OliveToad's page

I really don't see how this could be read as if illusions were allowed to do Athletics skill checks. Damage is a game term. It's not any 'effect', it's damage. Results of athletics maneuvers aren't damage in general. So no, no Athletics for illusions. (Yes, there's also this small issue of not having relevant statistics).

Verbal skill checks and feats I'd allow considering it explicitly allows project and imitate voice and that you have basically full control over it and its appearance. Then it's obviously caster's skills in work like Intimidation. Don't know about modifiers though, they could vary. Ah, yes, and it's your normal actions with normal costs.

You are miss quoting me.

Along with what I found in the Paizo FAQ, Core Rule book Errata. “Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time… An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty… An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game… Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.”

If it wasn’t for the FAQ, then I would have agreed with you.

See, that doesn't follow at all for me. Your skill at lying or acting obviously helps you make your illusion lie or act- because you direct it and speak through it. Your quoted text comes right after "The image can't speak, but you can use your actions to speak through the creature, with the spell disguising your voice as appropriate."

The caster being more athletic doesn't translate to the illusion being able to convince somebody that they should be tripped.

Personally speaking, I wouldn’t allow the illusion to do any other attacks except for strike. However, with the FAQ and wanting the illusion to have some use. So I came up with a compromise: They can do attacks (Like shove, grapple and so on) however they will use the casters skill modifier for the appropriate skill.

My justification for using there skill?
The caster using their own skills in athletics with how a bear would shove creature.

It would overvalue deception, if I were to allow that skill to be used to make shove.

In the end, this is an illusion, not a creature. So if the caster creates a big scary dragon and tries to grapple an enemy yet is only trained in athletics. Will tip off the enemy, “Wow…This big dragon did a poor job of grabbing me….Something is going on.” Which will reinforce the illusions created to be sensible in combat applications.

Depending on the creature I may be willing to provide a +1-circumstance bonus for demoralize/lie checks depending on how big or scary the illusion is. But for physical stuff and attacks? No.

As I said, while I want my players to use this spell. I don’t want this to undervalue spells/classes/abilities that grant minions/companions.

It only has a modifier for attack rolls, though, not an athletics skill check with the attack trait. Allowing maneuvers would make it a strictly better Telekinetic Maneuver.

Per the rules,“You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows.”

To me, this implies when making skill checks with the illusory creature. To use the bonus of the given skill on the casters sheet.

As an example, if they wanted their Illusory Creature to shove a target. I'd have the caster make an Athletics check against the target's Fortitude DC. Not use their spell attack roll.

That way Telekinetic Maneuver retains its purpose. Is it no better than if the Caster went up to the target and tried to shove the target their self? Correct.

At the end of the day, this isn't a minion. I wouldn't want this to encroach on spells, classes and abilities that grant minions or companions (Eidolons). Nor would I want it to reduce the effectiveness of other spells, like Telekinetic Maneuver.

For those wondering, I did some more digging. RAW they would be able to do any actions with the attack trait. So shove, trip, grapple and etc. However, by the same token, if any actions with the attack trait were successful on the illusory creature. It will end the spell.

This is because per the rules for the spells state. ”The illusion can cause damage by making the target believe the illusion's attacks are real, but it cannot otherwise directly affect the physical world… If the image is hit by an attack or fails a save, the spell ends…If the illusory creature hits with a Strike…” (RE PC1 337)”

Along with what I found in the Paizo FAQ, Core Rule book Errata . “Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time… An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty… An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game… Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.”

How might the illusion be effected if the caster wasn't expecting it to fall or get wet?

If not effected by water/enviroment. I would picture something like this.

IMO

As GM you need to take an special care with illusions because PF2 is pretty lenient with them. Depending of how the caster changes an illusion it can become pretty OP and you may want to limit it a bit. Due illusion are player's fiat you need to use your GM's fiat in order to balance them if they are exploiting it too much.

I can assure you I am. When I make a ruling, I understand the pc’s and npc’s must adhere to it. For my players when I make a ruling I like to give an explanation as to why, so they see my thought process. And well, trying to cover the ‘blind spots’ for this spell. My notes are getting pretty long.

Which, I get it. It’s an illusion, not a minion. Illusions are pretty open ended. While I do want them to use it. I wouldn’t want it to be abused: “Say can I make an invisible illusory creature to attack enemies? That way they get the benefits of being invisible.”

That’s a hard “no” for me. Not that my players are that big of min/maxers. But hey if it was allowed I'd understand why they'd spam that.

