help.exe wrote: Despite all correlating sources including the Core Rulebook, Archives of Nethys and every other source not including the Manipulate keyword on the Raise a Shield action, my GM consulted chat GPT (which has been thus far infallible) and it maintains against all argument that Raise a Shield is a Manipulate action that would provoke attack of opportunity. I've been unable to find a source to directly refute the AI so we're stuck with that ruling for the time being. Is there any stated ruling that explicitly states the Raise a Shield action is not a Manipulate action or would logically demand this to be so? ChatGPT is a notorious liar. Its job is to mimic human behavior, not output truthful information.
Why would letting Strike target unattended objects turn the world into wet cardboard? The Material Statistics section still says that sturdy structures are of higher Hardness and Hit Points than the table suggests, and it points to the Urban section saying that structures that are sturdier still require downtime to break down. If you down want your players to destroy the dungeon, just say the Hardness is too high.
Finoan wrote:
I'm not arguing that Strike can target unattended objects RAW. I'm saying the developers wouldn't write the feats around the assumption that Strike can target unattended objects if Strike wasn't supposed to be able to target unattended objects. Because the developers would not deliberately write an effect that never works. The feats make the intent quite obvious.
Castilliano wrote: Even if you can't Strike an object (w/o some of the special abilities others listed above)... What special abilities? The feats mentioned earlier don't grant you the ability to Strike unattended objects. They enhance your Strikes against unattended objects, which can only mean that Striking an unattended object is already supposed to be a base rule.
Unicore wrote: There is no dramatic tension at all to having PCs essentially just rolling damage over and over again until an object is destroyed. If a thing is automatic, I will just say it happens. If there is the real possibility of consequence for failure, then a mechanic like force open is much better for representing that tension. The only consequence for failing to Force Open is that you have to try again, maybe with a -2 circumstance penalty. If time isn't an issue, and unless that penalty suddenly renders the door invincible, then Force Open can be spammed just as easily as Strike. And why is it weird to use weapons in this way? Stabbing a door, sure, but have you never heard of The Shining?
An effect that says it can target objects would work. You can only target an attended object if an effect says so, like Grease. And if an area effect only describes its effect on creatures, the GM decides what happens to unattended objects in the area. Complicating things is that the Item Damage rules say you can attack objects, but most attacks can only target creatures by RAW. This is all well and good because a player character's power depends heavily on their items. But it veers into stupid territory when you realize that even the Strike action doesn't let you attack an unattended object.
Gisher wrote:
I considered the possibility of using two Steps to move 10 feet diagonally because of this passage in GM Core. Running the Encounter: Splitting and Combining Movement wrote:
The developers seem to be describing the extent to which the discrete nature of move actions can be violated without causing balance issues. A dragon Flying in range then using Breath Weapon then Flying away would be pretty devastating *cough* *cough* 5e *cough* *cough*. But seeing as a Leap mid-Stride might sometimes be allowed by the GM, I thought maybe combining 2 Steps to make it to an even diagonal square might be okay, too.
My PFS character has Counterspell. From level 1 to 3, in the seven or eight sessions I've had, I've only encountered one enemy spellcaster at all. I don't know if they're rarer in low level PFS or if I just have bad luck picking scenarios to join, but I'm considering retraining the feat if the casters don't get more frequent.
I don't get why so many people on each side of this argument just can't fathom where the other side is coming from. Durations decrement at the start of each of your turns, so the possibility of consecutive Breath Weapons makes sense from that POV. That's why I thought it worked like that until recently. But a round on which you've used a Breath Weapon is not a round where you can't, so the impossibility of consecutive Breath Weapons makes sense from that POV.
As a PFS player, I'm usually trusted to handle my downtime on my own time, after the session is over. So the question of whether Hero Points work in downtime is usually moot for me, because Hero Points don't exist between sessions. But it is a fortune effect that isn't long-lasting or spammable, so I reason that it can't be used on downtime either way. Wait, what? Crit fail?? Why did I have to roll twice and take the lower result? Grim Reaper: I've been standing here for 8 hours waiting for you to notice me.
