Search Posts
Creatures with Regeneration. Death Effects have always been a broad spectrum counter for those, since they don't all get disabled the same way. It's still niche, but it's the main use I've seen
Reactions are absolutely a type of action. There is nothing preventing them from triggering other reactions.
PF2 has never wanted to bother with making clear rules about what breathes. They bother to tell you for elementals, but that's about it. With undead the lore sections of Book of the Dead refer to their lack of breath, but explicitly mechanical text never addresses it. For constructs, the PC Construct ancestries mention still needing air as though it's an exception, but no general rule was ever written. You basically just can't ever rely on RAW to cover it. It's one of the most frequent questions to have such thorough silence on, right alongside "how long do [you can insert most ancestries here] live?"
Definitely that they turn into animals.
Standard breakdowns are basically nonexistent. The level of detail that exists is largely "GM looks at the description of an item and goes 'I think this one fits'."
Another 'special' potion is a common Elixir of Life. It's alchemy, not magic (alchemy is generally not magic at all in PF2), so works on void healing living creatures. Yes, so it works on living creatures with void healing, as stated. I've added bold emphasis.
No, they would not be Multiplied, since that isn't how Striking runes work. They raise they attack to a set number of dice. So Striking leaves them at 2 dice
It does not go 4 dice,6 dice,8 dice
Why are you arguing with 2023?
There are two separate damage rolls. The bonus applies to each one.
Discounting being a full caster as a minor feature makes for a very skewed assessment. Especially when they are at least level 7. If those spell slots aren't adding significantly to what they contribute in a day, there is some operator error. Bards are strong because their compositions are a solid additional feature on top of a full caster. It's not the other way around.
1. Yes, a Free action is a type of action. 2. No, this type of ability doesn't have any exception. 3. Also, those abilities you're asking about are Spellshapes (formerly Metamagic) which also specifically state that two can't apply to the same spell. Actions with the spellshape trait tweak the properties of your spells. You must use a spellshape action directly before casting the spell you want to alter. If you use any action (including free actions and reactions) other than casting a spell directly after, you waste the benefits of the spellshape action. The benefit is also lost if your turn ends before you cast the spell. Any additional effects added by a spellshape action are part of the spell's effect, not of the spellshape action itself. 4. It would be a huge buff to a class that is already extraordinarily strong, and not a good idea at all.
Have the (Boss) monster target the shield, it should be broken (-2 AC) after the first hit. A big note here is that a Dispelled item is temporarily disabled, a lost item can be recovered and a broken item can be repaired, but a destroyed item is just gone forever. Shields are the one thing that really gets durability scaling in a way that won't be immediately Destroyed (at least if they use Reinforcing Runes), but other items don't, and that's why the idea of letting attended gear be directly targeted with Strikes gets bad really fast. These things just aren't equivalent.
Having creatures attack attended items directly isn't just something the rules don't support, it's also an unbelievably bad precedent to set to change that. Shields are basically the only thing with durability that can deal with this at all, after the early levels. Everything else becomes made of tissue paper, compared to the scaling of Strike damage. Object durability is not something that PF2 handles well at all. Addressing a character with high AC by houseruling in a world where it's easy to destroy any equipment used by any enemy at any time is not a way to make things better.
This is in the wrong forum, I'm afraid. You posted in the 2E section. I only play these games with groups and can't point you towards anything helpful, unfortunately.
This is deep thread necromancy, but resistances don't stack. Only one will end up reducing the triggering damage. Both will Strike the enemy.
I'm also a big fan of chained encounters as a format of high-difficulty encounter for a few reasons: One is the simple matter that you want to vary encounter compositions a lot in an adventure. (You don't want Severe or Extreme to be synonymous with "Boss", but also want it to include small groups of tough enemies, very large groups of weaker ones, etc). Different PC tools are better at dealing with different encounter compositions, and you don't want to create a situation where some never see their use cases. A part of hiw this affects the value of different tools is that this kind of fight tends to make for a longer encounter. I wouldn't want that for every encounter, but having it happen sometimes really lets items and spells and the like with a duration really pay off fully. The really big thing, though, is that something set up to be a chained encounter cam be broken up or interrupted. If the players use tools like magically silencing the initial skirmish, grabbing enemies that might run for help, blocking the path for reinforcements to arrive, etc, they can heavily impact how severe the encounter is. Parts of it may be bypassed entirely. That's good agency. Also, that kind of format has made encounters with a total XP value well over the Extreme guideline work out great as major battles, occasionally. (Doing that constantly would be way too much, but it's great to have as an option to use occasionally.)
