Luke Styer's page

Bob: you are using Athletics to climb the tree so your DC is 10.

Steve: you are using Untrained Improvisation and Climbing Lore, so your DC is only 5.

I think I see the confusion. Steve never uses Untrained Improvisation to do anything. He uses skill to do things, but when he’s untrained in those skills, he has a better-than-zero proficiency bonus because he has the Untrained Improvisation feet.

Also I’m not aware of Lore skills allowing one to use the Climb action, so Steve should probably use Athletics, which definitely allows one to use the Climb action. Fortunately for Steve, if he’s untrained in Athletics, he’ll get an increased proficiency bonus because he has Untrained Improvisation.

Uh, shouldn't the DC still be 10?

Yes, it should be 10, because the DC doesn’t vary on the basis of whether a character is trained. Just like a Dinosaur Lore check doesn’t vary depending on whether the PC making the check is trained.

So vague sense at best :(

Nice catch. I don’t think I ever noticed that section.

Narrative: You haven't studied Animals or Dinosaurs enough to qualify for the reduced DC. Mechanics: You are using a generalized ability rather than gambling on picking a specific Lore subcategory and winning the lottery.

So do you reduce other DCs based on PCs’ level of proficiency? “Al, you’re trained in Athletics? Climbing that Tree is DC 10. Bob, you’re untrained? Same tree is DC 15. Narrative: you’re using generalized ability rather than gambling on picking a specific skill and winning the lottery.”

Right. Because the Fighter without Untrained Improvisation rolling 1d20 +0 and trying to hit the DC 22 using their Dinosaur Lore untrained is a completely viable strategy. Excellent example there.

It's a better strategy than rolling his 1d20+0 Nature to hit DC 27. At least he's a little more likely to fail instead of crit failing.

But the point isn't that it's a good idea. The point is that Untrained Improvisation doesn't make it possible; Untrained Improvisation makes it viable. The Druid who has a maxed out Wisdom and a maxed out Nature will still have significantly better odds, but the guy with Untrained Improvisation will at least have a shot.

No. The Untrained Improvisation hack is outshining the entire rest of the party at the same time.

No, he's probably not.

The Rogue that is taking Arcana and Society, and the Cleric covering Religion, The Ranger with Nature, the Bard with Occultism, and the Inventor with Crafting.

And yet, the Fighter with Untrained Improvisation needs a lower die roll in order to succeed and it doesn't matter what creature they are fighting.

No, the Fighter almost certainly needs a higher die roll than the specialist in every case. At least he will if by "taking" you don't mean raising their specialist skill to trained and then ignoring it from then on.

First, the specialist's proficiency bonus with their Recall Knowledge skill, at every level, is going to outstrip the Fighter's by more than the DC "discount" the Fighter would enjoy by using a specific Lore for Recall Knowledge.

Second, most of those characters are going to have an equal or higher relevant ability than the Fighter's Intelligence. The Cleric's Wisdom bonus and the Inventor's Intelligence Bonus are fairly likely to be maxed out. The Rogue might have Int maxed out, but even if he doesn't, it's unlikely to be lower than the Fighter's Int. Likewise, the Ranger's Wis and the Bard's Int won't be maxed, but, again, I doubt they'll be lower than the Fighter's Int.

There's a decent chance one or more of the other party members will eventually wind up with an item bonus to their Recall Knowledge, too, which the Fighter likely won't.

At best the Fighter may end up second best at a few of these.

So a Bard with Bardic Knowledge is a dabbler?

A Bard with Bardic Lore picked an underpowered feat. The skill it grants stalls out at Expert, and is stuck at Trained until 15th level. If a Bard with Bardic Lore wants to be good at Recall Knowledge, he'd be well advised to pick up some carefully selected Additional Lore feats.

Untrained Improvisation is not a specialized Lore, it's a generic ability and should get the base DC.

Untrained Improvisation isn't a Lore at all. It's not even a skill. It is a feat that provides an adjustment to the PC's proficiency bonus when they make an untrained check with any skill. When a PC who has Untrained Improvisation makes an untrained Athletics check to climb a ladder, that PC is making an Athletics check, not an Untrained Improvisation check, and the usual rules for Athletics apply, except that the PC has an increased proficiency bonus.

