SuperParkourio's page

SuperParkourio wrote:

If I get a level 2 feat from an Adventure Path background, therefore gaining it at level 1 instead of level 2, does the feat use my actual level or the level of the feat for the math in its description. For instance, if I'm level 1 and my level 2 feat deals one damage die per 2 levels I have, would it deal 0 damage or one die of damage?

It helps if you cite the example.

Alright, the feat in question is Blasting Beams, available in the Dark Archive and reprinted in the Gatewalkers Player's Guide. The campaign-specific background Dreams of Vengeance grants it, therefore allowing it at level 1, and the lore text states outright that you "nearly burned down the countryside" with this power. Yet as far as I can tell, this power only affects a single creature and doesn't get to do actual damage to creatures until-

*gasp* I forgot about the backlash! If you spam this power too often, it eventually results in you dealing 1d6 per level to all creatures in a 30 foot emanation with a basic Fortitude save (the user automatically takes full damage). And when an area effect describes only the effects on creatures, the GM gets to decide what happens to unattended objects, allowing this feat to technically start a forest fire at level 1!

If I get a level 2 feat from an Adventure Path background, therefore gaining it at level 1 instead of level 2, does the feat use my actual level or the level of the feat for the math in its description. For instance, if I'm level 1 and my level 2 feat deals one damage die per 2 levels I have, would it deal 0 damage or one die of damage?

In Step 2: Act, it says that "Once you have spent all 3 of your actions, your turn ends (as described in Step 3) and the next creature’s turn begins. You can, however, use only some of your actions and end your turn early. As soon as your turn ends, you lose all your remaining actions, but not your reaction or your ability to use free actions." So if I use my third and final action on a turn, does my turn end immediately, or am I allowed to use a triggerless free action before actually ending my turn?

Gods! One of the reason why our D&D refugee group is considering switching to Pf2 is because we thought and hoped that Pf2 was a more well-oiled and finely tuned rules system. (re: Stealth etc) So that we could skip arguments like this.

Dangit, why hasn’t this sort of question already been addressed by Paizo with an official clarification, or Pf Society ruling, or at least provisional examples from Paizo designers’ own home tables, as to how Temp HPs work?

Jeezus, I wish to skip this sort of community argument ad nauseum.

I just finished reading the core rulebook, and in my opinion, Pathfinder 2e is a more well-oiled and finely tuned rules system. There's certainly stuff that's annoyingly vague, which is expected to happen sometimes when the rulebook is over 600 pages, but for the most part, when the rules talk about something, they leave very little unexplained.

It does not tell us to just use the diagrams, because the diagrams don't and can't cover all circumstances; like widened spells, as you say. The fact that we also have diagrams is a nice touch, but not necessary for knowing the rules for drawing cones. They are helpful examples

I don't think we would be having this discussion if the provided diagrams were helpful examples, but yes, I do agree that the text probably gives a better indication of what the orthogonal cones should look like.

Thanks. The reader is working now for some reason.

Yeah, I posted this question because I wasn't sure, but now that I've seen the Revival spell, I'm 100% sure temporary Hit Points are real. The fact that they are tracked separately and have different rules for gaining and losing them doesn't change that.

Unconcious states wrote:

If you're unconscious because you're dying, you can't wake up while you have 0 Hit Points. If you are restored to 1 Hit Point or more via healing, you lose the dying and unconscious conditions and can act normally on your next turn.

Now, the second sentence does imply the one thing having you lose Unconcious is Healing to at least 1 HP. Correct me, but gaining Temp HP is not Healing, is it?

Yes, the gaining of temporary Hit Points seems to be distinct from the healing that recovers current Hit Points, but the Dying condition has this to say about waking up.

You lose the dying condition automatically and wake up if you ever have 1 Hit Point or more.

No mention of "healing."

breithauptclan wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

I can't find any rule or precedent that suggests they don't behave exactly like "real" HPs while they last.

You can't heal them.

The rules already spell this out as an exception. They still otherwise function just like Hit Points besides what's spelled out.

-We know they're tracked as a separate pool from your Maximum and Current HP (for mechanics that rely on them).
-We know they're lost first as opposed to your standard HP.
-We know you can't have multiple sources of Temporary HP, and that you have to choose which ones you have if you apply multiple sources at once.