Hell hound has a one-action breath weapon. It's as strong as a two-action breath weapon, so it might be a very unfortunate typo.
"Nothing I post is official, but we mean 1d4 rounds that you can't use it. I'm OK clarifying that because attacks with a 1d4 round recharge tend to be on the "limited area" damage which means using them back to back could be mean to your PCs" - Mark Seifter Yeah, that is what the rules say about Limited Use abilities. Building Creatures wrote: The table includes values for unlimited-use abilities (ones that can be used at-will) and limited-use ones (which can be used once or, like a Breath Weapon, once or twice but not on consecutive turns). Though you'd think it would work like every other duration. Usually you start counting rounds on the turn in which the effect was created. For Breath Weapon, I guess you don't start counting until the next round because the dragon used the Breath Weapon already. (I just refreshed and see that Finoan reached the same conclusion.)
I've heard people point to the final battle in Menace Under Otari saying, "See? The party level +2 creature is treated as worth 120 XP, so Paizo is admitting that party level +2 solo creatures are severe instead of moderate!" But there's an earlier fight against a party level +2 creature that the game treats as 80 XP, so that doesn't make sense. I took a closer look at the final boss's stat block, which has a listed level of 4 and is meant to be used against level 2 PCs. Most Breath Weapons I've seen in this game use the on-level limited use area damage and high spell DC for that level. The Breath Weapon dealing 5d6 damage is expected for a level 4 creature, but the DC of 24 is 1 point shy of extreme. That is ridiculously high, and there aren't proper low statistics here to offset it. But that's only if you look at it as a level 4 creature. As a level 5 creature, its Breath DC sits halfway between high and extreme, and it's offset by lower level breath weapon damage. Could the monster actually be level 5, and the level provided on page 60 is actually a typo?
GM: Alright, with a full night's rest, you all recover from the fatigue caused by your sleep deprivation. Player: No, we actually can't. We need to take watches since we're in enemy territory. GM: Uh, yeah. What about it? Player: So two of us are going to have to interrupt their 8 hours of sleep to perform their watches. GM: Your point being...? Player: Recovering from the fatigued condition - if it's from sleep deprivation - requires 8 continuous hours of sleep. GM: Where does it say that? Player: The rest rules. GM: No, it doesn't. I have the rest rules right in front of me. (The GM has the GM Core's rest rules on AoN in another tab.) Player: So am I! (The player has the Player Core's rest rules on AoN in another tab.)
Player Core Rest and Daily Preparations wrote:
GM Core Resting wrote:
Player Core says that your 8 hours of rest need to be continuous for you to recover from the fatigued condition. GM Core says no such thing and permits the 8 hours to not be consecutive. Does a character have to be asleep for 8 full hours without no interruptions at all specifically to get rid of the fatigued condition incurred by staying awake for over 16 hours? Or was "continuous" not meant to be interpreted as "consecutive?"
Errenor wrote: It's just it seemed to me that the 'at the end of the action' trigger rule was created specifically to prevent perma-prone situations. It helps with that either way. By allowing the Stand to occur first, the Stand Still Strike can't benefit from the target being prone, which would have made for easier crits.
Baarogue wrote: Move actions provoke whether you leave your square or not. That's why Reactive Strike has two bits about move actions in its trigger. "A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it's using." What that sidebar is meant to explain is that if you leave your square during a move action, you provoke for each square of movement you make while you're making it. If you're disrupted, you stop movement in the square you were leaving, not back in your first square or in your intended destination square. If you don't leave your square, the move action still provokes, except the trigger is at the end of the action instead of in its middle so Stand can't be disrupted to cause you to remain prone Alright, but it still makes no sense to conclude that the stationary move action rule is making some statement about all reactions. Look at the preceding sentence. Reactions to Movement wrote: Each time you exit a square within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability. What sounds more likely? That the "instead" means "instead of each time you exit a square within a creature's reach," or that the "instead" means "instead of at the start of that action or ability as is normal for reactions and free actions triggered by actions?"
