Tectorman's page

So do we know what they'll be doing regarding spontaneous spellcasters in the upcoming edition?

In Starfinder 1E (and P1E, 3rd, 3.5, and 5E), a spontaneous spellcaster can cast any spell he knows, as long as he has a spell slot of at least that spell's level. Usually this would mean, say, a first-level spell slot spent for a first-level spell, but even if, for whatever reason, he were out of first-level spell slots but still had higher level slots available, he could use those slots to power his lower level spell. It might be slightly inefficient, but oh well, no big deal.

But in P2E, a spontaneous spellcaster in that same situation (needs to use a low-level (or I guess, low-rank) spell, knows said spell (but not as a signature spell), doesn't have spell slots of that spell's rank but does have higher rank slots available) is just SoL.

So what do we think will be happening to spontaneous spellcasters in Starfinder 2E? Do they become less spontaneous too? Do they keep the freedom to power spells with any spell slot of at least that spell's rank (and Starfinder will just be incompatible with P2E in that specific regard)? Or is this a non-issue because the Remaster gave spontaneous spellcasters the freedom to power their spells with whatever slots met the minimum criteria that they used to enjoy?

I've skimmed Secrets of Magic, but I haven't had the chance to read through it in-depth. Did this book include a clear, unambiguous answer as to whether you can use a higher-level spell slot for a lower-level spell when you're casting spontaneously? And I don't mean heightening spells or signature spells; I'm talking about being in the situation where you need to use a low-level spell (say, 1st-level Feather Fall) that you DON'T know as a signature spell and you are (for whatever reason) out of 1st-level slots and you still have plenty of higher level slots.

This is entirely from a feel/perception viewpoint, so math and balance aren't really the point. This is also my rambling musings; I don't have a particular thing I'm pushing for here.

The P1E Summoner felt like the main character of his own story. By which, I mean the Summoner character himself felt like the central axis for all he did. He had a main buddy he summoned (the Eidolon), but he was also the gateway for other things to come into the world, both other monsters through his Summon Monster 1-9 and Gate SLA class features as well as his spells. And while he could summon more stuff with his spells or use them to buff/heal/etc. his Eidolon, he also had general spellcasting utility, both in spells available and total spells per day.

The P2E Summoner, on the other hand, feels like you're going through the motions of making your Summoner character, only to get to the Eidolon part which is the real part of the class. You have up to four total spells with which you can summon non-Eidolon creatures. And those same up to four total spells also have to fuel the general spellcasting utility the P1E casually had. You're also sharing hp and actions. With so little breakout from the main star of the class, the Eidolon, I wonder if this version wouldn't have been better served just calling itself the Eidolon class.

To put it another way, the P1E felt like a Pokemon trainer, someone who had a main monster, other side monsters, and things he did himself to further the adventure. The P2E currently feels like Yugi from Yugioh Abridged, with the Eidolon being Yami saying "Why the hell was I not on-screen for five whole seconds?" Yugi alleges he's the main character, and we all know otherwise.

If anything, I wonder what the Summoner dedication is going to be like. With 90% of the main class being all about the Eidolon, some version of it will be what leaks through the multiclass feats. So will the hypothetical Sorcerer with Summoner dedication feats be how the P1E Summoner truly reappears in P2E?

In P1E, a Rogue started out proficient in certain weapons and not others, but all it took was a weapon proficiency feat to have a primarily "skillsy" character who could branch outside of the stock, expected rogue weapons (spiked chains, maces, warhammers, greatswords, halberds, whatever-your-creative-self-conceives-of). Despite my efforts, the P2E Rogue is the "skillsy" class that somehow and from out of left field also only gets to use his class features with a hyper-specific set of weapons. Even using something like the Fighter dedication feats doesn't fix this because you still have class features you can't trade away that only work with weapons that you have what is somehow the unmitigated gall to not use.

Fine. What's done is done. Onto the Rogue 2.0 (called the Investigator). Maybe we can express "character with lots of skills that isn't hyper limited in his weapon choice just due to being so skillsy".

Except no. Once again, "Oh, you want your character to be skillsy? Obviously, that means you want him to use a dagger or a rapier. You didn't say a word to indicate it; I can just make that prediction, anyway" rears its ugly head. Why? Why does "being skillsy" get conflated with "so of course I don't want to be using a polearm"?

As the title. If you roll for a success and achieve a critical success, can you (for whatever reason) settle for merely the success result? For example, the Resurrection ritual permanently changes a resurrected being (behavior or appearance) on a critical success, but not on a regular success. Must the resurrector impose such a change on his target, or can he temper how well he does?

The Dimension Door's heightened effect states you become temporarily immune for an hour. Taking this to mean that a caster cannot cast two heightened Dimension Door spells back to back, does this mean ALL Dimension Door spells, or just another heightened version? I.e., can I cast a heightened Dimension Door and then a regular Dimension Door within the hour of immunity?

