Luke Styer's page

Well for starters, there's nothing in the cave worm's stat block or description that gives it any sort of surprise or ambush attack. It rolls initiative, goes in turn order, and is placed on the battlemap before it's turn starts, available to be attacked or avoided by moving out of range like anything else.

I'm not sure I buy that a Cave Worm has to be placed on the battlemap before initiative is rolled. As a GM, I'd feel perfectly fine calling for an initiative roll while the Worm is underground. If the Worm wins initiative I'd have it spend one action surfacing, which is probably to the PCs' benefit versus starting initiative when it's already in position, because it's basically a waste of an action.

If the PCs win initiative, I'd tell them that there's a creatures moving ten feet under those 4x4 squares, and let them decide whether to take preparatory actions or delay til after it bursts forth. Since the Worm isn't trained in Stealth, nor has any ambush related abilities, the PCs are expected know where it is at the start of the encounter. And that doesn't seem unreasonable for a gargantuan creature burrowing close to the surface -- I doubt it'd take Tremorsense to notice.

If some GM is having it blast out of the ground and eat a PC before the PCs know what's happening, the burden is not on the PCs to come up with a defense against that, the burden is on the GM to explain to them why the GM is breaking the rules in a way that gives the PCs a massive disadvantage.

I'm don't know what "before the PCs know what's happening" really means here, but if it wins initiative, unless you place the Cave Worm more than 95 feet away from every PC, there is a reasonable chance that it can bite a PC, grab that PC and swallow that PC before any PC acts, because its action economy allows it to stride twice, bite, grab, and swallow all for three actions.

As I've already stated, the forced movement rules shut down this no-tunnel default kill. Forced Movement cannot bring a target to a space it cannot normally occupy. That includes solid ground. The worm can't bring the target along unless there is a tunnel, since the target can occupy a tunnel.

I'm not sure where the idea that the no-tunnel default means a swallowed PC would be occupying the same space as whatever's being burrowed through.

I've never gotten the impression that burrowing without leaving a tunnel implies that the burrowing creature is phasing through the earth like an incorporeal creature. I've always understood it to mean the creature is constantly digging ahead of itself, and filling in behind itself. Do people generally "visualize" it as phasing rather than digging?

There are specific rules for phasing through matter in Incorporeal. If Burrowing impolied phasing, I'd expect similar rules.

To my mind, an Escape attempt by a PC swallowed by a burrowing creature who isn't leaving a tunnel might automatically fail because there's no available space to escape into, but even then, the PC would just be sort of "bouncing" off of the wall that now exists next to the burrowing creature.

Mostly they just don't like a low rank specialty spell being able to shut down an an 8th rank spell but that's what specialty spells are for.

Disappearance came up in my game Sunday for the first time ever, and I didn’t particularly like that See the Unseen shut it down, but jr seemed pretty clear to me that it did.

Level 2 - Dedication

Level 4 - Pick your 1st or 2nd Level Class Feat.

If it were a 3rd level Inventor Feat, a Multiclass character couldn’t take it til 6th level, and even then only after taking a 1st or 2nd level Inventor Feat.

Also, if you find some way to get Crafting to Expert at 2, you can take it at 2.

Do you think these items are intended to work with some rules, or is it more likely they were written by free lance writers who didn't know that there were no sight range rules?

I would guess whoever designed these itemsjust assumed that sight ranges wear defined in the rules, but I don’t know that we need to assume that means they were designed by freelancers. This system is sufficiently complex that full-timers can easily have blind spots.

Any chance the captive could escape in a short one-on-one session? Assuming his previous location was the more secure one, their new location may be less so,

This idea that the “backup cell” is less secure makes a lot of sense, because the most secure location ought to be the first place they’d stash a prisoner.

If the captive PC escapes, stress that being moved was a big part of why he escaped, which means the teleporting PC “helped” by prompting the move.

As a GM, my goal is to give the illusion of real challenge while also the players basically always "win"

This is basically my goal as a GM. Putting aside the occasional cakewalk encounter designed to demonstrate how badass the PCs are, my usual goal is for the PCs to win, and for the players to feel they earned that win.

At the same time, while I am against an adversarial GM/Player stance, when I’m playing the adversaries, I do want to actually play adversaries. It’s a line to walk, but when I pull it off it’s pretty cool. That said, this illustrates the value of the stereotypical Bond villain, whose hubris allows him to underestimate the hero, and proves his undoing. That is even more useful in an art form wherein one author doesn’t control every character’s actions. A lot of tropes that can seem silly or lazy in forms where a single author controls every character, can be a lot of fun when the GM doesn’t know what the player characters, who are, after all the heroes of the tale, are actually going to do.

