Quandary's page

OK, I noticed somebody ask this on Reddit, and thought it was worthwhile enough to deserve official FAQ/Errata.

Swim speed: Instead of attempting Athletics checks to Swim, you automatically succeed and move up to your swim Speed instead of the listed distance.

You can also choose to roll an Athletics check to Swim rather than accept an automatic success in hopes of getting a critical success. Your swim Speed grants you a +4 circumstance bonus to Athletics checks to Swim.

Armbands: +2 item bonus to Athletics checks. In addition, whenever you use an action to Climb or Swim and you succeed at the Athletics check, add a +5-foot item bonus to the distance you move.

Swim speed's "instead of attempting check" is seemingly the condition to "move up to swim Speed instead of the listed distance".

Regardless, I think a simple change to Armband wording would remove that worry and just read clearer and more concisely:
"whenever you move with a Climb or Swim action, you add a +5-foot item bonus to the distance you move" (34 characters shorter)

Since you don't normally move on a Failed Climb/Swim check, the result is same for that case, yet it works for Swim speed.

Anyhow, it seems the "Instead of attempting check, you automatically succeed and..." phrasing is something that may be used for other rules mechanics, so it seems relevant to recognize the ambiguity from it here, so as to inform how it may be used elsewhere.

Some of this was earlier raised, but since it came up in another thread, I wanted to highlight the specific issues with aim for clarifying FAQ or Errata.

AFAIK, the way Jump spell is phrased is precedent that normal Leaps/Jumps into mid-air allow for one action taken after the Jump before beginning to fall. Jump spell finishes with "or else you fall after using your next action", which is to say NOT "you CAN take 1 action before falling" as a spell-unique mechanic would do, so it's implicitly just a "reminder" of the normal function.

Honestly, if that is the normal mechanic, it seems it should really be stated directly in the Leap/Jump/Falling rules.

Regardless, one question is how/where are any remaining actions resolved? I.e. you jump into mid-air, take 1 action (say, strike), and now fall... but have 1 action remaining. Can you spend that action from the square immediately beneath you, i.e. after falling just 5'? Can you spend it at mid-point of falling distance? Or does maximal falling distance occur before any further actions can occur? (this 2nd action could be part of multiaction activity which you started with 1st action before falling)

Another question about standard Jump rules is:
What is mechanical relevance of normal vertical Leap of 3', or CritSuccess High Jump of 8'? High Jump of 5' clearly allows Strikes to target one further square than starting position's reach. Does a leap of only 3' also allow that? Does a 8' High Jump allow targeting a further square BEYOND a 5' High Jump?

re: Sudden Leap Feat, I'm unclear on this passage:
"When attempting a High Jump or Long Jump during a Sudden Leap, determine the DC using the Long Jump DCs, and increase your maximum distance to double your Speed."

The DC reduction for High Jump is clear enough, but should "increase your maximum distance to double your Speed" ONLY apply to Long Jump horizontal distance? It's not really phrased to be exclusive to Long Jump, or even just horizontal distance.
It seems ridiculous to apply it to vertical distance of High Jump, but even applying same 2x Speed to High Jump horizontal distance seems bizarre since then Long Jump has no horizontal distance advantage. I feel like it's plausible for Sudden Leap to give some benefit in max distance to High Jump, just not one directly based on current text. Perhaps allow increasing High Jump horizontal distance to 1x Speed, or increasing vertical distance by 5'? (these could be moderated for lesser effect on normal Success, better on Critical)

I just realised Spell Blending is the only Thesis that has no effect at Level 1 (until gaining 2nd level spells).
That seems really off from design perspective. The easiest solution seems granting a bonus Cantrip or 2 (Familiar can grant 1 plus other stuff).
Doesn't seem huge boost in long term, there's many ways to get bonus Cantrips (and stacking them all should have reduced marginal benefit).
But it makes the Thesis relevant at low levels, and just seems like the right thing to do. Why not?
Any other ideas for low level benefit?

OK, dropping 2H grip to 1H is free action, but needs 1 Regrip action to be able to attack with 2H weapon.
Quickdraw only allows "Drawing" a weapon for free along with Strike.

Balance-wise it seems plausible QD could allow Regripping 2H weapon held in 1H, but technically "Draw" is separate action from "Regrip".

EDIT:
Maybe it could be ruled you can "Draw" weapon from your own hand, given "Draw, stow, or pick up an item" is 1 action and "If you retrieve a two-handed item with only one hand, you still need to change your grip before you can wield or use it" suggests picking up an item makes it fully wielded exactly as if Drawn (only requiring to "retrieve" with 2H to immediately wield 2H weapon)... At which point, why can you pick up / Draw weapon from the ground but not Draw it from your own hand?
But considering there is separate action explicitly for Regripping (substantially the same thing), that is very awkward ruling...

So if desired for QD to enable 1H->2H Regrip, it probably should have Errata to just clearly say "or Regrip a held weapon".

OK, I know they don't stack since Powerful Fist specifies dice, not a generic stacking increase.

But it seems like Deific Weapon/Deadly Simplicity:Fist should also allow PF's "you don't take penalty for making lethal attacks..." bit.
Otherwise it's not very functional as a weapon... and since unarmed requires separate mention from weapons anyways, why not?

I actually think DW/DS:Fist should just grant Powerful Fist directly, allowing to qualify for Student of Perfection at low levels...
Simpler, and seems weird not to when you practically have effect of PF, and it's fully thematic for Champion/Cleric of Irori.
Waiting until Expert Unarmed Proficiency at level 5 like most other classes get just seems weird when it's so on-brand,
Champion/Clerics of Irori now qualify for Student of Perfection slower/later than a Fighter who starts with Expert.

(directly granting Powerful Fist also removes potential confusion over whether they stack)

Overall, I love this Investigator.
While Perception and Recall Knowledge is it's bread and butter in many ways, the real "investigation" stuff that hinges on game style mostly seems optional (e.g. Reconstruct the Scene), so if that's not your type of game you can focus on stuff that will be more useful in standard adventure i.e. mostly hack & slash and not necessarily big mysteries to track down. At a basic level, Studied Strike damage stays close to Rogue Sneak Attack: Actually faster progression by 1d6 and not FF dependant, but countered by not able to max attack stat and normally 1 action to designate target not already investigated... similar to Ranger Hunt Prey but more bonus dice. But if you don't build as much around personal combat, you can still be effective party member, and synergy with Wizard Multiclass seems a pretty clear niche/build as well. I think the general structure and approach is great, it's just a matter of tweaking a few interactions and fleshing out more options.

Anyhow, into the weeds...

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

METHODOLOGIES:

Empiricism's Observe Expeditiously seems like it could extend to allowing Free Action Recall Knowledge, not just Perception/Sense Motive?
Known Weakness(1) grants Recall Knowledge on top of Study, but Empiricism's Observe Expeditiously only once per 10 minutes anyways.

Instead of just Trained Skill, what if it increased Trained skill to Expert AND/OR lowered Skill Feat and Proficiency Level requirement?
So you can also gain Master and Legendary early, and their Feats. That is normally Master=7, Legend=15, but dropping by 3 seems workable...?

-> related to that, skipping to some high level Feats which directly relate with that change...

Deductive Improvisation(11) and Master Detective(19) allow skill usages normally requiring +1 higher skill proficiency...
What if they also lowered Skill Feat Proficiency and Level PreReq to allow taking Skill Feats early? (by 3 levels like Empiricism above?)
If Empirism granted early proficiency increase, not phrasing Level PreReq lowering to "stack" would prevent +2 proficiency Feat access.
These Feats would still have value for Empiricism Investigator since Empiricism only increases one skill proficiency (with bonus, unlike these Feats)
Probably would want to clarify these don't stack with Feats which allow higher proficiency usages, such as the Feat Trap Finder(2).

.

More generally, I feel like each Methodology could use more unique Class Feats exclusive to them.
I expect you already plan more Investigator Feats in APG (to match total # of Core Classes including CRB+APG combined), but having more Methodology specific Feats seems worthy goal IMHO... Not that more general Investigator Feats aren't good TOO.

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

CLASS FEATS:

Flexible Studies(1) should grant ANY skill proficiency increase IMHO (to Trained/Expert/Master/Legendary, using normal limits 7=Master,15=Legendary).
As is, it seems to have very little long term value, considering Keen Recollection(3) gives +Level to Untrained and Deductive Improvisation(11) allows checks requiring +1 proficiency. Keen Recollection only applies to Recall Knowledge not ALL Skill Usages, but I think better long term scaling is good idea, and after all it's not qualifying for taking any Feats either. It has pretty good competition in noncombat skill area at Level 1 (Human) and Level 2 also having Combat Clue so I wouldn't worry too much about a floating skill proficiency increase that is within normal level limits.

On the Scene(1) is great, but one nuance is what is "obvious"? Particularly, plenty of stuff has Perception check to notice it.
So if Investigator FAIL such a check, should they then get a "hunch" that there is something "out of the ordinary"?
That is such a routine scenario that I think the wording should more directly handle it... probably not much of an addition.

Underworld Investigator(1) has similar issue re: "on Thievery checks to investigate the subject (such as checks to Steal a clue from a suspect or Pick a Lock to open a safe with damning documents)". As phrased, that weirdly depends on knowing something is a clue, or knowing the contents of a safe. I guess the player doesn't have to worry about that, as GM can handle giving out the bonus or not (secretly), but may not be worth the bother just to prevent using the bonus for some "non qualifying" usages of Thievery...? After all, maybe you're not even really playing a mystery investigation campaign.

Combat Clue(2) wording and structure is really confusing:
Changing trigger and effects of Clue In, despite not hinging on investigation subject (or Take the Case).
I would say just make it a unique Reaction that just references Study Subject, not bring in Clue In just to change it's mechanics.
This may change how other interacting Feats are phrased, which I address as they come up.

