Jared Walter 356's page

It's probably this pf2 legacy feat

I agree with Captain Morgan. There is nothing in the trigger than says they must start the move action adjacent to you, but you can only react while they are adjacent to you.

It would not remove the manipulate trait, but using it out of range of the enemy's Attack of Opportunity (AoO) would keep you safe. Most spells will have either the manipulation or concentration trait. Some will have both. The spell does more damage when use in close range, but that is the only real difference.

One thing to remember in PF2 is that most enemies do not have attacks of opportunity. It is no longer universal.

Challenge rating is a PF1 term, and you have posted in the PF2 forums.

In PF2, levels are the same for both sides, ie, 2 on-level characters are a moderate challenge for a 4th level party.

In PF1, I believe PC classes were 1 higher than the CR, but its been awhile so my memory is a little rusty.

3 NPCs at 1 level lower will be a moderate to severe encounter for a party of 4.

Neither, they do not get a free action, just make a skill check. This could be flavored however desired, but wouldn't change positioning, or have any game effect other than those specifically listed in the feat
The full text of the ability clarifies the effect:

Activate [reaction] Upstage Trigger A foe attempts a skill check and doesn't get a critical success; Effect After your foe has tried their best, you show everyone how it's really done. Attempt a check using the same skill that triggered this reaction.

Critical Success You gain a +1 status bonus to attack rolls, Perception checks, saving throws, and skill checks until the end of your next turn.
Success As critical success, except you gain the benefits only if the triggering creature failed their skill check.

You attempt a skill check using the same skill they used. If you get a crit success you gain the bonus to attack rolls, perception, saves, and skill checks as above.

note that it doesn't list the DC for this check, but I would assume it to be the seem one as the foe attempted.

After reading through this discussion, the general rule that I will use at my table is that Reactions will generally follow the triggering action, unless they crit, in which case the reaction was close enough to simultaneous that it prevents the triggering action from being completed.

But I like the fact that the rule explicitly gives the GM room to change this on a case-by-case basis, if that makes more sense.

This is the way I run it at my table as well.

Movement rules
If the creature is three sizes bigger it can move through. For an ogre though it could easily be pinned if it is surrounded. It can use athletics to shove or acrobatics to tumble through, and it does have a longer reach.

I agree with Gisher.

Personally, I always put incapacitate modifications last.

There is this from the errata:
All three of these abilities grant a two-tier benefit on a failed saving throw of the specified type, but (as always) no ability will ever change your degree of success by more than one step. To clarify, we’re making the following clarification to all three abilities. Change the beginning of the last sentence from “When you fail” a given saving throw to “When you roll a failure on” a giving saving throw.

And the text of incapacitate:
if a spell has the incapacitation trait, any creature of more than twice the spell’s level treats the result of their check to prevent being incapacitated by the spell as one degree of success better

Divine Will specifies that it triggers from the role, and incapacitate triggers from the result of the check.

Different colored/numbered stones/chits/poker chips (1 for each spell level) and spell-cards would work for this. lay out the chits in a line for available slots, and move them to the spellcard when you use the slot.

Skills
Source Character Guide pg. 117 2.0
In some cases, a template lists one or more skills that should be added to the base creature's skills. The creature gains this skill as a primary or secondary skill, depending on if it has a good associated ability modifier. For example, a creature with a +5 Dexterity modifier that gains the Acrobatics skill should gain it as a primary skill, while a creature with a –1 Dexterity modifier should instead gain Acrobatics as a secondary skill . If the creature already had the skill, increase it to a higher bonus.

Leap is capped at 10 feet if your speed is not at least 30 feet, and capped at 15 if your speed is 30 ft or greater. So there is an indirect cap much lower than your actual speed.
Quote:

The Leap basic action is used for High Jump and Long Jump. Leap lets you take a careful, short jump. You can Leap up to 10 feet horizontally if your Speed is at least 15 feet , or up to 15 feet horizontally if your Speed is at least 30 feet. You land in the space where your Leap ends (meaning you can typically clear a 5-foot gap if your Speed is between 15 feet and 30 feet, or a 10-foot gap if your Speed is 30 feet or more). If you make a vertical Leap, you can move up to 3 feet vertically and 5 feet horizontally onto an elevated surface.