So, while the bad guys who have captured a PC shouldn’t just be idiots, it’s totally reasonable that they be overconfident in a ways the PCs can exploit, especially if the players realize they’re exploiting specific weaknesses of the enemies.

Why would the bandits keep the captured PC in the same hideout after the PCs (unsuccessfully) infiltrate it? Because the boss is sure he’ll capture another PC if he keeps the trap baited. Maybe the boss isn’t there to monologue, but a note can serve the same purpose. And Magic Mouth (the remastered alternative may not be as annoying) would be perfect for taunting a PC.

You're going to trust your weather knowledge to Bards?!

Only if they’re Enigma Muse.

3.x/PF1 broke down too fast at distance

I’m honestly not sure how well PF2E would handle very long distances in an encounter. When about 60 to 100 feet both represents an entire round’s worth of movement and ranged weapons and some spells that outrange rhat, I can see a lot of frustrating rounds for melee oriented characters.

If anyone is curious why the specific rules for how far perception can go were quietly omitted from the rulebooks, this thread is shaping up to be a good indicator.

If they had been completely left out, sure. But when there are items that interact with an undefined value, it’s a problem.

This thread has me very interested in playing a Summoner, though I probably won't get a chance to for quite some time. That said, I might be able to talk a player into trying one.

On Sunday I ran my first encounter with an Iron Warden swapped in for an Iron Golem in a pre-remaster adventure, and I noticed this new ability:

Shield Arm The iron warden has a shield built into its arm, that it can use as a steel shield (+2 to AC and Hardness 5). Because it's a part of the iron warden, all damage in excess of its Hardness is dealt only to the iron warden.

This made me wonder whether a magic prosthetic arm with that same functionality would be workable. Aesthetically, I don't imagine a built-in shield, so much as the wearer just using the arm itself to "parry" and block. So basically a weaker Indestructible Shield, that still leaves the hand free.

Would this be either (a) too good at a level at which a 5 point shield would be worth bothering with, or (b) not good enough to be worth bothering with at all?

Should it grant the Shield Block general feat? Would having it grant Shield Block only using the arm itself be too fiddly?

On a clear day, with no obstacles, you can see to the horizon.

Barbara Streisand will tell you that On a Clear Day You Can See Forever.

Roger Daltrey will tell you that he can see for miles and miles, and miles and miles, and miles. Oh yeah.

Weather conditions . . . can limit your sight range.

Mine, sure. But Johnny Nash can see clearly now, the rain is gone.

There's a lot to this topic.

You need to remember 1e also had rules to take 10 and take 20. Using Perception was just an action, so that Commoner can just take 10 for a 14, allowing them to automatically see any visible creature up to 140 feet away, or they can take 2 minutes (20 times as long) to see creatures up to 240 feet away.

That's a good point. Man, I miss Take 10 and Take 20. The distances still seem absurdly short, even to me, though.

As for distances, you're not exactly wrong. The numbers would make more sense if they were about identifying creatures at those distances, rather than simply detecting them.

That honestly may be what the numbers in 1E are intended to represent, since I think this is what was used to determine encounter distance, which probably indicates a level of discernment beyond "there's a human out there."

Because yes, if you seat down to watch a football game, you can tell there's players on the other end of the field, but can you tell who they are?

That's what the big numbers on their backs are for. When I first posted to this thread, I Googled a bit and found this website, talking about how far the average person could read numbers and letters at different sizes. According to that, ten inch high characters can be read out to about 450 feet, which seems like it should cover spectators in the stands reading football players' jersey numbers.

(Fun fact about 1e rules, I had a player once who read the table on modifiers, saw the modifiers for "Through Door" and "Through Walls" and thought you could just see through those as a PC without the need for any items or magic.)

It's right there in the book!

This sort of question always stymies me because I have never had a strong intuitive sense of distances. So some kind of general rule or even guidance would be appreciated. In 1E, as was mentioned, it was DC 0 to see a visible creature, modified by +1 per 10 feet away.

Assuming an “average person” has a +4 Perception (It was a class skill for Commoner, seems reasonable to have dropped a skill point in, and assuming Wis 10, they’d be about 50/50 to see a human sized creature 150 feet away. While I admittedly don’t have a great sense of distance, that seems absurd to me, considering a football field, with end zones, is 320 feet, and people buy tickets to watch football from the end zones. That said, the length of a football field is probably the longest benchmark I intuitively grok, so I’m not sure how far would be reasonable.

If I open a door and unvoluntarily release a monster some people will be harmed. But it's not about them, it's about me, and as such it doesn't break invisibility if I hadn't the intent to harm.

Recognizing that this isn’t in line with the admittedly vague official rules, unless we’re talking about opening a trapdoor that someone is standing on, my instinct is that I’d not have opening a door break invisibility.