That's pretty much it. It's not like it's something that absorbs hits and then the rest of the damage just "poofs" away from your current HP; the rules don't outright spell this, but by RAW, this could be an interpretation by that rule since again, Temporary HP isn't HP. It's damaged first, but nothing in the rules says normal HP is damaged second, so...

"I didn't ask how much damage the tarrasque does; I said I cast Endure!"

So even though Temporary Hit Points are called out as being different and separate from actual Hit Points, and can't be healed like regular Hit Points, they should be treated as though they are the same?

That is a bridge too far for me. How would the rules writers have to state things in order to make Temp HP actually be different from HP in your mind?

For the rules to convince me that temporary Hit Points are not real Hit Points, they need only say so. Pathfinder 2e does not seem to say this, and I don't really see what would break if temporary Hit Points are real Hit Points.

Ideally exceptions to a general rule are mentioned explicitly. That isn't always the case.

Example: Glean Contents. It isn't explicitly overriding any general rule.

What is the exception in question that we are meant to infer from Glean Contents? I'm not too familiar with this feat.

Also, the general rule is stated clearly that you are Dying and Unconscious at 0 Hit Points.

Not that you are Dying and Unconscious at both 0 HP and 0 Temp HP.

The general rule is that you lose the Dying condition and wake up if you have 1 HP or more.

Not that you wake up if you have 1 HP or 1 Temp HP.

I don't see anything in this general rule that would prevent temporary Hit Points from counting as Hit Points to grant consciousness. The Temporary Hit Points rule would have to say that temporary Hit Points are not real Hit Points, not just that they are tracked separately from current Hit Points and maximum Hit Points.

So you could argue that Revival is ambiguous in that it gives a character only Temp HP and expects that to remove the Unconscious and Can't Act conditions. The Ambiguous Rules rule would come in and say that it is too bad to be true that a 10th level spell doesn't do half of what it says that it can do and that the dead characters now have Temp HP and are alive temporarily, but are still Unconscious and Can't Act.

But the Ambiguous Rules rule doesn't trigger for Endure. Nothing in Endure even remotely implies that it does anything for a character that is Dead or Dying.

Endure would indeed not imply that it helps dying characters, but only if we assume that temporary Hit Points are incapable of saving dying characters. And the only reason I see to assume they cannot is the possibility that allowing it is broken. And I'm sure if temporary Hit Points could do that in 5e D&D, it would be broken, but this game has the nasty wounded condition for players who keep dropping to 0 Hit Points, so it doesn't seem too crazy an idea for temporary Hit Points to function as a temporary life-saver.

If you Delay an entire round without returning to the initiative order, the actions from the Delayed turn are lost, your initiative doesn’t change, and your next turn occurs at your original position in the initiative order.

BloodandDust got me thinking. Maybe additional delays in a combat are meant to be counted towards "Delaying an entire round," and "original position in the initiative order" actually refers to the initiative I had at the start of combat rather than when I most recently Delayed. Here's a redo of my example with this in mind.

Initiative list:
Goblin
Me
Ally

Round 1:
Goblin takes his turn dealing 1d4 persistent bleed damage to me.
I cast a spell to gain 5 fire resistance for 3 rounds (no sustaining required). Spend last action to cast Shield. I end my turn, taking the bleed damage and failing the check to remove it.
Ally takes turn.

Round 2:
Goblin takes turn.
I Delay. My fire resist spell has 2 rounds left. Shield ends. I take the bleed damage and fail to remove it.

Adjusted Initiative list:
Goblin
(I used to be here)
Ally

Ally takes turn.
I use free action to return to initiative. I already reduced the fire resistance duration and took the bleed, so I don't do that again. I take 3 actions and end my turn.

Adjusted Initiative list:
Goblin
Ally
Me

Round 3:
Goblin takes turn.
Ally takes turn.
I Delay again. My fire resistance spell has 1 round left. I take bleed damage and fail to remove it.

Adjusted Initiative list:
Goblin
Ally
(Bye again)

Round 4:
Goblin takes turn.
It's too late for me to use a free action to return to the initiative because I have Delayed a total of 1 round. My Delayed turn is wasted and my original initiative restored.

Adjusted Initiative list:
Goblin
Me
Ally

My new turn begins. My fire resistance spell runs out at the start of my turn, and I take bleed damage again at the end, failing to remove it.
Ally takes turn.

