to remember is that Hunt Prey doesn't always have to he done in combat. You can Hunt from tracks. Obviously you won't be doing that for every creature you ever fight, but you should be able to use it for at least some.

I am honestly confused with the slides you mean. I must be blind, because I'm not seeing a link for slides anywhere around this campaign, under campaign description or in either the gameplay or discussion threads. Where is it?

If there was a situation specific idea for how you're Aiding that could reasonably call for setting something up to do it multiple times, I might allow it.

That example of "I will prepare now to be ready to help 3 times over the next 18 seconds if this melee stays next to me", with no further narrative explanation to support it, is exactly the sort of thing that I would definitely not allow.

That's true... but I'm not sure what connection it has to the question?

That does explain it a little. It is an NPC from a premaster AP, and that does have premaster cantrips on it that add the flat damage.

The Phantom Pain is still weird, though. That doesn't add any flat damage when I throw one into my Foundry world.

"Phantom Pain" never added the spellcasting modifier to damage.

"Ray of Frost" is the legacy version (remastered version included renaming to "Frostbite"). Again, neither legacy nor remastered version adds the spellcasting modifier to damage.

Ray of Frost did originally add spellcasting attribute modifier, though. And on Foundry, cases like a character built using that spell from an old version of the PF2E Legacy module still having their spell include spellcasting attribute modifier in the damage can happen.

Phantom Pain is the bigger question for "why is this happening?" The caster isn't someone like a sorcerer or a psychic with Unleash Psyche active with other class features that add damage to a spell are they? The actual caster was never described.

There is no general rule to add spellcasting ability modifier to damage rolls for spells. There are specific spells that include that (but very few after the remaster, it used to be common in cantrips).

If you're seeing this frequently on Foundry (instead of mistaking some other source of additional damage like sorcerer's Sorcerous Potency feature for ability modifier), it may be that you're playing with an old version of Foundry, running the old versions of cantrips. What spells are you seeing this on?

13 slashing does 8 after resistance.

2 Bludgeoning does 7 after weakness.

A total of 15 happens.

I don't see anything in Spirit Striking or Energized Spark that would cause it to not work normally.

Given no response, I'll go ahead and make the requested perception roll for that envoy, as well.

But if she's gonna be here, people need to make a daily prep decision about an envoy ability.

SHOW ’EM WHAT YOU GOT! [two-actions] DIRECTIVE ENVOY FORTUNE VISUAL

Frequency once per 10 minutes

You inspire your allies to use their talents and push themselves to the best of their abilities in a stressful situation. You and your allies within 100 feet gain a benefit based on the role you each chose during daily preparations. All benefits last until the beginning of your next turn.

• Attackers can roll twice and use the better result the next time they attempt to Strike a foe.

• Defenders can force their attacker to roll twice and use the worse result the next time they’re attacked, or defenders can roll twice and use the better result the next time they attempt a saving throw.

• Experts can roll twice and use the better result the next time they attempt a skill check.

• Spellcasters can roll twice and use the better result the next time they roll an attack roll or check as part of Casting a Spell, or they can force one target of that spell to roll twice and use the worse result against the triggering spell

K'zish would select spellcaster.

There is not.

Yeah, I saw that I was looking at an older version and deleted that post about a minute after it went up.

So, there isn't a formal definition of "instance of damage", in the book.

There is the symmetry with resistance, and Resist All showing that each damage type is addressed separately.

And there was this confirmation way back in the PF2 playtest that weaknesses really work that way. The playtest was working with the same rule as the release for this, specifically, so I still consider it valid.

So for the original question

Can someone explain to me where in the Damage Rules it explains where multiple weaknesses can not be trigger if you deal multiple types of damage? As far ashow i read "Instant of Damage" is that ever damage is it's own Instant meaning you need to go through

The answer is simply "they don't say that, and it's been confirmed that they don't mean that since before day 1".

There are edge cases that are unclear, because of the lack of a formal definition of "instance of damage". And I'd like for that to be cleared up. But this isn't one of them.

