Pixel Popper's page

Like a Magus needs INT.

That is debatable. I'm playing a remastered Magus in Gatewalkers and find myself doing just fine with the more limited number of Attack Roll spells. Ukang ignores Int for Str (for Athletics to Trip) and Dex as a Twisting Tree Magus. He only Spellstrikes with attack spells and, otherwise, only casts utility spells. His Spell Attack and Spell DC are irrelevant.

. . .

Music changes everything.

GMCore is full of passages and paragraphs on how to fit a rule or mechanic into a square hole...

Everything goes in the square hole.

My interpretation of RAW was inclusive of the section you bolded not excluding it. In fact I am relying very much on that bolded section to come to my conclusion that a GM can adjust the DC and must decide when an action is particularly hard.

The issue arises when the GM rarely or never uses the typical 15 DC and defends that as RAW.

If the DC is typically 15, then, more often then not, it should be 15. Combined with the typical DC and the reasons (particular hard or easy tasks), the call-out that the "GM might adjust the DC" is expressing a deviation from the standard that should not be standard.

I believe some are reading "might" as "may" as in "the GM has permission to." However, the construction of the sentence suggests the reading of "might" should more translate to "it is possible that the GM would, in certain cases."

Thus, when the GM decides that the DC 15 check is too easy or permissive and always replaces it they are, in fact, deviating into house rules territory. It's fine if they do, just don't argue that it isn't house rules territory.

And when you Aid an attack, what is supposed to be the preparation? You think: I gonna Aid this attack! How is that supposed to even take an action.

Monica the Monk decides to Aid, with a shoulder-check to the BBEG, Barbara the Barbarian's Strike at the end of a Sudden Charge.

GM: What are you doing as a prep action?
Monica the Monk: "Oh! I pause to wait for the right moment to check the BBEG."

Locpicking: "I take out my own picks and get in position..."

Surgery: "I scan the instruments, noting their layout, to more efficiently pick the right one when asked."

Envisioning error detected. Name collision: 'Versatile Vial'.

Versatile Vial (1): An item created during daily preparations that remains potent until the next daily preparations.
Versatile Vial (2): An item created via Quick Alchemy that remains potent only until the end of the character's current turn.
Versatile Vial (3): A bomb item that can be used for Strike attacks.

First, strike #3. That is a function of #2. Second, what we've taken to doing at our table to clean everything up is to rename #2 to "Field Vial."

So then, Versatile Vials are vials that an Alchemist prepares each day. These vials can be used with Quick Alchemy to create any known, consumable Alchemical item on the fly. Used Versatile Vials replenish at a base rate of two every ten minutes.

Field Vials are created by Quick Alchemy, do not consume Verstatile Vials, and have very limited application as defined by each field. By default, one application is that they can be thrown as a small bomb.

Thinking of Versatile Vials as Alchemist focus points while Field Vials are Alchemist cantrips, we find, helps conceptualize their applicability.

Pixel Popper wrote:

Errenor wrote:

I absolutely will block both diagonal movements... In the second case there's absolutely no difference between diagonal and linear, side to side arrangement of creatures in fiction...

There is absolutely a difference between diagonal and linear on PF2E battle maps. The rules for Diagonal Movement spell it out, "Because moving diagonally covers more ground, you count that movement differently." If there was no difference then there would be no difference in diagonal movement.

Taken out of context. So irrelevant.

Refusing to acknowledge the game rules for counting diagonals, so sophistic.

As for "more ground" - yes. Not a problem though unless somehow used as an exploit. Otherwise a 'diagonal' formation is still a continuous formation you still can't get through. Because it's 'diagonal' only on a square grid, not in fictional reality...

The square grid is what we have to work with for the battle map. You can't just handwave it away because it does fit your idea of fictional reality. And even your fictional reality is incorrect.

The linear arrangement is two dudes side-by-side spanning a 10-foot width. The diagonal arrangement is, two dudes, in a staggered formation with one 5 feet to the back and side of the other. Now, if they both turn 45 degrees to the right, without changing their center points, they are shoulder-to-shoulder spanning a distance of approximately 14.5 feet. PF2E simplifies that to 15 feet on the square battle map.

The diagonal formation may be a continuous formation, but it is more spread out, meaning there is a larger gap which the movement rules allow movement through since it can be accomplished without entering an enemy's square.

