Rikkan's page

I remember bleeding already being a mess in First edition see this post by James Jacobs for example.

They definitely chose to specify that bleeding doesn't work on non-living creatures in second edition and were aware that bleeding used to be quite confusing already in the first.
So I'm assuming quite a bit of thought went into their solution for it in second edition. So I'd just run it as written.

I think the most anime feat in PF2 is Sow Rumor.

Since in pretty much every single anime I've watched, there've been people spreading rumors at least once.

Aratorin wrote:

...since Charisma tends to represent physical attractiveness as well...

What other house-rules that a lot of people use for literally no reason and act like it's a rule from the book should we adjust the game to work based on?

I'm not sure if Charisma has ever represented physical attractiveness in D&D (I don't think it has since Comeliness used to be a thing), but I know that there is zero reason to treat it as doing so in Pathfinder 2nd edition.

Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

And since we're supposed to be able to tell the same stories in PF1 as PF2, it makes sense for people to use that in PF2 too.

Malk_Content wrote:

The great thing about it bring a sphere and being able to lift creatures up is that any falling damage at all also knocks creatures prone making this spell a potentially amazing action waster.

Oh wow. I hadn't considered that.

Well it would be nice, but sadly it is not able to do that.

All creatures and unsecured objects in the area move towards the center, depending on their Reflex saving throws. This follows the rules for forced movement (Pathfinder Core Rulebook 475).

When an effect forces you to move, or if you start falling, the distance you move is defined by the effect that moved you, not by your Speed. Because you’re not acting to move, this doesn’t trigger reactions that are triggered by movement.

If forced movement would move you into a space you can’t occupy—because objects are in the way or because you lack the movement type needed to reach it, for example—you stop moving in the last space you can occupy. Usually the creature or effect forcing the movement chooses the path the victim takes. If you’re pushed or pulled, you can usually be moved through hazardous terrain, pushed off a ledge, or the like. Abilities that reposition you in some other way can’t put you in such dangerous places unless they specify otherwise. In all cases, the GM makes the final call if there’s doubt on where forced movement can move a creature.

Since the spell does not push or pull people, you can't push them off cliffs / move them in hazardous terrain, and combo'ing it with say a wall of fire doesn't work.

A skilled character can help out less skilled allies who choose to Follow the Expert. This is a good way to help a character with a low Stealth modifier sneak around,

Choose an ally attempting a recurring skill check while exploring, such as climbing, or performing a different exploration tactic that requires a skill check (like Avoiding Notice).

Yet, Follow The Expert, has the auditory and the visual trait. So your party member who is an expert at being sneaky / stealth / avoiding notice, needs to make noise and be seen so you can follow the expert in being unseen.

For martials effect = y

For casters effect = y * level

Well for martials effects are boosted mostly by things like class features and magic weapons (extra attacks through bab in PF1).

So you could say:
For martials effect = y * magic weapons

Martials scale quadratically too.

But honestly, that is just playing with words and maths that doesn't mean anything.

In my experience, Martials in PF1 could keep up fine in damage with monsters as they leveled.

Casters couldn't. Spells that did damage were a poor life-choice. That led to a huge amount of options being printed in supplements that greatly boosted spell damage, so you could do something like quadruple the amount of spelldamage a core caster could throw out (which is an insane amount of power-creep). That power creep is probably the reason why they nerfed damage dealing casters for PF2 from their core counterparts, which is a little silly.

In my experience in PF1 it is different when it comes to effects that are not dealing damage (like utility / SoDs etc).
As you go up in CR, monsters tend to become a lot more flexible and gain more utility/SoD, can for example teleport at will etc.

Martials couldn't keep up with the monsters, because martials usually didn't gain many new effects as the levels increased (mostly things boosting their in-combat damage).

Casters could keep up with the monsters in this respect and even had some spells that felt plain broken with how powerful they were.

Jason: “There was a turning point that happened a few weeks in, folks started watching the twitch stream and live posting to the forums.” That’s when it started to break out a little bit.

Yeah, as soon as people started posting about it on the forums, they started reaching a lot more people.

I wonder what they could have done, instead of just barely interacting on the forums and mostly through twitch / facebook .......

Even before 1.6, I felt goblin was the best class for a front-line cleric. +2 Cha is great and a -2 Wis on your dump stat is lovely! And this is patently absurd.

