ReyalsKanras's page

NPC characters - including enemies - aren't built using the same building rules as player characters. But once they are built, they follow the same tactical rules.

Knocked Out and Dying

Source Core Rulebook pg. 459 4.0
Creatures cannot be reduced to fewer than 0 Hit Points. When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die and are removed from play unless the attack was nonlethal, in which case they are instead knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 1 minute or more). When undead and construct creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they are destroyed.

Player characters, their companions, and other significant characters and creatures don’t automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points. Instead, they are knocked out and are at risk of death. At the GM’s discretion, villains, powerful monsters, special NPCs, and enemies with special abilities that are likely to bring them back to the fight (like ferocity, regeneration, or healing magic) can use these rules as well.

I agree the rules are not specific about creatures with additional limbs or even about creatures with limbs but no hands but it is unnecessarily restrictive to hold dedicated climbers, like spider monsters, to the standards of a bipedal (demi)human.

Using the climb action requires both hands to be free. Whatever 'hands' are for that creature.

I think it is important to distinguish between climb actions and using a climb speed. One is certainly more restrictive than the other. I think a climb speed means it can perform most if not all actions in its stat block while climbing.

Not sure about those fancy tiles, but lets try something. If we look at 10' radius as the interior measurement and then add the 5' wall thickness after that we get a length (circumference) of 60' just like the straight wall. Of course the diagonals would be open but that is easily adjudicated by the GM. If we want the diagonals closed we get way too much fire wall. Hard to call a square a ring, more like a box really.

The four by four might be the intent here. It seems natural to assume the listed 10' radius is the outermost measurement and the rules for counting diagonal distances makes a circle supposedly circular shape with a 10' radius look k&~@ a square. As for adjusting the size, I believe the ring can be adjusted to a three by three or even a two by two if you just wanted some fire. The radius it gives corresponds to the correct total length of fire, I do not think the use of the term radius was meant to disallow adjusting length. Circumference is length, right?

Honestly not sure how to interpret the issue of structures overlapping with part of the ring of fire. The spell does not specify it would fail due to obstruction. Best left up to the GM if any specific obstruction blocks part of the ring of fire, or if it overlaps and burns everything.

And Pharasma was surprised by the disappearance of the Seal and prophecy being broken. IIRC she tried to contact Yog-Sothoth to know whether such a thing ever happened in any of the previous universes and what the consequences might be. But the Watcher did not answer.

Wow, Commune is so useless not even Pharasma can get the silly thing to work? At least as a ritual it is more likely to be overlooked entirely, which it should be.

I am not certain a biology discussion would provide any useful answers. Well, not any relevant answers. You need sunlight which is nonexistent in all but the most contrived sealed rooms in a dungeon. A single plant character could not reasonably be expected to keep pace with multiple mammal characters. My photosynthesis cycle is a little rusty, but I seem to recall plants use oxygen like the rest of us when they are consuming stored energy reserves such as at night. Granted at a much slower rate given their generally low activity level and with exceptions because nature loves being difficult.

Given the precedent for making player options balanced, it looks like you need to breathe until something explicitly states you do not need to breathe.

So, obviously, the RAW is wrong.

May I presume you know which ones are obviously wrong and which can be trusted?

You keep referencing the rule of "dead creatures have 0 HP," and they are objects. Objects with 0 HP are considered destroyed. Transitive property says your interpretation makes corpses automatically destroyed, which makes no sense if the idea is that you need an intact (AKA not destroyed) corpse to raise it into Undead.

Yes, I do keep referencing rules. This is the Rules Discussion forum, Homebrew and House Rules can be found here. Can you provide a citation that supports your entertaining idea about corpses destroying themselves? I think we both agree that is not the intent of the system.

A scroll with a 1st level spell should cost 4gp. The other entry may be a typo, I do not know which printing you are looking at.

But the instant death rules (regardless of Death trait being present or not) do state that you bypass the 0 HP/Dying rules and instantly receive the Dead condition, so it's specific trumps general, regardless of what this general rule is telling us.

The specific rules for Death Effects and Instant Death almost certainly overwrite the general rules for dying. There is nothing to suggest they overwrite the general rules for being dead. The moment of death and all the time after spent dead are not the same thing.

I really do not understand your fixation with becoming a destroyed corpse. If someone takes a bunch of damage they can reach 0 hp. If someone fails their dying checks they can become dead. The possibility of a character having 0 hp and being dead is fully supported by the rules. Why would this lead you to believe corpses get destroyed automatically? This is plainly not how the game works. If you must entertain the possibility of desecrating a corpse, then accept that no rule states that the hp of a corpse as an object must equal the hp of the character. It is easy enough to find examples where someone died without destroying their body, or where a part of a body was destroyed without that person dying. Your petrification example provides specific rules that cannot be assumed to apply to other situations.