Detective's Will(4) has wierd interaction with Combat Clue in the exact area I suggested to change that Feat, but not sure what intent is:
Currently (RAW) it seems using Combat Clue with non-investigated subject target would grant Will Save bonus to ally, but not yourself.
If granting Will Save from Study Subject VS non-investigated subject is desirable/intended, it seems reasonable to also allow it for yourself. (?)
If desired to work with non-investigated subject for both you and allies, Detective's Will should say allow either Take the Case or Study Subject:
-> "investigated or studied subject"?
If Combat Clue is changed per my suggestion, ally would not gain Will Save vs non-investigated subjects, identically to the Investigator currently.

Accurate Study(6) (...actually implications for Combat Clue(2)...)
I think by RAW the +2 doesn't carry over to ally with Combat Clue, which specifies "the +1 circumstance bonus of Study Subject".
If Study Subject bonus modifications don't apply, it seems clearer for Combat Clue to say "+1 circumstance bonus to attacks", i.e. drop the "of Study Subject".
...But maybe the +2 bonus modification IS intended to carry over???

Clue Them All In(8) (...actually implication of proposed Combat Clue(2) change...)
With suggested changes to Combat Clue, things like this should also specify "or <Combat Clue Reaction>" if intended to work with Combat Clue.

Trickster's Ace(18)
I feel like this should have Requirement of ability to cast spells of a given Tradition, to be something for those who delved into spellcasting rather than a freebie for all. EDIT: I know Rogue already has this, but Rogue also has plenty of magical stuff (or anti-magic or monk-crazy stuff) whether or not they have spellcasting... but Investigator seems inherently unmagical AFAIK, so some restriction seems reasonable. I almost want to say just remove it completely, but if they HAVE developed spellcasting somehow I am OK with them using it appropriately to that tradition. (I also worry about Investigator stepping on Rogue's toes too much)
In same vein, it could be reasonable to require the spell be no more than 1 spell level higher than the spell(s) you can cast, although Heightened up to 1/2 class level like Focus spell (just restricting scope for people with only 1st level Ancestry spell, still leaving solid powerful usages). Restriction to Common spells or Uncommon/Rare spells you have Learned seems reasonable (not needing to currently have in Repertoire/Spellbook/etc, just Learned), although that's reasonable for Rogue also. Not really sure about working with 10 minute casting time spells when real Contingency is just 3 action casting spells, but I feel like I'm already nerfing it hard, so...

Infallible Knowledge(20) ...This is a bit "meta"...
Since you effectively can't CritFail and you recognize the fake info from Dubious Knowledge on "effective" (upgraded) Fails, I'm not really sure what is reason for making the checks no longer Secret. It seems entirely "metagaming" in distinguishing a Dubious Knowledge "effective" Fail from "effective" Success...? Maybe that could be "useful" but doesn't really seem fun addition to game, IMHO, since it's seemingly not "knowing your knowledge is infallible" so much as metagaming about what check DC is, i.e. "hm, interesting tuft of fur I found at the crime scene" -> Recall Knowledge Check -> "wow, boring info but that must be crazy high Level... I THINK WE FOUND OUR BBEG, FELLAZ!!!"

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

SKILL FEATS

Urban Pursuit(2) ...Great, but it raises as many questions as it answers about how it works. Since it is in substance distinct from real Tracking, I think guidelines on how to determine DC are reasonable, with elapsed time since target was there more important. Target Stealth or Disguise could also be potential baselines before Time Elapsed or other conditions (rain, mud, fog), since ultimately you are relying on not only your own Perceptions and conversation, but the "crowds and passerby's" perceptions which are impacted by those factors.

Underground Network(2) ...perhaps should be "doesn’t draw as much PUBLIC attention as Gathering Information in public might" since it would logically draw the same (or more) amount of attention of the members/leaders of the "Underground Network" (not just the specific person you might speak to, otherwise you don't need to use this Feat if you can just contact one specific person without alerting other members of group).

Lizardfolk claws, fangs, and tail attack don't have any Weapon Group (for CritSpec effect).
Not even the "improved" Razor Claws gives it a group, so it doesn't seem like it's just holding out on CritSpec until you invest more.

This would be general/ Core Rules issue, but maybe if intent is natural/unarmed attacks will generally be Brawling group, that could just be stated as default in rules for Unarmed Attacks, avoiding confusion like this (and even saving space if that becomes assumptin for Unarmed). That can still be over-ridden for any specific "weapons" meant to diverge from norm, so nothing lost...?

All of this is about Multiclassing, not the base Classes themselves, which all have a Class Feature for Specialization/Bloodline/Muse/Deity/Order.
Clearly that is discrete Class Ability which needs to be explicitly granted if that is intent, which the RAW doesn't seem to consistently do.
I first assumed the Multiclass Dedications functioned identically re: these "paths", but differences in RAW phrasing call that into question:

Choose a muse as you would if you were a bard. You have that muse for all purposes, allowing you to take that muse’s feats, but you don’t gain any of the other abilities it grants.

Choose an order as you would if you were a druid. You become a member of that order and are bound by its anathema, allowing you to take the order’s feats. You become trained in Nature and your order’s associated skill; for each of these skills in which you were already trained, you become trained in a skill of your choice. You don’t gain any other abilities from your choice of order.

These are most similarly worded. Both express that you "have" or are "of" the Muse/Order, "as if you were" the full base class. Bard Multiclass explicitly states you count as having the Muse "for all purposes", which Druid Multiclass doesn't, which seems potentially confusing although I believe the intent and plausible reading is functionally identical.

Choose a deity as you would if you were a cleric. You become bound by that deity’s anathema. You become trained in Religion and your deity’s associated skill; for each of these skills in which you were already trained, you instead become trained in a skill of your choice. You don’t gain any other abilities from your choice of deity.

Cleric doesn't have the explicit 'allowing you to take Feats' or "for all purposes" wording. It does say you choose a deity "as if you were a cleric", which plausibly means you effectively "have" the Deity "class ability" which reasonably would qualify for any Cleric Deity Feats or any other effect (including Divine spells using Deity Alignment or Favored Weapon). Which in effect makes this the equivalent of above Multiclass Dedications, just with more potential confusion from the further difference in phrasing.

Choose a bloodline. You become trained in the bloodline’s two skills; for each of these skills in which you were already trained, you become trained in a skill of your choice. You cast spells like a sorcerer. You gain access to the Cast a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with two common cantrips from the spell list associated with your bloodline, or any other cantrips you learn or discover. You’re trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for your tradition’s spells. Your key spellcasting ability for sorcerer archetype spells is Charisma, and they are sorcerer spells of your bloodline’s tradition. You don’t gain any other abilities from your choice of bloodline.

This is even more divergent: It doesn't mention anything about allowing Bloodline Feats, or "for all purposes". More critically, it doesn't say you "have" or are "of" the Bloodline, or that you are choosing a Bloodline "as if you were" a Sorceror. So while "choosing" a Bloodline gives reference point for it's granting of skills, cantrips, etc, it hasn't clearly equated this with the Bloodline class feature in broader sense, like whether you should qualify for Bloodline Feats or other purposes (i.e. Bloodline specific magic items). If you don't technically "have" a Bloodline in same sense as Sorceror Class Ability, that would even rule out Arcane/Divine/etc Evolution Feats, although Advanced/Greater Bloodline (Focus spell) Feats only have pre-req of Bloodline Spell (not Bloodline per se) which you can gain via specific Multiclass Feat.

The way it discusses Tradition, influenced by Bloodline, is interesting in that it doesn't state it up-front, first just indirectly referencing "your tradition's spells" without having stated what that is... Later another indirectly phrased reference to "...they are sorceror spells of your bloodline's tradition". Which do suggest you "have" a tradition, indirectly suggesting you "have" a bloodline. Later Multiclass Feats refer to "your bloodline" seemingly assuming you "have" a Bloodline in general sense. However, still lacking fundamental language re: choosing Bloodline "as if you were a Sorceror" really makes that a weak inference: it gives me enough to "want" to believe that is intent, but I don't think it's clear to say the RAW works identically to the above Dedications re: counting as "having" a Bloodline.

Select one arcane school of magic. You gain the school’s initial school spell. If you don’t already have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point, which you can Refocus by studying. (For more on arcane schools, see page 204.)

This one really has no basis for appearing to function similar to above Dedications. No mention of "for all purposes", "allowing you to take Feats", or "as if you were Wizard". There is no indication you "are" or "have" a School Specialization in any sense: All it does is give you the School (Focus) Spell of a School. Of note, unlike how Sorceror Advanced/Greater Bloodline Spell Feats only have "Bloodline Spell" as Pre-Req (not explicitly requiring "having" the Bloodline per se), Advanced School Spell Feat actually requires "Arcane School", which the Multiclass Arcane School Spell Feat gives no indication of granting. And unlike Multiclass Sorceror, there aren't even any later Multiclass Feats which evidence an "assumption" you "have" a Specialization.

Another issue is how Wizard Dedication can relate to Universalist. Is Universalist a valid designation for Arcane School Spell (Multiclass) Feat? If the School selection were phrased "as you would if you were a Wizard", that would be very reasonable despite Unversalist not being a School per se, it effectively is one for purpose of Wizard's School Class Ability selection. Seemingly, it would give no direct benefit, as the Feat only grants a Focus Spell derived from School, with Universalist's benefits not including any Focus Spells (besides not exactly being a School). Regardless of that lack of direct benefit (although it would still grant Focus Point, without Focus Spell), IF we assume it is intended for Multiclass to qualify as having "Arcane School" for purposes of Feats/otherwise AND Universalist being a valid choice, then one COULD qualify for Universalist Feats like Hand of the Apprentice. That's far from clear, though. And if this is enabled by Errata, I would expect a selection of Universalist to grant some direct benefit, either modeled on Universalist's normal benefit (even if just a reduced subset), or just directly granting Hand of Apprentice. Of note, Universalist's higher level "Universal Versatility" (same level as Advanced School Spell) DOES grant access to Focus Spells which would benefit from low level Arcane School Spell (Multiclass Feat) granting 1 Focus Point/pool.

I think all of these (except Multiclass Bard) would benefit from standardizing wording, to remove any confusion or second guessing about differences in wording... But Multiclass Sorceror and most especially Wizard seem critically in need of Errata. In case of Multiclass Wizard, possibly even specifying direct benefit for Universalist if that is to be valid choice as normal for School selection "as if you were a Wizard".

