Mellack's page

I'm still getting the hang of PF2, and I'm not sure whether this is an option RAW; or which class would have it.

I understand the various Champion abilities that let you take a retributive strike against an enemy that attacks your ally - but is there any ability/spell that lets you -take- the hit for your ally?

Feats like Shield Warden will let you use shield block that can protect an ally from some damage.

StarlingSweeter wrote:

1. I believe its ambiguous but I think its reasonable to think that another one will be summoned. Like a summon animal spell.

2. AoO in 2e is a specifically stated ability. Both players and creatures must have it specifically noted in their statblock that they can use it. For players this is usually a 6th or higher feat (for most martial classes except fighter). For creatures this ability is usually only on particularly martial oriented creatures or extremely strong and intelligent ones.

The cockatrice doesnt have it.

Thank you for the fast answer!

I looked up a regular cockatrice and you're right it doesn't have it. But the spell/Hazard says the line "The cockatrice can use 3 actions each round and can use reactions, unlike most summoned creatures."

If a creature has a reaction, can I then use that reaction for a AOO? If not then what else can a reaction do for a creature? Thats the part I'm confused about with this entire event.

Again, thank you for answering I can't go to our expert since he's a player in the game so I don't want to spoils things haha.

No, AoO is a special action that uses the reaction. Since the creature doesn't have it, it cannot do it. Normally summons cannot use reactions at all. This one can, so it might be able to Arrest a Fall or other standard reactions.

"The ability to express and communicate" is already covered by other skills such as diplomacy or performance. Language is just a tool for those skills. I think that is why it is a simple binary. Either you know the language, so can use your other skill, or you do not and can't.

I think languages are basically glossed over in the game to keep the story moving. I don't feel the granularity you are suggesting is needed. I am happy with a language just being known or not.

You can already learn new languages. The multilingual feat lets you learn two new languages and can be taken multiple times.

Really? How else do you describe the text "When you adjust the cloak’s clasp (an Interact action), the cloak transforms to match the environment around you and muffles your sounds, granting you a +1 item bonus to Stealth checks." if not as an activation? It describes the action required and the result. It certainly reads that you don't get a stealth bonus until you spend an interact action to start that. If it just requires being worn, that sentence makes no sense and is in conflict. Either it just needs to be worn while invested, or it needs an additional interact action to adjust the clasp.

It lasts until the user unfastens the clasp. It is an item bonus from a worn item. They generally last as long as the worn item is worn and invested. It is usable in exploration, encounter, and downtime modes.

That sounds good, but it seems rather pointless to include the one action activation if it lasts until removed.

Is there any sort of official guidance on how long the stealth bonus from the Cloak lasts? Here is the relevant rules text: "When you adjust the cloak’s clasp (an Interact action), the cloak transforms to match the environment around you and muffles your sounds, granting you a +1 item bonus to Stealth checks."

If it only lasts a turn that doesn't seem very combat useful, but could be good for exploration. Then again, do things that only last a turn even count during exploration? Can you assume to have the bonus if you are using the Avoid Notice activity?

Mellack wrote:

Not a great example, but if a character has no weapons, but has access to tools (perhaps being used as slave labor), a critical failure on repair checks does 2d6 damage to whatever object they were working on. That might be used as a way to break their chains.

And you could do Battle Medicine to wound enemies.

It's only 1d8, but automatic if you can choose a crit failure and only one action, which at 1st level is kinda useful. :-)
(Of course, just the fact you can target enemies is wonky.)

Oh, and you could treat poison. It is one action and if you can choose to crit fail you give them a -2 on their save. Good for a 3rd action.

Not a great example, but if a character has no weapons, but has access to tools (perhaps being used as slave labor), a critical failure on repair checks does 2d6 damage to whatever object they were working on. That might be used as a way to break their chains.

OK, I was right in thinking it wasn't explicitly covered, so probably not allowed. Thank you all for the assistance.

Is there any rule about choosing to fail (critically) a skill check on purpose?