Yes.

The source has been linked a dozen times already.

YOU DIE WITHOUT BEING REDUCED TO 0.

So, you have no hp at all.

This seems like an enormous leap of inductive logic. There is no prior basis for not having hp at all. This contradicts very clear rules. An exception of this magnitude would need to explicitly lay out alternative rules for how to handle the bizarre case of replacing HP with "error 404" or a null state, if you prefer.

now, the specific ruling of instant death effects says that you are not being reduced to 0, this particular phrase has a single effect: it prevents triggers that would activate when you get to 0.

I will say the intent is not as clear as you are presenting it to be. If that line had a single effect, I would say it is specifying a target can reach death without first taking enough damage to reach 0 hp. Ordinarily, possessing positive hp staves off death. But that line might have two or more effects. It might be sufficient to rule that effects that trigger on 0 hp are not triggered. I do not think there is anywhere near enough evidence to claim that it allows dead characters to have hp greater than zero or that it replaces hp with a null value.

Yes, that seems to be the interpretation that supports all of the relevant rules.

Hypnotic gaze creates an area of effect that you have to stand in. Wall of force actually (attempts) to provide clarifying information that in my opinion makes it more unclear. It says visual effects function because the wall is invisible (transparent). However that implies it still blocks line of effect (at least to me). Otherwise being invisible isn't relevant. That means it should block spell like hypnotic gaze from passing through, and also block the area it should occupy from extending through

I will agree the transparent justification raises questions. Is there a general rule for transparent objects blocking line of effect except for visual effects? This specific example works, the Wall of Force is very clear (hah!) that Visual and Teleportation get through. But it is also lending support to the existence of a general rule. Rather, it is citing common sense logic in a subject that defies all intuitive reality.

Blindness has the "Incapacitation" trait.

Did you want to be over here? Thread About Blindness

Or a roleplay option. It might be attractive for aesthetic reasons. It lands somewhere between mixed and low for power considerations.

or even a fence with holes in it that's sufficiently tall enough

Line of Effect does give us guidance on this part.

Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect, nor do portcullises and other barriers that aren’t totally solid.

Plenty of room for GM interpretation of course, but I would be careful about hiding behind a fence.

You instead are simply dead, you don't have a hp pool at all.

Interesting idea. Do you have a source for that?

I feel like "without being reduced to 0 hit points" is pretty unambiguous language that you aren't reduced to 0 hit points, because that's literally what the rule says.

"When you die you are reduced to 0 HP", is also unambiguous. Is there a clear precedent for how the General/Specific rule applies here? It looks like two general rules are being read in such a way that they are in conflict.

Am I to assume that some or most of you interpret this to mean that dead guy over there still has 37 hp? This is starting to get into Rules As Intended territory where I prefer Rules As Written but here we go. The process for death and dying was established to move through a general sequence: positive hp, take damage, zero hp, dying one through four, death. There are some checks to make and such but the general sequence is there. Then we get Death effects. I hope we can agree that the intent of Death effects is to skip a few steps and proceed directly to death. Ordinarily, being in possession of positive hp staves off death. The hp must first be removed before death becomes a possibility. Thus it was necessary for Death effects to clarify that they bypass the zero hp prerequisite. I do not think "when you die you are reduced to 0 HP" conflicts with "If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points". It is clarifying that two steps on the road to death have been skipped over. Assuming that the dead guy over there still has 37 hp because he failed some saves on a Death effect directly conflicts with "When you die, you are reduced to 0 Hit Points if you had a different amount, and you can’t be brought above 0 Hit Points as long as you remain dead". The game does not appear to allow a dead character to have nonzero hp, but it does allow you to die even if you still have positive hp. How do we reconcile this without setting the hp of the dead to zero right after they die?

To clarify, I do find it highly suspicious that Final Sacrifice and Self-Destruct stack. However, the structure of an argument must be sound. The actual rules interactions for this event are interesting.

In this case, causing a corpse to have 0 HP doesn't work because then the body is destroyed by nature of it being an object, therefore effects which require a body (such as Raise Dead) don't work, because in short, there is no longer a dead creature present by nature of the body of said creature being destroyed.

Where are you coming up with this? It is blatantly at odds with how the game works. Characters have hp. Objects have hp. A dead character may leave behind a corpse and that corpse is an object. They are not the same thing. The hp of the character does not represent the hp to destroy the object. Do adventurers dematerialize when they reach zero hp? Why do you think a corpse would vanish? Most objects do not behave that way either. If I smash a table until it has zero hp it gets broken and/or destroyed but it still exists. Zero hp does not inherently make things disappear. This whole Raise Dead example you bring up is confusing. Can you cite any rules to clarify this?

Fireball wouldn't be blocked because the Fireball simply originates in a square of your choosing

This is directly contradicted by the rules for Line of Effect.

