HammerJack's page

That archetype is Uncommon and Standard Availability, so it is legal, if something gives you Access.

Further down the Character Options entry for Guns and Gears we see:

"Characters with a Home Region of Arcadia have access to air guns, beast guns, non-black powder ammunition and accessories; and all archetypes from Chapter 3 with the exception of fireworks technician and demolitionist."

Beast Gunner is an archetype from chapter 3, and is not fireworks technician or artillerist. So if your home region is Arcadia, yes.

It's not a question that should go to a PFS specific forum, no. This is the correct place for "what does the written rule of this feat mean?"

Unless you meant that "what PFS specific option are there to gain Access, separate from this feat?" should be asked there. That would be totally appropriate. For that question, the World Traveller boon would be one possible way.

I'd say the difference is that Fascinated is a general condition, and Calm is a specific spell. Everyone in universe generally understanding how conditions work (obviously with the same sort of metagame-to-narrative filtering that any character's in-universe understanding of anything mechanical goes through) is A LOT more reasonable than them knowing how a spell works without Identifying that Spell.

Safe Elements can be used to make an impulse nonlethal.

There isn't now. If some scenario or other adventure grants Access to the archetype as a boon, we'll know when we see it, but probably not before.

Is it true that ranges aren't listed in the actions? Yes.

Is it true that you can assume unlimited range from that, instead of needing to reach the target? Obviously not.

But I think you knew that when you created the topic.

Baarogue wrote:

SuperParkourio wrote:

Tender Tendrils wrote:

It affects all willing living creatures with the heal, and all undead with the damage.

(As the wording is "this targets all" with the aoe version, and the normal version says "if the target is a willing living creature", the willing component is preserved despite it looking like it isn't at first glance)

Why is it preserved? It looks like the 3-action target section completely overrides the spell's Targets section.

2019

What about 2019?

That's when this thread is from.

Not an honest reading. Only a "pull a single sentence out of the surrounding context and try to pin things up on it that way" reading.

Additionally, if you're talking about undead, not dhampirs, the Stitch Flesh feat allows you to Treat Wounds on undead.

Yes, we are entirely sure it is an unarmed attack.

The FAQ/errata page has that addressed already, under the Player Core Errata entry:

Page 141: The fighter's Aggressive Block feat was erroneously changed to be a reaction. After the feat's name, replace the reaction symbol with the free action symbol.

It may also be worth noting that certain stances don't function as written if you need to constantly meet their requirements throughout the entire stance.

"If"? The Stance rules are explicit that the requirements continue to apply and the stance ends if they are violated. It's common enough knowledge that Arcane Cascade was written wrong and took quite a long time to be officially fixed, but what other stances do you mean?

No. Since they're ranged weapons while being thrown, you don't meet the requirements while trying to do this, regardless of returning runes. You could try to say "what if I'm wielding two pistols with bayonets, can I shoot twice?" and make a "but technically..." claim.

But it would be far enough from an honest reading that expecting it to actually fly would be pretty silly. (It would be wrong for a different reason, of the pistol and attached melee weapon not being the same, anyway).

Weaknesses only apply once per instance of damage, just like resistance. (This is why people argue about the definition of Instance of Damage so often).

You can resist both the fire and the slashing of a flaming longsword separately. You can be weak to both fire and slashing separately.

For the demon example, if you have a sword doing Cold Iron Slashing damage and Holy Spirit damage then yes, each instance triggers a weakness. But if you instead had a Paladin whose Strikes have the Holy trait with a Cold Iron longsword, then you have one instance of Cold Iron Holy Slashing damage, so only the higher weakness applies.

There is absolutely no reason to think that the definition would be different for weakness than it is for resistance.

The main argument seems to be people who think that the way Resistance to All damage works is a special, unique case instead of a clarification (meaning that Resist All would apply twice against a flaming longsword, but having both fire resistance and slashing resistance would not). I do not endorse that reading, but it still exists among some people, because the only developer post we had confirming that each damage type was a separate instance for weakness was back in the PF2 playtest and not after the system release.

To be fair about it, things could reasonably have changed about this after the playtest. Reading the released product, though, I've never believed that they did.

