Ahh, you were equating "melee attack" with "melee attack roll". Those are closely related, but not the same. The "melee" in "melee attack" is a descriptor that can apply to spell attacks as well as it can to Strikes. That's just a consequence of overloading terms (Thanks, English).
I don’t understand what is ambiguous. The only reason for Produce Flame to even have a melee option is to benefit from things like flanking.
If you don't have it already, buying the Foundry modules gets you the compilation PDF for free. It's not a discount so much as a bundled PDF with the product.
My outwit ranger is not a DPS champion, but he does manage to contribute a lot and fit into many different party configurations in the chaos that is PFS. I actually prefer playing him to my flurry ranger. Playing to outwit strengths by switch-hitting (AC bonus frees up hands/actions), identifying creatures with Monster Hunter(Recall Knowledge bonus), and Demoralizing foes (Intimidation bonus). Building off that, he carries a good array of moderate alchemical bombs. Very handy for triggering weaknesses he identifies or applying conditions like flat-footed or speed penalties from long range. No penalty for attacking in the second range increment against Prey makes lobbing bombs from far off to set up the party a lot easier. And that's just in combat. Out of combat, a +2 to Deception or Intimidate to any creature makes social skill challenges a lot easier than they are for most martial characters.
Patron theme is just one part of your patron, though. Your patron can be expressed more fully through the lessons it teaches you.
I'm not sure how well it generalizes, but I would process effects that happen when you roll a success value before effects that interact with the result of a roll.
No, that is how the rules read (and how the rules tell us to read the rules). There is a meaningful difference between the verbs "reduce" and "remove" in this game. While reducing a condition value to zero has the same effect as removing a condition, the two are not identical for triggering other rules. It's the same difference as between counteracting an effect enfeebling a character and reducing the value of enfeebled on a character. One removes the condition, the other reduces it to zero. Read the rules so that they do something, otherwise you are breaking "Rules as Written".
Dying removes the doomed condition, but does not reduce it to 0. The dead creature would still be cursed. While living, you can remove the curse from someone with a level 4 restoration. If they die, you need a higher level remove curse before you can safely raise them.
Adapting your and your party’s tactics to the reality of a combat is most of the fun of a tactical game like PF2. Doing the same Spellstrike every single round is incredibly boring.
You aren't wrong. It's just see that spellstrike is melee by default. The main problem is just how strongly the AoO can disable a Magus. I don't agree that a magus is 'disabled' against enemies with AoOs. Yes, it means adjusting your strategy, but they are still a martial class with a variety of bonuses from Arcane Cascade. Players can absolutely plan contingencies for dealing with it.
The ghost archetype has already been cited. The rules are writen in English, not COBOL, there is inherent ambiguity. There are unwritten rules, expectations of the system, and weird interactions that can all affect how the game is played. To argue that your overly literal interpretation is the only correct one is to take an appeal to ignorance to an extreme.
Your interpretation may feel “black and white” to you, but clearly it is not. Evidenced by all the people who don’t share your reading.If your reading of the rules comes out with an interpretation that is seriously broken, maybe you should adjust your reading of the rules. In fact, the Core Rulebook tells you to do so explicitly.Its not a reading. Its not debatable any more than 1+1=2. Its black and white. You seem to be stuck on the idea that a roleplaying game's rules are like computer code or something. I hate to break it to you, but all reading is interpretive. People are not reading into something that isn't there, they are using context clues like we learned in gradeschool English class.
If your reading of the rules comes out with an interpretation that is seriously broken, maybe you should adjust your reading of the rules. In fact, the Core Rulebook tells you to do so explicitly. Your interpretation may feel “black and white” to you, but clearly it is not. Evidenced by all the people who don’t share your reading.
If your reading of the rules comes out with an interpretation that is seriously broken, maybe you should adjust your reading of the rules. In fact, the Core Rulebook tells you to do so explicitly.
Medicine is not noted as a useful skill, nor is Battle Medicine a recommended feat.The Player's Guide just tells you what is useful to complete the AP, not what is useful for your party to be functional. Yeah, if Medicine isn't going to come up as part of the AP, I can't see why it would be recommended for character creation. There are other (sometimes better) ways to get by without it.
In the case of having a single d20 at a table, I would allow a character to spend a hero point to avoid rolling a second die after seeing the result of their first. I would probably extend that to allow option 2. Roll 2 dice declaring one to be the 'misfortune' die. You can spend a hero point to discard the 'misfortune' die after the fact.
A Strike action does not have an subordinate Interact action so if you want the reloading to be an Interact action then you need to have the attack be an Activity with the Strike+Interact subordinate actions. Problem is that this isn't the Strike action and thus it isn't usable in places where a Strike action normally is used and that would be very problematic for anyone using a bow. I'm sorry the rules don't hold your hand for you. It's really more work than the words are worth to explain it in detail in the book. The Strike activity can be used in all the same places that the Strike action can.