Not that I’m going to change anything now. I will die on a hill that Illusory Creature should at least have the uncommon trait. Just because of how open ended and ripe for abuse.

As for the gravity?
The gravity I am leaving it to my players to decide, as that I have no strong feelings for. Once it’s decided I will enforce it consistently.

As for appearing wet? Some evidence can be found in Illusory Object. ”The object appears to animate naturally, but it doesn't make sounds or generate smells. For example, water would appear to pour down an illusory waterfall, but it would be silent.”

Keeping in mind for the rules with Illusions.
“If a creature engages with an illusion in a way that would prove it's not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can't ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. Disbelieving a visual illusion makes it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, which might block vision enough to leave the other side concealed.”

Added together, if an Illusory Creature was in water. The water would react around it appropriately. Bobbing up and down, ripples and small waves. However, if an enemy came close by. They would be liable to notice: No feeling or hearing any waves hitting the illusion. Which wouldn’t be enough to disbelieve it. But enough for them to try and figure out what it is, aka seek to disbelieve.

I'm the GM, a question came up on how Illusory Creature would function from my player. As we spoke a few edge cases came to mind. As I try to anticipate any curve balls my players throw. With how loosey-goosey this spell is, it doesn't help.

Could it do Administer First Aid? If so, what would its skill bonus be?

Could it do the demoralize action? If so, what would it’s skill bonus be?

Would it react to gravity or water (would it look wet?) For example, it's standing on a wooden platform 5 feet up from water. The wooden platform goes out. Would it fall into the water? If it did fall would it look wet in the water or bone dry but merely in the water?

My knee jerk reaction?

Firstly, with administer First aid, I would say no. Even though it states “It generates the appropriate sounds, smells, and feels believable to the touch.” It specified “The illusion can cause damage by making the target believe the illusion's attacks are real, but it cannot otherwise directly affect the physical world.” To me that means they are unable to do other physical actions like administer aid, shove, trip, aid and anything else physical. Yet it can still strike.

Could it Demoralize? I would say yes given, it's not a physical action. And given, “The image can't speak, but you can use your actions to speak through the creature, with the spell disguising your voice as appropriate. You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows.” However, I’m uncertain what the skill bonus (use the casters skill bonus or no bonus) would be or if the DC should be adjusted. Using a Bear as an example. While the casters voice is modified, it is still them demoralizing (Roaring) like a bear. I dunno I was thinking of applying a -2 circumstance penalty to the check. On the grounds of “Ok I'm a human and I gotta make my illusory creature that looks like a bear roar like one.”

As for gravity and or appearing wet? I could go either way. However, if they aren't affected by gravity and don't appear wet in water. I'd grant the enemies at the very least a free check to try and disbelieve it. Or even automatically succeed, “Hey that platform went out and that wolf is just standing there in the air…that's not real.”

Happy to hear your thoughts. With how open ended this spell is…confusing.

I would make the second part a stride because you're moving "through" an enemy, thus treating it as difficult terrain like Tumble Through. If there's an ability that lets you move through enemies without treating them as difficult terrain, I would let that apply here to change the stride into a step. I'm not sure that I would let Feather Step apply since the difficulty is not terrain.

(also, making it a stride preempts potential issues with the enemy standing in difficult/greater difficult terrain)

That is a fair point, I neglected to account for difficult terrain. Would create a headache if two creatures were in difficult terrain and one tried to Excessive Reposition the other. Given the whole rules with forced movement and what not.

Excessive Reposition [Two-action]
Traits: Attack
Requirements: You either have at least one hand free, or you’re grabbing or restraining the target. The target can’t be more than one size larger than you.

You muscle a creature/object around and can try to move into the target square. Attempt an Athletics check against the target’s Fortitude DC.
Note:

If the target is a willing creature the DC is reduced by -2
If the target is unconscious or dead, the DC is reduced by -5
This is beholden to any abilities/feats/spells that affect the DC of Reposition, such as the Rock Dwarf Heritage and Titan Wrestler.

Success: You can move the target up to 10 feet. You can move through an enemy’s space, treating the squares in its space as difficult terrain (every 5 feet costs 10 feet of movement). If you don’t have enough Speed to move all the way through its space, you get the same effect as a failure. You can Stride after it, but you must move the same distance. It must also remain within your reach during this movement and you can’t move it into or through obstacles.
Critical Failure: The target can move you up to 5 feet as though it successfully Repositioned you.

Better?

Finoan wrote:

I would allow Reposition to move an enemy into one's own space - effectively considering yourself to be a willing creature that allows the enemy to share your space temporarily. Then since that is an illegal final position for characters in combat (allies or not), the character has to spend a next action to Stride, Step or otherwise move to a different location.