When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability.

And the Wall of Force is invisible, so it doesn't block line of sight, which is basically all you need for Fireball to work.

This is directly contradicted by the rules for Line of Effect.

Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect, nor do portcullises and other barriers that aren’t totally solid.

The Wall of Force specifically calls out Teleportation and Visual as things that pass through. If you were curious, Fireball does not have either trait.

If anything, the "HP" clause in the Death rules make no sense, because once you are dead, you cease to be a creature and instead become an object (AKA corpse), meaning your "HP" is adjusted to be that of the durability and hardness of a corpse of your size, which probably isn't much, but also isn't 0 either. Either way, tracking HP of a corpse or defaulting it to 0 makes no sense, especially if it's, say, used to raise undead, which means it just never becomes undead since it remains at 0 HP and is forcibly destroyed by general undead rules. These all fall under the Too Bad to Be True clause, which means that odds are, the concept of "You're at 0 HP as a corpse" is simply false.

Your talent for creative writing is impressive. I am not sure why you felt it was necessary to quote rules at me that I had already cited from a valid source. I assure you, I read them.

When you die you are reduced to 0 HP. This is a pretty clear rule and is an on topic discussion for this forum. I am not familiar with the "Too Bad To Be True clause" can you cite a source for that? Your example of creating an undead, while very entertaining, seems out of place here. An undead is not dead, it is undead. Exactly what it says on the tin, if you will. The actual rules as published by Paizo plainly state "and you can’t be brought above 0 Hit Points as long as you remain dead." so I really have no idea why you think that prohibits Create Undead.

Just as well, you're ignoring the TGTBT clause, where a party can "wombo-combo" this regardless of whether the abilities were meant to be balanced around this being possible, which I can assure you, it probably isn't.

In the interests of fair and balanced commentary, I only see two problems. First, this part of Death effects:

Nethys wrote:

If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points.

While it is in a paragraph about Death effects it might be read to apply universally. This seems silly but I might be expecting too much out of the title header of each section. Second, and most importantly: why would your GM allow this? It is called Final Sacrifice, not second to last sacrifice.

Not certain what this "TGTBT clause" is or what it has to do with a rules discussion, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that we are in agreement. Please let me know if I need to clarify anything else.

Good. We have established there is a problem. For at least seven people too, good enough for me. I think that problem is "is it Magical" not "is it Illusion".

I do not really know what it means to be Illusion or Necromancy school related without also being Magical. Is there a specific use case for Illusion that functions independently of Magical? To be more specific, I think the Mistform Elixir is explicitly not Magical. Is there a problem with it being an Illusion related non-Magical effect? The question is interesting either way, but assuming it is a typo and adding the Magical trait will absolutely have mechanical changes.

Magical

Source Core Rulebook pg. 633 4.0
Something with the magical trait is imbued with magical energies not tied to a specific tradition of magic. A magical item radiates a magic aura infused with its dominant school of magic.

Some items or effects are closely tied to a particular tradition of magic. In these cases, the item has the arcane, divine, occult, or primal trait instead of the magical trait. Any of these traits indicate that the item is magical.

The Mistform Elixir is definitively either a typo or non-Magical.

That definitely makes sense. I think the overall power shift for most classes is arguably small. It absolutely unbalances specific classes in relation to other classes. FA might be a variant and thus not inherently tested or balanced to the same degree, but I find it works very well as a stress test for Archetypes as a system. If a player is trying to break the system, FA makes it easier.

I do not think this necessitates a blanket ban on the variant, unless of course your group of players is predestined to exploit anything and everything within reach. Presenting it as a variant sets the correct tone. This should be a no by default just on the basis that not every party is going to respond the same way. Let the GM decide if they trust their party not to optimize the fun right out of their own game.

On a personal note, I have more complaints with the inherently unbalanced Archetypes than I do with the variant that gives ten feats. Ten feats can be spent a lot of different ways. It is, by itself, a simple decision to raise the amount of stuff a party gets. That it specifies Archetype entangles it to a separate problem. That being, why is Fighter dedicated into Wizard so much better than a Wizard dedicated into Fighter? Anyone running an optimization routine will see the aforementioned reduction of diversity.

Is it weird that the class that used to get the most bonus feats is now the class that most benefits from bonus feats? I suppose not. Fighter is a great chassis, an empty frame begging to be fitted with the latest and greatest tech.

Is there an actual problem? It looks like it falls under the Effects part of "Effects and magic items". I suppose it does raise questions about detect magic. Also, there are Elixirs with the Necromancy trait so we either have three errors or Elixirs are allowed to be associated with a school of magic. It does seem weird that such a small percentage of Elixirs are associated with a school.