Well that sorta makes sense, no?

perception check wrote:

Not to take away from the current discussion, but one of the larger issues with the upcoming change (at least, given what we know about it) is that enemy saves are too high, such that any reasonable increase to damage won't really matter as enemies will save for half anyway.

Again, this doesn't really matter if the increases to damage are unreasonably high, but I don't think anybody wants that. Enemy saves need to go down across the board, or there needs to be ways for casters to increase their save DCs.

This is a known issue and will be addressed in the full release. Reworking the stats for every monster in the Playtestiary would be too much of an overhaul to do during the playtest period.

Doesn't that mean the playtest is largely useless for spellcasters?

Inflated saving throws make a huge difference in this edition with 4 degrees of success. Having the enemies save / critically save against your 3 relevant spells a day vs having the enemy fail / critically fail their save is huge. It is the difference between a caster feeling useful and powerful vs feeling like a weak nobody who'd be better replaced with a martial who doesn't run out of spell slots.

Lausth, let me give you another example from PF1 play that illustrates not only issues of power but also complexity and RAW vs GM RAI, as the last does.

My 9th level Wizard purchased a scroll of Polymorph Any Object and successfully cast it on himself to become a High Girallon, in the process gaining Resist 20 to acid, cold, fire, electricity, and poison, as well as an extra set of arms and a Climb speed. He then cast Reduce Person and Permanency on Reduce Person so that he would remain medium sized.

Combined with Overland Flight, those resistances make for an interestingly powerful defensive set. You may find a flaw in the magical application, or might rule against as a GM (which would, again, be your right)...but the situation points out just one example of the ways that casters in PF1 may perform in relation to the rule set that some players, GMs, and designers might not prefer.

In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.

So while under the effect of Polymorph any Object, Reduce person has no effect. Also, afaik a High Girallon is a magical beast, so reduce person would be ineligible anyway. And I don't think it actually qualifies for a permanent duration either.

Doesn't seem overtly powerful if you apply the rules correctly (but I agree the polymorph rules have always required some careful reading)

1. First, note that adding Djezet to a weapon increases your total cap for multiple fusions, even as it lowers your ability to put high level individual fusions on.

Quote:

Any weapon with metal components, even those that deal only energy damage, can be made of djezet alloy. Such a weapon is considered to be 2 item levels lower when determining which fusion seals can be applied to the weapon, but it is considered to be 2 item levels higher when determining the total level of fusions that can be applied to the weapon.

So a level 10 item can have fusions whose total level add up to 12, but no individual item can be higher than 8.

Actually, you're mistaken. Fusion seals are a specific distinct item you can install fusions in.

Fusion Seals

It is also possible to place a weapon fusion into a physical object, called a fusion seal, which can then be affixed to a specific weapon and even moved among different weapons. A fusion seal affects only weapons of a given level or less, as noted in parentheses after the name of the fusion seal. For example, a holy fusion seal that could be applied to any weapon of 10th level or lower would be written holy fusion seal (10th). Any decisions that must be made when a fusion is added to a weapon are made when a fusion seal is created, and they can’t be changed.

A fusion seal’s cost is based on the highest-level weapon the fusion seal can affect, and it is equal to 110% of the price of a weapon fusion for a weapon of that level. Removing a fusion seal and transferring it to a new weapon takes only 1 minute and does not require any specific skill training, but the fusion doesn’t function until the seal has been in place on a weapon for 24 hours.

The key thing to remember is that in most cases, a CR6 enemy isn't meant to be equivalent a single CR6 PC - it's meant to be an average challenge to an entire party of 4-5 level 6 PCs (who get way more attacks than it does collectively), so naturally its bonuses and ACs need to be much higher than those of an individual level 6 PC.

edit: I suspect that this is why dead suns throws some relatively high CR encounters at the players pretty frequently, because there is some awareness there that the CR system is a bit wonky.

Nah, a CR6 enemy is supposed to be equivalent to a single CR6 PC. An average encounter is supposed to be really easy.

You can for example see that clearly on Page 389.

Generally, the CR of an NPC equals the level of a PC with the same abilities - for example, an NPC with abilities similar to a 2nd-level technomancer would be CR 2.

