Megistone's page

You can choose whatever flavor you want for your character, without the need for a distinct class. Two classes mean different enough mechanics, or they are just a waste of pages.

Dragging it back with a reverse Shove could work too, given that I allowed one player to do pretty much the same. Not with Reposition, because being large, the monster would have to move the PC 15ft to get it to the other side of itself, which is more than the action allows.

I do think that such actions in general should increase their effective distances as their results get higher in numbers (it's silly that the Tarrasque with +50 Athletics can only push you back 10ft tops), but that's a different matter.

The tree doesn't impede movement through its square, but you still can't stop there, as far as I know. Which means that anything short of a critical success with Shove won't do a thing. And even then, you still have the corridor blocked, just a little further.

Jumping is a good idea I had not thought about. The fun part is that the two characters who recalled knowledge rolled quite bad, and I told them both that the monsters could fly (one was a mixed correct/erroneous answer due to Dubious Knowledge). Jumping would have been a great fit for the situation. Even though the distance was quite long: 20ft to clear, 30 total to move. 25% chance of actually doing it, but I wish I would have tried even if just for show.

Attacking and retreating feels a little too... refined for some brutes.

I had this pretty typical situation in my game yesterday: the PCs open a door and find two large, burly monsters with animal-level intelligence.
After trying to scare the party away for a moment, the monsters attack. They win initiative, and having no ranged option, they engage the two PCs standing directly behind the door (which is two squares wide, like the corridor behind it). So far, everything is working fine.

One round later, one character is standing one square back from the door, with a Protector Tree behind him; another is beside the tree; and the third PC is further back. The two monsters get in each other's way, and end up with one moving a little back and the other advancing into the doorway to keep attacking. I find it fitting for the situation, and it also works giving the group a moment of relative respite after a really unlucky first round (basically, four crits received).

But another round later, with everyone still standing in the same spots, I don't want to still keep one of the monsters idle. What are my options, though? The only thing the one still inside the room could do is trying to Tumble Through two PC (and a tree), which isn't even exactly RAW. Even assuming better pack tactics and having the one in the front wanting to make space for its companion, how could it do it? Again, there's Tumble Through. Or Shove, I guess, but the only PC it can reach can't be pushed back because other things stand in the way. Reposition doesn't work, it should allow for a 15ft movement to let the monster move the PC on the other side of itself. Retreating inside the room means that the PCs can pelt them at range with impunity.

A monster with high Athletics and low Acrobatics shouldn't simply be out of luck. It's big, it's strong, it should be able to pass by pushing the enemies aside. I know Trample exists as a monster ability, but it's a different thing: I want it to move through the enemies, not stomp them. PF1 had Overrun, but it doesn't exist here.

Would you allow for such a monster to attempt something with a similar effect to Tumble Through, but using Athletics? Would you allow it to "squeeze" (not the activity, but the rule meant for large PCs who treat one-square spaces as difficult terrain), reaching into the square beside the first PC so it can try to Shove the second, and then continue to "squeeze" ahead?

I do think that there is space for another order that is about the non-living aspects of nature. While storm is about (violent) movement and change, something like stone (I would not use stone itself, in order to avoid confusion with the legacy order) could instead be about stability and resiliency. Then, as Mathmuse said, variations could exist.

for XP this includes quest rewards not scaling properly: you will gain 10XP from a completing a quest (Minor/Moderate/Major Accomplishments) at level 1 and the same amount at level 2, which incentivizes completing quests as late as possible.

What would the advantage be? You are just leveling up a bit later, which seems counterproductive.

Megistone wrote:

Given that there are more weapon traits (28) than weapon groups (17), this rule would make a fighter less versatile than it is now. Which doesn't imply less powerful, but with some precaution, it's likely not going to be a buff either.

It just changes its flavor.

That might be a bit of a misleading metric. A lot of weapons have two or more traits. But each is only part of one weapon group.

Yeah, that's correct, my bad.

I'm not aware of any rule of this kind. And it's not common for rules to cover this kind of corner interactions, because you would have a book so big it would be unreadable.

So, we are into "GM decides" territory. Personally, I think it would be cool to allow (pun intended).

Given that there are more weapon traits (28) than weapon groups (17), this rule would make a fighter less versatile than it is now. Which doesn't imply less powerful, but with some precaution, it's likely not going to be a buff either.
It just changes its flavor.

