Nelzy's page

Just to make it clear to Vlad, since he asked his question with both Wizard and sorc

Wizard is a Prepared caster so they dont need to.

While Sorcerers is a spontaneous and needs to learn spells at the rank they want to cast it.

Yeah, it's "increase to" not "increased by".

Plus, at all levels it is an increase:

At lvl 1 1die+4>2
At lvl 4 when you get striking, 1die+4>4
At lvl 10 2dices+6>4
At lvl 12 when you get great striking, 2die+6>6
At lvl 18 3dices+8>6
At lvl 19 3dices+8>8

You would have to seriously break the economy (runes 2-3 lvls earlier) for the "per die" bonus to outscale the static.

Agree with this, it say "increase to" so it clearly a replace.

I hope by the time PF3 rolls around we get a better take on weapons vs unarmed. There's so many feats that casually mention weapons and thereby exclude unarmed strikes when it doesn't feel like that was a particular balance goal. Just habit of phrasing.

I'm also still miffed that rangers are not that good with claws. As a nature-oriented class they should have nice synergy with close-to-nature ancestries with nice unarmed strikes, but instead it's a big nothingburger.

to be fair i think its intentional from paiso's side, feels like they have done alot of designe desitions based on pf1 and removed alot of synergy potential, especially in the natural attack department but also in alot of other areas.

NorrKnekten and Easl is correct,

the bleed is not increased, even if the bleed was not a crit effect it would not be increased since it dont say its increased.

Basically me and another GM have different opinion when you look at the "damage dealt".

Requirements Your last action was a successful Strike with the barrow’s edge Effect Your blade glows as it absorbs your foe’s vitality. You regain Hit Points equal to half the damage dealt.

He looks at what damage the target took, applying both resistance and weakness, block and also accounting fore hit-points left, so if the target only have 2hp you get only 1 healing.

While i would rule it as half of the total damage of the attack before resistance, weakness, and block.

Basically he checks hp lost at Step 4: Reduce Hit Points
And i argue its should be at Step 2: Damage Type: "Once you've calculated how much damage you deal, you'll need to determine the damage type."

How do you/Would you rule it? or do you have any other insight?

all great points on the fire ress.

Same agree with SuperParkourio.

lonodor88 wrote:

But nowhere have I found that it is impossible to create a fireball on a bridge and launch it into the water.I understand that this implies indirectly, but maybe there are specific examples of other effects?

See "Aquatic combat." https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2438

I would guess that most GMs would use the last bullet to say no to what you're suggesting: At the GM's discretion, some ground-based actions might not work underwater or while floating.

Firstly im not sure how i stand on this topic.

but have 2 things to point out.

why did they bother with saying that both ranged attack "used by an underwater creature or against an underwater target" and not use the same wording when talking about fire traits and spells.

Also why would they bother with "You gain resistance 5 to acid and fire."

if there is no way to cast fire traits things into the water?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Kinda unrelated also, Fireball is not a projectile in its description in pf2 its just a targeted blast that appears at the target location.

Human Exemplar with Fighter dedication wielding a Greatsword and fullplate

Daughter of Gorum, no record of her existence before Gorums death now she wanders in searching for new and larger battles.

leaving it open if she really have any connection to Gorum or his death,
or if she is just a fanatic follower trying to keep his legacy alive.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

simple and abit corny but i like it :p

Emanation and Auras, there is still several spells and effects that hints to be auras but dont have the aura trait, this makes play with them vary greatly depending on the GM, and official errata would be appreciated.

to give one example Incendiary Aura.

Nelzy wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Firstly, no, Bane and Bless aren't always battle auras, see above.

im afraid you are mistaken, they are always Battle auras for Battle Harbingers dont matter how they are cast.

but i agree that its a gray area when you cast a spell without spellslots or font
"regardless of whether they were cast with your standard spell slots or your divine font spell slots." dont have to be a exclusive list, its just an example and their intent for scrolls and staff could be there but as i said its a gray area.