Like title says... I think this is pretty reasonable thing to allow, but am not sure if RAW allows it,
although designating them as Signature Spell can fill in for this, I don't think it should be required.

Although Spell Repertoire is limited to spells of your tradition, rules for Heightening Spells and Repertoire also state:

When you get spell slots of 2nd level and higher, you can fill those slots with stronger versions of lower-level spells.

When you add spells, you might choose a higher-level version of a spell you already have so that you can cast a heightened version of that spell.

Which doesn't explicitly indicate an exception/expansion of limit to spells of tradition, but not unreasonably can be read to allow for higher level versions of Granted Spells (which you 'already have'). I don't think there are any now, but theoretically a Bloodline could Grant a high level version of a spell, in which case you might want to learn a low level version of it, except the above text doesn't really cover that at all (only higher/stronger versions).

Thoughts? FAQ?

The Skeleton type or trait says "Most skeletons have one of these abilities. If you give a skeleton more, you might want to increase its level and adjust its statistics." referencing Bloody, Explosive Death, and Screaming Skull abilities.

Yet none of the given specific Skeletons have any of these abilities listed.
Is it intended that those specific Skeletons should be given one of the listed abilities automatically (randomly, or by choice),
or are they complete for their Level without those abilities (and adding them would be appropriate for higher level Skeleton)?
(i.e. the given abilities are just for custom building OTHER Skeleton enemies)

"Most skeletons have one of these abilities" is just rather vague, so I'm not sure how to handle the given examples that don't mention these abilities...???

Wands and Staves don't have any overt limitation on Rare etc spells, as long as spell is on your spell list.
But they require spending actions appropriate to the spell, as well as somatic and verbal components (as well as material, for Staves).
So it seems plausible that you should need to know the spell in order to know those components accurately.
Would that just be a Arcane etc skill check to know about a spell, impacted by it's Rarity DC etc...? Should you have "learned" the spell?
Even if one doesn't understand that as strict rule, it would seem by RAW a caster would need to correctly guess the # of actions and components?
EDIT: Would a wand/stave suffice as source to learn a rare/etc spell FROM?

Is there any ways to stop Bleed outside of it's automatic flat check and Medicine (which requires healer's kit)?
I couldn't find any magic that seems to do it, I'm OK with Heal spell not doing it necessarily, but it seems like SOMETHING should...
Or did I just miss it?

First, a simple question: Arcane Evolution states you add all your Repetoire spells to the spellbook for free, but since you can swap your Repertoire at level-up (or via downtime retraining) would the spellbook retain your OLD Repertoire spells which were added for free AND gain the new Repertoire spells for free?

Secondly, a more complex question is how the Arcane Evolution Spellbook interacts with the BASE Signature Spell ability:
Arcane Evo allows daily prep choice of either adding additional (scribed) spellbook spell to your Repertoire OR designating existing Repetoire spell as additional Signature Spell (which will mean 2 Signature Spells of given level, since by default you already have 1 per spell level.

What's not clear IMHO, is if you have designated an additional (scribed) spellbook spell as bonus Repertoire spell when you become eligible for swapping your BASE Signature Spells (either at level-up or with downtime retraining), whether you can designate that bonus Repetoire spell from your spellbook as your BASE 1/level Signature Spell?

There is misalignment in base Signature Spell being relatively static (choice at level-up or downtime retraining) VS Arcane Evo Spellbook Prep being daily choice, but I'm not sure if RAW actually precludes this. Certainly there would be trade-off in using the abilities like this, since continuing to keep Daily Prep choice aligned with the base Signature Spell designation (for more effective Repertoire variants) means losing the strategic flexibility of free Daily Prep with Spellbook.

Although if that does work, there might be other question whether or not the daily Arcane Evo Spellbook Prep choice qualifies for base Signature Spell's trigger of "if you swap out a signature spell" which enables instantly freely choosing a new Signature Spell. If allowed, that would obviously remove the trade-off in daily strategic flexibilty VS increased Signature Spell repertoire. Although if Spellbook Prep doesn't count as "swap", I wonder if that means you have one less Signature Spell until you can next swap them normally... OR if the Signature Spell designation remains even though you can't access it without it being Repertoire spell, but if you re-Prep back into that spell then you can continue using it as Signature Spell...?

I just realized this, and I think it does, although I'm not sure what I think of that, or if it's intended. The attacker must threaten it with melee weapon/unarmed (along with flank partner) but the AC penalty isn't conditioned to only apply to melee. So if Bow wielder also has Unarmed attack that threatens, that should be enough AFAIK. Or am I overlooking something else?

When you and an ally are flanking a foe, it has a harder time defending against you. A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that are flanking it.

To flank a foe, you and your ally must be on opposites sides or corners of the creature. A line drawn between the center of your space and the center of your ally’s space must pass through opposite sides or opposite corners of the foe’s space. Additionally, both you and the ally have to be able to act, must be wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack, can’t be under any effects that prevent you from attacking, and must have the enemy within reach. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose.

So... This seems to be getting much attention in a certain minmax mindset.
1H Reach does seem like it can potentially be a bit too powerful...
Thinking how it could be amended, I thought maybe only give it +5' reach for your own actions (not reactions).
That seems like it's still worthwhile as a weapon and even Uncoventional Weaponry etc, but no SO disruptive...Thoughts???

I noticed on Reddit an interaction between True Strike and (Fighter/Barbarian) Swipe...
Too good to be true? Or that's just how 2E rolls...?

The next time you make an attack roll before the end of your turn, roll the attack twice and use the better result. The attack ignores circumstance penalties to the attack roll and any flat check required due to the target being concealed or hidden.

Make a single melee Strike and compare the attack roll result to the ACs of up to two foes, each of whom must be within your melee reach and adjacent to the other. Roll damage only once and apply it to each creature you hit. A Swipe counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty. If you’re using a weapon with the sweep trait, its modifier applies to all your Swipe attacks.

At first glance they stack, very powerful move for any MC Gish. But I'm not quite so sure:

The wording of Swipe says "counts as two attacks [for MAP]" but goes on to reference "all your Swipe attacks" (plural).
It partly seems written as if it isn't multiple attacks (but only for MAP accrual) but then refers to plural attacks.
Independent of True Strike, it seems plausible you can have some attack bonus vs one target but not other,
which I assume would still benefit from those VS the relevant target, i.e. they are distinct, separately resolved attacks.
So although sharing the dice roll, I think they are distinct plural "attacks" / "attack rolls", even if you get to use same dice result.

I believe the intent is MAP doesn't apply to the 2nd of the Swipe attacks itself (accruing for it, but only applying to NEXT attack if any),
but if they are two distinct attacks, then MAP penalty does apply to the 2nd Swipe attack, even if using the same naked dice roll result.
Which is still potentially beneficial since any re-roll effects can apply to both, but significantly less than some people seem to think it works like.

I'm leaning towards True Strike NOT applying to both Swipe attacks, only the 1st, which seems straight enough by current wording,
but the MAP situation seems to have a discrepancy between plausible intent that MAP doesn't apply to (only accrues from) either Swipe attack,
and the direct reference to plural attacks which would make 2nd attack automatically suffer MAP, so I think the RAW isn't doing what it needs to there,
and the wording needs to more explicitly assert MAP doesn't APPLY to 2nd attack, but still accrues from both.
I think that was mostly standard phrasing that may work fine for other pseudo-dual attack effects,
but might not work here if affirmed as actually being 2 distinct attacks (that don't stack w/ True Strike)?

Thoughts? FAQ? Errata?

OK, I just realized Sorcerors get Expert Simple Weapons at 11, but neither Cloistered NOR Warpriest ever gets it.

I'm not quite clear on the situation with Unarmed, I know it's supposed to follow Simple but if that doesn't progress would Unarmed?
Maybe not, since they do get Trained Simple it just never progresses...?
And if it did progress, it would need to progress with Deific Weapon since that is the only thing that Cloistered/Warpriest do progress,
and then that would leave Deific Unarmed/Fist not really uniquely progressing anything.

Smells fishy to me, ESPECIALLY for Warpriests (whom I think have other mechanical lacunae) although it's also weird Cloistered do get Simple Trained yet don't progress that while Wizards do progress multiple weapons that are subset of Simple. Just feels like inconsistently implemented concepts to me...

OK, I noticed discussion about MC Barbarian Rage with Animal Instinct whose Anathema is about only using unarmed weapons like Fist.
But adjacent to that - which has it's own thread, if you felt inclined to discuss that :-) - there is issue of how Rage damage bonus works:
Normally it adds +2 damage, but only half (or +1) to Agile weapons, of which Fist is an example.
Now Monk has some UAS which aren't Agile, but most characters don't have access to those, so Rage does less damage with UAS(Fists).

EDIT: This doesn't make sense to me, Fists (and other Agile weapons like Orc Knuckle Daggers, throwing Hatchets etc) are fully Barbarian flavorful. It's not like Agile has ANY possible relevance on non-MAP attacks like 1st attack, it isn't even truly "activated" for those. For 2nd/3rd MAP attacks the trade-off of damage for better attack bonus makes plenty of sense, but why penalize damage if you may only be making one non-MAP attack in entire round? This when Finesse weapons for example don't suffer any penalty. Seems simple enough to predicate reduced damage on Agile's reduced MAP actually applying, instead of referencing what Trait the weapon "has".

OK, I feel like I can roll with over-all premise of proficiency discrepancy vs real martial classes, but it seems like it still doesn't come together for me.

