Lucerious's page

Ok, a new question (which I think I know the answer to, but better safe than sorry):

So I know I can't cast spells while in Animal Form but I assume regular spells with a duration would continue to effect me if cast beforehand. I'm just curious about this particular interaction regarding Polymorph.

If I cast WIND JUMP on myself and then cast ANIMAL FORM on myself do I keep the fly speed? Can I turn myself into a flying Bear?

I feel like this should work unless there is a particular Polymprph interaction that I don't know about (which is possible).

You can use them as you stated. Nothing in the casting of Wind Jump interferes with Animal Form or any polymorph effect. The only stipulation is casting Wind Jump first which you already seem to know.

Spells with durations that do not have the polymorph trait work just fine while being under the effects of a polymorph spell.

Hopefully the Remaster will clean up the rules language regarding this.

To this I can fully agree.

Precision damage is a damage type just like energy, bleed, mental, poison, etc. The damage one does on a failure of a use of Combat Finisher is listed as the weapon type even though the amount is half what the precision damage would be. I can see why most here believe it to still be precision, but the specific wording of the ability combined with rules on resistance/immunity as well as damage types leads me to believe the failure effect doesn’t do precision damage. As the rules on page 451 of the CRB state that precision damage adds to the weapon damage but is tracked separately, then why bother adding the second line of the Combat Finisher failure effect if it isn’t meant to be different than precision? I know that doubling up on a rule happens and maybe that is the case here, but I also think it is incorrect to assume that as the reason the Combat Finisher failure rule is written as such. So if it isn’t written to restate the rule about how precision damage works a la adding to the weapon damage, then it has to be separate from precision.

I also found where it says (under the Key Terms information part of Finishers) that one could choose to take the failure effect when making a successful attack. So I ask again why do that if the damage to the finisher is still precision given the only reason I know to do that would be to avoid precision damage immunity?

Lucerious wrote:

The dedication doesn’t give spellcasting, but the feat Basic Red Mantis Magic definitely does.

That's true, but I don't see how that is relevant. Merely granting some spellcasting doesn't make an archetype a Spellcasting Archetype.

What qualifies as a spell casting archetype, if not one that allows for casting spells?

Funny thing, but in my view the fighter has some of the least interesting and necessary feats. Plus they get up to two (or three with a certain level 20 feat) free feats that can be changed out daily. Fighters have the easiest time going into an archetype without losing anything valuable to their core builds. Yet it seems many are concerned how powerful they can be with FA.

/shrug

Yet such interviews saying that you can already use helps to confirm the change. With this I will allow my rogue player to use it.

I agree. Home games can of course do whatever they want, but it helps considerably when the rules (or coming change to them) support it.

I wonder if darkvision will get a name change.

Afterall, it was (to my knowledge) WotC who coined the term when changing it from TSR's infravision, and it has long become ubiquitous to D&D fantasy creatures and characters.

Frankly, I would like to see far fewer ancestries and playable options with darkvision or whatever word it may or may not change to be.

I finally finished it.

For those who didn't follow. I had the idea of doing a poll using Google Forms putting the ideas of what several players would like to see changed in PF2. After spending a few days collecting suggestions the poll is ready!

https://forms.gle/ujdVQeVXiwYwK1G88

This poll has no concerns about balancing or even absurd requests. The idea was simply to take stock of how popular some ideas for changes some players would like to see implemented in the system.

This is a completely unofficial poll, without any involvement from Paizo. It's just something I did for fun, but obviously nothing prevents Paizo from someday looking at it, or even doing something similar. So don't expect anything from that, it's just to see how popular some ideas can be!

Thank you for putting in the time and effort to do this. I appreciate getting to add suggestions for voting, getting to vote, and getting to see how the vote tally is going. I believe this can be a very useful tool for GMs and more importantly the devs to know what the general gaming public wants. I hope you put this up on other sites like Reddit as well to expand the voter base.

Or for Giant Instinct Barbarians that happen to not be using their Giant sized weapon for a bit of time, but are using Giant's Stature.

Well as the feat is essentially just casting Enlarge, I think that was more or less a copy and paste.