I think doing this you take things out of the context. Full (almost) entry:

"Instead of preparing heal or harm spells with your divine font, you instead gain the battle font, which allows you to prepare battle aura spells. You gain 4 additional spell slots each day at your highest rank of cleric spell slots. You can prepare only bane or bless in these slots. Any feats and effects that refer to a battle aura refers to these spells, regardless of whether they were cast with your standard spell slots or your divine font spell slots."
This whole paragraph is about your divine font only. Then normal slot spells added. And that's all. Nothing else. "These spells" are bane and bless from font slots about which there was the discourse above plus normal slots which added explicitly.
If they really were going to allow all sources they should've written exactly that: "refers to bane and bless spells, regardless of whether they were cast with your standard spell slots, your divine font spell slots, magic items or any other source" for example.

I feel that the comma and word usage suggest more, since they could have used alot clearer words to express that only Battlefront and regular spellslots counted.

but you are right that its speculating on paisos intent, and pure RAW you are correct.

Example of shorter and more clear: "Any feats and effects that refer to a battle aura refers to these spells only when cast with your standard spell slots or your divine font spell slots."

and since paiso spends quite alot of effort minimizing word count(sometimes they have made thing unclear that way) in their books i feel that they intended something more.

Firstly, no, Bane and Bless aren't always battle auras, see above.

........You can prepare only bane or bless in these slots. Any feats and effects that refer to a battle aura refers to these spells, regardless of whether they were cast with your standard spell slots or your divine font spell slots.

im afraid you are mistaken, they are always Battle auras for Battle Harbingers dont matter how they are cast.

but i agree that its a gray area when you cast a spell without spellslots or font

"regardless of whether they were cast with your standard spell slots or your divine font spell slots." dont have to be a exclusive list, its just an example and their intent for scrolls and staff could be there but as i said its a gray area.

Edit: but i do agree that having permanent +4 aura sounds tgtbt even at that level.

There are too much emanation spells and effects that are obvious auras but without the trait that paiso need to fix.
some of them are easy to "fix" ourself since they are clearly auras in the flavor text but its an ongoing problem and it looks like some in the design team have forgotten that the aura trait exists.

Moment of Clarity should be a free action in my opinion and just be a feat tax.

if they really want to they could make it a feat chain, with second feat making it a free action,
or even take a middle step with it costing you a reaction as the second feat and the third make it free.

---------------------------------------------------

but in the world we are living in you can still be a mounted barbarian on a mature animal companion that gets a free action every round.

---------------------------------------------------

As for your homebrew thing, it sounds cool and but maybe only give the animal rage if you also have the Shared rage feat.

adding
"If you have the shared rage feat your can use Share Rage as a part of this action but only on your animal companion."

i would just handle it RAW

Sorry if anyone read my first rambling. (Removed it in edit)

after discussing it with my friends we found this.

Razmiri Mask.

Have a specific override on its Temporary Hit points, so unless normal temporary hit point dont wake you up, this text would be pointless.

but that also makes "In Lightning, Life" use on uncontious pointless you might say.

but thats not 100% true since you can be unconscious without having 0hp or dying

I would follow : Gain actions when commanded or Gain actions when the master decides not to command the companion (for those who can act without command).

It feels like the most simple way to do it.

i Would agree with this

Some of the old "foods" got reprinted in Treasure Vault, that have the only true list of Alchemical foods.

So you can argue that any not reprinted are not food enuf to qualify or was just forgoten.

its impossible to say, so without GM fiat, you only have the list in Treasure Vault to use as alchemical foods.

Any Arcane or Primal that wants to hold their breath prob uses Deep Breath
and then its a lesser issue

-------------

But Hammerjack is right, all spells make you lose all air unless things like the Subtle trait

Baarogue wrote:

But a ranger's animal companion doesn't need it

>When you Hunt Prey, your animal companion gains the action's benefits and your hunter's edge benefit if you have one.

Yeah, that is tucked away in the feat description for Animal Companion rather than being part of the general class features for Ranger.

