Mer_'s page

So minions cannot control other creatures.
But the wording of the wraith and wight spawn ability (functionally the same ability) appears to still create spawns despite this limitation.

A living humanoid slain by a wraith’s spectral hand Strike rises as a wraith spawn after 1d4 rounds. This wraith spawn is under the command of the wraith that killed it. It doesn’t have drain life or wraith spawn and becomes clumsy 2 for as long as it is a wraith spawn. If the creator of the wraith spawn dies, the wraith spawn becomes a full-fledged, autonomous wraith; it regains its free will, gains Wraith Spawn, and is no longer clumsy.

I think RAW the victim rises and is permanently debuffed, is technically a minion of its sire but the sire cannot issue a command to it and then starts acting independantly after 1 minute of being "left unattended" as per the minion rules.

Question one: am I getting this right? "under command" isnt explicitly mentioning the minion tag, the wraith could rise and start acting of its own accord immediately, just being nominally compelled to obey orders of the sire that will never arrive. Or it could rise and not do anything waiting for an order that will never arrive... which is not how I want to play it but it is a possible reading.
Question two: this is more of an opinion question, what do you think about removing the debuff on spawns if they are independant while the sire is technically alive.

Whiling throw is pretty clear about how far you can throw.
Not so clear about where do you throw from.
This may sound like an edge case but the grapple focused clinging shadow stance gives you reach.
To be clear, I'm not talking about the cheesy vertical throw. I'm talking about what square do you count the distance from.
Do you:
Treat the throw as a long shove and move from the original position of the creature.
this is intuitively the safest reading but combined with reach, it ends up feeling more like a knockback than a "whirling" throw as throwing backwards eats up half your typical throw distance (15ft)
Treat the throw like a thrown object, and count from your space.
I tend to gravitate towards this reading as it lets you throw in 8 horizontal directions without difference which matches with the mental picture of a throw using centrifugal motions I have, it effectively reduces the maximal distance you throw away from yourself by 5ft
Same as second option but count from within your reach.
this is originally how it was played at my table until I took clinging shadows initiate and realized this gave me a lot more distance and flexibility to reposition thrown enemies.

As a clarification, I believe all three readings shouldnt affect the damage done, that's set in stone. My concern is mostly about how throwing backwards can make a difference of between 5 to 20ft depending on the method you use and whether or not you have reach.

I've had this discussion in a few places elsewhere but there are a lot of moving parts to it. I don't really have one single question about the subject but I'd like to see if someone sees a flaw I missed in my interpretations or just if someones has different ideas.

This is a relevant thread but it's from a time with a lot less options (just the inventor's weapon modifications completely turns it on its head).

So trip, grapple, shove and disarm are not attack rolls but are attacks (plus force open and escape, I forgot about these until I double checked while writing this post). Usually strike is the only attack that deals damage but not always.

Without any feats, trip deals 1d6 damage on a crit.
Force open may deal damage to an object.
With feats, crushing grab and brutal bully add a damage component to some non strike attacks.
Harder they fall also does but with a different wording that closely mirrors the trip crit success.

We know a maneuver executed with a free hand is an attack but not an unarmed attack. However there are both weapons and unarmed attacks with maneuver traits (ie: dhampir's fangs and fangwire), which presumably makes weapon attack maneuvers and unarmed attack maneuvers something possible (I've been told on another site that this isn't the case but no explanation for why that was so feel free to give your opinion on that).

We know for sure that none of this damage is a hit (that's a keyword for a success on a strike) nor a damage roll (ditto).
Most additional damage effects are worded to add damage on either a hit (ie:corrosive weapon) or a damage roll (ie:twin weapon).
However there are a handful of stand out effects that are worded differently.

Enlarge gives a status bonus to melee damage.
Forceful gives a circumstance bonus to damage equal to the number of weapon damage dice on an attack (not a strike).
The weapon specialization class feature (shared by classes but not identical) gives additional damage with weapons and unarmed attacks.

We should pretty much agree on everything so far unless I've misunderstood something very basic. That being said here's how I'm interpreting it:

Additional damage/status bonus to damage requires damage to be dealt in the first place to be applied (except when using Certain Strike but that's not relevant now since it's a strike).
Crushing grab and brutal bully modify the maneuver they apply to and make it a source of damage, if they weren't they would be a free action instead of a passive effect. Crushing grab also calls itself an attack "You can make this attack nonlethal with no penalty."
Crit trip and harder they fall might not be the same as crushing grab and brutal bully. The former say "the target takes dmg" while the latter say "you deal dmg". I believe this is meant to represent hitting the ground, not damage dealt with the implement used to trip.
Because of this I think forceful and weapon spec add damage to brutal bully and crushing grab but not trip or harder they fall.
I believe Enlarge adds damage to all 4 of the situations, as it has the broadest wording (bonus to melee damage).

The mantle of magma/frozen heart spells each have an option that deals damage based on a nebulous condition of "touch"

Heart of Ice: Your body temperature plummets to blistering cold. Any creature that touches you, or that hits you with a melee unarmed attack or non-reach melee weapon attack, takes 2d6 cold damage.

Heart of Fire: Your body's temperature becomes so hot that any creature that touches you, or that hits you with a melee unarmed attack or non-reach melee weapon attack, takes 2d6 fire damage.

I want this to work on a grapple (as long as it's a free hand grapple or using a weapon like fangwire, obviously this shouldn't work with a reach gill hook grapple), but a grapple is a lasting effect.

An easy ruling since grapple needs to be maintained would be to apply the damage once every grapple check you make. But it doesn't feel right to apply it as little as once a turn when you're keeping and opponent grabbed and they would take the same damage from hitting you with a held sword.

More satisfying: apply it 3 times a round (assuming the opponent stays grabbed). This makes sense but I have no idea when to apply the additional procs and it can't just be all at once when you grapple. Maybe as a bonus when you successfully maintain after a full round?

One last idea is that we don't bother with time running and every action the grappler or the grapplee takes while the grapple is going procs the damage. This is simple to do and doesn't negate the longer contact even if the opponent manages to escape as their first action but it's also a LOT more potential procs than every other options and might not be intended.

As a tangent question: do you think using your own unarmed attack while under the effects of heart of fire should apply the touch damage? The spells also have options that give you better unarmed strikes but they specifically give you the same damage as the touch option ton top of other effects.

Sorry for the word salad in the topic, it's an edge case.
Wounding and crushing runes require a damage type to be etched on a weapon (but they could be inactive on a non eligible weapon if there's a shifting rune involved).
Dazing blow makes your weapon damage bludgeoning for one strike, doesn't change the inherent damage type of a weapon.

Say we have a shifting, crushing, wounding polytool (which I assume we can do because it's modular instead of versatile, if not the question still stands, I'm just trying to design a scenario that allows me to test all the possible interactions).
We shift this polytool into a dagger and do a dazing blow with it (and it crits).
Does the wounding rune proc? the crushing rune? both? neither?

My understanding is that strictly RAW the wounding rune would apply and not the crushing rune but it feels janky so I'd love to hear people's interpretation.

In my particular case it's less complex, I'm using fangwire. But I know it's already irking my GM that what we understand as a garrote is being used one handed so I expect him to nitpick that kind of deatail.