Final SacrificeSpell 2

Evocation Fire
Source Advanced Player's Guide pg. 219 2.0
Traditions arcane, divine, occult, primal
Spell List elemental
Cast somatic, verbal
Range 120 feet; Targets 1 creature with the minion trait that you summoned or permanently controlYou channel disruptive energies through the bond between you and your minion, causing it to violently explode. The target is immediately slain, and the explosion deals 6d6 fire damage to creatures within 20 feet of it (basic Reflex save).

If the target has the cold or water trait, the spell instead deals cold damage and gains the cold trait in place of the fire trait. If used on a creature that isn't mindless, this spell has the evil trait. Attempting to cast this spell targeting a creature that you temporarily seized control of, such as an undead commanded by command undead, automatically fails and breaks the controlling effect.

Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6.

And:

Death Effects and Instant Death

Source Core Rulebook pg. 461 4.0
Some spells and abilities can kill you immediately or bring you closer to death without needing to reduce you to 0 Hit Points first. These abilities have the death trait and usually involve negative energy, the antithesis of life. If you are reduced to 0 Hit Points by a death effect, you are slain instantly without needing to reach dying 4. If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points.

So Final Sacrifice does not explicitly state it skips the 0 HP part. It might be implied. And the general rule that discusses skipping the 0 HP part very specifically calls out the Death trait, which Final Sacrifice does not have. The way Death effects specify you can die without reaching 0 HP first sort of suggests you can still reach 0 HP after, as called out by regular death.

Death

Source Core Rulebook pg. 460 4.0
After you die, you can’t act or regain actions or be affected by spells that target creatures (unless they specifically target dead creatures), and for all other purposes you are an object. When you die, you are reduced to 0 Hit Points if you had a different amount, and you can’t be brought above 0 Hit Points as long as you remain dead. Some magic can bring creatures back to life, such as the resurrect ritual or the raise dead spell.

In the interests of fair and balanced commentary, I only see two problems. First, this part of Death effects:

If an effect states it kills you outright, you die without having to reach dying 4 and without being reduced to 0 Hit Points.

While it is in a paragraph about Death effects it might be read to apply universally. This seems silly but I might be expecting too much out of the title header of each section. Second, and most importantly: why would your GM allow this? It is called Final Sacrifice, not second to last sacrifice.

Hidden creatures in general can feel unsportsmanlike on the particulars. I had an entire party stumped (and exceptionally frustrated) all because they forgot Vampires get a climb speed (admittedly, it was called spider climb at the time) for free. As for a Tiny creature in your own square? Pretty easily countered if there are at least two characters. They can cover the other each turn. That would certainly feel bad if the players tried everything else but forgot the one thing. Of course, I think that is a serious hazard with any use of hidden foes. They feel clever when they figure it out and feel awful every other time.

Really, most games should end the night after the PCs gain any amount of notoriety when they get stabbed to death in their sleep. Way easier than these Tiny and Invisible in your own square shenanigans.

Y = Youthfulness, or lack thereof. Age categories are back in the spotlight!

Oh, hey, the grinding path to space samurai Jedi from a long-defunct MMORPG!

An in the wild Galaxies reference? Must be my lucky day.

Still no eye of robes? Sadness.

No one is stopping a character from wrapping their robes around their eyes. I think we call those blindfolds. As an Apex item, it might need a better rename anyway to avoid OGL concerns.

Then we convert the precision damage to piercing damage (because that is the type of the main damage of the attack) and combine the two amounts together.

This seems to be a recurring point. Precision damage does not use the word convert or morph or anything at all that requires it to stop being Precision damage. I have demonstrated multiple examples of damage types that can coexist and you have provided no concrete evidence that an instance of damage must have one and only one type.

On a failure of Confident Finisher, the attack lists no weapon damage because the attack missed, but it lists dealing half of the Precise Strike damage - which in this case is 2d6 precision damage. But precision damage on its own wouldn't know what damage type to convert to. So Confident Finisher also specifies that it deals the same type of damage as the weapon - which in this case is Piercing damage. So the failure effect lists that it deals 2d6/2 Piercing damage.

We discussed this before. The failure effect on Finisher traits shares common language with the failure effect on Press traits. It appears it is standard for failure effects to identify a damage type. This specification occurs even when Precision damage is not in play which clearly shows us that the intent of the line "This damage type is that of the weapon or unarmed attack you used for the Strike" is not to address Precision damage specifically. It is compatible with Precision damage because Precision damage has its own rules about augmenting an attack.

If an effect lists that it deals cold damage, then it deals cold damage. If an effect lists that it deals piercing damage, then it deals piercing damage. And if an effect lists that it deals weapon damage, then it deals that weapon's damage type - not Precision damage that gets morphed into the weapon's damage type.

Can you cite a rule to support this? I can cite a rule that shows us how Precision damage can augment an attack of weapon damage.