Recall Knowledge is an untrained action. It's even explicitly called out in the skill description for Lore that "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge."

Also, as a side note, Lores are not only about RK.

You're right. They're also about Earn Income, which is a trained action, which means (except for folks who have Clever Improvisor) it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Those are literally the only two common actions listed for Lore. The Vehicle rules also make some use of Lore, of course, and there are a few other specialized uses that pop up in adventures, but Recall Knowledge is surely the most prevalent use by far. The first line of the skill description is literally "You have specialized information on a narrow topic[,]" so bringing that information to bear is naturally the primary focus.

No, I don't use Athletics to grapple the purple worm, I use "Purple Worm Wrestling" Lore so the DC should be lowered by 5.

And I'm pretty sure you'd not allow that.

You're right. I wouldn't allow that because Lore can't be used to grapple. Am I to understand from your question that you routinely allow PCs to substitute Gladiatorial Lore checks in place of traditional attack rolls? I wouldn't allow that, even though Gladiatorial Lore clearly exists in the game, so I consider the question of modification to DC in this context irrelevant, but I guess if you're allowing that, you have to consider whether a DC adjustment is appropriate.

All that said, Lore explicitly can be used to Recall Knowledge, even untrained, so I'd allow a PC to make a Recall Knowledge check using Purple Worm Wrestling Lore to identify a Purple Worm, and that's a pretty specific Lore, so sure, I'll reduce the DC by 5. I'd allow that whether the PC is or isn't trained, regardless of whether that PC has Untrained Improvisation.

Also, if someone was either trained in Purple Worm Wrestling Lore or had Clever Improviser, and wanted to try to use that skill to Earn Income, I'd allow it, though opportunities to practice that trade would likely be few and far between.

Incidentally, this all assumes I'd allow that Lore subcategory. Remember that the rules state that "Lore skills . . . require GM oversight, particularly in determining which Lore subcategories are acceptable for characters to select." I'm not sure Purple Worm Wrestling would make the cut. Purple Worm Lore, though, seems pretty closely analogous to Owlbear Lore, which is literally on the list of Lore skills in the Core Rulebook, so it seems acceptable.

A single level 3 feat choice by one character shouldn't be outshining the Recall Knowledge skills of the other characters that didn't pick that feat.

As I've said many times, that single level 3 feat choice probably isn't outshining the Recall Knowledge skills of other characters that didn't pick that feat, because, if those characters advance those skills, they're always going to come out at least a little bit ahead of a character relying on Untrained Improvisation. And if they don't advance those skills, they're just dabblers, too, and I don't particularly mind if they dabbled a little less effectively.

Especially not characters with classes that have specific feats and abilities for knowing things about any of the creatures that they encounter.

I think the problem here is usually that such feats are underpowered, though, not that Untrained Improvisation is overpowered. That said, by the basic progression, you get either 10 or 11 class feats over your career, but only 5 general feats, so maybe it's not so bad if a general feat that serves a similar purpose is a little better.

+1 ahead by increasing 5 skills (there are mostly 5 RK skills), that's all your proficiency increases of all your career.

If your goal is to be good at Recall Knowledge, then just pumping skill increases into the five RK skills is a poor plan, even if we don't house rule Untrained Improvisation.

Also, it's a bit crazy that someone is better at something by using Untrained Improvisation than their own skill if they are Trained or Expert.

In heroic fantasy, this honestly doesn't seem that wild to me.

That's only partially true. As a GM, you can reduce the DC if the character uses a specialized skill.

But literally anyone can use "a specialized skill" in this context because Recall Knowledge is an untrained action.

Anyone can make a Nature check to Recall Knowledge about a Tyrannosaurus, and the DC is 27, whether they're trained in Nature or not. Anyone can make an Animal Lore check to Recall Knowledge about a Tyrannosaurus, and the DC is 25, whether they're trained in Animal Lore or not. Anyone can make a Dinosaur Lore check to Recall Knowledge about a Tyrannosaurus, and the DC is 22, whether they're trained in Dinosaur Lore or not.