So TL;DR, swapping positions using Reposition would be two actions and one unmodified Reposition check.

That's a great bit of guidance and points to some good text to keep in mind generally. Being able to move and share a prone ally's space is a niche scenario that's quite likely to be relevant, and perhaps life-saving. (it leaves no gap for the foe to get past w/o Tumble Through)

Before I read you post, I would have allowed it by preparing a Reaction to move yourself, once the Reposition to put them in your space triggers.

You ruling both helps in terms of the action cost better matching with the mechanical benefit, and actually adjudicating the issue of sharing space instead of dodging it like mine would have.

So trying to anticipate my players, I have something in mind and expanded the action.

It also covers: What if I want to drag an enemy away? What if the target is willing? What if the target is unconscious or dead?

I could see them wanting to drag an enemy further away, and move an ally in combat. Or drag an unconscious ally away from danger.

This sort of fudges the rules of only being able to drag creatures (within your bulk limit) to 50 feet per minute. But, I don’t see it as a problem.

Excessive Reposition [Two-action]
Traits: Attack
Requirements: You either have at least one hand free, or you’re grabbing or restraining the target. The target can’t be more than one size larger than you.

You muscle a creature or object around. You can move into the target’s square. At the same time, your target can be moved into your previous space or the desired area. This is considered forced movement for your target. Attempt an Athletics check against the target’s Fortitude DC.

Note:
If the target is a willing creature the DC is reduced by -2
Not including inanimate objects, if the target is unconscious or dead, the DC is reduced by -5
This is beholden to any abilities/feats/spells that affect the DC of Reposition, such as the Rock Dwarf Heritage and Titan Wrestler.

Critical Success: You move the target up to 10 feet. It must remain within your reach during this movement, and you can’t move it into or through obstacles. You can Stride with it, but you must move the same distance.

Success: You move the target up to 5 feet. It must remain within your reach during this movement, and you can’t move it into or through obstacles. You can Stride with it, but you must move the same distance.

Critical Failure: The target can move you up to 5 feet as though it successfully Repositioned you.

I know this sort of steps on Shove’s, Repositions and Tumble Throughs toes. But given those are single actions where this one is a double action keeps it balanced. At least I think so.

I would allow Reposition to move an enemy into one's own space - effectively considering yourself to be a willing creature that allows the enemy to share your space temporarily. Then since that is an illegal final position for characters in combat (allies or not), the character has to spend a next action to Stride, Step or otherwise move to a different location.

So TL;DR, swapping positions using Reposition would be two actions and one unmodified Reposition check.

Hmm having it two actions and without modifying the DC: I’d be fine with that it if it also provoked any movement-based reactions. Mush like how if you (Critically) succeed at Shove, you can stride. I think baking in a free “step” would be a little too generous.

I think then you make it so hard, that you've effectively forbidden it. Compare it to repositioning someone to the side and stepping, or shoving them twice. Those are both easier and less risky, and only in a few rare cases is their result really worse.

That’s a very fair point.

It’s not out of malice that I am thought of those difficulty modifiers. It’s more of me trying to adhere to the design philosophy of Pf2e: Avoid doing multiple checks to do an action.

Cause at the end of the day, this is a Tumble-Through (Moving into the enemy’s space) done in tandem with Pull/Push/Reposition (Move enemy into previous space). I might just have to bite the bullet and say “Ok this is the best way I’ve got for it, I know this breaks some design tenants. But this is the exception to the rule.”

Alright, so this happened in session. It was a spur of the moment, and I told my players “Hey, I’m not sure about this. I’m going to rule it as X, I’ll give a firm ruling later.”

Alright Players are fighting an enemy, enemy is in the doorway, blocking them. Player wants to reposition, so basically they’d trade places with the enemy. I just ruled it as a normal reposition action.

Which seems extremely generous. So, going forward in the future: How can I rule/invoke this to be more fair?

My original way, I could see this getting abused to flank. Not to mention it steps on the toes for Tumble Through, Swap Reflections and Unexpected Transposition.

I was thinking: The instigator triggers any movement based reactions, takes two actions, counts as two attacks for MAP and increase the DC by +5.

Can you do the free action “Weapon Infusion” in the middle of Channeling your Elements and then use the free action (Provided by Channel Your elements) to make an Elemental Blast?

