Raveve's page

Was there ever any clarification on this order of operation? Whether it is vulnerability that is applied first or Energy resistance that is? This Stack exchange gives some good citation for why it is vulnerability first but other people point to the 3.5 FAQ and it saying resistance first. Just wondering if anyone else has any good evidence one way or the other. I'm leaning towards Vulnerability first as it would just follow normal math rules that way. (multi/div before addition/sub) Also that is the way it is in pf2 as far as I am aware so it seems the devs also leaned that way( if only for the new edition).

Do spells that were prepared for the day but have had their slot spent count as prepared still? I am Wondering for the spell Channel the gift if a spell can be cast even if you already used it that day.

Relevant links: Prepare rules
Channel the gift

My gm has ruled that durable arrow's can't be made with any special materials but is open to changing it with any evidence to the contrary. Problem is most people just assume you can do this so I can't find many places online talking about this. Does anyone have any good info about whether this is allowed by the rules or another thread/post that clears it up?

I tried saying that in the alchemical archery section it says durable can be applied to a variety of different ammunition and should therefore imply it's alright for special material ammunition but he wasn't having it.

thanks in advance for any answers!

I want to make an Arcanist Occultist with the feat Evolved Summoned Monster. My GM prefers if we use unchained summoner, which I am fine with. However, the unchained eidolon has new subtype restrictions on a lot of its evolutions which many common summons do not meet. Should the subtype requirements apply for this feat?

Additionally, my GM has ruled that creatures with the appropriate limbs meet the prerequisite for Claw/Slam evolutions but how would you rule on creatues without obvious features like an elemental?

Question is pretty much in the title, couldn't find the question when I googled it but I may have just not typed the question right.

Any opinions are helpful, thank you in advance.

I came across an interesting rules question while making a new character for a game.

In the Kineticist utility wild talents you are able to get a Wysp familiar using these talents :
Elemental whispers

Greater elemental whispers

In the wysp stat block there is this ability:

Living Battery (Ex)

As an immediate action, a wysp can kill itself to cause a creature benefiting from its resonance to heal 2 hit points for each of that creature’s HD. If the wysp uses this ability, its death can’t be prevented, and its life can’t be restored by any effect less than true resurrection, miracle, or wish, even if such an effect can normally revive an outsider.

My question is how does this ability interact with Greater elemental whispers? Whispers says the element returns to your mind if it dies and can be re-manifested for the normal resummon cost but the ability says it can't be resurrected. What I think is that Greater whispers trumps the wysp's ability ( specific > general) as normal improved familiar wysps do not get to remain connected to it's masters minds and the masters to do not retain the alertness feat if the familiar dies. It reads to me as if only the material body dies and the consciousness cannot truly die.

Sorry for my rambling, I would just like to know what other people think.

Some of my players were asking how this would work and while I had thought one way some of them thought another. As i couldn't find a thread already asking this (if there is just direct me to it please) I am posing the question here.

If someone has the Blessed touch trait and attempts to damage an undead with cure light wounds do they get the +1 on the damage?

If anyone has an answer or can point me to a part of the rules that addresses this I would greatly appreciate it, thank you.

When trying to advance spellcasting with a prestige class, you can only advance the spellcasting of a class that granted spellcasting… this doesn’t outright prevent choosing a prestige class to advance though, but it does make most spellcasting prestige classes invalid choices. There are a few prestige classes that actually have their own spellcasting progression that can be advanced by another prestige class.

So, no they can’t advance Mystic Theurge spells per day with Eldritch Knight… as for equipment trick… some people insist it works, but nothing about the trick actually grants you the ability to cast higher level spells. You use an extra material component to treat a spell as if it were one level higher AFTER you cast it… in other words, you still cast a 1st level spell, but that first level spell is treated as a 2nd level after the fact… the only “early entry” trick that actually works within the rules is Faith Magic, and it actually doesn’t even get you in until one or two levels after you could have gotten in normally… or if you have a GM who takes a generous reading approach to the Medium class you could get in with just 7 levels in one class… though it’s be a terrible way to play mystic theurge…

This is almost my exact line of thinking on all points, we were just having a friendly chat about it since he knows it sorta wonky and I said almost these exact things.