1) Key stat: Why not also allow choice of STR or DEX?
2) That plays into Crit Specialization, which mentions using Spell DC, which can help if proficiency higher, but seems like should be able to use STR/DEX?
3) Crit Specialization being fixed to Deity Weapon feels limiting, I mean that's exactly what Cloistered have (at significantly later level, sure, but it ends up the same).
4) I feel some way to gain Weapon Group like Fighter, also opening up CritSpec for it makes sense.
5) Anybody can get Trained Martial, so why not progress this to at least Expert? (as do Ancestral Weapon Expertise also Ancestral Cunning for Specialization) It's OK to have Deity Weapon as option via Deadly Simplicity but I don't think that should be strictly necessary, different weapon for different situations is normal but Warpriests end up just as locked to Deity weapon as Cloistered Cleric.
4) Also I wonder why no Armor Specialization? It seems overly narrow to limit Armor Spec to Fighter/Champion, it seems really reasonable for War Priests to get this.
(if anything, broadening relevance of ArmorSpec seems like good thing, since it gives nuanced relevance to armor types, not just best AC for DEX, with Med/Heavy seemingly identical re: Fortification))

I mean, I feel this is mostly stuff around the edges that isn't compatible with over-all approach taken, which I'm sure some could complain about, but I don't actually want to because I think the over-all balance and distinction between base classes works well. But in the long run it seems like Warpriest deserves a bit more, that acknowledges different build approach (after all Rogue Racket allow changing Key Stat, etc).

Cloistered itself seems easy enough to add Armor proficiency for almost as good AC (only 1 difference between Trained Heavy and Expert Medium), and it's weird Warpriest can't even get Expert Martial weapon proficiency (other than Deity Weapon) given even Human Unconventional Weaponry Expertise or other Ancestral Weapon Expertise does that even for a Cloistered Cleric (also with Cunning/WeaponSpec option). Really, Warpriests would strongly want to take those Ancestral Weapon options but they get no better benefit than Cloistered, so what's the point? That isn't even needed for a Cloistered Cleric with strong Deity weapon, who can grab (General) Heavy Armor Training and end up pretty much similar in combat but better in casting. Similar for Champion MC, which leaves Cloistered just 1 General Feat (Martial Weapon Trained) from being the same in combat as Warpriest but better at spells (and they can even skip General Martial if they are happy with Deity and/or Ancestral Weapon Expertise/Cunning).

Maybe more Doctrine specific Feats could help the situation, but I feel like core rules should be working a bit better in Warpriest's favor.

...Convince me I'm wrong :-)

OK, I'm just trying to make sure I have clear understanding of system...

First, I thought Anathema was general term but they use Tenets instead, I guess this is because they aren't all strictly Anathema, but dependent on ranking priority?

It says "Deities often add additional strictures (for instance, Torag’s champions can’t show mercy"
Personally, I find this very vague... If it's meant to specifically refer to Deity Anathema, then why not say so?
Which leads to other question, it only mentions Torag's "no mercy", but Torag's Anathema includes other stuff like "no lies".
Are ALL the Deity Anathema included in this Tenet, or what? Could be alot clearer wording IMHO.

That actually relates to the next issue, which is ranking priority of Tenets.
One of examples of Paladin Cause Tenets is "no lies", which is supposedly lower ranked than the Tenets of Good.
Except the Tenet Good includes following Deity Anathema, which in case of Torag also includes "no lies".
With equal co-priority for "never perform acts anathema to your deity or willingly commit an evil act" on same line/Tenet,
would that then mean Torag Paladins ARE in a "no-win" situation when those two Tenets are in conflict, despite general text otherwise?

...Or if a Deity Anathema repeats a general Tenet, would it NOT change priority ranking of that, but keep same priority as general Tenet?

1) What is the point of STR rating for Padded Armor? (but not Adventurer's Clothes) No speed reduction, no check penalty. Just wondering if I'm missing something, or maybe something was left out of rules which would make this meaningful?

2) What is effect of Broken Armor? IMHO strange no speed/check penalty, but maybe a choice for smooth gameplay? I think intention might be for auxiliary magical/mundane effects to "turn off" if those are understood as "its normal function", but I'm not sure if RAW clearly achieves that... Does "with the exception of armor" ONLY ignore the "grant bonuses" part or does it also ignore "can't be used for its normal function"?

A broken object can’t be used for its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses-with the exception of armor. Broken armor still grants its item bonus to AC, but it also imparts a status penalty to AC depending on its category: -1 for broken light armor, -2 for broken medium armor, or -3 for broken heavy armor.

Actually, the fact Heavy Armor includes Padded base to which Runes can be attached means not even those would be turned off, if Breaking the Heavy Armor would still leave the Padded intact, if I understand it correctly?

I wanted to do this with the final rules, since this area was changed from 1E and within the playtest itself, with Small races increasing to "normal" 25' speed while Elves of course retained higher base 30' speed with Nimble Ancestry Feat further boosting that. Making this table I assumed nothing prevented taking Nimble or Unburdened Iron via Adopted Ancestry (although one cannot take both unless actually being Elf* or Dwarf), since nothing seems to specifically indicate they are dependent on unique racial/ancestral physiology: Nimble only saying "Your muscles are tightly honed" and Unburdened only saying "You've learned techniques".

Elf = 30 = w/ Fleet, Nimble, Adopted, Unburdened ....................... = 40 = 40 hvy plate / 40 mithril
Elf = 30 = w/ Adopted, Unburdened, Fleet .................................... = 35 = 35 hvy plate / 35 mithril
Elf = 30 = w/ Nimble, Fleet ............................................................ = 40 = 30 hvy plate / 35 mithril
Elf = 30 = w/ Adopted, Unburdened ............................................. = 30 = 30 hvy plate / 30 mithril
Elf = 30 = w/ Fleet (OR Nimble) ..................................................... = 35 = 25 hvy plate / 30 mithril
Elf = 30 = ........................................................................... ........... = 30 - 20 hvy plate / 25 mithril

Normal= 25 = w/ Fleet, Adopted, Unburdened ...............................= 30 = 30 hvy plate / 30 mithril
Normal= 25 = w/ Adopted, Unburdened ......................................... = 25 = 25 hvy plate / 25 mithril
Normal= 25 = w/ Fleet ................................................................... = 30 = 20 hvy plate / 25 mithril
Normal= 25 = ........................................................................... .... = 25 = 15 hvy plate / 20 mithril

Dwarf = 20 = w/ Fleet, Unburdened, Adopted, Nimble ................... = 30 = 30 hvy plate / 30 mithril
Dwarf = 20 = w/ Fleet, Unburdened .............................................. = 25 = 25 hvy plate / 25 mithril
Dwarf = 20 = w/ Unburdened ......................................................... = 20 = 20 hvy plate / 20 mithril
Dwarf = 20 = w/ Fleet ...................................................................... = 25 = 15 hvy plate / 20 mithril
Dwarf = 20 - ........................................................................... ....... = 20 = 10 hvy plate / 15 mithril

Versatile Human w/ General Training is fastest (already reaching it's max) at Lvl 1,
Elf w/ Nimble is next, then Dwarf w/ Unburdened, then Normals, and then Dwarfs without Unburdened.

At Lvl 3, Elf w/ Nimble+Fleet are fastest followed by Humans w/ Fleed+Adopted+Unburdened, followed by both Dwarves with Fleet+Unburdened.

At Lvl5, Halfing with Cultural Adaptability(Dwarf+Unburdened)+Fleet reach their max (same as Human) and surpass all Dwarfs,

At Lvl7, Dwarves w/ Unburdened+Fleet+Adopted(Elf)+Nimble reach their max to equal the max of "Normal" speed Ancestries.

*I guess Half-Elf would be intermediary position, above Normal max but below Elf max:
Counting as Elf to take Nimble as well as Adopted Ancestry (Dwarf) for Unburdened Iron, but with only 25 base speed.

So this is the new rules for Fog (and Smoke, which has additional rules for inhalation):

Fog imposes a circumstance penalty to visual Perception checks, depending on the thickness; it causes creatures viewed through significant amounts of fog to be concealed

So there is NO indication of what 'significant' means here, and this only specifies Concealment not lesser degrees of awareness.

Actually, the tiers of Perception rules specifically mention Fog in passing ("Your target might be in a deep fogbank or behind a waterfall") as potentially causing Hidden Condition, which is analogous to Full Concealment. Yet somehow the Fog/Smoke rules not only don't specify range conditions for normal Concealment, they don't even mention that Fog can also further escalate to Hidden Condition. Even when aware of those two rules detailed in different sections, the distinction between them is totally unclear with normal Concealment resulting from "significant amount of fog" and Hidden Condition resulting from "deep fogbank". What is the distinction or discriminating factor between those?

The fact the Fog applies variable penalty to Perception based on "thickness" (density or depth or both?) might reasonably translate to different distance thresholds for Concealment and Hidden Condition based on Fog Density/Depth, but nothing like that is even "sketched out" in general terms, never mind specific stats or even an example so it's hard to say what the rules actually expect as baseline functionality.

I'm also slightly confused about how Concealment intersects the Perception Tiers: Perception has been PARTIALLY disentangled from these, but it seems like some of the details have been lost in the translation. Observed now says "Even if a creature is observed, it might still be concealed" so Concealment is not itself discrete Perception Tier nor inherently related to Observed Condition. But Hidden is directly equated with mechanic for "Full Concealment" Miss Chance (10+ Flat Check) which doesn't seem to be independently substantiated i.e. if you want Full Concealment you need Hidden Condition, there isn't distinct Full Concealment Condition. Critically, this isn't presented as directly related to Concealment since Hidden and Observed are Perception Tiers while Concealment is independent effect, so there is no inherent idea of Full Concealment (Hidden) being stronger version of Concealment (that don't stack etc).

But since it isn't independently substantiated and framed as superior version of Concealment, it begs the question: If somebody is Hidden AND in area with Fog Concealment, do attackers need to roll TWO Flat checks, one at 5+ one at 10+? Invisibility can count as Hidden (rather than Unobserved/Unaware) in certain conditions.

OK, I realized my follow-up post on this topic was off-topic to thread it was in, so decided to start a new one.
This post is building on my own proposed houserules, but other ideas to augment value of CHA are welcome,
although my personal goal is for minor CHA bonus OR penalty to be impactful (+/-) on it's own (without skill investments),
more than massively boosting value of "max CHA build", which already does fine when built around it (class/skills).
How STR is useful for Bulk capacity and Armor speed penalty reduction is the sort of value I'm interested in.