SuperParkourio wrote:

There's a 10th level spell called Revival.

It seems to me that the resurrective properties of this spell would be completely useless if the 0-HP creatures weren't restored to consciousness by the temporary Hit Points, seeing as they are never getting any normal Hit Points.

Sure. But that spell specifically says that it will "return dead targets to life temporarily". Endure says no such thing.

So this is a case of a specific spell rule making an exception.

But it's not making an exception at all. Nothing in the spell states that it restores consciousness, so if the temporary Hit Points aren't doing that, then all the revived creatures are still unconscious. And then they just go right back to being dead? What's the point of that?

This is too useful for me to not have set up. Also, how do you guys add character pictures to your profile? I haven't seen an option to do that either.

I finally got the RSS reader Ark View on the Microsoft Store, but it isn't working (specifically for Paizo feeds; other feeds work fine). This is the link that I'm trying to copy into the Link field.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43rlz&xml=atom?How-do-I-subscribe-to-threa ds

I got this link by right-clicking the orange button on this thread and selecting "Copy link address". Is there a step I'm missing?

There's a 10th level spell called Revival.

A burst of healing energy soothes living creatures and temporarily rouses those recently slain. All living targets regain 10d8+40 Hit Points. In addition, you return any number of dead targets to life temporarily, with the same effects and limitations as raise dead. The raised creatures have a number of temporary Hit Points equal to the Hit Points you gave living creatures, but no normal Hit Points. The raised creatures can't regain Hit Points or gain temporary Hit Points in other ways, and once revival's duration ends, they lose all temporary Hit Points and die. Revival can't resurrect creatures killed by disintegrate or a death effect. It has no effect on undead.

It seems to me that the resurrective properties of this spell would be completely useless if the 0-HP creatures weren't restored to consciousness by the temporary Hit Points, seeing as they are never getting any normal Hit Points.

We had another thread on this topic last week, XP For Large Parties, but in the spirit of overthinking let me give a primer.

The Building Encounters section of the Core Rulebook in chapter 10, Game Mastering, defines five threat levels for combat encounters:

Trivial Threat is where the party so outnumbers to foes that they will have no risk and can pull off the fight without losing resources, i.e., casting only cantrips, not expending consumables, and losing only a few hit points. A typical trivial-threat encounter is one foe of equal level to the four party members. A trivial-threat encounter earns each PC 40 xp.

Low Threat is where the party heavily outnumbers the foes and they have to be clever to avoid using resources. More likely, the casters will use up low-level spell slots and the martials will be a little more wounded than in a trivial-threat encounter. Any risk is from the dice rolling badly, but that can happen. A typical low-threat encounter is two foes of one level lower than the party's level. A low-threat encounter earns each PC 60 xp.

Moderate Threat is where the party outnumbers the foes but the foes could gang up on one party member to take him or her down. This has actual risk, so the party has to use tactics and some resources. The party will sometimes need a ten-minute break for Treat Wounds and Refocus afterwards. A typical moderate-threat encounter is two foes of equal level to the four party members. A moderate-threat encounter earns each PC 80 xp.

Severe Threat is where the foes are powerful enough that the party has significant risk that one party member will be knocked unconscious and that could even the odds up to Extreme Threat. Severe Threat has to be taken seriously, the party will need tactics, and they will spend resources such as high-level spell slots and activate once-per-day magic items. The party will...

So in my Ornstein and Smough and Greg example, the encounter budget is effectively being multiplied by 5/4 due to party size, so it makes the most mathematical sense to multiply the total experience award by 4/5 to compensate.

SuperParkourio wrote:

Enemy mage with low HP casts time stop to make his escape.

GM: The injured mage casts a spell you don't recognize.
Fighter PC: Using gestures?
GM: Uh, yes.
Fighter PC: That provokes an Attack of Opportunity from me.
GM: Make an attack roll?
Fighter PC: Ok, 15+21=36 to hit?
GM: That hits, but it's not a crit, so no disruption. Roll for damage.
Fighter PC: 10.
Enemy finishes time stop, then collapses due to having 0 HP.
GM attempts recovery check for enemy and crit fails.
Champion PC: Oh no, he's rolling. There's a second phase!
GM attempts second recovery check and crit fails again.
Enemy dies during his own time stop.
Rogue PC: I'm still undetected, right? Right?
Time resumes. Fighter sees enemy go straight from casting spell to lying dead on the floor with no transition.
Cleric PC: There's another enemy here! I Seek in a 15-foot burst over by that pillar!
Champion PC: Don't forget to disbelieve the corpse! I have a feeling I know what kind of spell this is!