I also believe that it [Giants’s Stature] was written as such to avoid a player trying to become large and no longer having an oversized weapon due to being oversized themself, and therefore no longer suffering the Clumsy 1 condition caused by using an oversized weapon. I believe it is safe to say that argument would present otherwise.

It has already been suggested so consider this a second to it, but auto-scaling of background lore should be the standard.

Canny Acumen should just increase the proficiency rank one step with a cap of master instead of waiting until level 17.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

keftiu wrote:

I do wish folks would hunt those down before diving into PF2R talk - they’re full of info!

I really wish I could get more information by "reading words" rather than "having to watch things."

Like one of the reasons I'm in this hobby and not a different one is that I process information best by "reading a thing someone has written down."

Yep. Add to that that there is inevitably a LOT of extraneous talk and it can be a pain to watch a few hours of video to get the 2 min of info you want. :P

It is also impossible to skip to the part you want without already knowing the time stamp. The streams are not a good way to get the info out there imo.

Charlie Brooks wrote:

If the owlbear does go away, I propose that Pathfinder needs a new hybrid of two awesome animals. I suggest the octopanda.

Batcat? Hogdog? Budgiebeaver? Cockatoocrocodiles? Octosharkipus? piranhaconda? Kamodokangaroo? Manbearpig?

Okay Manbearpig is real! I’m totally cereal! :D

Half-elf and half-orc being true versatile heritages, instead of a human- only option.

Frankly I can't believe this wasn't always the case, and after the release of versatile heritages has always been a house rule at my tables.

Having a half-elf or half-orc that cannot be a tiefling, dhampir, etc. is definitely odd.

I am hoping for at least one mining song. Please!

Whistle While you Work.

How is it goofy? How is an antipaladin not about being anti-paladin? The paladin came first and the antipaladin came as an opposition to the paladin. Calling them ravagers or villains or some of the other suggestions made tells me little to nothing about the class (other than it is “evil” or now “unholy”). Since there are other evil/unholy champions with their own philosophies to fulfill other concepts, why do we need to change the name of this one?

My only issue with the antipaladin is how weak I believe their mechanics to be.

I like the title antipaladin. I personally fail to see an issue, but each to their own tastes.
Is it the “anti” part? Do words like antihero, antibiotic, or antilock seem bad too? The title antipaladin at least lets me know quite clearly what the class philosophy is.

A request from one of my players: they want something extra in Ranger for Archers. They just can't go past the base fighter for archery and would like rangers to be better at it than they are.

Point-Blank Shot would be nice. It is strange to only be available to fighters and the archer archetype.

A lot of opinions in the thread seem to say that they want flavor text to be what their imagination is. What difference does the name of a feature make when the rules dictate its use? One may not like “cackle” because it didn’t have the flavor he or she seeks. However, “hymn” or “chant” or any other word would have the exact same issue because that word would not fit another’s style.

Being concerned or worried of what a GM may do based on flavor text or ability title is a problem of that table and doesn’t reflect the game or GMs as a whole. People are always going to disagree about flavor and style.

There are no TTRPG police enforcing the flavor as written. Tables have the power to “skin” things however they want as long as the mechanics work as written. Even then, the table is welcome to change those things. If your GM is that stubborn and unwilling to budge on narrative, then find a new GM or become one.

I kept reading dire corbies as dire corgis, which excited me until I realized I was misreading the comments. Although, I imagine a dire corgi as just being a normal sized dog.

It lasts until the user unfastens the clasp. It is an item bonus from a worn item. They generally last as long as the worn item is worn and invested. It is usable in exploration, encounter, and downtime modes.

Getting the free stride action is useful for everyone, but it is also not RAW that the AC goes wherever the PC wants it with the free action.

That said, I was more considering actions based on command, i.e, the two actions one gets for spending one to command.

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Bladed Scarf was already an option for rogues, you just use Unconventional Weaponry to make it count as a simple weapon for proficiency purposes. Likewise the Elven Branched Spear (another reach finesse 2h weapon)

Yup, and feat costs balances that same as nerfed flickmace needs feat. Its called cost of opportunity. With new rules there will be no cost of using Bladed Scarf by Thiefs, especially if they will make Rogues scale martial and simple at same rate, which I don't like.