Which also indicates that this only works for the Ranger's Animal Companion gotten with that feat. If you get your Animal Companion from other feats such as the Beastmaster Archetype, then that doesn't apply. Not sure if that is a bug or a feature.

Considering that there are other types of companions besides Animal Companion (Undead Companion, Construct Companion), I am leaning towards feature. Getting any Companion from an Archetype rather than from the Ranger class feat is intended to mean that you don't get to share your Hunter's Edge.

It prob was/is intentional since Ranger even had different rules for Mature animal companion, they could only Stride toward or Strike your prey before the remaster.

Even if we use the most generous ruling(one that i agree with) that you take the doubled damage,

i never take that rune for its crit effect but rather theme or to bump my already existing electricity damage(usualy because of character theme :p)

getting a smal amount of spread out damage rarely do anything, especially when you cant controll when it happens.

Nelzy wrote:

When you run out of air, you fall unconscious and start suffocating.

The exact timing on when you lose all air whit casting spell and when you fall unconscious is debated some, its like if breathing out all the air in your lungs but keep holding it, you would fall unconscious (hard/imposible to do irl since we dont have 100% body controll)

For non spellcasts los of air happens at end of turn or out of your turn(saves).

but i guess you are talking about stopping holding their breath before they runs out of air, but then the condition would happen since you are not holding your breath and would need to resolve the spell since it dont have a enter/start turn wording on its effect.

a side note

There is also some discussions on what happens when you run out of air in a breathable environment, since you fall unconscious do you still hold your breath and are therefor still suffocating?
Logical if you would just fall unconscious woudld you not stop holding your breath?

Edit even if you rule that they dont fall unconscious when they run...

Above, it was being said you don’t suffocate at all with this spell

Thus I’m right back where I started haha

No the spell itself dont have anything with Suffocating its the act of holding your breath to prevent the spell that can cause Suffocation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Bluemagetim wrote:

The loss of a round of air happens at the end of the creatures turn for first two listed.
For the last two those happen in that moment so if a creature casts a spell that requires speech with 2 actions they lose all their rounds of air after that spell is cast thay are no longer considered holding their breath and now with their last action must strain to breath the stifling air. If they had no actions left after casting the spell their turn would be over and next turn if still in the area of the spell would need to strain to breath then.
If a creature is crit on an opponents turn and loses their last round of air at that time, if they are still in the area when it becomes their turn they will need to use an action to strain to breath.
It doesn't specify that breathing needs to be the first action just that it needs to happen in the turn if the creature is not holding their breath.

This makes sense for the most part, but wouldn’t the specific requirement of spending an action override that spell (if you had no actions after the spell)?

To me that kinda seems like straight up ignoring a part of the spell if you could cast a spell without repercussions. Like if you casted a 3 action spell and just ignored the action tax?

you would need to have started holding you breath before entering the spell(or before its cast on you) for that to even be a possibility so not realy a problem

Bluemagetim wrote:

I treat holding breath as automatic/no cost for those that have rounds of air left to do so when the spell is cast on an area they are in.

Its those creatures that have run out of rounds of air that have to deal with straining to breathe the stagnant air.
And when considering this spell lasts for a minute and the rules for holding breath:

a creature has rounds of air = 5 + Con
They lose 1 round of air each round holding their breath
They lose 2 instead if they attack or cast a spell
They lose a round of air if they suffer a critical hit or critical fail a save
They can't cast a spell that requires speaking without losing all their rounds of air

The effect is limiting and can become punishing even with holding breath as a given.

What happens when you run out of breath mid-turn? Do you instantly lose an action? If you’re casting a spell using all your actions, do you lose that spell?

When you run out of air, you fall unconscious and start suffocating.

The exact timing on when you lose all air whit casting spell and when you fall unconscious is debated some, its like if breathing out all the air in your lungs but keep holding it, you would fall unconscious (hard/imposible to do irl since we dont have 100% body controll)

For non spellcasts los of air happens at end of turn or out of your turn(saves).

but i guess you are talking about stopping holding their breath before they runs out of air, but then the condition would happen since you are not holding your breath and would need to resolve the spell since it dont have a enter/start turn wording on its effect.

a side note

There is also some discussions on what happens when you run out of air in a breathable environment, since you fall unconscious do you still hold your breath and are therefor still suffocating?
Logical if you would just fall unconscious woudld you not stop holding your breath?