Does all of this come from the assumption that damage can have one and only one type? Or zero, in the case of disintegrate? I see no general rule requiring this and even if there were, we have guidance that specific takes precedence of general anyway.

And Slashing damage is a sub-type of Physical.

So Physical+Slashing is redundant - not an instance of damage with multiple separate types.

I cannot find where the rules delineate subtypes of damage. Help me out?

You also seem to be selectively ignoring Precision damage. You identify Precision here

And Precision is a first-order damage type in the list. Right there with Physical, Energy, and Alignment damage.

haven't found any damage amounts that are multiple types.

Precision might be something of an exception, but so long as we are literally discussing Precision damage it seems relevant.

Also, check out Bleed again. It is as much a first-order type as Physical or Precision but also explicitly claims to be Physical.

Damage is going to be one type or another. It isn't going to be both.

This is objectively false. Let me rephrase that; source please. Lots of attacks have multiple types. I can think of a relevant one with Physical, Piercing and Precision. The rules identify Physical as a damage type and Piercing as a type of Physical damage. That is two already, and we both seem to understand Precision can be a third.

So another question: If an attack says that it does bludgeoning damage on a hit, and does cold damage on a critical hit - if you roll a critical hit, what damage type does it do?

Of course it does Cold. That was never a question. This discussion is about Precision damage, which explicitly can be multiple types, and not about Cold. So lets make it about an attack that would also deal Precision damage. On a success we would get Bludgeoning Precision damage and on a critical success we would get Cold Precision damage. Although it would interact strangely with the rule about not doubling effects you only get from a critical, but that is beside the point. Changing the base damage type does not block Precision from adding on as an additional type.

So when Confident Finisher says that a failure deals the damage type of the weapon, it is going to deal specifically, and only, the damage type of the weapon.

This does not follow logically. Your argument leading up to this conclusion did not address Precision damage and Precision damage definitely behaves differently. Specifically, your example did not establish that Precision would be excluded implicitly. I think we agree that the types of Physical damage and the types of Energy damage would most likely overwrite each other in the situation of a rule reading "this attack deals X type of damage". But Precision inherently expects to coexist with another type and thus is not contradicted by the statement the same way Physical or Energy would be.

In any case, yes, I should have been more consistent with using the word "type" every time. I hope my meaning was clear. This has been informative and entertaining.

What I'd like to see is some to-scale drawings of what a dagger, a shortsword, a longsword, and a bastard sword (and maybe a greatsword) sized for a Frost Giant look like compared to Amiri herself. :-)

Yes, please! Lets get some more artwork up in here. For science.

Climbing kits are just weird. I am not convinced they convey the mechanical benefit of their constituent components. It looks like they describe the contents one might expect to be included, then provide a specific bonus separate from what those components would provide. Or it includes the mechanical benefit of every piece and you are real silly if you just buy rope.

I would also agree that the balance considerations about the failure effect of Confident Finisher being precision damage or not are a bit of a red herring. A distraction from what the explicit rules say about the damage types. The balance point is somewhat valid when discussing how powerful Precision immunity is and how it affects Swashbuckler characters though.

I will admit my goal here was to engage with the structure of the argument and not the conclusion. If the structure is sound the conclusion will take care of itself.

As for balance? No idea. Maybe Swashbuckler needs the boost. Well, they most likely need something but is this it?

Anyway. To engage directly with the damage type we need some common ground. I believe we agree Precision cannot or does not currently exist as an independent damage type? It is a type of sorts, it interacts with immunity and such, but it cannot be the only type (Weird Disintegrate cases not withstanding). It usually, by its own rules, adopts the type of whatever weapon or attack it accompanies. We all good here?

Now we get to the failure effect language,

You make an incredibly graceful attack, piercing your foe's defenses. Make a Strike with a weapon or unarmed attack that would apply your precise strike damage, with the following failure effect.

Failure You deal half your precise strike damage to the target. This damage type is that of the weapon or unarmed attack you used for the Strike.

I believe we agree the express intent of that line is to reestablish the damage is physical (or whatever the weapon deals) and not solely to remove the Precision trait. We might disagree on, or are at least discussing, if it also removes the Precision tag just due to how it literally reads.

I ask this: if an attack is physical, piercing and precision, does stating it is physical and piercing delete the precision tag? Is the statement adding the tags "physical and piercing" just in case they were not there already, or is it deleting all tags and replacing them with "physical and piercing" only? The line is there first and foremost to make sure the feat damage is recognized as weapon damage, as opposed to something like Mental damage from the Confident part of Confident Finisher. Due to the fact that Precision damage can already attach itself to weapon damage and keep both types, I do not think restating the weapon part overwrites the Precision type.

... Likewise, since precision damage is always the same type of damage as the attack it's augmenting...

