Talonhawke's page

Right! I've argued my point and the best he's willing to do is have it land if no actions are granted. His argument is that I could keep it out of reach of most enemies witch is one of the pluses of a flying AC since AC's are pretty squishy but to me the draw back of them is there attacks aren't the best. And anyways it would have to be in threat when used anyhow so I don't see the issue in having the option to get it mostly out of harm way if needed. He's just one to follow specific rule over discretion, but if I can get a moder to weigh in and agree with me he'll probably change his stance

It's not just land and stand still the Minion will activly defend itself or move to avoid harm.

If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm.

It won't just land and sit there like a bump on a log while Glen the Goblin slices it up. And it's not going to fly to obvious harm.

Just want to say still find everything you keep bringing to the table amazing work.

Sorry figured the Man's and Like's and fondue was enought.

Draco18s wrote:

Ah, so now you're going to invoke the slippery slope. Cool.

Pretty sure he's just mocking.

yep

bugleyman wrote:

It's not a strawman, it's an inevitable corollary of the argument being made.

The main argument being made is that it explicitly requires a "suitable appendage" (presumably hands or non-humanoid equivalent) but that these hands are not required to be empty (for example, I can slap on a sticky-plaster with a couple of my fingers even though I'm simultaneously holding a sword).

But can't you see man if we got that route then suddenly armless guys will become the norm, or everyone will be a jedi cuz don't you know everyone will either assume or just try to munchkin that they don't need hands at all. So like if they are restrained they can still pick the lock on the manacles cuz no free hands clearly means no hands can't you see how much munchkiny gouda fondue you guys want this to be. Gods if players would just know that its not realistic to be able to hold something in your hand while you still do things with that hand then the game would be a much better place.

I agree with SuperBidi.

But I will point out that "I am not aware that those enemies are undead and I use 3-action Heal on my allies" still falls into a weird spot. Those enemies DO take damage, directly, even if you were unaware.

And that should probably break invis.

Same could be true for other AOE effects that don't normally trigger a harmful effect. E.g. a specific creature type that suffers damage when it witnesses an enemy receive a buff (for sake of argument, just some effect that does not normally break invis). The player expects their buff to not break invis, they do it, the enemy takes damage, and then...

Either invis fails (direct harm clause -> unexpected behavior)
or it doesn't ("hey I can just keep doing this forever!" -> exploit)

Which now of course leads to invisible enemies in range of said abilities causing you to lose invisibility over harm you couldn't ever possibly of intended.

Claxon wrote:

To be honest I'm not sure why that spell is uncommon.

It came out in an AP. IMO, that's pretty much the ONLY reason that I can see.

Yep its [Uncommon(rare)] not [Uncommon(powerful)] which again is why I find that such an odd way of doing it instead of actually just creating a catagory for the second.

Talonhawke wrote:

Like I said Rules As My View of Reality Dictates. RAMVORD, neither RAW or RAI instead a collection of beliefs on how anything non-magical should function regardless of the actual rules on the subject but instead based in how the GM views the real world interactions.

And as I've said previously, "I can open doors with my hands full, I don't see the problem."

I should have quoted the point I was replying to sorry for that. I was talking about Sol's "Mundane options not only have to explain the why, but the how, too, because their reasoning isn't as handwaveable as magic, and that's where everything falls apart."

Like I said Rules As My View of Reality Dictates. RAMVORD, neither RAW or RAI instead a collection of beliefs on how anything non-magical should function regardless of the actual rules on the subject but instead based in how the GM views the real world interactions.

I mean...we could have the same argument for the umpteenth time...but why?

Anyone who thinks they have some great new insight is simply mistaken. I promise that, whatever it is, it is already in this thread...and didn't settle it. For real.

Say it with me: We. aren't. going. to. settle. this.

No but maybe if the thread gets big enough it might cause the server repair goblins to demand an answer so they can get it to stop popping back up.

I still see old canards like "but fantasy" popping up for explaining battle medicine. Which is discouraging, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the very nature of the suspension of disbelief. But I digress.

While I agree with what your saying here, the feat itself blatantly leads to having to assume some kind of fantasy handwaving. Regardless of how many hands, tools, or the state of said hands this feat is almost accomplishing in 2 seconds what treat injury does in 10 minutes. The only thing it won't do is fix the damage that needs some time off to heal. I mean there is no plausible "realistic" explanation for how this feat actually work as long as HP is a mix of actual health, wherewithal, and heroic drive.

And about fine motor skills etc.

For all of this there are feats. Want a shield and board and perform battle medicine?

NIMBLE SHIELD HAND FEAT 6
ARCHETYPE
Prerequisites Bastion Dedication
You are so used to wielding a shield that you can do so even while using the hand that’s holding it for other purposes. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. You can also hold another object in this hand (but you still can’t use it to wield a weapon). This benefit doesn’t apply to tower shields, which are still too cumbersome.

I mean it does let me hold the kit instead of wearing it but sadly, Battle Medicine is not the Interact action

So that particular feat doesn't help. I would help you open a door with your shield hand.

Why does then the Free Hand Weapon Trait exist?

Free-Hand: This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free‑hand weapon on it.

Why does it explicitly spell out that with a free hand weapon you can make manipulate actions if you can do them with a sword and shield in hand as well.

For one reason there are a myriad of options that do specify a free-hand is needed. I can wear one and still use material components, Treat conditions, Grapple, use certain feats. It's more than just i can use manipulate traits. And likely it's 1. so that questions didn't pop up about gauntlets taking up your free hand. And 2. an easy future proofing to make sure that if they made a weapon they wanted to work that way they can just slap that trait on it.

The main criticism at the time I wrote it was:

The CRB doesn't tell it needs Healers Tools - therefore it could be somatic. The errata does specify that this isn't the case.

My main issue with your long post is that it stills seems to be conflating "No free hand needed" into "Magiclly wave arms and thing happens." I can do a lot of things without "free" hands in real life while still using my hand and fingers. I'm not sure anyone, and I know I'm not, on the no free hands side is arguing that you don't use your hands. I've seen it strawmanned plenty of times though. No sure using lock picks with stuff in hand is recommended but it might be doable.

Much like you can gesture when pointing something out.

As long as it doesn't get stuck under the nebulous "gm interpretation" theme this edition has going I'm fine with any set ruling. It may be that the feat is only good if I'm gonna have a free hand(s) or it might be that anyone could make some use of it. But for the love of all pick one and give a ruling.

They could have just as easily forgotten it as a requirement, just like they forgot that Healer's Tools was a requirement, and it was errata'd in. I'd definitely like to see a surgeon work while his hands are occupied with a sword and shield, or a big axe occupying his hands that he would be using scalpels, snips, thread, etc. and successfully fixing up a patient. If you can post a video of someone doing that, I'll concede this and never bring it up ever again. I highly doubt one exists, though.

Sure i can look for that and while I do you find the video of a surgeon patching up the basic Damage from 2 crossbow bolts in roughly 2 seconds. Since Realism is so important I'm sure your gonna wanna change the time to use the feat to match real world doctors as well.

bugleyman wrote:

Treat wounds not only doesn't explicitly require a free hand, but it doesn't even specify that you have to be holding or using the healer's kit...merely that you "have" one.

Because it's a downtime activity and it doesn't matter.

As such, nobody on either side is referencing it as supporting material.

Quote:

Since a gesture certainly doesn't require a free hand, per the RAW a character can treat wounds without using his hands in any capacity whatsoever.

I like how you jumped from "doesn't require a free hand" to "does not require hands at all" which is absurd.

Not to mention the whole having a capable limb thing. I mean needing nothing in hand and having no hands are 2 completely different things.

Talonhawke wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

Yeah, I don't really want anything realistic from them either. I'd much rather they be like any other weapon, maybe with a couple unique traits.

Sadly the "you got firearms in my fantasy" crowd will still be upset about it and want to keep them still relegated to only one class being able to use them really and the world being unable to make use of them even though they have been around for close to a decade in world now.

I like them in the game world, and want them to be usable by everyone, but I want them to have sizable drawbacks.

I imagine a high damage (d12) weapon with 3 action reload time that is best used as an opening volley, and not continually in combat (unless you're a gunslinger). Probably some other traits on the weapon as well.

While I'm not saying that's a bad route my biggest complaint about 1E guns was that they were only really usable by certain classes/archetypes. On top of the stupid cost further pushing you into those set builds because gunsmithing. I don't necessarily want every one and their brother pulling out guns but I would like it to be something I could have a character use as weapon consistantly without having to be a gunslinger or take Gunslinger Dedication to do.

KrispyXIV wrote:

At what point would it be accepted that a free hand is not a requirement? Does it need to come out and say so explicitly, despite that not being the typical paradigm for 2e?

Yes, because being able to do complicated things like using Healer's Tools without a free hand (or two) is also not a typical paradigm for 2e.

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Battle Medicine doesn’t really have a lot of wiggle room in how you can rule it, and not make it an effectively dead feat, vs what a good portion of people consider OP.

I don't think people are saying it's OP in the conventional sense. Just that it would be unrealistic if it required zero hands.

I mean any more unrealistic than if say you needed a hand to use the tools but were still doing something that fixed that much damage in the span of a single action without magic? The feat is unrealistic from the get go that's not a problem. No matter how you rule it works/what it needs/hands its gonna be unrealistic.

And when it comes up that HP isn't actual wounds and since BM doesn't fix the wounded condition its not actually fixing damage then we are back to why do we need a kit/hands to boost morale or whatever fluff is being used.

I'll be honest much like with FAQ issues in 1E I worry that with each new book Errata/FAQs for the older ones will fall further and further down the line and get less likely to be answered other than Society clarifications.

I mean there are still several major outstanding questions from 1E I would love official answers on that likely will never get one.

Data Lore wrote:

Cool, so we've finally moved away from people thinking they could rub the pommel of their sword on an injured guy or spit from afar or something to heal someone with battle medicine.

This is also a world where some random guy with mundane chemistry kit can make vials of non magical liquid that can basically regrow you from near death to perfect health in a few drinks. The idea that battlefield medicine is using some lesser version of what alchemy does can't be that surprising or strange.

Exactly your talking spending 1 actions on the actual usage of the feat to recover someone HP. But the fact you do that in 2 seconds isn't breaking peoples realism its not needing hands or a medkit.

its a bad case of RAMVORD (Rules As My View of Realism/Reality Dictate)

How did people imagine battle medicine working without your hands free and a healer's kit?

For your reading pleasure.

Nope other than we can confirm tools needed now.

But that still means that a GM might look at that item and not be okay with it. Maybe they look at those new shields and compare them to the old ones and decide that since almost all the old shields with abilities have low H/HP then these have too much ans are Overpowered.

I don't know what Paizo should do about the W*ndigo. I, personally, would not have created Golarion with such close real-world parallels, because of minefields exactly like these. Try to include someone, and you immediately flirt with appropriation. Exclude them, and it's whitewashing (come on, nobody thinks anything of importance has happened south of the Mwangi Expanse?). This is just a lot easier if there's no 1:1 correlation with the real world.

The problem also hits of how many unique things can you really make without borrowing from somewhere? And once you do your again in hot water because you only took part of this cultures monster, god, magic, or peoples and left the rest behind.

As far as I know in Pathfinder very few of the deity depectied are real world if any. Some may be the same with, as you put it, the serial numbers filed off. So yeah we don't have clerics of Jesus and we don't have clerics of Thor, Zeus, Buddha, Mohammad, Tialoc, Legba, or Shiva. Then couple that with how the Christian God represents a one true god and thus would be unlikely to exist in this type of pantheon and it furthers the issue even with a store brand version. It doesn't mesh well with the story to have that type of all powerful being.

But we do have several things in game that have ties to European cultures and Abrahamic faiths if if simply due to being mentioned regarded against in them.

Right but if they pass the save even once it's over so it's good but one lucky roll even on a bad save at that level still means the effect has come to an end.

Talonhawke wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

I do not like the talisman patch idea, it's a lazy fix and a money tax no other class option would have to do. I actually like Loreguard's "death by massive damage rule" for shields. Gives them all a lot more staying power.

I'm really hoping the Bastion archetype offers something similar to the Shield Ally Champion. Give them a feat that lets them get an increase in Hardness and HP/BT, so they can open up more shield options for themselves. It might make it redundant for Champions wanting to pick up Bastion, but it'd immensely help Fighters, Druids, and Warpriests.

That's why I'm more in favor a rule that if it's above BT when it takes damage it becomes broken at 1hp if it takes enough be outright destroyed in a single hit.

Then they should review oricalcum material.

I agree but this could also be fixed by letting a shield be made of special materials instead of every specific shield be a unique thing. I mean again lets look at the numbers

Sturdy Shield LVL 16 GP 10,000 Hardness 17, HP 136, and BT 68. Made of Steel

Adamantine Shield LVL 16 GP 8,000 Hardness 13, HP 52, and BT 26. Adamantine shields are particularly sturdy but not as much as well built steel.

Oricalcum Shield LVL 17 GP 13,200 Hardness 16, HP 64, and BT 32. 1/day doesn't break.

And not a one of them can be anything special. I mean special materials are just a joke for shields. Hell the Greater Sturdy is just as competitive as blocking for a 1/2 or less the cost of either of those other options.

The worst part is that Sturdy is so linear in upgrades excpet a few levels that it could have possibly been meant to be a rune. For most levels its +2 Hardness +16 HP. It easily could have been the shield potency rune right there.

Haven't seen it in 2E yet but one of my favs to hate...
You have to be able to talk in real life to be the party face. You can't let your dice and a quick explanation of your lie do the work nope you have to craft the lie and roll but even if you roll high if your lie had a hole you didn'trealize you fail.

I think though we can agree that there needs to be a line between adequate blocking and consumable at level especially for the cost. I don't think the "utility" shields need to be blocking over and over again. But they shouldn't be gone forever if you block just to save 6ish hp. I think the argument wouldn't even exist if the shields broke in one block but were still repairable but as they are right now it's going to be a major corner case situation where sacrificing that much wealth per hp saved plus the loss of AC and other bonuses when raised comes up.

Don't know if it's been mentioned but i think an possible solution would be to health gate shields. Make it so that a shield thats above BT can be outright destroyed in a single hit, instead it breaks and stays at 1 hp or 10% total Hp. This would make it so your not blocking constantly with weaker shields but at least 1/combat (assuming you have repair time after) you can lessen those bigger blows coming at you.

No direct link but it's the section right above this one.

Claxon wrote:

krobrina wrote:

If you can keep passIng stealth checks at -20 you’re fighting something so far below your level that your wizard could probably just walk up to it and punch it. with their hands.

That's not true. In PF1 you could get unreasonably large bonuses to stealth for your level if you were trying. The -20 is certainly felt, but can be largely mitigated by enough bonuses and decent rolls.

Can I see an example of this?

Taking a random CR 1 orc warrior, it has a perception DC of 16. At -20 you need to be rolling 36. Assuming you roll a natural 15, you’d need 21 points of bonuses.

That's in 2E and I would have to look up sniping rules for it should they exist. This thread seems to be focused on the 1E rules and will likely move later.

But in 1E that same orc has a -1 assuming he is taking 10 on his watch he has a 9. A first level character would need to have a 30 to beat that and that is high at first level. But some races can make that a -10 in stead of -20 so now we just need a 20 those same races are small so +4 size, usually at least a +3 dex mod, +1 rank and +3 class skill bonus so a total of +11 only needing a 9 to beat the check.

Malk_Content wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Lycar wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

So to collect a few things -

Shield Block works fairly well if you know the damage before deciding whether to block. That at least lets you decide whether you want to block a blow that would break or destroy the shield. Circumstantial evidence points to this being the designer intent.

It may offend some peoples' sense of plausibility, but I think we've also been able to swallow other practical implausibilities. For example, a barbarian with 1 HP left hits just as hard as one that's still got 100. The 1HP one isn't collapsing from the pain or anything. Playing a "death spiral" wounding system wouldn't really be fun in Pathfinder, so we sacrifice some realism for a game that runs better.

Thank you! This should really answer the original question of this thread.

Also, nice summary.

That is, the shields will never break (except in cases of extreme extremity), they will only be useless to block when opponents start to appear that cause a minimum damage equal to hardness.

nope shields will break. They just wont be destroyed

I think you don't understand the irony behind.

None player will choose to broke the shield if they know the damage. Why someone will do this and loose the shield AC if they know that all attacks will broke the shield? It's much easier to heal themselves than repair a broken shield, specially during an encounter.

Because they haven't been blocking and healing them wasn't yet a priority and now major damage is incoming that would down them. Or a rider to an ability might be worth taking that damage to the shield and breaking it to keep the character from getting afflicted with something.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Eventually players are just going to realize that choosing to play the material I have prepared is more fun than "making me frantically improvise" when they decide to do something else.

Nah. Watching the GM frantically improvise is a huge part of the entertainment.

One of my favorite things is when I do something off the wall and the GM decides he needs to take a quick bathroom break. :)

I had to send the group for pizza once.

Can Thief Rogues add Dex to dmg when using monk wolf/tigger stances?

Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.

Nope its not a Finesse Weapon its an unarmed attack

I mean we already accept the fact that there is no issue from being outside the fire even though realistically someone on the exact edge would likely be burned at least a bit. And that some classes can be flying in the air with nothing around them and be at the epicenter of the fireball and take 0 damage from it somehow. But keep in mind that guy that takes up more space in your fireball is also filling more area of the fireball with their own body meaning that their are portions of them that are further from the heat than any point on a medium creatures body.

Just wait until you see El Luchacabra's stunning fullplate Pole dancing before he removes the front rows heads with mighty swing of his scarf.

By the way, according to the new Gamemastery Guide, I'm a "problematic player" because I did this.

Boy I can't wait to see what it says about me

Does it seem out of alignment with the rule that Battle Medicine should be allowed to remove the Wounded condition even within the midst of battle?

Use of this feat in our group has made the Wounded condition largely irrelevant.

I mean is there another feat or rule that allows that because battle medicine on its own won't remove the wounded condition.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

Let your allies loot the bodies while you wait in the other room, then split the loot.

Thankfully the anathema rules are loose enough to allow a gm to utterly shutdown rules lawyering of this sort.

There's a nearly 200 post thread with people arguing that you should be able to use Battle Medicine, with zero hands and no healer's tools, from across the battlefield, but letting the Barbarian, who already gimped himself by taking the weakest instinct, be given gear by his comrades is rules lawyering?

Look, teabagging a corpse is anathema. Taking gear, in a game which, in its purest form, is about killing things and taking their stuff, is not.

First off I don't think anyone is abdicating to break the rules on being adjacent in that thread, second that thread is about understanding how the rules work and what is needed to make that feat work, not taking a rule that says you can/can't do X and arguing against it.

As to the Anathema I agree that especially in a game where a lot of the parties items might come from long dead tombs or recently downed opponents it shouldn't be overly restrictive. But I agree that knowing the party is going to desecrate a tomb and simply going to look at the "rustic architecture" should be against it.

I like it, its the kind of feat that screams Golarion Goblin to me.

Megistone wrote:

I'll mess things up: what if the chair is a mimic?

Why else would you fireball a chair? Assume every chair is guilty of trying to eat you until proven innocent.

Well it was in first edition but the last session we played had a group of devils in a mess hall using the tables to keep our heavy hitter from having a charge lane. This lasted until my turn came around and I chain lightininged the devils, the tables and a few chairs for good measure. Charge lane clear for use, and bad guys hurt all in one go.

It might not be destroying the game, but with this edition being more deadly it could at least in PFS lead to deaths or survivals for different groups that can very much affect enjoyment. Imagine have a GM run it "requires tools and both hands" so who ever is healing needs at minimum all 3 actions in a round to use it and still have a weapon or shield in hand by the end of turn, or less if you needed to move. You die because it really wasn't tactical to do all that when the party is in a fight. Later your talking about how tough that fight is and someone ask if your group had good healing because battle medicine saved their buts since the alchemist was able to use it and still toss out a few bombs to finish off some targets. I know I would be a bit miffed at that especially if it set me back on gold/PP/ or whatever resource 2e PFS uses to bringing me back from the dead.

If you're trying to calculate the area of effect with a Cone or a Line while the dragon is moving, remember that a Flyby Attack is a Move-Attack-Move and 1 round is approximately 6 seconds.

So, how fast does your dragon move while flying in a given round? Calculate it based off that.

For example, a Very Old Red Dragon has a Fly speed of 250ft (Clumsy) and a 60ft Cone Breath attack. So if you're doing a Flyby Attack, you can move-attack-move only as long as you don't travel a total amount that is more than your movement speed. A standard action is approximately 4 seconds. 250/6 = 41.6, so every 1 second, the dragon will move 41.6ft. So if he performs a Breath Attack (standard action, 4 seconds) in the middle of his round, he'll travel 166.66ft while doing his breath attack. So his entire round will look something like this: he'll travel 41.6ft, then perform a breath attack while moving for 166.66 ft, and then travel 41.6ft, and his round is over. His breath attack is a 60ft cone, so if you draw that on a map, it's going to be a circle with a radius of 30ft that travels along the 166.66ft.

So it would look something like this:

[------------------][OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO][------------------] (60ft wide)
.......41ft...............................................................1 66ft...............................................................41ft

No no no not at all, that breath weapon happens at the spot he uses it not along a portion of his distance. It's one 60ft cone if he is at max distance from the ground then its a circle of 60ft on the ground where he aimed it. But it doesn't sweep or strafe any more than if the dragon wanted to move his head while breathing it out.

Just to be clear,

I am fine with APs having ways to make options available within the campaign, although I don't think it necessarily needs to make all options available at character creation.

I do think that the toolbox format is a little sparse on talking about just how common options are supposed to be within those APs which is an unfortunate limitation of the rarity system itself not having the nuance for talking about why an option is limited to uncommon. I don't think the solution is to have a default (all uncommon options listed in this book are common in this AP) because it takes away the GM's ability to make finding or integrating these items a part of the story. I would like to see something in the GMG or even a blog post talking about the nuances of how to use these items and introduce them.

I am strongly opposed to having common feats that make all uncommon weapons and options from the AP tool kits available to PCs, because I think the GM should be aware of what material they are allowing into their campaigns. That is what the rarity system is set up to do, and encouraging conversations between players and GMs about the kinds of characters they want to play is a good thing.

I don't think anyone is saying carte blanche it, but yes if your going to add new stuff every single book (and they will it drives sales) then give some advice on adding it/making it availble. Right now a newer GM has no clue if a Polytool or a Bladed hoop is just hard to find or potentially disruptive and without advice on that most will default to keeping it limited to keep things safe.

Talonhawke wrote:

Again if talking about the theme of the campaign I agree the GM has that decision, but if the GM is going to run the Circus AP but not want Circus uncommon feats, weapons, and spells maybe they shouldn't run that campaign.

Again the telling the GM what to do.

Maybe you should try GMing yourself.

First off I do, the current campaign I am playing in is the first in almost 4 years i haven't been the GM for.

Second maybe I'm an odd duck in how I view the role of the GM. But yes I'm am telling any GM that doesn't want clowns and jugglers in their game that this isn't the AP you want to run. Just like I would tell a GM that doesn't want a party of pirates not to run skulls and shackles.

And I'm sorry that I feel that a GM shouldn't be telling players that options for accessing uncommon things in the CRB are banned. At that point we are back to playing mother may I with the GM just to play the game. Sir can I take fighter as my class? Please can my cleric request heal from his god today? Sir are longswords okay as a weapon choice?

Yes i picked ridiculus examples because they follow the same vein as saying a Dwarven Waraxe can't be found and used by a dwarf from a dwarven kingdom.

Striking Runes and other effects only effect the bludgeoning damage not the Fire damage.

graystone wrote:

Zapp wrote:

graystone wrote:

...

You can discuss this all you want, Graystone, it doesn't change the fact PF2 works in a way you clearly dislike: where the game gives the authority to the GM.

I don't like the amount of Dm fiat instead of rules, no. This, however, isn't that. Plenty of actual existing rules grant access to uncommon items: look at any focus spell. I'm asking that an existing rules framework be used as intended.

Zapp wrote:

You're looking for a feat (or another ability) with which you can *tell* the GM you are allowed to use circus weapons regardless of what the GM wants or needs for his campaign.

No, I'm asking that the DM be told how the game expects players to access them: the Dm has the right to allow or disallow whatever they want but if they say 'anything allowed in the rules', with access granted already, it's one less 'DM fiat' question I have to cover before we start. It just speeds things along for BOTH player and DM [at least where I play].

Zapp wrote:

We have told you: "you won't find it". There simply is no rules language in The Show Must Go On that replaces a GM saying "yes".

Yet there ARE places where access to weapons IS granted: You are making it sound like I'm talking about a totally foreign concept. It's NOT.

I understand the concept. It is not foreign. It is also not nearly as ubiquitous in PF2 as in PF1.

Say what you want, the bottom line is this:

The GM *is* told how the game expects player access. That message is: "we leave it in your capable hands".

The kicker is there's no rule in the book the player can point to "it says here I get the weapons" that the GM has to say actively no to.

This is a difference to PF1. Some might call it subtle and small, others call it major and a huge relief. It is clearly a seismic change for you.

Good luck with your gaming

You’ve familiarized yourself with a particular weapon, potentially from another ancestry or culture. Choose an uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc) or that is common in another culture. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a simple weapon.

If you are trained in all martial weapons, you can choose an uncommon advanced weapon with such a trait. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a martial weapon.

Seems to me that clearly says I get access to the weapon chosen. So the GM does actively have to say no you can't take a feat from the core rulebook in this case.

I guess the best way to say it is this.

Situations should require decision making, places where the rule don't yet reach, the rules that interact in odd ways or when someone goes in a direction the book didn't cover.

Individual rules shouldn't be written needing adjudication, that just leads to creating very different experiences. Just one rule with 2 different rulings means that going into a situation with a new GM you don't know what that ruling is. So for one rule not to bad, but when their are dozens if not more things written from the GM's choice side of things then each new GM whether through PFS or having a new group, is a whole new rule book of possible rulings to navigate.

Because you know what no one wants when they say they want that call making that video games don't have? They aren't saying I wish the game would decide that Dwarven weapons aren't for sale in most cities, or I wish the game lock out certain options on different playthroughs. They are saying man I wish I could talk my way past those guards, or man wouldn't it be cool if I could light the bandits tents on fire with a flaming arrow.