If I steal the guard's keys to release a prisoner I'm not doing anything to the guard from my point of view. The guard definitely doesn't want the prisoner to escape, but that's besides the point.

Even if we focus entirely on your point of view, I don’t buy that you don’t realize that you’re acting specifically to thwart the guard’s purpose. Though, as I said upthread, if you steal the keys from the guard by picking them up off a table next to him, as opposed to from his person, that’s a sufficient remove that I’d say Invisibility wouldn’t be broken.

Considering that Invisibility drops anytime you do something someone would object to means it never sticks.

That’s why I’d take into account to what extent you’re acting on someone’s person, and largely rule that if you’re not, you wouldn’t break invisibility. That’s not going to answer the question every time, but I think it would work most of the time.

Like you can't explore the dungeon while invisible as the guards would object to, you can't penetrate inside the shop and search it as the shopkeeper would object to.

I doubt anyone would argue that either of those would break invisibility.

Though with a strict focus on whether the action is “about” someone else, there’s an argument to be made that almost any time sneaking its “about” the people whose detection you are attempting to avoid.

I want to tell stories of an Invisible character doing things while Invisible and I don't want that the key being on a hook on the guard’s belt blocks the story while the key being on the table doesn't. Same intent, same effect.

That’s not an unreasonable position, though as the GM, you get to decide where the key is, so you get the best of both worlds. If you want Invisibility to definitely work, key’s not on the guard’s person. If you want to present an obstacle to invisibility, the key is on the guard’s person.

I don’t see how this get in the way of storytelling, unless the very specific story you want to tell is “Thief lifts a key off a guard’s body while maintaining invisibility.” But if you want to tell that very specific story, there’s enough room for that interpretation of the rules within the necessarily vague language that the most anyone can really say is “that’s not how I’d run it,” rather than “you’re wrong.”

The target would almost certainly consider "being robbed" a hostile act. If you don't believe me: try it on the PCs and see how they react.

Thinking about the point you’re making, I'm wondering whether the intent of the acting character matters at all.

Putting aside dealing damage and imposing negative condition, both of which I’m satisfied are clear cut, maybe the perspective of the target should control. Basically, if the target doesn’t want whatever the acting characters is doing done to them, it’s a hostile action.

I’d probably limit this to direct actions that involve the target’s person. Stealing a key from a hook on the guard’s belt would count, stealing a key on a table next to the guard wouldn’t.

If you're arguing that you can take an L3 general feat and use every lore skill that exists to lower the DC of your RK checks, that is quintessential rules lawyering.

That's not what I'm arguing.

I'm arguing that using a relevant Lore skill to Recall Knowledge generally reduces the DC, and that you can make untrained Lore skill checks to Recall Knowledge.

I am further arguing that neither of those rules depend in any way on the existence of Untrained Improvisation.

Again, all that Untrained Improvisation does is improve your proficiency bonus on untrained checks you are, independently, explicitly allowed to attempt. It doesn't give you any new actions, it only improves your chances at actions you could already attempt. It also doesn't affect the DC of those checks in any way; the DC is either reduced or increased by dint of the skill you're using.

It's too good to be true, but you're pretending it's an RAW/RAI discussion. It's not reasonable.

First off, I'm not pretending anything. I think it's pretty clearly RAW, and I am unconvinced it's not RAI. I am unconvinced that it's not RAI because I strongly disagree that it's too good to be true.

One, I've been GMing PF2e since release, having completed several adventure paths, a number or modules, and a couple original campaigns, all using this interpretation of Recall Knowledge. My primary player group is fairly focused on optimization, and Untrained Improvisation is only occasionally selected.

Second, outside of combat, Recall Knowledge checks are a great avenue by which to convey information about the world to players. The Gumshoe RPG exists based on the premise that it is rarely interesting for PCs in an investigative game to fail to get a clue. In Pathfinder, I think it's rarely interesting for the PCs to not learn about the world, and while I think there's value in the tension of a check to Recall Knowledge, I think the game is improved by the players, collectively, having a pretty good chance to succeed at knowing facts about their world. It's a great vehicle for communicating all that cool background stuff written into published modules that the players are unlikely to ever learn unless the GM just "breaks character" and exposits.

Third, in combat, so we're talking about creature identification, I just don't see being good at Recall Knowledge as a worrying power boost. It's useful, but it doesn't directly make you more effective in combat. It helps the PCs use other abilities more efficiently, and is a nice boost for a support-oriented character. And because it's not all that uncommon to fight above-level creatures, and DCs scale with the expectation of proficiency boosts through training, Untrained Improvisation isn't some sort of reliable "I win" button on Recall Knowledge. Characters who select campaign-relevant Additional Lore are going to shine.