Yeah, those are traits I wouldn't allow to pick as "weapon groups". Maybe reach, too.

It makes narrative sense to say that you perfectioned the use of weapons that trip your foes, or that favor hacking at the same enemy multiple times, much less "all weapons that are light enough".

Maybe versatile is fitting (and limited) enough, if you limit it to a single kind.

That's a nice idea, though I don't know how much it would skew the balance. I would count how many weapons fall into the various weapon groups, and compare it to the count of how many weapons share each trait, to see if they are roughtly the same.

My take as a GM who doesn't run APs is that the players are allowed to pick which hooks they want to bite on. I'll scatter some hooks over a session or two if things seem to be getting stuck, but otherwise let the players tell me what they want to do and work with that.

My session notes are usually vague outlines of plot points, some NPC names, and a few encounters. Dungeons and end-of-chapter battles get more prep. The in-between sessions are improv and very player-driven. It works for my group, who are happy to grab the spotlight, but I know other tables lean more on the GM to move things along.

That's awesome, but not everyone has got the skills to improvise so much, or the free time to prepare something new session by session.

I also never thought that could be a restriction. I'm running a campaign with free archetype, and I wouldn't have a problem with a player doing that.

The fractional number should be proportional to the amount of changes they actually made:

- PF2.2e: PC1.
- PF2.5e: PC2, Bestiaries.
- PF2.01e: Every standalone OGL book republished under ORC.
- PF2e Remaster: Every wholly new 'remaster' book.

This will make it much less confusing.

/s

This, but with that Euler's constant actually multiplied.

Thanks everyone for your answers. I think that external reactions going at the very start of the new turn makes the most sense, at least in the cases I can think about.

Recently, my group encountered a basilisk, and during the fight I had to make some calls about things that I don't think are clearly defined in the rules. Did I miss something?

My doubts are about two things in particular:

1) The basilisk has got its Petrifying Glance reaction, with trigger: "A creature within 30 feet that the basilisk can see starts its turn." How does this interact with Avert Gaze? Assuming the target used Avert Gaze on their last turn, and wants to do it again as their first action now, do you allow the bonus on the saving throw? I did, because it doesn't make sense to put a blind spot (pun intended) there, when the PC just keeps doing something that they were already doing.
Regardless, it's still interesting to know if the previous Avert Gaze would still cover the PC if they are not going to renew it for the current turn.

2) Petrifying Glance again: if the PC fails their save, does the Slowed 1 afftect the actions for their current turn? I ruled that it does, because regaining actions is explicitly the last step of the "start your turn" routine. Still, the rule isn't perfectly clear IMO.

Both problems come from the fact that the turn rules only mention taking a free action or reaction yourself, leaving out free actions or reactions taken by other characters. One could argue that they fall under the "Do anything else that is specified to happen at the start of your turn" step instead, but those still seem to be things that don't come from external sources, especially because the PC can choose when they happen exactly, and it wouldn't make much sense.

What do you think?

I don't disagree, but if you play a slayer, you chose those serial killer vibes yourself.

Maybe a simple solution: limit the amount of traits/energy types/whatever that a trophy can 'hold', depending on its level.

It's awesome that serious thought and effort are applied to the issue!

Interesting to see what will come out.
And I'd reiterate a lot of already mentioned things:
- strange that all activities would now seem to work like Flurry of Blows? Even if it's just two Strikes at the same target (but without old mention of combining damage)?
- in general: the term 'effect' was used a bit unclearly. Yes, everything which results from an activity is an effect. But can a big effect from an activity contain separate smaller effects? Like, Strike and spell from a Spellstrike? Would damage from all smaller (but distinct, like runes, spells, items, other external effects) effects always combine or would there be exceptions?
- when one type of damage is combined how this would work with weaknesses/resistances which depend on other qualities or traits of the damage which aren't its type. Like magical/non-magical damage with ghosts. Maybe there are more exotic examples. Maybe it's possible to mix area and non-area damage in one effect.
- btw, maybe unrelated, but more accurate description for persistent damage also would help: is persistent damage from area effect of area type itself (and would trigger area weakness)? Or persistent damage is always just itself, a condition which either exists or not.
Does persistent damage inherit qualities or traits of effect that applies it? Area for example. Or holiness/unholiness.
- With holiness/unholiness and other traits and qualities that aren't damage type. They trigger once. Ok. What do they attach to? Nested effects in activity? The whole activity? Meaning, for activities which didn't combine damage before: two holy Strikes in one - two holy triggers or one? Archetype Spellstrike with a holy/sanctified spell from a sanctified character: holy Strike plus a holy spell - two holy triggers or one?