... The GM is told to set the DC ...

Aid tells the GM, "The typical DC is 15, but [you] might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks" (emphasis added).

The GM is not told to set the DC. The GM is told that the DC is typically (meaning the baseline expectation is) 15 and instructed that they might want to adjust it based on the difficulty.

GM Core gives guidance on Adjusting Difficulty:

You might decide a DC should differ from the baseline, whether to account for PCs' areas of expertise or to represent the rarity of spells or items. A DC adjustment represents an essential difference in the difficulty of a task and applies to anyone attempting a specific check for it ...

...

... These adjustments aren't taking the place of characters' bonuses, modifiers, and penalties—they are due to the applicability of the skills being used.

.

If the GM always adjusts the DC because they feel like the typical DC is too permissive, then they are diverting from RAW into houserules.

And not seeing the comparison with Ready which is the only other ability in the whole game I can think of that also has both an action and a reaction cost is crazy to me.

Not seeing and acknowledging the clear contrasts with Ready is crazy to me.

Not acknowledging that Aid is its own mechanic with its own rules that are different and distinct from the separate Ready mechanic with its rules is crazy to me.

You apparently only accept the evidence that supports your bias, and invent further evidence conflating Ready with Aid to support your bias, while blithely ignoring every evidence to the contrary. That's crazy, man!

The bonus of the pc is not being lowered by MAP so the rule for reactions is being observed.

I'm curious. Did you cut my quote after my bullets for not applying the MAP on purpose or was that the forums truncating longer quotes?

The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally...

So, you completely ignored everything I wrote (that was omitted in your quote). Got it.

That's sloppy logic. Nothing in the Aid rules say that Aid is made "particularly hard" because the character was focused on something other than aiding an ally. By the logic implicit in, "The difference in that scenario is the DC would not be 15 since the focus of the monks round was on attacking the opponent not on aiding an ally," then the DC can never be 15 unless the character spends all of their actions (i.e focusing on aiding) preparing to aid an ally.

I absolutely will block both diagonal movements... In the second case there's absolutely no difference between diagonal and linear, side to side arrangement of creatures in fiction...

There is absolutely a difference between diagonal and linear on PF2E battle maps. The rules for Diagonal Movement spell it out, "Because moving diagonally covers more ground, you count that movement differently." If there was no difference then there would be no difference in diagonal movement.

Extrapolating from the Diagonal Movement rules, the linear configuration is 10 feet wide while the diagonal configuration is 15 feet wide. The diagonally arranged creatures are "cover[ing] more ground."

Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?

I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.

Since you followed up with your observation that a cross-topic was, "talking about using the attack form of aid such that the GM has decided it should have the attack trait," I've given thought to such an example.

Monica the Monk Ki Rushes the BBEG and flurries with Flurry of Maneuvers, striking but failing to Trip the BBEG. Now, she knows that Barbara the Barbarian is going to Rage then Sudden Charge the BBEG. So, instead of stepping away or attempting to Trip the BBEG again, Monica the Monk prepares to shoulder-check the BBEG to knock him off balance to Aid Barbara the Barbarian's Strike at the end of the Sudden Charge. End turn.

Barbara the Barbarian, predictably, Rages and Sudden Charges the BBEG. At the end of her movement when she is about to Strike, Monica the Monk takes her Aid reaction. The GM determines that the description "shoulder-check the BBEG to knock him off balance" is similar enough to the Shove action that he calls for an Athletics check with the Attack trait. Monica the Monk rolls Athletics and, between the die roll and proficiency, scores a 26. "Critical Success!" declares the GM, and, since Monica the Monk is a master in Athletics, Barbara the Barbarian gains a +3 circumstance bonus to her Strike.

There is zero reason, in this example, following the Aid rules to apply MAP here.

I personally wouldn't allow deception to aid an attack, as the general rule is you use the same skill to aid as the person is using...

No, that is not the general rule. Please see my preceding post.

You would allow a deception roll to add to an ally's + to hit with a strike?

Absolutely. As long as it is narratively appropriate, why not?

I typically require a like action, like deception can be used to aid feint or create a diversion.

Why? There's nothing in the Aid rules that require a like action. I'd let the Bard roll Performance to "draw attention" to himself to aid Create a Diversion in a heartbeat.