That said, why do you think it's too good to be true? "It makes you better" isn't enough to be too good to be true, that just makes it good, which I don't disagree with. What's actually too good about it? What aspect of the game does it disrupt?

It's not really a house rule though.

. . .

So it says "typically" an applicable lore skill used to recall knowledge comes with a lower DC, but that doesn't mean always.

What I'm saying is, if you're using Untrained Improvisation it means you wont get the DC adjustment. Which is within the rules already.

The rules say that "Using an applicable Lore to Recall Knowledge about a topic . . . typically comes with a lower DC." They don't say " . . . unless you're making an untrained check."

The rules state that "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge" not "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge, but expect a higher DC."

That's notable because the rules do warn that if you use "a different but related skill, [you will] usually [roll] against a higher DC than normal." That's also not conditioned on whether you're trained in "a different but related skill[.]"

I think the pretty clear intent is that increases or decreases to the DC are conditioned on the applicability of the skill used. So I'm comfortable saying that conditioning them on anything else, whether that's the PC's proficiency level or the color of the player's shirt is a house rule.

My group uses a fair number of victory point based skill challenges to determine success, not just a single character making a check. In which case, an untrained character quickly becomes a liability to those kind of challenges.

Victory Point encounters often offer a reduced DC for Lore checks as compared to other skill options. Do you allow PCs to roll untrained Lore against the reduced DC, or do you make them roll against the highest DC on the list?

Preventing harm and injury is not hostile. It doesn't matter if the person is enchanted to want to be harmed or not.

That focuses exclusively on the intent of the actor, which is a reasonable standard.

Like trying to take a stick from a dog so you can throw the stick again.

Grappling a spellbound farmer to stop him from walking off a cliff isn't [hostile].

That's an interesting example, because I'm really not sure whether I'd call that hostile or not.

I guess it sort of depends what you mean by "spellbound." If the farmer is being magically influenced to want to walk off the cliff, I'd say grappling him is hostile. But if the farmer is being compelled to walk off the cliff but (even in his "spellbound" state) doesn't want to, I'd say grappling him is not hostile.

But what I'm saying is, while there's an option to adjust DCs based on having a lore that applies, or a very specific lore that applies, I as a GM, would not make that adjustment for "lores" supported only by Untrained Improvisation.

I see.

Also, Clever Improviser is a Human feat, not a general feat.

Sure, but I’m okay with that.

And I don't buy you're argument that it's a problem that the 3rd level feat is a problem, since all the other general feats are so bad that people prefer to take 3 first level general feats compared to the other options.

In the case of Untrained Improvisation, there’s an “independent” reason from power level to set it at 3, i.e. as written it would actually decrease your proficiency bonus at level 1. But in general, a higher level feat of a given category should be better than a lower level feat of that same category.

But please also recognize that's a bit like making them Master proficiency (in terms of bonus) in all the "default" knowledge skills.

For the limited purpose of Recall Knowledge, yes. And, again, I’m down with that. I love for my players to make Recall Knowledge checks, so I’m unlikely to institute a house rule that discourages it.

If the above are your bar for general feats (and I think they are) then Clever Improviser is in line in my opinion.

If those are the bar for general feats, and Untrained Improvisation is “in line” with them, then we have a problem, because they are all first level feats and Untrained Improvisation is a third level feat.

At most what I would do is remove the line that says you can't do task that require you to be trained.

There’s already another fear that does that — Clever Improviser.

Otherwise the ability is fine, and doesn't need to reduce recall knowledge DCs by 5 to be relevant.

Untrained Improvisation doesn’t reduce any DC of any check. That’s a completely separate rule.

Just as Canny Accumen, applied to Reflex, doesn’t make you take half damage on a successful basic Reflex save, it just makes you more like to roll a success.

Getting a DC break on lore/RK checks is not in the description of UI.

Why would it be “in the description of UI?” UI isn’t what is causing the DC reduction. The DC reduction, if it applies, is a function of rolling an applicable Lore skill to Recall Knowledge, whether you roll it with untrained, trained, expert, master, or legendary proficiency.

Rolling a D20 as part of the check when you use UI “is not in the description of UI,” either, but we all know to do that. The rulebooks are long enough without insisting that every rule be repeated every time it’s relevant..

it’s not what UI was made for.

What UI is “made for” is changing your proficiency bonus when you make an untrained skill check. That’s literally all it does. If Lore checks to Recall Knowledge enjoy a reduction to DC without UI, that isn’t changed by UI. If they don’t, that also isn’t changed by UI.

It also strikes me as a "too good to be true" thing.

