Miraklu's page

Wow, this is a very narrow view of morality. Yeah, I can easily see morality in raiding and stealing. For the good of Freedom, to be just one step beyond the reach of any king or tyrant who wishes to impose on you. Loyal only to those who pledge themselves equally to you.

Also, if you would have to hurt true innocents to take something... I would imagine a good person would just: No longer want it. and thus no longer be bound by their edicts. If they NEED it then it becomes an ethical dilemma.
I can see a good and holy person flying Holy banner with pride. Calling for their prey to drop arms, or suffer the Pirate Queen's wrath.

THAT is the kind of answer I have been looking for. That does make sense.

That depends on the source you are using. The character of Robin Hood is a folkloric character and has a number of versions. the Noble origin is a latter addition to Robin Hood, heck even Maid Marion wasn't in some of the earlist Ballads. Also in the original Ballads, it wasn't just a desperate thing, I don't know when he got his rob from the rich to give to the poor thing but it wasn't there in the early ballads, though some of them did have him with a code of conduct.

Indeed and it is quite fascinating on how Folklore does develop. Though the noble background is usually used when he is portrait as the "noble thief who fights for his people". Hence I was refering to that.

What was more important, is the portrait of a good thief usually means, something was taken away unjustifiably which is now returned, or someone loses something they didn't earn. Which does usually require some context.

Besmara doesn't need context to thief and steal or kill. She wants you to "Take what you want" at all times. And that includes more then just material goods, taking someone ransom would be another example. I take a person to make money from their family.

The web supplement was finalized after the book went to the printer. I would personally assume most discrepancies would act like an "errata".

That I would like to believe. Because I am not having an issue with a casual Sailor praying for Besmara to "Please don't get us killed on this voyage" is normal and fine

I had an issue seeing a dedicated cleric who is Holy aligned, saying "You always plunder and loot, no matter what the situation is, take what you want. You don't earn anything, you just take it."

And if there the choice is, that you are either in the middle or completly in the unholy side, would make more sense to me.

While Good vs Evil is one thing, it can be useful to remember the whole Law vs Chaos part, and maybe avoid conflating Good with Law and Evil with Chaos.

Also, Robin Hood as a "good thief"

That one I want clarify, Robin Hood was a Thief out of Necessity. If everything went well, he would have happily just remained a noble and kept running his estate well.

But he couldn't, it was desperate Times

And circumstances can be explained, even excused

But if your base approach is "PLunder and Raid" in every situation, no matter if poor or Rich, that is diffrent for me. Piracy for Piracy sake, is a vile act for me.

The "take what you want" but "be loyal to your crew" part I think is what keeps Besmaran adherents from going full murder hobo.

Also, if you look at history, pirates usually didn't want to kill their targets. Because if you became notorious for killing your prey, they would fight harder and to the death (if they thought their only way out alive was to kill you). Ideally pirates just want their prey to surrender and give over their stuff.

And stealing is bad, but like, not as bad as murder.

You hit the nail on the head

My question is not, can there be non-evil pirates, that I aggree with
I am talking specifically Holy (good aligned) Clerics of a Goddess of PIracy. Someone who has good intentions but will only raid and plunder as their lifes work. How would THAT work

Jack is a fun guy, but I wouldn't call him a really morally upstanding person.

I don’t really have much commentary to give on this, but I checked the Divine Mysteries Web Supplement and her sanctification says “can choose unholy” so it’s either no sanctification or unholy sanctification; there’s no option for holy sanctification with her.

She does allow heal, but I assume that’s just part of being able to maintain crew health. Nor do I think that indicates holiness when Lamashtu apparently also allows harm or heal as a divine font. Dunno if that answers your question though.

It actually does not. I looked it up the Web supplement and you are correct.

But I also have Divine Mysteries the Book, which states "Can choose holy or unholy"

So now I am more confused what happend there

But Besmara was already seen as a viable option for Chaotic Good characters back in pfe1 and Premaster, so even if the Web supplement is correct and the book not, my question still stands

Besmara is a Deity of Pirates. Raiders on the Sea. Her Edicts are to take what you want, no matter from whome or what reason. The only redeeming quality in her edicts seem to stay loyal to your crew. Your fellow crew of murderers and thieves, so you can successfully raid ships.

She herself became a deity for two reasons:
1. because she terrified sailors that she would send monsters after them (and probably did).
2. she killed multiple Spirits to ascend to Deity Status.

The one mention of non-pirates worshipping her, straight up ignore the pirate part of her worship. Which seems more like appeasing her then actually worshipping her. Or at the very least, Apocryphal?