These are more or less the same questions I asked myself after reading the news and trying to explain to my group what was going on.

Megistone wrote:

The level problem with the slayer could be partially avoided with the option of using quarry against groups of enemies, with their combined level calculated like you do in encounter building.

But let's see what's in the playtest before coming up with solutions to imaginary problems.

Fortunately it gets just such an ability! And it only requires you to pick 3 weaker enemies of similar kind.

Yeah, I saw it. Paizo was ahead of me, but I had that disclaimer so I'm safe :D

Anyway, that ability:
1) requires taking a feat;
2) requires three nearly identical enemies, which is a problem if you are going against, for example, a rival adventurer group;
3) leaves you completely out of luck against a duo.

It's got value because of its simplicity, but I think that it could be refined enough that it covers more cases without becoming too complex.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

*Monkey's paw curls and 4e is remade.* I would be down for this though, lol

Paizo DID remake D&D 4e already, it's called Pathfinder 2e. The first time I opened the rules for 2e and read focus points, I laughed so hard that it alerted people. There's something so funny about the company that existed to compete with 4e just looping around to reinventing "at will, encounter, and daily powers".

Good ideas don't have to be ditched only because they were attached to something not as good.

The level problem with the slayer could be partially avoided with the option of using quarry against groups of enemies, with their combined level calculated like you do in encounter building.
But let's see what's in the playtest before coming up with solutions to imaginary problems.

I played a Kuthite cleric in first edition. Her heals hurt as they fixed the body.

JiCi wrote:

Don't wizards in the Harry Potter universe fire simple quick blasts with their wands?

That sounds similar, but with a staff.

Actually, from what I remember, they are always using their wands to cast what are considered full on spells in that setting.

The Gandalf/Saruman slugfest with staves from the movies might be a closer example from media.

In WoW classic some classes would auto-attack with a wand doing chip damage when they were out of mana, which is probably the closest flavor to what I'm proposing.

Nah, beware my melee priest and his staff instead!

Free Spell Substitution for all prepared casters who have a spellbook or similar stuff.
Wizard with that thesis get to do it much quicker, quick enough to be useful in combat. One action may seem too good, but if the requirement is to be wielding your spellbook, you may have to spend an entire round to swap a spell, unless you pay the opportunity cost of keeping one hand always occupied with the book. I think that some kind of cooldown would also be required before you can do it again.

I meant a 4x4 room in the scenario where the wight doesn't Ready its actions. As long as there is a Step or Straide it has to make to reach anyone (and there is, PCs can just stride from one side of the room to the other), the basic tactic works.

If the wight uses Ready (to Stride or to Grapple), space becomes less important, unless it's slower than the party.

The Carin Wight could just use the same tactic against them. Have it Ready an Action to Stride when an enemy uses a ranged attack against it. Unless you're having people fight the wight in the open field (instead of the cramped mausoleums and cairns they're supposed to be in), they will quickly close the distance on someone outside their turn, leaving them in someone's face to use 3 actions to strike-pursue-strike again.

Alternatively, it moves into range and readies to Grapple or Trip for when the enemy moves away from the wight (or when they attack, or whichever other trigger you prefer). Once immobilised, it can just maintain grapple and wail on them with its sword. Once tripped, a PC can basically no longer do their combo.

+12 Athletics means landing the grapple or trip is super easy, as is keeping the grapple going with it's first action (or tripping a character again) is almost a given, and then it has two sword strikes at +9 and +4, which against a level 1 PC is more than enough (especially since a succesful strike is likely to make them Drained 1 and make grappling easier) when they're off-guard.

If it's facing a party of level 1s in a confined space, they'll be dead sooner rather than later if they don't adapt. Remember the thing is Int +1, it's likely smarter than many members of the party.

Sorry for the late reply.

Let me clear the cramped space issue first. There's no need for an open space, or even a big room. Being able to Stride (or Leap) two squares away from the wight is enough, so I think a 4x4 room would suffice. A simple corridor also works, if it's long enough - in that case the group doesn't run in circles, but retreats one or two squares per turn: the enemy has to stop at the foremost PC, who will Stride behind the others when attacked.