Edit even if you rule that they dont fall unconscious when they run out if air and just stop holding their breath, or stop holding their breath after their last action, they are still in the area of the spell and would have its effect first thing next time its their turn.

Creatures in the area that breathe air and aren't holding their breath must spend a single action on their turn straining to breathe the stagnant air; once they do, they still mostly breathe their own exhaled air, taking 3d6 poison damage (basic Fortitude save) and becoming fatigued.

So when they creature starts its turn in the area,

Not needing to breath or holding its breath counters the entire spell

just to make it clear, the action you are forced to take have nothing to do with holding its breath, its just an action tax similar but mechanical different from slow

can a pc that has a claw or bite attack put runes on his claw or bite?

same answer as before, the solution is Handwraps they put runes on "all your unarmed attacks" dont care where they are or how you got them

Apart from Battleforms, poor Wildshape druids

I feel that if they intended for the damage to not be dubbed on crit they would have added a statement about it in the text.

something like this.
"electricity arcs out to deal an equal amount of electricity damage, Before doubling to up to two other creatures of your choice within 10 feet of the target."

if we assume that we are not mythic creatures and...

Mythic Resistance only being bypassed by Mythic Strike and Mythic weapons that would makes it more inline power vise to Mythic Resilience that screws caster over big time.

but both sounds horrible/unfun to play with.

and if i dont misremember where there not a few low level mythic weapons in that book aswell? so its not only level 20 items.

but personally i agree that we would be mythical creatures, and the mythic rules as a whole are just made to favor martials more.

A more important question is what happens when a monster sets the DC to 20, and you set it to 10?

Example a Barbazu (which makes persistent bleed damage require a DC 20 check to recover from.)

bleeds a Naari(ifrit) with Cindersoul (The DC for you to recover from persistent acid, bleed, and poison damage is 10 instead of 15 (or 5 if you have particularly effective assistance).)

they are both try to override the normal 15, neither of them lower or increases the DC.

Reactive Strike only gives you the option to use that reaction, dont matter if you have that feature 100 times.

What you are seaching for is something that give you more reaction actions, and they are rare. (think playtest commander had one extra reaction)

ty yea failed to do a proper search before posting

Found another Obscure rule that screws up things

Both in Legacy and Remaster
Animal companions have a fairly hidden strange rule under "Young Animal Companions" section that talks about general stats for your animal companion

Animal Companions

Animal companions calculate their modifiers and DCs just as you do with one difference: the
only item bonuses they can benefit from are to Speed and AC (their maximum item bonus to AC is +3) .

Steadyfoot Tassel Would be a useless item that grand nothing and Alacritous Horsehoes would not give its item bonus to Athletics checks

the only other thing i could find that the rule effect is Runic body, it would not be able to give its item bonus to the animals attack

This rule make no sense other then affecting runic body since animal companions can only use Companion items anyway.

My guess: its a relic from early times in development that never got removed even in remaster.
and the fact that companion items where made that this rule negates tells med even the developers have forgotten about that rule

Am i missing something here or is the rule just wack and prob should be removed?

It cant be that it loses everything in Young when it becomes Mature ither since the level scaling and more is in the same section and not in Mature and forward,
so it would lose it level scaling, prof and hp aswell if that was the case.

Gold is not magnetic(but the spell's only cares if its a metal object).

The curse dont make the items fully into gold, only "partially to gold" so if an item made partially of metal make it a "metal object" is up to the gm, cause there is no rule that make it so.

Even failure dont make its more then partially gold, and critical failure dont realy touch on that more then referencing the items that "were turned to gold" but thats correct way of referencing even if they only got partially turned to gold.