Like she demandes almost the same things as Norgorber, the God of Murders and Thieves. Yes there is a loyalty demanded towards your fellow Pirates, your Partners in Crime. And there is no need to hide your identity. But like the point that makes Norgorber evil, is still shared. To do what you want, at the cost of others.

So.....how is there any form of being Holy? Any hint that there is a Well intended Follower of this Entity?

Lets take Calistria for a counter example. She is selfish. and wants Vengeance, but she doesn't demand that you just don't care for anyone else. Just that you get what you want and respect Vengeance. It is never specified that you have to take from others, ruin their properties and lifes. That is for me someone in the middle, you can lay out her teachings to be a killer who just takes what you want, but it is not specificly asked to be vile or merciless to follow her.

While Besmara you have to take what you want. its literally her Edict.

So what am I missing?

I am sure we will find ways to argue over alignments even if the alignments got removed.

On a more serious note, Arazni definitly fits the CN section of the Alignment. But to not even go deep into what that means, it is a strong contrast to her past. Lawful good or Lawful neutral, she has been essentially completly broken. Whatever she was before, is gone. She has been killed, remade, repurposed and is now free.

That I do get behind, my complaint was more on how excessive it seemed and how I lacked details explaining why certain things happend. I do have now a bit more clues to explain certain parts so the critic on my front has lessend, now it is more of an observation.

But Arazni definitly has taken a journey from Mortal, to Herald, to Dead, to Undead, to Deity.

To the Point of Redemption of Arazni, I can't say I have heard anything about that until now, nor did I get that impression that there is any suppose to be.

She was the Undead Puppet of a Necromancer, and now is free to do what she wants. She is definitly not as kind anymore as she was back when she was the Herald of Aroden, but I see no theme of Redemption.

I don't know of any Crimes she commited? Sinful acts since she got free? To my knowladge all she is doing now, is trying to get back at Geb, Tar-Bahpoon and Urgatoah and not much else. And neither sound Sinful. She might be ready to do cruel and cutthroat tactics to do those, but until she does any of that, it is speculative.

The Themes I see is Spite those who are against you, and Struggle despite the Odds. Be scarred but be alive.

Mean and selfish?

She was leading the fight against Tar Baphon, told her people a direct assault couldn't work, and they decided they knew better, and bound her. Forcing her to fight to the death in a pointless attack with NO HELP from her god, Aroden.[...]

Thank you for a bit of clarity on what happend in that original Binding situation.

Not every deity in the core 20 needs to be "interesting" to every person. [...] but as a pantheon that's attempting to model game play choices for a tabletop RPG for more than one person. This means we want to have a number of deities represented on that list that gives PC clerics and other PCs who want to worship a deity a healthy range of options to choose from. [...]

I created many of the deities on that list for my homebrew, and among those are ones like Abadar, who I don't find particularly interesting except as an enemy religion in a campaign. [...]

I also created Arazni and included her during development of the 2nd Adventure Path volume, "The Skinsaw Murders," at first to start seeding into the world some "named liches" but also because I wanted to explore the storyline of a woman who had been oppressed and would in time find revenge against her oppressors. That storyline for various reasons took a LOT longer to pay off than I hoped it would, but the women who ended up writing her story later did a much better job than I could have so it was well worth the wait. Her ascending to the core 20 to fill the vacancy left by Gorum handily keeps the "chaotic neutral" vacancy occupied, thematically, even though alignments aren't part of the game anymore, but also because she's a particular favorite of many folks on staff and also may readers and gamers out there. She also brings something new to...

Thank you for that answer. Of course I can afford to not like her, because you guys give us plenty of Deities to choose from. There is no argument there

Also thank you for the insight on how Arazni's backstory happend from the Writers Side, it does explain how her Story seems like going around a couple corners to now show up.(and now that you mention it, I know exactly what spot we would have found that info in The Skinsaw Murders when I played in the AP.)

To the Point of her being a Unique Deity for the Spot, that thanks to this discussions I have come to aggree on. She provides a diffrent angle from the other Deities and is not a straight up replacement of Gorum.

I can now approach her from a diffrent angle, I might even challange myself to make a Dhampir Avenger Rogue dedicated to her. If I already see her as an Edgelord Deity, why not use that as a start?

Arazni is about offering power to the wounded and powerless. She's there for spite, for survival, for drawing a hard line between the victim you used to be and the respect you now demand. If you ever need a goddess who believes in hitting a bully so hard he never hits you again, killing your abuser, or doing what it takes to stay alive when everyone thinks you should've given up and died, Arazni is your girl. That's one of her 'points.'