They're wrong. There are some things in published adventures giving some justification for that kind of outcome. It isn't uncommon at all. But that's mainly just a tool to deal with published adventures having very limited page space for drawing maps, and making things very geographically compressed (a problem that you don't have when making adventures only for playing, not for printing). There are also published adventures that do have something written in about "creatures from A6 will respond to this happening in A8" or the like, occasionally. Paizo has used that less often, but it definitely exists, generally with a note about what that can do to the encounter difficulty. Setting things up with encounters that will join together is always an option when designing an area as a GM. And there has never been anything remotely resembling a rule that monsters won't open doors, no matter what happens. The closest thing to that is the system telling you that if encounters will happen together, you should look at them as one big encounter for determining the balance of it, when you're designing adventures. (That advice is actually a bit overly conservative, since a stretched out encounter is a lower difficulty than if all of the creatures in it arrived together, but tuning that is harder to make into a consistent formula, because it hits very differently with different parties, who remove enemies from the encounter at different rates.)
The Emotion trait states that Emotion effects are Mental effects. Having the Emotion trait means that it does not work on mindless or mental-immune targets.
If I was going to do something like that, I would stat it up and run it as a simple weapon without any improvised penalty, at least for those characters that have a feature about using that deity's favored weapon. But since that's a homebrew question, not anything about rules that exist now, your starting point needs to be "what is your goal for that homebrew? What are you trying to make?" If we're talking about existing rules only, there aren't any special rules like that written to address this hypothetical.
Reaching back to a 2019 thread for this is a bit far. That being said, there's nothing that would hypothetically stop that. There's no published deity who does anything like that. If you are homebrewing deities for your game and want to do something like that, it would probably be best to stat out that "weapon" up front, though.
The time for complaining about patrons was probably during the Witch playtest. 2023 was the time to have that argument.
Come to think of it, it is pretty odd that someone who is Legendary in Nature but Untrained in Religion will know all this about Animal swarms and nothing about Undead swarms. If there are aspects of an undead swarm that are like an animal swarm, there isn't any rule saying their knowledge has to be 100% useless. Having case by case leeway on what skills can apply to a subject, and what type of information a given skill can offer about a given subject, is already the way RK works. This also goes in the other direction. A GM could also reasonably rule that Swarm Lore is appropriate, but that it will only give information that fits as being about the swarming behavior of a swarm, and not information that's about the details of the component creatures.
No, this bold part is false. No such categories as "Specific lore" or "Unspecific lore" exist in the rules. Do not mistake the sample RK DCs that AoN puts on creature pages for real rules. They are not present in any book. They are just the level-based, rarity adjusted DC (a starting point, not an end point of RK DC setting) with Easy and Very Easy adjustments applied for convenient reference. The non-lore skills listed there, and the DC with them, are also not a part of any actual creature statblock. They are just the most common skills for traits on that creature, which the RK rules very clearly state are NOT always or only the skills to allow for a given creature. What IS true is that the applicability and specificity of a skill are things you consider as a GM when setting RK DCs.
I'd also allow it for giant silverfish, sure. Any lore can have specific cases where it might be appropriate to so creature (and of course, you account for how tangential the connection is in setting the DC).
It would also be very reasonable to allow Library Lore to be used inside of a Library while researching whatever creature (if that Library actually has information on the subject to find, of course). But that's very different from on-the-spot universal knowledge, which would not be a sound expectstion at all.