Literally all that Untrained Improvisation does is in ANY of these cases is increase the untrained character's proficiency. Untrained Improvisation doesn't allow any of these checks; the fact that Recall Knowledge is an untrained action allows all of these checks.

It's no house rule, it's the proper way of playing this rule.

Requiring trained proficiency to attempt an untrained task is absolutely a house rule. Altering the DC of a task based on the PC's proficiency level is also probably a house rule.

The PC's proficiency bonus, however it's gained, affects the PC's check result, not the DC of the check. If Al and Bob are both climbing the same ladder, Al doesn't get a lower DC because he's Trained in Athletics and Bob isn't.

No, doing that doesn't make the game fun for those who payed skill increases to be good at RK checks.

Your proficiency bonus in a Recall Knowledge skill that you're raising at each opportunity is always going to be at least 6 points higher than the proficiency bonus granted by Untrained Improvisation. At best Untrained Improvisation would allow a roll at -5 to DC. So "those who payed skill increases to be good at RK checks" will always be a net +1 ahead between proficiency and DC to Recall Knowledge.

And you don't need to give free skills to your PCs . . .

No one is talking about giving "free skills" to PCs. There's an opportunity cost to selecting Untrained Improvisation, and nothing in the text of the feat suggests that my interpretation is incorrect. Untrained Lore checks to Recall knowledge are "untrained skill checks[.]" To rule otherwise is a reasonable house rule, but barring an erratum, it is a house rule.

I think what disturbs me a bit is that, if I could persuade my usual PFS GM to follow your ruling, I would likely have taken the General feat for my Know-it-all Witch instead of investing all his Skill feats and General feats in Additional Lore.

If you're so focused on Recall Knowledge that you're willing to invest all your skill and general feats in Additional Lore, then I don't really see why my interpretation would persuade you to do anything more than swap a single instance of Additional Lore for Untrained Improvisation, if that.

Across all levels, any Recall Knowledge check using an applicable Additional Lore is numerically advantageous over a check using Untrained Improvisation, even if the former is made at DC -2, while the latter is made at DC -5.

For a character that you describe, Untrained Improvisation under my interpretation would provides an increased breadth of knowledge, but the depth of knowledge granted by each Additional Lore is always greater, and if you're otherwise literally using all your general and skill feats on Additional Lore, I'm not even sure the breadth of knowledge would increase enough to matter.

So even with Legendary Sneak and Foil Senses, a creature might be able to Hide in the palm of the giant's hand (or while Grabbed by anything or anyone else) but would not be able to become Undetected until they could Sneak, a MOVE action

That’s a good point. We’re probably exaggerating the situation when we act like the giant wouldn’t have a pretty good idea that the Hidden PC is still in their hand. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for the giant to go ahead and attack into the square where he’s holding the PC, though I’d still make a flat check.

This leads me to this question for the crowd. How would you adjudicate Seek with the sense of touch?

It isn’t my understanding that when one Seeks one has to specify a particular sense. So I’d just use the normal rules and maybe handle (heh) the question narratively in the results.

That means at level 7 a General feat (Untrained Improvisation) becomes better than a Class feat requiring a specific muse (Bardic Lore), until the Bard takes Occult to Legendary.

Very likely unintended.

Maybe so, but in the absence of a clarification, I'd still probably be more inclined to boost Bardic Lore to compensate than to nerf Untrained Improvisation. My general policy is to encourage Recall Knowledge Checks, and that guides my adjudications.

I feel it is very generous and likely unintended.

I haven't seen anything that convinces me that it's unintended, but I'm okay with it being generous, because I like seeing Recall Knowledge checks.

How do you adjudicate the use of Bardic Lore ?

I'm honestly not sure it's ever come up at my table. I've only seen a very few Bards, and never very long term. Taking a quick look at it on Archives of Nethys, my first impression is that I'd consider it an unspecific Lore applicable to all topics, so it would get the -2 reduction to DC.

Announce a new errata policy?