The Inner Sea's had a huge surge in undead with the death of Lastwall, the rise of Tar-Baphon, and all sorts of other necromantic shenanigans. Pharasma, the oldest deity in the setting and one of the most respected, says that all of those undead must be destroyed - even those who never chose this fate, but are now unwilling to be killed yet again. When most are content to let Pharasmins handle the undead their usual way, Arazni offers another path, along with some of the only empathy for that situation to be found. That's another 'point.'

Lastly, she's Aroden's old buddy - a witness to and participant in some of the major events that define the Lost Omens setting as a whole, along with suffering from his worst decisions. That's a really useful perspective for telling stories about a core pillar of the world, to say nothing of how she acts as a narrative bridge to finally telling Arcadian stories, something the team's wanted to do for years. Add in how she comes with interesting relationships with other core deities like Iomedae and Urgathoa, and you've got a god that opens up an awful lot of potential plotlines by taking center stage. That's 'point' three.

All of those at once adds up to an Arazni who's intimately tangled in several major chunks of worldbuilding, enables a variety of PC concepts (survivors of all sorts, revenge-seekers, unwilling undead), and feels pretty unique to Pathfinder. I quite like her!

That sounds very Solid. Your Summary, together with PossibleCabbage and Scarablob, did give me atleast an angle to make her a valid choice as a Deity. And as much as I still dislike her Backstory as a overdrawn tragic mess, your last point is quite interesting. She would have a unique Perspective, and insights to an Era from a less favorable angle on the Shining Crusade. And she has connections to Arcadia? That I was not aware off.

Regarding how all the mechanics of calling versus summoning versus binding versus whatever happened to Arazni, I feel this quote from a little while ago applies here too:

James Jacobs wrote:

Morhek wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

If dead deities leave a body behind, where do you think Aroden's corpse ended up ?

A certain Whispering Tyrant would love to know (TBT, TB doing a JSA Golden Age trick with Aroden has been in my head for years).

And if the death of Gorum is causing his blood to rain down across the world creating new demigods, why did the death of Aroden not do the same when it wrecked the Inner Sea? Is it because there wasn't enough of Aroden left to do so, or because something took that power before it could fall?

It's because gods don't have set rules. When anything associated with a god happens, it does so differently as the storyteller wants. Godsrain was unique to the situation surrounding Gorum's death.

Further, magic itself is whatever the storyteller needs to do. We have rules on player (including the DM) magic because when we're telling a story together, we need set rules to establish a baseline. People writing the setting have more room to maneuver.

TLDR: don't give yourself a headache trying to work out why what happened to her can't be explained by how our rulebook spells work. Writers don't necessarily follow the rules and deities don't even HAVE rules.

Thank you for that, that actually answered a seperate question I had unrelated.

And creative freedom is understandable. It doesn't explain the narrative issue I have: that the Knights of Ozem, one of the most noble order of Knights, supposidly forced their herald, their Saint, to serve them in a way that caused Mistrust. Which is important now given that is a part of the reason she mistrusts her former allies. So it sounds bizzare, and the only narrative purpose I can see, is to make her backstory even more tragic.

Greetings.

I find myself Disliking Arazni, from her concept to her planned inclusion as a Core Deity. But I know I am not an expert on the setting and only know the basics. So I want to lay out what I know and would like to hear counterpoints or parts of her lore that I miss. I want to know what there is to Like about Arazni.

My Issue in general is, she seems like an Edgelord with a tragic backstory, who is spiting the odds and will topple the mighty, but still frowns upon those who are good and right.

To get into the specific. She was a friend to Aroden who decided to make her an Herald after she died. She helped fight Tar-Baphon, but there something I don't understand what happend. She was seemingly called, which to my knowladge just brings an outsider over, it doesn't grant control over the called creature. But it was specified that the Knights of Ozem, those which called her, Bound her like a usual summon. Either she was summoned or they offered her a contract of service which is usaully done to control a called Creature like a Demon or devil. Which ever of the two happend, this planted a seed of doubt and Mistrust to her loyal followers.

Then she died to Tar-Baphon, which implies she got called. Dying to the Whispering Tyrant is easy, no issue there. But if she was called, why did she aggree to a Binding she did not like? Or this implies that she Knights of Ozem overpowered their Herald into a Contract against her will, which seems even more bizzare.

