KraevenX's page

Because I don't need to. Flavor text is what it is, and has no bearing on what mechanically happens. You retry the check using the other selected skill as a Reaction. This is what happens mechanically. It doesn't otherwise change the rules for Recall Knowledge, which requires using a topic related to the skill, and it doesn't let you circumvent obvious restrictions set forth by the activity. If it did, it would actually say that it does this mechanically, as this is a significant change in Recall Knowledge mechanics, and it does not say this mechanically. Adding in bits from flavor text does nothing to change the ability mechanically.

You also pointed out the flaw in your own argument: In Recall Knowledge, the activity says it has to be a related skill twice within its write-up, both in the flavor text (which you claim is relevant to discern how an ability works), and in the mechanical write-up for trying to use a different knowledge check (which is relevant since that's a key mechanic for KCC to function). So then the question becomes: At what point is Basket Weaving relevant in identifying Demons and their abilities? It's obvious that a skill that's not relevant means you don't glean any information, which means you can't possibly get any result higher than a Failure, nor any result lower than a Failure, because there's no information to glean in regards to that particular skill.

The funny thing is, I actually brought that up as a counterargument, saying that the chosen Lore skill (Basket Weaving) isn't relevant to identifying the creature, so using it for KCC does nothing helpful, but it was dismissed because of flavor text somehow taking precedent over it. Because "unlikely sources" means you can take the ramblings of some homeless Basket Weaver as gospel, apply it to your Lore skill, and say that it's accurate and relevant to identifying the creature because [reasons]. KCC is already a niche feat, only a step above Armor Assist, so the idea that it's not relevant enough doesn't really matter when other niche feats already exist.

But hey, if everyone takes Additional Lore (Basket Weaving), and then takes KCC 3 times, they can use Basket Weaving Lore to identify everything in the game at Legendary proficiency! Oh, and you can just take Dubious Knowledge too, so even if you fail twice (both the original and the KCC check), you can still get 2 relevant pieces of information automatically! Brilliant!

Since characters don't even get enough Legendary Proficiency boosts to match the capacity to be Legendary in 6 Recall Knowledge skills (not including Investigators or Rogues here), that obviously falls under TGTBT.

You can't take a feat multiple times unless the feat states you can. If you think that my interpretation of the feat would break the game this should abate that fear.

Flavor can matter when determining the intent of the writer. The name of the feat and the flavor text suggest that Cognitive crossover relates the two skills, making them interchangeable. All good if you don't want to discuss RAI and just RAW but I'm just curious on what you thought was the intent at the time of writing.

KCC does not state that you take the Recall Knowledge action again. It states you re-attempt the triggering check (which is RK). Only the Recall Knowledge action states in its body (not even in a Requirements field) that the skill must be related. When you re-attempt a check, are you supposed to re-evaluated the check and determine whether it relates or adjust the DC? What relates two things? Could the DM say that because you have Cognitive Crossover the skills are interchangeable in the topics they relate to?

Just shooting the s*!! because I'm really just arguing about intent at this point. I agree that the relates text would mean that you could violate the body of RK with the other skill but does KCC relate them? Relates is not a rigorously defined game term so I don't think the writer would've wanted to write that into KCC.

Show me a GM that will make Basket Weaving Lore relevant to identifying the weaknesses and abilities of a creature that is not an Animated Basket, and I will make sure to blacklist them with the label "insane" attached to it.

KCC isn't supposed to be a workaround of intended rules, it's supposed to let you Recall Knowledge about a subject with a different skill if you failed a Recall Knowledge check the first time as a Reaction. That's it. It doesn't let you circumvent the means of which you can acquire such information outside of what it says it does. It doesn't make Basket Weaving Lore give useful information against a Dragon, even if you critically succeed, because a Dragon has nothing to do with Basket Weaving.

You still haven't engaged in what the flavor text implies. I also don't understand why you are saying a crit success changes nothing. Wouldn't you just adjust the DC of the skill check to make a crit success impossible if it is unrelated? Like it says in RK. You are just repeating that something is not intended to work in a certain way but not actually presenting a counter-argument to what Squiggit and I are saying

From the text of Recall Knowledge:

You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. The GM determines the DCs for such checks and which skills apply.