All that the Aid rules really require is that the preparation be specific and relevant and that the character be in a proper position. Nothing in the Aid rules nor the Aid reaction require that the Aid roll be a like action.

Quote:

The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP.

There is no need to use any "closest rule" proxy to determine how Aid works, because Aid has it's own rules.

Quoted b/c it bears repeating.

Pixel Popper wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?

I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.

Deception Check to distract the target a la Create a Diversions flavor text, "With a gesture, a trick, or some distracting words, you can create a diversion that draws creatures' attention elsewhere."

Regardless, you're trying to get me into an "Ah ha! See!" moment regarding my distinction between a Readied action directly affecting an enemy and an Aid reaction that does not. It won't work. (Whether it is a disingenuous effort remains to be seen.)

A Readied attack action has a direct, mechanical effect on an enemy. It does damage, grabs/trips/shoves, etc an enemy. Regardless of what the Aid action is describing is does to the enemy, it has no direct, mechanical effect on the enemy. The direct, mechanical effect is on the ally. And that is a huge distinction.

No I was upfront about my intent behind asking the question by saying what I thought would be the common response to it. So it was not an attempt at a gotcha or disingenuous.

Fair enough.

Also Im a bit confused there is your pc using create a distraction (I meant diversion I get that name mixed up all the time) instead of aid?

Mea culpa. I wasn't clear in presenting my, "example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike." So, let me clarify it.

On my turn, I declare my intention (prep action) to Aid an ally's attack describing my assistance as distracting the enemy's attention. Then on my ally's turn, as my reaction I roll a Deception Check to Aid. I clear the DC 15, narratively distract the enemy enough that my ally's strike is easier to land. Thus, mechanically, my ally gains a +1 circumstance bonus to his attack.

Were talking about using the attack form of aid such that the GM has decided it should have the attack trait.

You asked for "an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike." I gave you an example. You did not specify that you wanted an example that the GM might grant the preparatory action or Aid reaction the Attack trait.

Can you provide an example of something you would tell to a GM that your pc is doing to qualify for the aid action for an ally's strike?

I'm guessing many explanations will be something they are doing to the enemy to help their ally get a hit in.

Deception Check to distract the target a la Create a Diversion's flavor text, "With a gesture, a trick, or some distracting words, you can create a diversion that draws creatures' attention elsewhere."

Regardless, you're trying to get me into an "Ah ha! See!" moment regarding my distinction between a Readied action directly affecting an enemy and an Aid reaction that does not. It won't work. (Whether it is a disingenuous effort remains to be seen.)

A Readied attack action has a direct, mechanical effect on an enemy. It does damage, grabs/trips/shoves, etc an enemy. A Readied attack action against an enemy has no direct, mechanical effect on an ally.

Regardless of what the Aid action is describing it does to the enemy, it has no direct, mechanical effect on the enemy. The direct, mechanical effect is on the ally.

That is a huge distinction.

Pixel Popper wrote:

As they are two distinct and separate actions, with their own rules, it is not logical to assume that the intent is that they follow the same rules.

Aid specifically indicates that you can add any trait you want to the preparation or the reaction.

That is irrelevant. Adding the Attack trait to an Aid reaction does not change the Aid reaction into a Readied Action. An Aid to attack does not perform a Strike. It is an attack roll that may grant a bonus to a willing ally's Strike.

Conversely, a Readied Strike is a Strike. If the attack rolls is successful, it will deal Strike damage to the target, but, otherwise, has no direct benefit to an ally.

The only similarity between Aid and Ready is that the player is exchanging one or more actions on their turn to gain a custom reaction.

That's why I use this rule, because I feel an intent that Aid should work like Ready.

Key words: "I feel."

Also, I love when some of you use the argument that Aid should work like "other reaction attacks" but then you bring the argument that it shouldn't work like Ready (which is the closest reaction attack to Aid in the game).

/sigh

Ready has specific language -- heck, a specific paragraph to that point -- that overrides the general rule for MAP. Aid does not have any such language.

It is illogical to infer intent when one dedicates a paragraph to highlight the exception to the general rule while the other has no hint of such.