I have a question about reaction timing that I would like to get some input on from the community. Say a monster triggers an AoO from the fighter due to trying to leave a square. The fighter must get that reaction before the monster leaves the square so that they can still reach them with the attack. Now what if that fighter's attack can trigger another reaction from a different part member. Would that attack also be before the monster leaves the square or would the creature get a square of movement first?

(The situation I am thinking is where the fighter is part of a sniper duo and gets a critical hit, that allows the other member to also take a reaction attack. If the monster were to be next to cover, would they be able to move into it before the second reaction or not?)

The group I play with does not use free archetypes. We just play it by the book. Never really felt that we needed the power boost.

If that wizard is untrained, then they are maybe getting a +1 or +2 for strength and that is all. If they left strength at a 10 then they have no bonus. Untrained skills do not add level (barring something like Pathfinder Agent). An untrained level 20 wizard is not out-wrestling much without spells. If they are trained though...

It may not have been expended until a hit, but it has been activated by applying it to the weapon. There are no rules on how to safely deactivate a consumable and recover it.
I would consider it much the same as a Dragon's Breath Potion. You drink the potion and then you can breath fire or cold or such. Even if you then never use that ability, you cannot put the potion back for later. In the case of poison, you have activated it on that weapon, you can't put that back. That is how I would run it.

Since crafting (and reverse engineering) are done at the players choice of time, you can also expect to have a hero point available to help limit the risk.

Since you said it wouldn't bother you as much if it was impartial chance, perhaps a change in perspective would be in order. Try considering it from the first roll. The monster has a certain initiative spot. If you want to go before it you have to roll higher. It is down to the random dice roll. If you roll higher, you go first, if you don't, you go after. Nobody is choosing anything in that viewpoint, it is up to the dice.

If used when already in combat on a demoralize check it allows a shove as a reaction (with full MAP) instead of spending an action. Probably not worth it as it is only on crit fails, but that is some benefit.

Yes, you can attempt to hide against a Dazzled opponent, but realize your stealth will only apply to the dazzled member(s)

Generally in combat you are assumed to be moving around: dodging, bobbing, ducking, etc. There is not really a "plant feet" move, although there are a few things that can do similar such as the Monk's Mountain Stance, which gives a bonus against trips and shoves.
There are also many moves that include both striding and striking into a single combo power. Sudden Charge for example, lets you stride twice and then do a strike, all for two actions.

Feigning to me is just a normal part of combat. I would suggest not going too strict on the code.

You must act with honor, never taking advantage of others, lying, or cheating.

Are they expected to not attack if the opponent is flat-footed, frightened, blinded, clumsy, slowed, etc? That would seem to take tactics totally out of the game.

Threeshades wrote:

SelinarYaez wrote:

Players had to do two checks to climb down a 10ft wall. One of the players actually commented. Really, I have to do a second check for the last 5 feet? LOL.

Only if you don't want to fall on your butt and embarrass yourself in front of your cool adventurer friends.

If you Fall 5 feet or less, you take no damage and don't land prone.

So why not just release from the wall and drop the last 5 feet?

Climbing up the wall would be a different matter though.

Sure, you can just drop down the last 5 feet, if you have a clear, solid surface to land on. If there are spikes, or a pit trap at the bottom you might want to step down more gingerly.

Tumble Through also lets you move through creatures squares. I doubt anyone would think that lets them also automatically get free of a grab. There is no reason to assume that the droplet would produce a free escape check. Just as there is no reason to think it would let you pass through a crack in a door. The power says exactly what it does.

Lucerious wrote:

I don’t have a stake in this debate, but a pony does remain a pony it’s whole life. Ponies are not baby horses, but small horses. They don’t grow up to be full-sized horses. You may be intending to say foal.

Ever have one of those moments when you are brain dead and say something completely out of context to the discussion? Yeah…this would be where I would insert the popular Homer Simpson backing into the bushes meme.