Karneios wrote: It would provoke reactive strike because the trigger has both "leaves a square during a move action it's using" as well as "a creature within your reach uses a manipulate or a move action", both fly and stand are move actions Let's look at the Reactions to Movement rules again, but pretending that the crucial sentence about stationary move actions is missing. Reactions to Movement wrote: Some reactions and free actions are triggered by a creature using an action with the move trait. The most notable example is Reactive Strike (reproduced below). Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). The explanation is that if you use a move action, you can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled, every time you exit a square within a creature's reach. Suppose you're just Standing back up from prone. You're not traveling any distance or leaving any square at all. Without that sentence about stationary actions, one could conclude that the reacting creature would simply be out of luck. Even of one did not reach that conclusion, having the sentence still helps for clarity's sake.
SuperParkourio wrote:
Actually now that I think of it, having the Reactive Strike occur last presents other problems, even if it's allowed to retroactively disrupt on a crit. Suppose the trigger is not an Interact but rather a manipulate spell? If we resolve the spell first, that's potentially a lot of changes that need to be tracked for multiple creatures. And if the reacting creature isn't reduced to zero HP, you'll just have to undo all the changes if the spell is retroactively disrupted. Resolving the Reactive Strike first would be much less of a hassle and IMO makes more narrative sense.
Finoan wrote: Other people use 'houserule' to mean 'something that changes the rules'. And often means 'if you are using houserules, then your logic doesn't apply here on the rules forum'. That is a big concern. The Strike action specifically lets you target one creature within reach or range but doesn't give the option to target one unattended object. There are rules saying you can attack unattended objects, but seemingly none that state that you can Strike unattended objects, and an inability to Strike unattended objects would severely limit what options there are to do so. Stating that the Strike action does let you target one unattended object is literally a house rule that changes the rules. But we have to allow it or else a lot of other rules just break. And changing the rules tends to complicate rules discussions, as the default assumption in a rules discussion is that there are no such house rules. Ugh, I just wish the developers would add "or unattended object" to the description of Strike. But it's been four printings and one remaster and this annoying discrepancy is still here.
Immunity wrote: If you have immunity to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison, or disease), you are unaffected by effects with that trait. Often, an effect has a trait and deals that type of damage (this is especially true in the case of energy damage types). In these cases, the immunity applies to the effect corresponding to the trait, not just the damage. However, some complex effects might have parts that affect you even if you're immune to one of the effect's traits; for instance, a spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid damage to you even if you're immune to fire. How complex does an effect need to be for this rule to apply? It seems that in most cases, if the developers want a trait to apply to part of an effect, they write something like "this is an incapacitate effect" or "This critical failure effect has the death trait." Is that what the rule is talking about? Further complicating matters is the Cataclysm spell. It dishes out a lot of effects, and I can only assume we're not meant to apply all 8 traits to all 7 effects. Cataclysm wrote:
The developers called out the tsunami damage as having the water trait, suggesting that it's the only part of the spell that does. Perhaps they intended to manually assign the traits to each effect?
The Raven Black wrote:
Yeah, that makes sense considering the Invisible Object spell lets you fire ammo without revealing your position. It would be pointless if your ammo stayed invisible well after being fired. I don't know if familiars should be included, though. Those are separate creatures.
Cordell Kintner wrote: It's not as useless as it initially appears. Death Knell can be used to kill creatures with Regeneration after all. And it's not just dying creatures this spell works against. The only requirement is that the target is a living creature with 0 Hit Points. That means even for NPCs that don't use the dying rules, an ally can knock an enemy out with a nonlethal attack, and you can follow up with Death Knell for the temporary Hit Points and +1 to attack/damage rolls. And the buff lasts well past the duration of the spell, so you can even take it into the next combat. You could maybe even knock an enemy out during the fight, Treat Wounds on everyone to get back into fighting gear, and then sacrifice the [hopefully still unconscious] enemy to Death Knell for the buff.