Should I take no response to the quick envoy I mocked up as people thinking that's good?

Font of Life or Death gives you Innate spells. Innate spells don't qualify you for any of the things that actually being a spellcaster does. They don't let you use staves, scrolls or wands.

Cure light wounds? Is this a 1E question? This is the 2E rules questions forum.

If I did do this at a table could I then pick up the Thaumaturge feat Diverse Lore since I now have Esoteric Lore?

Of course not.

HammerJack wrote:

And that plethora is:

Constructs. Pretty much just constructs.

I could have sworn it included undead, oozes, and some aberrations.

Not in 2E. You might be assuming some things that were immune in 1E still are. That was definitely how it went with undead.

And that plethora is:
Constructs. Pretty much just constructs.

In general, if you're not paying extra to make attack non-lethal I would say it's generally a benefit.

If necessary, you can always kill a thing after its unconscious (although most tables ignore what happens to a downed enemy I think, whether it's unconscious or dead).

I don't think creature types have blanket non-lethal immunity like they used to, so it's not as much an issue as it was in previous editions.

So yeah, non-lethal elemental damage.

Constructs have that blanket immunity.

If there was a rule that the damage from the runes was lethal even on a nonlethal Strike, it would be very weird to resolve, yes.

But there isn't any rule indicating that the Strike stops being entirely nonlethal, so that issue doesn't happen.

So, to try to get something usable together, I took a higher level version of Navasi someone had thrown together for their Wheel of Monsters runs, put it into Hephaistos, and ran her up to 15th level. What I ended up with is in a google drive HERE

If that looks alright to people, I can try to also put it into a forum character description for better reference in the next couple of days.

I saw Ray's 24, and that it was well above K'zish's +20, which is why I went to Aid.

K'zish is an Elemental connection Mystic. I've fed character sheet details into the forum character description fields, so you should be able to click through and get a fairly complete picture of what they can bring to the table and what they can't.

So we have soldier, operative, Mystic right now. Setting up a whole spell list for a witch warper at this level might be a lot for a 4th characterz so I would think maybe envoy or solarian?

HammerJack wrote:

Quote:

As a separate problem my Martial Artist archetype doesn't seem to be giving me Master proficiency in Unarmed Strikes. This might be just a remaster change thoguh so there may not be a fix for that.

That one is a change in the remaster, yes. Not a bug. There's no way to get a fighter's higher proficiency on battleform attacks at level 5 or higher, now. Until level 19, anyway.

Oh actually I did know that. I'm playing a Premaster Druid archetype for that reason, complete with metal-o-phobia and all that. Totally forgot =P

Yeah I guess I'll just have to deal with that manually. It's not too hard, just takes a few seconds longer.

Thanks for the reminder =)

I'm confused about what you mean about a premaster Druid Archetype? It's Martial Artist that changed in a relevant way, here. The Druid Archetype never allowed it to work without the old Martial Artist dedication.

As a separate problem my Martial Artist archetype doesn't seem to be giving me Master proficiency in Unarmed Strikes. This might be just a remaster change thoguh so there may not be a fix for that.

That one is a change in the remaster, yes. Not a bug. There's no way to get a fighter's higher proficiency on battleform attacks at level 5 or higher, now. Until level 19, anyway.

This is an old issue. No clarification or errata has ever happened. It wasn't changed in the G&G remaster.

As it stands, the feat being level 2 is important to someone archetypes into inventor and trying to take it, but an actual inventor can only ever take it at 4 or later without Variant Rules being used.

The text explaining Subordinate Actions is:

Subordinate Actions

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn't gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn't use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action

Spellstrike doesn't add or remove traits like Manipulate or Concentrate from the subordinate action spell in any way. The spell triggers exact the same reactions regardless of whether it is part of Spellstrike.

I wouldn't even describe it as a general consensus. There just isn't any ambiguity at all. Some people do houserule, but there aren't really any variations in readings of the standard rule.

I've only had a few PC deaths at PFS2 tables. And only 2 where the player couldnt afford a Second Chance. No TPKs. One very near TPK, with survivors at Wounded 2 and 3.