So wait! Charging 2 feats for a monk to get weapon specialization and still not having access to a meteor hammer is for balance, but allowing a rogue to use one ancestry feat for a bladed scarf IS balance? Yet, you feel that if rogues had access to blades scarfs they would be OP and everyone would play them that way?

Me thinks you just wish to argue.

Lucerious wrote:

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the kurasigama is a monk weapon and is very close to a meteor hammer in design. It lacks Backswing in place of Monk, and is in the knife group instead of flail. However, it also does either slashing or bludgeoning damage instead of just bludgeoning.

Regarding crit specialization, that requires two feats for a monk to get for a weapon so by no means guaranteed or worth adding to the budget. If the concern is a fighter using MC monk in order to access weapons they already can use but with Flurry of Blows (10th level access), then I think that is a bit unfair to monks as a whole. Why limit a class due to the possibility another class may dip into the former’s feats? The delay of access to certain feats (half level) and abilities (FoB at level 10) is the balance already in place.

It's a matter of balacnce as whole system to avoid "Flickmace meta" again and doing anything that might become "meta". A Flurry of Blows with reach Hammer/Flail would become Meta as it would be just a be mechanically probably best option for action economy + DPR. Kusarigama is "knife" group so very weak crit spec (probably the worst) and becasue of that can get Reach and Trip and even has Versatile B.

Also I don't see why you wouldn't just take Kusarigama as "mechanical" weapon of choice and simply refluff it at your table that you are using Meteor Hammer, it even has Versatile B so you can deal Blunt damage with it. Unless you want that flail crit spec on top and this is where balance issue arrise.

Some rules decisions don't seem fair in separate examples but when you try to make balanced system like PF2e you have to look at system as a whole. Look how careful they were with adding D10 reach flail (Dorn-Dergar). They made it Advance Dwarf becasue it's Flail, reach and D10 damage die so it couldn't be martial as everyone would start using it as "The best 2 handed weapon". But right now its balanced as now it's question of "is one damage die increase over Meteor...

That’s a whole lot of presumptions without evidence to support. Do you have transcripts of the devs discussing this very thing? It seems what you feel is “balance” is nothing more than your interpretation

Again, two separate feats are needed to gain the critical specialization effect of weapons for monks. Two feats that could go elsewhere for other very powerful and useful abilities, and you’re suggesting the flail group is so powerful as to be limited for monks specifically. I get the game tries to focus on what the developers view as “balanced”, but I also don’t claim to know what view always is. Too often it comes off less a balance issue as much a legacy issue, or sometimes even just arbitrary without much consideration of mechanics. I’m willing to bet that if weapons like the meteor hammer and rope dart were made with the Monk trait, most players would still opt for stances.

I mean the reason for Met.Hammer is obvious: Flail crit spec, trip, backswing and reach. Being able to combine that with Flurry of Blows would make balance dent. There is a reason this is considered best reach weapon for 2 handed Fighters, especially since thanks to Trip trait you can use Knockdown with reach. Correct me if I am wrong (since I can't check it) but the only reach Monk weapon is Bo Staff? And that's the reason to keep reach in check as it's such strong trait. There is a reason why reach hammer and flails are D8 compare to Guirsame etc. being D10 reach and that's their crit spec. So imo it's just a part of weapons balance and preventing Fighters from taking Monk FA for Monastery Weapons feat and Flurry feat and still be able to attack with reach flail/hammers twice for 1 action price.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the kurasigama is a monk weapon and is very close to a meteor hammer in design. It lacks Backswing in place of Monk, and is in the knife group instead of flail. However, it also does either slashing or bludgeoning damage instead of just bludgeoning.

Regarding crit specialization, that requires two feats for a monk to get for a weapon so by no means guaranteed or worth adding to the budget. If the concern is a fighter using MC monk in order to access weapons they already can use but with Flurry of Blows (10th level access), then I think that is a bit unfair to monks as a whole. Why limit a class due to the possibility another class may dip into the former’s feats? The delay of access to certain feats (half level) and abilities (FoB at level 10) is the balance already in place.

A level 20 caster is -1 to hit relative to baseline AC compared to a level 1 caster, so it's not THAT bad at that point.

And that kind of makes sense, since monster AC is scaled for master proficiency attacks. Having legendary proficiency instead is the same as +2 potency on runes.