High jump moves only 5 ft horizontal (10 ft on a critical success), so speed doesn't play into this one.

Natural medicine allows you to use Nature instead of medicine for treat wounds only. You cannot use it to treat disease, treat poison, or administer first aid.

Okay, how would you do crafting for initiative?

In that particular circumstance, they were encountering animated statues, and one was investigating the statues before they moved, so crafting represented his ability to tell they were animated objects rather than inanimate, and react to them.

I think it depends a lot on the situation. Typically 80% of my players roll percpetion, but I have used stealth, deception, survival, arcana, crafting, athletics, religion and acrobatics for initiative.

RAW, no. They automatically heighten. CR300

"A cantrip is always automatically heightened to half your level, rounded up."

Many players and GMs believe that you should be able to do this, and many will house rule this as an option, but it is strictly against the Rules as written.

It works pretty much like you described. you create a distraction to pull attention away from the one creating the diversion, to yourself.

Mechanically, creating a diversion gives the hidden condition to the character that created the diversion, which is why it appears to be worded weird. In other words, allows observed characters to become hidden, so that they can hide to become undetected.

If you are trying to get on lookers to pay attention to you to make them less attentive, then fascinating performance is more what you are describing. Applying a -2 penalty to perception DCs. In other words making them less observant.

The common language of Hazardous terrain is

Quote:

A creature takes X damage each time it moves into one of these squares.

personally, I run it the other way. Each time they move [into one or more of these squares] they take damage. Just like I would with difficult terrain, they suffer the penalty for moving only once per move regardless of the number of squares they move into.

Personally, I agree with Ravingdork that the character yielding the Ghast Stiletto is the creator of the effect. Since they have to spend the action to do so.

However, The emanation rules don't say they creator can choose not to be affected, but by default they can choose the creature at the center of the emanation to not be affected..

"Unless the text states otherwise, the creature creating an emanation effect chooses whether the creature at its center is affected." CR457

However, the Ghast Stilletto specifically overrides the choice:
"For the next minute, the target creature, as well as any creatures within a 10-foot emanation, must succeed at a DC 16 Fortitude save or become sickened 1 (plus slowed 1 as long as it's sickened on a critical failure). " Treasure vault pg36.

Because the wielder is not at the center of the emanation, they are affected as normal.

No matter how you parse the "creator" portion, the wielder is still affected if within 10 feet of the target.

RAI might be different, but RAW is as breithauptclan describes.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Paizo's definition is "It's up to the GM"

No, that's not at all what Paizo's saying and if you do think that's what it's saying, I have no idea why you are trolling the Rules forum.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are trolling. This comes across as extremely arrogant and disrespectful to others.

Or can be used conjunctively, eg. sandals or flips-flip flops, aid or assistance, hell or high water, William or Bob, etc.

last time I checked hell is a different thing than high water as well.

so Damage and Harm are still two different things. Ie, Hit point reduction and debilitating conditions.

I don't agree with Gortle most of the time, but here I think his interpretation is the most correct, and matches the way I would run it.

Yours is much too narrow, and pretty much discounts the "indirect" clause of the definition.

The question you need to ask is why doesn't Paizo want Calm Emotions to break Invisibility?

You are assuming the conclusion. The questions isn't why, the question is if.

The Raven Black wrote:

Harm does not necessarily mean physical injury though.

On the contrary, that's literally how harm is defined. You may not use it that way, but the rules aren't written such that every word is dependent upon the reader's personal definition. Paizo has explicitly stated that if term is not defined in the game, it takes on the appropriate meaning in the dictionary.

On the contrary, harm is listed desperately from causing damage,indicating that they are in fact two different things:

A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly,

noun: harm

actual or potential ill effects or danger.
"I can't see any harm in it"

making someone flat-footed is definitely an ill effect or danger.