Command is pretty limited in what it lets you command a creature to do:

You shout a command that's hard to ignore. You can command the target to approach you, run away (as if it had the fleeing condition), release what it's holding, drop prone, or stand in place. It can't Delay or take any reactions until it has obeyed your command. The effects depend on the target's Will save.

Success The creature is unaffected.
Failure The creature must spend the first action on its next turn to obey your command.
Critical Failure The target must use all its actions on its next turn to obey your command.

None of that lets you Command the target to take your Authorized weapon.

1/Is it possible for a ghaele or a yamaraj to cast an heightened version of the ressurect ritual ?

Sure. Rituals don't need to be relearning at different ranks to heighten them.

2/ If a character didn't have the ritualist archetype, the character doesn't learn a ritual, is it right ? If no, can you quote the rule where it indicated this ?

No, there is no rule that says this. I can't quote rules that don't exist. HOWEVER, the opportunity to learn rituals is in the GM's hands. Thise feats (which requires GM approval) are the only player build option, and the rarity on all rituals still leaves what rituals you can learn to to the GM.

The rules specific to learning rituals are just "Learning a ritual does not count against any limits on spells in your spell repertoire or on any other normal spellcasting ability. Rituals are never common, though if you look hard, you can probably find someone who can perform an uncommon ritual for you. They may still be unwilling to teach it to you."

3/ Is it possible for a character to have the ritualist dedication and the following feat :
Thaumaturgic Ritualist ? How many can the character know with

Yes, you could have both. Each one works normally. They don't change each other. There isn't a limit to how many rituals you could know, because it depends on whether you come across opportunities to learn others.

Considering Escape to be Hostile is deeply bizarre to me. There is no way that Escaping from a creature harms it, even indirectly, unless you're going to extremes like "it might starve if it doesn't eat me".

I can't see the sense in making that break Sanctuary.

EDIT: Weapon in two hands. That does change things a little.

That actually doesn't change anything. The rules about weapon hand requirements do say "If an action or other ability requires you to use a 'two-handed weapon,' it applies for any weapon you wield in two hands."

Intended and reasonably expected results matter. Grappling a bandit so your friend can stab them better is Hostile. Grappling a spellbound farmer to stop him from walking off a cliff isn't.

Everything is case by case.

By RAW you don't roll some "Untrained Improvisation" check, you roll the check the same as anything else, so it would get the lore adjustment.

With that said, I probably wouldn't help them pick the most appropriate lore to use. If they get lucky they get lucky, or if someone has narrowed down the options go nuts. Otherwise you're improvising, it's a shot in the dark. It's really only problematic when you have someone that knows a s%!#load about the game and can metagame choose the best option every time.

All of that said, and even though it's generally not problematic, I do find this to be extremely stupid.

The problem here is in the phrase "the lore adjustment" suggesting that that's some fixed adjustment that exists. The only lore adjustments are ones the GM decides are appropriate to apply.

Since the DC adjustments are applied at GM discretion, not dictated by a rule for the skill, it is completely in line with written rules to run it in the reasonable way.

So something like the below is proper:
Alice: "That thief that stole Bob's pack had some kind of symbol on his cloak. I have Untrained Improvisation, I want to try rolling Untrained Society to see if I can recognize it."
Bob: "I also have Untrained Improvisation, so I want to roll 'Left-handed halfling thieves operating in Magnimar Lore' Untrained."
The GM with good judgement: "Bob and Alice are doing the same thing (drawing on their general knowledge to try to get the same kind of info) with the same qualifications, so I'll assign the same DC for both. It would be silly to give Bob an easier roll just because he was smug about how he phrased doing the exact same thing as Alice."

Hi all,

I would like to request a clarification from the Paizo team about the General Feat Untrained Improvisation. I've seen a few threads about it, but no answer from Paizo.