Furthermore, a Readied reaction attack is not close to a reaction attack to Aid. The former targets an enemy with either a Strike, a one-action Attack Spell, or an Athletics maneuver. It will have a direct impact on an enemy. The latter does nothing to an enemy directly. Instead, it grants a bonus to an ally. These two things are not remotely close to each other.

Easl wrote:

Why is Bob the fighter aiding by a reaction 'attack' (which does no damage) harder than Bob the fighter striking by a reaction attack?

It's not harder. The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP.

Ready has specific language to apply the MAP to a Readied Strike. Aid lacks any such language. It is entirely houserule land to read a rule from one mechanic (Ready) into another mechanic (Aid) lacking that rule simply because they are similar.

Aid looks exactly like Ready: ...

No, it doesn't. If it did, there'd be no reason to separate them.

Aid:

And there's an RAI logic to it: It follows the rules for Ready.

Aid != Ready

As they are two distinct and separate actions, with their own rules, it is not logical to assume that the intent is that they follow the same rules.

Aid Details

Long Tasks: For a task that takes longer than a round, you often need to spend more than one action preparing to help, as determined by the GM.

As the GM, I would certainly require the preparation every round. The prep action for the Aid reaction is a trade-off. You are sacrificing an action to literally grant yourself a unique reaction. I would not allow one prep to grant 1+X reactions.

Now, I might be convinced to allow a character to spend an entire round setting up three rounds of Aid reactions, but not for the example of Aiding the Fighter hacking an enemy. That gets into the next salient part of the Aid Details...

Repetition: Aiding the same creature multiple times can have diminishing returns. In particular, if you try to repeatedly Aid attacks or skill checks against a creature, the GM will usually increase the DC each time as your foe gets more savvy. This isn't the case if there's no reason the task would be less likely to work if repeated, such as Aiding someone who's climbing a wall or picking a lock.

Wait, you don't eat soap?

You misspelled cilantro.

I think the phrasing of "Select three ikons from the list on pages 43–47," with the list being a menu of single options, indicates that the intent, at least, is clearly three different ikons.

It's like when you answer an online survey that says select three of the fifteen options that best answer the question. There's only one of, and only one check-box for, each option. You simply cannot select one option multiple times.

Or, like a used car dealership offering you a deal. There are twenty-five cars on the lot, all different makes and models, and you can choose three. It is simply not possible to choose two, or more, of the same make and model because none are duplicated.

Now, the problem with the phrasing, a la the used car lot scenario if the dealership has five units of each of the twenty-five makes and models, you may then select three units of the same make and model.

While I believe the intent is clear, the verbiage is not. Lacking any sort of "you may pick one ikon multiple times" or "you must select a different ikon each time" or, simply, "[s]elect three different ikons from the list..." language, it is ambiguous. Therefore, expect table variation.

I think I found my answer: you can't Take 20 on a Flat check because it represents chance, not skill or technique.

Flat Checks replaced percentiles. Instead of rolling percentile for, say, a 50% chance at something, Paizo leaned into d20 and created Flat Check 11 for 50%.

For skill checks, PF2E replaced taking 20 with Assurance

My poor, poor conrasu avenger of Monad, charged with destroying unnatural imbalances in the world, yet forced to use his fists to use his abilities, and therefore wholly unable to harm those abominations he seeks to destroy without first taking a -2 to attack.

Just deal non-lethal 'til the beastie is unconscious, then take the -2 when their AC is -6 (prone: -2 circumstance penalty; unconscious: -4 status penalty).

Stop feeding the troll.

AoN agrees with the physical War of Immortals book: no attack trait. I don't see anything in the errata, either.

So I don't know where Demiplane is getting that from. Right now based on the first party sources available, AoN is right and Demiplane is wrong.

Interesting bit of information! Thanks for that!

Is there some kind of community consensus how Vindicator's Mark is supposed to be adjudicated?

At present, because it involves a Spell Attack Roll, it takes MAP, but since it doesn't have the Attack trait...

I think the lack of the attack trait on the Archive's of Nethys entry is an error on AoN. The Demiplane Nexus entry shows it with the attack trait.

*(Vexing Vapor finally mentioned. ugh, that item seems like an outright print error, so I've tried to ignore it for this discussion. It's possible it was intended to have a lingering cloud impose the debuff on those inside, but forgot a mechanical sentence. Main "evidence" is the crit hit time of 1 min matches cloud linger time.)