To me, it looks like Precision expects to go along with whatever the base damage type is doing. Changing the base type would just change the type of the Precision, not remove the Precision.

It is a bit weird that the base damage being augmented is zero in this case. Also a bit weird that you lose the weapon damage entirely on a miss but keep some of the Precision. Certainly worth the discussion, this is a strange effect.

then why bother adding the second line of the Combat Finisher failure effect if it isn’t meant to be different than precision?

This is another example of shared language between Finisher trait and Press trait actions with a failure effect. Assuming the sole intent is to remove Precision is demonstrably false as Press trait failure effects include a similar line even when Precision is not under discussion. The damage, on a failure, is coming from the feat. That does not in itself suggest a type, so it includes a rule to use the same type as the weapon.

The 'not dealing more damage' part makes a certain sense

I can accept it is good for game balance and it avoids a not terribly exciting scene from 3.5; Monkey Grip and Powerful Build had their time in the sun and it has passed. It is also a very restrictive decision that deliberately lays bricks in front of an otherwise reasonable progression.

A shortsword does more damage than a dagger. A longsword does more damage than a shortsword. It is easy to point at the extreme example of a seventy pound iron slab and say the damage is compromised because it is unwieldy. This willfully overlooks the established trend between weapon size and corresponding damage die. The middle ground got thrown out with the extremes.

Again, I accept the decision is made for gameplay purposes. A system of scaling strength requirements and alternate weapon sizes matched to an accuracy/damage tradeoff sounds like good fun. But P2e is also good fun and handwaves all that stuff in favor of other stuff instead. I do think it puts the Giant Instinct Barbarian in an unusual spot. Really calls attention to a narrow section of design which has otherwise been deliberately avoided. Not sure if there is a way to reconcile that without the oversized weapon compromise feeling tacky.

And we could get little cardboard cutouts of the most common items to go along with the character tokens! And it would be really intuitive when high Strength and Hefty Hauler get more squares. This would even open up another front on the timeless squares or hexes argument.

Okay. So why doesn’t any other class have the ability to do half (actually even less given the initial weapon damage isn’t applied either) damage by choice upon a successful attack?

The Finisher trait and Press trait share common language. Some of them have failure effects and both traits state you can choose the failure option if you got a success.

That means Fighter, if you are not familiar with the Press trait. The Fighter has the ability to do half damage (actually even less) by choice upon a successful attack. Yes, it is generally a bad idea. But it is an option, explicitly stated in the rules. The traits share a lot of common language.

Confident Finisher might not deal Precision damage on a failure, argue that point all you want. However, I suggest you find better evidence than the option to choose the failure result on a successful Finisher. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I disagree. There would be absolutely no point to the feature without some type of payoff.

A pointless feature makes no implications about damage types. The Finisher trait and Press trait share common language. Some of them have failure effects and both traits state you can choose the failure option if you got a success. This is an example of a general rule that has been attached to each relevant trait. A player is allowed to do this. This is effective future proofing. We do not need a preconceived situation where failure is preferable, we have a rule stating it is an option if we want it. Nothing about this option implies or requires that the failure effect be desirable in every situation.

So I ask again why do that if the damage to the finisher is still precision given the only reason I know to do that would be to avoid precision damage immunity?

A course of action being an objectively bad idea has little bearing on how to interpret damage types. This is a complex game. The ability to make decisions with good and bad consequences is vital. If all my choices invariably result in "win" I really do not have much choice at all. Players are allowed to select the failure result if they score a success. This feature does not imply any sort of qualitative judgement. It does not claim the failure effect has to be useful or even relevant.

I would love to see the pricing of equipment, trade commodities and consumer goods change with each errata pass. Lets get some value out of each new printing; change all the minor numbers by insignificant amounts. Market conditions change all the time. Player sensibilities shift over time. No reason we should be shackled to the past. Decades of inertia can be overcome, if only we have the courage to short the market.

Making a weeks worth of rations a nice round multiple is a great start. If it matters so little as to be beneath accounting for most parties then it stands to reason no meaningful complaints will be filed. The willful nonparticipants are going to continue ignoring the extraneous bookkeeping and those of us with too much time on our hands will be engrossed with determining the price efficiency of buying kits or their contents individually. Glorious!

The hand requirement feels like the only strict rule we need to observe here. A cleric holy symbol really does not need to be complicated. I would certainly consider it valid to just have your holy symbol painted onto your breastplate; so long as you met the free hand requirement. Affixing a small wooden or silver symbol to a different item sounds a lot like affixing a talisman and those do not interfere with the host item. It should work. Pay for the items separately. Certainly keep track of the combination. Which is to say, you might want a backup holy symbol if your primary is a greatsword. Might not always be convenient to brandish that greatsword.

Of course if your GM wants to interpret the free hand requirement strictly we do not have much to argue here. The rules offer little guidance. All I can say is that it seems reasonable.