That was not her end though, because Geb somehow managed to revive the corpse of an Outsider, and made her a Lich Queen against her Will. Given Geb is arguable one of the top 3 most powerful Necromancers on the world, you can have an explanation. It still just seems utterly bizzare on why you want to make her an intelligent undead given she would hate Geb (which she does) nor make her powerful which she would try to use against Geb. I get Geb is one of the most spitful Mortals that exist, but that seems quite reckless. Why not make her a Mindless Zombie, more insult to the Knights of Ozem and less risk of something going wrong.

Which happend when for some reason she ascended back into freedom and is not surprisingly against Geb. And now she is an Opponent against those which Spite her, Geb, Urgatoah and the Whispering Tyrant. But she still is a rebel against Iomedae because how dare she be Aroden's Inherintor, while Arazni herself at the time was the Lich Queen of Geb to my understanding, so she wasn't exactly in a position to do that herself.

And now there are plans of making her a Main Deity. Which I feel is redundant.
To my understanding her Goals are: Survive the Odds, help misused Undead, and spite those which wronged you.

All those you can do with other deities. Vengeance can be both found in Urgatoah and Calistria. Spiting those which wronged you is specifically Calistria's main point. even to a Point surviving.
Being against the common use of Undead, Pharasma is the Deity for that. And she even would fill a better role as a main opponent of the Pallid Princess. Ustalav being a nation which hates the Whispering Tyrant as a Cultural Touchstone and Pharasma as their Patron Deity would make that even stronger of a Point.
If you want to Fight for the Rights of Undead we have Urgatoah.
as a Deity of Rebels, we have Milani, who with what happend in Hells Rebels, I could see being on a Rise to Power. Not even to mention of Cayden Cailean, already a Core deity who is great for Rebels.

So her backstory is in my eyes a mess to make her as tragic of a character has possible. And is now the Lone Wolf who is alone against the world. But on a Divine Scale.

So what am I missing, that makes her worth of being a Core Deity? Am I missing some cruicial detail that explains the oddities I see? Or is my dislike simply a personal bias?

Question, does that mean there will be rules for Airships in the book?

The Zoetrope is constantly mentioned, but nothing about stats.

This book does promise to spice up exploration, so fingers are crossed here that they include something like that

What I should also state and to make the argument more reasonable to make Named bullet a bit harder to prepare is, the character I plan on getting it, does INSANE amount of damage when he crits
He is an eldritch archer Magus with a musket. in a nutshell, he can temporarily enchant his weapon with enchantments like shocking burst. And he can ranged spellstrike with spells, which thanks to the Spellslinger wizard archetype, his spell crit modifier is a x3, and if with spellstrike the weapon attack crits, the spell with it also crits
So with a crit he could do 4d12+30d6+1d6+3d10 points of damage theoraticly. And Named Bullet would make this happen much more easy.
So if a GM wants to limit Named bullet for this kind of build I do understand.

Also true. And afterall either knowing the name, the creature or the creature subtype for humanoids and outsiders before making the bullet is already a limitation. Atleast if you don't prepare it midcombat, and even then you might not get that information during the encounter.

The quoted test specifically says "or this spell has no effect". Not "the part of the spell that affects the attacked creature is negated". So, on what basis you say that only part of the effect is negated?

Note that the spell doesn't affect the attacked creature in any way, it affects the ammunition. So that SR effect is something very peculiar and breaks the normal conventions. As it does so, its specific rule is what should be applied.

if you disallow that spell, because of bad wording, I don't argue about, it is a weird spell

That seems to be the best answer I can get.
And well the Gm and I so far have aggreed that it will be not target specific, unless for like special bosses which have certain protection
But yeah, I killed a bunch of giants so I will always have material for getting named bullets for giants. We killed a dragon so I have parts of a dragon for it. He collected the ashes of a Devil (longer story on how that happend), so I can get named bullets for devils.
Thanks for discussing that with me, I know it is a not certain subject but it does help if you get some confirmation from others.

Making it a piece of THE TARGET would certainly make it more interesting, wouldn't it?

A lock of THEIR hair is required to name your bullet.

There you go. Now it's not just any lock of Troll armpit hair, it has to be THAT specific Troll's hair... probably not in your pouch, you might have to sneak/ask nicely/get creative... good luck.

That leads directly to my original question

You would need...a spell component pouch.

That's it. That's all. Within that little pouch is a piece of every creature type and subtype. Either a bit of bodily substance or an object owned, made or handled by the creature.

From pure mechanic, you are correct, but it still seems sort of wrong? I want it to work, but it also seems weird to make it something like that, something so specific, that it just being meaningless if you have component pouch seems odd.

Quote:

When the target hits the selected creature, you must overcome that creature’s spell resistance, or this spell has no effect.

If you hit a creature touch AC but not the full AC and fail to overcome its SR you miss as the spell effect is canceled?

If you would have misfired you misfire?
RAW its works that way, AFAIK.

If you fail against the Spell Resistence check, the spell on the ammunitiona has no effect on the creature.

And to clarification, so far the GM and I aggree that for most creatures I should be good, if it would be reasonable that I have such items aka I already encountered them and most likely killed those creatures or reasonable found them otherwise.
BUt I was warned that for certain special enemies (I assume bosses of some kind) I need to be sometimes more specific with how I got mys hands on items from them.
That's why I ask now, would anything worn, belonging or created by those creatures work for that spell, or would I need to get their blood?

Yes, the material component is for the arcane casters, the focus for divine, that is not the question
the creature type is actually more defined in the spell itslef
"ou imbue the target with deadly accuracy against a selected creature type (and subtype for humanoids or outsiders) or a specific creature you know and can name"
But yeah, here is the thing, if we for example say I have a magic item of an evil caster, would parts form that count as "item from the selected creature"? Or just things which literally are from the creature aka blood, skin etc.

This question was thrown out sometimes years ago, but it wasn't really answered in any of those very brief discussion so I will try that again
So named bullet, requires as a material compentent/divine focus it REquires
(an item from the selected creature or creature type)
So here is the question
1. is the neglible? Because I doubt it is, and the Gm aggrees, but to be honest that is also not my main question here. What I really want to know is:
2. Want counts as an "item from the creature"?
Here is the thing, if you ahve bodyparts of a giant it will work for named bullet for a giant no question
but would other objects work? Like for example if you find an item crafted by someone and take a piece of it, would that count as an "item from the creature"?

This question was thrown out sometimes years ago, but it wasn't really answered in any of those very brief discussion so I will try that again
So named bullet, requires as a material compentent/divine focus it REquires
(an item from the selected creature or creature type)
So here is the question
1. is the neglible? Because I doubt it is, and the Gm aggrees, but to be honest that is also not my main question here
2. Want counts as an "item from the creature"?
Here is the thing, if you ahve bodyparts of a giant it will work as a named bullet for a giant no question
but would other objects work? Like for example if you find an item crafted by someone and take a piece of it, would that count as an "item from the creature"?

Miraklu wrote:

That is a point, it is again mentioned as something seperate

but it is also mentioned under Armor rules, so honestly that point goes both ways
To be honest, the longer I look into it, it seems to be one of the situations which does not have a clear rule
unless I am missing something

What your missing is armor is armor, shields are shields.

An armor isn't a shield, a shield isn't armor.
If something says can't be used with shields, but doesn't say anything about armor then wearing armor doesn't effect it. Don't worry about it, it isn't applicable. Switch nouns as needed.

That is a good point, haven't thought about it like that

That is a point, it is again mentioned as something seperate
but it is also mentioned under Armor rules, so honestly that point goes both ways
To be honest, the longer I look into it, it seems to be one of the situations which does not have a clear rule
unless I am missing something

So the question is, do Shields count as Armor?
In the rules you find Shields in the Armor section, but it is always called Armor and Shield, as in 2 seperate things.
The example I want to solve with that question is a Gunslinger with a buckler
for firearm rules it clearly states you can wield firearms and a buckler without penalty that is no issue
But Gunslinger has a class feature called Nimble
"Nimble (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a gunslinger gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC while wearing light or no armor. Anything that causes the gunslinger to lose her Dexterity bonus to AC also causes the gunslinger to lose this dodge bonus. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 2nd level (to a maximum of +5 at 20th level)."
now the question is, does Buckler count as armor for this feature, meaning the character does not get the dodge bonus, or can the character have a buckler and still get the Nimble dodge bonus?
the fact that gunslingers don'T have shield proficiency is not Helping.
So can anyone help clarify the rule in this instant?

Thank you for the answer, and I am not surprised that it wouldn't work. It would be very broken to restrict the usage of sneak attack to finesse or agile weapons and with ruffian to simple weapons, just then to have a quite easy accessible feat to just get around it entirely. It would be kind of.....not saying broken but very unbalanced
but the orc weapon familiarity feat is weird, I haven't noticed it, but it indeed works diffrent. And all those weapon familiarity feats came in with the Core rulebooks so I am very surprised that this was mistake, but it also wouldn't make much sense to make that feat work diffrent then the other similiar feats

I got a suggestion from someone, so that the Ruffian Rogue, who can sneak attack with only simple weapon which has a damage die of d8 or lesser, could potentially do that with martial weapon.
the Weapon Familiarity feats, be it gnome, dwarven or elven give oyu proficiency in a select amount of weapons and:
"For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial (...) weapons are simple weapons."
now I am unsure if that counts, for one if you count martial weapons as simple, then it technically would work for the ruffians sneak attack (as long as the damage die is a d8 or less), but the "for the purpose of (...) proficiency" lets me pause on that, because that sounds exclusivly for proficiency and not for "the purpose of class features and abilities"
So can anyone help me clarify if weapon familiarty feats would give a ruffian rogue the ability to sneak attack with a select amount of martial weapons or not and it just doesn't effect each other?

I am not caring for Giant Instinct right now. That was just the reason I ask this question, so I want the answer to:
Are there large weapons in pf2, which deal more damage because they are large, or did they remove that rule and a weapon of any size does the same damage?

So any Greatsword does the same damage, and the whole thing about large weapons is just flavor text?

I am not able to find any rules for using large weapons
So yeah how does for example a long sword with 1d8 damage scales?
or a greatsword with 1d12 damage?
and if someone can reference where to find it in the book and on Archives of Nethys I would be very thankful
(I am looking this up for the Giant Instinct Barbarian if that matters)

"You Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires a spell attack roll. The effects of the spell do not occur immediately but are imbued into the bow you're wielding. Make a Strike with that bow. Your spell flies with the ammunition, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell. This counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty, but you don't apply the penalty until after you've completed both attacks."
This is really conufsing me
so you cast a spell which takes either 1 or 2 actions, I get that.
then you imbue it in an arrow which you shoot, that still makes sense
after that I am not understanding the spell
first it says, the attack roll determins the effect of both the spell and the strike, but immidietly afterwards it says it counts both of those as 2 diffrent attacks, so they get diffrent penalties? and which attack gets which penalty
and the last part "you don'T apply the penalty until after you completed both attack", so I only apply the penalty after I already hit or miss?
I think I am completly missing an obvious point and need some help to understand that
So like for example what is the math behind using Eldritch shot with an Ray of Frost?

"You Cast a Spell that takes 1 or 2 actions to cast and requires a spell attack roll. The effects of the spell do not occur immediately but are imbued into the bow you're wielding. Make a Strike with that bow. Your spell flies with the ammunition, using your attack roll result to determine the effects of both the Strike and the spell. This counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty, but you don't apply the penalty until after you've completed both attacks."
This is really conufsing me
so you cast a spell which takes either 1 or 2 actions, I get that.
then you imbue it in an arrow which you shoot, that still makes sense
after that I am not understanding the spell
first it says, the attack roll determins the effect of both the spell and the strike, but immidietly afterwards it says it counts both of those as 2 diffrent attacks, so they get diffrent penalties? and which attack gets which penalty
and the last part "you don'T apply the penalty until after you completed both attack", so I only apply the penalty after I already hit or miss?
I think I am completly missing an obvious point and need some help to understand that
So like for example what is the math behind using Eldritch shot with an Ray of Frost?

I think I know how the cantrip works, but since I had a discussion with our group last session about it, I want confirmation from other people
so with the shield cantrip you
1. Need to cast it on your own turn to work, either as just a AC bonus or to use Shield BLock
2. no matter if the damage exceeded the Shields Hardness or not, if you use the cantrip Shield for the Reaction Shield Block, it is gone, it doesn't stay around, you can't recast it, that's it for the next 10 minutes
am I correct with this, or am I missing anything important?
Because the Gm argued since, the damage didn'T "shatter the shield" it would stay around, and the enemy could still use it next turn. (without even spending an action for casting it, but that is another conversation)

Wow, I feel kind of stupid that I didn't find that.
Thank you for pointing that out, and for the quick answer

I might have missed something, but the ruling of the Champion Class feat "Mercy" is confusing to me.
What it is suppose to do is:
"If the next action you use is to cast lay on hands, you can attempt to counteract a fear effect or an effect imposing the paralyzed condition on the target,"
Which is very vague for me. What does "Counteract" mean? Does it allow the target to reroll? Does it allow my champion to roll for the save instead? This feat seems more like a concept then telling me anything about the actual mechanic of the feat
So if someone could explain to me, how this is suppose to work, and if I just overlooked something, I would be thankful