Critical Success You recall the knowledge accurately and gain additional information or context.
Success You recall the knowledge accurately or gain a useful clue about your current situation.
Critical Failure You recall incorrect information or gain an erroneous or misleading clue.

The following skills can be used to Recall Knowledge, getting information about the listed topics. In some cases, you can get the GM's permission to use a different but related skill, usually against a higher DC than normal.

Wouldn't you instead appeal that the DM should not allow the check to happen in the first place? If you want to make the argument that if KCC triggers but the reroll skill is completely unrelated that you aren't allowed to make the check, then you can. That still doesn't address the flavor of the feat and also doesn't address why this feat exists - because it's kinda terrible if you choose your interpretation. In addition, the text of the feat simply says you You immediately reattempt the triggering check using the other chosen skill. so I don't even know if the DM is supposed to block the RK from happening, and I think the only recourse would be to increase the DC of the check massively. Regardless, I don't think that was the intention for the feat when it was written.

Have you ever had someone talking to you and then after you're just like "Wait what did you say again?" Imagine that with reading, where you read something and then literally forgot what you just read without realizing it.

I wasn't trying to gain sympathy. At first I was just trying to be cheeky as I saw it as not really that important to the discussion at hand, not literally saying I didn't read it. Then you decided to look for a win in a thread where everyone has been saying your theory was wrong (which it is btw), and I, now a bit annoyed, was trying to explained in a sarcastic way that sometimes people misread things for reasons that you may not fully understand.

I didn't maliciously misread things, and if I had noticed that I misread I wouldn't have posted it because it doesn't contribute to the discussion. There's really no reason for you to be so upset about that post. Just focus on the main thread and stop trying to bully someone for making a simple mistake.

Typically when people misread or misinterpret posts they offer an apology and then actually answer the post as it was written. You did neither of those things in your responses. You say you wanted to be cheeky but it came off very know it all and you did not really ever make attempts to amend that. You can say that I'm "trying to win" or whatever but I'm pointing out behavior that I think is in poor form. I'm glad that you are now actually engaging with the discussion at least.

On the topic of whether my "theory" is wrong or not. It is not a theory. I understand that this does not work under RAW. I am trying to determine how other people treat this very small semantic distinction and whether these could be reconciled and changed. Again, my apologies if you feel like I'm criticizing you for something out of your control. That was not my intent. I was trying to point out that you both of your first responses came off know it all and at no point did you try to fix that. We can leave this conversation here as I don't think we'll make any headway in convincing each other of who is in the "wrong".

KraevenX wrote:

Cordell Kintner wrote:

KraevenX wrote:

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Do you have two reactions to even use both reactions?

The answer is no, you don't.

Read the 2nd last line of my post again.

I didn't even read it the first time, obviously.

That was kind of the point. You should read a post before responding to it so quickly. I should've made that more clear.

I will tell my dyslexia that next time.

You literally said you didn't read it and nothing else. You didn't say you misread or misinterpreted. If you are looking for sympathy for making a smart ass remark you are not getting it.

So I have a question for those that say Recognize a spell doesn't work with KCC. Let's suppose you're right because it doesn't explicitly say it's a Recall Knowledge check.

However, identify a spell does. So on your turn you spend an action to Identify a Spell, you can use KCC right?

So what's the difference between Identify a Spell and Recognize a spell?
To me the only substantial difference is that recognize a spell can be done as a reaction, meaning you don't have to wait until your turn to identify it and you can use an action type other than your 3 main actions for a turn. That's what the benefit/difference is to me.

It's not as though Recognize a Spell is something anyone can do. It does actually require you to invest in a Skill feat.

I understand the argument you are making here. Semantically speaking these two things aren't meaningfully different. I also agree that the feat investment that Recognize Spell represents means that it is not upsetting game balance if you were to treat it as Recall Knowledge. Especially given that Recognize Spell only provides a significant bonus on a critical success.

The best write up I’ve read so far:

—-
...

That's a good writeup and the best way to represent the argument for allowing the bonuses to apply to the attack roll. I understand how both stances make their arguments for RAW. What I'm really curious about is what RAI was when writing Spellstrike. Considering this question from a legacy of play standpoint would imply that it was RAI for Spellstrike to experience those same bonuses.