My houserule will be combining CHA with INT bonus to determine bonus languages. You could divide it by 2 to keep similar # of bonus languages, but a more unique solution is buying written & spoken languages separately (i.e. 2 points for both), with a bonus from CHA needing to go to spoken first, and a bonus from INT needing to go to written first. The 2x cost to fully learn a language also protects value of Multilingual Feat, originally written when Playtest had cap of single bonus language (at 14 INT).

Allowing CHA mod to apply to the flat Overcharge check for over-using 1/day items (which always works, check only determines temporary vs permanent destruction) also seems decent bone to throw CHA, although to not make it too broad a bonus for CHA casters (who already do fine with CHA), maybe use 'CHA mod up to relevant magic Skill proficiency'.

I realized the latter part re: 'relevant magical skill proficiency' wasn't doing work I wanted from it: While my intention was to limit e.g. a Sorceror who has own tradition skill maxed without others, I realized that high CHA casters are vastly more likely than average to have a single magical tradition skill maxed in the first place, so it's actually one more thing biased in their favor, if only minorly so.

So just using pure CHA mod to Overcharge probably makes sense, and in combo with Bonus Language rule, I think that leaves CHA impactful (positively and negatively) in a way similar to other stats. These changes also feel like they don't alter over all bonus very much, and don't seem likely to undercut other mechanics.

Hey, I just flagged another "I didn't know Paizo General discussion wasn't for RPG setting/rules discussion" but glancing at that sub-forum it's clear that is major recurring problem. I think you need to make it a bit clearer for the "unwashed masses" and change the sub-forum title to "Paizo Corporate [NOT FOR RPG/SETTING DISCUSSION]". People see something that MAYBE SORTA KINDA could describe the topic they want to post about, and just aren't going to scroll down the page to investigate if there is better alternatives. "Paizo Corporate" could be nuanced, maybe "What is happening at Paizo" for more casual friendly vibe?

I know you guys are busy with real important stuff, but something was just nagging me and it seems easy to fix:
At the top of main forum view, all the sub (and sub-sub) forums are shown at top of page, which IMHO really is wasteful of space and forces more user scrolling etc. Of course all those sub-forums ARE shown separately on this main page (if you don't collapse parent sub-forum). Occasionally I have found use to click on the subforum links at top of forum, but it's so occasionally I really would prefer if it was collapsed into small button whose effect would be to show pop-up pane containing the sub-forum links (designed to be quick, not like closing/opening subforums via their triangle).

Also, one thing happened to me the other day which I couldn't later replicate, but weirdly when I went to main page the big graphics were slightly squished to allow for right hand column showing "top sales" or whatever. It also had smaller pane on top of that column showing "your shopping cart" (which was weird because there is live link for that in top black bar). Anyways, immediately when I navigated to different page and returned to front, it didn't persist.

But the thing was... I really liked it. I really thought it gave more useful than just the huge graphics which IMHO tend not to provide useful engagement for repeat visitors. IMHO the value of it could be tweaked further by showing top purchases in different categories, let's say RPG Rules, Campaign Setting, and Accessories. Or maybe even PFS Scenarios, although maybe having all of those collapsable like forum would allow somebody uninterested in PFS to hide it in favor of more other products?

So, I don't know if briefly seeing that was forum glitch I caused or you guys messing around with server, but I think if you do bring that back (without un-necessary My Cart section) that would be positive thing for all sides. Hope you're having a good one.

OK, another thread invoking Rarity re: Specialist Wizard spells made me wonder about the given subject. Is anybody aware of Paizo further detailing the direction of these issues since the playtest, or indicating attention to this area?

These were mostly downplayed by forum posters in favor of approval/disapproval of "shock" of generic Rarity mechanic utilized to gate player options (mostly for things that were similarly gated in 1stEd just without generic framework for it, but I digress), but the implementation of it in non-controversial areas was also an open question.

Rarity as concept affecting DC of mostly Knowledge skills (but potentially others) was already present in 1stEd, but exactly how that interfaced with it's new usage wasn't quite clear... In some cases Rarity-As-Option-Gating (e.g. a Rare Feat/Spell that only Abadar Clerics usually can cast, i.e. probably found in most towns) wasn't necessarily tied to extreme world rarity that would justify similar DC increases as Rare creatures have (which in 1stEd needed the creature to be REALLY rare and obscure, like Serpentfolk/Doppelganger/Oni(or something) were only Humanoids I found that were also in 2ndEd Playtest. So there is issue when those different scales of Rarity intersect.

Related is the issue of Languages which may also have Rarity ratings in terms of DCs, but also the specific mechanism of opening "access" to them. The Playtest approach of "Region" only granting access to (one) Human "Ethnic" Language seemed limiting/distorting, so I proposed "Region" opening a mini-list which could include multiple Human and non-Human languages, possibly while reducing size of Universal "Common" Language access list and/or "cheaper"/easier options to learn a language from smaller list (not linked to Region or your own Race/Ancestry).

This is also the sort of thing that is heavily tied into world dynamics, so I expect the Golarion Setting team to be interested in what the mechanics allow/dicate in this area. ...Links? Speculations? Mad Rants?

I thought this would be useful for many to read Owlcat's new Kingdom Building tutorial:
https://owlcatgames.com/forums/showthread.php?5981-Dev-Spotlight-Kingdom-Ma nagement

It finally answered my question "what do Kingdom Difficulty settings actually do?" :-)

I am confused about some things, such as change in 1.1 patch so that time-limited events occuring after the 20th of month don't expire/fail before end of the following month. Which seems to not entirely fix problem it is aiming to, considering many events and Baron projects run for 14 days, i.e. will keep you busy until end of month starting from the 16th... Meaning a 3 day window between that and the 20th. Why not align these mechanics? (I am far from expert at this game, and could be missing something, but that is my current baffled impression)

It does sound like they plan further improvements, including more notifications and transparency as well as more means to increase Kingdom status. If they can implement BP purchases anywhere in Kingdom (along with better immediate notifications of Kingdom Status + BP total) that would also be major help IMHO. The guide explained some things, but hopefully game itself becomes more transparent in communicating requirements and tracking progress towards them (e.g. stat requirement for region expansion, which I wasn't even aware of).

BTW, if anybody at Owlcat reads this, please DM me here (or Quandary @ owlcat forum) about why I can't post in your forum outside of replies in Dev (sub) Forum, which AFAIK is mistake in permissions activation (I noticed after making only 3 replies in Dev Forum, so seems implausible to be real ban).

I've avoided these because their (at least) starting stats suck, and not being full adventuring characters, you have no way to buff them with items etc. (although maybe spells could work, but that needs micromanaging and being in throne-room to cast spell just before project completion)

I have wondered, do the projects to improve them make them alot better, on par with real character advisors with good stats & buff items? I haven't done that, because they were just so poor to start out with... Possibly partly bad luck + due to Challenging difficulty Kingdom DCs, but chain failures by Kassil led to immediate Kingdom in failure in my 1st play-thru... I've since played with invincible Kingdom rule because it's still to easy to get to Kingdom melt-down and too hard to crawl out of that hole.

Relatedly, any opinions on Kingdom difficulty settings? I've been playing with Challenging over-all, but had started using Mod to adjust Kingdom DCs by -2 which AFAIK exactly cancels Challenging's DC boost. Although on a recent re-start I switched to setting Kingdom to Easy which I think also cancels Challenging difficulty DC boost.

Really, it's crazy the two aren't more totally independent, if you want to boost both adventure & kingdom DCs that should be discrete option, not tied at hip to game difficulty settings which already overlap re: enemy difficulty. (not sure if that stat boost one still is double-dipping on bonuses, which is bad approach IMHO even if total range of difficulty is desired, there should be better granularity and transparency to player).

I'm curious about this, I haven't played far enough to directly experience it (only as far as mid-way thru Armag's Tomb), but I understand from other forum postings that the choice of helping Amiri & Aldori first before resolving Tristian & Candlemere* means Tristian will unavoidably end up dying later in game. And if you didn't happen to allow Lamashtu Cult Leader to remain in Kingdom as vassal, that would mean there is no other valid Councillor...???

In fact the trade-offs seem somewhat strange, in that siding with and helping Aldori seems to allow keeping 2 Generals (Amiri and Kassil) while (ultimately, later) losing (potentially only) Councillor... While dealing with Tristian first (allowing to avoid later losing him as Councillor) loses all Generals while allowing to retain 2nd Councillor (if you chose Surtovan Emissary Shandra Mervay, which I haven't).

Like I said, I haven't gotten all the way thru game for all of this, but this dynamic seems disturbing. Is there other Councillor options if you lose Tristian and don't have Shandra or the CE Cultist? Or do you just auto-fail Councillor checks from that point? (which seems horrible, although I don't know if that is viable at that point in game) Or is the loss of Tristian late enough in game that you don't care about Advisors any more? If it's the latter, i.e. just a story outcome that doesn't handicap game mechanics, I don't care and I've probably worried about this too much, but if anybody does have insight on this I'd be thankful.

* which IMHO is strangely conveyed by game, the overt information on Candlemere didn't seem to especially involve Tristian at all, although reading Journal informs you it does relate to Tristian without rationalizing why, even as plausible speculation... it's just asserted as true in Journal. also at Candlemere (which I did after Aldori/Barbarian battle), there is log/journal text saying Tristian jumped into portal, but I actually never saw that happen on screen, so I'm not sure if that was bug on my play-thru or general thing for game. another pet peeve of mine is the screen-top "announcements" (with seal image) often are un-readable, both in time-span and spatially not fitting text into given area (at least on my screen, maybe it works better at higher res?) and this info seems to be forever lost if you coudn't catch it, it's not in Log and not in Journal.

Anybody else have this problem, or know what is going on?

After making 3 posts, when trying to post again I get message "You are banned for no given reason forever".
Eventually I realize I can continue to post in Dev forum (where my first posts/replies were) and I suspect with their manual user activation
somehow I was only ever given permission for Dev sub-forum but not General or Tech Issues or others.
I submitted this via their form (which seems email-based) but never received answer, and apparent moderator who
posted their sticky re: Permissions for posting has full DM mail-box so that isn't option.
I posted my issue as reply to un-related threads, as only route of communication remaining, but haven't gotten response.