So that Rogue will need to roll 16 to Recall Knowledge about a Tyrannosaurus with their Trained Nature skill, but will only need to roll a 13 with their "fake" Dinosaur Lore.

Interesting. Lore skills might be the leading use at my table, though from what I've seen online my players may use Recall Knowledge more often than the majority of players.

Even with the prevalence of Recall Knowledge rolls at my table, I don't think that letting Untrained Improvisation work on Lore is too good. In fact, I have a Mastermind Rogue in my current group who didn't bother to take it, and he doesn't seem to think that he's missing out.

Remember that the reduction in DC is used when the GM considers the player uses a specific lore skill. In that case, as a GM, the DC would not change as you are using a very generic ability.

I am the GM, and I consider a PC using Untrained Improvisation to be using the relevant specific Lore skill.

breithauptclan wrote:

Untrained Improvisation (which does nothing because there are no untrained skills) = 2

I suppose you could still use it on lore skills.

Using Untrained Improvisation when you Recall Knowledge can be pretty handy, because the reduction to the DC for Specific Lore can outpace the "traditional" Recall Knowledge skills that you only have at Trained.

Someone mentioned dinosaurs earlier, so lets look at a Tyrannosaurus.

The recall knowledge DCs are:

Recall Knowledge - Animal (Nature): DC 27

Unspecific Lore: DC 25
Specific Lore: DC 22

If a 7th level Rogue is Trained in Nature, with a +2 Wisdom, and a +2 Int, That's Nature +11. That same Rogue's Untrained Improvisation will give them a +9 on Animal Lore (Unspecific) or Dinosaur Lore (Specific).

So that Rogue will need to roll 16 to Recall Knowledge about a Tyrannosaurus with their Trained Nature skill, but will only need to roll a 13 with their "fake" Dinosaur Lore.

Most monsters who grapple have Grab, which lacks the trait, as does Constrict. They can maintain easily enough,

That's a good point. I think I may have overlooked the bit in the Grab description that allows its Requirement to be met when it "has a creature grabbed using this action."

Foil Senses is a great big bag of crazy given its breadth. No touch opens up a can of worms re: interactions,

It really is a wild ability.

though I suppose interacting could be interpreted as intentionally breaking Stealth.

I would probably make that ruling, because my stealthy PCs tend to be effectively invisible most of the time, and it's about the only chance my monsters have to even see them.

I guess the monster would let go, thinking their hands (et al) were empty, though maybe they'd naturally Seek first, but even losing that action costs a lot for significant enemies.

If I think a bug escaped my hand, I still throw to make sure. Who knows how different monsters might react. :-)

The question whether the monster could even feel that it was holding a Hidden character with Foil Senses honestly hadn't even occurred to me until I brought it up in this thread. I had never even considered it in play. If it comes up again, I'll have to give it some serious thought.

Where are the "RaRiTy DoEs'Nt MeAn MoRe PoWeRfUl" folks now, huh?

Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it does. And we get no guidance on which is which.

My Nagaji Gymnast Swashbuckler is glaring at you.

Off the top of my head I’ve had one PC who focused on grappling, in an uncompelted run of Fists of the Ruby Phoenix. He used that feat (can’t recall the name) that lets you throw people you’ve grabbed. But I don’t recall him ever grabbing an invisible or hidden foe.

Luke Styer wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

And if you do land a grab, maintaining it doesn't have a miss chance.

Is there a citation for that? I’ve always required a flat check in that situation, and I’m wondering if I’ve been doing it wrong.

Interesting. Has that arisen often at your tables?

Sort of. We played through all of Agents of Edgewatch and we’re currently in book six of Strength of Thousands, and in both cases there was a PC who had Legendary Sneak, and monsters who grab or grapple aren’t all that uncommon. So it’s not so much Blinded while grappling as it is grappling a Hidden opponent, but for practical purposes it’s me basic idea.

Actually, though both PCs also had Foil Senses, so a successful stealth roll arguably means the grappling monster can’t even feel the PC with its sense of touch.

Yet technically maintaining a grapple (for those using Athletics) is an Attack so if blinded there'd be a whopping 50% miss chance even when they're in your grasp.

Right, but it sounded like you were aware of a rule that stated otherwise.

Tables will vary, which I don't mind as long as there's (consistent) reasoning behind it.

Since requiring the flat check tends to benefit the PCs, who rarely do much grappling at my table, that’s my inclination. But barring weirdness like Foil Senses, there’s a colorable argument for dropping it when someone is already grabbed.

And if you do land a grab, maintaining it doesn't have a miss chance.

Is there a citation for that? I’ve always required a flat check in that situation, and I’m wondering if I’ve been doing it wrong.

What "mechanical space"?

Because unless you start using Divine Lance as a way to detect evil there's not much that could be done mechanically to detect a false Cleric.

Detect Alignment exists pre-Remaster, and I’m assuming there’s other stuff I don’t know of off the top of my head. “A lot” overstated it, but it seems easier to buy a false Cleric running a long-term con without Alignment mechanics than with.

It's just that you can't assume that a follower of a good deity is good. But I hardly think Sarenrae would give powers to an evil Cleric so I'm not sure it changes anything.

Because I strongly prefer both playing and GMing largely good guy parties, this is more an NPC idea, but while I agree Sarenrae wouldn’t empower an evil Cleric, there’s a lot more mechanical space without alignment for an evil Cleric empowered by an evil deity masquerading as a Cleric of Sarenrae.

On the topic of magic item purchases, this thread inspired me to take a glance at the Otari Gazeteer article in the first volume of Abomination vaults, and without risking spoilers as to the specifics, there is at least one location specifically called out as selling magic items. I wouldn’t be shocked if, as I read farther, there are more. So this may just be a case of a GM who doesn’t like the idea of magic items being offered for sale.

That's been my impression too: Treat Wounds is often handwaved, because of its boring but necessary nature. This is mostly about codifying that handwave (and removing the Continual Recovery feat tax).

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle, because I am fine with Treat Wounds as it exists, but also hand wave it in situations where careful time tracking is unimportant.

That said, my hand waving takes into account whether the party medic has Continual Recovery and Ward Medic, in terms of how much time we assume passes. "Everyone needs about one Treat Wounds, and Al needs two? Bob has Continual Recovery and Ward Medic? 20 minutes pass and everyone is healed to full."

I definitely think that doing away with the roll and using a fixed number is reasonable. My own preference would be to still use the existing time frames, adjusted by skill feat investment, but if you feel Continual Recovery and/or Ward Medic are a feat tax, I can see skipping that portion.

And she also says we can’t buy any magical items in town, so we’ll have to use those weapons as-is or just sell them.

If this is just a preference on your GM’s part in terms of magic item sales, I guess you’re just stuck, but from the perspective of the rules, she’s arguably wrong. Arguably because the text I’m about to cite comes from the Gamemastery Guide, not from the Core Rulebook, but I’m satisfied that it’s intended to be part of the game.

Marketplaces states that “In a given settlement, a character can usually purchase any common item (including formulas, alchemical items, and magic items) that is of the same or lower level than the settlement’s.” Otari is a 4th Level settlement. There’s some further talk in Markeplaces about items of the highest level available, but the game expects Common items, including magic items, of at least level 1-3 be available.

Thank you! This is great!

Magus also depend on cantrips.

This is arguably a positive change for a Magus player, though, because a Magus player can now completely dump INT, focus entirely on attack spells, and replace a 1dX + 0 damage with 2dX damage, all powered by STR or DEX.

You heavily depend on cantrips for the first 3 to 5 levels or so where it is very easy tor run of spells.

This is where a negative impact will be felt, as cantrip damage becomes less reliable and more swingy.

If a player in a story about people from the middle of nowhere wanted a specific kind of sword, I would have the smith be willing to make it *if* the player can provide the smith plans for the sword.

Well if we’re talking about a common, 0 level item in the CRB, that formula, which is what I assume you mean by “plans,” is. a 1 sp, common item away, because they are explicitly included in the Basic Crafter’s Book. I honestly have a hard time believing a working smith doesn’t have one, and instead has a bunch of individual formulas for a bunch of items that are also in the Basic Crafter’s Book, but sure, we’re dealing with an inefficient smith.

My main issue is with the fact that "falling" movement is done for free, when, in the past, (I've been playing DnD and PF for 30 years) it's been ruled that creatures should not get "free" movement.

So by this logic, if my PC has a 25 foot land speed, and I use my final action on my turn to Stride 25 feet, which puts me on an undetected pit trap, I won't fall in because that would be "free" movement?

Do I just hover like Wile E. Coyote until my next turn?

Does it take a reaction to hold up a sign that reads "HELP!"?

The use of rarity for "the blacksmith who lives in this particular hamlet does not, in fact, know how to make katanas" is probably unnecessary since a GM is within their rights to insist that particular smith doesn't know how to make any number of common weapons.

Given the low cost and rarity of the Basic Crafter's Book, as a GM of a standard game of Pathfinder, I'd feel like a bit of a jerk insisting that regarding a common weapon found in the CRB. I feel like the existence, commonality, and rarity of the Basic Crafter's Book communicates a baseline assumption about the ubiquity of those basic forumulas.

"There are no katanas in this region" should be exactly as surprising as "there are no elves in this region" which is to say "it's not exceptional, even if both are common."

Even if katanas were common and in the CRB, I'd have no problem with saying "there are no katanas in this region," but if my players wanted to commission a smith to make one, I'd have a hard time saying no.

This looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. I've never seen anyone complain that low level caster damage is too reliable and needs to be more swingy.

This also seems like a change at odds with my understanding of what the Remaster was about. It doesn't seem calculated to move away from OGL issues, and I don't think it's addressing an issue that has caused major problems for players.

I’m honestly not all that bothered by diminishing the value of Sentinel Dedication, because except for a character who already had Light and Medium, Sentinel Dedication would probably still be better, plus it opens up the entire Archetype, which has some value in and of itself.

Would it be too strong to let the Armor Training feat (or similar feats if they exist — I can’t think of any off hand, but I’m sure they’re out there) scale with each class’s existing armor training levels? So that if you have Medium Armor training through the feat, and your class advances your Light Armor proficiency to Expert, your Medium Armor proficiency gained through the feat would also advance to Expert.

I feel like things a la "how do you justify a leshy sorcerer" are fundamentally just a prompt for the player to tell a story about how something came to be in a way that isn't the usual way. Not a prohibition against "things without blood being Sorcerers."

If “you were born [a spellcaster]” carries rules weight, it’s not a prompt, but a prohibition.

If you're the least creative person in the world, you might choose not to play a Dhampir Leshy Sorcerer

Or, in the alternative, maybe that bit about being “born” is flavor text, not mechanical text, and everyone can play the Ancestry/class combination they want without being judged on their desire or capacity to spin a yarn to justify it.

Simple things like:

- "You didn’t choose to become a spellcaster—you were born one." => you can't play a Sorcerer who acquired their power because of an event.

And what of ancestries that aren’t born? Iruxi hatch from shells. Poppets are constructed. Not sure how Leshies come into being.

I sense necromancy!

*turns undead*

Yes, far better had someone started a whole new thread on the topic, and then someone else pop up and post a link to this thread, so that folks interested in the topic would have two separate threads to read, containing, between them, the same innformation.

I'll admit the stream doesn't feel like the easiest way to absorb this information.

What do you mean? Tracking down and watching several hours of barely organized video content is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite for participating in discussion. Thankfully we have dedicated gatekeepers to correct those among us who comment without doing our homework.

Something to keep in mind here is that a more practical question than “what monsters can Hasbro successfully claim are protected by copyright” is “what monsters are Hasbro likely to try to claim are protected by copyright. This could be a legal battle that literally can’t be won, regardless of the merits, due to the respective bankrolls involved.

In other words, whether color-coded Dragons are legitimately protected by copyright may matter far less than whether Hasbro is willing to sue competitors into oblivion claiming that they are. Even participating in that fight may be a losing proposition.

If we end up wanting to use [a “classic” dragon] in an ORC adventure before we have an "official remaster" we'll probably just present a bespoke stat block with that dragon referenced by its name, not as "red dragon" or the like.