These factors often created a race to the bottom, design-wise, spawning tons of these little X-per-day buggers that characters could afford, featuring relatively powerful (and always useful) effects that often became more useful as you gained levels. All of this creates a sort of mini-nova during climactic encounters, as characters spend a handful of swift and immediate actions ramping up to their optimal tactics. This is especially true for classes in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, since they typically have fewer class-based options competing for the use of swift and immediate actions.

Another problem Resonance Points are trying to address is what is often called the "Christmas Tree" effect of games that impose limits based solely on magic item slots. This goes hand in hand with the cheap consumable (or X-uses-per-day items), as many players rush to fill their slots with items featuring charges or uses per day.

I never encounter this myself in PF1. Players always fill their slots with the stat boosting items (big six etc).

If the players get lots of consumables, they are often hoarded and not used, because they almost always take standard actions to use and are thus not worth using (not to mention the low DCs these items tend to have).

Am I missing something? What are all these swift / immediate action items that dominate the playspace in dev games, that I never encountered, that are one of the main reasons for introducing resonance?

Rob Godfrey wrote:

The 'big 6' and the 'magic utility belt' are a large part of what makes PF mechanically fun, they aren't a 'problem' that needs fixing they are a core and interesting feature. That for me is the disconnect here, Paizo are introducing a system to 'fix' what makes high magic, high fantasy games fun.

You will find this position highly debatable.

Having magic items is fun. Having to have certain magic items so you don’t fall behind which means you’re cut off from using other fun magic items, not so much.

Well, that is even worse in PF2, no?

By merging the cloak of resistance with +armour and making +weapons more powerful, and the new crit system making +bonuses far more important, those items feel far more required than they ever did in PF1.

Changing the math to try and keep you near the 50% mark, also means that if you don't get the upgrades at the exact right levels, you fall behind the expected curve incredibly fast (thanks again to the crit system)

And they even set the skill DCs to include +skill items, making those mandatory too. While there were +skill items already in PF1, those never felt mandatory in actual game play, since you didn't need to absolutely max your skill bonus, but you have to in pf2 to hit the 50% success mark.

It also feels like you'd be running around with far less magical items thanks to resonance and the new WBL system.

-----
And then there is the second part of the post you quoted, the the 'magic utility belt'. It feels like this part was hit incredibly hard by the PF2 changes, even though this was the fun part of magical equipment.

Many of those magical items already weren't very good in PF1, because of the required math items and because the items were usually very overpriced with incredibly low DCs at the levels you could get them at.
Thus the heavy handed nerfs to them in PF2 feel really bad to me.

I dont get something.What exactly martials are having problems with that cant be solved by magical items?

Because they have a gear limit (wbl in pf1). And they need to buy all their basic equipment like +x weapon, get their AC up etc.

Or whatever other problem pops up. Not to mention if they actually want to spend their money on pure background RP things, like building a castle etc.

Unless you use gates and portals, like Planescape. As long as you know where one is and have the right key, you're good to go. This was explicitly done so people could go planehopping without the need of powerful magic.

Unless you get hold of some creature that grants water breathing. Make a deal with it/capture and threaten/bribe it.

Flying mounts are a thing.

Seriously, many of these problems are harder for non-casters to overcome but not insurmountable.

Yeah, that is exactly my point. Casters get class features to deal with those problems, while non-magical martials have to sit around / plead with their DM to fix those problems for them.

That's another thing I like in 2e. Sorcerers can actually learn spells from outside sources.

With permission from the GM, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they come across while adventuring.

That is a nice survey. ... Too bad it was up on a third party site that can't be used for PFS reliably. I would think that skewers the results a bit.

Also: 60% of the characters weren't played with Paizo AP's or in PFS, so we can't say if the basic assumptions of races available match with what Paizo has in mind for their setting.

Not just that, it is a survey asking people what they played. Which is not exactly the same thing as what people would want to play.

For example, since "We Be Goblins" is a thing and "We Be Orcs" is not, I'd expect goblins to be played more often.
Not to forget about mechanical benefits as well (like the human bonus feat the survey mentions, or favoured class bonuses)

Biggest problem I have with the economy system is that players feel like they need to spend all the money on gear. And thus won't happily spend money on roleplay stuff.

