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.

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.

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.

i would just handle it RAW

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

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

In what book is this feat? cant find it anywhere.

my guess is that since Shifting faces is to impersonate someone of the same size, larger then life is a follow up that lets you take the form of someone large or huge instead, something you cant do otherwise.

but since i cant read the feat atm, thats just a guess on what the prereq do.

Yes, i dont see why this would change the rule the when you reach a new stage of an affliction you suffer its effect.

"When you reach a given stage of an affliction, you are subjected to the effects listed for that stage."/quote]

Dont forget that it get the Extra rune on its weapon that champion lost.

i think its can be better then what people realize.

you still have the 4 most important spell slots, and can still use wands and scroll for all utility a regular cleric could give.

No when an action tell you to make a strike as a subordinate action, it only the regular strike action.

you cant replace a subordinate strike, with another action that also have a subordinate strike

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn't gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn't use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action

Tridus wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Does the new Guardian class receive something to negate this?

Given its defensive specialty, that feels like it should be able to.

It didn't in the playtest IIRC. Will it in the final release? We don't know.

It would be great if it did because it would give the class something on-brand and unique. "I'm this hulking wall of steel that gets in your way when you try to harm my friends" is definitely playing to the fantasy the class is projecting.

It's likely we will see major changes. Guardian was rough in the playtest (which demonstrates the value of playtesting!).

But you know where I'm getting at, right?

Your fighter trained for defense and heavy armors... should be trained to carry and use the heaviest shield without penalty, if desired.

yea they should prob give Fighter and other classes with Heavy armor the option to take a feat similar to Unburdended Iron.

untill then you have to take adopted acestry and train like the dwarfs for Unburdended Iron

Battle Forms

needs more of an Overhaul but an errata could clear up and fix some of the issues with it.

But both Flying kick and Waal run would be almost pointless if the base thing is you can do one action before you fall.

i would asume that they are special cases where you have time to do anything other then reaction before you fall.

and flying last round is not realy the same as jumping of a cliff, so i would not rule it the same as not using the fly action.

so you cant realy fall at the end of your turn nor after one action it needs to be something worse

RAW no, since you did not take the required option, you only have the options to prepare both types anyway from Versetile font.

If it was not for "Once you choose, you can't change your choice short of divine intervention" you could have just retrained and there would be no issue, but since they obviously wanted this choice to matter more then regular things and did not include in Versatile font that you also qualifies you for feats (if it an oversight or not we dont know)
im afraid you are out of luck.

For example they could have written in Versatile font that you now qualify for feat that require both, but the did not, they could have written in the requirement of Restorative Channel "healing font or Versitile font" aswell but did not.

Everything points to that they really wanted that choice to be binding and something you would need to plan ahead for.

They totaly did Battelform dirty, i understand they wanted to tone down Wildshape and the like from Pf1, but how they did it is a travesty, everything that gives a Battelform might aswell not exist just because of how bad and unscalable they are.

Its going to feel horrible as a caster using save spell to battle Creatures with mythic resilience.

Following the Monster creation rules we get this at level 13+

• 
  Ambusher: Fort: Low(R) Ref: High(R) Will: Average or High(R)
  
• 
  Brute: Fort: High(R) Ref: Average or Low(R*) Will: Low
  
• 
  Caster: Fort: Low Ref: Average(R*) Will: High(R)
  
• 
  Striker: Fort: Low Ref: High(R) Will: Average(R*)
  

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

Average % chances over all 20 levels VS monster with Mythic Resiliance on that Save

Low Save: 8.5% Full damage/effect (Failure), 49,5% Half damage/effect (Success), 42% No effect (Critical Success)
Moderate Save: 5% Full damage/effect (Failure), 38% Half damage/effect (Success), 57% No effect (Critical Success)
High Save: 5% Full damage/effect (Failure), 23.25% Half damage/effect (Success), 71.75% No effect (Critical Success)

Realy hope they just forgot the "made by non-mythic creatures" on Resilience, and they add it with a errata.

I always interpreted destroyed as there is nothing left.

else i see no reason to use distinction from normal.

Have heard and seen people say both ways.

So just for discussions sake:

RAW yes, no rules say otherwise.

Rai its unclear since the numbers make no sense if you use other rules for bulk.

Bulk is "size, weight, and general awkwardness"

and 5-10 pounds are 1 bulk

do the average medium creature weigh just 30-60 pounds? no thats silly
the number is purely how unwieldy a creature are to carry
so most equipment wont make mutch difference, weapons and shield if they are strapped might, but armor and small trinkets and potions wont change the unwieldiness mutch.

and you can assume that anything like that is why they added the
"This table lists the typical Bulk of a creature, but the GM might adjust this number." part.

but it wont be 15 bulk to carry the average martial

(Personaly i im on the fence how you should rules this, was just talking about what the rules say, and most people would say that its not fun to stop combat and adding up all the creatures equipments bulk. prob why they even included a table for quick creature bulks rather then having individual bulks for all creatures in there stats)

Edit: clarifications and typos

awalloftext wrote:

Greater Security can definitely grant that. But for Take Cover? It is arguable that that is not the Shield granting AC the same way that raise a shield says.
Expect that your GM will say no.

Towershield say "Getting the higher bonus for a tower shield requires using the Take Cover action while the shield is raised."

it dont say "You can use Take Cover as if in cover, grating greater cover" or something like that

so you dont gain the +4 circumstance from take cover, you increase your shields bonus when using the take cover action.

so RAW i think he is right, but a gm can always say no as with all rules.

Yea think ABP might be abit of a GM trap option.
i would say it puts the gm under more strain to do it right then it is to just play it normaly and just hand out loot.

cause as long as you give then anything of value, they will just buy what they want/need, (most things from my experience ends up on the trash heap anyway) so as long as they have access to a shop and you give them correct value of loot everything sorts itself out.

Lesser Cover only gives +1 to AC, not anything to Reflex saves nor give the ability to Stealth.

so the Lightning bolt senario with several creature in a line wont give the creatures behind the first any bonus to its reflex save.

Yes, same rules for regular cover and soft cover.

draw a line from the center of your space to the center of the target's space. If that line passes through any terrain or object that would block the effect, the target has standard cover (or greater cover if the obstruction is extreme or the target has Taken Cover).If the line passes through a creature instead, the target has lesser cover.

I belive soft cover is one of the most overlooked rules at most tables.

you assume that anything on galorian cant have a common ancestor from another plane, far enuf back even elves and halflings could have the same common ancestor. maybe some form of Ancient Humanoid form that all humanoid shaped creature share as a common ancestor.

For the case with the bear that is not added together with the other damage in hunted shot. since its a seperate damage that comes from the bear

I realy like the prepared nature of Druid, have not played wizard in pf2 yet. but i would not want them to go away from that concept in pf3.

really disliked what they did in 5:e with casters so would not want them to do the same in pf3.

Case by case for me again.

A dragon flapping its wings to keep hovering would have to roll, the wizard benefitting from Fly wouldn't.

you replied before i had time to edit, after cheeking the book it notised that Nethys was not updated on maneuver in flight and its not a issue. :)

Another issue.

The Manuver in Flight action lists hover midair as an Expert DC activity.
and the Fly action say "You can use an action to Fly 0 feet to hover in place."

Maneuver in Flight [one-action]
Source Player Core pg. 233
Requirements You have a fly Speed.

You try a difficult maneuver while flying. Attempt an Acrobatics check. The GM determines what maneuvers are possible, but they rarely allow you to move farther than your fly Speed.

Success You succeed at the maneuver.
Failure Your maneuver fails. The GM chooses if you simply can't move or if some other detrimental effect happens. The outcome should be appropriate for the maneuver you attempted (for instance, being blown off course if you were trying to fly against a strong wind).
Critical Failure As failure, but the consequence is more dire.

Sample Maneuver in Flight Tasks
Trained: steep ascent or descent
Expert: fly against the wind, hover midair
Master: reverse direction
Legendary: fly through gale force winds

Fly [one-action]
Source Player Core pg. 419
Requirements You have a fly Speed.

You move through the air up to your fly Speed. Moving upward (straight up or diagonally) uses the rules for moving through difficult terrain. You can move straight down 10 feet for every 5 feet of movement you spend. If you Fly to the ground, you don't take falling damage. You can use an action to Fly 0 feet to hover in place. If you're airborne at the end of your turn and didn't use a Fly action this round, you fall.

So do you use the Fly action or are you forced to use Manuver in flight action to hover? or do you need to use both(unlikely)?

if the text on fly is just a reminder that you can do that it should also mention Maneuver in flight action with it.

and you cant really solve it with specific beats general cause both i would argue are on the same level of specificity/Generality

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

Never mind, Nethys have not updated Maneuver in Flight For remaster, that removed Hover from its list and baked it into flying instead

Trained steep ascent or descent
Expert fly against the wind
Master reverse direction
Legendary fly through gale force winds

Another important note on casting spells while swallowed.

....If you speak (including Casting a Spell) you lose all remaining air.

When you run out of air, you fall unconscious and start suffocating. You can't recover from being unconscious and must attempt a DC 20 Fortitude save at the end of each of your turns......

No matter how you rule the falling timing

The last sentence say

As long as you spend at least 1 action gliding each round and have not yet reached the ground, you remain in the air at the end of your turn.

so you just need to use it before you jump of the cliff, there is no requirement that you need to be falling to activate it. (if anything since its not a reaction its intended to be used before falling)

So you activate it on the cliff edge and can then safely jump off.

and as someone have said, you can even legally use the movent from it if you stand at the edge since the first 5ft down can be diagonally off the cliff.

❎⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬛↘️➡️➡️➡️➡️
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜

Yes Amped Forbidden Thought is extremely good, but its not something that will happen often in an encounter that matter.

We just finished a Campaign with one player having and using Forbidden Thought alot. and it happend that sometimes we got a clutch stun on a hard enemy but most of the times it dont happen.

so a limited resource ability that is good but not a grantee feel inline.

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

I feel that most things in the design indicates that stun are more powerful then slow, the rules even say "Stunned overrides slowed" indicating its suppose to be the stronger effect.

if you think that some combination of things that can stun you on your turn is too powerful then question the balance of that thing rather then the condition itself, since most (if not all times) its locked behind low probability and/or high level.

the rules are quite clear when and how stun works, while you have it you cant act, and at the start if your turn you reduce your actions gained and the condition unless its a duration.

I am firmly in the remove FoB from multiclass camp. it allows to too much cheese at mid levels and if feels like it lets other classes step on the Monk's toes a bit too much.

Im in the other Camp, i rather they add more things to other classes Archetypes. it always felt archetypes was to limited and only forced some specific feature of the class on you while keeping most things out of reach.

i agree that FoB is hands down one of the most powerful archetype ability's, but i rather see they add more to all archetypes then nerf the good once.

If they wanted Shield block to trigger before Resistance and Weakness they would have said so, or had another trigger on it.

They could have easily have it say

" Trigger While you have your shield raised, you are hit from a physical attack."

Cause if its before resistance there is no distinction on a hit and taking damage, since nothing can reduce the hit to 0 damage.

to me its clear that the devs want it to happen after resistance and weakness, and have prob balanced shields with that in mind.

Yes some instances might feel wierd that the hard bones on a skeleton helps the shield, but its also the other way around.
buff spells that give resistance would reasonably also protect your gear, but would in that case not since the shield would take damage before resistance.

but sometimes you have to paint with broad strokes else we would have gotten tons of special cases on how mutch damage a shield takes,
and this way they dont have to bother with resistance runes and material for shields.

I Definitely prefer Pf2's system with Prepared and Spontaneous rather then 5:e's system.

Ravingdork wrote:

It's a shame so many young people these days choose to bury their heads at the slightest contention or would rather let their emotions override rational thought than have a proper discussion.

Nothing like a sweeping stereotype claiming that everyone born in a certain year (or years) has the same disabilities and incompentences. What a derogatory way to describe a group of people.

Agism is never OK, no matter which direction you're pointing your finger.
Flagging.

tl;dr: OK, Boomer

"a shame so many young people" is not "claiming that everyone born in a certain year"

but this is getting off topic and you guys are just throwing insults at eatch other, just your own comment "tl;dr: OK, Boomer" is (if not more) of an agism remark.