Combination of:
1. Wanting to test the 3 action system
2. The memories of Pf1E and dnd 3.5
3. but most importantly it was how stagnant and unfun dnd 5e had become with its limited character progress both in character levels and items
(we started to drift more and more away from 5e testing alot of other systems, Call of cuthulu, wampire and more, but so far pf2 is my personal favorite.)

Errata and clarification/examples for Battleform functionality and all its spells.

Current rules leave some blank spots/gray areas and are (Depending on interpretation) extremely un-synergistic with everything else and limits creativity.

The spell would not work RAW, since you would still be on Doomed 4.

but as a gm i would advice about that let them change they mind on casting that spell in that case.

Breath of life are not ment as a catch all save spell, since death effects and "leaves no remains" still pierces it, so not that out of this world if doomed 4 also do that.

thera are other spells you can use that work after death instead, like Shock to the System.

Both are legal in my opinion,
you dont path "through" anything in both examples, even 20 and 60 in example 2 are against the wall not through or over it.

in example 1 if 5 and 10 can occupy the same Corner, then 25, 30, 85, 90 can aswell.
so ither the spell dont work at all or that is legal.

Trip.H is right, this will be up to the GM what to include and RAW we can only use the list paiso provided.

it might even be RAI since they reprinted some old item on the food list and not some others, so they obviously looked back on old items when they made the list.
but since book space is a thing its also possible they had to cut some items to save space.

yea its abit wierd.

what i can see its one of the following
- ither you auto hit it,
- or they missed to type out the AC,
- or you cant attack the field directly and only attacks that are blocked by the field damages it.

YuriP wrote:

Currently we use Mark's interpretation from playtest time, How It's Played, and FoundryVTT where each damage type creates a new, separate "instance" to be resolved in IWR.

No one knows if it's official (because Paizo has never said anything officially), but it's currently the least problematic rule regarding IWR because it allows weaknesses and resistances to act separately.

Yes it does seem to be the simplest way forward.

However when does shield blocking happen?

Since the trigger is when you "would take damage", it must happen after resistance/weakness, its best not to over think how this would look, its a balance/gameification of the mechanic that make it "not over complicated" with recalculating and stuff.

The book have a seperate section with only alchemical foods, they all have Alchemical and Consumable trait, All of them are things you eat or drink and have a food reference or pun in the name.

so i would not let all Elixir into that category even if the book list a few elixirs in the list.

its need to be something more then just "you drink or eat it"

so the best guidline is do the item have a clear reference to food or drink in its name (or description) is the closes definition we have.

but since some of the old items like jurneybread is reprinted in the book, it could be as simple as that list is all there is and nothing else.

1 - General rules say "Always round down unless otherwise specified."

2 - This is abit of a gray area, but i belive its after ress and weakness

3 - Critical immunity say "When a creature immune to critical hits is critically hit by a Strike or other attack that deals damage, it takes normal damage instead of double damage. This does not make it immune to any other critical success effects of the actions, such as a critical specialization effect or the extra damage of the deadly trait. "

Feel like peopel stop reading half way
they prob have not updated it since to them everything is there.

If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value, as described in weakness.

you cant stop reading here, you need to go to Weakness and read the rest.

If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing.

So only way for this rules to even matter is Material and/or Holy/Unholy attacks.

Since they use natural language and the usage of the word "usually only" make its oblivious that this is something rare and not something that would occur with virtually all runes and class features that add damage to a strike.

so only the truly "overlapping" damage types (as the example showed) slashing cold iron cares about that rule, everything else that is just added damage of a singular type is just added damage

So a [1d12 slashing] + [1d6 fire] + [1d6 cold] + [1d6 acid] + [2d6 precision]
that dont have Holy, Unholy, or a material type would trigger all the listed Resistances and weaknesses

atleast i dont need to do any mental gymnastics to understand what they wrote and came to the same conclusion as both Foundry and the developers.