They dislike spending money on for example: bribing guards, buying apartments to live in, fancy stuff for their space ship which doesn't have any stats etc.

Trigger The redcap drops a creature to 0 Hit Points with a scythe Strike.

Does this mean that if a redcap picks up a different weapon, it can never use its reaction?

Multiclassing is already punished in PF since you won't be getting your favoured class bonus.

But the reason people do it, is because non-casters usually only get numeric increases when they level. Add some actual fun level appropriate abilities / things they can do, and you'll see less dips.

Wands of CLW have a learning curve associated with them. Thus new people to the game might not pick up on their use quickly. Making it hard to design adventures for a wide audience.

Tracking the charges and rolling the exact healing numbers and calculating the gold costs / impact they have on WBL (Wealth By Level) is also a pain.

If you want to have everyone heal up between combat, a method that doesn't need this much tracking / costs this much gametime would be better.

I'd like to see out of combat healing handled in one of these two ways:

A) There is some kind of real cost / impact on the game and HP attrition is a thing. (For example, you take multiple days to heal up / can only heal up in a temple or something, that way it has a real impact on the game and the stories you can tell)

B) Make healing ubiquitous and really easy (this way it is no hassle and encounter design can just assume everyone is always at full hp for every new encounter)

I absolutely don't want the, you have limited resources for healing, but you can just sleep and regain them all with no real impact on the game, approach. It is boring, a pain to keep track off, and doesn't do anything good for the game at all.

Also true.

And that slightly worries me. I don't want people to be hyper focused on finding that next +1. It's one of the things that drove me away from PF1.

You lose a ton of character options when every character has to be the best. Anything less than best becomes nonviable, a waste of space, or heavily peer pressured to not take that option.

I want my players to have real options that are meaningful and useful in game. I don't want them to always be hunting for the next +1 like an addict hunts for their next fix.

Then don't offer them +1 options. Just give them a choice between high / low / medium AC or something, give them set numbers for their levels and make sure they differ in other ways. Perhaps, deal more damage / have some DR, or give them unique actions they can take, etc.

Personally, it feels terrible in starfinder. Going from level 1 to level 3, my spell damage stays exactly the same, and I don't have any better spell slots to prepare better spells, yet enemies have a lot more hit points.
At lvl 1 the damage feels slightly too good, but as I level I start feeling like my character becomes worse instead of better, 'till you get the new spell levels at least.

Generally, the CR of an NPC equals the level of a PC with the same abilities - for example, an NPC with abilities similar to a 2nd-level technomancer would be CR 2. An NPC usually has armour and a weapon each with a level equal to its CR, give or take a level, and possibly one or two more items of a level equal to its CR.

Basically, CR and level are equivalent when it comes to encounter building.

You can't compare NPCs with PCs in starfinder. They are intentionally nothing alike. They can have total different abilities and statistics. They are not 'playing' the same game.

Starfinder monsters are like D&D 4e monsters, every single one is a unique creations.

Ghost killer allows attacks to do full damage.

See pg. 264: "An incorporeal creature doesn't have a physical body. It is immune to all nonmagic kinetic attacks. All energy attacks and magical kinetic attacks deal half damage (50%) to it."

A nonmagic kinetic weapon can't damage an incorporeal creature at all. A magical kinetic weapon will do half damage.

Agreed.

Considering that it costs all of 120 cr to add a fusion to a level 1 weapon (and relatively small amounts with higher level weapons, when you can buy/make them), IMO the Mystic Strike feat is really not worth it. Any weapon with a fusion counts as magic for bypassing DR/magic and affecting incorporeal creatures.

About the only exception would be for characters that use natural attacks, vesk, or characters with a venom spur. Even then, a feat is a pretty high bar.

Weapons with fusions are considered magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Only the ghost killer infusion on a kinetic weapon is able to affect incorporeal enemies.

To-hit is interesting number to follow.

When it comes to holding your own, you are not even actually aiming at CR equal to your level. Considering standard party size is either 4 or 5, you are meant to be able to hold your own against CR either -4 or -5 of your level. And since KAC scales almost linearly with CR, the -4 matches right away with the penalties for full attacking!