First the have clarified in errata, that a wand formula is general for any kind of wand:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=756
You only need to learn one 1st-level formula to Craft a magic wand.

secondly, even if the formulas were different, it doesn't follow that you can tell from looking at the outside what was used on the inside.

for example: you place frog's legs, wrapped in silver dust inside a wooden core, seal it up, and lacquer it black, and place a silver band on it. You now have a wand of jump.

Does the wand of jump look different enough from a black wand silver banded wand of magic missile,or a black silver banded wand of enlarge?

Sure if you break it down to reverse engineer it, you could find out wand you had, but then you need to put it back together again.

Yeah gravity is much lighter. How much? Well based on a bit of trial and error in an online free fall calculator, about 9.25926 ft/s² compared to earth's 32.17405 ft/s². That about 71.22% lower which is less than the gravity of mars (62% lower than earth)

I think you are forgetting terminal velocity, which (on earth) you reach in 12 seconds or about 1500 ft of falling, and cap out at about 120 mph or 1056 feet per 6 second round.

Unfortunately, from my perspective as a GM, rarity is often a make work rule for me. If my players are asking, "mother, may I" in one place, then my energy is sapped elsewhere. So. It doesn't work as intended. Reading between the lines to divine what authors intended is a game I prefer not to play.

In my experience, it's been exactly the opposite. I don't have to screen 100s of options and ban them one by one, I screen when the player requests an uncommon or rare option.

In one of my current camp gains, a player wants a new spell, I read it and say ok, or read it and say, I'll build it into the story, or read it and say no that spell will interfere with the story. I can do this screening at my leisure between sessions, and he has time to make other choices if needed. At least I know ahead of time whether a character choice will kill a storyline or trivialize an encounter or challenge.

As opposed to another player I've had suddenly announcing mid game that he has some new obscure ability from a source book I haven't read, and I have to screen it on the spot, and pause the game to do so, no thanks.

A bit of a side track, but related. There is no reason why Focus Spells should have a separate entry from the feat.

Rarity tags on spells do affect the DC to identify them, so there is that.

Another thing is "this item/spell/etc. is more powerful than comparable ones" is a correct use of rarity.

I disagree, this is the correct use for levels of items, not rarity.

Rarity exists as a warning flag for players to check in with their GMs about something. I'd say it's definitely more to make it easier for GMs to say "no", as well as a way for players to identify which options they may want to be careful about.

I agree wholeheartedly. The rarity flag is a reminder to the player that they should check with the GM. It also serves as a flag for the GM to say, you might want to review this option before allowing it.

This isn't about blocking players, its about encouraging upfront communication.

Lurker in Insomnia wrote:

When using a Holy Lance as a demon detector, the odds of murdering someone who has convinced themselves they aren't evil may be low, but not zero.

I make all necessarily preparation to make lethality of spell equal to zero even for evil target(temp hp for target,first level version of spell and Nonlethal Spell metamagic)

Again missing the point. You are intentionally causing harm to others. Doesn't matter if you have their permission, doesn't matter if it isn't lethal. Doesn't matter how you rationalize it, it fits pathfinders definition of evil.

On a more practical note, many normal soldiers may already be evil, but loyal to the king. Being Evil in and of itself is not sufficient grounds to cause them damage. Good can only cause harm in the defense of others or themselves.

This is a classic case of "the ends justify the means" thinking which many tales have been written about heroes falling into evil due to this rationalization.

In previous thread i suggested that divine lance can be used for detection of evil people in some situation and then being called evil psycopath who just want to murder and harm people for no reason or something like that but anywat i want to exaplain what i actually proposed.

I give example of war camp where demon disguised as one of the soldiers so my idea was:
1Allow some people to avoid long investigation if they go through divine lance test (they will face no danger for their life because they recive additional hit points and only first level version of cantrip will be used on them via wands and scrolls non-lethal metamagic will also be applied )
2.Those who refused to pass the test or pinged as evil during it will get full investigation of their potential demonhood

So Can you please tell where exactly i propose to kill or harm random people for no reason?

Doesn't have to be random people for this to be evil, and doesn't have to include death, just potential harm.