Just wanted to point out that the patch consumes a potion when you set it up.

so you need to commit a potion that you might want to use that day.

basically it costs 1 potion/day if you want it to always be available

Personaly i feel like ither everything is pre remaster(for all players and monsters) or nothing is. it feels wrong to mix and match.

on to the topic of battle forms, i stoped even trying to use them since the rules are horrible (as you might have noticed),
to much are unclear and will depend alot on you GM's ruling, so for me druids have lost one of its core pillars.
but i have accepted that since they have not even wanted to comment on the state of Battle Forms for years now, let alone giving a erata or clarification.

Lyra Amary wrote:

It's strange because according to RAW the resistance rules also state that multiple resistances don't apply to the same instance of damage except in the case of resistance to all damage but weakness doesn't have that specific allowance.

As far as my experience goes, Foundry doesn't follow that first rule and applies multiple resistances even if a creature doesn't have resistance to all so I'm uncertain if they can be counted as a perfect rules source here.

I understand and agree with Foundry's ruling of RAW on resistance,

because the part about multiple resistance to one damage instance references the weakness section("as described in weakness") that talks about cold iron slashing damage or holy fire damage and the like. it dont talk about an attack that deal slashing and fire damage.

the example and clarification it this section even say
"This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing."

the "usually only" part makes it clear to me that its something rare and not something that almost every rune or alot of monster in the system would trigger

and i believe that paiso would have used a better example otherwise

aka its reserved to material and holy/unholy infused attack and when those resistances and weaknesses are in play.

but lets can the resistance discussion since there are several thread on this forum on this topic already.

---------------------------------

It was nice to read someone playtesting the mythic rules even if they confirmed my fears about casters in mythic play.

Kelseus wrote:

Truthfully, I think the rewording was done to reduce word count and the rune count confusion is an unintended consequence.

The rule is you can only etch a number of runes onto a weapon equal to its potency rune value. But this is not etching a rune, it is being granted by the spirit.

That's what I was meaning when I said that if we didn't have that original version of the text I don't think we'd have people expecting that the limit would apply.

Actualy the rules say: "The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune."

it dont mention if they are etched or not.

and we dont need the old text since RAW it follows the intent of the developers.

I preferred the old one aswell, but we use the new version. just as we prob are going to have to deal with 10min cd sure strike

yea its a bit wierd, or(jokingly) paiso's definition of difficult terrain is anything directly outside the deer path, paved road, flat dungeon tiles :p

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So, the GM can describe to the player that "they weren't able to locate the creature," meaning the player can deduce that they failed their check (since a success would mean they did indeed locate the creature), and can use their reaction; where in the rules does it say that this is invalid?

I think you just made the same mistake as the author of the ability.

Just because someone did a Seek, does not mean there ever was a creature there to find.

If the roll result is secret, the player does not know if they succeeded and there truly is no creature hiding, or if it was a low roll and there easily could be a creature hiding.

You can make a secret perception roll with no opposing foe stealth! That happens all the time in empty rooms.

The lack of the player's ability to know that the GM's "you don't notice anyone" means that the room is / is not empty is the *whole point* of that being a secret check.

.

If the player has a reaction that, simply by its trigger condition, tells the player if that secret check succeeded/failed, that breaks the mechanic of secret perception checks.

you can just say, if i fail my seek i use the reaction.

and you wont gain any more information.

If you can use it: you will know because you just "spotted" them using the reaction,
if you cant use it you dont know if you crit failed or there where simply noone there to begin with.

no meta information gained, (unless you count the effect of the feature to be that)

i dont see the problem.

there are tons of things like that, so sometime you have to ask the gm, for example is this a spell with X trait since i have this feature and so on,

Same with OPs the seek action, you know that you tried to do a seek, so you can always remind the gm that if you failed you try to use that feature.

I agree with Bluemagetim, why take away good strategy/planing?, that is like saying since you bought a ladder the wall is now dubbled in height.

use logic rather then wim, if they try to prebuff just outside the door without subtle trait, then they will most likely trigger the combat.

if noone is around to hear it, then let them and then track how meny rounds of the buffs they waste getting to the encounter.

De incentivizing strategy is one of the worst things a gm can do even if they have good intentions.