Generally, the CR of an NPC equals the level of a PC with the same abilities—for example, an NPC with abilities similar to a 2nd-level technomancer would be CR 2. An NPC usually has armor and a weapon each with a level equal to its CR, give or take a level, and possibly one or two more items of a level equal to its CR. For more information on creating nonplayer characters, see the Alien Archive.

Since NPC CR and PC level are supposed to be equal, comparing them at the same lvl makes sense

tldr: I feel like you rate Rattling Presence slightly too high.
Just rolling your expertise die frequently gives you better results (on average) than using this talent.
The math changes significantly if you take Skill Focus (Intimidate) though, since then you'd at least have an insight bonus while giving up your expertise die.

The duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which the result of your check exceeds the DC.

So if you give up your expertise die you increase the number of rounds a target is demoralized by 1 (or 2) rounds.

If you have a succeed on the check by rolling a 1 on your d20 (a 100% chance of success), rolling your expertise dice gives you this chance on average of getting an additional round (averaging the possibility of more than 1 round):
1d6 = 7/10 vs 1 (expertise talent)
1d6+1 = 9/10 vs 1
1d6+2 = 1 + 1/10 vs 2
1d8+2 = 1 + 3/10 vs 2
1d8+3 = 1 + 1/2 vs 2
1D8+4 = 1 + 7 /10 vs 2

If you actually have a chance of failure, the average amount of additional rounds you get from rattling presence quickly drops off, while the average amount of rounds from rolling your expertise die mostly stay similar.

Thus the benefits from the Expertise Talent are very marginal.

I spend 2 feats. 1) Skill Synergy (Diplomacy added as a class skill, Intimidate for an insight bonus), and Skill Focus (Diplomacy). My Diplomacy will be a 32 and Intimidate a 31.

Minor correction, but you can't actually do that.

Skill Synergy

Benefit: Choose two skills. These skills become class skills for you. If one or both were already class skills, you gain a +2 insight bonus to those skill checks instead.

Since intimidate is already a class skill, you get an insight bonus to diplomacy and intimidate instead. The feat is clear you either get 2 new class skills or a +2 insight bonus to 2 skills. Can't give you a class skill and a +2 bonus.

To use trick attack, an operative needs to use a full round action and thus can't use the move action to increase the range of a sniper though.
Or can't use trick attack.

(as a DM I'd change that via a houserule though)

Looking at the Alien Archive (which I'm not allowed to use for PC options, yet) there is the Kyokor a [CR 20] with +4 cha and 39 intimidate.
And it doesn't even have racial bonuses nor does it seems to be very specialized in intimidating.

20 (ranks) + 4 (cha) + 3 (class bonus) = 27

How as a PC are you ever supposed to get that additional +12 to match it?

I'm creating a soldier and looking at skills to take. It seems the skill DCs just scale too fast for my character to keep up. Let me give some examples.

As a soldier my class tells me I need Str, Dex and Con. So I figured, I'd have something like 12 int and 20 Cha at high level.

I take a look at the bounty hunter theme:
Jack of all trades [12th level]
Allows me to roll skills untrained and get a +4 if I roll a 20.

#1: Let's say I want to identify what I'm fighting and I meet a DM created Space Goblin King [CR14] at lvl 14.

To identify it, I need 5+ 1½ CR (DC 26). If I roll a 20 +4 (jack of all trades) +1 (int), I have a total of 25, not enough to identify an equal CR space goblin (which should be peanuts imho). Let alone know any facts about it.

Apparently the theme is useless?

#2: I'm [lvl 20] know and put used all my skills ranks for identifying creates. Now I'm meeting the DM created Space Goblin Emperor of Goblin Kind [CR20].
But now I got the skill fully trained, I'm an expert at identifying creatures!

To identify it, I need 5+ 1½ CR (DC 35).
I got 20 ranks +3 class skill + 1 int for a total of 1d20 +24, I need to roll an 11 to recognize the Space Goblin as a Space Goblin.

That seems way too high to identify an equal CR Space Goblin as a fully trained, at identifying creatures character. I can't even identify rare creatures on a natural 20 (DC 45)

#3: Well maybe soldiers have no need to identify creatures and it just doesn't work. Let me try training intimidate instead, it is a class skill after all and I invested a lot to get 20 Cha.
I'm a scary soldier with a big weapon, max ranks in intimidate and 20 Charisma at [lvl 20] and I have a Dwarven buddy who dropped his charisma to 4 for roleplaying reasons.
Should be much harder to intimidate me, a battle hardened soldier, right? DC is Intimidate skill +10.