Hazards by default have Fortitude and Reflex saves and not Will saves (haunts being the main exception to that last bit, though when I was looking in the Bestiary, the one haunt listed didn't actually have a Will save). And that makes sense in general: Hazards with moving parts can be thought of to be "dodging" (even if in an unintentional or programmed fashion), and Hazards involving at least something physical would need to save to see if that physical part could endure whatever Fortitude save effect might be thrown at it.

But there were some that just don't make sense. For example, the Hidden Pit has a Reflex save of +1. Why? How is it dodging? What part of this void in the earth got out of the way when the Wizard cast Fireball? More to the point, what does it even mean if the Hidden Pit fails to dodge? Ditto the Bottomless Pit, and compare that to a Planar Rift, something that doesn't have a Reflex or Fortitude save because of course it shouldn't, it's a hole between dimensions.

To paraphrase Tim Allen in GalaxyQuest, "It's empty space! It doesn't have any vulnerable spots!"

So just in case this got glossed over, I just want to throw out this reminder that the traps and hazards still need to make sense.

The first question is exactly as the title: why do Druids have "wearing metal armor" as an anathema?

It can't be because of some kind of concern about mining metal being environmentally unfriendly. They don't have a problem using metal weapons and that metal also comes from mining. It's not like the metal or the Druid knows how it was mined. "I came from a forest-safe mine, so I can be forged into a weapon (and so be used by a Druid), but the gods preserve you if you try to turn me into armor instead." What happens if all those weapons forged from metal mined in an environmentally friendly way get smelted down into armor instead?

It can't be because of some kind of metal-derived-interference between the natural environment and the Druid, either. Because he is only prohibited from metal armor. Give him a metal helmet. Metal boots, metal gauntlets, a metal belt, none of it makes a difference or somehow blocks the "nature signals" the Druid is using to cast his spells. Heck, the only reason a Druid can't wear a metal cloak is the same reason a Fighter can't: to my knowledge, there isn't one. As long as it's not providing an AC bonus, a Druid can dec himself out in the metaliest metal that ever did metal.

So what is the in-universe explanation?

Secondly, does it even matter? The game specifies that shields come in "wooden" and "steel". It also goes on list some special materials (adamantine, mithral, darkwood, etc.) and whether they are metal or not. The game does not, however, spell out what the basic armors are made out of. So for all I know, plate armor is made out of either metal or the alchemically treated shells of, say, giant crabs (if Golarion has Druids and Alchemists, Golarion will eventually have an order of Druids commissioning a cabal of Alchemists to help them get better armor). And for all I know, studded leather is leather studded with rocks, crystals, and/or hard wooden knobs.

To my knowledge, in a previous edition, there was apparently some kind of game-breaking combination with the Haste spell and Dimension Door. At the time, this problem, however it manifested, was dealt with by introducing a clause in Dimension Door making the caster disoriented until his next turn started. Editions changed, and apparently this game-breaker combo didn't manifest in the new edition. Dimension Door's "no further actions because disorienting" clause, however, did.

I always hated that clause. First of all, it's singularly unique to Dimension Door. Any other teleportation spell simply takes whatever action or actions the casting requires and whatever actions you have left, you get to use. Why was DD the only spell that HAD to have a disorientation effect? And why did that spell have to be the one referenced for not-spell teleport-like abilities (the 3.5 Warlock's Flee the Scene invocation or the Monk's Abundant Step, for example)?

Even worse, this spell served to point glaringly at the artifact of the turn structure, by dint of how fickle its disorientation actually was. For example, let's suppose a caster with DD is casting the spell and walking to traverse a long distance (never mind for a moment why he's in this scenario or why he's resolving it in this fashion). If he moved first and then cast DD, and did the same thing in the same order the next turn, then his end result would be twice his movement plus twice his DD distance. He would have been disoriented twice, but since he cast DD at the end of his turn both turns, it never interfered with his turns' worth of actions. He can plausibly be said to have not been particularly inconvenienced by DD's disorienting.

On the other hand, had he tried to DD first and then moved, and then DDed and moved again on his second turn, DD's disorienting effect would not only be taking away his actions after his turn, but also his moves during his turn. He only traverses twice DD's distance (instead of that plus twice his movement), and all because he wanted to do the same thing but in a different order. For some reason, his castings of DD serve to be more disorienting this time around.

And for the record, Ultimate Combat's Dimensional Agility was not a satisfactory fix.

So I wanted to make sure to say "thank you" for finally getting rid of that nonsense. P2E's DD now only takes the actions it takes to cast. Do it at the beginning of your turn or the end; it doesn't matter. No longer does it point out how you're a character in a game with a turn structure.