I'm not sure what your post is intended to argue for, but I actually quite enjoy the idea of this exchange.

The alternate version would be that the fighter hits, and by reducing HP to 0 (because it resolves before the spell does) and then the spell never goes off (presumably others can see the magical energy dissipate?)

Oh, no. I wasn't arguing anything. This was just a funny scenario that popped into my head.

I still have the impression that the 30-foot and 60-foot cones are genuinely a mistake made by an illustrator who was thinking of 1e cones. Have there been any later official drawings of orthogonal cones that could be used to better discern the developers' intent?

Enemy mage with low HP casts time stop to make his escape.
GM: The injured mage casts a spell you don't recognize.
Fighter PC: Using gestures?
GM: Uh, yes.
Fighter PC: That provokes an Attack of Opportunity from me.
GM: Make an attack roll?
Fighter PC: Ok, 15+21=36 to hit?
GM: That hits, but it's not a crit, so no disruption. Roll for damage.
Fighter PC: 10.
Enemy finishes time stop, then collapses due to having 0 HP.
GM attempts recovery check for enemy and crit fails.
Champion PC: Oh no, he's rolling. There's a second phase!
GM attempts second recovery check and crit fails again.
Enemy dies during his own time stop.
Rogue PC: I'm still undetected, right? Right?
Time resumes. Fighter sees enemy go straight from casting spell to lying dead on the floor with no transition.
Cleric PC: There's another enemy here! I Seek in a 15-foot burst over by that pillar!
Champion PC: Don't forget to disbelieve the corpse! I have a feeling I know what kind of spell this is!

I'm noticing some people here (myself included) falling into the trap of pointing to specific rules and claiming that they would not exist unless they were there to override some implied general rule. This trigger says "about to do thing", so it must be an exception that causes the reaction to go first instead of last. This specific type of move-triggered reaction always goes last, so all other reactions must go first. So here's an excerpt from the Specific Beats General section.

If a rule doesn’t specify otherwise, default to the general rules presented in this chapter. While some special rules may also state the normal rules to provide context, you should always default to the normal rules even if effects don’t specifically say to.

So why would a rule specify a thing if it wasn't already assumed to be true by default? Because such deliberate redundancy makes the game easier to learn and run. The mention of a specific thing happening in some cases does not necessarily prove that the opposite happens in all other cases.

SuperParkourio wrote:

Noticed this in Shield Block

Shield Block wrote:

Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack.

The use of the word "would" tells me that this is to let the player know that they need not wait until after the damage is taken to... well... reduce the damage taken. So with the Giant Bat example, where the trigger is "An adjacent enemy damages the giant bat," I believe a Giant Bat reduced to 0 hit points would be unable to Wing Thrash.

Perhaps not, but you do need to wait until the damage is known.

Now that you mention it, the dealing of damage and reduction of Hit Points are in two different steps for Damage rolls.

Noticed this in Shield Block

Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack.

The use of the word "would" tells me that this is to let the player know that they need not wait until after the damage is taken to... well... reduce the damage taken. So with the Giant Bat example, where the trigger is "An adjacent enemy damages the giant bat," I believe a Giant Bat reduced to 0 hit points would be unable to Wing Thrash.

I think we'll see GM variance here, as I am firmly in the camp of doesn't disrupt unless it says so. They didn't spell out that reactions interrupt the actions they are reacting to as they did in first edition.

So in the fighter vs mage case the mage finishes the spell and the fighter and him both go down. double KO.

Well, the mage and the ally who was targeted by the spell. The mage wasn't targeting the fighter.

Can you link to the 1e rule you mentioned?

What you are implying is if an enemy Wizard is about to cast a spell to kill an ally, and your Fighter uses AoO, knocking the Wizard to 0, but didn't crit, the spell still goes off and kills your ally. That's not fun or fair at all.

I mean, yeah, it would suck for the Fighter, but if the Wizard was the PC here and just barely killed the enemy by the skin of his teeth, I could see the whole table giving the player a standing ovation.