He, a dwarf with 4 charisma, has a defense vs intimidate of 15+ 1½ CR (DC 45).
Me, I got 20 (ranks) + 3 (class skill) + 5 (20 Cha) = 28 Intimidate
28 + 10 is 38, 7 short of the 45 everybody gets.

Even if I grab skill focus for another +3, I'm still 4 short.

Is there any point in getting skill ranks if you don't get a class based insight bonus in this game?

That limitation is only for things that apply specifically to unarmed strikes. Weapon specialization applies to weapons in general, and the second sentence applies to natural attacks. Ergo, the limitation may not actually apply.

What? No. That is silly. Claiming the special weapon specialization doesn't apply to their unarmed strike is clearly not the intent.

Vesks gain a special rule for their unarmed strike, the weapon spec clearly is supposed to benefit that unarmed strike. Thus it doesn't interact with Hammer Fist.

Guess you made a mistake since they named the ability 'natural weapons' instead of something like improved unarmed fighting.

These unarmed attacks don’t benefit from other abilities that apply specifically to unarmed attacks (such as the Improved Unarmed Strike feat).

Vesk are always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal damage with unarmed strikes and the attack doesn’t count as archaic. Vesk gain a unique weapon specialization with their natural weapons at 3rd level, allowing them to add 1–1/2 × their character level to their damage rolls for their natural weapons (instead of just adding their character level, as usual).

Don't know about the ring, but the Vesk ability and hammer fist don't interact.

If I understand you correctly, you want to get sneak attack damage with the spell you cast?

I do remember this faq which states ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking.

Gang Up: Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?

The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)

If ranged attacks don't benefit from flanking, I'd say you won't get sneak attack damage on ranged attacks, even if you flank (unless you qualify in some other way).

I think, but I cannot remember where I read it, that you have to decide which of your limbs you are using for holding the charge, that would mean that only things that you touched with that limb would count as touched.

It might have been something about the Prehensile Hair hex, because I remember reading it about the time I picked that hex. But I have an awful memory to recall where I read or hear things.

On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.

Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.

The rules say that evil spells are evil acts. The rules say that evil acts change alignment. The rules say that the GM determines when alignment changes. The text suggests a number close to 2, but that is by no means a "rule".

Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement offers a method for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.

You don't land 5 feet away from the center of your square, you land 5 feet away from the start of your jump, which is at the edge of the pit.

And since jump distances are actually measured from the start of your toe to the back of your heel, you clear 5 feet when you jump 5 feet.

How exactly does counting from heel to toe work in game though?

If I as a medium creature roll an acrobatic check of 0, I end up in the pit? And if I roll -1 I end up where I was?

If a colossal creature rolls a result of 0, it moves forward multiple squares?

Oh? I've never seen that, can you quote / link those FAQ which state that general case?

I would say no, RAW, as you can't be under the effect of two polymorph effects at the same time. However, I would allow it as it is only the physical part that is polymorph. Also, what's the point if you can't use both?

Technically, if I'm allowed to be very pedantic, no that is not RAW. The rules only state that you can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time.

Though I do think (and every table will rule it this way) that they meant to include polymorph effects, but by strict RAW they didn't.

IMHO a creature which looks completely harmless and instantly murders your character makes for a terrible role playing experience.

One of the problems with limiting spell casters is that there is no real consensus what is actually too strong when it comes to spell casters.

Lets look at core only for a moment. In my experience a wizard who only focusses on dealing damage is worse than a martial character. Usually does less damage (except against groups, which usually aren't a real challenge but can waste a lot of real life time), while having worse defences, limited spell slots and are thus strictly worse.
Limiting casters who focus on that makes for a terrible game experience.

Also casters sometimes provide answers the adventure expect you to solve. How are you going to adventure in the underwater temple / other dimension / cloud castle? You need a caster.
How are you getting the petrified fighter back into the game? You need a caster.
Limiting casters in this regard means you're limiting the agency of players and require the DM to hand out solutions making me as a player feel like I'm solely depended on DM handouts or if my character is capable of that makes me feel my character isn't worth anything.