Vexing Vapor does appear to be a misprint. While it has the Inhaled trait it does not have the affliction mechanics characteristic of alchemical poisons. It does not have a saving throw, maximum duration, and stages entries of alchemical poisons.

Dude, please. The poison trait is a multi-function trait . . .

Expanding on this. The Poison trait confusion is very similar to the problems with the Attack trait. Not all actions with the Attack trait are attacks. Some are athletics checks.

The poison trait, alone, merely indicates that an item is poisonous (adjective). For an item to be a poison (noun), it must also have one of the four method of delivery traits.

Poison Trait:

An effect with this trait delivers a poison or deals poison damage. An item with this trait is poisonous and might cause an affliction.

(Emphasis added)

Alchemical Poisons, Method of Exposure:

Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.

.

In other words, poisons (noun) are substances that cause afflictions. If something with the poison trait does not cause an affliction, it is merely poisonous and not a poison.

. . .

/heavy sigh

In deep-diving the rules and formulating my rebuttal to prove that you are wrong and I am right, I must confess... I have discovered the reverse.

The underlying cause of the disconnect, I believe, is Paizo's unfortunate use of one word, particularly as a trait, in multiple and dissimilar ways. Sort of like the old question of whether an attack is an attack or an athletics check.

The Poison trait says, "An effect with this trait delivers a poison or deals poison damage. An item with this trait is poisonous and might cause an affliction."

The poison trait on an item simply indicates that the item is poisonous. It is the presence of a Method of Exposure trait (Contact, Ingested, Inhaled, or Injury) that defines an item as a poison.

So an item can be poisonous (adjective) without being a poison (noun). Example: Skunk Bomb. While it has the poison trait it lacks a method of exposure trait. It is not a poison; it is a poisonous bomb.

Therefore, I must agree and similarly conclude that Paizo's use of the word "poison" as a noun (singular or plural), modified or unmodified, must indeed refer to items that have a method of exposure trait. This included toxicologists' "infused poisons" thereby limiting their field benefit to alchemical items they create with Advanced or Quick Alchemy (and thus "infused") and have a method of exposure trait. In other words, the Tox. Field Benefit only applies to the items called Alchemical Poisons.

Toxicologist:

Field Benefit You can apply an injury poison you’re holding to a weapon or piece of ammunition you’re wielding as a single action, rather than as a 2-action activity. In addition, you flexibly mix acidic and poisonous alchemical compounds. Your infused poisons can affect creatures immune to poison. A creature takes acid damage instead of poison damage from your infused poisons if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature (as determined by the GM). Typically, this benefit applies when the creature has an immunity, resistance, or weakness to one of the damage types.

Again: nothing, absolutely NOTHING says that only things with exposure are poisons.

That is correct. Not all poisons (generic category of items that behave a certain way) have an exposure trait.

However, all Alchemical Poisons (a specific subset of poisons) do have an exposure trait. The salient line in the Alchemical Poisons definition is under the "Method of Exposure" heading: "Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits..." It then lists and describes the traits: Contact, Ingested, Inhaled, and Injury.

The powerhouse in that sentence is the word, "Each." It is an exclusive term; if each item in a category has certain characteristics, then by definition, items lacking those characteristics do not belong in that category.

Ergo, if a poison lacks a trait describing the exposure method then it is not an Alchemical Poison.

Thus, items with the "Alchemical" and "Poison" traits, but lacking an exposure method, are Alchemical Items and are poisons. However, they are not Alchemical Poisons.

Pixel Popper wrote:

As our table has read Quick Alchemy, the short-lived alchemical item must be activated before the end of your turn. Poisons would also be similarly problematic unless they are permanent(ish) until used once applied.

So, in your scenario, based on our reading, it would be Quick Alchemy > Activate > Load, and next turn Shoot Ooze Ammunition.

Except that alchemical ammo deactivates it it is not fired by the dnd of the turn that it is activated.

My reflexive response was, "nuh uh! that's TBTBT!!", but I stemmed my reflexes and went looking. I had to dig for it because none of the Alchemical Ammunition traits (ooze ammo is Acid, Alchemical, and Consummable, for example) mention it. I found it under "Momentary Magic" > Activated Ammunition.