Is an improved chance to make Recall Knowledge checks at the cost of one of only five general feat selections over a 20 level career really “too good to be true?”

Also, it’s a third level feat, so we should expect it to be better than such mainstay first level general feats as Toughness, and Fleet. But do you sincerely believe that it’s so much better than either of those that, even two levels higher, it is too good to be true?

it's still decent.

I should hope that a third level general feat would be better than decent.

You don't find it problematic that every character that takes a single general feat can suddenly have hyper specific knowledge on literally everything in a way that is better than a class feat and an archetype designed to do the same thing?

Not really. For one thing, one only gets five general feats over the course of a career, while one gets ten class feats, so if a “single general feat” is stronger than “a class feat,” I can live with that.

But the class feat eventually “wins out,” because at some point the special Lore skill advances to Expert, and Level + 4 vs DC -2 is better than Level vs DC -5. So I’m not sure Untrained Improvisation is necessarily better for this purpose, though it has other uses, too.

Honestly, though, I think the “special Lore” class feats could use a boost, so if I were to address this problem with a house rule it would be to improve those feats rather than to nerf “normal” Lore skills.

At the very least, I think Bardic Lore should just be advanced when Occultism is advanced, likewise Loremaster Lore. Honestly, though, I think it’d be fine if they both automatically advanced on the rate of Additional Lore.

It's not like anything is even being taken away here since they can still roll it, they just have to do it with the general skill applicable to the purpose instead of claiming they have specialized knowledge/training in literally everything.

That’s definitely something being taken away.

Untrained Improvisation is applicable for everything, every skill. Recall Knowledge is not even its main use as people who like and take the feat say.

At tables I GM, Recall Knowledge seems to be its most common use, but as I’ve said many times, my players tend to make a lot of Recall Knowledge checks. That said, Athletics checks to climb or swim are fairly common, too. It sees a little use for Stealth, too, but that seems to come up less often in combat for characters who aren’t Stealth-focused, Follow the Expert serves the same purpose in Exploration.

I hadn’t seen this ancestry before I saw this thread and just read through it. It sounds like an absolute hoot.

Except this makes no real sense in a game where options like Loremaster and Bardic Lore exist, both of which require more investment to do this specific thing and yet are strictly worse than Untrained Improvisation if you allow it for every Lore in the game.

Then house rule it. You can even pretend it’s not a house rule if you want.

The part that makes Untrained Improvisation relevant to that discussion is that the feat makes the problem still exist at level 5 when it otherwise wouldn't.

That’s my point. “Still exists” means it’s a “problem” that exists independently of the feat.

With the feat, using "super specific lore for this singular named creature that I never mentioned knowing about until right now"

Do you generally require PCs to have “mentioned” abilities prior to their use?

Ah, let me be more clear: by "relevant skill", I mean the relevant non-Lore skill, the one rolling at the normal DC (e.g. Arcana or Nature). Sorry, that was poor communication on my part.

Oh, I see. No worries. Though I’d say that if you intend to focus on Recall Knowledge, you should be focusing on Lore skills because of the DC reduction.

For example, a 7th level party runs into an occult dragon of some kind, easily recognizable as such by its body shape. Alice the Wizard has expert Occultism, and rolls that. Bob the Inventor has Untrained Improvisation and says he's rolling "Occult Dragon Lore". If the -5 DC modifier is applied for Bob rolling a specific lore, Bob has a better chance of succeeding than Alice.

Because Bob wanted to be good at identifying creatures, Bob selected Untrained Improvisation. Because Alice wanted more hit points, she selected Toughness. Because Alice has +1 hp per level, Bob reaches 0 hp when they both fail a Reflex save against a Fireball, but Alice doesn’t.

If you're saying "The specific lore might not exist"- I don't really feel like saying Vampire Lore or Farm Animal Lore doesn't exist is the solution to the issue.

Vampire Lore definitely exists because there’s a feat that explicitly grants Additional Lore: Vampire Lore. I don’t think Farm Animal Lore exists. Animal Lore exists, and I’d buy that Horse Lore exists, but I don’t buy “Farm Animal Lore.” Farming Lore exists, and I’d allow a check with that skill to Recall Knowledge about a farm animal, in place of Nature, but I wouldn’t give any reduction to DC. If you can point me to an official source that establishes “Farm Animal Lore,” I’ll give it to you, but I’d call that -2, not -5.

If you're saying "Untrained Improvisation lore use is a different problem than first-level untrained lore use", then I don't think so. Allowing untrained lores to be rolled against a -5 DC results in better options than characters invested in the general knowledge skills (e.g. Occultism, Religion) in either case.