Phew! So at level 20 my blaster caster won’t be as far behind in accuracy. Good thing that is where most of the game is spent being played.

I’m sorry, but in my view talking about what a character is able to do at level 20 is like saying what one can do once they win the lotto. In my decades of playing TTRPGs, I have never once seen or played a character at level 20 (I truly want to do so), nor have I known anyone in real life that has. The vast majority of games either die or complete before that point. What matters are all the levels of play before then.

I really don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want FA, but if it is that big an issue for a player the answer is to just not take it. Simple and done.

A GM can adjudicate however he or she wants and if a player doesn’t want to use FA if being offered, that player isn’t owed a substitution. Maybe the GM is willing and does provide an alternative, but to expect or demand one likely means that player will cause other issues in play. That type of attitude generally falls under an entitled mentality that will become a poison in any game.

I heavily dislike EA only because it is so much better than every other offensive cantrip that it is practically required to take. The way I see it, the power and effectiveness of EA should be the baseline of all offensive cantrips and not the outlier. It doesn’t need toned down. The others need to be made better.

I’m not sure how much more powerful a meteor hammer is compared to a kurasigama. Backswing doesn’t seem that great of a trait to warrant it being not a monk weapon. The rope dart has tons of traits but is only a d4, and many of the traits are standard for a d4 martial weapon.

I cannot say how the devs place value in certain traits and abilities, but it does appear rather arbitrary at times.

As a GM, any NPC that is adventuring with the PCs as an ally will get to roll for dying. All the rest just die at 0 hp. If the party wanted to interrogate the enemy, they can always attempt to before combat or use nonlethal attacks when dropping opponents to 0 hp. I tend to run far too many creatures in a combat to have to account for dying values as well.

The idea one can Tumble Through without actually tumbling through is by pure RAW true and obviously not RAI. I agree the rules written are wonky, but I do believe it isn’t a stretch to assume a present enemy and an acrobatics check would be necessary to perform the action.

However, RAW as it is without further consideration, I do agree it can be an issue.

So with multiple feats (dedication included) one can tumble through a single enemy, which requires a check, to stride at double movement speed. I am not sure where or how this is broken.

Lucerious wrote:

I have a player who goes out of his way to interpret rules or a lack of them to mean whatever break he wants. Whenever I may say that isn’t how it works, his response is that I am making a ruling that doesn’t fit what the book says, which leads to arguments and hurt feelings. This doesn’t happen with any ruleset that is clear and precise.

I think his complaint of "that isn't what the book says" is precisely what Paizo tried to avoid by letting the book say "the GM decides this".

Which is great if that didn’t result in players thinking the GM is making arbitrary rulings. The more text that exists to support one ruling over another the better.

“The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune. A +1 weapon can have one property rune, but it could hold another if the +1 weapon potency rune were upgraded to a +2 weapon potency rune. Since the striking and resilient runes are fundamental runes, they don't count against this limit.”

CRB pg. 580

Each healing effect will be reduced by half character level. That includes HoTs as well as instant heals.

The dedication being level 4 must be a mistake, which happens rather frequently with supplement books and APs.

A couple monk stances do not require being unarmored. However, monks do not gain proficiency in armor and even with archetypes that provide training, do not go past expert in proficiency. This results in armor being a downgrade for monks regardless of stance.

I have a player who goes out of his way to interpret rules or a lack of them to mean whatever break he wants. Whenever I may say that isn’t how it works, his response is that I am making a ruling that doesn’t fit what the book says, which leads to arguments and hurt feelings. This doesn’t happen with any ruleset that is clear and precise.

The more interpretation needed, the more likely our views will differ. I find this to be a flaw and not a merit.

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 actually found this to be an issue where players then feel entitled to certain rulings and feel put out when the GM rules differently. It is always best to have clear and precise rules as often as possible. To put it on the GM is more laziness than cooperation.

All ponies will eventually become horses.

No. Ponies are not small horses, they are ponies. Foal grow up to be horses. Some may use the term “pony” colloquially to refer to a foal, but the use is incorrect.

I don’t believe so. It seems the spell itself (amount of targets) doesn’t change. The feat just allows up to 7 characters to be available targets for touch spells at a range of 30’.