Tangentially, even in Dev forum where I posted, I don't seem to have Permissions to start thread, only to Reply, although that is much less important.

Like title says... Main Wiki currently is horribly slow because it's pushing ad-scam etc. Even with ad/script blockers, the site does sketchy re-load stuff 3x before you see usable page. This kind of site isn't actually going to develop good community contributions because who would volunteer for such crap? These sites generally only exist by scraping other sources (and it currently doesn't even have basic consistency between topics like Cooking/Recipes).

Obviously the company that runs that is not changing their modus operandi, I don't even know if Owlcat cut some deal with them for exclusive official Wiki status. But that doesn't mean anybody else can't start own Wiki, game mechanics are not copy-rightable and the over-all setting lore/IP is owned by Paizo. If there is exclusivity over Owlcat-modified Lore, that can be stepped around like d20pfsrd did with indirect/generic descriptions (albeit most lore is vanilla Paizo lore, available via Paizo's own licence).

I don't know why Paizo can't offer free hosting for this, as they are now doing with Karui's Nethys Archives. (BTW, why is Legacy PRD *SO* much slower if Paizo is hosting it?) This can offer the best experience focusing on info community deems important, not burdened by ad-scams. Working with pathfinderwiki.com seems best route for general setting-lore integration, that strengthen ties with Paizo community. If Paizo Legacy PRD & Nethys design work can be recycled (swapping in Owlcat specific mechanics and removing PnP-only rules), that seems very efficient way to get superior resource quickly available. The commercial site will probably just scrape this resource (and probably have licence for Kingmaker IP too) but they can be ignored like their many siblings are (Wikia et al).

Thoughts?
I was going to post this on Owlcat as well, but screwed up my name, and would rather wait until I can change name again so it matches here.

OK, that title will make lots of people think happy thoughts... >;-D

Seriously, I notice alot of persistent sentiment that there is way too many Circumstance bonuses.
Whether Racial abilities, or physical abilities effecting some shield-like deflection.
I agree, and it feels like there is too much and you have to think the idea all of these wouldn't stack is strange.

On the other the impetus for this is obviously the tighter math, and allowing multitudes of bonuses to accrue is not desirable.

My idea is splitting the difference (literally).
Realistically there isn't unlimited number of Circumstance bonuses that could apply on any one check.
I think a realistic approach is saying when you have multiple Circumstance bonuses, they only stack 50%.
If there was situation with 3 Circumstance bonuses, it seems like it would be allowed to add the 1/2's together,
although I guess the normal 'drop 1/2's' rule applies if you still have a 1/2 after adding them all.

Thoughts? Not just on that proposal, but the over-all situation with Circumstance bonus.

The rules here feel a bit vague and confusing to me, although the basic approach feels valid.

First, some smoke effects seem inconsistently described, with smoke stick described as "opaque" despite just applying Concealment.
Perception rules themselves indicate being within "deep fogbank" (which isn't given objective measure) can result in "Sensed", although none of effects creating >5' smoke/fog effects explicitly note that, only referencing Concealment which as presented has nothing to do with "Sensed".

IMHO the Sensed condition should just be re-named as 'Full Concealment' and presented as sub-set of Concealment condition, because it's totally separate status right now is confusing. In addition to Concealment/Sensed ambiguity, "Sensed" gives ME the impression of term more appropriate to "Unseen" condition (which we apply to characters whose general presence on battlefield is known, just with no details on location). If "Sensed" is to be a term, I would rather have it replace "Unseen", or else just not use it (in favor of Concealment + Full Concealment + Unseen).

The rules for Fog allow for total vision blockage but don't give tactically useful guidelines for this. Fog/mist/haze is given vision distance cut offs in (partial) miles, although fog says "potentially much less" with no relevant rules to apply that (IMHO a big enough area of Smoke should entirely block sight given enough squares, but currently AT MOST can result in "Sensed"/Full Concealment). It states -1 to -4 Penalty penalty "depending on thickness" while giving no guidelines on what number to use - Is this thickness of condition (which seems apparent context)? Does distance / number of squares play a role? AFAIK that penalty only is relevant to Stealthing characters, you don't need Perception otherwise right? (and Seek action vs Stealth seems to only apply within 30' cone so I don't know how much distance is relevant to this either)

Overall the fog rules (Perception penalties, distance cut-offs) seem like they should apply to smoke (and Dim Light concealment) also, but don't seem to by RAW (nor does smoke appear in environment section despite being natural part of forest fires, volcanos, etc).

There doesn't seem to be any distance modifiers to Perception or even assumed checks vs. non-Stealthing targets, suggesting... you can pinpoint absolutely every object/creature in line of sight to horizon? (as well as Stealthing in light mist not being obviously more difficult at 15' than at 100' never mind 1/2 mile) The rules pretty much state that with "You can usually see a creature automatically with a precise sense unless that creature is hiding or obscured by the environment". Maybe an urge to reduce rolls is behind that, but I feel like this is removing too much detail. I'd also like rules to distinguish between "seeing an object/person" exist and being able to make out close details (relevant for long ranges primarily), that can interface with distance cut-offs which can also be influenced by Perception score.

I don't think the fundamental problem with 3.x/P1E was that these things were managed by rules, but that the rules were spread in various locations with various non-obvious interactions between them, so improving them for clarity and ease of use doesn't necessitate just getting rid of these rolls / modifiers completely, it means working on their details & organization to make them simpler & clearer. I'm honestly surprised that nothing was done with "level of detail" (distinguishing Man wearing Eye Patch and Striped Vest from "figure standing atop far hill"), given the over-all development of degrees of Perception/Sensing. That isn't even something that req's lots of rolls in most encounters which will already be at close distance, it is more of a thresh-hold thing, which may indicate upgrade of awareness at one point and that is it (although IMHO concealment in fog etc is just as valid for this as distance, and sets up interesting dynamic in weak fog/smoke where you can see location of targets but not distinguish them from each other).

OK, that's long enough.

I understand spell DCs won't depend on spell level anymore, it will be univeral based on that caster's stats etc. Which makes me wonder what then is point of 4 and 6 level casting? Their lower DCs were in fact kind of problematic in 3.x/P1E when using them for DC spells, in that especially for 4 level casting the DC spells were nigh on useless for all but mooks. So essentially one tended to avoid using any such spells to begin with, compounded by stat build dynamics.

So I figure, with DC distinction gone, why do we need 4/6 level casting? Give everybody full casting with same spell level progression (with new name for 'spell level' please). If they aren't supposed to have effective Save or Suck spells, don't give them to them (spell list). Or make the effect much weaker for the given spell level (compared to 'full casters'), impose target HD limits, etc. If their total spells known/ slots are lower, fine, but I don't see why that needs to require fewer spell levels.

More spell levels means more granularity, less breadth in power amongst spells of a given level, more range of spell concepts that are viable while not worrying about comparing to stronger spells of same (old) spell level. If (old) "4 level casters" don't end up having tons of spells on their list at each level, that isn't worst thing in the world, it means they can get weaker ones earlier than strong ones, and use Metamagic and other mechanics more easily with lower level ones. (FYI my houserule has always been to allow "Heighten Metamagic" for free, this wouldn't affect DC anymore but could be relevant for other things, so IMHO the case for being free/built into vanilla is even stronger)

This also has side benefit in reducing issues like discrepancy in spell level for the same spell, which impacts stuff like item pricing etc. IMHO the general concept of 'early access' seems dubious, especially as generalized practice... Having all casters on same spell level track helps maintain the norm alot more consistently, and any actual 'early access' cases can be more clearly dealt with, rather than on top of shifting metric of differing spell level progression. Just consider the counterintuitive problems gained via the "benefit" of early access: besides DC issue which is no longer the case, it meant your spell was more easily countered by Globes of Invulerability (blocking spells of less than X spell level), which is crazy, blocking a Fireball is blocking a Fireball, if somebody's spell is especially resilient that should be explicitly expressed. If (old) "4 level casters" are supposed to be good at casting in combat give them a bonus to it (which then exists as discrete ability which can be altered/removed/etc), helping their concentration checks by using lower spell levels for a given spell just obscures the issue. 4/6 spell level casters ability to "game" metamagic items was just weird, and not of consistent benefit to most of them over-all, really more something specific spells/builds benefitted from but not a core element for all 4/6 casters.

IMHO instead of 'early access' for same spell, classes should get more focused/limited version at earlier level that lets them shine early on, the fact it's limited is not a problem because you are still doing something you otherwise could not... and if you want to use the normal full version later, go ahead and use the same spell at normal spell level. If fully adhered to, that even gets rid of the need to list individual class spell levels for each spell, they will just have their spell level and that's it, although I can see exceptional cases still existing, those may not be in realm of 'vanilla (un-archetyped) classes' so the standard spell blocks wouldn't account for them anyways.

I was prompted to recall this by somebody claiming the revealed P2E melee abilities as failures because it would still have drastic action economy penalty vs Archery, apparently assuming that Archery would continue exactly as it does in 3.x/P1E. So I decided to make clear why Archery should absolutely NOT continue as it does now, and thus should in no way be a goal or standard to which other mechanics should be held.

I mean, the semi-constant Full Attack just doesn't seem necessary design goal. Certainly all the bonus attack options seem un-necessary/ill advised with it. The way range increments work is ridiculous, assuming long range shots need to work basically same way, Full-Attack compatible, just w/ minor attack penalties. Of course this is so effective you would be crazy to try to do anything else in any but most particular situations, even though Archery as theme has much more cinematic possibilities than just "flurry of arrows", precise feats of archery can include called shots, interrupting casters, but that is mostly sidelined now, even when you can gain those special abilities, Full Attack is better 95% of the time. Even Zen Archer seems bizarrely misguided by mechanic-first ideology inherited from Monk Class, despite anybody who's seen real life Zen Archers knows they fire very SLOW MEDITATIVE shots at targets they can't see, they are not about "Flurry of Arrows".

