HammerJack's page

Because Exemplar is Rare. Things that are Uncommon or Rare require Access. That note is saying that everyone has Access, instead of it needing to be tied to a boon or something.

The level is following normal retraining rules, not something specific to Reflow Elements. So the level requirement is based on the feats you could have taken at that level, not what feat you did take. Your 8th level feat slot remains an 8th level feat slot.

The special requirement from Reflow Elements is only about the elemental trait.

Yes, the fireball would still include you, the target, and anyone else in the radius.

As a Conflux Spell, it also recharges srecharging. Unlike other early Conflux Spells, there's no atrack involved. It lets you squeeze in some extra damage without accruing MAP while recharging. It isn't a showstopper, but can be handy.

The clothing has that hardness and immunity to fire. The wearer does not. It only matters if you encounter effects that damage the clothing.

I enjoyed that book... but it's a little late to tell people in 2023 to read it.

MY experience playing a rogue was that precision immunity existing was never a big deal. It came up sometimes, and I had bad matchups, but the rest of the party was there. If a whole campaign was crammed full of precision immune enemies, nonstop, it would feel bad, but as something that just came up occasionally, it wasn't an issue at all.

I've had more heartburn dealing with constructs as an occult witch than I ever did as a rogue fighting ghosts and oozes.

That phrasing is a bit misleading. DC 15 is a rule of thumb starting point, yes, but the rule is that the DC is set by the GM case by case, and the rules do include things like guidance that attempting the same Aid method repeatedly against a creature should have the DC rise.

It's still true that Aid is a very strong tool, and true that critting tends to become much easier as you go, but it can't be accurately presented like the DC is fixed.

Unicore wrote:

Auditory as a trait means the caster has to be able to talk AND the target has to be able to hear for the spell to work, but is misused in many spells. Illusory creature, for example has the auditory trait probably because it is capable of making sound, but RAW a deaf creature cannot be affected by an illusory creature. It is a trait GMs have to really think around and is not a good judge of how spell casting works for anyone, much less the psychic.

I agree a little bit, in that the GM has to think about what the spell is doing to determine how sound is involved. And there was one thing I did forget, which is the Sonic trait exist, so stuff that produces sound waves and doesn't care about whether a target can hear is Sonic trait, not auditory.

But Auditory explicitly says:

Quote:

An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds.

(Actually this is a little complicated, because with the loss of verbal component component call out and spells being reworked you could look at the description on Cast a Spell action, which mentions speech, but we also know that it didn't apply to all spells. It's also more complicated because the Auditory trait could mean you need to speak for a spell to function, or that the target needs to hear it for it to function, or both, and we don't have a good way to determine. I consider this a rough edge of the system, but it doesn't come up that much.)

And while the concentrate trait was placed onto a lot of spells so that other things could interact with it, and it kind of feels like a replacement for verbal components, it doesn't actually requiring making a sound.

Edit: It may just be that any spell lacking the Subtle trait should be assumed to require some sort of speech associated with the casting, but honestly it's altogether unclear [in my...

The requirement to speak incantations was added to ALL spells without the subtle, as a general rule of spellcasting. It is there without any special trait on the spell, now. The remaster totally decoupled Concentrate from the verbal requirement. "So Technically, spell lacking this means you don't actually need to speak to cast the spell" is entirely false.

Casting a spell requires the caster to make gestures and utter incantations, so being unable to speak prevents spellcasting for most casters

Subtle does explicitly remove that requirement. That does not mean that spells that didn't require verbal before should automatically become Subtle. It just means any spells that aren't Subtle require speech for most casters under current rules. Psychic shoukd still be treated as that exception to "most casters", as it is basically their old feature doing exactly the same thing it always did, replacing speech with emotion while not affecting the traits of the spell.

It probably ((this isn't made explicit in remaster errata or anything, but is the result of applying the same things it used to do)) still removes the need to speak when casting, while not removing any traits from the spellcasting action.

That matters if you're underwater or swallowed whole or something, and speaking an incanatation would cause you to run out of air.

It Definitely doesn't remove Concentrate or Manipulate, because it never did.

Verbal Components are what gave Casting a spell the Concentrate trait, premaster. Spells with only Material and/or Somatic worked fine while Raging (for a main reason it was relevant).

Also, I'm fairly sure that a creature with the Unholy trait doesn't automatically pass that trait on to its attacks. (Can't find anything in a quick search that says it does.)

There is nothing automatic about the trait passing on, no. It needs to be a specific ability, like how Sanctified Champions apply their Sanctification to their Strikes.

