Lucerious's page

Lucerious wrote:

Hmm. So CRB pg592 says

“You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.”

And CRB pg597 says
“To cast a spell from a wand, it must be on your spell list. Because you’re the one casting the spell, use your spell attack roll and spell DC. The spell is of your tradition.”

It seems to me that the Basic Red Mantis Magic feat covers both of these requirements.

Yes it does but you are just reading part of a rule and ignoring the full context. This is the designers not wanting to re-state rules when they add new layers to it, it can be annoying at times but it is understandable seeing as the book is long enough as it is.

The rules for activating an item is placed early in chapter 11 because it covers all kinds of items that needs to be activated (some that cast spells and some that does not).
The rules you quoted is from later on in chapter 11 in the details of those specific kinds of items. And thus they only add the additional requirements/rules that exists for those items, they don't re-state the general rules because you are expected to already know those and...

I just read through chapter 11 and didn’t see anything indicating a conflict to what the rule I posted says. The feat gives the Cast a Spell activity which is the main requirement listed to use items that cast a spell. Perhaps you can show me specifically where the rule is.

At this point, I can see this will be another going around in circles debate. Without any errata or specific mentions from the devs, I believe this is an impasse as I can see (as I above have stated) why some would believe it is still precision. I don’t and have already said why.

Lucerious wrote:

I disagree. There would be absolutely no point to the feature without some type of payoff.

A pointless feature makes no implications about damage types. The Finisher trait and Press trait share common language. Some of them have failure effects and both traits state you can choose the failure option if you got a success. This is an example of a general rule that has been attached to each relevant trait. A player is allowed to do this. This is effective future proofing. We do not need a preconceived situation where failure is preferable, we have a rule stating it is an option if we want it. Nothing about this option implies or requires that the failure effect be desirable in every situation.

Okay. So why doesn’t any other class have the ability to do half (actually even less given the initial weapon damage isn’t applied either) damage by choice upon a successful attack? There would be no point to it at all unless there was some kind of benefit. It also says the damage is the weapon type in the description of the ability.

I also put more faith into the designers efforts than to assume they would put a useless ability forward just to add more words to a description. To claim future proofing seems more a cop-out as there hasn’t been any new feats or features added to swashbucklers since inception.

Lucerious wrote:

Precision damage is a damage type just like energy, bleed, mental, poison, etc.

That's demonstrably false.

Unlike all the other types of damage you mentioned, by RAW Precision damage has no type of its own but takes the type it is added to.

I've even linked the raw text above.

So, by definition, it is NOT "like the other types of damage".

There is no "just precision damage" like there is "just slashing damage".

Then explain CRB pg.451 that lists out the different damage types and lists precision as it’s own category.

Lucerious wrote:

then why bother adding the second line of the Combat Finisher failure effect if it isn’t meant to be different than precision?

So you know what type the damage is?

The weapon damage as the feature states.

Lucerious wrote:

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?

A course of action being an objectively bad idea has little bearing on how to interpret damage types. This is a complex game. The ability to make decisions with good and bad consequences is vital. If all my choices invariably result in "win" I really do not have much choice at all. Players are allowed to select the failure result if they score a success. This feature does not imply any sort of qualitative judgement. It does not claim the failure effect has to be useful or even relevant.

I disagree. There would be absolutely no point to the feature without some type of payoff.

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.

Hmm. So CRB pg592 says
“You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.”

And CRB pg597 says
“To cast a spell from a wand, it must be on your spell list. Because you’re the one casting the spell, use your spell attack roll and spell DC. The spell is of your tradition.”

It seems to me that the Basic Red Mantis Magic feat covers both of these requirements.

But we do agree that if a player takes the Basic Red Mantis Magic feat the character is now able to use wands and staves, yes? If so, then it seems rather pedantic on if the archetype as a whole is considered a spell casting archetype. Or is there also an argument against that as well?

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?

Voluntary failure has nothing to do with it.

That I will agree. I was remembering (maybe incorrectly) that it was stated in a thread, errata, or somewhere that voluntarily failing was an option. Maybe it was a different ability.

Anyway, I will go back to the other post I made that the damage isn’t specifically precision on a failure. The second sentence would be unnecessary otherwise.

However, I will concede that my point on Eternal Confidence is irrelevant.