Honestly, this is my general dragon preference anyway. Unique dragons was one thing I really liked about Monte Cook’s Arcana Unearthed / Evolved line from back in the day.

Well, there are quite a few things in PF2 I think they've been overcautious about. For instance, I don't think anything would get out of control if you could pick a new cantrip with Cantrip Connection every day.

Agreed. And I get why they started from that over-cautious position, but the 2E super-conservative clarification / errata policy is a problem.

It is a fair interpretation. Just don't get the understanding that squeezing is in the rules like this. Because it is just not. The rules are quite empty in this area.

For sure. Jason Bulmahn has given a little insight into the squeezing rules, that sort of track to what YuriP said above, but, yes, its basically a blank spot in the rules.

AoN has this annoying thing where it shows you all the bits of info about an activity except the most critical piece:

I don’t think that’s a AoN issue. I think it’s a function of the incredibly poorly organized Core Rulebook. Pathfinder 2E is, by a decent margin, my all-time favorite RPG, but it’s an organizational nightmare. AoN is a labor of love, and if anything, improves on the usability of the Core Rulebook through its hyperlinks.

Not sure I’m adding much here, just taking a stand for the AoN.

I can’t back this up, but as GM, I’m inclined to rule that the ability itself is locked, but that the choices within the ability are selectable daily, unless the Specific Familiar specifies. I just don’t think familiars are sufficiently powerful that this limitation is necessary.

I usually rule like this:

I’ve not seen squeezing rules delineated quite like this, and I hadn’t really integrated greater difficult terrain into the thought process, but this all makes perfect sense.

Owen KC Stephen put this out there, which might be relevant to this discussion:

Class Paragon.

Simplified version, maybe let a player who isn’t otherwise interested in an Archetype to simply take the multiclass Archetype for their primary class. They’ll get a little less out of the Dedication, and then get a few extra class feats, each coming online a bit later than they otherwise would.

Just cast Continual Flame on a dull gray aeon stone and let it orbit your head. I'm sure the shadow of your skull constantly revolving around your surroundings won't cause any issues.

Aeon Stones are Uncommon, though, which could be an issue.

In Society, the Purchasing Guidelines states "your character must have access to this uncommon equipment" but that you "have access to any item listed on a chronicle." So whether this is workable in PFS probably depends on how commonly Dull Gray Aeon Stones appear on Chronicles.

So I wouldn't address this as "zero reasons to", just because every player has the right to build the character the way they want ( I get your point and I agree, but if they want to do a specific character, well, I think they should be able to do so ).

I thought I covered that in "unless you want [a Con flaw]." My point wasn't that no one should take a Con flaw, my point was that no one is stuck with one. It's there if they want it, but the current rules don't require it.

The post to which I was responding was expressing that they were worried about having a Con flaw, so my point was that if they wanted to play an Elf or Kobold Wizard, but were hesitant because of the Con flaw, they aren't stuck.

I think Death Knell is a weird legacy spell to still have in PF2. It doesn't do anything against the 99% of NPCs that don't use the extended Dying rules, so why would a PC prepare them?

It’s extra work, but at my table we track NPC and Monster Dying condition fairly often, though not universally. My players don’t necessarily want to slaughter every opponent they face, and occasionally it’s a matter of wanting someone to interrogate after the combat. PCs fairly regularly hit dying opponents with Stabilize or First Aid.

And for NPCs, the GM has to make the NPC metagame to know that it can be used with actual effect on a PC.

I tend to think that from the NPCs’ perspective, even if you’re running NPCs-immediately-die-at- 0hp, the universal perception is that folks don’t necessarily drop dead as soon as they’re knocked out. Plus, Death Knell is likely to show up on an NPC who has access to healing magic, which to my mind means Dying condition should probably be tracked, since that same NPC may be able to bring allies back from Dying.

All that said, though, especially in the asymmetrical universe of Pathfinder 2E, I’m okay with some spells that are oriented more toward enemies than PCs. It’s certainly more economical to stick Death Knell in a stat block than to have to set it forth as a special ability in each case.