We had it confirmed all the way back in the PF2 playtest that "Definition A" is not correct. And those specific rules didn't change in the release.

The lack of a formal definition DOES cause ambiguities and unaddressed edge cases (and there's a reason this has been one of the most frequently asked questions that Paizo has refused to answer for the last six years), but the different damage types on a Strike being different instances is one part that we do know for sure.

Traits like Holy/Unholy on a Strike (not on a specific damage type) and thaumaturge's Personal Antithesis are some of the most frequent offenders for the lack of a definition to cause issues, but stating that a whole Strike is obviously one instance is basically the only thing that we DO know is wrong.

I've always viewed the idea of the manipulate trait as leaving ones self open (for an attack). When viewed that way, whether it represents material or somatic components, or even just mental focus, it makes sense (to me) that psychic spellcasting would still leave one open to Attacks of Opportunity.

I think that it's definitely a gesture, not just intense concentration for 2 reasons:

1. That matches the description in spellcasting rules and in psychic spellcasting.

2. You *also* have mechanics that constrain movement and add a flat check to Manipulate actions.

1. Spellstrike works the same with any spell. Source doesn't matter.

2. But Deadly Spark is not a spell. Relic Gifts like that which are not spells cannot be used with spellstrike. Something like the Living Storm Grand Gift, which allows you to cast an Innate Spell, would have the spell usable in spellstrike.

Mangaholic13 wrote:

Also, I've never understood how Psychic Spellcasting then interacts with Attacks of Opportunity, so I feel like some clarity of how it effects spellcasting mechanically would be helpful.

Completely as normal? It changes nothing in relation to triggers of reactions. They don't react to speech.

This is correct. Psychic spellcasting has never done anything to affect the triggers of Attack of Opportunity/Reactive Strike. Manipulate spells for anyone else are still Manipulate for psychic (under both premaster and remaster rules). Same for Concentrate, if you bring Disruptive Stance into it.

To try to sum it up:

Premaster effects
Verbal Component with Concentrate -> emotion component, still with concentrate but no speech

Somatic component with manipulate -> still somatic components with Manipulate

Material Component with Manipulate and an item and free hand requirement -> Somatic components with Manipulate

Remaster effects
All spells now require speech unless they are subtle. This requirement is presumably removed, but the Concentrate trait stays on any spell that has it. There is something to mechanically clarify here

The Material/Somatic divide in Manipulate spells is gone, so substituting somatic for material doesn't do anything. The Manipulate trait was never affected before and wouldn't be now.

What are you asking to have clarified in number 1? Psychic spellcasting never did anything special about the Manipulate trait. Any spells with somatic or material components still had somatic components for a psychic, and still had Manipulate.

Are you thinking of the Additional Kniwledge rule, which specifies that if you make further recall attempts about the same subject (for further information), the DC increases each time? That's the same one that also says after a success on an Incredibly Hard check or after a failed on any of the checks you can't learn more.

No, they are not. Casters ever even being Trained in Class DC really only got added in with the remaster, but they have never been interchangeable.

Do note that most rules questions do not have a specific PFS campaign answer, and the whole campaign fundamentally runs on individual GMs running their tables by their best understanding of the rules.

There's no ambiguity about the subordinate action Taunt having the Concentrate trait, so that should be consistent. Whether Group Taunt applies is a question of specific rules overriding general rules and you will likely see table variation in which rule is considered more specific, because that is something resolved by GM judgement, not by any written detail.

Is that a fix specifically for new PDFs not being added on new orders, or specifically subscription PDFs and not other new orders or does it have anything to do with the problem of at least some of us having absolutely zero of our old items added to the new store's library?

My most likely guess would be "no change at all."

Or possibly "amps get language to treat them like focus spells for gaining focus points, and the dedication no longer needs to specify that it adds a focus point."

I wasn't trying to claim that Amps don't work with Spellstrike. They do.

I was responding to Loreguard not wanting to make Amps become incompatible with Spellshapes.

HammerJack wrote:

Amps are already incompatible with spellshapes. The Amp rules state that specifically.

Where exactly does it say that, I haven't found it in Archives of Nethys.

The Key Terms section of the Psychic class.

Amp: Amps are special thoughtforms that modify the properties of your psi cantrips. You can apply an amp only to a psi cantrip, which is called the amped cantrip. Applying an amp to a psi cantrip costs 1 Focus Point and is part of the actions needed to Cast the Spell. The singular focus required to amp a psi cantrip means that unless otherwise noted, you can apply only one amp to a given psi cantrip, and you can't apply both an amp and a metamagic ability to a cantrip at the same time. If both an amp and the amped cantrip deal damage of the same type, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Feats with the amp trait provide different amps you can apply to psi cantrips in place of their normal amps. If an amp has its own effect, its level is the same as the amped cantrip's.