One of my players has an idea to use Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight together by having Eldritch knight bump up Mystic Theurge's "spells per day" with the eldritch knights "+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class". So in essence the mystic Theurge would get +1 on his "spells per day" which states "+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class/+1 level of existing divine spellcasting class". He argues that mystic theurge is an arcane class because of this sentence "This essentially means that he adds the level of mystic theurge to the level of whatever other arcane spellcasting class and divine spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly." The other implying that Mystic Theurge is also an arcane spellcasting class.

My question is does it work like this? I can't find a rule saying you can't do this and was wondering if this is legal?

Bonus question: was there ever any ruling on the sunrod equipment trick that grants early access to prestige classes?

Raveve wrote:

Like I said, if a game doesn't issue errata nowadays it isn't worth buying. It isn't a privilege that I want something I spend my money on to contain as few errors as possible and if there is an error that it is rectified with an errata.

If the bar is “issuing errata” then it is a bar that was cleared by Paizo a year ago.

If that one errata had fixed all the problems then this thread wouldn't even be necessary but there are many more things that have to be addressed by paizo in order for the core game to be error free. There are many, many threads on this very forum that are raging in debate about a number of issues and it is causing problems within the community. Depending on who your gm is a vast number of things can be different in pf2 simply because it is up to the gm to figure out what the intent is for certain rules as paizo left the them ambiguous or the rules don't cover every situation. This is the responsibility of paizo to fix and I cannot in good conscious recommend pf2 until they fix their game.

Raveve wrote:

In this day and age when you buy a tabletop game you expect them to fix anything that is wrong in it with errata. Maybe not having errata was okay years ago but nowadays it just isn't. If you don't release errata to fix your game then you are behind the times and your games aren't worth buying.

As someone else mentioned, you've been very privileged in what games you've purchased. I'd say it was generous to say that one in five RPGs I've purchased (even recent ones) ever got errata.

Like I said, if a game doesn't issue errata nowadays it isn't worth buying. It isn't a privilege that I want something I spend my money on to contain as few errors as possible and if there is an error that it is rectified with an errata. I'm sorry you bought so many rpg's that weren't very good but please don't try and insult me because of it.

Even if we never got errata it would hardly have an impact on my games. Most of the things people are calling for errata on I wouldn't even be aware of if I wasn't on these forums.

I have come across so many of the things that are up for debate and it can be annoying having to house rule them when they all come up again. I know not everyone is clamoring for errata but these things do come up both as a dm and player. Some of them may be pretty clear when using RAI but RAW they do something completely different and need to be addressed.

In this day and age when you buy a tabletop game you expect them to fix anything that is wrong in it with errata. Maybe not having errata was okay years ago but nowadays it just isn't. If you don't release errata to fix your game then you are behind the times and your games aren't worth buying. I know paizo is working on the errata but the more they push back it's release without saying anything the more and more resentment they build within the community. It doesn't take long to just say "Hey, we had to push back the release date for the errata but we are still working on it.", and that is the only thing many of us are asking for not just an immediate errata. Just to be kept in the loop a little bit and not be left in the dark. People can defend paizo or whatever all they want but this is definitely a sore spot for many people as evidenced in this thread.

Last i heard it was supposed to coming in July before the APG. Obviously that didn't happen, and I haven't heard a peep out of paizo about it since. I could be wrong but I don't think they have said anything yet and at this point I'm am very irritated that it hasn't come out. There are so many things that need to be clarified and they are just not addressing them at all.

While reading the class for my playtest games I noticed that Eidolons fall very behind on stats at the later levels. They start at 16 main stat and then to further exacerbate this they do not benefit from Apex Items. This leaves them at a disadvantage on their attack modifier when compared to martials at some levels. For a class trying to keep the Eidolon in parity with martial classes to not have those things means they feel inadequate when compared to them. Summoners have very limited spell casting so if their Eidolon falls behind martials because of stats they can feel underwhelming and less fun(this is my personal experience from playtesting). What does the community in general think?