The word "kill" is defined as "to cause the death of (a living thing)," and I don't know of a rule in Pathfinder 2e that redefines this. Furthermore, the death knell spell, the Balor's Lifedrinker action, and other game features have specific effects that depend on successfully killing the target, so I'd like to know how strict the "kill" requirement is. If the target of death knell fails it's save and dies, then death knell obviously killed the target, granting the caster temporary Hit Points and bonus for 10 minutes. If the target is dying 3 and succeeds, the become dying 4 and die, so I'd say again that death knell killed the target. Suppose, however, that the target is dying 2, succeeds the save becoming dying 3, then fails a recovery check and becomes dying 4. The death knell spell is partly responsible for the target's death, but is it correct to say that the spell killed it, granting the benefits to the caster at the time of the target's death? Likewise, if a Balor reduces a creature (that has a high enough level) to zero Hit Points with a non-death attack or other effect and then the creature reaches dying 4 due to some bad recovery checks, does the Balor satisfy the trigger for Lifedrinker? Basically, for a given creature or effect to count as having killed something, does it need to be an immediate kill, or does it just need to be the case that the target would have survived if not for the creature or effect in question?
The four types of actions are single actions, activities, free actions, and reactions. Even though talking has the auditory trait and cannot be performed if you can't act, is not a type of action, so it is therefore not even a free action. Talking has no impact on whether you can satisfy "If your next/last action" effects.
Pathfinder Way wrote:
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.
Grimmerling wrote:
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. Dying wrote: You lose the dying condition automatically and wake up if you ever have 1 Hit Point or more. No mention of "healing."
breithauptclan wrote:
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.
breithauptclan wrote:
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?
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.
Revival wrote: 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.
Enemy mage with low HP casts time stop to make his escape.
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. Specific Beats General wrote: 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.
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]
Unicore wrote: Why do attackers win ties against DCs for success results but not for critical failure results? That is not the same thing. Players and monsters can both play either role in an attack: attacker or receiver. Both play the same role when initiative is rolled. Unicore wrote: Some things are just the nature of dice games and the less a GM is trying to come up with some arbitrary rule to decide a result that is really meaningful at most 1 time in the whole encounter is really not a good use of everyone's game time. Why does everyone keep saying that I shouldn't care how initiative ties are resolved just because of how rare they are? When it happens, it matters for the entire encounter. Initiative isn't rerolled every round. If my GM runs a high-level dragon and I tie the dragon in initiative, it would sting a lot less if the dragon went first due to a impartial coin toss rather than "because he's your adversary." What kind of reason is that? I'm the dragon's adversary! Unicore wrote: If players always win ties, then there really is no where else to go with that for players. If monsters default to winning ties, then players for whom winning initiative is a really big deal (like maybe full casters and possibly rogues, although I see that ending badly for them as often as being useful) can meaningfully invest in getting that very slight additional edge. I don't understand. Isn't boosting initiative good regardless of how ties are handled? This isn't really a reason for or against the enemies always winning the ties. Unicore wrote: GMs don't build NPCs to defeat the player characters so any ability that could grant monsters that ability would just feel mean and spiteful to give to a monster that can really benefit from going first. Wait, now you're saying monsters shouldn't have the ability to invest in their initiative because it would be mean and spiteful? How is that more mean and spiteful than just automatically winning ties? I need a feat to automatically win ties, but all monsters just get that for free? Unicore wrote: Overall, I think the rules as given is the fastest and most sensible decision to make to have an easy fast rule to follow that requires looking nothing up, but players who really want to change it can. How does handing enemies a win card prevent the need to look up the rule? If the rule instead asked for a coin toss, it would take the same amount of time to look up, and not a lot of time to implement. In the rare event of multiple ties happening at once, you could even just settle them all with the same coin toss.
breithauptclan wrote: Well, what do you do in other game systems? Are those any less arbitrary? D&D 5e leaves player-monster ties up to the dungeon master. My DM settles ties with Dexterity scores or, failing that, a d20 roll. He does not just say, "Well, my monster goes first just for not being you." So no, they're not really less arbitrary. But they are at least impartial. If both rolls are equivalent, why should one be treated as intrinsically worth more?
Lucerious wrote: I like the rule as is. Unless the party plans to do any buffing, then having the enemy go first usually means the enemy is spending actions moving instead of the PCs. This allows the PCs to spend their actions attacking or whatever instead of moving closer to their targets. If the PCs really want to make the enemies come to them, can't they just use ranged weapons or the Delay free action?
|