Let's analyze Readying to Stride when attacked at range. The enemy would come close to the PC, and stay there because it's not their turn. It can't make its Final Spite attack in case it gets dropped, because it's out of reactions.
What it would accomplish is that the PC wouldn't be able to employ the tactic again that turn, being left with two actions only, so I guess that the wight would be able to strike a single time next turn (as you say, as it Strikes(wasted)-pursues-Strikes). All in all, by playing like this, the wight will be able to Strike once (with -5? Does the wasted Strike apply MAP? Interesting question) every two rounds. Granted, the PCs aren't expressing their best potential either.

Readying to Grapple or Trip could work when the PC doesn't have space to Step away (another question arises - would you let a readied action with a trigger on movement apply in case of a Step?). Again, it only puts the wight in a condition to maybe do something next turn.

But I have to admit that there are, indeed, things that the wight could do. Still, I think the way I rule simultaneous actions is more consistent, and better for the game overall.

Megistone wrote:

This tactic would completely shut down a solo melee enemy: [...]

It would certainly be a valuable tactic, but Ready is mirrored, and foes are supposed to be intelligent enough to adapt.

After one Ready:Stride dodge, the foe can invalidate the action in a large number of ways. Everything from ranged attacks, to first Grapple, Trip, or anything that disables Stride, etc.

If the foes combine this with Ready themselves, a whole plethora of options open up.
Things like Ready: "as soon as they try to leave my reach, or my turn begins, I Grapple a creature" to give the scary boss a whole turn up close and personal with a freshly grabbed PC.

.

And yeah, the most "potent counterplay" of this is simply for foes to instead target the PCs that don't spend 2A to hunker down into a ready stance.

If anything, this actually swings pf2's issue / 'quirk' with action imbalance away from it's abusable norm and back toward a solo-boss's favor.

Every creature on the field needing to spend 2A to create a "Dodge safeguard" to avoid a solo boss's attacks means that the more PCs outnumber the solo boss, the more actions the player side of the fight would have to spend for this tactic.

Imagine if all the martials Ready:Stride a dodge, then the boss just rotates to face the lone 6HP caster who reeeally wants that 2A chunk, lol.

There is no counterplay for a cairn wight (pre-remaster, I know, it's just the first example I found) facing a group of 1st level adventurers who exploit the ready-stride tactic.

What should be a scary monster (and a severe encounter) is going to helplessly chase those rookies as they run circles around it and whittle it down, with no chance of ever catching them. I don't like having a tactic that can be abused like that, in my game.

Slings deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that. I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine sling in the Baleares for 2,400,000 Pesetas (that's about €20,000 today) and have been practicing with it for almost 25 years now. I can even break slabs of solid steel with my sling.

Balearic slingbuilders spend years working on a single sling and braid the cord up to a million times to produce the finest slings known to mankind.

Slings hit thrice as far as English longbows and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything an arrow can pierce through, a sling bullet can crack through better. I'm pretty sure a sling could easily punch a hole in a knight wearing full plate with a simple direct hit.

Ever wonder why ancient Rome never bothered conquering the Balearic Islands? That's right, they were too scared to fight the funditores and their slings of destruction. Even in the Napoleonic Wars, French soldiers targeted the men with the slings first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Slings are simply the best ranged weapon that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the 2th Edition Pathfinder system. Here is the stat block I propose for slings:

Traits Concealable, Deadly 1d12, Propulsive
Favored Weapon Khepri, Lalaci, Pulura
Price 200gp; Damage 1d12 B; Bulk L
Hands 1; Range 300 ft.; Reload 1
Type Ranged; Category Simple; Group Sling
Ammunition Sling Bullets

Special: does half damage on a failed Strike (non critical).

Critical Specialization Effect for Sling group: The target must succeed at a Fortitude save against your class DC or be stunned 3 (automatically killed on a critical failure).

Now that seems a lot more representative of the crushing power of slings in real life, don't you think?

I agree with yellowpete's answer. In case of an activity that allows you to Stride + Strike, when the gogiteth moves away and you don't have enough movement left to get it into your reach again, then you can't Strike it as part of the activity you were performing. You may be able to change course and Strike someone else, though.