3.P's limitation on HD for both Sleep and Deep Slumber made for very conceptually odd spells. They aren't resisted by a game mechanic with an identifiable in-universe analogue like a Will save representing your force of will. Instead, they operate on hit dice. What are hit dice? What is a character in-universe perceiving when the spell fails due to that limit? Those spells, more than any others, made me feel like Spoony ranting about FFXIII.

So thank you, Paizo, for 1) making Sleep operate off of a mechanic with a recognizable in-universe element and 2) letting its usefulness as a tactic not run into an arbitrary end just because your opponents are at or above a certain level.

As early as the first update, the developers made sure to point out that spells were supposed to have manifestations (specifically, visual ones).

First of all, bravo for remembering this. Having it be an intended part of the game from the get-go is leagues better than the clunky "oh-it-was-totally-there-the-whole-time" implementation of mid-P1E.

But, it's not enough. We need to know a whole lot more specifics about this. Firstly, the Barbarian feat Spell Sunder (page 60) makes AFAIK the first mention in the book of spell manifestations (the example in the text is the wall created by a Wall of Fire). The update, however, suggests that "manifestations" is not supposed to be in reference to the observable end-result of a spell, but rather an observable quality of the act of casting the spell. So which is it? This seems like it needs to be cleaned up.

Secondly, let's talk about the manifestations themselves. We know they're supposed to be visual. The artwork typically conveys this as a glowy circle of eldritch script around the caster's wiggling fingers. But how big? Does being invisible mask it (completely, partly, or at all)? Is this "spells", "spells and spell powers", "anything magical, including items", or what?

How bright? Though before we get to there, and despite the artwork, we actually have to nail down whether these things even emit light or not. On page 194, under Spell Traits, we're told "the effect of the Light spell has the light trait, but providing a Somatic or Material Casting action while casting it isn't a light effect". Which would seem to indicate that they don't; the result of casting a Light spell glows, but the act of casting does not glow. So which is it?

Scrolls and wands both have a limit on the spell rolls and spell DCs that can be associated with them, depending on the level of the spell within.

This limit exists in all cases, but doesn't always apply. Scrolls and wands with spells that make attack rolls or that call for saving throws eventually reach a point where the target being subjected to the spell might as well be unassailable. However, if the spell happens to describe an effect that isn't resolved through either spell rolls or save DCs, it retains its usefulness (or at least, doesn't have its usefulness artificially taken away by the game math) no matter when in the character's career it's used. So while the designers may want players to use high-level equipment over low-level equipment, it's clearly only being sporadically applied, and in an IMO contrived fashion.

Add to that that lower level spells used at higher levels are often putting out damage that's not worth the action economy anyway, and I have to ask if this isn't insult to injury. I.e., if you want higher-level (and also more expensive) offensive consumable items to be used above lower-level consumables, you've already accomplished this by having a Scroll of 7th-level Burning Hands do more damage for how long it takes to use versus how much damage a Scroll of 1st-level Burning Hands does; you didn't need to go the extra step of guaranteeing that appropriate-level enemies can save or not be hit by it, as well. (Not to mention that for wands, continued use of a wand, even a lower-level wand, in a given day is competing for everything else you could spend Focus on, at least as of the Resonance update.)

Two problems with, I think, easy-to-implement solutions.

First, "trinkets while unarmed".

Trinkets are nifty little one-use magic items attached to either your weapons or your armor. You attach them ahead of time, and then use them for whatever effect they grant. They thematically fit for a Monk. Monks usually eschew equipment, preferring to rely on their own talents, but a one-time use item that they have to be patient and judicious to use to its best effect? Right up their alley. Which is not to say that Monks with constant-use magic items aren't thematic, just that trinkets definitely are.

And Monks are even allowed to benefit from armor-trinkets, through the use of Bracers of Armor, which are specifically called out as able to be treated as light armor for the purpose.

So what's the problem?

"So is everyone ready for the upcoming battle?"
"Yes!"
"Ready!"
"Weapons sharpened? Trinkets affixed?"
"Took care of it ahead of time."
"And Mr. Monk, you've got your trinkets on your dagger?"
"Yep."
"The not-magic dagger you haven't used as a weapon in hundreds of battles?"
"Yep."
"The dagger you only carry for the express purpose of being able to use trinkets, while exclusively punching and kicking?"
"You seem to be driving at something..."

Except for weapon-affixed trinkets that specifically operate based on what the weapon they're affixed to does, it technically works, but it's contrived and unthematic as hell.

Solution: Let Handwraps of Mighty Fists be able to be affixed with weapon-affixed trinkets, the same as Bracers of Armor. And if necessary, specify that they can only be affixed with trinkets that work on melee, brawling, light bulk weapons (the same criterion as what determines which property runes the handwraps can have).

"But how do you use a repair kit to affix a trinkets onto a strip of cloth?" I hear some people ask. "The same way you etch a rune onto that same cloth," I'd say.

Second, "armor property runes".

As mentioned above, Handwraps of Mighty Fists can have weapon property runes (as though they're melee, brawling, and light bulk), letting a Monk character enjoy the diversity of weapon enhancements available to other martial combatants even if they decide to operate unarmed.

But unfortunately, Bracers of Armor do not allow armor property runes to be used on them. Those properties, like magic weapon properties, are magic effects both fun and useful to front line martial combatants, which a Monk is, even if he's using otherwise going unarmored.

In particular, I've always been disappointed that Glamored was always something that could only be applied to armor. It provides a certain freedom of aesthetic expression*, letting your character go through a dungeon wearing something besides bog-standard armor.

*

Solution: Allow Bracers of Armor be able to have armor property runes etched onto them. Specifically, allow one once the potency bonus is +2, two property runes once the potency bonus is +4, and a third at +5 (to match how many regular armors are allowed to have). And if need be, specify that Bracers of Armor only count as light armor for the purposes of property runes, the same way they count as light armor for trinkets.

1. This isn't particularly necessary for any spell list besides the Arcane spell list (and even then, only for the Wizard rather than the Sorcerer), but for the Wizard's sake, could we have the Arcane spell list tell which school each spell belongs to? It would be as helpful here as divvying the spells by school was on the Sorc/Wiz spell list in P1E. And it wouldn't even need to be that delineated; just put an ABJ or a DIV or an ENC in superscript next to each spell name, the same as the H for Heightenable or the U or R for uncommon or rare spells.

2. There are a significant number of spell powers and a significant number of classes they could come from, and it isn't particularly obvious where one should look. For example, the Agile Feet spell power boosts your mobility. But where does it come from? Is it a Monk or a Ranger spell power? Sorcerer or Barbarian? Is it a spell power granted by a magic item? Turns out it's a Cleric Domain power, and that never would have been my first guess. So can we put additional powers lists for the classes after the spell lists, so that players can see a power and not have to tear the book apart trying to figure out where it comes from?

Back in 3.5, staves and wands were those odd magic items that you couldn't really have as an integral part of your image for your character because they would eventually and permanently run out of charges. And sure, you can just buy another just like it, but that was never the point. If I'm going to have a magic staff or a magic wand, I believe I have a decent expectation based on the genre that THAT specific staff or wand should last the same as a martial's magic weapon or armor.

3.5 did fix half the issue with the introduction of the Eternal Wand in Eberron. Only two uses per day, but useful for as many days as you like. Much more fitting to the concept.

Then P1E comes out and, while wands are still those things that eventually become useless sticks, staves finally get to match the concept. Once you have a magic staff, it's for keeps. You may exhaust it in a day, but it won't have to stay exhausted.

And in P2E, staves still get to last you your adventuring career. You get to have your magic staff be an integral part of your character's identity.

But not wands. Do you imagine your character having a signature wand just like her buddy and his signature staff? Too bad. You get ten charges and then a big toothpick.

And even the latest update still insists that wands must be those things that eventually become useless sticks.

Why? Why must they? And yes, I'm aware of the Spell Duelist's Wand. In truth, it quite fits the concept, in a similar fashion as the Eternal Wands from 3.5 Eberron. The issue is, you can make a wand for any spell, but there isn't really a template for making a Spell Duelist's Wand for anything besides Acid Arrow, Enervation, Disintegrate, or Polar Ray.

So this is that request: can we have, in addition to exhaustible wands, sustainable wands (well, more than just the four existing Spell Duelist's Wands) that can finally last as long as our characters and better fit the likely inspirations that go into having a wand in the first place?

There were two major parts of the rules that didn't, by themselves, explain themselves well to me. The first was the section on using Craft or Lore or Perform to make a living during downtime. This was mitigated by the helpful examples, explaining what I'm rolling, what numbers I'm using, what I'm rolling against, how much time is represented, etc.

The other was Counteracting Conditions. Which had no helpful examples.

So is there any way we can put in an example or two for what this all means? What am I adding to my roll, and what am I rolling against? I mean, I'm sure that I could suss it out eventually, just like I probably could have eventually (maybe) figured out the downtime earnings for skills. And maybe this is already on the list of rules where the language needs to be cleared up, anyway. But if it isn't yet, then this is me asking for an example or two in the final product.

Reading the book front to back, naturally, I found the skills chapter that outlines how various skills (mostly Athletics, some Acrobatics and Deception) cover what P1E handled as combat manuevers. By the time I had gotten to the Basic Actions part of the Playing the Game chapter, I knew it was possible to Shove creatures in this game, but I must have tore through that chapter several times before I'd remembered that those actions had already been covered almost half a book ago.

The Basic Actions details things every character can try to do and how those actions translate on a mechanical level. I don't think the rules for things like shoving, disarming, and feinting need to be rewritten here, but this is still an intuitively logical place for players to go to learn how those sorts of actions work in this game.

Maybe this has come up before or been asked before, but can we have some kind of a redirect in this chapter so players can more easily find/remember where those combat-manuever-sort of actions are? Page 307 doesn't re-detail how casting a spell or using magic items works, but it does at least recognize that players may look for that sort of information here, and tells them to go elsewhere instead (pages 195-196 and 376, respectively). Adding in a blurb for skills in combat such as shoving and feinting wouldn't go amiss.

As per the rules for rituals, your secondary casters make their secondary skill checks before the primary skill check. Failure penalizes the primary skill check.

Are these secondary skill checks supposed to be Secret, so the players don't know something went wrong until they're making the final primary skill check? Otherwise, why go through with a ritual with a penalty when you can restart and avoid the penalty (as many times as is necessary)? Are these skill checks (both the secondary checks and the primary check) not supposed to be done until after the full investment of casting time, such that that serves as the potential limiting factor against "try until guaranteed success on secondary checks"?

When I'm picking Rogue as a class for one of my characters, the goal is never because the concept requires my choice of weapons to be limited; if anything, it's the opposite. I'm after being the skills guy or especially sneaky, or acrobatic and nimble, or because the character, regardless of what weapon they're using, fights in an ill-defined though still recognizably Rogue-y sort of way. Whether they're using a dagger or rapier or whip or greatsword or glaive or warhammer.

So when Starfinder and D&D 4E and 5E made the Operative and Rogue classes stuck with a hyper-specific list of weapons from which you MAY NOT DEVIATE, I wasn't happy. My first ever Rogue was in 3.5, where she started with a shortsword, learned she was going into a skeleton-heavy area, bought a light mace instead, and continued without the slightest functional hiccup (nor any expectation of such a hiccup had I picked any other weapon). I couldn't reproduce that when I remade her for 5E; the closest I could get was using a sling and hoping to be at range.

So the P2E Rogue being artificially herded into using agile, finesse, or ranged weapons is worrisome to me. That said, I get that Sneak Attack is pretty much exclusively a damage fix, a means to let a Rogue using a finesse or agile weapon match another character using a weapon with a larger damage die. None of the other Rogue feats or features seem to require Sneak Attack to work, Debilitating Strikes are independent, etc. This is somewhat relieving.

On the other hand, Footpad's Focus calls out a specific list of weapons you can get this feat's benefit on. And while I get that that might be a form of niche protection for the Fighter, it still represents a trend I'm uncomfortable with. Picking the Rogue class is not giving up hammers, polearms, flails, or anything not agile or finesse, and I'm really hoping that what I'm currently seeing in the playtest for the Rogue represents the furthest that mindset goes, for the entire edition.

...

Also, Footpad's Focus uses the term "light" and I'm thinking it should be "finesse" (because otherwise, it would be talking about bulk, and I don't think that's meant to be the criterion).

The Dream Council spell states that all targets of the spell either immediately fall asleep or don't participate in the Dream Council. How long is that grace period supposed to be? I agree that a participant who got caught in the middle of a battle should forgo sleeping and have to pass on that particular Dream Council, but what if they're traveling on horseback? Do they have enough time to call for a stop and dismount? Is their participation supposed to be dependent on an admittedly hilarious sudden fall off of their horse?

The casting time for the spell is 10 minutes. Does anyone else think that that 10 minute period should be the time in between a participant finding out they've been Sleep-Skyped and arranging to be able to actually participate?

Angelic and Demonic Sorcerers can cast Spiritual Weapon without having a deity. What does their Spiritual Weapon look like?

Edit: For that matter, what would such a Sorcerer's Spiritual Guardians be holding?

The Detect Alignment spell text tells us that "only divine spellcasters, undead, and beings from the Outer Sphere have an alignment aura if they are 6th level or higher". Therefore, divine spellcasters, undead, and Outer Plane creatures of 5th level or lower don't have an alignment aura. The table for Detect Alignment on the same page, however, tells us that "clerics and other divine spellcasters with a patron deity are treated as 5 levels higher, as are undead and creatures from the Outrr Planes". With the exception of 0-level undead such as skeletons and zombies, every single such creature's minimum level is 1, therefore they are treated as a minimum of 6.

So, I can only see two things to conclude from this. Either, the text and the table do not contradict each other and they are written the way they are to account for the corner cases of skeletons, zombies, and divine spellcasters that DON'T have a patron deity (Monks that use divine spell powers and demonic or angelic Sorcerers). Which seems like an odd distinction to make in such an obscure manner. Or, the text and table are telling us different things.

Which is it?

Shapechange lets you turn into anything you could turn into using a different polymorph spell you know. It's on the Primal spell list, so this is something Druids can use.