Don't feel bad at all, you were totally correct. If you didn't say something I probably would have. Ponies are specific breeds of horses that do stay small all their life. It was wrong for the poster to claim they would "grow up". It is like suggesting that if you teach your chihuahua skills and train it hard, it will grow to the size of a great dane. That would never happen.

I see nothing that gives the creature growing any type of superiority in taking space over the creatures or objects already there. In fact, I would think that the things currently in the space should take precedence. If the dragon can squeeze into the space available (probably would give them flat-footed) then they can grow. If there is a big enough size difference, they can share spaces per the rules. But if they are too big for the room or unused sapce, I think they should either not be able to transform, or get shunted to where there is enough space.

Sure, but a rules answer shouldn't involve going less conservative by comparison. "You can't react to things your character isn't aware of is happening" is far more conservative of an approach than "Creature can claw and bite and tail swipe you while you're inside its stomach because you think you should be able to AoO it."

You are missing the point. You have just said that there is no way to be aware of what is happening. The rules do not state that, and it can be argued that it is perceivable. There is no reason to construct a strawman argument.

No, you can't do that without a class feature or a GM specific case. You have to be aware that the creature takes a Manipulate action but not necessarily what action. So you know the creature is manipulating something behind its back so it's enough for an AoO to be triggered.

The case of the creature who swallowed you is that you have hard time knowing it takes a Move or Manipulate action as the information you get from the creature is extremely limited.

I think that (recognizing movement) is very much as a GM call, probably with the rules defaulting to noticing. You agreed that it normally takes a feature or specific case to hide such things.

You can only react to actions you're aware of. If an Unnoticed creature pass by you don't get an AoO. Or, to be clearer, you get an AoO but you are never noticed you can take it.

I agree, but I am not convinced that a creature is able to conceal an action taken by that creature by interposing itself. That leads to things like if you have your belt pouch at the back of your belt, do you get to draw potions from it without triggering reactions?

I am saying you can't see the ENTIRE creature. If the creature is invisible or obscured in some fashion, you can't react to it because you can't see it. All you can see is it's insides, so it's insides is all you can react to.

Nobody can ever see the ENTIRE creature. At best you see the outside of one side of a creature, yet this doesn't mean you still do not get to react to actions. I would be interested to see some sort of rules citation for your position that creatures can hide behind themselves.

Mellack wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

**EDIT** Let's take an example with Conceal Spell from Wizards. This is a feat that lets them do some Skill Checks (Deception and Stealth) to make it seem like they aren't casting a spell. If they succeed at these checks, does the Fighter still get an Attack of Opportunity, even though the Wizard's Conceal Spell feat demonstrates to the Fighter that they aren't physically casting a spell? The answer you provide to this question will definitely be telling of any further conversation we have.

Yes, the Fighter absolutely would. Fighters get an AoO for actions with the manipulate trait, which Conceal Spell has, so the fighter definitely still gets an AoO. It is the manipulate action, not the spell itself that is a trigger. Are you suggesting that Conceal Spell wouldn't trigger an AoO even though it has manipulate?

Core Rulebook Pg 473 "This reaction lets you make a melee Strike if a creature within reach uses a manipulate or move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action."

Again, the Fighter has to be aware he is casting spells (AKA performing actions) to use reactions against it. You can't take reactions for things your character isn't aware of. That's metagaming.

That is just completely wrong. Fighters do not get an AoO to casting, they get it to actions that have the manipulate trait. Conceal spell has the manipulate trait, so a fighter gets to react. It doesn't matter if the fighter thinks they are casting a spell or making shadow puppets, they still get an AoO. Are you claiming that Conceal Spell somehow negates the Fighter's reaction to the action of Conceal Spell?

**EDIT** Let's take an example with Conceal Spell from Wizards. This is a feat that lets them do some Skill Checks (Deception and Stealth) to make it seem like they aren't casting a spell. If they succeed at these checks, does the Fighter still get an Attack of Opportunity, even though the Wizard's Conceal Spell feat demonstrates to the Fighter that they aren't physically casting a spell? The answer you provide to this question will definitely be telling of any further conversation we have.