That’s my point. At level 1, Rules As Written, an untrained [Specific Lore] check to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature is better than a trained Occultism check to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature. That has nothing to do with Untrained Improvisation, which is a level 3 feat. The “problem” exists completely independently of Untrained Improvisation.

Religion, of course, is a different matter, because it’s keyed to Wisdom, so at level 1, a character with +4 Wisdom, and trained in Religion is ahead of an untrained Zombie Lore check.

at level 1 if the GM applies the specific lore DC reduction for untrained skills, Alice would be a chump for ever rolling Arcana or Occultism to recall knowledge about anything.

So? Alice would also be a chump for making a nonlethal attack against a Zombie, and Carl’s trained Relgion Check is more likely to tell Alice that than Alice’s untrained Zombie Lore check.

To me, that suggests that the GM shouldn't reduce the DC when a player rolls an untrained lore skill- or at the very least, should limit the DC reduction to -2 so that it's never overshadowing actually having the regular non-lore knowledge skill.

It may suggest that, and you might decide that’s a good reason to make a house rule, but that’s not Rules As Written. I linked the rules up-thread.

However this is largely solvable by just making people guess what to use instead of just assuming they use the most appropriate thing.

Outside of weird corner cases like “Is this Osyluth an undead or a fiend, that seems SUPER antagonistic GM behavior to me, and I say that as a GM.

I honestly don’t understand the why so many GMs seem to want to make Recall Knowledge checks harder or less efficacious. I love when my players make Recall Knowledge checks, so I like almost any option that encourages it.

I'd generally chuck this under the "does this interpretation sound too good to be true?" rule of thumb. If one general feat allowed you to apply a -5 to the DC of recall knowledge checks, then it would be better than Expert in the relevant skill.

Putting aside the fact that Untrained Improvisation doesn’t allow “you to apply a -5 to the DC of recall knowledge checks,” but rather allows you to make a check you were already able to make with a proficiency bonus greater than 0, how is that better than “Expert in the relevant skill”? Expert in the relevant skill provides a proficiency bonus of Level + 4, which is always higher than Untrained Improvisation ever goes, and you also get enjoy whatever reduction to DC applies when you use the skill to Recall Knowledge.

It would also mean that at level 1, you should never roll Arcana, Occultism, Society, or Crafting to recall knowledge on any character, because the +3 from a trained skill will always be worse than the -5 to DC from an untrained specific lore.

If a specific Lore skill exists, sure, though that’s an entirely separate “problem” from using Untrained Improvisation to Recall Knowledge with Lore skills.

I would allow you to roll Dog Lore instead of Nature, but at the same DC. That way you would get to use your INT instead of WIS, but no other advantage.

This seems in line with rather than counter to the rules.

My interpretation? You don't get the right to roll any lore skill with that feat.

You don’t “get the right to roll” any skill “with that feat.” You just have the right to roll any untrained use of any skill, including Lore skills by operation of the rules. Untrained Improvisation changes your proficiency bonus when you attempt a Lore check untrained, but it doesn’t “allow” you to make the check.

You use the generic skill most fitting for the situation. If you wanna RK about a dog, you can't roll dog lore, you just make a nature check.

That’s a fine house rule, but it’s just that, a house rule, not an “interpretation.”

In fact it’s counter to RAW:

If you're making a check and multiple subcategories of Lore could apply, or a non-Lore skill could apply, you can use whichever skill you prefer. If there's any doubt whether a Lore skill applies to a specific topic or action, the GM decides whether it can be used or not.

“You can choose whichever skill you prefer.” And “the GM decides whether it can be used or not” based on whether “there’s any doubt whether a Lore skill applies[,]” not on whether you’re trained with the Lore skill.

The rules for Creature Identification also state that “Using the applicable Lore usually has an easy or very easy DC (before adjusting for rarity).” Again, the rules don’t specificy a “trained Lore skill,” but there’s enough wiggle room in the word “usually” to justify a ruling that only trained Lore skills enjoy the reduction to DC.

Any other interpretation would just lead to problematic player behavior.

I am almost exclusively a GM, and I don’t find anything problematic about my players taking Untrained Improvisation and then attempting a lot of Recall Knowledge checks. I love when my players make Recall Knowledge checks, so encouraging it is more of a feature than a bug for me.

In fact, even if you don’t give the DC reduction to untrained Lore checks to Recall Knowledge (independent of Untrained Improvisation), I strongly support allowing untrained Lore checks to Recall Knowledge because it opens up possibilities. At low levels, for instance, even without a DC reduction, a Wizard is likely better off attempting an untrained Animal Lore check than a trained Nature check to identify an animal.

There is also a Treasure Per Encounter table on pg 81 of the GMC. This can give you an idea about how much treasure any given encounter should have.

I have somehow never noticed that table! Thank you for posting it.