Alright so the rules for Channel elements states: “Your kinetic aura activates, and as a part of this action, you can use a 1-action Elemental Blast or a 1-action stance impulse.” (Rage 15)

Weapon Infusion, is a free action and has the infusion trait. Which states: “You must use an infusion action directly before the impulse action you want to alter. If you use any action (including free actions and reactions) other than an impulse action directly after, you waste the benefits of the infusion action.” (Rage 15)

I'm not sure if this all under the rules for Subordinate Actions. I know things can get hairy when it's a revolving around free actions. So I didn't know if you could do a free action, in the middle of 1 action to then do a free action provided by the 1 action.

Do you feel that climbing is so interesting that it requires more checks that can fail to drag the whole thing out? Is there a genuine benefit to adding an extra roll to the scenario?

The sass isn't needed.

Ok just to set the scene:
PC 1 has climbed up 20 feet. They have a rope but can’t find anywhere to anchor it.

PC 1 holds onto one end of the rope while setting the other end down. With the intent of them using their sheer strength to hold onto the rope as they party climbs up it. PC 2 climbs up the rope

I am aware of the Bulk rules. Now if the total weight for PC 2 doesn't push past PC 1's bulk limit. Then no check is needed. But if it pushes them to being encumbered. I was thinking of an athletics check, maybe DC 15 or 20?

Now what would happen if someone did Treat Disease, when they don’t have any disease?

My players are in a situation where some of them have a disease. The problem is they are at the first stage, which is carrier with no ill effects. Which to me means: They have no symptoms.

Now some of them have the disease, and others don’t. They want to go back to town to do Treat Disease on themselves.

Now looking at the rules for Treat Disease states: “…caring for a diseased creature.”
In addition, the results of Treat Disease all end with: “…saving throw against the disease.”

Which to me means, if they don’t have any disease, then Treat Disease won’t have any effect on them.

Unless you just really, really want to get into the details and nitty-gritty, you can pretty easily narrate it:

Quote:

You [the Cleric and Champion] perform the appropriate rites and lay [Anadi PC] to rest in accordance with their people's manners and traditions

Touche’ I’ll probably do so.

I didn’t know if there was a 1E book that went into these types of details.

Are there any funerial/burial rights for Mwangi or Anadi characters?

Anadi PC died. And of course, the Cleric and the Champion, who know they are Anadi. Wants to lay their body to rest per their peoples tradition. Thankfully, it was the end of the session and I have time trying to figure that out.

But I'm not finding much information.

OliveToad wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Personally, I also think it is a bit broken. When using Control Body it should use the corpse's speed and reach, but its own numerical stats for the attack. And still lose the grab ability.

I can see that. Though, for me I’d still want the Shredskin to still be some kind of threat. Else the only way they can do damage is by Critically Succeeding a Grapple.

Maybe I am not being clear enough. This is what I am proposing:

If the Shredskin is floating around by itself, then it has a reach of 0 for its bite and claw attacks. So it can attack a living creature by entering its space and using those attacks from 0 range. It can also use its Grab and Enshroud abilities on that living creature.

If it finds a corpse, or kills one of the PCs (or successfully uses Enshroud), then it can use its Control Body ability and animate the corpse. The combination then has the dead creature's original movement speed and reach for its attacks, but it uses the numerical values from the Shredskin's bite and claw attacks. And it can't use Grab and Enshroud any more since it is using an animated corpse body to attack with.

So in both cases, the level 2 Shredskin is doing attacks at +10 or +11 attack bonus and dealing 1d6 +4 or 1d8 +4 damage to the target.

In one case, it is doing so while wrapping around the PC that it is attacking.

And in the other it is doing so by manipulating a dead arm or mouth into doing the attacks with 5 foot reach.

-----

By RAW, I would agree that while using Control Body the Shredskin/Corpse combination still has 0 reach. And since it can't share a space with another creature larger than tiny, it isn't able to attack with its attacks any more.

But that is just a bit weird and probably an error that needs fixed with errata.

Ahhhh I see what you mean. That makes sense to me.

Personally, I also think it is a bit broken. When using Control Body it should use the corpse's speed and reach, but its own numerical stats for the attack. And still lose the grab ability.

I can see that. Though, for me I’d still want the Shredskin to still be some kind of threat. Else the only way they can do damage is by Critically Succeeding a Grapple.

Should it be a high bar to take over a pc’s character? Makes sense to me. But not so high just for the potential to deal 1d6+4 or 1d8+4 damage.

I think giving the creature a reach of 5 feet should be fine. Right?

I was lurking around and found the Shredskin. Whom I wanted to use for a future enemy in my game.

But there are some inconsistencies in the monster that makes it confusing.

The main issue is: There attacks are reach 0 (It is also found in Devil At the Dreaming Palace, which has a normal attack reach)

It's Control Body states

Requirements: The shredskin is in the same space as a Medium or Small humanoid-shaped corpse...While controlling a host, the shredskin uses the host’s Speed but its own attacks, and it loses its Grab and Enshroud abilities."

So RAW, it's attacks are at reach 0, so they could only attack the host they have in control with.

Now an argument could be made: That this is on purpose. This is more of a trap monster to attack hosts and move them away from everyone. Not to attack anyone else.

For me? I lean more towards the Shredskin found in Devil at the Dreaming Palace. Since it seems more in keeping with the monster. To be able to attack others, whether they have a (living) body or not. Why else would it's claws have the grab trait?

Either the reach on there attacks should be bumped back to 5 feet. Or it's claw attack should lose Grab.

I would say yes, but if your question is "can they use Liberating Step to free themselves" then the answer is no

Liberating Step wrote:

An enemy damages, Grabs, or Grapples your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you.

You are not your own ally

I should have clarified. Not use it on themselves, but if the paralyzed champion can use liberating step on the ally and enemy who triggered Liberating Step.

I’m leaning towards “Yes,” they can. As stated by cavernshark. There aren’t any traits nor descriptive text that indicates the champion must be able to move/speak to do their reaction.

However, I wasn’t 100% certain if I was missing a rule or not.

Players are in battle and one of the pc’s is paralyzed. (Crit failed against the spell Paralyze).

The pc in question is a Liberator Champion.

Now being paralyzed states: “…and can't act except to Recall Knowledge and use actions that require only the use of your mind (as determined by the GM).”

Would they be able to use their Liberating Step or not?

OliveToad wrote:

During aquatic combat. One of the pc’s goes down. Another pc near by wants to drag them back onto land. So they are no longer drowning.

Per my rules, they must make an athletics check compared to their fortitude dc (Grapple check) to be able to drag the pc.

Now, it’s typically easier to carry heavy stuff in water.

Would I apply the: Easy, very easy or incredibly easy difficulty adjustment to the dc?

I'd argue you already ruled wrong. Fortitude DC for grapple is used for someone actively fighting back. Dragging an unconscious body is not comparable. It is like asking for a Tumble Through check to pass through an ally's space. You are conflating rules which are intended for enemies.

What you should really be using is the Swim DC, which is usually a simple one, and applying DC adjustment or a penalty, probably with a very hard adjustment (+5.) I like penalties more than a higher DC because it lets Assurance shine, personally. Dragging the body back onto land once you've gotten it to shore would likely be the same DC.

The original reason I associated it with moving an unconscious body is because: It’s hard to move dead weight. And I saw the grapple check as comparable.

But now that you mention it, I can foresee issues popping up down the line that I neglected to consider.

I do like your idea more about it being a flat 15 DC and adjusting with penalties/bonus as needed.

It partly depends on how deep they are in the water.

Remember that scuba divers often wear weighted belts to keep themselves from bouncing back to the surface of the water. The human body has a fair amount of bouancy in shallow (1-40 ft) waters.

And, most importantly, it depends on the story you want to tell: is saving a buddy's life an important goal for the story, or do you want to make it more likely that they won't succeed and the pc will die?

True, although scuba divers aren’t going into water wearing suits of armor and carrying weapons.

That’s why I’m asking how other people would handle it.

During aquatic combat. One of the pc’s goes down. Another pc near by wants to drag them back onto land. So they are no longer drowning.

Per my rules, they must make an athletics check compared to their fortitude dc (Grapple check) to be able to drag the pc.

Now, it’s typically easier to carry heavy stuff in water.

Would I apply the: Easy, very easy or incredibly easy difficulty adjustment to the dc?

With a 1 minute casting time, it isn't really designed for being cast while traveling. So it probably couldn't be used as an early warning indicator that the party is about to stumble into a magical hazard.

I would probably let you use it normally on an object that you already know has a magical trap on it.

But I reserve the right to add the same line that Detect Magic has - that for magic that is intending to be deceptive to such spells, Read Aura can only successfully discern the true nature of the magic if the spell level is lower than what Read Aura is being cast at.

I was thinking the same thing too. I mean I get Detect Magic is more of AOE and quicker. While Read Aura is more of specific object and slower.

But it really devalues Detect Magic, if Read Aura can detect magical hazards regardless of minimum proficiency rank. But Detect Magic can’t.

I know if a Magical Hazard has a minimum proficiency rank with stealth. It cannot be found with Detect Magic. What about the spell Read Aura?