Yes, the Fighter absolutely would. Fighters get an AoO for actions with the manipulate trait, which Conceal Spell has, so the fighter definitely still gets an AoO. It is the manipulate action, not the spell itself that is a trigger. Are you suggesting that Conceal Spell wouldn't trigger an AoO even though it has manipulate?

Core Rulebook Pg 473 "This reaction lets you make a melee Strike if a creature within reach uses a manipulate or move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action."

It is just so strange to claim that the creature is being hidden by that same creature. So you somehow both simultaneously are seeing it and not seeing it. This is even though you agreed that there is nowhere in any rules that support having actions not done by the entire creature.
You are saying you cannot see the creature move because that same moving creature is blocking you from seeing the creature you are looking at moving.

So by the reasoning that you cannot see the action, you cannot react even though you can see the creature, couldn't someone have their cloak or shield over their hand whenever they are doing something with the manipulate trait to not trigger a response? Drawing a potion or casting just got a whole lot safer.

Also, this doesn't address how they know a move action is taking place, when they are inside the creature, their line of sight to the creature's action being blocked by the insides of the creature. It would be like saying you should trigger on invisible creatures that you aren't aware of. Or even better, triggering from not doing anything.

How does the one swallowed not have line of sight to the creature that has swallowed them? I know of no rules that separate the parts of a single creature in such a way that actions are not done by the creature as a whole. That is like saying you couldn't possibly ever kill an opponent with an AoO triggered by a manipulate action because the manipulate was just done with a hand and so the attack could only be made on the hand.

If you were talking to me, Ed, the "it" in that sentence refers to the mass of the leg.
As to some evidence, a 1985 study at the University of Southampton, reported in the "British Journal of Sports Medicine," showed absolutely no correlation between height and running speed among competitors in a University half-marathon.

Actually it makes perfect sense that enlarge does not change movement speed. While the legs getting longer increases the stride length, making each step cover more distance, that is counteracted by the legs having greater moment of inertia. That means the legs have more mass and it is father from the pivot point, so they can get less strides per second. The end result is that they keep their original speed.

Quick question: how are all the martials getting healed up by treat wounds? It takes 10 minutes per attempt and heals just 2d8 on a success. I am assuming low to medium levels. That can easily be less than the damage taken, and there is a 1 hour recharge time before it can be attempted again. IME, at low levels it can easily take a couple of successfully treat wounds to fully heal up a character. If it takes two hours to heal them up (assuming no failures), then you are to a reasonable 4-5 encounters a day.

As was said, the cost is per individual piece of ammunition. If crafting in batches of 4, it would cost 4 times the price. The advantage is that you can craft 4 pieces in the same time instead of just one.

Because as thenobledrake said, they are spread out over a longer distance when they are at the diagonal. Three squares going diagonally is 20 feet, but only 15 feet for the vertical or horizontal. They literally are more spread out, allowing enough space to pass between.

From what I can tell, mount is a one action maneuver that is used to get on or off whatever you want to ride. Is there a skill or feat that would let one get do it without spending an action? Even just some way to leap off but not on for free, such as an acrobatics check to just use some movement? What happens if your mount is killed from under you?

Sounds like a squadron can get a bonus HQ if they want for no cost. The complaint seems to be that the bonus HQ is not good enough. Is there a reason they you are forced to have one? If you do not like it, just skip it? It costs nothing.

You DEFINITELY don't want to try and force the GM to roll radiation saves for 60+ NPCs, hoping that they suffer the effect the same way a PC would.

That will not end well. The best you can hope for there is that the GM will roll once or twice and/or adjudicate the effect of your "trap" narratively.

NPCs and PCs have different rules for a reason. PCs have lifespans of levels, months, and/or years. NPCs usually have a lifespan of rounds.