No, it is not "a fist" (specifically your choice of left or right closed hand). It is the "Fist" unarmed attack. The mechanics don't actually map down to one spot on your body like that, so the questions you're looking for answers to there simply don't apply.

If you use polymorph battleforms, you can only use the attacks granted by that form. If your hands changed into claws, your ikon doesnt transfer to the Claw attack, just like if you picked up a monk stance, it doesn't transfer to the attack granted by that stance, made with the same hands you use for your ikon attacks normally.

Amps are already incompatible with spellshapes. The Amp rules state that specifically.

I'm trying to throw together an exemplar with druid archetype that utilizes untamed form and I'm not sure how it interacts with some other abilities so I have a few questions:

- If I take Hands of the Wildling, does that apply to ALL my unarmed attacks or just my default (fists) or can I at least choose an unarmed attack I'd gain from untamed form?

- If I take Energized Spark (earth [bludgeoning]) can that allow any of my unarmed attacks qualify for Titan's Breaker?

- Last, I'm a bit confused on this rule:

Quote:

Your ikons can be etched with runes, upgraded, or otherwise modified as normal for items of their type. A body or worn ikon can have runes etched on it to apply to your unarmed attacks as though it were handwraps of mighty blows, though only one of your ikons can have these runes and no ikon can have both these and armor or weapon runes.

Does this mean I can only ever have weapon runes on a single ikon, even if I have multiple weapon ikons?

1. You pick a single specific unarmed attack for Hands of the Wildling. It doesn't have to be Fist, but it cannot be "all unarmed attacks I make."

2. Trying to select any unarmed attack that you dont always have is, at best, a matter of table variation. Even an attack granted by a stance is a grey area, because making a new item (or unarmed attack here) be your ikon takes a day of downtime, so the unarmed attack would presumably need to exist for that downtime. An attack of a specific polymorph battleform is less likely to fly. You'll want to talk to your GM about their read.

3. Energized Spark does not allow an unarmed attack to qualify for Titan's Breaker if it didn't already. The unarmed attack needs to be the ikon first, before Energized Spark even applies to it (without even arguing about whether the requirement only means the base damage of the unarmed attack or weapon, which it probably does).

4. You can only have weapon runes that apply like Handwraps of Mighty Blows (which DO affect all unarmed attacks) on one ikon. You shouldn't need them on a second one. And you can, of course, use handwraps instead.

Ravingdork wrote:

Even if it wasn't a signature spell, they could still cast it additional times a day with higher rank slots. However, it would not gain any of the heightened benefits and would still be treated as a 3rd-rank fireball.

RD, I think this statement might be untrue.

Quote:

Heightening Spells

When you get spell slots of 2nd rank and higher, you can fill those slots with stronger versions of lower-rank spells. This increases the spell's rank, heightening it to match the spell slot. You must have a spell in your spell repertoire at the rank you want to cast it in order to heighten it to that rank. Many spells have specific improvements when they are heightened to certain ranks. The signature spells class feature lets you heighten certain spells freely.

The way I interpret this is, that in order for a spontaneous caster to cast a spell out of a slot, requires them to have it in their spell repertoire at that rank of spell, unless it's a signature spell.

If you allow them to cast it out of the rank slot without even knowing the higher level version (even with no benefit) it's honestly a bit too good IMO. Maybe my understanding is incorrect, but that's how I've always parsed it. It's like the one real limiting factor to spontaneous spell casting.

I also think a lot of people, so used to PF1 spell casting don't realize this is an issue, that you can't freely heighten spell into a higher rank (at no benefit). Or perhaps (again), I'm really misunderstanding the rules.

In the remaster, it was made explicit that they can do this, in the last paragraph of the Heightened Spontaneous Spells heading.

As a spontaneous caster, you can also choose to cast a lower-rank spell using a higher-rank spell slot without heightening it or knowing it at a higher rank. This casts the spell at the rank you know the spell, not the rank of the higher slot. The spell doesn’t have any heightened effects, so it’s usually not a very efficient use of your magic outside of highly specific circumstances. For instance, if your party was having trouble with an invisible enemy, and you had revealing light in your repertoire but had already spent all of your 2nd-rank spell slots, it might be worth it to use a 3rd-rank spell slot to cast the spell, even though it’d have no heightened benefit.