If you have an Animal Companion and you have your eidolon command an animal on it does it follow the normal action rules or does the Animal companion get 2 actions without a check like if you commanded it? This could be useful if you wanted to use a battleform or otherwise be polymorphed/unable to talk. It is an interesting question and could provide a lot of fun for the class.

Basically the question is in the title. The Bears support ability reads as follows:

"Your bear mauls your enemies when you create an opening. Until the start of your next turn, each time you hit a creature in the bear’s reach with a Strike, the creature takes 1d8 slashing damage from the bear. If your bear is nimble or savage, the slashing damage increases to 2d8."

To me it sounds like it is the bear doing the damage and does not benefit from you doing a crit but some people think they do.

Are there any rules I'm missing and what is the general opinion?

Raveve wrote:

I know Persistent is subject to doubling/halving (there is an example for acid flask)and there are several new spells (blistering invective and blood vendetta to name two) in the apg that double/half persistent damage on varying saves so i know it is possible. Is there an actual place where it says in the rules that you don't apply basic saves mechanics to persistent damage?

This is less clear than you'd think. The acid flask example in the CRB basically pulls that doubling of persistent damage out of nowhere, it's the only such example in the CRB. And it's even inconsistent with the description of the acid flask item itself on the same page, because it ignores the initial 1 damage from the direct hit (last line on the same page). So since there's at least one other clear error in the example, using it as the only real proof of a rule isn't a good idea.

We can't say if Blistering Invective/Blood Vendatta remind us of a general rule, or are an exception to a general rule. Just like we don't know if Acid Arrow is a reminder of a general rule that persistent damage doesn't double on a crit, or an exception.

I don't know if you can discount the acid flask example simple because of that, as it is a direct and clear example that it can double even if there is a slight error in that it forgot the 1 extra acid damage. If it even is an error, as the placement of the 1 damage in the flask is weird, it doesn't say do 1 acid in the actual lesser/moderate/etc. descriptions but in the item description itself which I can't think of another alchemical item that has damage in that particular area.

There are at least 3 spells in the apg that reference doubling and halving persistent damage. So if we go by sample size I could say that acid arrow is the exception not the rule, but again it is a little fuzzy. Also the wording seems to be intentional as the spell enervation has persistent damage but instead of doubling or halving it just says take 2d8 persistent on a success but 4d8 persistent on failure with no reference to doubling/halving. I am starting to believe they slightly changed the wording in apg and are going to release an errata on the 30th with more clarifications.

I somehow did not notice this when I used a fire mephit in my own game...

Basic saves normally only apply to initial damage, and when there is some effect besides the initial damage it is usually listed with which category of save result it gets applied with (like how the daze spell is a basic save, and additional effect if you critically fail).

So I'm really not sure if the intent of the mephit breath weapon is to apply the persistent damage no matter what, even if it's a critical save, or to apply it in what I think is the logical case of only if the basic save is a failure or critical failure.

But the saving throw itself shouldn't affect the amount of persistent damage dealt because that's not how persistent damage works as a condition, and the persistent damage doesn't happen at the time you make your save (and luckily the devs don't expect people to jot down a note of how the save went for later reference).

I know Persistent is subject to doubling/halving (there is an example for acid flask)and there are several new spells (blistering invective and blood vendetta to name two) in the apg that double/half persistent damage on varying saves so i know it is possible. Is there an actual place where it says in the rules that you don't apply basic saves mechanics to persistent damage?

Recently ran into a situation and I can't find the exact section i would need in the rulebook. My players were fighting a fire mephit that used it's breath weapon that does 2d4 fire plus 1d4 persistent fire. Now normally if there is persistent damage on a spell or spell like ability it says exactly if it halved/doubled or if it even happens but for the breath it is just a basic save.

Some of my players thought that it is not subject to the basic save success/failure rules like the regular fire damage is and would there for not be doubled or halved at all. In the moment I ruled that it is just like any other damage and is subject to normal rules, to which they asked is half of d4 a d2 or just roll d4 and then half.

I know persistent damage CAN be doubled/halved but i just wanted to make sure in this specific situation. So was this ruling correct? and if so would half of the d4 be d2 or just half of a d4 every turn?