The entire feat is very suspect. What kind of attack roll are you even making with the beam? A ranged attack? An unarmed attack? What determines your proficiency? Edit: NVM found it https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1724

It is absolutely an oversight on the writer's part that the background provides a feat that does not work at level 1. Any DM with half a brain will rule that you can deal 1d6 minimum, given that you can have access to it at level 1.

Squiggit wrote:

You're right that Recognize isn't Recall Knowledge, but in that case KCC is irrelevant because it never triggers in the first place.

But the fact that it's an Occult related ability doesn't matter, letting you roll a different skill is the whole point of KCC. Your second skill could be Basket Weaving Lore for all it matters.

It does, though, because if you didn't choose Occult as one of your two abilities for the feat, you couldn't use the feat with it. Just as well, I wouldn't find a GM being able to give any relevant information even with a Critical Success if you substituted Basket Weaving Lore for it outside of "This isn't Basket Weaving."

What do you think that the line "an agile mind can glean clues leading to the truth, even from the most unlikely of sources." means if it isn't an indication that the rerolling skill does not need to be related to the check or original skill? If you want to call that flavor text we can put it aside and address only the mechanics text which states "You immediately reattempt the triggering check using the other chosen skill." Do you think that the rerolling skill changes the DC or nature of the Recall Knowledge check? There should be no difference regardless between a critical success for the original skill and the reroll skill as they are both crit successes. If you want it not to work with an "irrelevant" skill then you adjust the DC upwards according to the "Alternative Skills" section for Recall Knowledge. The point of KCC is that it is a "cheat" feat that allows you to bend the more general rules regarding Recall Knowledge. If it worked the way you say it does, why would it not say it works that way? There are a number of feats which state that the GM ultimately determines what the outcome may be or if something is relevant. KCC does not state this.

For me, I'm trying to understand what the difference between Identifying a Spell and Recognize a spell is. Because Identifying a spell is explicitly a Recall Knowledge check.

Quote:

Sometimes you need to identify a spell, especially if its effects are not obvious right away. If you notice a spell being cast, and you have prepared that spell or have it in your repertoire, you automatically know what the spell is, including the level to which it is heightened.

If you want to identify a spell but don’t have it prepared or in your repertoire, you must spend an action on your turn to attempt to identify it using Recall Knowledge. You typically notice a spell being cast by seeing its visual manifestations or hearing its verbal casting components. Identifying long-lasting spells that are already in place requires using Identify Magic instead of Recall Knowledge because you don’t have the advantage of watching the spell being cast.

Actually....reading again I'm realizing that Identify a Spell is automatic if prepared or in your repertoire, but if not you must spend an action on your turn.

While Recognize Spell is a feat, that provides an ability to do it as a reaction and calls out that you "identify" the spell.

Quote:

Recognize Spell
...
Prerequisites trained in Arcana, Nature, Occultism, or Religion
Trigger A creature within line of sight casts a spell that you don’t have prepared or in your spell repertoire, or a trap or similar object casts such a spell. You must be aware of the casting.
If you are trained in the appropriate skill for the spell’s tradition and it’s a common spell of 2nd level or lower, you automatically identify it (you still roll to attempt to get a critical success, but can’t get a worse result than success). The highest level of spell you automatically identify increases to 4 if you’re an expert, 6 if you’re a master, and 10 if you’re legendary. The GM rolls a secret Arcana, Nature,

...

You took the words right out of my mouth! The verbage of Identify is what really made me question why Recognize Spell was written as just a secret check when there are rules in the system already for IDing magic when its cast in your presence. It just feels like a slight design oversight if anything.

Also I ended up finding that video SuperBidi was referencing here it is: Link
Having watched the clip a bit I understand why SuperBidi argues that it is RAI to adjust the DC when using a new skill with KCC or even just saying its impossible for a connection to be drawn between the skills and applied to the Recall Knowledge check. That being the case - I have no idea why it was written the way it was, even without the flavor text. Why would a line not be included in the feat suggesting to the GM that they can alter the difficulty of the check if the new isn't as relevant or even just not letting them make the check with the new skill? Considering that a number of feats do include a line highlighting GM fiat for accepting the use of the feat. If you acknowledge the flavor text as well it really looks like the spirit of KCC was to get advantage on Recall Knowledge checks between two potentially unrelated skills. Seems a rewrite of the feat would make sense if the clip represents RAI.