In general it's a decent feat allowing you to attempt Untrained skills with a better modifier due to the character being a jack-of-all-trades. Where the clarification request comes in, is how this interacts with Lore skills. In general, compared to the broad knowledge skills (Arcana, Religion, etc.) Lore DCs are usually against a -2 DC for an unspecific lore (such as Fiend Lore) and -5 against a specific lore (such as Demon Lore). As written, there seems to be nothing preventing a high Intelligence character with Untrained Improvisation from attempting all the Recall Knowledge skills against the DC of specific lores.

Is this intentional? How should we handle this?

Note that while the principle of adjusting DCs based on lore specificity is laid out in the rules, it is something done by GM discretion when setting RK DCs. "Specific Lore" and "Unspecific Lore" as shown on AoN monster entries are not actual rules terms worh set DCs and are not seen in actual monster entries in books. They are just standard difficulty adjustment steps away from the level and rarity formula presented for convenience.

Yes, a crossbow attack roll. It's more Impressive on a gunslinger, who will become legendary with the crossbow than on a bard who will never get better than Expert (and therefore never provide +3 or +4).

Note that "static DC" is not accurate. While One For All isn't likely to run into as much variation as you can normally see applied, based on the specifics of an Aid attempt, there's no reason that you wouldn't expect DC increases from repetition to still apply if you're using it for attacks in the same combat.

Crits still become pretty common, but it definitely affects how common and how early they're that common.

Nothing has changed. Alchemical Sciences Investigator still doesn't recover vials. That still isn't ambiguous.

Firework Technician Dedication is weirdly strong for those Investigators, especially since Quick Tincture doesn't have a duration cap on items created, like Quick Alchemy does.

This is also one of the situations the Ooze Form spell can actually be helpful for. (Not because you slip out instantly or anything, but because your Athletics can be better and, depending on what's grabbing you and what level you can cast this at, you may even exceed the size they can Grapple.)

It's a high commitment plan with real opportunity costs, but one of my players has gotten out of tough spots doing that with Form spells before.

No, the Frightened value doesn't have any kind of scaling based on the number of damage dice.

Stating that the gun or crossbow is loaded is only actually necessary for things like Fake Out or Black Powder Boost that don't make a subordinate Strike. On things like Paired Shots it's redundant text, since the weapon being loaded is already a requirement for the Strike, so there's no room for confusion anyway.

The idea that "from another game" is just a rarity level to ignore is the wildest part of this theory. It surpasses even "not saying anything about a general rule is a specific rule that overrides it."

Explorer's Clothing (or Library Robes or a Gi) or Bands of Force are not armor. You are Unarmored while wearing them.

The spell doesn't have a duration, and there's no reason creatures would be making repeated saves. It's just an immediate effect, with an immediate save for creatures that are in the emanation at the time.

Ravingdork wrote:

I mean, they're fruit (and small ones at that), so they last as long as fruit normally lasts. Without refrigeration or magic, I imagine they would spoil rather quickly.

In any case, they'd become quite mundane if not eaten within an hour of being plucked.

What I am understanding from DINNERman's post is that the idea is to not pluck the fruit. Just leave them 'on the vine', so to speak. After a week of getting a new fruit each day and leaving it alone, that means that the Leshy will have 7 fruits available to be plucked and used during the next dungeon crawl.

It is a similar problem that the first printing of Ceremonial Knife has where it doesn't say that it is limited to only having one knife-wand. Plenty of people take that to mean that you could buy an unlimited number of mundane daggers and create 7 Ceremonial Knife wands over the course of a week.

Edit: And for those who don't know yet, the loophole in Ceremonial Knife was removed in the Fall 2024 errata.

Quote:

Page 188: In the Ceremonial Knife feat, add the following to the end of the first paragraph: “You can have only one ceremonial knife at a time.”

Let's be real, none of those people ever actually BELIEVED the feat let them make unlimited wands. Some people CLAIMED it, but they knew better.

Can Illusion based hazards exist? Yes, of course.

Can any of those spells create a hazard that deals damage directly? No, that is not part of what any of them are capable of.

Could an illusion from one of those spells indirectly create a hazard, by doing something like putting an illusory floor over an actual pitfall? Sure, no reason they couldn't.