There are others, like Inventor archetype having a feat for auto-scaled crafting, and the (asterisk for AP material) Twilight Speaker archetype having auto scaling Society.

(And of course, there is the Additional Lore Skill Feat autoscaling whatever lore you pick up with it)

There's only guessing there. "One of your allies can ride your animal companion" is about where the rules end on that. They wrote that it's possible but never bothered to write any of the rules about how it's supposed to work.

(Also, this is the sixth time I've seen someone bring it up in two weeks, and I dont understand why that totally undeveloped mess of a concept is everywhere suddenly, after not seeing it come up anywhere for ages.)

Hirelings in combat would definitely be a "this is up to a GM to decide how/if they wanna handle that". The rulebooks have got no support for you.

There are also no rules to support sharing a mount. (There really aren't rules about any mount-related edge cases. The mount rules are barebones at best.)

And, not or

So, two threads that WANT the rules to be different, rather than thinking they are, and one with a person who clearly doesn't understand how commanding normal mounts works OR how commanding minions works. Calling that debated as though it were actually unclear seems a bit of an exagerration.

Debated would be if there were multiple positions that could be correct. Not one person stubbornly refusing to understand anything.

The effects of the action Command An Animal are changed when you use it on your Animal Companion. That is explicitly stated. There are not two separate actions named Command An Animal, for you to argue that you should use one and then the other.

Is this actually a thing people have been trying to claim? Where? When?

Since when has there ever been debate? The actions they use when you command your minion are the only ones they have. If you could also give them a command woth the regular mechanic, they'd have no actions to execute it with.

The Minion definition covers it.

Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands. For an animal companion, you Command an Animal; for a minion that's a spell or magic item effect, like a summoned minion, you Sustain the effect; if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command as a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits. If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don't act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please.

A minion has only 2 actions and 0 reactions per turn, though certain conditions (such as slowed or quickened) or abilities might give them a reaction that they can use. Alterations to a minion's actions occur when they gain their actions for the round. A minion can't control other creatures.

Commanding it as a subordinate action changes nothing.

Nothing breaks. I absolutely didn't say anything like "psychic gets no focus points." Psyschic has specific rules stating that it gets 2 focus points to start and and at level 5.

The class has never relied on gaining new amps being part of how it gains focus points.

It is still a spell... and it costs a focus point to cast.

This isn't right. It is still a spell, yes, but it doesn't cost a Focus point to cast. It costs a focus point to modify the spell while casting. That is a mechanic that has always been distinct from focus spells.

It is an Amped Cantrip. A class specific special mechanic that ISN'T anything else and which is defined entirely inside of the Psychic class.

If you wanted to describe it in more universal terms, an Amp is closer to a Focus Spellshape than a Focus Spell. (But isn't exactly that, because describing it in more universal terms is an approximation while treating it as the special mechanic it really is will be more exact).

I also can't be particularly excited about that one. I'm glad it will exist for the people it's useful for (i see questions like "Is there a good statblock I can grab for a [Level X] [Class Y] NPC?" in some PF2 related discord servers often enough). But it's not something that I personally have a lot of need for, since the NPC building system has been pretty fast and effective when I've needed it.

Chrono180 wrote:

The first-"Deepest Wellspring" states " If you have spent at least 3 Focus Points since the last time you Refocused, you recover 3 Focus Points when you Refocus, even if you spent your Focus Points on spells other than psychic abilities." However the psychic has no way RAW to get 3 focus points. I presume this feat was intended to grant a third but it does not.

As mentioned, you can already get 3 focus points (you could also do so via an archetype). This feat does something: you get all the focus points back in 10 minutes vs it taking longer. This less useful than it used to be since the remaster since back then it used to be "you can get back 3 points vs not being able to do that", but it's doing more than nothing.

Maybe not worth taking in a lot of cases, but other classes still have similar feats to allow them to get focus points back faster.

(Oracle is actually in a worse place on this since the way the curse work prevents them from using those focus points on Oracle focus spells despite being able to get them back, but I assume PC2 will fix that.)

Psychic Dedication is another odd case in this since the dedication itself gives you a focus point, but the remaster says your focus pool is equal to the number of focus spells you know. So the language here is either obsolete (you get a focus point by getting a focus spell and what the dedication says is irrelevant) or wrong (you get a focus point from the dedication and a second one from the focus spell the dedication gives).