The game is so intent on Longbow allowing long range shots via this ham-fisted mechanic that it ignores you can't actually see target at max range increments! Just non-Composite Longbow is -2 per 100' increment, but Perception is -1 per 10', meaning -20 at limit of 2nd increment (-2 penalty), and -100(!) at 1000' max range. If you can't see it, you can't target it, even if your attack bonus allows, so the design paradigm here is clearly disfunctional and at odds with actual use.

Since targetting is pre-requisite of aiming a shot, not sure why range penalties shouldn't follow same curve as Perception, which then means the two stay in sync. (10' increment weapons like Daggers DO use same distance curve as Perception, just max 5 increments) The rules seem built around allowing stuff that just doesn't occur 99% of the time, and indeed CAN'T occur because of adjacent rules (Perception) which are harsher than ranged/ archery rules as far as distance goes. Rather than such a non-functional dynamic, why not have ranged/archery rules which themselves embody their own limit, and which have range penalties which meaningfully impact normal play to some degree?

I don't really see the necessity of Full Attacking at these long ranges anyways, fine enough to be POSSIBLE to make A shot, but that should be slower aimed shot. Using P2E paradigm, perhaps extra actions could be used to extend normally smaller range increment, so the given range increment is shorter (for Longbow) but spending actions aiming it (precluding Full Attack or fancy shots) will double, triple it. Really, Longbow and Dagger shouldn't need to have HUGELY different range increment for close-in shots which allow rapid fire etc, just that Bows have option of aiming to extend that increment so long range shots are viable, while Daggers can't do that.

Of course reality is 95%+ of shots occur in 1st increment with zero penalty (now/P1E), so IMHO a new system should bring range penalties into some relevance by making them plausibly applicable to normal combat ranges at least to some degree (e.g. -1 to -5). Of course at the longer realistic ranges, Archers may choose to make aimed shots forgoing the Full Attack, although with only one "aim action" range extension they could still have room for another CLOSE shot OR to make their longer shot a special attack etc. EDIT: Whilst making and multiple/Full Attacks a phenomenon more at relatively closer ranges addresses balance:melee by tending to keep archer in Charge or even single Move range. Whereas now if you have Archer on Horseback it's an absolute farce.

This did get somewhat into Perception itself, which would be good to hear more beyond what we've heard, basically "Fighters can be good too" not about mechanic itself. Besides problems with range modifier itself... (should be more tied to object size, modifying distance per penalty (or vice versa), which also means it can distinguish between 'you see dozen horseman on hills' and 'you can see they carry weapons' etc)

I think Dim Light / Low-Light Vision is a wreck in need of salvaging, for example:
Rules for them work well re: point-sources (torches): without LLV you see half as far, which is how it is supposed to work according to their fluff text, which says that. But when dealing with "general lighting conditions", that isn't close to true. In that case, there is just -2 (or potentially -5) flat penalty, i.e. -20' or -50'. So at dawn/dusk where there is 20% Concealment in square next to me, instead of seeing an approaching enemy at 200', I see them at 180'. Why even bother? The conflict between Perception table and Ability description is SO huge, that given 'text trumps table' I am tempted to over-rule it and enforce 'seeing half as far' i.e. 2x distance penalties, but that seems very specific mechanic to infer, and problematic given pointsources aren't problem so Perception "solution" shouldn't doubly penalize them.

EDIT: Actually LLV itself is problematic, as it both says you can see "twice as far" in Dim Light, and says you can see in moonlight as well as you can during day (which also removes Concealment). Which is it? Full negation of dim light, or just seeing twice as far? Dim Light itself (Lighting) only says creature with DARK VISION negate it's Concealment, nothing about LLV seeing "like normal", although the point-source rules DO allow LLV characters to see "like normal" in the area that is "really" Dim Light.

Of course all this is re: vision, Dim Light shouldn't affect how far you hear... Although in many cases you should be able to see further than you can hear normal sounds. (you can see far off group of soldiers with war elephant, but you can't hear their conversation) That gets into 'degrees of perception' which can be specific to each sense. (e.g. "aware of", "detailed perception", etc.)

P.S. I'm sure I forgot something in all this, so please be gentle when you share.

So I just noticed this feature.
Personally I would be much more inclined to use it,
if it also showed NEW threads you've never seen before.
That gives you a chance to notice subject you're interested in.
If you don't ever try to read it, it won't be displayed again.
Doesn't seem like large difference in # of threads shown at one time.
"IMHO"

I'm curious what's happening here, haven't been closely following this

I understand Initiative has new take, but has that been explained publicly? Seems like massively relevant core mechanic to me. Any different from 3.x "characters blow their entire round of action, then next character gets to do theirs (if they are alive), ad infinitum"? 3-action system seems amenable to allowing all character to do something before anybody does a full 3 actions, or am I way off base?

Grapple - nuff said. Well, i'd also toot my own horn on the grapple movement issue which Paizo hasn't touched with a 10 foot pole so far. So: will there be game mechanical way to adjudicate mundane character (e.g. Bullrush)/environmental forces (e.g. Gravity kicking in after bridge explodes) opposing magical restrictions like this? (could apply to much more than grapple, even non-physical things like dominate vs diplomacy)

Cantrips - 'no zero level spells - cantrips still exist'
Would this mean you don't learn cantrips as own level spell,
but they exist as Nth level spell (using same spells known/prepared slot) with special 'cantrip' feature allowing infinite re-castability / spell slot not lost when casting? And we can expect higher spell level cantrips which may be weaker than non-cantrips of same level but more powerful than lower level spells?

Handle Animal doesn't give any requirements of the target animal's attitude in order to "Handle" or "Push".
Clearly there should be SOME requirement, but RAW there isn't, and instituting any requirement without RAW guidance seems arbitrary.
IF we wanted to base it off of Diplomacy, then we could require at least Indifferent.
If we look at Animal Archive, the Exclusive trick says it prevents others from issuing commands to your animal
"even if it is friendly or helpful toward them (such as thru charm animal)", so at least FRIENDLY should allow for Handle/Push?
We might also look at Charm Animal, basing itself off of Charm Person which imposes Friendly attitude and allows giving orders/ commands,
although since Charm Animal is working exactly like Charm Person, if we are going to make an inferrence from that,
then the exact same conditions should apply to both, and thus Diplomacy's minimum condition of Indifferent should then apply.

Regardless, there is also the question of DCs, it might be allowable to issue a command when the target is Friendly or Indifferent,
but the DC should be harder than it is if they are fully Helpful (just like Diplomacy),
but again, there is absolutely nothing in RAW to suggest that function for Handle Animal.
Tangentially, the attitude state might interact with Handle/Push-ability, for example at Indifferent you cannot Handle, but you can Push.

Anyhow, the RAW is clearly lacking here, even Animal Archive's Exclusive seems to acknowledge the sensibility in attitude state somehow affecting an animals' receptivity to commands (although it doesn't actually spell out the parameters for that), so I feel like this is solid FAQ (if not Errata) material, especially as threads touching on this topic seem to pop up on a recurring basis, with nobody able to give a definitive RAW ruling that is satisfying. So... FAQ away, you dirty animals!

EDIT: Wild Empathy gives us the nugget of info that Wild animals default to "Unfriendly" while Domesticated animals default to "Indifferent". That seems more appropriate to have in the Handle Animal description itself, since it is relevant even in games without any Druids/Wild Empathy characters.
EDIT2: It would be nice if there was some guidance on Animal Companions, as well as mundane trained animals, how their attitude state might change over time, both gradually as well as momentarily.

(changes in bold) "Minor Spirit (Su): At 1st level, the unsworn shaman also forms a temporary bond with a minor spirit each day, granting her access to a shaman or witch hex of her choosing, but not a major hex or a grand hex. She must make this selection each day when she prepares her spells for the day. Until she changes the minor spirit, she continues to have access to the witch hex. At 2nd level, she can instead select a hex from one of her wandering spirits selected for that day. If she selects a witch hex, she treats her shaman level as her witch level, and uses her Wisdom in place of her Intelligence for the purpose of that hex.

She can make temporary bonds with two minor spirits (thus gaining two hexes) at 4th level, and with one additional minor spirit (and hex) every 4 levels thereafter. This ability replaces spirit and alters hex."

This seemingly doesn't allow access to Hexes of your Spirits granted via Minor Spirit, while allowing Hexes from Wandering Spirit?

Also, is it intended that Unsworn Shaman gains the Spirit Magic spells of Wandering Spirit (whose bonus spells feature isn't modified by the archetype), but not that of the "Minor Spirits" which are replacing Spirit (and it's language about bonus spells from said Spirit)? IF this is intended, it seems that Spirit Magic's text should be altered to only reference Wandering Spirit, and not Spirit. (or if it's intended to work with the Minor Spirits, it should be modified to reference Minor Spirit instead of Spirit)

Unsworn doesn't replace or modify Manifestations (20th level capstone), which references Spirit: What do you do here?

The Feat says: "Benefit: You gain one additional hex. You must meet the prerequisites for this hex. If you are a shaman, it must be a hex granted by your spirit rather than one from a wandering spirit."

How does this work for Unsworn Shaman? Is the intent merely to exclude wandering spirits' hexes, thus Minor Spirit Hexes are OK?

So now Turkey is militarily backing a NEW jihadi invasion of northern Syria from Turkish territory
(who took over border crossings and local towns forcing the ethnic Armenian population to flee or be captured or killed),
AND a new leak reveals the Turks to be planning false flag attacks against their own territory to justify direct intervention,
focusing on the ISIS al-Qaeda splinter group (who seem 'off the leash' of Gulf Sheik masters) as acceptable to Western/NATO PR perspective,
while still backing other al-Qaeda affiliated groups like al-Nusra with weaponry, ammo, logistics and tactics,
cooperating with Qatar and probably other countries, as in latest invasion of northern Syria (Latakia).
Apparently they have also been in talks with the US about establishing a no-fly zone in this context.