Just the Ancestry and Ancestry feats from Player Core. Nothing about other PF2 content like classes, deities, archetypes, etc is part of this.

Boons for different things may well exist in some way, at some point, but I can't tell you to expect any specific character option to have one, ahead of actually seeing a boon exist.

I don't think there's actually anything there that needs errata. If there isn't a 13th level Ancestry feat that a specific character qualifies for, they can always take another lower level Ancestry feat.

A Spontaneous spellcaster needs Fireball in their repertoire, but doesnt prepare it for the day.

A Prepared spellcaster needs to prepare Fireball in multiple slots if they want to cast it multiple times.

The Flexible Spellcaster Class Archetype is an edge case that changes how prepared casters work. They prepare a set of the spells for the day, then cast from that set as if they were a spontaneous caster, but all spells were Signature spells. They pay for this benefit by having fewer spellslots of every level, as well as by taking the Class Archetype.

HammerJack wrote:

You have to have the Blood Magic feature first to use feats that give an alternate Blood Magic option.

You've just invented that. Where's this coming from? Why?

And the feat does exactly what it says, as I said, we know what "blood magic" is. It's not the first feat in the game which has not all its mechanics explained in itself. Extremely mildly speaking.

And I don't understand why you are so hell-bent to not allow spending 16th level feat on some very conditional 8-level ability. When the logic here is absolutely clear-cut and straightforward.

It is coming from the rules of Blood Magic. That is why I quoted them.

The feat does do exactly what it says: makes you know a blood magic effect.

The Blood Magic feature explains what knowing a blood magic effect means.

That the question comes up at a pretty high level for this specific blood magic effect isn't actually relevant, so I don't try to change the meaning to make this work just because it's 16th level. I might houserule an ability to make it better at a table I'm running, but I'm not going to do it in answering a rules question for someone else who isn't at my table.

You have to have the Blood Magic feature first to use feats that give an alternate Blood Magic option.

Blood Magic Whenever you cast a bloodline spell using a Focus Point or a sorcerous gift spell using a spell slot, you choose one blood magic effect you know to benefit from. You begin play with the benefit listed in your bloodline and can gain others through sorcerer feats.

If the blood magic effect offers a choice, make it before resolving the spell. The blood magic effect occurs after resolving any checks for the spell's initial effects and, against a foe, applies only if the spell is a successful attack or the foe fails its saving throw. If the spell has an area, you must designate yourself or one target in the area when you cast the spell to be the target of the blood magic effect. All references to spell rank refer to the rank of the spell you cast.

Without that ability letting you choose to use a blood magic effect that you know, when you cast a qualifying spell, knowing other blood magic effects (which is what the feat gives you) is meaningless.

It is technically true that you can TAKE the feat, because there is no prerequisite of having Blood Magic. But it doesn't DO anything without Blood Magic.

Weird, I can find the corrected text on sites like Archives of Nethys, but I can't find where the text is updated. It's not on the Pathfinder FAQ list.

The most likely place would be in your actual book. (I'm not sure if the PDF has been updated for this since I downloaded mine, but if you also have the physical it's probably still there, I don't think there was a new printing).

In my book, both edicts and anathema say "Lead others to the light of good, strive for self-perfection, be a support for others struggling to change their ways"

Cozened wrote:

graystone wrote:

Cozened wrote:

Tumble Through:

Specifies that the player moves through a square occupied by an enemy who is unwilling.

It in fact does not say that. "You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy." They CAN try to move through an enemy, not that they must. You may use the Tumble Through action to simply Stride and never attempt to move through anyone's space.

pg. 422, PC2:

You can move through the space of a willing creature. If you want to move through an unwilling creature’s space, you can Tumble Through it. You can’t end your turn in a square occupied by another creature, though you can end a move action in its square provided that you immediately use another move action to leave that square. If two creatures end up in the same square by accident, the GM determines which one is forced out of the square (or whether one falls prone).

And? Just because it says "If you want to move through an unwilling creature’s space, you can Tumble Through it" in no way REQUIRES there be an unwilling creature to use it. It's a section named "Moving Through a Creature’s Space" so why would you expect it to mention uses that do not involve "Moving Through a Creature’s Space"? The ACTUAL entry for Tumble Through gives the actual requirements for using it. That says "You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy" and not you must try to move through the space of one enemy.

This has been confirmed by Dev posts: they described Tumble Through as a Stride with style and it can 100% be used as just a Stride and qualify for things that require Tumble Through.

If there's no Tumble check, there's no panache generated, making tumbling but not theough any unwilling creature not useful to the original question.