Just another one of those cases where the Remaster compatibility errata isn't really complete.

The specific rule (remember, specific overrides general) that you gain a focus point in the psychic dedication is actually necessary. It DOESN’T give you a Focus Spell. It gives you a psychic cantrip that can be Amped. Thise aren't accounted for in the general rule and do still require specific rules for the focus points you gain to use them.

There will be a few pieces to this:

1. Gunslinger class and archetype are uncommon, but the first sentence of the Guns and Gears sanctioning entry on the Character Options Page reads "All Pathfinder Society agents have access to the Gunslinger and Inventor classes and archetypes."

2. Explosive Savant is Standard Availability, which means that the printed Access condition in the feat "Access You are from Dongun Hold or Alkenstar" applies. If you are from those places you can take it. However as an investigator, there is no reason you would, since you are already proficient with all martial and simple weapons. Bombs and firearms are included.

3. Legacy Content: The only thing this means is that it is content published before Player Core 1 and GM Core. It is still entirely valid. If something has been reprinted in a newer version in a remaster book, with the same name, the newer version is used. Otherwise, older content remains valid.

4. Firearm Access in general: if you are taking the gunslinger archetype, this covers it. Otherwise, there are several home regions that grant access to different sets of firearms, as laid out in the Character Options Page. Additionally, some firearms are covered by ACP boons. The Pathfinder Society FAQ lists exactly which items a purchasable boon can grant Access to.

There is nothing like that, no. The concept that the laws of the world changed as seen by people in Golarion is not a thing.

If a session is not showing up as reported, that is either because your GM hasn't reported it yet, or because your player number was incorrectly entered. (Or because whoever hasn't, in cases where someone other than the GM puts in the report, as is common with conventions).

There is no variation of mission failure that results in the session not being reported.

Easl wrote:

Errenor wrote:

YuriP wrote:

I know but I don't doubt that they may just simplify it to just be subtle in a compatibility review.

No chance. Subtle for all spells of a whole class? In a game which values visibility of magic (or at least makes chars to pay for subtlety) and some measure of balance between classes? No chance at all.

Psychic isn't going to be in PC2, so to add on to Errenor, I don't expect there will be any update to Psychic spellcasting happening any time soon.

Aside: does anyone have a page # in PC1 where they discuss one/two free hands for spellcasting? It didn't seem to be explicitly laid out in p299-300.

Closest clarification I can find would probably be the Manipulate trait on page 458, which specifies that any Manipulate spells would require gestures to make. Even then, not all spells have that trait.

The only spell aspect that seems to require a free hand is to use a Locus. A search of "Hand" or "free" does not really turn up anything else.

I think they removed the requirement for having a free hand to cast spells. Given how the chapter states it wants the user to be able to freely reflavor their magic, and even gives space to allow for non hand-signal and speaking-style spellcasting with GM input. I'm gonna take an assumption that they removed the free hand requirement, and that gestures can probably be approximated with either arm movements, or with finger movements around a held item. (For example, you can probably gesture with a sword in hand by performing a sword dance, or drawing rune-like symbols with the tip of the blade.)

But a GM can always step in and re-tighten the definitions if they wish I suppose.

What do you mean "removed the free hand requirement"? There was only ever a free hand requirement on Material component spells.

That would be a pretty reasonable ruling. But the way that the rule about indiscriminate AoEs and their environmental effects is written, you really need to ask that question to your GM, not on this forum.

Immunity to Nonlethal Legacy wrote:

Another exception is immunity to nonlethal attacks. If you are immune to nonlethal attacks, you are immune to all damage from attacks with the nonlethal trait, no matter what other type the damage has. For instance, a stone golem has immunity to nonlethal attacks. This means that no matter how hard you hit it with your fist, you're not going to damage it—unless your fists don't have the nonlethal trait, such as if you're a monk.

Immunity to Nonlethal Remaster wrote:

Another exception is immunity to the nonlethal trait. If you’re immune to nonlethal, you’re immune to all damage from attacks and effects with the nonlethal trait, no matter what other type the damage has. For instance, a typical construct has immunity to nonlethal attacks. No matter how hard you hit it with your fist, you’re not going to damage it. However, you can take a penalty to remove the nonlethal trait from your fist (page 282), and some abilities give you unarmed attacks without the nonlethal trait.