/sigh

Looks like we've been playing that wrong for a while. I suspect we'll houserule it to work as we've been playing it b/c, otherwise, it
s f'ing stupid.

Thanks for pointing that out!

As our table has read Quick Alchemy, the short-lived alchemical item must be activated before the end of your turn. Poisons would also be similarly problematic unless they are permanent(ish) until used once applied.

So, in your scenario, based on our reading, it would be Quick Alchemy > Activate > Load, and next turn Shoot Ooze Ammunition.

I am looking for a way to escape grapples as a Bard without a high acrobatics or athletics score. Does anyone have any ideas?

My game group loves the Ancestry Paragon and Gradual Ability Boost variant rules alongside Free Archetype.

Ooh! Neat! My Vanara has some new items to add to his wishlist!

I'm not concerned about High Jump or Long Jump in the slightest...

My Vanara finds Quick Jump > Long Jump to be a great method for ignoring difficult terrain :)

Pixel Popper wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Wizards get spellbooks

I react to that: If the Wizard didn't get a spellbook then it wouldn't start with any spell (as they are in their spellbook), making the class non functional at first level even if you buy a Spellbook. So it's slightly different than the Alchemist case. As a side note, the Alchemist has a Formula Book, for the same reason the Wizard has a Spellbook...

Uhm, by your own logic here, the Alchemist is not functional until he purchases his tools.

Sure, the Wizard must have his spellbook to prepare spells, but he needs nothing else. An Alchemist, however, cannot prepare his substances with formula book alone; he must have Alchemist Tools.

And by your own logic above, the alchemists tools are more equivalent to a martial character's weapons than a spellbook.

A martial character without weapons is using their fists only. But when they can get a weapon - even an improvised weapon - they become functional.

An alchemist without a toolkit cannot make bombs or elixirs. But when they can get a toolkit, they become functional.

An alchemist without their starting formula book can't create anything ever. It would be like a Fighter that is not allowed to use Strike until they pay for a license from the local constables. In addition to also needing to buy a sword.

I deleted the original while you were replying, mainly because I didn't feel that my posts added anything of positive value to the conversation.

There is the Hefty Hauler Level 1 Skill Feat and Laborer Background (which grants Hefty Hauler as a free/background feat).

There are also some Ancestry Feats (like Beast of Burden for Minotaur).

The only modifications that the Air Cartridge Firing System makes to the affixed weapon are:

I'm not aware of anything that will give Fighter or anyone else an extra reaction that can be used for Reactive Strike. ... I did just check and there is a feat - Reflexive Riposte - that gives Swashbuckler an extra reaction for Opportune Riposte.

Tactical Reflexes, available at 10th, "At the start of each of your turns when you regain your actions, you gain an additional reaction that can be used only to make a Reactive Strike." Then, at 20th, Boundless Reprisals, "At the start of each enemy’s turn, you gain a reaction you can use only during that turn for any reaction from a fighter feat or class feature."

Also, apropos, Rogues can get Preparation to exchange one action for an additional reaction for any rogue reaction like Opportune Backstab.

To clarify, I'm not saying the GM should negate the player's actions...

Sorry, you said previously, "Having a monster fail to react to Feint because they're already distracted ... That certainly implies, "and nothing else happened" (ie "your efforts did nothing because the target is already distracted").

... I'm saying the GM should make it clear through in game descriptions that applying off guard a second time doesn't really change the immediate circumstances in any way, because that is in fact the mechanics of the game.

That is not, in fact, the mechanics of the game. The AC penalty does not change, but feint and flanking are two different sources of off-guard with different conditions, requirements, durations, etcetera. If, after the feinting character's turn, the flanking buddy moves, is moved, or is dropped, off-guard from flanking is off the table. It makes sense for a feint-oriented character to try for the critical success to keep the target off-guard to his attacks the following turn even if the flanking buddy no longer provides flanking. Additionally, flanking only makes the target off-guard for the allies that qualify for flanking, not for others. If the feint-oriented character is a Scoundrel, his feint might make the flanked target off-guard for all allies not just the flanking characters.

Quote:

Furthermore, off-guard is not the only possible result of a feint. Both Goading Feint and Overextending Feint allow replacing off-guard with a penalty to the target's attack roll rather than AC (via off-guard).