But how? They don't know spells. They prepare spells. Is the cutoff line, then, supposed to be "a different polymorph spell you prepared" (meaning a Druid that has prepared Shapechange but has neither prepared any other polymorph spells nor taken Wild Shape or other Wild-Shape-derived class feats can't actually use Shapechange)? Is it just "every common polymorph on the Primal list"?

As the title. It's a 1st-level spell, but which spell list? Probably Arcane or Occult, but it should say.

The Ring of Wizardry allows you to prepare or cast three arcane spells. It also has the addendum that only two can be the same level. The lesser variety has a maximum spell limit of 1st level. You can't deviate up, and since there are no 0-level spells (cantrips count as the highest spell level you can cast), you can't deviate down, either.

So is the lesser Ring of Wizardry supposed to effectively only allow you two additional prepared or cast spells, or is this an oversight?

Did anyone else find the description of how investing staves works to be unintuitive?

For example, what is the line "If the two staves don't have that many charges between them, you fail to invest the new staff" supposed to accomplish? The previous line tells us we can divvy up the charges however we want. Presumably, that would include "take all of one staff's charges and put them in another". Or "only move one charge". Or any gradation between the two. Is the line just a convoluted way of saying "you don't get to manufacture charges out of thin air", that if you start with five charges you should end with five charges? It seems like this is trying to proof against some potential misinterpretation, but for me, it only seems to be adding its own.

Actually, I'm not even sure the bolded is how it's supposed to work. The language for expending charges to transfer spell energy almost seems like you're supposed to lose charges (due to the taxing nature of the process, which sounds like it's supposed to be inefficient) just to gain the ability to transfer your remaining other charges between the staves.

I.e., if my highest spell slot is 5th level, and I spent several individual days investing three staves one per day (so that they have charges even after I'm no longer invested in them, since they stay in the staff indefinitely until used), then I have a total of fifteen charges floating around. Let's say I use all five charges from one staff but I anticipate I still need that staff rather than the others. Am I losing another five charges just to gain the ability to put my last five charges in the first staff?

It doesn't seem like that's supposed to be the way it works, but I only suspect that. I don't feel I can really point to anything in the rules for staves to say "No, that's definitely not how staves work". I think this section could stand an example the same way using Lore, Crafting, or Performance to earn a living got examples to illustrate how they worked in practice.

Another example: "the first staff you invest in a day neither gains nor loses charges". So if I only have one staff, that staff will only ever be the first staff I invest in on any given day (until such time as I buy or loot another one). How, then, do I ever gain any use out of the thing beyond the minor benefit (like a Staff of Fire setting things aflame)? My staves can't gain charges until after I've invested one already.

The Bullheaded Mutagen has amongst its drawbacks a loss of RP. What exactly does "lose" mean in this scenario?

Are those RP "tapped out" and unavailable while the drawback is in effect, only to return once the mutagen wears off? I.e., using a Lesser Bullheaded Mutagen temporarily drops my RP by 1, but if I use 3 LBMs over the course of a day, I didn't lose 3 RP.

Are they lost and never to come back that day, just as surely as if you had spent them for anything else? I.e., does using three Lesser Bullheaded Mutagens lose me 3 RP?

The Drained condition's use of the word "lose" suggests the latter, in that recovering from drained raises your maximum hp total back towards normal, but your hp have to be recovered independently. However, that seems so excessively punitive and out of proportion with how the drawbacks of other mutagens work (to a one, every other mutagen's drawbacks take place then and don't affect the rest of your day) that the former seems like it's supposed to be the correct conclusion.

According to page 194, there are some types of magic, mostly associated with magic items, that don't belong to one of the four main traditions of magic. Arcana is tied to Arcane spells, Nature for Primal, Occultism for Occult, and Religion for Divine, but what skill corresponds to "none of the above"?

The text for the Alarm spell says that creatures aware of the spell can avoid triggering the spell with a successful Stealth check. But are creatures supposed to generally be able to be aware that there is an Alarm spell? Obviously, if they witness the spell being cast, they're aware of it. And after the spell has been cast but while it's still in effect, a creature using Detect Magic can become aware of it that way. And granted, using Detect Magic is considered such a common exploratory tactic that it has its own entry.

But are those two circumstances (saw the spell being cast or Detect Magicked it after) the only two circumstances where a creature can be aware of an Alarm spell or is it supposed to have some perceivable element beyond those two circumstances?

How exactly does conventional multiple weapon fighting work now? No, not talking about the specific class feats that Fighters or Rangers may have for two-weapon fighting. I'm just talking about a character just straight-up attacking with more than one weapon in a turn. Is he even allowed to, or do we have to have one of those feats? Is it allowed, but practically pointless (attacking with one longsword is "normal, -5, -10"; attacking with two longswords is "right hand normal, left hand -5, right hand -10") however aesthetically fitting?

What happens with Agile? If I have a longsword and a shortsword and I alternate between the two, would it be "normal, -4, -10" or "normal, -5, -8"?

The encumbered condition, as per page 321, applies a -2 check penalty if you're unarmored. Alternatively, it increases an armor's existing check penalty by 2. If I'm wearing leather or padded armor, I'm neither unarmored nor do I have a check penalty to increase.

If that wasn't intentional, then the phrasing should be tweaked.

At first level, classes are either trained in Perception or they have expert proficiency. At lot of the choices seem reasonable; Rogues, Rangers, Barbarians, and Fighters would be expert, while Alchemists, Clerics, Wizards, and Sorcerers wouldn't be.

But there are a few choices that I don't quite get. Druids are those blessed by nature, all about the outdoors, and thematically just as likely to spend their time out of a city as would a Barbarian or a Ranger; heck, I would posit that any reason one can apply for a Barbarian or Ranger being experts would have to apply to the Druid, too.

Meanwhile, the Monk's own fluff tells us he's especially perceptive during social encounters and in exploration mode, is "suited to looking for danger". We're talking about the class for the character concept of the guy who, cinematically speaking, can catch arrows blindfolded because he's trained his entire body for physical perfection, including all of his senses. And he's only trained.

Meanwhile, the Bard gets expert. Which isn't a knock against the Bard; he's the jack-of-all-trades and has a plausible claim to being an expert. But however much of a claim he may have, surely the Druid and Monk have more of a claim, yes? What was the rationale here?

At 20th level of Alchemist, one of the class feats you can take is Craft Philosopher's Stone, which gives you the formula for the aforementioned stone, an uncommon formula. One of the things the stone can be used to do is create an Elixir of Rejuvenation, which is also an uncommon formula.

But does my knowing the formula for the Philosopher's Stone automatically grant me the formula for the Elixir of Rejuvenation, as well? Or do I have to find it separately?

The primary gist of the Magical Shorthand feat seems to be improving how quickly you can learn a spell and making a failure easier to deal with.

Seemingly tucked away, however, in the Special section is permission to take the feat multiple times (the only limit being whether you're an expert in a magic tradition's associated skill) for multiple magic traditions. Also, there's no actual requirement that the first time you take the feat be to improve your ability to learn spells within your own class's magic tradition.

The general rules for learning spells are in each magic tradition's skill, stating that they only work for spells in your class's own tradition.

It seems to be implied that Magical Shorthand lets you learn from other spell lists (indeed, for the Special section to have any meaning, that has to be the intended conclusion), but this seems like it needs an outright confirmation. Can I, in fact, use Magical Shorthand to learn, say, the Heal spell if I'm a Wizard? And does this, as per page 194, qualify as a case where I'm adding the Arcane trait to the spell, even if I learned it off of the Primal list (i.e., I learned it from the Primal list by being an expert in Nature, but once I did so, it became Arcane for me)?

In the third paragraph of the description for the Potion of Disguise, it tells you that you can be enlarged up to one size. It then gives the example of a Medium creature using a Potion of Green Dragon Disguise to become a Medium Green Dragon.

Shouldn't that be Large (since the Dragon Form spell turns you Large and even young Green Dragons start at Large)?

Sorcerers with Archmage's Might add two 10th-level spells to their spell repertoire, as do Bards with Virtuoso's Brilliance per the updates. Wizards do the same thing, but the spells are added to their spellbook. These make sense. Clerics and Druids, however, use Miraculous Power and Hierophant's Power, respectively, to add two 10th-level spells to their spells known.

What spells known? You don't have any spells known. You have the entirety of the Cleric/Druid spell list (at least the common spells) from which you prepare selections. What is "spells known" supposed to mean in the context of a prepared caster?

Page 91 tells us what to do if a Fighter effect tells us to increase a weapon's damage dice. If it's already a d12, you instead get a +2 circumstance bonus to damage.

Is that per die? Does a +5 greatsword with its damage increased go from "6d12" to "6d12 +12"? Except, the additional damage is a circumstance bonus to damage and those never go above +4, as per page 291.

Savage Critical operates by affecting all strikes with weapon attacks that you have legendary proficiency. The feat is a level 18 feat. Fighters don't get legendary proficiency with anything until 19th level.

Was this feat supposed to be useless at its level, only gaining use if you retrain for it at 19th or 20th level?

Just confirming my understanding of the Barbarian's 4th level Swipe ability. It takes two actions. It's one attack roll against two separate ACs. It counts as two attacks, meaning that your third attack this turn, should you take one, is -10 or -8 (if agile).

It also means that your one attack roll is being applied normally to the first target and at -5 or -4 to the second target, correct? I.e., if my attack modifier is +10, if I'm not using an agile weapon, and if I rolled a 15 on the die, then my first attack is a 25 and my second a 20 (I don't roll again, but use the previous 15 on the die, plus my mod, plus the MAP). Correct?