Alternatively, if the GM ruled that the spell was wasted due to falling to zero hit points, I could see a Wizard PC calling this unfair and unfun. But if the PC were the Fighter, it could be a "Hell yeah" moment.

This is why it isn't obvious to me what the correct answer is and why I had to ask. Both of these sound equally plausible and fun. I'd just like to be sure of which approach the rules support since I'm a rules lawyer.

Barring some other feat or special ability, normally actions are only disrupted by a critical hit.

Essentially, while your action provoked, the AoO didn't resolve until your action was already resolved (unless they score a critical hit).

If the attack had to wait until my Interact finished, wouldn't that mean there would be no opportunity to disrupt even on a crit? When during a provoking action does the reaction happen? Simultaneously?

If I am reduced to zero hit points while taking an action, such as by attempting to Interact with a door to open it and provoking an noncritical Attack of Opportunity in the process, does my action still happen because I wasn't "disrupted" (the door opens), or does my action have no effect because now I can't act (the door stays closed)?

I just overthink things and use way too many words.

Hey, me too!

CRB Chapter 10 says to award all characters "the total XP of the creatures and hazards in the encounter." It also says to exclude XP adjustments due to different party sizes from this total. Let me write an example to see if I get it:

4 level 1 PCs vs Level 1 Ornstein and Level 2 Smough
Total XP = 40 + 60 = 100 XP

5 level 1 PCs vs Level 0 Greg, Level 1 Ornstein, and Level 2 Smough
Total XP = 30 + 40 + 60 = 130 XP?

This boss fight against Ornstein and Smough has been modified for a 5-person group with the addition of Greg. Since Greg is only here due to the party size, is he excluded from the XP awarded?

Various things in the game have certain traits that they don't have by default but that tentatively take on those traits. For example, Create a Diversion gains the manipulate trait if a gesture is used, meaning it provokes an Attack of Opportunity. However, the manipulate trait doesn't appear in the list of Create a Diversion's traits, because it doesn't always apply.

I haven't played my first game yet, but I do wonder if this gets confusing seeing as the list of traits isn't enough to rule out whether a trait applies. I think it would be easier if these "tentative traits" appeared in parentheses to indicate that they sometimes apply.

Create a Diversion [one-action]
Mental (Manipulate) (Auditory) (Linguistic)
Description of action...

From a sidebar in CRB Chapter 9:

As long as you can act, you can also speak. You don’t need to spend any type of action to speak, but because a round represents 6 seconds of time, you can usually speak at most a single sentence or so per round. Special uses of speech, such as attempting a Deception skill check to Lie, require spending actions and follow their own rules. All speech has the auditory trait. If you communicate in some way other than speech, other rules might apply. For instance, using sign language is visual instead of auditory.

The four types of actions are single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions. Speaking doesn't use any of them. Does this mean a creature can talk even during another creature's turn, as long as the speech is short enough for the round and doesn't use existing speech actions like Lie and Point Out?

Notice that 'you' refers to player characters and 'creatures' doesn't.

The term "creature" includes PCs.

creature An active participant in the story and world. This includes monsters and nonplayer characters (played by the Game Master) and player characters (played by the other players).

Unconscious

If you are unconscious and at 0 Hit Points, but not dying, you naturally return to 1 Hit Point and awaken after sufficient time passes. The GM determines how long you remain unconscious, from a minimum of 10 minutes to several hours. If you receive healing during this time, you lose the unconscious condition and can act normally on your next turn.

Knocked Out and Dying

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.

Are nonlethal attacks an exception to the minimum amount of time a creature stays knocked out?

I wish this stuff was covered in the FAQ. How do questions usually make it into the FAQ?

Because all the CRB's examples other than the 15ft orthogonal cone are quarters of a burst.

Alright, then. But the Areas diagram doesn't show any cones greater than 15 feet and less than 30 feet in length. Why use the burst for those?

The rules for cones say "A cone shoots out from you in a quarter circle on the grid." For every cone over 15 feet, you need to make a Burst of the appropriate range first, and take only a quarter of that burst. You can split is in either a + or X fashion. You should follow the pre-made templates in the Area rules for reference.

Also, I too made a cone shape example, for every range between 15 to 60, seen here.

Why conclude from that sentence that the circle to take a quarter of must be a Burst rather than a single-space emanation?