Okay, but that's not the scenario the OP described, so it has nothing to do with anything here. Like, completely and utterly irrelevant.

I wasn't replying to the OP. I was replying to Errenror's response, "They are saying something like: 'The monster is already so distracted being between two enemies, expecting an attack from both directions, that your masterful feint still can't make him distracted more.' There's a difference with just 'no effect'..."

I replied with examples of feinting a flanked target that do, in fact, "make him distracted more" and then offered two class feats that show that sometimes feinting a flanked target might have a different intent then "making him more distracted."

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

The point is that there are, in fact, legitimate reasons to feint against a flanked target. Suggesting that GMs should indicate that there's no benefit to feinting a flanked target is simply wrong. It is bad advice that is predicated only on the -2 penalty to AC for being off-guard not stacking and ignores all the other mechanics involved with feinting and flanking.

Pixel Popper wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

... Having a monster fail to react to Feint because they're already distracted might help reinforce the redundancy of these actions in a way that's more palatable than what might feel like being dictated to by another player...

I'd be really damned upset if I'm playing a Feinting character, roll a success, and my GM says, "there's no effect because the target is distracted by your flanking buddy."

But they are not saying that, no. They are saying something like: "The monster is already so distracted being between two enemies, expecting an attack from both directions, that your masterful feint still can't make him distracted more."

Sure. The instances of off-guard do not stack, but they are still different sources of off-guard with different requirements.

If that masterful feint was a Critical Success, the target is still off-guard to the feinter even when the flanking buddy moves or gets dropped (ie is no longer flanking) before the end of the feinter's next turn.

Additionally, in certain circumstances you are simply wrong.

A curious thing I noted is the dedication doesn't seem to indicate that you gain Dirty Trick as a skill feat?...

The dedication is for the Swashbuckler Multiclass Archetype and Swashbuckler Dedication says (first sentence), "Choose a swashbuckler’s style." The swashbuckler style Rascal explicitly grants training in Thievery and the Dirty Trick general feat.

So, a Dex/Cha Fighter with no training in Thievery, upon taking the Swashbuckler dedication and choosing the Rascal swashbuckler style gets trained in Thievery and gains the Dirty Trick skill feat.

... Having a monster fail to react to Feint because they're already distracted might help reinforce the redundancy of these actions in a way that's more palatable than what might feel like being dictated to by another player...

I'd be really damned upset if I'm playing a Feinting character, roll a success, and my GM says, "there's no effect because the target is distracted by your flanking buddy."

Those simply aren't the mechanics of the game. There is no facing in Pathfinder. "His back is to you, so he can't see you," isn't a thing.

Step 1: Bring a Ballista
Step 2: Create Thrall in the ballista cradle
Step 3: Fire!

Pixel Popper wrote:

Reactive Strike is simply part of the puzzle of playing a melee-centric Gunslinger (every reload in melee reach triggers), Magus, and, now, Runesmith.

I mean not really.

Reactive Strike is sufficiently rare that it's never going to be part of the overall design and balance...

I have not played any AP since the release of PF2E where Reactive Strike was not encountered at some point. And several have had creatures with multiple Reactive Strikes [Hail Hydra!].

While it may not be part of the overall design and/or balance, it is certainly a factor that has to be accounted for when playing a Your-Thing-Just-Might-Provoke class. That is "part of the puzzle."

And there are plenty of tools. They may not be explicitly built around [Reactive Strike], but that doesn't diminish their utility. Having a tanky party member intentionally provoke is a tool in the box. There are spells that prevent the target from using reactions. The Confused and Stunned conditions prevent the target from using reactions. A rogue racket has a debilitation that prevents the target from using reactions. And so on.

It is simply a fact of life for several (sub)classes that their schticks may provoke Reactive Strike. Working around that risk is, as I say, part of the puzzle of playing those classes.

/sigh

Reactive Strike is simply part of the puzzle of playing a melee-centric Gunslinger (every reload in melee reach triggers), Magus, and, now, Runesmith.

There are ways to deal with the problem. Figure them out. Rarely are these classes played in a vacuum. They have teammates. Coordinate. Delay. Let a "tank" trigger reactions. Get a caster to cast something that prevents reactions. Etceteras. The problem is hardly insurmountable.

If that's not fun for you, then either play something else or, by all means, make a house rule at your table.