Magnus Arcanus's page

Magnus Arcanus wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Creature B doesn't necessarily fall they aren't flying if they are being held in a grab.

If in the GMs opinion Creature A isn't strong enough to carry the weight of creature B (check encumbrance) or otherwise the grab ends. Then B starts falling and you need to look at the Arrest a Fall reaction.

I am open to this interpretation, but I would like to know what rule you are using here.

The same rule that lets flying creatures (like Strix or Sprite PCs) carry backpacks full of items and carry swords or bows to attack with.

I'm not sure that carrying another creature while flying is an explicitly stated rule, but there are rules for Bulk, and Bulk of Creatures.

I am simply not seeing the connection between flying creatures with gear and a grabbed opponent.

The closest I can find for an actual rule is under the Immobilized condition and requiring a check to overcome the Fort DC of the grabbing creature, yet there isn't anything stated on what the modifier would be for a situation like forced movement due to a fall.

Creature B doesn't necessarily fall they aren't flying if they are being held in a grab.

If in the GMs opinion Creature A isn't strong enough to carry the weight of creature B (check encumbrance) or otherwise the grab ends. Then B starts falling and you need to look at the Arrest a Fall reaction.

I am open to this interpretation, but I would like to know what rule you are using here. Because the Fly action states:

You move through the air up to your fly Speed. Moving upward (straight up or diagonally) uses the rules for moving through difficult terrain. You can move straight down 10 feet for every 5 feet of movement you spend. If you Fly to the ground, you don’t take falling damage. You can use an action to Fly 0 feet to hover in place. If you’re airborne at the end of your turn and didn’t use a Fly action this round, you fall.

If the target is in the air, its hard for me to say the target is not 'airborne' whether they are grabbed or not.

Here is the situation:

Two flying combatants are having an aerial duel. Creature A has the improved grab ability, and successfully hits Creature B, initiating a grab.

On Creature B's turn, they are immobilized, and cannot take move actions:

You're held in place by another creature, giving you the flat-footed and immobilized conditions. If you attempt a manipulate action while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; roll the check after spending the action, but before any effects are applied.

You can't use any action with the move trait. If you're immobilized by something holding you in place and an external force would move you out of your space, the force must succeed at a check against either the DC of the effect holding you in place or the relevant defense (usually Fortitude DC) of the monster holding you in place.

Assuming creature B cannot Escape from the grab on their turn, they would fall, since they didn't use an action to Fly. However under the Immobilized condition, forced movement requires a check against the DC of the Effect/Creature holding the target in place.

What modifier would forced movement due to Falling use for this check? Unarmed attack mod of the target? Or something else that I am missing?

Hi,

So we chose AoA as our first adventure, becasue it allows for biggest variety of locations and it's great way to see Golarion (everyone are new in PF2e) while going 1-20 levels. However, we know that some encounters are no as balanced as later adventures (understantable, AoA was first) and we'd rather avoid random TPKs for group that will still be catching up with PF2e many mechanics. So, with that said: could you please give some general pointers of how to balance (and which ones) encounters in AoA? Like for example "First fight should be level -2 instead of level 0", "final boss at Book 2 works better as Level -1 and with 5x henchmens instead of 10x" etc. I would appreciate tips like that from those that already played that adventure path.

Cheers.

I would highly, highly recommending giving Ralldar the weak template. This fight is notoriously difficult, and it TPK'd my first group bad. Instead of the weak template, or in addition to, I'd highly recommend doing what you can to have the NPC Renali help the PCs.

Voz is another tough fight (this actually takes place before the Ralldar fight). While she is L+2 vs the PCs, because she is 5th level vs 3rd level PCs, she is getting bumps to statistics like AC and Spell DC that would be typical of a 5th level PC. She also TPK'd one of my groups, though admittedly, the party contributed to that through bad tactics and probably could have won the fight, accepting there still would have been at least one PC that died.

My group has defeated the Lesser Manifestation of Dahak in Chapter 1 and will be moving into chapter 2 and I want to do some planning ahead. What impact do you think it would have on the story line if the PCs are able to contact Mengkare via magic (sending or the like) and spill the beans about what Uri was doing with the Scarlet Triad?

While the PCs won't know who Emaliza is since Uri never referred to her by name during their correspondences, Mengkare would certainly know who "Uri's sister" is. Given the Contract that Emaliza had to sign as a citizen of Promise, Mengkare could, if he wanted, compel her to truthfully disclose everything she has been up to.

Any thoughts as to how you would re-work the story line?

p.s. I am aware the Sending spell (and other such spells) as written has a range of planetary and initially Mengkare is in Axis following the events of chapter 1.

As for Freedom of Movement, I wouldn't think that a whip grapple would be considered a magical effect even if the whip itself has a +2 potency rune on it. The grabbed effect is still not magical in nature. If it is an activated ability of a magic item, then it would be more questionable and require a case-by-case adjudication from the GM.

In this case, I am the GM, and am just planning ahead for an upcoming session. It felt kinda of weird to allow a whip that has the magical trait to circumvent all but the highest level of a casting of Freedom of Movement but wanted to get some input from others.

Two questions:

Can a creature that has something grabbed (per the creature ability) release that grab? The bestiary doesn't cover it specifically. Would the answer change at all if it was an ability such as the Balor's whip attack, which has Improved Grab?

Grab [one-action] Requirements The monster’s last action was a success with a Strike that lists Grab in its damage entry, or it has a creature grabbed using this action. Effect The monster automatically Grabs the target until the end of the monster’s next turn. The creature is grabbed by whichever body part the monster attacked with, and that body part can’t be used to Strike creatures until the grab is ended.

Using Grab extends the duration of the monster’s Grab until the end of its next turn for all creatures grabbed by it. A grabbed creature can use the Escape action to get out of the grab, and the Grab ends for a grabbed creatures if the monster moves away from it.

RELEASE [free-action]
MANIPULATE
You release something you’re holding in your hand or hands. This might mean dropping an item, removing one hand from your weapon while continuing to hold it in another hand, releasing a rope suspending a chandelier, or performing a similar action. Unlike most manipulate actions, Release does not trigger reactions that can be triggered by actions with the manipulate trait (such as Attack of Opportunity).
If you want to prepare to Release something outside of your turn, use the Ready activity.

Tangential question, regarding the spell Freedom of Movement.

You repel effects that would hinder a creature or slow its movement. While under this spell’s effect, the target ignores effects that would give them a circumstance penalty to Speed. When they attempt to Escape an effect that has them immobilized, grabbed, or restrained, they automatically succeed unless the effect is magical and of a higher level than the freedom of movement spell.

Would a target grabbed by a magical whip attack (again, from a Balor for example) count as a 'magical effect' for purposes of Freedom of Movement?

I'm not bragging - actually the opposite.

I manage to average out to a TPK every three sessions (or approximately 12 hours of game time). This is across different groups and different Adventure Paths.
So I'm left wondering - is it just me? Am I a Killer GM when it comes to running Pathfinder 2e? Or is it the Adventure Paths that are extremely difficult? (I was running Age of Ashes and then Extinction Curse.)
But in the process, I've managed to sour three different groups (more than a dozen people) on Pathfinder 2e.
Has anyone else had a similar experience?

As a GM who has had more TPKs running PF2e in the last two years versus the 20 years of GMing prior to it, I will say that, yeah a TPK every three sessions is very high.

Age of Ashes is known for being brutal at times (and yup, I had another TPK of a 15th level party that I adjusted on the fly to avoid). Yet even with all of its brutality, entire parties should not be dying every third session. If you are able to give some specifics, it would help maybe pinpoint some areas for improvement.

I am wondering how Frightful Presence works in respect its wording "A that creature first enters the area..."

The full rule is:

Frightful Presence (aura, emotion, fear, mental) A creature that first enters the area must attempt a Will save. Regardless of the result of the saving throw, the creature is temporarily immune to this monster’s Frightful Presence for 1 minute.

So for example, if a dragon with Frightful Presence moved such that a creature is now in its Frightful Presence, would this ability trigger? Or would the creature in question have to move to the dragon to make it trigger?

Another example, imagine a summoned monster that has this ability and it appears within range of one or more creatures? Would that cause the ability to trigger?

It feels like the answer to both of these should be no, as the creature didn't actively cause the 'entering of the area'. But the wording is confusing enough to me that I wanted to post here.

Question about the Creature Ability Sneak Attack. It reads:

When the monster Strikes a creature that has the flat-footed condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged weapon attack, it also deals the listed precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, that weapon must also be an agile or finesse weapon.

I was having a discussion where the other side said they think that when creatures have the sneak attack ability and it says "They deal XdY precision damage to flat-footed creatures" that the flat-footed extra text is a specific override to the creature ability, and thus their sneak attack works on any strike, not only those with finesse/agile/ranged.

Is there any clarification about this?

The "other side" you are discussing this is wrong. No clarification is needed or required.

How do death effects interact with regeneration? Would a target reduced to 0HP by a death effect that has regeneration die, or would they just go to dying 3? Stated differently do death effects trump regeneration or does regeneration trump death effects?

Some spells and abilities can kill you immediately or bring you closer to death without needing to reduce you to 0 Hit Points first. These abilities have the death trait and usually involve negative energy, the antithesis of life. If you are reduced to 0 Hit Points by a death effect, you are slain instantly without needing to reach dying 4. If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach
dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points.

This monster regains the listed number of Hit Points each round at the beginning of its turn. Its dying condition never increases beyond dying 3 as long as its regeneration is active. However, if it takes damage of a type listed in the regeneration entry, its regeneration deactivates until the end of its next turn. Deactivate the regeneration before applying any damage of a listed type, since that damage might kill the monster by bringing it to dying 4.

18 str 10 dex, no dex bonus ^^

I'm waiting for an heavier armor indeed :)

Took ranged reprisal indeed, to expand the usefullness to 1.5m reach :)

But still it's meh, I hoped for an active skill, not a reactive one. If the GM want to screw us the only thing he has to do is attacking me. I'm not the tank thefore I don't have the highest AC and Retributive is useless :/ But I will deal with it :)

Except Champions are designed to be one of the best (if not THE best) tank classes in the game. You need to get full plate armor as fast as you possibly can with your build as you need the highest AC you can get. Your party should sell all the loot they can find to help you get plate mail. I'd try to get full plate before you hit level 2, it is that important.

I know you also like the 2H weapon deal, but a shield can increase your AC by +2, which is huge. It also opens up the Shield Block reaction to stop even more damage (but you only get one reaction a turn, so keep that aspect in mind).

Champions are built to have access to the best AC in the game. Attack the Champion? Great, I have the best AC. Don't attack the Champion? Great, I have reactions that can punish that behavior.

xcmt wrote:

Nolly Peltry believes the Triad has the means for magical transportation and there isn't time for a downtime phase, or thinks they might be torturing Laria for questioning and she can't sit on her hands and wait.

This, to me, is most compelling. The Triad would love to get more info on the Bellflower Network. I'd have Nolly push the PCs to move quickly, and I might have her go it alone if they don't act. They'd find her corpse when they finally went in.

The authorities of Kintargo have their hands full dealing with the apparitions that keep appearing. The PCs are bringing them a story about a slaver operation run by a major, legitimate mercantile consortium. I don't know that the authorities would have any reason to believe the PCs at this point. They'd probably be willing to dispatch some people to Cypress Point to follow up on the attacks there. But I'm not sure they'd be willing to investigate the Scarlet Triad at this point.

The PCs actually sailed the Genie's Smile back to Kintargo. They crewed the ship with a few citizens from Cypress Point and some of the mercenary crew they captured. They also had a few captured Scarlet Triad thugs in custody. Upon reaching Kintargo they went straight to the authorities, using a combination of the Cypress Point citizens and captured Scarlet Triad operatives as evidence of the Triads actions.

I have tried to stress that Kintargo is dealing with both a Nidalese diplomatic delegation in town and the issues of Barzilai's ghost haunting the city, and as such, the law enforcement is stretched very thin. Its going to take time for the Kintargan authorities to get the numbers needed to deal with Tanessen Tower, and this should hopefully create an opening for Nolly to encourage the PCs to handle it themselves.

Ok, so my next session of this module in the Adventure Path is next week. The PCs are in Kintargo, and have gone to Kite Hill, Long Roads Coffeehouse and Lady Docur's. They learned about Tanessen Tower and have done some preliminary recon there.

They now want to take a few days of downtime to get equipped (making use of some of the loot they've gotten since the start of the module). In the meantime, they intend to tell the Silver Council "Hey, you know that slaver issue you have in town? They are using Tanessen Tower as their base. You need to at least put it under siege so no one can get in or out. Better yet you just go arrest all of them."

I have tried to convey the issues the City is having with Remnants of Barzillai and the misinformation campaign being spread about Nidal. However there is still a feeling among my players the local police should be able to do something about the Triad, especially since their exact location is now known.

I'm looking for some ideas as to how Scarlet Triad would react under this scenario. They have some firepower, including Barushak and his summoned creatures, so if they wanted to break out they probably could. At a minimum Barushak could just dimension door away, and in fact he is written to do just that if he is reduce to a certain HP threshold. There is also the consideration of the prisoners the Triad has and whether the Triad might do something drastic to them before they all make their break for it.

All in all, I think the PC plan to 'put the place under seige' is reasonable and I want to make sure I let them have their agency. However the module assumes the PCs will be more proactive and look to take the fight to the Triad at the Tower.

Magnus Arcanus wrote:

Has anyone else noticed the Quarry Sluice trap at the end of chapter three has 38HP but a BT of 34? I've not exhaustively gone through every trap to see if there are some that have BT of more or less than 1/2 HP, but it looks like a possible typo. Then again, that trap is a tough one and so I wondered if it maybe it was intentional? Hard to disable but easy to break?

I'm not sure what they meant there, but I don't see the BT as relevant. When a mechanical trap is broken, it can't be activated. The six sluices will probably already be open, and the routine says that they'll have to disable or destroy each one. Broken doesn't stop the water, i.e., doesn't reduce the trap's number of actions. It's pretty rough—a 204 HP trap.

Routine (6 actions) The trap loses 1 action per disabled or destroyed sluice.

Dang, you are spot on TomParker. The BT value is moot.

Appreciate the reply!

Has anyone else noticed the Quarry Sluice trap at the end of chapter three has 38HP but a BT of 34? I've not exhaustively gone through every trap to see if there are some that have BT of more or less than 1/2 HP, but it looks like a possible typo. Then again, that trap is a tough one and so I wondered if it maybe it was intentional? Hard to disable but easy to break?

Anyone else have it come up during the game?

AFAIK there is nothing mistaken about the as written counteract level of the healing curse bestowed by Clay Golems. The curse does not follow the 'normal' rules for calculating counteract levels. Clay Golems had a similar ability in PF1e and even back into D&D days.

Well I really like the idea of a 9th lvl start: it makes the character super playable and about to really come into its own.

Also, with SoM having just been released, there is some new material that could be extremely fun.

I will have something ready this weekend.

Cool, looking forward to it!

There are still two spots left in this campaign if folks are interested. Feel free to PM or post on this thread with any questions!

LOVE this AP, LOVE the idea of making a 9th lvl character, LOVE P2E ... but the fixed time could be hard for people.

For me, at the moment in CDMX, it's okay. 6-9pm CDT can work.

But ... if I were to return to Los Angeles for work, I'm just not sure I could swing 4-7pm on a Monday. Really hard to say.

In any case, I'm still going to build the character ;)
I will let you know when ready.

Great, glad to hear you are interested!

I still have openings, folks can feel free to post in this thread or PM me with questions.

Also, while I do prefer a consistent weeknight for scheduling purposes, I can do any nights Monday - Thursday.

Time wise will always be a bit of a challenge when dealing with time zones. I don't have as much flexibility in my schedule here, but I am open to discussion if this is otherwise the only barrier for any particular player.

I am looking for three players and will be running a modified version of the Adventure Path Age of Ashes, starting the AP with Module 3, “Tomorrow Must Burn”. The first two modules of this Adventure Path are deemed to have already taken place. All information the players would have learned playing these modules will be provided via a detailed bulleted list. This game will be run via Foundry VTT, using the Forge as the host. with game sessions on Mondays from 7PM to 10PM Central Standard Time (adjusted for Daylight saving). There will be a break in the game session for about 5 – 10 minutes around 9PM.

Characters will start at 9th, and all classes from the CRB and APG are allowed. The various Lost Omen source books are in play, though any option taken from these books must be vetted with me first, even if they are common options. The Free Archetype from the GMG (p 194) will also be in play.

Any common ancestry is allowed, but Rarity is enforced, with goblins and all non CRB ancestries being uncommon. Such ancestries can only be taken after discussion and approval from me. Part of this approval process will be a significant backstory that justifies the ancestry being allowed and will require the player to explain to me how the world would see and react to them. The default answer for uncommon races is “not allowed”, though I am open to discussion. Make a good argument and roll well on your persuasion check.

While it is highly recommended players choose a Background out of the Age of Ashes players guide, any common background option is available. Players are welcome to be as detailed or brief regarding their character’s backstory, however everyone must have a character who has reason to be tied to Breachill in some fashion. In addition, each player character will be deemed to have participated in Module 1 (Hellknight Hill) and Module 2 (Cult of Cinders). As such, each PC should have a backstory that includes knowledge and participation in the events of Module 1 and Module 2.

Additional information about character creation will be shared during session 0 once the group is established.

Expectations

As stated previously the game will be run via a Foundry VTT, hosted on The Forge, with game sessions on Mondays from 7PM to at least 10PM Central Standard Time (adjusted for Daylight saving). There will be a break in the game session for about 5 – 10 minutes around 9PM as I put my son to bed.

The actual sessions will be combat heavy, and most, if not all Monday sessions will start with “Roll Initiative!”, with the session then flowing naturally from there. Players will also be given opportunities for roleplaying with plot critical NPCs.

Between sessions the game will be a “quasi-pbp”, via Discord, where the group chat will take place. The air quotes are intentional here, I do not want to imply this game is pbp. Instead the players will be asked to post daily in the discord chat (even if it is nothing but “I have read the chat and am current on the conversation”), discussing such things as strategy, tactics for any upcoming fights, next steps in their exploration (Do we go left? Do we go right?), and interactions/roleplay with NPCs.

In addition, all other mundane aspects, such as record keeping, leveling up, selling/purchasing of equipment, most downtime activities should also be handled between sessions. The objective would be to use the details from the Discord chat to set up the following Monday game session for “Roll Initiative!”

Interested players can post to this thread (noting their experience level in RP games and PF2e, any relevant character concepts, or other aspects that you wish to share). I plan on moving quickly to form a group.

As for me, I've been gaming for over two decades, much of it as a GM. I've been playing PF2e more or less since it came out. I am looking for a new group since my previous group has decided to take a break.

I am happy to answer any questions potential players might have.

Mathmuse wrote:

Ah, avoiding unnecessary combat is another favorite of my players, though it is a strategy rather than a tactic. They interacting with NPCs, explore unknown enemy territory, and gather information from factions to learn the lay of the land before they approach combat. And often they decide that they can skip that combat. They would be low on experience from skipping so many encounters, except that due to their mastery of tactics I beef up the encounters that they do face, and they earn extra experience from the bigger battles.

Ahh, that's a good point. Our group is very fond of coming up with creative, offbeat, or (at times) downright crazy ideas for finagling encounters and challenges to bypass combat rather than fight. We love outwitting a situation or trying unexpected approaches. And the GM (not the same as the Age of Ashes GM, by the way) appreciates it... but then he unhappily informs us that, per the box text, our PCs therefore get no XP for the encounter, and certainly no treasure. And worse yet, we often fail to obtain the vital plot point needed to progress to the next stage of the story.

So maybe we need to discuss with him some greater flexibility on 'not sticking with the story sequence as written.'

Are you sure this is a different GM (rhetorical question)?

There is nothing so rigid in an Adventure Path as you are describing above. While I can't claim to have run Agents of Edgewatch, I am running Age of Ashes, there has never been any "boxed text" that says the players get no experience if they fail to solve an encounter as it is "written." Air quotes are intentional on that last part because often there is nothing specifically written about how an encounter is to be solved; instead the GM is given a set up, and is really up to the GM and the PCs to figure what happens next. Experience from such encounters should be awarded if the PCs defeat or neutralize the encounter.

For example, if a PC druid used Wild Empathy to convince an animal in the area (that was, as written, an encounter in the Adventure Path) to leave the PCs alone, I'd certainly award XP for 'defeating' the creature.

Another example, lets say the PCs find a way to use Stealth and Guile to sneak past a room full of guards they otherwise would have had to fight. This is potentially worth XP in my view.

As for equipment, if a GM notices PCs are missing loot from an encounter because of how it went down, they should be making up that loot in some other way. I've on many occasions just moved loot from one encounter to a different encounter as needed. In fact, I've often looked to make such loot 'earned' rather than found, by having it in the hands of an enemy they just fought and defeated.

Please correct me if I'm wrong: A character starting their turn near a wall of fire could move into it, run along the entirety of its length, then step out again on the same side they entered, ending their turn and taking absolutely no damage whatsoever.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say not only do I think RD is 100% correct, I think his interpretation is exactly what the designers intended.

The purpose for a Wall of Fire is to control the battlefield, restricting someone from moving through an area. If all a person is doing is moving laterally along the wall then the wall has served its purpose; e.g. "Thou shall not... PASS!!"

The spell could have easily been written to inflict damage immediately upon entering its space. It wasn't.

Wasp Venom (poison) Saving Throw Fortitude DC 21; Maximum Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 1d6 poison (1 round); Stage 2 2d6 poison and clumsy 2 (2 rounds)

Emphasis added

That poison lasts a maximum of six rounds. Following that duration any conditions associated with it expire.

How does any small settlement possibly survive a monster attack in this edition?

It could be worse; they could be attacked by a plague giant and have no hope at all, since they can't even hit on a natural 20.

Ideally, the settlement hopes the GM is using the rules for proficiency without level variant.

This past weekend, our group failed the end-boss fight against Belmazog & Kyrion and failed hard... so hard they decided to drop the Adventure Path entirely.

That is unfortunate to hear. I have some questions about this fight:

The enemy priests all opened with multiple Fireballs affecting the whole party, four in sequence. (Gotta love that huge radius!) Two PCs dropped before getting a single action. The enemy priests then followed with cones of fire breath for their second actions, further toasting the entire party; the healer had no chance of keeping up with that damage output, especially on top of the dragon-skull's blasts.

How many dragon priests did you face? As written there are two, and in a different post you mentioned your GM is running encounters as written, and not scaling them up for your party size.

Were there more than two dragon priests?

The melee warriors got a few bad rolls, and the arcane caster's spells all failed (which we're used to; no enemy in Book 2, where "every fight's a boss fight," has failed a save that we've seen). Belmazog didn't really have to do anything.

Can you clarify what you mean "the spells all failed"? The fights in book are not all "boss fights" by any stretch. Many of the encounters in the jungle are rated Severe, mostly because they are the only fight the PCs will have in the adventuring day, but even that aspect is misleading; the XP of the encounters include the Dragon Pillars. Once you know how the pillars work (and their glaring weakness), they are easy to dispatch.

I'm also struggling to understand how all monsters are saving against spells. This sounds like hyperbole to me. There is often a tendency to remember the bad rolls while forgetting the good ones.

There are no fights against L+3 monsters in Module 2, only a few L+2 fights. Even against an L+2 creature, spells should be landing 40% - 50% of the time.

Afterward, the GM filled us in on the storyline conclusion of what would have happened if we'd won:

GM: "So in looting the place, you find this starknife that looks super-special. In fact, after a bunch of Arcana checks you somehow determine that it's the key to one of the other elfgates."
Players: "Umm... okay? But we weren't looking for another key to begin with."
GM: "Yeah. Still, there it is."
Players: "... Right. Uhh, guess we take it along. And then go home. Because we're not seized with a mad desire to test out every gate. We took down the Cult of Dahak, yay, curse on the valley's broken, we win, we go home to Breachhill."
GM: "Yeah, I get ya. Not really sure how this is supposed to lead anywhere else...."

That is a pretty bad summary by your GM; there is far more exposition the PCs learn than just "you find a starknife". To be fair, it does require the players to be motivated to want to unravel a mystery.

Good tactics? The frontliners block for the others; the skirmisher grabs and trips; the bard Inspires Courage; the dedicated healer heals; the arcane caster blasts. And it doesn't do a blessed bit of good, the PCs get steamrolled time and time again.

Something is seriously off if your GM is running encounters as is for six PC band (e.g. no adjustment for group size) and your party is consistently getting steamrolled. Your group should be routing those encounters.

The tactics you described at high level sound reasonable, so I really have to think there are core aspects of the game rules that are being missed.

According to the GM:

*The dragon was at very low HP and had a single attack, which all the enemy priests were immune to anyway.
*The skull was not a trap, so Thievery wouldn't work on it.
*Dispel Magic would have required a check against a DC that the wizard couldn't beat.

I'm currently GMing Cult of Cinders. And your GM is Flat. Out. Wrong. Full Stop. Period.

The dragon is low on HP, and has a bunch of nasty conditions, but he's still a level 10 red dragon, with three actions per turn to make attacks (or do other things). Further I have no idea where your GM got the dragon can't make attacks that hurt the dragon priests; they are immune to fire, not physical damage. Also note, Belmazog isn't immune fire.

Regarding the Skull, I am completely lost. The stat block not only has the Trap trait, it has the the Disable DC for Thievery checks. Same story for the dispel magic; the DC is only 22 and its a 4th level effect, so a 3rd level Dispel Magic will work on it 75% the time for an optimized 8th level wizard.

I've had more PCs die during my year and a half of running PF2e than I've had in the 20 years prior of GMing. But there is some nuance to this aspect.

Of all the PC death I've had in PF2e, all but one death was part of a TPK. The one character that died had 9 HP remaining and got hit with a Vampiric Touch, failed the save even with a hero point use.

I've now killed four parties. Admittedly the last TPK was due to some really bad player choices.

What I've found is that with the dying mechanics as they are, it is actually tough for characters to outright die; usually someone is able to get them back up before they even have to make a recovery check on their turn.

Moment of Clarity would be an option here.

First of all thank you everyone for the answers.

I always ruled (both in PF1 and now in PF2) that if a creature is grappling me with a natural attack of some kind (tongue, limb or whatever) i can strike it back and even kill the creature if it reaches 0 hp.

My dubts are in regards of other characters (ally of the grappled one).
Would you rule that if a monster with 30 feet reach grab something everyone in the field adjacent to the grabbed creature can attack the monster just because the grabbed one can?

Because that is changing a lot on monster balancement and the grab ability become a burden and not a powerfull tool in my opinion (yes you immobilize someone but everyone now can attack you from distance with melee weapon).

Thank you in advance for you answers,

Marco

PF1e was cleaner in this regard because if the grabbed creature was not adjacent, it was moved into an adjacent open space to the creature grabbing it. The situation described above never really ever happened in PF1e.

If you feel allowing such attacks against a grabbing creature isn't something you want, just don't allow it; there is no hard rule that allows creatures can attack outside their reach absent such specific abilities like feats and whatnot. There is guidance for why you might want to allow it, but such guidance is quite literally up for the GM to decide.

And if you want my actual experience, I too am running Age of Ashes, I am pretty sure I know what encounter you're running that caused you to post your question here. I ruled a grabbed PC could attack the grabbing creature, even if out of reach, but other PCs adjacent to the grabbed character could not. I did rule being adjacent to the grabbed character was sufficient for using Aid if they wanted.

In the end it kind of didn't matter in my game; the creature in question that was doing the grabbing wasn't trained in Athletics, which makes the Escape DC from the grab super easy. Even the weak wizard in my group easily got out of the grab. The whole grabbing aspect of the creature was not all that interesting, and really wound up being a tactically inferior option. It would have been far better to just fly around 15 feet off the ground and make bite attacks the whole time.

As much as their bulk limits would allow, I would assume.

Note that a sack of bombs is not the same thing as a sack of potatoes, and I would have a very different ruling, opinion, and disposition if a player asked about potatoes, then tried to carpet bomb the enemy.

So what would you ruling be in this situation if that bird is carrying 8 bulk of bombs versus 8 bulk of potatoes?

Not looking to pick a fight here, genuinely curious.

Hammerjack quoted the answer. Magnus Arcanus is just bitter about the discussion thread linked earlier.

I am bitter about a lot of things.

Posters I've never met before on a random Pathfinder thread is most certainly not one of them.

But thanks for thinking of me!

Hi everyone!

I'm about to GM an important fight during Age of Ashes campaign and since the monster is really big and has the grab ability i was wondering..

If the monster grab a character at 20 feet distance (6 meters|4 squares)...can the grabbed character attack the monster even if it is clearly out of range for him? (normal medium character range is 5 feet| 1,5 meters).

And if the answer is yes what happens if an ally of that character go next him? Can he attack the monster from 20 feet even if normally couldn't?

I hope the question is clear.

Kind regards,

Marco

The question is clear, but the answer is not.

Short answer is, the rules are not clear, and you'll have to decide for yourself as the GM what works at your table.

As written, if you're grabbed, you cannot move. If a target is out of reach, you cannot attack it.

There is some vague guidance under the rules for space about being able to target a limb in such situations. Otherwise targeting limbs is not a thing. I don't really find said guidance all that helpful, but it is what it is.

I've been playing 2E since it released and have since participated in maybe a half dozen player groups, and hosted two of my campaigns as a GM.

In every single case after the playtest, the moment everyone leveled up to level two, someone in the party took Battle Medicine (if they didn't have it already at level 1 from a background).

Oftentimes, players would double up, with two people bending over backwards to make sure the party had it. People also made a habit of expanding on it at later levels, either taking Continual Recovery and Ward Medic, or going whole ham and taking the Field Medic background, the Medic archetype, all the medicine feats they could, AND begging the GM for the Rare Medicine skill feats. I'm curious to know if this is also occurring at other tables.

Do your players (or fellow players) practically bend over backwards to make sure someone has these feats and abilities, oftentimes even when there is already a dedicated healer (such as a cleric) in the party, or is it largely unique to the groups in my play area?

Three out of five PCs in my current group had Battle Medicine, and two of them went the Assurance: Medicine Route + Expert Skill to guarantee a success result at 6th level. One of them also took Ward Medic and Continual Recovery for doing Treat Wounds outside of combat.

So one of my players has a animal companion that can fly. They want to have it carry stuff, such as a large sack of potatoes.

Any idea what the largest sack/bulk it could carry would be, and for how long?

Also worth noting that a L+3 opponent is the sort of thing that is meant to be reserved for an important moment like a final boss and be pretty grueling. And you will have a rough time if you don't play smart-- which is often anathema to a certain definition of heroic. The barbarian throwing themselves into a meat grinder tends to not just result in the barbarian going down, but the rest of the party desperately trying to save them instead of ending the threat. It gets messy.

Based on guidance on the CRB, L+3 bosses aren't necessarily supposed to be final boss monsters. Certainly a major threat, but not THE boss.

Based on actual play since PF2e has been released, shows that your comment is probably correct; L+3 against most parties is really Final Boss Monster territory.

I've also run plenty of L+2 solo monster fights, and even against a four person party (my previous group), the PCs routed those encounters every time. Not even close to a challenge. Sure the PCs take some hits, but never any doubt about the outcome.

I think naratively the critical mechanic is good and it makes the dice rolls more interesting.

To each their own, I've never been one to like mechanics that are based on high dice variance. It makes for an unpredictable game and often robs players of their chance to shine.

Given the

For me the consequnce is that I have to play with really tight levels on the monsters. As a GM I prefer to run with a smaller number of higher level monsters as it is just easier to manage. But that should be done sparily as it is too hard for the PCs to get hits and successes of their own. Especially the casters.

The best fights I've run are large numbers of low level beasties with a couple of equal level commanders.

You really do need to talk to your players about the mechanical tactics in the game(trip, demoralise, etc, etc). Or just do it to them - from a lower level - till they get it. Fighting up level is very hard.

Folks, I need to stress my group fully understands how to use buffs and debuffs. When fighting above your weight class your options are limited. The bard is buffing as much as he can. The wizard will use things like Befuddle on bad guys since it even has an effect on a successful save. That said, there is still only so much you can do.

I'll also add, as a GM I've got enough on my plate just prepping and running published material (admittedly at the moment heavily modified but hoping to get the AP back on track). I do not need to add even more to my busy life trying to micromanage mechanics in the rules set will that slaughter PCs if you are not extremely careful.

Honestly, if your group refuses to make use of buffs/debuffs, or actually take advantage of their action economy, don't throw a L+3 at them.

Except my group does buff/debuff and take advantage of their action economy. The Bard often is tossing out Inspire Courage or Inspire Defense, or even both with Harmonize (though the Harmonize trick is tough because its all the bard can do on his turn). That is just one example.

Moving the Topic back. I am huge Pathfinder 2 fan. More choices each class, the architype system is great. Critical hits and misses if you hit or miss by 10. To me it is the best d20 game bar none.

Its interesting because I find the -/+10 crit mechanic to be highly problematic.

Consider the encounter I have planned for my PCs next. I've been waffling about making it a fight of an L+3 vs an L+2, as it is a 'boss' monster of the scene the PCs are now in.

If I make it L+3, against the raging barbarian in the group it on a roll of 11+, the beastie crits. The raging barbarian against the beastie, roll of 13 or less and barby misses.

L+3 just doesn't feel fun nor heroic for the PCs.

Would you insist that Snakes can not grapple because they don't have a free hand?

Woudl [sic] you as a consequence would you have all Snakes die of hunger and therefore go extinct in your game world?

The Bestiary covers this aspect. Constrictor snakes have the Grab ability on their attacks. Viper snakes have venom to allow them to subdue prey.

Not allow a Vulture Animal Companion to use his Feast on the Fallen power as Animal Companions don't have reactions?

I'd say it was a poorly edited animal companion, but probably the result of the Age of Ashes Adventure path being written concurrently with the final Core Rule Book. As such, the module author didn't have full access to the rules at the time. The result is an animal companion having an ability that is not allow via the Minion trait.

I started this thread to see if I missed a rule, and I wasn't interested in starting yet another RAW vs RAI debate that often rages in the Rules Discussion sub forum, nor was I soliciting a lecture on The First Rule of RPGs.

In anticipation of an upcoming session I wanted to familiarize myself with a creature that has both reach and improved grab. After looking at the grabbed condition and the rules for the Grab ability, I noticed an odd dynamic, yet thought it had to be covered more clearly in the rules somewhere. Failing to find it, I reached out to this gaming community, figuring this would be a great place to ask questions. I may not post much, but I read a lot of the posts on the forum daily.

I am fully capable of making decisions on the fly, but given I have time before I play again, I saw no reason to reinvent the wheel; why not instead see if that wheel is rolling on down hill already?

What appeared to be a common situation wasn't covered under the rules in any clear and unequivocal manner. Sure there is some guidance in the rules for size, space, and reach (not where I thought to look for it; Thanks Hammerjack for the assist!). But I'm still surprised and disappointed the best answer that can be found for this situation is "GM, you can usually just... [fill in the blank random vague generalities here]"

At this point, I think we can safely say the question has been 'Asked and Answered' in terms of what I was looking for. For those who took the time to answer my question, thanks, its appreciated. For those who took the time to lecture, uh well considered me lectured.

So I just have to ask...

Is playing Rules as Written anathema to most RPG crowds these days? Is 'RAW' considered taboo or a pejorative? The judgement and negative posts really feel like folks are calling me out for playing 'wrong' because I play by the rules at my table.

RAW yes, you're right...

But if you told me that I couldn't attempt to stab a creature that was grabbing me I would probably be very upset as a player.

I can certainly agree, and its why I asked about it. I could see my players getting annoyed fast. I've been clear to my table at the outset that I play "Rules as Written" not "Rules as we think they should be interpreted".

Basically because it's nonsense that you can't attack something touching you because it's out of "reach".

There is a lot of nonsense in the PF2e rules set unfortunately. At least this one has some guidance on the issue.

Page 474, where size and reach are explained, suggests not running this in a clearly illogical manner.

Quote:

The Space entry lists how many feet on a side a creature’s space is, so a Large creature fills a 10-foot-by-10-foot space (4 squares on the grid). Sometimes part of a creature extends beyond its space, such as if a giant octopus is grabbing you with its tentacles. In that case, the GM will usually allow attacking the extended portion, even if you can’t reach the main creature. A Small or larger creature or object takes up at least 1 square on a grid, and creatures of these sizes can’t usually share spaces except in situations like a character riding a mount. Rules for moving through other creatures’ spaces appear below.

I was hoping for something more definitive, but this section in the rules does address it somewhat.

More of an editorial, I am disappointed how often they've chosen to burden the GM with "Usually, you as the GM can just make a decision..."

I have an encounter coming up in my next session and I'd to see what others' opinions are of Rules as Written regarding Reach, Improved Grab, and the Grabbed condition.

Situation:

Beastie with 15 foot reach has an attack with the improved grab rider. So if it hits, target is auto grabbed. There is no provision in this attack that says the target is moved adjacent to the beastie.

Assume the beastie hits and grabs the target 15 feet away. The target now has the grabbed condition, so its flat footed, immobilized, and has a flat check to fail manipulate actions.

Rules as Written, would the grabbed character, with a reach of 5 feet, be able to melee attack the creature that has them grabbed? Based on what I've read, the answer is no.

Please note, while I certainly appreciate any "Here is how I would rule it..." type posts, I am looking for definitive 'Rules as Written'. I've not been able to find anything that contradicts my understanding, but I could be wrong.

So how well does this work? I'm going to be introducing my pf1 group to pf2 soon. (Pandemic slowed us down) and I know I'm a big fan of the archetype rule. And I want to introduce it from go with my group so that's our normal way to play, partly because of the options it provides, partly because I hope that when I play with our main dm running that he'll use it too, but mostly because we're starting with Extinction Curse and them having acrobat and such fro. Go would be cool.

Is it too much to introduce right off the bat? And how much stronger do they make players?

I'm using this option for my Age of Ashes campaign. Three of the five players were completely brand new to PF2, and in some cases with very limited table top RPG experience.

The free archetype option has worked wonderfully, the players picked it up very quickly. It also has allowed players to build their characters as the want, without the danger of losing class feats to a potentially underwhelming Archetype (and there are some underwhelming archetype options out of the APG).

All in all, it has worked great in my campaign.

I know your party played this specific encounter three times (which no one is claiming to be an easy one, and most people agree that, without careful GMing, it is tuned too hard for where it falls in the adventure AND it happens to fall at a particularly bad level to face a level +3 monster), but that was all with the same players in the same party with the same GM, largely running that specific encounter the same way.

Actually we played the greater barghest fight twice. The previous encounter was a TPK fighting one of the primary antagonists of the module. New characters were made, and we continued the campaign.

The first fight against Ralldar was just a horribly negative experience for the players, and I ended the session as a result mid fight, taking the remaining time to just talk about the experience and what the PF2 expectations are. That includes such things as 'Fight something 3 levels above you, expect it to crit you on die rolls that you miss it on'.

I was able to convince the group to give it another try. The players agreed to try again. It nearly went south at the outset, but very good luck won it for the PCs at the end. I was really happy they won, and thought it was a cool win. But after a debrief with the players they were not excited about it. Just didn't have the right heroic vibe.

I also want to highlight the fact that the party listed was a Monk, Ranger, Cleric, and Alchemist. This party is probably one of the worst possible I could pick for that specific encounter.

Monk and (ranged) Ranger are good in damage, but probably aren't going to be tossing out much buffs/debuffs. Trying to get off a Trip is probably the best I'd expect from a Monk in that.
Cleric is good in healing, and has other spells, but the divine list is really not good at dealing with higher-level things, especially not at this level. Heroism is level 3, and even if they'd prepared for it Cleric can only really toss out Fear and Bless to help numbers.
I'm a lot less hard on Alchemist than others might be, but it's not a good debuffer. Lesser Mistform Elixir, Moderate Drakeheart Mutagen, and bombs are really the things I'd be looking at here.

Altogether, looking at it, this party really doesn't have many ways of affecting numbers. It also struggles on hindering enemy actions, which is super important in a level+3 fight - because every one of the enemy's actions is worth 3-4 of your own, stripping them of actions in any way possible is crucial.
So more than anything, the outcome of any difficult fight with this party lies in how they can use the environment to their advantage, and they're also going to have to retreat and reprepare a lot more than a more balanced party might.

The encounter in question took place months ago, before the APG was even out, so some of the alchemist options you mention weren't even a thing.

The PCs did what they could to limit its actions (going from memory here, again this fight is months old) and avoided giving it three attacks every round except the first (where the confused monk didn't get a choice). Tactics were not the issue.

Deth Braedon wrote:

but given RL commitments, investing the time to pre-vet, then adjust the AP is a non-starter

I’d love to full blown homebrew GM a game for our group
currently not viable

so we are playing ‘straight out of the box’

I mean what's wrong with adjusting on the fly? It's pretty easy to look down see CL 7 against a Party of 4th level characters and go "Hmm... this might be too strong, better take a little mustard off this guy. -1 across the board.'

It's not like modifying an encounter takes some huge rework in PF2, almost always "-1 to everything" translates to a CL X - 1 (at least most of the time).

Tough to argue with you there, though at the time I ran the encounter, I was still pretty green to PF2 (as were the players). It is easy to see how bad that encounter can go after the fact. At the time it took place, when you're knee deep in trying to keep a session going, its much easier to lose sight of the big picture.

The player who wanted throw in the towel after become confused did NOT in any way want to leave the moment a negative [event] happened to them. That comment is disingenuous.

Early in the battle the monk failed his save vs confusion, and the player was ready to quit right there on the spot.

Your exact words.

yes, they are, which is why I provided the context to understand why the player was so frustrated. I interpreted comments in this thread to imply the player in question was simply 'leaving at the first moment a negative event happened' to his character, and that the player was being unsporting.

In fact, the player in question showed a lot of patience in my view.

But I am also not going to argue about it. I probably should not have used the word disingenuous, it was more antagonistic than I intended to be.