Lucerious wrote:

Yeah, I am aware. I’m a bit confused by your reply.

Probably because that's not what you said here:

Quote:

Eternal Confidence which allows the character to just take the failure effect in lieu of a successful attack.

Which is wrong and not what Eternal Confidence does.

Eternal Confidence has nothing to do with the OP's question anyways. It would work the same regardless of what damage type Confident Finisher does.

On the subject of clarifications:

Quote:

“Failure You deal half your precise strike damage to the target. This damage type is that of the weapon or unarmed attack you used for the Strike.”

The second sentence notes that the damage is not precision but weapon damage.

The bolded part is slightly incorrect, because precision damage is weapon damage by default anyways.

It is what I said, at least as to what I was referring when I said it. Also, what would be the point of taking the failure effect instead of a successful effect if it didn’t remove the “precision” part?

Lucerious wrote:

“Failure You deal half your precise strike damage to the target. This damage type is that of the weapon or unarmed attack you used for the Strike.”

The second sentence notes that the damage is not precision but weapon damage. This is important due to the feature at level 19 Eternal Confidence which allows the character to just take the failure effect in lieu of a successful attack. The only point to that I can see is specifically to get damage through when the target is immune to precision damage.

You misunderstood Eternal Confidence. It allows you to take the failure effect of Confident Finisher instead of the failure effect from your Finisher (which is certainly none).

Yeah, I am aware. I’m a bit confused by your reply. Wasn’t the point of this thread about if the damage from a failure of Combat Finisher is precision? My comment was to indicate that it is not and was using another ability to further confirm that.

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?

pauljathome wrote:

"You deal half your precise strike damage to the target"

Indeed. Don't look at only half of the rule and forget about the other half.

That second half overrides the damage type of Precise Strike.

Correct. The first sentence tells us how much damage is done. The second tells us what type of damage it is.

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

“Failure You deal half your precise strike damage to the target. This damage type is that of the weapon or unarmed attack you used for the Strike.”

The second sentence notes that the damage is not precision but weapon damage. This is important due to the feature at level 19 Eternal Confidence which allows the character to just take the failure effect in lieu of a successful attack. The only point to that I can see is specifically to get damage through when the target is immune to precision damage.

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 am pretty sure the answer is yes, but I wish to ask others here more familiar with the rules. Does the Dazzle condition the bird animal companion causes as part of it’s support benefit allow characters to hide from the affected target?

Lucerious wrote:

and no longer having an oversized weapon due to being oversized themself

Equipment grows with you. Otherwise the now large barbarian would lose part of their damage bonus.

Nethys wrote:

Your equipment grows with you... When wielding such a weapon in combat, increase your additional damage from Rage from 2 to 6

Yes, but what if the character dropped their weapon before going big and then picked it back up? I do think the added Clumsy 1 condition helps to prevent those shenanigans.

The spell Contingency itself is the 10 minute cast not the spell being the contingent part. With that, it seems to be a nonissue casting the spell being attached coming from a wand or staff.

I also don’t see any rule issue that precludes using the Trick Magic Item feat for the contingent spell.

However, casting the spell Contingency itself may not be allowable since Trick Magic Item is an action performed before the casting of the spell. Since a success allows using the device for the remainder of the turn, it doesn’t seem one can use it to cast a 10 minute spell.

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.

Quote:

If you've learned a signature spell at a higher level than its minimum, you can also cast all its lower-level versions without learning those separately.

So a character can learn silence as a signature spell at 4th level without learn silent spell as a 2nd level spell ?

Correct.

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

Chinchillanaconda
Capybaramoose
Orcaduck
Rabbitraptor
And of course the famous Liger

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

I'm half-elf, half-duskwalker...

How….how are you half-duskwalker? O.o

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.

Squiggit wrote:

Is there any actual guidance for using Lore skills in place of other actions?

I agree with the suggestions here but I was doing some digging trying to see if I could find some other references and I can only seem to find mentions of Recall Knowledge and Earn Income as far as applicable uses of Lore. Is there something I've missed that goes over broader uses of those skills?

There are mentions of using Lore skills for piloting vehicles: Sailing Lore, Driving Lore, Piloting Lore, Warfare Lore, Engineering Lore and Driving Lore are possible lores used for Piloting Checks.