These rules used to only mention actual attacks, and now they are clarified to refer to all nonlethal effects. But when the rules provide an example, they just call it immunity to nonlethal attacks again. Is there any difference between "immunity to nonlethal" and "immunity to nonlethal attacks?"

I think you're looking for tiny differences in wording to be more load-bearing than they really are, drawing that distinction.

Gonna spoil this, since it has gotten into specific scenario meachanics.

Sterling Dynamo gives you Unarmed Attacks. Handwraps apply to ALL Unarmed Attacks (fist, claws, teeth, tail slaps, laser eyes, everything).

Weapons (including gauntlet variations) apply to NO Unarmed Attacks.

Only being able to use the same skill to Aid has also never been a rule of PF2E in general or of PFS2E in specific. Ways that other skills can be used to Aid are handled by GM discretion, though (so "only Diplomacy can be used to Aid this" isn't technically wrong if it's what the GM rules, but is rarely a good ruling and isn't one that the system is prescribing to the GM).

Your two spellcasting features are still separate. They don’t share slots, they don't share repertoires.

Them being the same tradition doesn't change that.

1. Yes, if the creature already had a better fly speed, they would keep it.

2. Sure, you could give an enemy a fly speed.

3. No, you can't make them use the fly speed. It's their speed now and they can do what they want with it, or nothing at all.

4. Cratering drop adds your fly speed to the distance fallen, if you can use it. Not twice your fly speed. 35 ft, not 70.

Some do, especially when one of those stances they take isn't a 1st level one. Often people don't, because there's something else they want to spend their feats on more. But if you had an extra 1st level feat, and didn't want weapons or focus spells, there would be absolutely no reason not to take an extra stance, instead. One with a different damage type you can't already do, a defensive benefit if your main stance doesn't have one, or or some side benefit you want to have on hand for specific occasions (like if you took gorilla stance for the climb speed).

AoN seems to be down right now, but if I'm not wrong the only 1st level feats that aren't stances are Ki Strike, Ki Stride, and Monastic Weaponry, so if monks got an extra feat at 1st level to take a stance then they would be forced to A) have a ki spell (which is something not monk want, even if it is the most optimal) or B) use weapons (which again, is not something every monk wants). I wouldn't be against the idea if there were more stuff to take though.

You forgot C) take a second stance for flexibility.

The rules in the item allow it to work for an undead PC.

There is no official ruling outside of that.

No, "what is an evil act?" is not an "is this specific action explicitly stated to be evil in worrying rules?" question.

The 1E guide gave some examples also stated that the GM was ultimately the authority at their table on what constitutes an evil action.

The slippery slope to handwraps on animal companions doesn't exist, because handwraps don't have the Companion Trait and therefore aren't usable by animal companions.

You can cast Runic Body on an animal companion, and set an unarmed attack that only dealt one die to two dice and cause the attack to count as magical. The Item bonus to hit doesn't apply. It's just like Magic Fang always was (except for applying to multiple unarmed attacks, instead of only one of them.

The assertion that the spell doesn't work on animal companions at all simply isn't true.

I think a bunch of the tactics can be broadened slightly.

Like let Shields Up allow an affected ally to cast the Shield cantrip.

Mountaineer and Naval training can be combined into one tactic that grants either a swim or climb speed, chosen when you prepare that tactic with your squad.

Probably a more generalist Master Tactic will be released, since the two in the playtest are very disparate in the playstyle and party they're good in.

The Shield cantrip actually says that it counts as the Raise a Shield action, and they've now errata-ed Glass Shield to say the same. I think that covers it without the tactic calling them out specifically.

You raise a magical shield of force. This counts as using the Raise a Shield action (page 419), giving you a +1 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn, but it doesn’t require a hand to use. While the spell is in effect, you can use the Shield Block reaction (page 262) with your magic shield. The shield has Hardness 5. You can use the spell’s reaction to reduce damage from any spell or magical effect, even if it doesn’t deal physical damage. After you use Shield Block, the spell ends and you can’t cast it again for 10 minutes. Heightened (+2) The shield’s Hardness increases by 5.