Oh I see. KCC isn't about "I chose wrong, choose again". It's "I'm going to make this Religion Check using Basket Weaving Lore, but its going to pretend like it's still a Religion Check." That is way better.

But even so, the simplest resolution here is that Recognize Spell does not mechanically include a Recall Knowledge check. The RAW doesn't say it is, and the choice of skill is made for you. There is no reason to assume it does other than personal projection.

- Jee

Yeah this is on point. The main reason I made this post was because I was finding it hard to reconcile that Identifying a spell on your turn is a single action to Recall Knowledge but Recognize Spell isn't when the basic premise behind both is that you are identifying a spell that you see/saw.

Thanks for the response Eoran. The reason I made this thread was because I was reading the Paizo FAQ and they recommended that rules questions be posted in this forum and I'm not certain if there are any other ways to look for dev responses. Is there anyway to suggest something be included in Errata or otherwise signal boost it? Again, I want to use the best most official channels for this kind of thing. I don't want to mess up the forums I just love this game and I want to understand how best to run it/interpret it.

That being said - how do you run it? RAW or RAI aside what do you think is best? I'm just curious.

I just checked your profile and didn't even realize you were a contributor to those threads! Haha, guess that answers my question.

KraevenX wrote:

while the debate has been heated the result of the discussion have been inconclusive.

I expect that this discussion on it will be equally inconclusive considering that the relevant rules text has not changed.

KraevenX wrote:

I am praying to the Pathfinder Gods that we can receive a developer response to put this burning question to rest.

Spring errata should be coming out at some point in the next three months. That is where such developer response should be given - not necessarily in this thread.

Thanks for the response Eoran. The reason I made this thread was because I was reading the Paizo FAQ and they recommended that rules questions be posted in this forum and I'm not certain if there are any other ways to look for dev responses. Is there anyway to suggest something be included in Errata or otherwise signal boost it? Again, I want to use the best most official channels for this kind of thing. I don't want to mess up the forums I just love this game and I want to understand how best to run it/interpret it.

That being said - how do you run it? RAW or RAI aside what do you think is best? I'm just curious.

The question is simple. Does the +1 circumstance bonus to hit a target wearing metal from Shocking Grasp apply to the attack roll for Spellstrike?

There have been a couple of threads about this topic in the past and while the debate has been heated the result of the discussion have been inconclusive.

Thread 1
Thread 2
And a search of the Paizo forums reveals a similar questions have been asked a ton of times for first edition, funnily enough.

My RAW interpretation is that the bonus doesn't apply. That being the case, I think that there is a possibility that RAI this functions the way it did in First Edition. I personally think its much cooler if the strike is altered by the spell you cast and that bonuses that would apply to the spell attack roll are also applied to the weapon attack roll and I don't believe it would necessarily upset game balance.

The same basic question can be asked for the interaction between Spellstrike and Phase Bolt. Does the strike experience reduced AC bonuses from shields/cover?

I am praying to the Pathfinder Gods that we can receive a developer response to put this burning question to rest.

KraevenX wrote:

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Do you have two reactions to even use both reactions?

The answer is no, you don't.

Read the 2nd last line of my post again.

I didn't even read it the first time, obviously.

That was kind of the point. You should read a post before responding to it so quickly. I should've made that more clear.

You're right that Recognize isn't Recall Knowledge, but in that case KCC is irrelevant because it never triggers in the first place.

But the fact that it's an Occult related ability doesn't matter, letting you roll a different skill is the whole point of KCC. Your second skill could be Basket Weaving Lore for all it matters.

I agree. If it were the case that KCC was Recall Knowledge this is how it should go down. Though I do think that Darksol correctly determined that you would still need to be trained in the tradition's skill to not fail the Recognize Spell, as "If you’re not trained in the skill, you can’t get a result better than failure." After that it's just about re-attempting the check with KCC.