This tactic would completely shut down a solo melee enemy: PCs spread out, pelt the creature with one-action range attacks, and Ready to Leap if under attack. The creature Strides to one PC, Strikes (wasted), Strides again to the same PC or another. That PC Strides while all the others Strike, and then they all Ready to Leap again. Combat solved.

How I see it: committing to an action, interruptions, and stack-based resolution of effects are things I liked in MtG. Don't get me wrong, I like having solid rules even in RPGs like Pathfinder, but this kind of games are based on a narrative that I can't completely ignore: the sword doesn't just stop mid-air until you have finished running 25ft away.
So, if you set a trigger that amount to "when an enemy has committed to attacking me, but hasn't done it yet", I will call this already cited rule:

If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it's unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.

and there will be no disruption involved unless there is (enemy incapacitated).

More class feats would be great, but even more needed are more ancestry feats (come on, many have got only a single choice in the upper brackets), and my pet peeve: alternative (or even complementary) focus spells for stuff like domain and arcane schools.

I think a book of 'meat' like this would sell well, even without having a clear theme to it.

Relevant in our latest session in AV, when fighting

The group has a kineticist and a magus, and they didn't figure out the (almost) blanket magic immunity despite trying different magical approaches and damage types to no avail, and the only Strike that landed dealing damage instead.
Eventually, the kineticist grappled the thing, and I described it as holding air that was somehow 'thicker' than normal.

Going back to the magic immunity thing, at one point the Magus tried a Thunderous Strike, hitting. I ruled that the included Strike did damage despite being part of a spell, without any additional effects of course.

Is it really still continuous if there is 43% more open space to pass through?

Rarity: extremely common :D

Hah, I called it, it's the return of Xan-Xan! :D

Most excellent, I've been craving Runelord content. Although now I'm worried about Sorshen. I hope nothing bad happens to her, she's one of my favorite characters from the setting.

Same for me. Now that I took the mantle of GM, my 'winner' character from Rise of the Runelords has got a future planned as a somewhat recurring figure in the new adventures my friends are going through. And being buddy-buddy with Sorshen is part of those plans, since they've got a lot in common.

I like it. The only part that I think isn't immediately clear is the one about standard and lesser concealment.

I understand the temptation very well - it allows you to plan your campaign better, and to show off the cool ideas you have for it. But, generally, putting your party in a fight with a predetermined outcome is something that should be avoided. Beating the enemy squarely and seeing it escape anyway, doesn't feel good.
Have a realistic plan for the BBEG to get away, but also have a backup option if it ends up being killed by the PCs.

Well human vision can see start up to 2,6 millions light years away. With Eye Slash now I can see 10,4 millions light years away.

Now the clear night sky is more brighter and beautiful for me.

Counter the red shift with one simple trick!

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Pharasma respects atheists. Per the PF1 Planar Adventures book, she will allow anybody who rejects the legitimacy of her judgement the opportunity to just wait out eternity in a quiet spot in the boneyard.

You could also just choose to be judged and become part of the foundation of some plane or another. She will respect your choice either way.

That is a strange definition of respect. If she genuinely respects these souls, then she should allow them to return home.

That would be respecting the laws of non-mortality though.

A different interpretation is that concealment works when you target, and you have to target before you can hit. The force thing you fire is unerring, but you may be aiming at the wrong mark.

Megistone wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Megistone wrote:

What's an oracle?

Oracles though are very distinct, like many of magical classes. Divine curses giving full repertoire of spellcasting abilities are rather outstanding. They could be called differently in different places though.

Yes, but what I mean is, why should all oracles in Golarion have access to an identical set of abilities and spells? If there is someone who gets unique bits of divine power from a stranger mystery, aren't they an oracle too?

Who says anything about identical sets though? And what is 'identical' when each feat is an ability and having different ones is completely normal. And identical sets of spells is kind of absurd. I probably don't understand at all what you mean at this point...

Sorry for the late reply. I mean identical sets of abilities and spells that they are able to learn, if they so choose. I don't think that it's something required for an NPC to belong to a class. A fighter NPC with some rogue 12th level feat they couldn't possibly get from the dedication if they were a PC, doesn't break my immersion at all, for example; same if they have sheer numbers unattainable by PCs of that level - they are just especially good at something. And if they happen to have access to some totally unique spell or ritual, even less.