Many spells casters have are single target only, which are actually terrible for the martial characters as well. Haste is a group buff and thus something I'll often cast, but fly is single target and preparing it 5 times so the entire party can fly is a non-starter. Making pretty much all polymorph spells personal only, means I can't cast them on the martial characters anymore and makes the disparity worse.

And to me, non-casters are just terribly boring. Sure I can build an effective archer, but I'd be bored out of my mind only full-attacking every turn.

Yeah, well, dragons are sloppily written several times over. They also don't specifically have Eschew Materials as a bonus feat, so there are GMs out there, as it turns out, who make them use material component pouches!

Although I think that reading the line you quoted as permission to consider those spells not just arcane but "on the Sorcerer/Wizard list" isn't that big a stretch. Errata, in light of the FAQ, nothing more.

There are still other monsters who don't have such a line, cast as sorcerers and still get spells from other spell lists. Like say the Royal Naga

"Spells A royal naga casts spells as a 9th-level sorcerer."
And yet they have Enthrall as a known spell, which is a bard 2, cleric 2 spell.

Now as to learning Raise Dead, I happen to agree with you. Unless she can find an arcane tutor somehow, every instance of Raise Dead a sorcerer comes across is full of prayers. Not arcane at all. But she might well find a witch with a healing patron who knows and can teach the arcane version of Lesser Restoration. Or a spell witches share with druids like Threefold Aspect. Or one that's purely arcane like Beguiling Gift. All arcane spells not on the sorcerer/wizard list.

Speaking as a GM, I don't think I ought to bar learning arcane but non-list spells as long as in-game there's a reason why the PC had been able to study it. And no one yet has come up with a reason why I shouldn't, other than the same reflexive "you can't" position that I actually started out with in the other thread.

Well, keep in mind Gold Dragons have this bit of text:"A gold dragon can cast cleric spells as arcane spells.". And dragons cast as sorcerers.

Technically though, the FAQ, that prevents you from casting spells that are not on your spell list, also prevents gold dragons from casting the spells that they have in their stat block (and breaks other creatures as well).

Rikkan wrote:

That is why they errata'd Improved Natural Attack, because monk PCs could take it and after crunching the numbers they considered it to be too powerful for monks.

I really, really, really doubt that anyone at Paizo ever crunched numbers in regards to Monk balancing. They probably went the 12-year-old approach of yelling "OMG, monk can haz eh biggest damatch numbah than mah barbarian, NERF IT!!!!!". Becase it is not possibly to have ever played an (unarchetyped) monk in a game together with proper martials* and not realize that cMonk sucks so hard, you could give him Imp Natural Attack for free and he's still be grossly underpowered.

Jason crunched his numbers and the official errata is this—the Improved Natural Attack feat can not be applied to unarmed strike. We'll be issuing an errata for that feat that adds this sentence to the feat:

"Improved Natural Attack can not be applied to unarmed strikes."

Unarmed strikes ARE still treated as natural weapons for most effects (particularly for the spell magic fang and for amulets of magic fang), but the Improved Natural Attack feat is an exception to that rule.

So! There ya go! Official errata! Sorry it took so long to nail it down.

Also, monks aren't supposed to be able to match a barbarian in a straight up fight.

Changing a monk's BAB is not in the cards, just like it is not for any other class. Changing BAB monkey's with a lot of statistics (especially for the monk with flurry). Truth be told, the monk is not a class that is designed specifically to stand up toe-to-toe with a fighter. They serve slightly different roles.

[other post by Jason Bulmahn]

They do not stand up as well in a straight up fight with fighters, barbarians, and paladins. But this limitation is more about their niche than their shortcomings.

It is clear the creators of pathfinder think PCs can take monster feats. That is why they errata'd Improved Natural Attack, because monk PCs could take it and after crunching the numbers they considered it to be too powerful for monks.

The.Vortex wrote:

Taking a small longspear (or Bardiche, Glaive, etc.) is about the only option to get reach with a one handed weapon

The Monster Codex added the perfect item, Irongrip Gauntlets, for this kind of 'loophole'...

Small reach weapon + Irongrip Gauntlets = 1 handed reach with no penalty. Small elven branched spear + Irongrip Gauntlets = 1 handed finesse reach weapon with no penalty. Pure profit.

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls with an elven branched spear sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon.