McMaverick's page

What's perplexes me is the language for pregenerated characters. Why are rules for clearing negative effects different for pregenerated vs custom characters?

During play, your pregenerated character may be afflicted with negative effects such as a curse, a disease, or even death. The pregenerated character must clear and resolve these negative effects before the end of the adventure; otherwise, they affect the Pathfinder Society character that’s receiving credit for the adventure. A few adventures, such as Origins of the Open Road, have special rules for pregenerated characters that provide alternate means to clear negative effects.

http://www.organizedplayfoundation.org/encyclopedia/pfs2edplayer-ba sics/

I'd love to get some advice on the correct DC to use for the Disgusting Pustules monster effect.

Nice! I did the exact same thing about a month ago. Feel free to compare your calculations with mine.

Google Sheets: Pathfinder 2 Class Kits - Price, Bulk, and Money Left Over revised for errata 1.0

Help me understand why the following exploration activities do not have the secret trait.

* Avoid Notice
* Investigate
* Search

1. Society or Pathfinder Society lore is missing a DC, I went with 15 (DC 18 in 3-4) since that is the DC one used in other information gathering checks (and fits the lowest level normal DC for player characters in each tier).

Thank you!

Funny you mention that. We looked through our bookshelf and found two unopened character decks from PaizoCon 2018 collecting dust.

Same question. My wife and I are interested in trying out the PAC game, but we don't have any cards at all.

Considering how common the Interact action is used, I'm very surprised there is no manipulating exploration tactic along the lines of "PCs can Interact with objects or terrain at up to half their travel Speed." It has certainly been a useful homebrew addition for scenarios where my party's barbarian digs a trench, or bard strums their mandolin, or fighter sharpens their weapons, or rogue juggles some knifes, or wizard reads an ancient text, etc.

Mark Seifter, could we please get some clarification on this?

I'm loving the Pathfinder Playtest rulebook so far! However, I felt compelled to come to the official forums and share my opinions regarding the "Human: Ethnicities" subsection on page 35 in the "Ancestries and Backgrounds" chapter. As a player and a Game Master, this subsection feels really jarring for the following reasons:

1. The Human section is the only ancestry in the rulebook that has a dedicated Ethnicities subsection. However, based on my understanding of the game's lore, just about every ancestry on Golarian has a vast collection of ethnic groups.

2. Most of the descriptions for the human ethnicities speak of continents and regions of Golarian. But without a visual or mental map of these locations, this information is lost on the reader at best and confusing at worst.

3. The subsection's introductory paragraph doesn't communicate that the ethnic descriptions to follow are common but not universal attributes of their respective ethnic groups. As a reader, it's too easy to assume that, for example, all Varisians favor a nomadic life and therefore my Varisian Fighter should have the Nomad background.

4. There are major human ethnic groups missing from this subsection. One such group are the Chelish, which are pretty much everywhere in Avistan and northern Garund thanks to the Empire of Cheliax.

5. By including this subsection in such an early chapter of the rulebook, all players who create a human are asked to at least consider, if not choose, their character's ethnicity during character creation. At least to me, this tactic seems counterintuitive to the stated goal of this new edition: "to make the game easier to learn and simpler to play, while maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder."

Don't get me wrong, I love that human ethnicities are part of the rulebook. I just feel that they are out of place on page 35. To solve the above issues, here are some techniques that I hope are considered:

- Add a chapter to the rulebook that details the setting of Golarian. Throughout the rulebook, point readers to this later chapter if they are interested in learning more about the game's setting and its inhabitants.

- In this chapter, include a map of the entire planet and, within separate sections, maps of Golarian's continents and/or regions too.

- Move the "Human: Ethnicities" subsection from page 35 into an appropriate regional section of this new chapter.

- Add in key, missing human ethnicities to their appropriate regional section.

- Add in missing ethnicities for other ancestries to an appropriate regional section as well.

Personally, I would also love to see this chapter include the various factions and organizations—and their motivations—outlined at a high-level on a per continent/region basis. The "Setting" chapter in the Starfinder rulebook is a good place to find inspiration, though I don't think blindly copying that structure is the right approach for Pathfinder.

Anyway, I hope this feedback finds it way to the Pathfinder designers. I'm looking at you, Mark. Keep up the great work!

Thank you for confirming and for the extra insights!

Can the flat-footed condition be combined (i.e. stack) with the -2 AC penalty from either the entangled or grappled conditions? I ask because the pinned condition applies both flat-footed and a -4 AC penalty all on its own.

I don't think damage is what defines an attack. but giving someone a condition or such would as well (such as fear, or daze, or blind, or whatever).

Basically, any spell that affects a non-ally is most likely an attack, even if it doesn't do damage.

That's correct. In the section called "Attacks" (page 331-332) in Chapter 10 "Magic and Spells" of the Starfinder Core Rulebook, its states (emphasis mine):

"Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. Anytime you would need to make an attack roll to determine whether your spell hits a target, you are considered to be making an attack.

Even an effect that is inoffensive or beneficial to some affected creatures still counts as an attack if it would be considered offensive to any affected creature. Spells that deal damage, spells that opponents can resist with saving throws (and that are not harmless), and spells that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."