It's still weird to use both methods for the orthogonal cones, though. A 15' cone should not suddenly become wider at the start if it extends 15' further than before. The angle at the start hasn't changed.

Even ignoring the terrible example set by the Areas diagram, the one in the text isn't much better.

For instance, when a green dragon uses its breath weapon, it breathes a cone of poisonous gas that originates at the edge of one square of its space and affects a quarter-circle area 30 feet on each edge.

This contradicts the corner-based 30' cone shown in the Areas diagram.

Maybe the example in the Line rules is better.

For example, the lightning bolt spell’s area is a 60-foot line that’s 5 feet wide.

Area 120-foot line

My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined.

I noticed something interesting in the duration rules for both Chapter 7 and Chapter 9.

If a spell’s duration is given in rounds, the number of rounds remaining decreases by 1 at the start of each of the spellcaster’s turns, ending when the duration reaches 0.

...
If a spell’s caster dies or is incapacitated during the spell’s duration, the spell remains in effect till its duration ends. You might need to keep track of the caster’s initiative after they stopped being able to act to monitor spell durations.

For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect.

The first interesting thing I noticed is that the tracking of durations based on the turns of the creature who created the effect is specifically for effects that list a number of rounds as the duration. If it says 1 minute, I guess it just lasts 1 minute, initiative bumping be damned.

The second interesting thing is that even when a spellcaster is killed outright, you may still need to keep the caster's initiative in the list just to track the duration of any spells they had cast when they were alive. Such as spellcaster has likely been bumped down the initiative list due to being reduced to 0 hit points, and yet it is still the caster's initiative that is explicitly used to track the spell duration, not the initiative they had when they cast the spell.

yellowpete wrote:

Shockwave has variable cone size between 15 and 60, and you can also go up to 70 using Widen Spell.

That's interesting. Thanks.

Additionally, the Tarrasque has a 120-foot cone effect. We can't rely exclusively on the Areas diagram because it is not an exhaustive demonstration of every possible cone.

Just because your cones are better, doesn‘t mean they‘re correct, I‘m afraid to say.

You can either stick to the book or houserule.

Which cones are "my cones" precisely? I drew both sets of cones. I drew the "burst" ones on the left because that was consistent with the 30 foot and 60 foot cones in the Areas diagram. I drew the "emanation" ones on the right because that was consistent with the 15 foot cones in the Areas diagram. So which approach is RAW? Am I really supposed to use the "emanation" based 15 foot cone but the "burst" based 30 foot and 60 foot cones? What about 20 foot cones? 120 foot cones?

But it doesn't specify this turn...

The whole action has been describing its effect on this turn. Why would "your turn" suddenly mean "any of your turns" and cause minute-long spells to end? That seems extreme compared to just letting the spell decrements retain their place in the initiative order.

I'm having trouble understanding cones because the portrayal of orthogonal cones in the Areas diagram in CRB Chapter 9 is inconsistent. For my own benefit, I drew a diagram here.

On the left side, I drew a 15 foot burst (cyan) and a 30 foot burst (red) originating from a corner of a character's space. I drew imaginary black lines to split the bursts into quarter circles. The filled-in cyan areas are my attempt to create 15 foot cones with this approach (orthogonal and diagonal), and the filled-in red areas are the same cones extended into 30 foot cones. I included the squares that the black lines cut through so that at least the 30 foot cones would match the ones in the Areas diagram.

On the right side, I did much the same, but with emanations from a single space instead. I also excluded the squares that the black lines cut through this time so that at least the 15 foot cones would match the ones in the Area diagram.

In both cases, the diagonal cones appear to be the same shape, so only the orthogonal ones are an issue. More of the orthogonal cones in the diagram seem to be two squares wide at the origin point, so that lends credence to the burst approach. However, I'm leaning towards the emanation approach as the more accurate one for a few reasons.

• Orthogonal cones still have more squares with this approach than diagonals, but to a lesser degree than the other approach.
• The Areas diagram puts no emphasis on the corner of the first square of a cone, unlike the bursts and lines in the same diagram.
• The rule text for orthogonal cones suggests that it comes from a square edge rather than a corner, similar to emanations.

So which cones are correct? The left ones? The right ones? Both?

It was never meant to be used to do dubious manipulations of durations, and it's pretty clear about that.