Do you have two reactions to even use both reactions?

The answer is no, you don't.

Read the 2nd last line of my post again.

The text of Recognize Spell states

The GM rolls a secret Arcana, Nature, Occultism, or Religion check, whichever corresponds to the tradition of the spell being cast. If you’re not trained in the skill, you can’t get a result better than failure.

The only says that it is a check with the tradition's relevant skill. It does not call it a Recall Knowledge check.

The trigger for Kreighton's Cognitive Crossover states

You gain no information from a Recall Knowledge check (usually because you failed the secret check) using one of the two skills you chose for this feat.

It seems by RAW that Cognitive Crossover will not help you reroll the check. Though it does seem that the spirit of Recognize Spell is that you are recalling knowledge regarding the tradition's spells. That being the case, how does everyone run it? If I were the DM I would rule that they do work with one another because it "makes sense".

If anyone notices that both these feats are reactions - know that you can take Quick Regonition to Recognize Spell once as a free action.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I feel like this exists mostly so peacock stance users have an option for fuse stance and while they're compatible, they don't really synergize.

As it stands, it's equivalent to reach for the first attack and you have to be dex based. You can pick up range increases from other classes but for level 14 that's weak.
There's also no follow up, which is a shame because you're including flying swords but not surfing on them.

YES. I have that fantasy too. Let me use an activity to throw the sword and ride on it...

It seems to be the general sentiment that the "can" keyword here is really about giving you the ability to make thrown ranged attacks within your range increment. I'm fairly confident now that Paizo would've explicitly stated that the second target must be different from the previous target to make the second attack if they wanted it to function that way. Additionally, if that were the case the stance would become very weak against a very low number of enemies.

Having clarified question 1, do you think the stance is fine as is? Or does anyone think that it could use adjustment for a 14th level feat? I love the fantasy that this stance/thrown weapon fighting sells but feel like it doesn't get as much love as other styles.

That is wrong. They are ranged weapons when thrown.

That being said, monk has plenty of tricks that don't work with Flurry of Blows. Flurry is a good tool they get off the bat, but I don't think "their core feature" is quite accurate.

Do you have any thoughts regarding question 1? Just curious.

What would you call their core feature, if any?

You are absolutely right that Flurry doesn't work with some tricks the monk has, but it does work with a lot of them. If you have an action free and you haven't flourished it's very efficient. In fact, the efficiency means you can use it with other tricks. Things like trip/grapple/shove or feint and demoralize are so readily available because of the action economy that Flurry allows, which is a core strength of the monk. That doesn't mean it's the only attack action that a monk will ever use but for a lot of monks it will be the standard way of attacking. I don't think calling it a core feature is too far off base.

If I recall correctly, melee weapons that are thrown are still melee weapons. They're making ranged attacks, but that doesn't make them ranged weapons. I might be getting my wires crossed, though. I dont' work with thrown much.

The text for the Thrown trait states this:

You can throw this weapon as a ranged attack, and it is a ranged weapon when thrown.

So unfortunately it does count as a ranged attack made with a ranged weapon.

Hi everyone. I have two questions regarding the Whirling Blade Stance feat.

Once you've made a thrown Strike with such a weapon, you can use the precision of your throw to make additional strikes with it, even from a distance. Start from the space of the previous Strike's target to determine the range increment and whether the new target has cover. At the end of your turn, the thrown weapon flies directly back to you in a straight line. If a solid barrier blocks its path, it falls to the ground after hitting the barrier.

1. Regarding the bolded part: Do the additional strikes have to be against a new target? Or is this speech relative to the term "previous". To be absolutely clear, can you repeatedly attack the same target on your turn using this ranged attack?

2. When you throw a weapon, it becomes a ranged weapon and the stipulation of monastic weaponry is that you can Flurry of Blows with a melee monk weapon. Meaning that you cannot Flurry with the ranged attacks provided by the stance. Is this intended? This makes the stance not work with the monk's core feature and it feels like there is a disconnect between this feature and the rest of the class. This is without considering the fact that this is a level 14 feature.

Do you think the feat is too weak and should be changed? Or do you think it's fine as is?