Untrained Improvisation only allows you to roll the dice.

Incorrect. Untrained Improvisation never “allows you to roll the dice.” All that Untrained Improvisation does is alter your untrained proficiency. In fact, the text explicitly states that it “doesn’t allow you to use the skill’s trained actions.”

If you want to use Dog Lore, it's fine, but then you don't use Untrained Improvisation as Untrained Improvisation doesn't grant you Dog Lore or any skill, just the right to roll with a fixed bonus.

As it happens, Recall Knowledge is not a trained action, so if you want to roll Dog Lore to Recall Knowledge about a dog, you can roll it untrained whether you have Untrained Improvisation or not, the only difference will be your proficiency bonus to the roll.

Even critical success on Reposition doesn't let you move the target through an obstacle - and M3 would be an obstacle.

Since M3 is an ally or both M1 and B, I don't think M3 would count as an obstacle in the event that B would never stop moving in M3's square, but because of the creatures size and positioning involved, I think M3 is an obstacle in this particular situation.

1, since M2 was an ally of B, M2 didn't need to roll a check to reposition B

2, since no check was needed, M2 got the critical result of reposition

1 and 2 are clearly not the state of the rules. As for 1, there's no procedure for voluntarily allowing allies' maneuvers to automatically succeed, let alone automatically critically succeed.

There's an optional rule that allows one to voluntarily push an ally's check result up by one step or to voluntarily reduce your save result against an ally's effect by one step. That makes critical results fairly likely, though.

Your GM may just have a house rule that creatures can grant an ally a critical success on maneuvers. That'd presumably allow the PCs to do it, too.

3, M2 could chain two repositions together to move B 20 feet south

I don't know what "chain two repositions together means, so I don't understand exactly what you're asking.

That said, Reposition is one action, so any creature can make as many attempts in a round as they have actions, and with what appears to be your GM's houserule, two attempts would automatically result in 20 feet of movement.

Based on my understanding of the map, though, the first Reposition attempt would leave B stopped in an already-occupied space, and so it wouldn't work. Perhaps this is what you meant by "chain two attempts together" like move 20 feet at once, so that he moves through the ally's space and then "lands" in the unoccupied spaces beyond.

4, since M2 was moving B, B did not provoke a Reactive Strike from me

Technically this is correct, as forced movement doesn't trigger reactions.

But that's pretty busted if you're using a house rule that allows allies to automatically critically succeed as repositioning.

So I'd probably take one of three paths with this rules interactions:

1) If allies can freely maneuver allies, then only movement triggered by enemies' maneuvers would count as forced movement.

2) Make allies check normally for maneuvers "against" allies in all instances, and the results are truly forced movement, so i have no problem with that movement not provoking.

or 3) Allies always check for maneuvers "against" allies, and the target can decide (for free) whether to cooperate, which allows the ally to improve the degree of success by one, but does not result in forced movement, or not to cooperate, in which case ally uses the result as-is, but the result is forced movement.

Did that make any sense?

I am wondering if the intended way is to have players prompt the associated rolls themselves and if the skill they rolled doesn't apply, they get nothing regardless of the result.

I don't think that's what's intended, and I doubt I'd run it that way even if that were how it worked. I like that my players make a lot of Recall Knowledge checks, so I don't want them to feel that it's likely to be a wasted action.

My position is that, if this weren't the case, the feat would have no mechanical effect. The procedure for avoiding special senses by describing how and why is already available to everyone, even without the feat. Therefore, if the feat does anything at all, that "something" must be allowing Stealth rolls always, even when the basic procedure (the one that is available without cthe feat) wouldn't apply.

What do you think?

I think Foil Senses is overpowered, but that it functions as you say.

And to be fair, I'm not sure I have given it enough thought for my opinion that Foil Senses is overpowered to amount to much more than "This seems weird," and I have no real thoughts on how I'd alter it if I decided to.

When the Remaster first released, Long Jump rules were such that you jumped a distance equal to your Athletics roll. That was is.

Weird. I wasn’t aware of that. The world moves on.

It was errata'd fall 2023 to be such that you jumped a distance up to the value of your Athletics roll.

Interesting.

The reason is because if you want to jump close to your maximum theoretical jumping distance, setting the DC equal to something like your modifier plus 19 is going to fail most of the time.

Yeah. That makes sense. I guess I was I imagining a canyon or something, where coming up short was a problem,

I use a mix of premaster and OG remaster

What is OG remaster? Has the remaster version changed again post remaster? Has there been a post-remaster erratum?

If they want to jump "as far as they can" OG remaster. This means they can, in fact, overshoot by rolling high.