It really isn't clear about that. The final sentence is used to clarify what shenanigans you cannot pull with Delay. And this sentence states - for the second time in this action's description - that you cannot extend benefits that would end on your turn. If they didn't want you to do some shenanigans with duration, they could have just cut those last six words out. And as breithauptclan pointed out, due to the total sacrifice of actions across multiple rounds, these shenanigans can hardly be called a viable tactic, let alone a broken one.

In Pathfinder 1e: there are rules for Overland Movement, which have the following to say about Hustling.

A character can hustle for 1 hour without a problem. Hustling for a second hour in between sleep cycles deals 1 point of nonlethal damage, and each additional hour deals twice the damage taken during the previous hour of hustling. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from hustling becomes fatigued.

A fatigued character can’t run or charge and takes a penalty of –2 to Strength and Dexterity. Eliminating the nonlethal damage also eliminates the fatigue.

Since a good night's sleep restores the ability to hustle in 1e, that's probably what was intended for the 2e Hustle activity.

I should point out that the Delay action only makes it clear that the intent is to stop you from extending benefits that would end on your turn. It never states that it doesn't want you extending benefits at all.

Failing the Fortitude save causes you to take damage, starting at "1d10 damage" and increasing with every such save you make. Does this damage not have a type? Can that happen?

I would also note that this trick also means that you are being rather ineffective in the actual combat part of combat. In 5 rounds you have only taken 4 rounds worth of actions.

Yep. Suppose I was repeatedly reduced to 0 hit points in this mock battle. That would bump my initiative further and potentially keep the spell going even longer, right?

Ok, now I'm going to alter the example to see if it's still correct.

Initiative list:
Goblin
Me
Ally

Round 1:
Goblin takes his turn dealing 1d4 persistent bleed damage to me.
I cast a spell to gain 5 fire resistance for 3 rounds (no sustaining required). Spend last action to cast Shield. I end my turn, taking the bleed damage and failing the check to remove it.
Ally takes turn.

Round 2:
Goblin takes turn.
I Delay. My fire resist spell has two rounds left. Shield ends. I take the bleed damage and fail to remove it.

Adjusted Initiative list:
Goblin
(I used to be here)
Ally

Ally takes turn.
I use free action to return to initiative. I already reduced the fire resistance duration and took the bleed, so I don't do that again. I take 3 actions and end my turn.

Adjusted Initiative list:
Goblin
Ally
Me

Round 3:
Goblin takes turn.
Ally takes turn.
I Delay again. My fire resistance spell has one Round left. I take bleed damage and fail to remove it.

Adjusted Initiative list:
Goblin
Ally
(Bye again)

Round 4:
Goblin takes turn.
I use a free action to return to the initiative. I take 3 actions and end my turn.

Adjusted Initiative list:
Goblin
Me
Ally

Ally takes turn.

Round 5:
Goblin takes turn.
I take turn. My fire resistance spell runs out at the start of my turn, and I take bleed damage again at the end, failing to remove it.
Ally takes turn.

I'm going to write down an example just to make sure I understand.

Initiative list:
Goblin
Me
Ally

Round 1:
Goblin takes his turn dealing 1d4 persistent bleed damage to me.
I cast a spell to gain 5 fire resistance for 3 rounds (no sustaining required). Spend last action to cast Shield. I end my turn, taking the bleed damage.
Ally takes turn.

Round 2:
Goblin takes turn.
I Delay. My fire resist spell has two rounds left. Shield ends. I take the bleed damage.

Adjusted Initiative list:
Goblin
(I used to be here)
Ally

Ally takes turn.
I use free action to return to initiative. I already reduced the fire resistance duration and took the bleed, so I don't do that again. I take 3 actions and end my turn.

Adjusted Initiative list:
Goblin
Ally
Me

Round 3:
Goblin takes turn.
Ally takes turn.
I take turn. My fire resistance spell has one Round left. I take bleed damage at the end of my turn.

Round 4:
Goblin takes turn.
Ally takes turn.
I take turn. My fire resistance spell runs out at the start of my turn, and I take bleed damage again at the end.

Remember that you cannot delay any longer than the end of the round that is currently being played.

Wait, the end of the round? No, Delay says "entire round". I would have to wait until the original initiative placement for the action loss to happen, right?