It seems worth mentioning that Turkey has a history with false flag attacks in Cyprus, where the general involved in that invasion later admitted that the 'attacks on mosques' they used to justify it were in fact false flag operations designed to create a propaganda justification for war.

from Moon of Alabama:

An March 23 the AlQaeda affiliated groups Jabhat al Nusra and Ahrar al-Shams consiting of foreign men crossed the border from Turkey and attacked the western Syrian province of Latakia. The seized the Kasab border crossing and the Armenian town Kessab. People there fled as the Jihadist removed the crosses from the Armenian churches and replaced them with their black flag. [that's actually downplaying the destruction they wreaked from what I know, as well as kidnapping of remaining ciilians] The Jihadist groups were given artillery support and anti-air cover from Turkey. A Syrian jet on a bombing run against the Jihadists was shot down by the Turkish air-force.

The Jihadist managed to capture several hill sides before being stopped by reinforcing Syrian forces. After the plane was shot down Syrian anti-air radars painted any Turkish flight coming near its border ready to shot them down. [which Turkey has seemed to publicly complain about as a 'hostile act'... strange persective] Heavy artillery is used against the intruders and they are said to have high casualties. Their wounded get transported to the Turkish border and find help in Turkish hospitals. The Jihadist campaign is clearly in trouble and it may only take a few days until they will have to give up and retreat.

The Turkish prime minister Erdogan and his foreign minister Davutoglu have further plans. They allege that the Tomb of Süleyman Shah, a small place in Syria 25 kilometer from the Turkish border but under Turkish sovereignty, is threatened by Jihadist group Islamic State (ISIS). They say that Turkish troops are ready to go to protect it. This clearly is a threat of invasion under some attack on radio Gleiwitz reasoning. Today leaked tape recordings of two phone calls (in Turkish, UPDATE: English transcript of first part) between Davutoglu, the chief of the Turkish intelligence MIT Hakan Fidan and others, seem to confirm that this is indeed the plot. According to a preliminary translations by Firat Gunay (for which I can not vouch):

• Fidan offers Davutoglu to send men into Syria to fire missiles on Turkey.
  
• After Davutoglu rejects that, Fidan offers to bomb the tomb of Süleyman Shah.
  
• Talk about the needs of the Jihadists which is more about ammunition than guns.
  
• Fidan states that they have delivered 2,000 truckloads of weapons to the insurgents.
  
• Davutoglu says Kerry had asked if the Turks would invade Syria and had pressed for it to do so.
  
• Davutoglu also says they have plans for a no-fly zone over Syria and have delivered such plans to NATO.
  
• Davutoglu assures Fidan that Erdogan has agreed to all the plans.
  
• Fidan says things do not go well for the insurgents and that Turkey has send a general to help them.

Shortly after the calls were leaked on Youtube Turkey blocked local Internet access to Youtube. It is now also available on Vimeo and elsewhere. The tape release, only the latest in a larger series, came after Turkish police raided a holding company related to the religious Gülen movement, an earlier ally of Erdogan which has become his fiercest enemy. A TV station related to Gülen was also taken down.

There are local elections on March 30 and Erdogan's AK Party may lose the mayor seats in Istanbul and/or Ankara. Erdogan seems to have not only his voice but also his mind. He is using a strategy of demonetization against everything - Twitter, Gülen, Israel, Syria, whatever - to play to his large base. This base though may no longer be big enough for electoral victories.

The Obama administration is also planting stories of new "worries" about Jihadists attacks on "western" interests from north or east Syria. Such an "attack" could easily be orchestrated and then used to "justify" "western" intervention and a renewed perspective of a no-fly zone over Syria.

Also covered here by USA Today/ AFP.

The description for Full-Round Action (Category) states:

"Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below)."

"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step."

The bolded passage seems to mean that all Full-Round actions work like 1-Round Casting Time spells: "taking an entire round to complete". I just don't think that's the intent, because Full Attacks are supposed to resolve on your TURN, not just before your next turn (which is the case if an entire round must pass), and that would also make the special distinction/rule for 1-Round Casting Time spells superfluous. IMHO, this is just a poorly worded passage whose sole intent is expressing that a F-R Action is mutually exclusive with a Move and Standard Action (under normal circumstances, although the wording there shouldn't be too concrete either, since at least bonus Move Actions are easy enough to gain). That certainly seems like it qualifies for Errata, to me.

Another poster somehow believed that F-R Actions did not work like 1-Round Spells, but somehow were "1-Turn" actions that occupied all of your turn, even preventing one from taking a Swift Action in your turn before the F-R Action began (which is just bizarre, and not even 1-Round Spells work like that). I'm not quite sure how they made that conclusion, since "turn" is nowhere mentioned in F-R Actions' description, nevertheless they did bring my attention to this wording which does seem problematic on other grounds.

Hit the FAQ button? :-)

OK, I am having trouble resolving both the RAW, previous Paizo comments, and the most recent FAQ.

The question is, how does it work when different Animal Companion (and/or Mount) Classes have differing requirements for animal choices?
Related to that is how Class-specific abilities work in that context, e.g. Druid Companion or Cavalier or Paladin Mount abilities,
if you are forced to select one ability to use and only use it's unique abilities, or if the different Companion abilities somehow "crosspollinate".

If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion.

This is the RAW basis for the topic.

But then we have a FAQ purportedly for Cavalier (and also mentioning Ranger, but not Paladin or other means to gain a Companion) stating:

Cavalier: Do animal companion levels from the druid class stack with cavalier mount levels?

If the animal is on the cavalier mount list and on the list of animal companions for your other class, your cavalier and druid levels stack to determine the animal's abilities.
If the animal is not on the cavalier mount list, the druid levels do not stack and you must have different animals (one an animal companion, one a cavalier mount). (...)
(Note that the design team discourages players from having more than one companion creature at a time, as those creatures tend to be much weaker than a single creature affected by these stacking rules, and add to the bookkeeping for playing that character.)

How is that possibly derived from RAW?

IMHO, the FAQ answer makes more sense if you understand the context to be: "Can you have a MOUNT using the full Druid companion list?"
By RAW, you can say "no" to that, because the Mount ability is itself limited to it's own choices. If you want the full Druid list, then you must be using the Druid Companion ability. That means that in the Druid/Cavalier case, you would be choosing between a Druid Companion with full animal types and Share Spell OR a Cavalier Mount with limited animal choices but with ACP-less Ride checks and free Combat Training and Armor Proficiency... But EITHER option should still benefit from stacking for purposes of scaling Companion stats/abilities (based on RAW of Druid Companion, which doesn't place any restrictions on that), they just miss out on the other classes' unique abilities.

I think the FAQ isn't quite recognizing that distinction in RAW, between the stacking for narrow purpose of scaling stats/abilities, and the issue of unique/mutually exclusive class abilities. It doesn't really address that latter issue at all, which STILL EXISTS even IF you choose an animal that is on both class' lists: Would said animal benefit from BOTH Druid Share Spell AND Mount specific abilities? By RAW, they don't, but the FAQ is already going against the RAW.

I feel like both aspects of the issue are relevant, and recognizing the non-"crosspollinating" aspect in terms of unique abilities opens the door to the likewise recognition of the clear RAW re: stacking for ability/stat scaling without any caveats about the animal being mutually selectable by both sources.

If Paizo wishes to apply some additional restriction to the RAW that would result in non-stacking Animal Companions and thus, two separate companions for the same character, I think some further clarification is due:

• Would you in fact have the CHOICE of stacking them, if the animal types are compatable, i.e. could you have two Horses?
  It would seem strange to have two Companions, a Horse and a Tiger, but when the Tiger dies you may not replace it with a Horse (like any other Druid could).
  
• In that case, would the remaining Horse Mount instantly get boosted in power upon the Tiger's death? Or is the Druid ritual needed to boost the Cavalier Mount?
  
• Would you have the choice of HOW MUCH to stack, i.e. allocate X levels to the other class (if compatable animal) but keep Y levels for the second Companion?

Those questions aren't clear because the FAQ is deviating from the RAW so we have no means to answer them.

OK, I've seen this rules combo keep popping up on the boards, and it seems like there should be a definitive ruling:

The concept is taking Improved Eldritch Heritage: Arcane to gain the New Arcana ability:

New Arcana (Ex): At 9th level, you can add any one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to your list of spells known. This spell must be of a level that you are capable of casting. You can also add one additional spell at 13th level and 17th level

So many people are reading that as allowing non-Sorceror spontaneous casters to add these Sorceror/Wizard spells to thee list of spells known FOR THEIR CLASS, or basically to also add it to their class' spell list and allow them to cast said spells using their non-Sorceror spell slots. On the other hand, the rules don't really explicitly spell out all those details when they grant Sorcerors some normally non-Sorceror spells via Bloodline.

As I understand it, Class Abilities are always written assuming they are self-referential to the class unless otherwise stated.
New Arcana does not change any spell lists when you take it as a Sorceror, and it doesn't do anything different when taken via IEH.
A multiclass Arcane Sorceror/Summoner/Oracle that gains New Arcana "normally" can not use non-Sorceror spell slots with the IEH spells, AFAIK.
So neither should anybody who takes IEH via Feat.

Some people seem to feel that it is justified to work for their character because they paid a Feat for it. Of course, not all Feats are usable for all characters: this Feat is also possible to take with non-Caster characters, so if it also just doesn't happen to work for non-Sorceror characters, then no fundamental crime has been committed.

The caveat to that is the basic assumption that Class Abilities by default are talking about their own class.
That's all well and good, but there is also a FAQ ruling that Bloodline Arcana applies to ANY and ALL spells you cast,
whether from the Sorceror class or not... That ruling seems to violate said assumption, or at least weaken it in some way.
So how far does that assumption go? Is the Bloodline Arcana ruling in fact more intended as "stealth errata" to achieve that functionality,
i.e. is not directly derivable from the RAW in combination with the Self-Referential assumption?
(and thus has no bearing on the meaning or scope of the Self-Referential assumption, since the "stealth errata" is presumably imparting the beyond-same-class scope, even if the FAQ doesn't spell that out currently)

If the Self-Referential assumption is not as iron-clad, does that change anything about how IEH functions with New Arcana?

If IEH(Arcane):New Arcana IS meant to allow casting those spells with non-Sorceror slots, does that also allow Arcane Sorceror multiclass builds to cast those spells with their non-Sorceror slots? (which is normally a Mystic Theurge ability dependent on levels in that PrC)