I am not trying to force a GM to do anything, just understand the rules. It could just as easily work the other way, with a group of low-tier fighters trying to ambush from a radiation hazard on a higher-tier PC ship if the fighters could more easily be protected.

Mellack wrote:

Do I have this right by the rules? My party are in a Tier 10 ship. We are being chased by a Tier 18 dreadnought. Our best plan is to run to a radiation hazard because the dreadnought's crew will die much faster than we will?

Another reason why the answer is no:

You are in a tier 10 ship, a radiation hazard will work as a tier 10 hazard against both your ship and the tier 18 dreadnought chasing you.

Besides the fact that you should never be in combat with a tier 18 ship while you're level 10. I mean, unless your party does something stupid.

Doesn't that go explicitly against the rules?

"Radiation is most often adjudicated like a damaging zone (page 135), but instead of dealing damage to the starship, it exposes crew members to radiation as if the ship were hit by a weapon with the irradiate property that lists low (for starship tiers 3 and below), medium (tiers 4–10), high (tiers 11–17), or severe (tiers 18 and up) radiation."

That sounds like the bigger ship should take greater radiation damage.

Do I have this right by the rules? My party are in a Tier 10 ship. We are being chased by a Tier 18 dreadnought. Our best plan is to run to a radiation hazard because the dreadnought's crew will die much faster than we will?

I believe that you have made a fair description of my position on the rules. I think it is the more consistent reading, but I agree that it may not be the clearest one. I myself often still have questions, especially with the way the rules seem scattered about the book. This one is complicated by having the rules for animal companions be different from those for other animals.

It might be somewhat confusing and perhaps unnecessary, but it fits all the rules as given.

As to "Your mount acts on your initiative. You must use the Command an Animal action (singular) to get your mount to spend its actions (plural).", that is because Command an Animal is a specific name for an action. It is the same way the book doesn't say you take Strides if you move for multiple actions, but instead Stride multiple times.

No you have misread the example. It never mentions a third action.

If you instead spent your first action to Command an Animal and succeeded, you could get your mount to Stride. You could spend your next action to attack or to command the horse to attack, but not both.

You mistakenly think that it is accounting for all three of the PC's actions. It describes a 1st action of Command, then it describes two possibilities for a second action. Note that it says "next action", not third or final action. The point of that is to show that command takes an action for each action the mount takes, to clarify that a single command action does not give the mount access to all three of its own actions. It is not describing all three actions for a round.

It is also important not to confuse the rules listed under mounted combat Command an Animal with the rules for Animal Companions. It specifically says the rules for ACs is not the same.

I don't see anything in the mounted rules that changes the actions. The only thing it changes is when the actions happen. Mounted combat says you still have to spend an action to have your mount take an action.

Your statement here did make me reconsider my position and the more I think about it the more I am in support of option 3. If we follow the example and add the animal companion rules along side it. A 1-1 exchange should become a 1-2 exchange. This leads to that 4 action economy I was talking about.

Action 1 Command an animal.

Action 2 Get the animal to actually do something. In the example it was a mundane animal but an animal companion would have two actions to use here. Giving it the ability to stride and support if that's what the owner wanted.

Action 3. One last PC action.

This interpretation falls in line with all rules in play. Mounted Combat, Animal Companion, Minion, Ride, the whole deal.

Sorry, but that cannot be right. That requires a PC to spend two actions to get even a single action out of a mundane animal. That would contradict the example under Command an Animal.

Most animals know the Leap, Seek, Stand, Stride, and
Strike basic actions. If an animal knows an activity, such as a
horse’s Gallop, you can Command the Animal to perform the
activity, but you must spend as many actions on Command
an Animal as the activity’s number of actions. You can also
spend multiple actions to Command the Animal to perform
that number of basic actions on its next turn; for instance, you
could spend 3 actions to Command an Animal to Stride three
times or to Stride twice and then Strike.

Note that it says you can get up to three actions from an animal. It also says you spend actions equal to the activity. That would be impossible under your reading.