If there’s a particular spot you want to land, why would you ever voluntarily use a mechanic that allowed you to “overshoot” with a die roll that would otherwise land you exactly where you want to land? That seems like it just adds additional failure results.

Like maybe a Swashbuckler stunting, I guess.

A spider ghoul is a spider that is also a ghoul; in this case, an awakened giant spider ghoul rogue.

Well that’s a wild idea. Awesome!

"Spider sneak" isn't anything in this context, but a "spider sneak climbing" is simply a spider that happens to be climbing and sneaking at the same time.

Yeah, I got mired in syntax confusion. I read “sneak” as a noun.

Starting with the assumption that you’re using the Remastered rule set, are there any Premaster rules elements that you’ve made a conscious decision to hang onto, be they feats, monsters, spells, magic items, or whatever? I’m mostly thinking of “Core” content here, since there are dozens of Premaster books, but if something else that “feels Premaster” comes to mind, chime in with that, too.

A couple from me.

While I wouldn’t take the trouble of changing a published adventure, in my non-AP campaign, if I use Ghouls, I’ll probably use the old style.

I’m a mark for Owlbears, and buy nearly every Owlbear mini I come across, so I’ll continue to work them in where they fit.

I like the flavor of Continual Flame a little more than that of Everlight, though not to the degree that I’d push it, more just allow either version.

Just this last weekend my spider ghoul . . .

The game before that, my spider sneak . . .

What are a “spider ghoul” and a “spider sneak”?

It's a focus spell, but not a cantrip.

Good catch! I jumped on between turns during a session last night to post that and “misspoke.” It’s too late now to edit that, so thank you for setting the record straight

It's very good as it is!

I enjoyed using it a few times during the session. Since it’s a save spell, creating a Thrall, taking the included attack, and then blowing the Thrall up with Necrotic Bomb can make for a pretty satisfying round. I even used Consume Thrall for the first time so that I could cast a third focus spell in a single enoucnter, but the encounter wrapped before I used the “extra” focus point.

I’m enjoying this class..

I just realized it works on Nectotic Bomb, which is a Necromancer Grave Cantrip.

I was about to play a cloistered cleric for the third time in an upcoming campaign, but a friend is trying me to change for a warpriest - which is a class I never tried.

Beyond the fact that every player has the right to play the class and subclass they want, if you’ve played any Cleric[/b] for three campaigns running, you have earned the [b][b]privilege[b] to play whatever on the Gods’ Green Golarion you want.

That said, a Warpriest is just fine as the primary healer, and might be a fun change of pace for you. But if you don’t want a change of pace, play a Cloistered Cleric. You deserve the choice.

hey argue that because the feat specifically calls out gaining the "Cast a Spell" activity, they should have access to the rest of the spell list, and gain the "Learn a Spell" activity as well.

“Cast a Spell” and “Learn a Spell” are distinct activities. Having either does not grant the other.

They also advocate that Cantrips are functionally different from Ranked Spells,

They are correct about this premise, but their conclusion does not follow.

they shouldn't need the "Cast a Spell" activity to Cast only the cantrip

Incorrect.

the activity grants them access to the list.

Incorrect, but I’m curious as to their (incorrect) reasoning.

the feat "Minor Magic" grants ONLY the 2 chosen cantrips

Correct.

Cantrip are functionally identical to Ranked Spells,

Incorrect.

including the necessity to use the "Cast a Spell" activity prior to (or as part of) actually using thr cantrip?

This part is correct, though.

PFS is a real-life Westmarches server.

Were truer words ever spoken?

Anyway is easier to regrown a tree then to repair a shield.

Especially if there’s a damned Wood Kineticist in the party.

I was wondering if people actually liked this kind of adventure.

As someone who has been just shy of a “forever GM” for about 35 years, I like the opportunity to sit down at a table and play a session of my favorite RPG.

1) There's little to no RP involved - because the clock is ticking, and nobody cares you're doing this impassionated speech, they just want you to "roll diplomacy" because that's what's written,

I’ve played at tables where this is true, and I’ve played at tables where it isn’t. That may be what you’re calling “bad GMs,” though I’d probably just call it “a different style” even though I prefer PFS tables where RP is embraced.

and anyway what's the point of befriending this barbarian you'll probably never meet again - or maybe in four or five games.

That’s just a questions of roleplaying, I think. My character doesn’t know he’s in a one-shot, so befriending people is just befriending people..Honestly, it seems a little odd to both complain that roleplaying isn’t emphasized and ask what is the point in roleplaying, but sure.

2) There's little to no strategy involved. Since the adventure is supposed to be done with any kind of classes AND not last too long, all fights are insultingly trivial and there's absolutely no sense of danger or accomplishment.

I have a little more sympathy for this “complaint.” The intended universality can undercut tactical play..