Also Emblazon Armament feels like an unfair comparison. It offers bonuses other than just combining a thing with a focus. Whether that +1 is worth a feat is up to you, but I highly doubt the combined focus part eats up its power budget.

I'm sorry, but you literally said that yourself in the first sentence. The other sentences do little to change that impression, though they can be interpreted several different ways.

I wrote a lot of things. Maybe it was confusing. In chronological order:

It would be interesting to see the frequency of shape shifting limited rather than the duration. Try to balance the class around being stuck in a particular form until you can shift again, with higher level class feats improving the frequency.

Then you said some stuff that led me to believe I might need to be more clear, but it did look like you were broadly against time gating. Now the tricky part.

Think of it in terms of goals. A member of the prospective Shifter class at level one has certain capabilities and is striving for more. Are they striving away from their ancestry given form? This might manifest as a duration limited system, where at high levels they could be in an alternate form most or all of the time.

Here I briefly discussed the first of our two agreed upon manipulation points. Thematically, this would be a shifter that was trying real hard to stop being defined by their ancestry. In rules, this would mean gaining more duration so they could be something else longer.

Or are they striving toward mutability? Frame it such that the act of changing one's form is the highest aspiration. I think it has potential for balancing versatility and power in an engaging way. At low levels they would need to be careful about rationing when they shift forms but still have a great deal of flexibility if they choose well. At high levels they would shift rapidly and often, matching their form to the task at hand. Let the class exemplify "stagnation is death".

I then went on to discuss the second of our agreed upon manipulation points, frequency. The important parts here are the line break and use of the conjunction "or". This second part is in contrast to the first part, not in conjunction with the first part. Thematically, this would be a shifter who priotized the act of changing one's shape over the state of being in an alternate shape. This priority is not contradicted by the proposed limitations of low level characters. It is meant to be the focus in the sense that it is their goal and is something that improves with training.

What? You specifically advocated for a system that partially balances via putting timed limitations on shifting. That is the literal opposite of at-will shifting.

Very reasonable question. I happen to think building up toward at will shifting at high level is a perfectly valid interpretation of a shapeshifter fantasy. The other part of this is that my frequency limited proposal would not have duration limits. The Druid does not fit my fantasy of a shifter because they can only hold their altered shape for one minute. Being able to hold a shape all day but only being able to change it a few times feels like a valid alternative. Again, these are preliminary ideas and I do not want to get bogged down with power level specifics. It could be three times a day, it could be once per hour, anything really. Just discussing broad themes.

As for the rest, I think you have to make your point more clear, especially what you mean with "time duration limit". I don't think we are using the same meaning here. You say that you don't want duration limits, despite literally saying the opposite in your previous post. For me, a "time duration limit" means that when you use an ability, you can enjoy its effect for up to a certain time limit (usually 1 min or 10 min for combat powers). And limiting the number of uses has functionally the same effect, just that you have to ration your full time for the entire day. I think what you are talking about is more what I'd call a "frequency limit" within 2e vocabulary, i.e. if you use an ability, you can't use it (and sometimes also similar abilities) again for X round(s)/minutes/hours/...etc..

You seem to understand duration limited and frequency limited the same way I do. Perhaps I was not clear that I gave examples of duration limited as a contrast point to aid the discussion of frequency limited? I think it matters a lot thematically.

The idea of choosing which powerful toolset to lock into for the next (hour? ten minutes? ten rounds?) feels like a lot of fun. Choose wisely, save the day. Choose poorly... I dunno, good luck untying that rope with flippers? It feels like it might be fun, I could be way off base here.

I don't know if I understand you correctly, but this sounds more like a duration limitation after all. Not "just" a cooldown until you can change again.

I am not sure where you are getting this from but you might want to talk to that person instead. We do have two points to manipulate. I specifically expressed interest in manipulating one of those yet you insist that I am dragging the other along with me. As for not satisfying the fantasy of a shapeshifter? What do you see in this fantasy if not shifting one's shape at will?

And it is ultimately unnecessary. This is not official, but Mark Seifter's draconic ravager archetype (plus draconic diehard class archetype) shows that the result of having such abilities is within the bounds of the rules.

There is a lot going on here. What is unnecessary? What do third party materials have to do with being within the bounds of the rules? Are you under the impression that I am severely limiting the power of this prospective Shifter? I have deliberately said very little about concrete power levels. There is a lot of room to set scaling bonuses as the class gains feats and levels. I have only discussed a broad theme I would like to explore and stated a preference to move away from duration limits. To clarify I mean "move away from duration limits" not "secretly also include duration limits".