I require those lore skills for piloting vehicles with the exception of a horse drawn carriage allowing it to be done via the nature skill (command and animal).

Lucerious wrote:

How did the player want to cheat at cards? Make that person describe what the act of cheating means then apply the most appropriate skill. Was the player palming cards to have that “ace under a sleeve”? Was the player marking cards to know what everyone else had? Was the player disguising/ hiding their chips to get people to think the player had fewer chips to entice different betting? Was the player using a mechanic grip while getting a turn to deal the cards and directly affecting the hands? Was the player collaborating with another player to get the rest of the table to over bet bad hands? Was the player hypnotizing other players to move all-in and then fold?

All of these could require a different skill to do.

When I asked "how do you want to do this?", they wanted to do a riffle-shuffle, pick out a full house of Aces over kings, and place those cards in the 4th slot of the deal order. So that when they dealt the cards, they would naturally get that hand on the rotation.

This seemed like a series of card palms to me, where they would, in essence, removing several cards and placing them back in.

Hence why I went for Thievery initially.

Your judgment seems reasonable to me given the method they chose.

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

Whistle While you Work.

The Redeemer and Liberator are game specific titles that didn’t exist as classes until this edition. The Paladin is iconic and existed well before it appeared in any TTRPG. To have a class be the antithesis to the paladin is interesting as well as playing the antipaladin as something other than that. I would also say that being the exact opposite alignment is mechanically in opposition.

That said, flavor is dictated by the table regardless of a name. I currently play a monk that isn’t flavored as such. He is a warrior who doesn’t like armor because it chafes so learned how to avoid attacks by being evasive. I also had a Dhampir monk that used the monk mechanics to demonstrate vampiric ability from another system. Eg. Flurry of Blows and Ki Rush operated like celerity, while Mountain Stance and high constitution acted as fortitude (resilience now).

Anyway, my only point is that though some of the posters here don’t like the title Antipaladin, there are still others that do and those folks deserve consideration too.

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.

How did the player want to cheat at cards? Make that person describe what the act of cheating means then apply the most appropriate skill. Was the player palming cards to have that “ace under a sleeve”? Was the player marking cards to know what everyone else had? Was the player disguising/ hiding their chips to get people to think the player had fewer chips to entice different betting? Was the player using a mechanic grip while getting a turn to deal the cards and directly affecting the hands? Was the player collaborating with another player to get the rest of the table to over bet bad hands? Was the player hypnotizing other players to move all-in and then fold?

All of these could require a different skill to do.

I am trying to hold judgment until the new material is released. However, as a dragon lover, I am not a fan of new additions. I would rather a focus on individuals with personalities and goals than new categories of dragons that have predetermined behaviors based on their “type”.

I tend to fall into the boat of improving existing material over just adding more.

I’m pretty much on board with every bullet point. I would add either better accuracy with cantrips or higher base damage except for EA.

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.

breithauptclan wrote:

So character level 2 = spell level 1 = 1d4 + modifier.

And won't it be nice when we are all using 'spell rank' instead of having to make the distinction between character level and spell level?

Not that I am against the change to terms, but for the last 40+ years there has been no issue with calling them spell levels. I think this is more a new generation thing.

Furry-hooters or the less fun Tytoursas.

That’s it! I am now obsessed with the idea that I must have dire corgis in my world.

Really? How else do you describe the text "When you adjust the cloak’s clasp (an Interact action), the cloak transforms to match the environment around you and muffles your sounds, granting you a +1 item bonus to Stealth checks." if not as an activation? It describes the action required and the result. It certainly reads that you don't get a stealth bonus until you spend an interact action to start that. If it just requires being worn, that sentence makes no sense and is in conflict. Either it just needs to be worn while invested, or it needs an additional interact action to adjust the clasp.

The “activation” ability is listed last in the description which allows the user to become invisible as the 2nd level spell. The interact action to apply the +1 item bonus to stealth is for people who don’t always want the effects that cause the bonus to occur. As the description of the cloak states that the wearer is camouflaged and muffled when the item bonus is being used, some players may opt to not have that be the case when it isn’t needed. That is the reason (I presume) as to why that interact action exists. Being an interact action also means that it can have consequences when being used in encounter mode in that it can trigger reactions. However, the invisibility power is the only actual “activation” ability.

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.