Megistone wrote:

What is a wizard in the game world, though? Ok, wizards aren't the best example here because there are actual schools they can graduate from, but what's a rogue? What's an oracle? Is there some Golarion standard that grants you those titles when you show that you are able to learn a specific set of abilities, but not certain others?

A wizard is a savant that studied arcane magic (the "widest" magical tradition) to learn to control it. Now, the Wizard can be called a "sage" in it's culture, or a "mage", or an "adept", or they could even be called a "sorcerer", but it doesn't change the fact that the wizard is defined by "in world" characteristic, beyond the mechanic of their class. The sage, mage, adept and "sorcerer" of the four different culture could come together and would understand that beyond their title and cultural difference, they have sensibly the same job. Likewise for actual sorcerers, druid, cleric, oracle, etc etc...

No matter their skills or area of expectise, a wizard is a wizard even when we completely abstract the gameplay element, due to the fact that they all share well defined "in world" characteristic. Most classes are like this, I'd say the only classes that are mostly "gameplay abstraction" without hard in world definition are a handfull of the martial classes. Fighter, rogue, barbarian and ranger, any of those could be a mercenary in the same troop, or soldiers of the same rank in the same army, and while their way of fighting is different, that difference isn't as "hard" as the difference that exist between a wizard and a druid. "In world", I expect that a "bow ranger" that meet a "bow fighter" and a "dual weapon ranger" would think that they are closer to the fighter than the other ranger.

So indeed, if a human wizard PC meeting a human wizard NPC, there is an expectation that the NPC can't do think the player wouldn't be able to do if they had access to the NPC ressource and levels. "In world", they are the same thing, therefore they come with...

Well I completely disagree. I see little in-world reason for any two wizards (and even less for other spellcasters) having to have the ability to learn the exact same set of abilities and spells, nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't break my suspension of disbelief that some wizard NPC has got a unique ability to use spells a different wizard (PC or not) can't access.

Megistone wrote:

What's an oracle?

Oracles though are very distinct, like many of magical classes. Divine curses giving full repertoire of spellcasting abilities are rather outstanding. They could be called differently in different places though.

Yes, but what I mean is, why should all oracles in Golarion have access to an identical set of abilities and spells? If there is someone who gets unique bits of divine power from a stranger mystery, aren't they an oracle too?

Because the way the developers envisioned PCs finding their path to immortality is by sticking to some kind of cause with great dedication. Just being very good at fighting or casting spells isn't enough to be a mythic character.

Back on topic now, on the subject of "NPC being allowed things the player can't have", I think the real issue here isn't the notion of them having different rules at all, and more about them not following the same rules on the few subject where they are directly comparable to the PC.

Obviously, a magical monsters can have abilities the PC never could. Obviously, the great ancient lord of greed have access for far more ressources and minion than the PC, he can possess multiple artifacts, all of that is fine. But that same lord of greed is still a human, and still a wizard, so the PC come to expect that in those regard, he work with the same rule they do, so if he suddently started doing things a player wizard couldn't do if they had access to all of his ressources (like if he was spam casting "quickenned mass heal" for exemple), then it's going to break immersion.

What is a wizard in the game world, though? Ok, wizards aren't the best example here because there are actual schools they can graduate from, but what's a rogue? What's an oracle? Is there some Golarion standard that grants you those titles when you show that you are able to learn a specific set of abilities, but not certain others?

PC rules are for PCs - who will have some abilities they probably won't ever see replicated by others. NPCs are something else, and they can also have a knack to do things in a way that is only meant for them.

My Thaumaturge player decided to go with starknife as his main weapon, but we are still at the other end of 'endgame'. I'll let you know in a few years :)

I didn't want to use Free Archetype (or any other optional rules) for my first PF2e campaign, but the potential fourth player backed out and I thought FA was a good way to compensate in part.

It makes no narrative sense to say that the rogue is incapable of not striking a weak spot - or, in general, that a character is incapable of turning off an ability they have.

The rules leave all these corner cases out because there is a limited page count, and since you are generally striking enemies and trying to do as much damage as possible, that's what is covered by the rules. And being a slave to RAW is pointless, because in an open game like this, you will always have to adjudicate things that are not covered by it.
What is useful is considering how your players could abuse the leeway you are granting them. In these case, I don't think they can.

The idea that minions are actually controlled by the GM dates way back; I remember similar discussions about animal companions in PF1.
It does make sense. It's just a playstyle that many don't like.