The time gating complaint hits home. I definitely said that part. Lots of classes are time gated. It works if done well. I think it reasonable to say there should be some manner of constraint placed on low level classes such that they might overcome it later. If we thought about we could even come up with more than your two proposed manipulation points. That might give us a way around a time gate that still shows a character becoming more powerful with experience.

I think balancing all shifting around being stuck in one form would be weird.

Think of it in terms of goals. A member of the prospective Shifter class at level one has certain capabilities and is striving for more. Are they striving away from their ancestry given form? This might manifest as a duration limited system, where at high levels they could be in an alternate form most or all of the time.

Those rules are definitely written for bipeds.

It seems so reasonable that a book written for humans and by humans would do this, but then you remember the book is about dragons and wizards and people turning into snakes and the whole thing just falls apart. At least in this case the strength modifier ruling is clear. Now if only we could get some more inclusive language regarding hands or equivalent appendages.

Open a Shifter up to being someone who drank out of the big ooze pond in Nex or was blessed by a Protean’s touch and I’m much more interested.

Definitely agree. To expand upon the idea, I will say I do not want a Shifter to be seen as the fix for Druids. If Wild Shape needs to be improved that should be handled separately. There is a lot of creative space for a Shifter, they really should steer clear of trampling over the Druid.

I agree it is interesting to see how communities diverge over time. I would not read too much into it with regard to the merit of Free Archetype. I have seen other fan bases develop into surprisingly uniform subsets after too much time in the echo chamber. The whole upvote downvote thing incentivizes users to engage with exciting, controversial topics. Anyone not interested in that stuff gets disengaged and moves on. The whole community self selects for a certain interpretation of exciting and unaligned opinions have a good chance of just bouncing off and seeking their sense of belonging elsewhere.

Free Archetype is more than no Free Archetype. It is more content, it is more decision making, it is more power gaming. Frankly it would be weird if the subtle, minimalist approach rose to the top in that sort of attention hungry environment. Similar to how Vanilla gets a bad reputation as bland or boring despite being a distinct flavor that is consistently a top seller.

Free Archetype is a useful option but certainly not mandatory. If it feels ubiquitous in certain circles, well, perhaps there is merit to discussing these topics in several different forums.

The Petrified case is interesting.

You have been turned to stone. You can’t act, nor can you sense anything. You become an object with a Bulk double your normal Bulk (typically 12 for a petrified Medium creature or 6 for a petrified Small creature), AC 9, Hardness 8, and the same current Hit Points you had when alive. You don’t have a Broken Threshold. When you’re turned back into flesh, you have the same number of Hit Points you had as a statue. If the statue is destroyed, you immediately die. While petrified, your mind and body are in stasis, so you don’t age or notice the passing of time.

It again states "can't act" not "you have no actions". While I understand the thought behind saying an object is effectively dead, I am not convinced the Eidolon cares. It only unmanifests if the Summoner is reduced to zero hit points. Petrified is very clear that the object retains the same number of hit points. If this truly is a partnership, petrified sounds like the summoner becomes a silent partner and the eidolon is on a leash tied to a lawn ornament.

Or they all died. That would also explain the silence. If only there was some manner of necromancy to breathe life into a cold husk.

Feels like a yes. There is nothing to suggest a stride or any sort of movement action has to be declared and locked in when it starts. As there is no rule stating penalties take place immediately and bonuses take place next action, it looks like movement speed updates in real time. Movement is much more likely to trigger reactions or otherwise introduce new information than other action types. There are numerous examples of things that can modify or interrupt a movement after it has begun. In the specific case of gaining or losing entire actions we have a rule, but the absence of any similar rule for movement speed suggests it operates differently.

In the specific case of Swashbucklers Tumbling Through, it feels balanced to allow it. It may even be a deliberate boost to offset the difficult terrain aspect of tumbling. Would not mind a bit more clarity in the Rules As Written.

GM discretion already exists. The option to houserule, the need for occasional adjudication and the importance of GM to player communication have already been established. There is no benefit in having a particularly nuanced rules interaction get handwaved behind another redundant "you figure it out" moment. Unless you are genuinely concerned someone forgot they could houserule it, which admittedly does happen, it is not helpful to keep telling us something the book has made perfectly clear. Why would I even buy the book if it was only going to tell me to write my own rules? The fabulous artwork I suppose, but you hardly need me to poke holes in my own argument.

Most of the time I have a pretty good idea about how to resolve a situation and move the story forward. But I really do want to know the opinions of the Paizo developers. This is in fact why I buy their books. If a player joins my table and has P2e experience, I would really prefer if my interpretation of the game closely matched their previous experience. This consistency forms the shared language that we use. The hard questions, these ambiguous situations that surround the problematic powers (Invisibility is certainly not an easy topic) are the exact times I would like more guidance, not less.

If we consider the rulebook as a set of possible solutions to our problems then it feels like a shortcoming when it leaves so much as an exercise to the reader.