One of the big things with traps is that you need to spot them first, before considering that. (Placing it down in front of someone watching you do it is not how they are normally used. And, of course, the spotted trap would need to have a trigger mechanism where that makes sense AND not have an effect that could still hurt the item dropper AND not be a thing that will reset. All together, it isn't something I would worry about as a frequent occurrence. Especailly since spotted traps where the PCs have identified exactly what will trigger it are often easy to avoid stepping on (at least for simple mechanical triggers.) Dropping weapons from above also isn't a big thing to worry about, as it's remarkably ineffective as a tactic to try to fall back on. Some relevant rules: Falling Objects- player Core page 421
A dropped object takes damage just like a falling creature. If the object lands on a creature, that creature can attempt a Reflex save using the same rules as for a creature falling on a creature. Hazards and spells that involve falling objects, such as a rock slide, have their own rules about how they interact with creatures and the damage they deal. The referenced rules for a creature falling on a creature, from the same page:
Note that DC 15 doesnt scale, as reflex modifiers get much, much better. So you have something that might occasionally come up in particularly convenient circumstances at very low levels only.
Material was the least common component. You usually saw it on 3 action spells. You saw it on some spells with a thematic reason to be quiet, like Invisibility. The overwhelming majority of 2 actions spells were Verbal and Somatic but not Material.
The bold part was not true of pre-remaster PF2. The CRB explicitly allowed that hand to be holding something.
Needing a free hand for most casting was only a 1E thing.
I will say that a wizard holding 2 scrolls sounds awesome on paper until you get pushed over a cliff and can only succeed on grabbing an edge if you critically succeed the check...and fall horribly to your death...Not that I would know this from personal experience. That could be a reasonable houserule, but it's pretty explicitly not the way non-Triggered Free Actions are handled by the standard rules.
The definition of the proficiency levels has this. From Player Core page 11: Proficiency is a system that measures a character's aptitude at a specific task or quality, and it has five ranks: untrained, trained, expert, master, and legendary. Proficiency gives you a bonus that's added when determining the following modifiers and statistics: AC, attack rolls, Perception, saving throws, skills, and the effectiveness of spells. If you're untrained, your proficiency bonus is +0. If you're trained, expert, master, or legendary, your proficiency bonus equals your level plus 2, 4, 6, or 8, respectively.
If it was about highest possible AC, Fighter never did that. Not even if you go back to CRB only. But it's also not like that goal has ever been the only time people (in general, instead of your personal thing) would use shields.
Explorer's Clothing isn't armor at all. You can't attach a spellheart to it in the first place. The item has rules for putting armor runes on it, in spite of not being armor. It has no such rules allowing talismans or spellhearts to be attached. That's one upside that Bands of Force have.
I would say there is not RAI expectation of not being able to keep the gate open, either. There's just no suggestion of such a thing, anywhere. The ability to use a stance or blast when channeling is no indication of suvh an intent, since it's common to need to re-channel during combat, after using Overflow Impulses. It has not ever been a PFS campaign ruling that it counted as an Exploration Activity to keep the aura open, either. If you encountered it at a PFS table, that was that GM's personal ruling.
Are shield fighters dead? No, they still work really well. Always have, and nothing has stopped them. Are shield fighters dead as tanks? No, they still have tools to do some decent work in that role. Are there things more purpose-built as tanks that lean harder into that role than a shield fighter? Yes, absolutely. Doesn't that mean shield fighter is dead? Of course not, why would you ever think that things work that way?
These are the kind of replies I’m hoping for. The only concern I have with witch is that an enemy kills my familiar and I’m out spell slots during the combat. Tree Razor has high ac for instance and I need enough force barrages to make up for it. Familiar dying on round 1 or 2 can be bad. Gesalt here has very specific builds for suggestions so I also like his post. An enemy killing your familiar doesn't do anything to your spell slots. And, if you're worried about preparing tomorrow, there are always things like turning your familiar into a tattoo.
Also, Psychic archetype doesn't have a spellcasting breadth feat, so that part of the plan is a bit off.