1. Dirge of Doom doesn't cost a focus point.

2. The concentrate trait doesn't mean anything like that. It has nothing to do with keeping spells going. It is just a trait with no direct effects of its own that other rules can trigger off of (like barbarian's Rage preventing Concentrate actions, or inventor's Distracting Explosion being trigger by an enemy using a concentrate action.)

My friend and I are having a discussion on whether or not this is RAW. If a Ruffian Rogue where to take the Mauler dedication, could they then sneak attack with a Glaive?

No, a glaive is a D8 martial weapon. The Ruffian racket ability for martial and advanced weapons only works up to D6.

Mauler doesn't affect this at all. It only lets you treat the glaive as simple for proficiency, not for any other purpose.

"Sustained" needs to be the duration of the spell.

You would be correct that Weapon Infusion isn't relevant to flanking, though. Only melee weapons and unarmed attacks (and their reach) matter to providing a flank for an ally.

A melee kinetic blast would benefit from flanking when you're in that position, though.

No, they do not. Needing to know the spell at different ranks has only ever been a rule of spontaneous casters.

Shortbow is also a Martial weapon. Switching to shortbow would help you to avoid worrying about Volley, but that's all it helps you with. (That one thing is a lot in plenty of games).

I see how this is an issue and I hate it. Thanks for pointing this out. Into the houserule doc it goes, I guess.

Can't imagine they thought that a gunslinger that uses sneak and then does risky reload shouldn't get the off-guard bonus because they reloaded before shooting, but that sure does look like the case by RAW. Also can't imagine they thought a sniper that uses covered reload shouldn't be able to follow it up with Ghost Shot and get off-guard, either. Chalk it up to a case where everybody read what was intended and no one read what was actually written, I guess.

You day "by RAW", there, but the line about GM discretion on other actions is an INCREDIBLY important part of the RAW, and really no one should ever be phrasing things as though it isn't. It makes it seem like there isn't an expectation of GMs using that discretion sensibly, when there absolutely is.

2E just isn't a system that has any interest in treating GM discretion as secondary, and not like something that should be load-bearing. That's why you also have things like "is there cover from my shot?" being primarily GM discretion, with drawing lines on a map as a secondary, backup method. Or "what is the DC to Recall Knowledge on this creature with Skill X? Is skill X even valid?" having huge amounts of "GM decides, here are some starting points and guidance" instead of a number assigned for each skill for each creature.

There is no rules text about it and no PFS campaign ruling, either, so no one is going to be able to gove you a solid answer that aboids table variation, unless there's some developer clarification.

I wouldn't expect anyone to really read new permanent unarmed attacks as a problem, but there is a reasonable enough reading that you don't have those unarmed attacks through the downtime for any of them to be valid. I would strongly recommend not trying to exist in that grey area in a campaign with multiple GMs.

Things like Hands of the Wildling are still applied to a specific unarmed attack not all unarmed attacks. And whether an unarmed attack that you don't permanently have (like one from a form) can be selected is a point of table variation. I've even seen variation on whether a stance-granted attack is legal.

I don't think it's ideal for a character that will need to deal with different GM's understandings of the rules. I would save that for a game where you always have the same GM and can confirm that they share your reading.

No new information. It still doesnt allow targeting one creature with extra attacks.

Player Core page 335. The rule is in the Haste spell itself. It states "It gains the quickened condition and can use the extra action each round for only Strike and Stride actions."

If you are looking for what page states that an Impulse doesn't get counted as Stride or Strike, no such page exists. The rule is the other way around. Stride and Strike are specific actions. An Impulse being usable in place of one would have to be a special rule written into the Impulse. The books won't say that the hypothetical special rule doesn’t exist.

Not an unreasonable houserule, but definitely not an option without houseruling the feat.

There is one minor thing wrong in that statement, of course. It suggests that you can use the start of a turn as a trigger for Ready, which is false.

That detail doesn't stop the problem, but it's a little irritating to see the idea get repeated, even if that quote wasn't recent.

Also, remember "natural weapon" is not a rules category in 2E. It's just unarmed attacks, so they have no special privilege of counting as weapons for any purpose.

I have a question regarding the Kineticist class and the Weapon Infusion ability. Specifically, can I use the Haste spell’s additional action to make an attack with my infused weapon? The elemental Blast?

Additionally, if this is possible, can I also use the Haste action for other Kineticist abilities?

I would greatly appreciate your guidance on these matters.

Thank you for your assistance.

No. Haste specifies Stride or Strike. Impulses are neither of those actions. Weapon Infusion does not actually have anything to do with weapons. It just modifies Elemental Blast.