You violate this standard of good: "They are also good if they value protecting others from harm". And embrace this standard of Evil: "Your character has an evil alignment if they’re willing to victimize others for their own selfish gain,"

For me the best definition of good and evil is more about the intention of not committing the opposite act than anything else. But the negative intention as well as the positive one is problematic. Well, look:

If we consider that an evil character is one who commits evil, a character who made mistakes...

Most of these problems go away if you actually use the game definitions instead of bringing external religious connotations into the game.

Nothing in alignment states that you must behave in a certain way all the time or perfectly. It is simply a statement of values, and alignments can change. Got tired on helping others and not yourself? this is a move from good to neutral. Realize that hurting others to help yourself doesn't make you happy? move from evil to neutral.

In reality, most people in the pathfinder world are likely neutral as they are not committed to either of the extremes. Only extra planar creatures are really tied to an alignment, and even that isn't 100% fixed.

at 90% it creates the expectation that the GM cannot rule against the exact wording in the rules. at 85% it creates the expectation that the GM will make a judgement call.

I have not seen this be an issue in second edition, but it was rampant in PF1 and dnd 3.x

"I didn't attack, my summoned monster did"
"I just pulled the lever, the Acid attacked them"
and other such nonsense that doesn't fly in Pf2.

I've run into the exact opposite problem. Having something so tightly defined that players look for loopholes.

Yes I understand the concerns but it is cowardice on Paizo's part. It would have been possible to write reasonable rules and live with the consequences. Invisibility is not an impossible condition to deal with.

I disagree with the assertion. It was wise and bold of Paizo to explicitly empower GMs to make those calls. It makes it 100% clear to players that the GM has the right to make judgement calls, and that this is a cooperative game between GMs and players.

I don't know what motivates you to read and post of course, but as I am interested in challenging my own interpretations of the rules I'll happily read and look for arguments. And yes, you stated it above and I believe I captured it in my list of arguments.

I think you'll find most of us that respond in the rules forums are most interested in helping people understand the rules. It's a big game with a lot of moving parts and can be overwhelming for new players. The vast majority of us will listen to well reasoned arguments based on actual game text. We will also point out where a specific interpretation violates actual game text.

Many of us are GMs with a passion for running the game, and want others to succeeded. Areas where the text is very clear leaving little room for interpretation will see very little GM variance, as in treat wounds. Things where guidance is less strict, like fleeing, or how many people can attempt a task will get a wider range of interpretations.

Almost no one on the forums can really comment on why rules were written a certain way, as designers don't frequent these boards. So trying to say this rule was written for this purpose is mostly useless. What you will get is this rule allows or forbids this.

I struggle to picture a fear effect which can make a hardened warrior (or demon, or ghost, or other) choose to run away from combat which also leaves them in possession of enough faculties to make a full tactical retreat. Others may not find this strange to accept. No matter.

This isn't even hard. A level two fighter is fighting a level 1 pickpocket and suddenly realizes it's a level 14 Gylou. Yeah, they would run, in a way that avoids their AoO.

Just for historical context, pf1 had 3 levels of "fear":
shaken, frightened, and panicked.

while pf2 only has 2:
Frightened and fleeing.

mechanically shaken from pf1 is most similar to afraid
and frightened from pf1 is most similar to fleeing.

Panicked was very severe: drop everything, move in a random direction, cannot act, and cowered if cornered.

I agree with Breithauptclan. Hard no from me as well.

I would dare say a solid 10 - 20% of monsters have some form of AoO. This fits into the definition of common for me. I mean elves and dwarves are considered common at ~7% of the population, and halforcs at ~3%.

Looking at character classes, a solid 1/3 of can have some form of movement triggered reaction. Again this is the common category.

Hardly ubiquitous yes, and certainly not the the same level as PF1, but not a negligible amount.

I would agree that 3 steps is cheesy, but 1 is a running away in my book.
Now if the monsters (if intelligent) or PCs already knew a certain character didn't have an AoO then full on sprint would be in order in both cases.

Again I don't draw a distinction between fleeing (choice) and fleeing (forced).

Again for me, fleeing is about survival, not speed. Any action that acts against that survival in my mind violates the expedient clause.