I think this is going to have a hard time holding up well, but we can definitely improve on it at least a little bit. I think a class that can add some damage to each casting, like sorcerer with their Sorcerous Potency feature, will do a bit better than wizard. Carrying around a sack of Dargon Breath Scale catalysts could let you tag the occasional damage type weakness (or shut off regeneration or the like, depending what you fight). Witch might be a better archetype than psychic, if you're not using any other spells, since you could also grab the Ceremonial Knife feat, and make yourself an extra daily Force Barrage wand that is so cheap you don't worry about Overcharging it. That's more extra Force Barrages than psychic archetype will give you.
That's right. The list of spells you're pulling from is the same as normal for a cleric. But they are cast as Occult, not Divine.
It does what the GM decides is appropriate to the door. From the Area rules:
Many area effects describe only the effects on creatures in the area. The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects.
I'm not sure what the source was that told you that feat is available to a 1st level ranger? It is a Fighter feat, and it is available from the Archer archetype. It is not in Ranger (either in CRB or in Player Core), and I dont recall ever seeing any other book say it would be added to ranger's feat list. Opening up the Pathbuilder app, I also don't see Point Blank Stance on the list for a level 1 ranger, so I don't think it's a bug there. You didn't do something like put an archer archetype on a ranger, and hit it as an illegal selection, right? Pathbuilder will allow someone to select a feat without the right level or prereq, and just show a little warning message, but that's the only way I see it letting me put PBS on a level 1 ranger.
I appreciate everyone's response. When writing your own world there is a stopping point on what new or recycled content one can add in before the pages are no longer in order, so I was checking the opinions of others to get a feel of what people expect to see down the road for Remastered Pathfinder. Given that Player Core added more dragons are we likely to see more dragonblood lineages and if so how is Paizo likely to handle updating that content? In the previous editions how many dragonblood lineages have been available? Draconic Codex already added a lot more draconic exemplars after the player core books. There aren't any categories of content that you can expect them to stop writing. You just aren't likely to see it in the form of a Player Core 3.
I think that's pretty unlikely.
While 99% of these changes were very nice. One small issue is that the inventor dedication got a big nerf for Weapon Innovation since now it doesn't allow you to take advanced weapons. Don't know if this was intended or not. It almost definitely was. An actual inventor taking an Advanced Weapon for their innovation cost a modification. An archetype being able to do it for free always looked like an accidental quirk of wording that should be fixed at the table. Fixing it in text doesn't seem like at all a mistake.
No one has an inherent DEX cap. The DEX caps are always on an item or ability. Barding has a DEX cap. An animal companion that is not using any item with a DEX cap doesn't have a DEX cap. There is not a section in the book stating "if you aren't using an item with a DEX cap, you don't have a DEX cap." There is simply no rule anywhere suggesting that anyone, including both PCs and animal companions, has a DEX cap when not using an item or ability that has one.
Those throwing shields also tend to not technically work with a Returning rune at all, without some houserule. You get outcomes like this: 1. Meteor shield is a shield, not a weapon. It cannot have weapon runes.
Totally separate from this, Investigators also have a new problem with thrown weapons. When you make this substitution, you can add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier, provided you Strike with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon (which must be agile or finesse if it's a melee weapon with the thrown trait), or a sap. Replace the final sentence with the following two sentences. “When you make this substitution, you can add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier. If you Strike with a melee weapon, melee unarmed attack, or thrown weapon, it must have the agile or finesse trait to benefit from the substitution.” The errata claims that this does not change the weapons that the INT substitution applies to, but Thrown weapons that are NOT normally melee, like javelins or bombs, have been excluded.
I had to manually push the retry button. I have the Multi pdf of SFGA but do not have the hellfire in my library. This is exactly the same thing I've had. The order went through, but the single file PDF of Galactic Ancestries is missing and there is nothing for Hellfire Dispatches.
Undead were never immune to sickened. Things like Divine Wrath always worked on them, too.
Sure, there have always been some niche benefits to inflicting sickened, like preventing Swallow Whole.
Where is all of this talk about other classes using Grudge Strike coming from? That feat can't be taken via multiclass archetype. None of the Wandering feats can.
This is really one of those "no, there isn't any kind of formal definition of exactly what qualifies and never will be" things. Just like how the answer to "what goods will take more than one day to sell?" is "use your best judgement as a GM". |