The good thing about having a Strike activity (of Reload and Strike) share the same name as the Strike single action is that you can use them interchangeably. You don't break other activities like Flurry of Blows and Hunted Shot by having both.
I think there is some confusion between Actions (the encompassing term) and single actions. While we should not treat the rules like computer code, they do use plenty of programming principles in their execution. Activities inherit from the building block single actions they contain. Some terms are overloaded with different meanings in different contexts. In the case of bows, the Strike single action is overloaded with a Strike activity that inherits the manipulate trait from its reload component.
The reload entry tells us how many actions we have to spend to reload our weapons. That's like the price at the grocery store to buy an apple. Even if that price is $0, you still took an apple, which has the manipulate trait.
No, you are not your own ally. Champions are supposed to be selfless.
Do you have a cleric or druid in your party that could cast gentle repose? That would keep raise dead as an option. You probably considered the reincarnate ritual already. But it is something your characters could attempt if you gain access to it. As for paying for resurrect, I wouldn't. I would make you convince some powerful people that you are useful and then charge you a favor or two. Character death is much more interesting as a roleplaying opportunity than a resource sink.
The contrast needs to be addressed, but I prefer a clear delineation between what is spoiler and what isn’t. It makes a huge difference when you include spoilers mid-post. No more guessing where spoilered text ends.
Yeah, if it were possible to completely replace the cold damage with silver, why would you need to write it that way? Just say it does silver damage.
Looks like something broke with this post. Probably a bad interaction between italics and dice rolling. You could flag for a Markup/display problem, but my guess is that it will clear up on your next page.
I like to give bonus feats (or feat adjacent abilities like relic powers) as adventure awards. So, I prefer to GM without Free Archetype otherwise it gets to be just a little too much.
Anyway, they can just wish for Hao Jin to be returned and not taken again. I should hope that your players are more genre savvy than that. Plus, the Celestial Dragon's wishes come at a price. Retrieving Hao Jin may take an order of magnitude more Soul Energy than simply piercing the demiplane. So it looks like if they fail that check, they're kind of stuck unless they just sit there and roll over and over again (or I guess get back on the chariot and go and try and find someone else to decode it). They don't necessarily need to be stuck. The landmarks are all visible from the air if they are willing to go in blind. Any details they miss from the statues can be filled in by Abbot Tsujon at the monastery.
Second note: I'd be using the Skill Feat 'Additional Lore' to get architecture lore if allowed, as that lets you get any lore skill. Additional Lore to pick up Archaeology Lore is absolutely allowed. You may have to make a case to your GM for when it is applicable, but most people are fairly generous with lores (and the FAQ referenced above supports that).
False Life is always a nice little bonus.
This is probably the weakest thing you could possibly do with the alchemist. At range, you'll never match a real martial at single target damage, pitiful splash damage is worthless considering that full caster AoE damage is bad … You don’t really know what you’re talking about, do you?
I agree with this, mostly because all the different rules for recalling knowledge are all over the place. The rules in the skills chapter don't, like, list DCs or anything. I found them later in the GM chapter, which is weird to me. I feel like it's okay for players to generally know how difficult something is, so why put that in the back of the book?This speaks to my greatest complaint about Pathfinder 2E — the Core Rulebook is an organizational disaster. I can’t think of other examples off the top of my head, but in numerous unrelated instances we’ve had to flip all over the book to gather up the rules on a given topic. Archives of Nethys has helped with this, but it’s a serious problem with the book. When they told us it was a reference book, they weren't exaggerating.
The problem with spotting hazards is that they can also be gated behind skill proficiency levels. You can't "notice it isn't a regular mirror" unless you are a master in stealth, for example. You need master Perception, not master in Stealth to spot the mirror.
I believe the intended methodology for dealing with Hazards is supposed to be to spot them and deal with them before they trigger, rather than trying to facetank them. The big problem is players insisting on facetanking hazards. That is always the most difficult/deadly option. Running away, regrouping, waiting it out, or coming up with a better plan are all ways to survive hazards.
I know a couple of players I run with have gotten really annoyed at NPC casters for similar reasons. Enemy mage throwing out spell attacks that are as accurate as a fighter with a magic weapon rather. Yeah, players often have to use their hero points to get the same chance of success.
Ye could patch that with giving gunslinger as free archetype variant rule, but yeah, I do think idea of "gunslinger's gunless version" is really valid idea. (I personally kinda liked idea of gunslinger to be about all reload weapons so it could also be about sling xD) I agree, a Wild West game is a great opportunity for a fixed archetype-style game.
I seem to remember that several "uncomon" errors were fixed in PDF without an actual reprint of the book in question, though. Typos are not at all the same as errata.
|
Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 3,513 posts (7,655 including aliases). 7 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 77 Organized Play characters. 18 aliases. 