I understand where you are coming from and respect your position, and give you full points for politeness in our disagreements. But as I said, I don't think either of us is going to change our position here and it boils down to two fundamental differences in philosophy: what fleeing actually means (terror versus retreat), what expedient means (speed vs safety). Happy gaming to you.

Please do.I browsed through the core rulebook but I wasn't able to find another example, but I could of course be wrong.

Try the Bestiary, It show up there all the time.

But the point is for those of us on the "you can't step at all side" the argument that you could only take one step because that makes sense doesn't hold water if you turn around and say you can't take 3. In my view, 1 step or 3 steps works out similarly in terms of "expedience". Neither is fleeing or expedient in my opinion. I can't reckon any way in which only 1 step is allowed without allowing all actions to be steps if the player chose. And because of that, I can't imagine steps being allowed at all.

For me the difference is so obvious, it's hard to explain. But I'll try.

Maybe a little background in how I run monsters will add some clarity to my perspective. I almost never run monsters that battle till TPK of the monsters. All monsters will battle until it is clear they have no chance of winning, and then will run away. (typically less than 20% remaining). They always do this by stepping away from the characters they are in melee with and then using 2 strides to move away. Taking 3 steps doesn't reduce their risk of dying, so they never would.

When I read fleeing as see running away, it means the same thing to me. You have opted not to continue fighting against (perceived) overwhelming odds and run away. You do so to preserve your own life.

Risking a potentially lethal attack from the very thing you are afraid of is going against the self preservation instinct, staying in range for another full attack is even more so.

For me, expedient means in the way that is most likely to keep them alive.

Paraphrasing your position, and correct me if I am misrepresenting it. Expedient means placing the most difference between you and one thing you fear as quickly as possible.

Another critical difference is the commonness we assign AOE. For me it is common, but not ubiquitous. My understanding of your position is uncommon to rare, possibly not even aware its a thing.

as written, I don't see anything forbidding it.
Personally, I would only allow one person to make a diplomacy check, and one to aid. I also recognize this is a judgment call, and other DMs make different calls.

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

I would allow the character to do any action that moves away from the source of fear, just as if they had chosen to abandon all allies are preserve their own lives. Dodging fires avoiding AOEs, etc.

I agree that everything that needed to be said has been said, but I still want to point out that this exact wording necessarily allows the "three actions to step" situation.

And I would disagree with this assertion. Staying in range for another full round of attacks is not what a character would do if choosing to preserve their own life, and does not meet the definition of expedient. I wouldn't allow it.

you could, and if so I might increase the limit. This would represent the another person tending the fires, handing the tools, etc.

The rules won't cover all cases, and the ambiguous rules section is there to remind us of this. This is one of the primary roles of the GM, to rule in corner cases, and use some common sense.

The question I would ask, is how many people can reasonable work on the task without getting in each others way?

for repairing a ring it might be one, for a suit or armor maybe two, for a boat maybe a dozen. Unlocking a door, one. tracking two.

These are all little more than judgement calls about what is reasonable. Hence the preface "as a gm".

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

As a GM, I would probably limit it to 2 people repair at the same time, unless the item could be repaired in parts or was very large.

Do you find any support in the rules for this ruling?

This is mostly a rule 0 call, but some guidance can be found in aid:

You try to help your ally with a task. To use this reaction, you must first prepare to help, usually by using an action during your turn. You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally.

Especially since the Search Activity doesn't, by RAW, include finding creatures anyway.

I would put hiding creatures in the other concealed hazards territory.

As breithauptclan stated.

Normally, you cannot even attempt to spot hidden creatures without using the seek action (in tactical mode) or the search activity (exploration mode).

This is functionally similar to trap finder rogue feat, except applies to hidden creatures instead of traps.

Finding some hidden things will require training of some level (trained, expert, master, or legendary) or automatically fail. This is normal in the rules. They don't really define nearby,but I typically run this as about 60feet.

technically it would round down to 0 RAW. However, I would see this as not working as intended and have it do 1 die at 1st level. Likely an oversight. I agree with Claxon on this issue.

As a GM, I would probably limit it to 2 people repair at the same time, unless the item could be repaired in parts or was very large.