Raveve wrote:

Cottoncaek wrote:

Creative Burst wrote:

Battle medicine only uses one action the errata on the website requires you to hold or wear it. Having them in your bandolier definitely qualifies as wear them, so I don't think it will add an action to use them. I do think you need one hand but that comes from the manipulation trait that battle medicine has always had.

The Bandolier allows you to use the tools within as part of the action of using them, so doesn't *add* an action, but it *does* require the suggested amount of hands the tools require. In this case, two.

For an exception to this rule, thus proving its validity, examine the Quick Alchemy feat, which makes a specific exception that it only requires one hand.

To me quick alchemy proves the validity of the other actions/skills not needing to have a free hand, the exact opposite of what you are getting from it.

The Tools listening a requirement of Two Hands, and then a Feat specifying that *in this case* you need One Hand, does not imply that magically you would ordinarily need Zero Hands. Come on now.

Like Deadmanwalking pointed out, the wielding items section on page 272 covers it. If an ability says to just have/carry an item you don't have to wield it. It is VERY clear with that section in mind now.

Creative Burst wrote:

Battle medicine only uses one action the errata on the website requires you to hold or wear it. Having them in your bandolier definitely qualifies as wear them, so I don't think it will add an action to use them. I do think you need one hand but that comes from the manipulation trait that battle medicine has always had.

The Bandolier allows you to use the tools within as part of the action of using them, so doesn't *add* an action, but it *does* require the suggested amount of hands the tools require. In this case, two.

For an exception to this rule, thus proving its validity, examine the Quick Alchemy feat, which makes a specific exception that it only requires one hand.

To me quick alchemy proves the validity of the other actions/skills not needing to have a free hand, the exact opposite of what you are getting from it.

Bast L. wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Uh...wearing Healer's Tools requires zero hands. So the Feat seems to require zero hands per current errata.

wearing healers tools requires a bandolier to access them, which reduces the need to use two hands to just one hand.

in effect you either need the kit and two hands free to use it or wearing a bandolier and one hand to access the kit on the bandolier.

I'm not seeing anything for bandolier reducing hands needed. That's an interpretation, as far as I can tell, and perhaps a reasonable one, but the bandolier specifically says you draw the tools. Drawing an item is 1 or 2 handed, but if you're using something that's 2-handed, you need to draw with both hands, or use a separate action to place a second hand on it (pg 273, footnote 1 of table 6-2).

This is absolutely correct, and the only applicable RAW. Goodbye, Battle Medicine abuse! Now if only they'd errata it to no out of combat use.

Not really abuse, was pretty much the only thing stopping clerics from being a 100% requirement.

A note on the topic of whether or not battle medicine now requires hands free to implement the tools that are now required:

all the other uses of medicine which require healer's tools say "Requirement: you have healer's tools" - so either all of these, battle medicine included, require the same free hands or battle medicine is actually more restrictive because you must hold or wear the tools, not just have them (such as in a backpack).

isn't that a good thing though? I don't know what paizo thinks about the free hand requirement thing or how manipulate works but battle medicine should be slightly harder to use than regular medicine. Like you said the only mention of tools for treat wounds is that you have to have them, the skill itself doesn't even say you use them. whether that is intended or not idk. Me personally for manipulate actions i just go with it doesn't require free hands unless it states you do need a free hand. otherwise some manipulate actions get very weird, such as release. Do you need to have two free hands to release a two handed weapon?

The bandolier doesn’t reduce the number of hands necessary to use a tool kit. Therefore, it takes two hands.

yea if you are holding them, you need two hands. If you are wearing them you don't need 2 hands as you are wearing them on your person. It doesn't really clear up the hands thing, they need to be more specific.

It only says you need to be holding OR wearing healer's tools. So it is still fuzzy about the amount of hands needed like Unicore said. It could be two because healers kit says 2 hand to hold, or one because you are wearing them not holding them and simply need a hand to draw/use them from bandolier as part of the action or still 0 hands as all it says is you need to be wearing them.

I recall hearing in a Q&A panel at one point that there will be a new errata sometime soon, but haven't really seen any new information about it since then. I was wondering if there has been any mention by paizo about a specific time or even that it is still happening?