Saros Palanthios's page

the CRB entry for Signature Spells (pg 193) says the following:

You’ve learned to cast some of your spells more flexibly.

For each spell level you have access to, choose one spell of
that level to be a signature spell. You don’t need to learn
heightened versions of signature spells separately; instead,
you can heighten these spells freely. If you’ve learned a
signature spell at a higher level than its minimum, you
can also cast all its lower-level versions without learning
those separately. If you swap out a signature spell, you
can choose a replacement signature spell of the same spell
level at which you learned the previous spell. You can also
retrain specifically to change a signature spell to a different
spell of that level without swapping any spells; this takes as
much time as retraining a spell normally does.

My question is about the bolded sentence-- does "one spell of that level" mean a spell with that base level, or a spell you've learned at that level?

For example: Summon Animal and Summon Construct are both 1st-level spells (or at least, their minimum spell level is 1). Say i have an Arcane Sorcerer who has added Summon Animal to his repertoire as a level 1 spell, and later added Summon Construct as a level 2 spell. Can he select both Summon Animal and Summon Construct as Signature Spells (i.e. SA for spell level 1 and SC for spell level 2)? Or do both spells still count as level 1 spells, even though one of them was learned as a heightened version?

Do Rogues with the Thief racket get to apply their DEX to damage rolls with thrown daggers?

Back in October there was very good discussion about this exact question (link: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42sk2?Thief-Racket-Dex-to-DMG-even-for-thrown- weapons), but that thread never came to a firm conclusion-- the consensus seemed to be that it was open to interpretation, but wouldn't be super unbalancing either way.

Has there been any further developments since last Oct? (e.g. dev comments, examples from dev-run games, persuasive arguments from forum members?) Or is this still an open question?

The Felling Smash feat says that when I make a single attack (with Power Attack) and hit, I can also attempt a Trip combat maneuver as a Swift action.

My question is, what BAB should I use for the swift-action Trip? Should it be my full BAB like an AOO? Or should it be reduced by 5 like an iterative attack?

The Grease spell description reads:

All solid ground in the area is covered with

grease. Each creature standing on the greasy surface
must succeed at a Reflex save or an Acrobatics check
against your spell DC or fall prone. Creatures using
an action to move onto the greasy surface during the
spell’s duration must attempt either a Reflex save or an
Acrobatics check to Balance. A creature that Steps or
Crawls doesn’t have to attempt a check or save.

If I cast Grease on a square where a creature is standing, when does the creature have to make the Reflex save/Acrobatics check or fall prone? As soon as I cast the spell? On the creature's turn? Both?

Furthermore, say a creature starts its turn Prone in a Greased square. It uses an action to Stand. It's now "standing on the greasy surface"-- does it therefore have to make a Reflex save/Acrobatics check or fall prone again?

The Widen Spell feat reads

You manipulate the energy of your spell, causing it to spread out and affect a wider area. If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that has an area of a burst, cone, or line and does not have a duration, increase the area of that spell. Add 5 feet to the radius of a burst that normally has a radius of at least 10 feet (a burst with a smaller radius is not affected). Add 5 feet to the length of a cone or line that is normally 15 feet long or smaller, and add 10 feet to the length of a larger cone or line.

So it affects bursts, cones, and lines-- but it doesn't say anything about emanations. Is that intentional, or a mistake?

So despite poring over the 2e CRB in detail for the last two months, i somehow failed to notice until yesterday that *arcane spell failure chance from armor doesn't exist in PF2*! Literally the only thing stopping Wizards (and Sorcerers) from armoring up is lack of proficiency-- a problem easily solved with a single feat.

I feel like a moron for not realizing this sooner, particularly since i've been intentionally trying to read and interpret the PF2 rules "as they are" rather than through the lens of PF1. Clearly i failed in this case, and it makes me wonder-- how many other things have I missed thanks to "mental blinders" or subconscious assumptions formed by years of playing PF1?

Has anybody else had similar experiences? Any tips on keeping an open mind/avoiding false assumptions? Apparently it's harder than i thought!

do Specialist Wizards get an extra spell slot (which must be used to prepare a spell from their school) AND a School Spell (which uses Focus), or are those the same thing?

if they are two separate things, then it would appear that Specialist Wizards get just as many spell slots per day as Sorcerers, which seems odd to me. am i missing something?

In the CRB, the Flame Pistol is listed as being Light bulk, and the Flame Rifle is 1 bulk (similar to other Small Arms and Longarms respectively). However in the Ammo section, standard Petrol tanks are listed as 1 bulk each, and high-capacity tanks as 2 bulk, whereas all other ammo besides Missiles are Light or no bulk.

We know that all standard weapons are sold pre-loaded with one full standard-capacity magazine/battery/etc.

How can a Flame Pistol include a 1-bulk petrol tank and still be Light bulk? Is a standard Petrol tank really supposed to be comparable to a Longarm in terms of bulkiness (both 1 bulk)? That seems excessively large to me. Combine that with the high price of Petrol (only four shots worth per 60-credit tank) and the very short range of Flame weapons and they start to look really impractical.

I really want my character to use a Flame weapon, but he's not a Soldier and doesn't have much excess carrying capacity. Am I missing something, or should Petrol tanks really be Light bulk?

I've created a Mystic with the Longarms proficiency feat, and since he's a priest of Sarenrae the Flame Rifle seemed appropriately thematic-- plus the Line ability is quite nice.

However after playing him in a SFS scenario this week I realized that replenishing my Petrol is going to be pretty expensive. Petrol is 60 credits for a 20-unit tank, but the flame rifle uses 5 units of petrol per shot. That's 15 credits a shot. At that rate I could easily be spending 150-200 credits per scenario just on ammo! Oof.

Compare that to 3 credits a shot for a projectile rifle (30-40 credits per scenario). And of course battery charges are completely free.

Is the high cost of petrol worth it, do you think? Or should I swap the flame rifle for another weapon? A laser rifle still technically does fire damage at least...