Logically, this makes sense. Is this order confirmed in the core rulebook somewhere? I’ve looked high and low.

I found a reference for dice check resolution order, but not in the core rulebook! Rather, I found it in the Starfinder Alien Archive, under the section called "Spell Resistance (Ex)" (page 156) in Appendix 4 "Universal Creature Rules". It states:

"The creature can avoid the effects of some spells and spell-like abilities that would directly affect it. To determine whether a spell or spell-like ability works against a creature with spell resistance, the caster must attempt a caster level check (1d20 + caster level). If the result equals or exceeds the creature’s spell resistance, the spell works normally, though the creature can still attempt any saving throws normally allowed. See page 265 of the Starfinder Core Rulebook for more information."

At least this confirms that resolving the spell resistance comes before resolving the saving throw. And though it's not officially stated, I believe it's a fair interpretation of the above rules to resolve the attack roll before the saving throw as well.

It should be hit, spell resistance, saving throw in that order if they have it.

The monster's spell resistance doesn't trigger if they aren't hit, and won't need to save if it's resistance stops the spell or isn't hit.

Logically, this makes sense. Is this order confirmed in the core rulebook somewhere? I’ve looked high and low.

By the way, I found the rule about critically hitting with spells that require an attack roll in the rulebook. It’s in the “Targets” subsection (page 334-335), under the “Area, Effect, and Targets” section in Chapter 10 “Magic and Spells”.

“Spells with Attack Rolls: Some spells require an attack roll to hit. For these spells, you don’t need line of sight to the target, but you still need line of effect (see page 271). These spells can score a critical hit just as a weapon can, and deal double damage on a successful critical hit. If one of these spells has a duration, it refers to the duration of the effect that the attack causes, not the length of time that the attack itself persists.”

They're using too many words and confusing language to say that just because you're not making an attack roll, doesn't mean you're not making an attack.

Basically, they're rule-proofing someone saying 'Well, this spell ends if I make an attack, but fireball doesn't need a roll so it isn't an attack.'

Yeah, the language of the quote in my original post is verbose and confusing. So, Pantshandshake, you're saying that any casted offensive spell, even if it doesn't require an attack roll check, is still considered an "attack" because there are certain effects in the game that are dependent on whether or not an attack was made.

For example, the spell description of the Invisibility spell states:

"The spell ends if the target attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell or harmful effect targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Actions directed at unattended objects don’t break the spell. Spells that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon security forces and have them attack, start a trash compactor with foes inside, remotely trigger traps, and so forth."

So, if a creature casted Invisibility and then Magic Missiles, the Invisibility spell would end because an attack was made, even though Magic Missiles doesn't require an attack roll check.

Correct. Anything with an attack roll can critically hit.

Which... has nothing to do with saving throws, so I'm not sure how you got from A to B, but there you go.

Thanks for clarifying. By the way, does the dice check resolution order for a casted offensive spell always go from attack roll to saving throw to spell resistance, whichever are required by the spell? Assuming the target makes no reactions, of course.

That's exactly what I'm saying yes. And magic missile even says they strike unerringly.

unerring (adj.) Committing no mistakes; consistently accurate.

Okay, good to know. Learn something new every day!

Mind answering another question, SirShua, while you're here? In the subsection "Automatic Failures and Successes" under the section "Saving Throws in Play" in Chapter 8 "Tactical Rules", it states:

"A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success."

Does this mean it's only possible to critically hit with a casted offensive spell that requires an attack roll check to be made?

If the spell says make an attack roll, then roll the appropriate ranged/melee attack. If it doesn't say to make an attack roll then it doesn't need to hit. Spells of both types may have saves and may or may not be blocked by spell resistance. Look at spells like hurl forcedisk, jolting surge, disintegrate and compare to spells like daze or mindthrust.

So, SirShua, you're saying that the spell description for each offensive spell should be read as written (RAW) because it explains which checks to make when cast.

For example, when casting spells like Hurl Forcedisk and Jolting Surge, make the following checks.

- Attack roll
- Spell resistance

And when casting spells like Daze and Mind Thrust, make these checks.

- Saving throw
- Spell resistance

When casting spells like Crush Skull and Disintegrate, make all three checks.

- Attack roll
- Saving throw
- Spell resistance

And when casting spells like Magic Missile and Wall of Fire, only make this check.

- Spell resistance

Is this why people often say Magic Missiles is an "auto-hit" spell? Because it doesn't require an attack roll or a saving throw check?

I could use some help understanding the rules around casting offensive spells and attack rolls. In the section called "Attacks" (page 331) in Chapter 10 "Magic and Spells" of the Starfinder Core Rulebook, its states:

"Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. Anytime you would need to make an attack roll to determine whether your spell hits a target, you are considered to be making an attack.

Even an effect that is inoffensive or beneficial to some affected creatures still counts as an attack if it would be considered offensive to any affected creature. Spells that deal damage, spells that opponents can resist with saving throws (and that are not harmless), and spells that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks."

If all offensive spells are considered attacks, does that mean a caster must make an attack roll against their target's AC to determine if a spell successfully hits? On top of saving throw and spell resistance checks, if required?