The Lion's Shield has the special ability to make a bite attack with the shield; i.e., an attack directly meant to go against an opponent's AC and meant to be used alongside regular attacks that get potency bonuses to attack. Yet, the shield's description goes out of its way to tell you you don't get to enhance it to gain potency. So you start off with this attack falling behind in accuracy, and it only gets further behind as you go up, both in accuracy and damage.

Why? What's the point of this item? How does it distinguish itself from a regular heavy steel shield with shield spikes, shield spikes that CAN get enhanced for additional level-appropriate accuracy and damage?

Side note: Why is it Conjuration rather than Transmutation? Nothing is being created; instead, the biting maw is changing from static to animated.

The opening section of the Fighter tells us that "during social encounters, [the Fighter] can be an intimidating presence". Taking a look at everything the Fighter gets, there are exactly two things the Fighter can do to actually be intimidating: Intimidating Strike (which is not something particularly applicable to a social encounter) and putting his skill training improvements in Intimidation (which is something that anyone can do, and therefore isn't something special that the Fighter class is contributing to the character, and furthermore wasn't even possible prior to the removal of signature skills, at least not beyond Expert).

Compare that to the Barbarian's similar fluff and his Raging Intimidation which lets the Barb auto-gain Intimidating Glare which can be used socially, and it strikes me that the Fighter class isn't actually selling what it's advertising in the social arena.

I read a post somewhere saying that classes were all getting more page count, meaning more options/class feats. I'm hoping that's the case and that some of those options (across all the classes) let the classes perform as advertised in all the modes of play. But until then, I wanted to make sure this issue got raised.

The general rules for magic ammunition say that magic ammo lose their magic properties after they're fired, hit or miss. A Ghost Ammunition comes back to its most recent quiver or container 1d4 days later after fired, so this part has to be an exception to that general rule.

But if it gets to keep that ability, is that it or does it get to keep all the rest of its magic? I.e., when a fired Ghost Ammo comes back after being fired, is it a normal ammo or is it still a Ghost Ammo?

A stock Gloom Blade is a master-quality shortsword in bright light and a +2 master shortsword in dim or lesser light. Specific weapons can't be modified with property runes, but they can be further modified with potency runes.

So how does that apply to a Gloom Blade? Are they ignorant of each other, such that I have to start off with a +1 rune (making it +1 in bright light and +2 in dim light)? Do they stack, such that putting a +3 rune lets the weapon act like an early-access +5 weapon? Do they not stack, but I can still begin my improvement at +3 rather than +1?

The Gorget of the Primal Roar has an activate-able effect that requires you to be polymorphed into something non-humanoid. I didn't check the entire spell section for all the polymorph spells, but seeing as this seems like its meant to be a Druid item, I did check all the spells they get to use through wild shape. All of those spells to a one include a line to the effect of: "Your gear is absorbed into your form; the constant abilities of your gear still function, but you can't activate any item abilities."

So how can you even use the Gorget?

Update 1.3 has all the class archetypes. The entry dedication feats all include a sentence along the lines of "You cast spells like a Sorcerer". They then go into further detail about what that entails, but none of them seem to specify that MCing into Sorcerer and "casting spells like a Sorcerer" lets you use your blood or holy symbol or instrument or mistletoe as a proxy for your Material Casting. Is that nevertheless implied?

Even before the playtest, even before P2E was announced, I already had in mind a few character concepts capable of understanding sign language either to make up for hearing loss, communicate with others with hearing loss, or to "talk" underwater or without sound (say, in a dark cave).

But it usually used the only sign language in the entire game setting (usually Drow Sign Language). And knowledge of this language usually only cost the same as any other language. In P2E, however, you either know your languages and don't know any sign language, you're deaf but you know every sign language of every language you know, or you spend a feat (that you can't even take until 2nd level) to gain knowledge of the regular and signed versions of every language you know.

Is there no room for a spectrum here? To know some spoken languages but not necessarily their signed versions or vice versa? Like the thread title says, this seems rather binary and extreme.

For that matter, what about the retroactive benefits of improving a proficiency? For example, the Ranger Snare Savant feat requires me to have at least expert proficiency in Crafting and grants me 3 formulas for snares, plus an additional 3 formulas for every time my proficiency improves. But let's say that for whatever reason, I didn't take Snare Savant until after I already had legendary proficiency in Crafting. How many formulas do I gain, 3 or 9?

Edit: Update 1.3 included an answer to the spoilered above (they still need to change the actual text to say this outright, though since it was an FAQ, hopefully they will do so). The second part still needs to be addressed, though.

One thing at issue with the Paladin is how it is supposed to have this special, set aside place in-universe. A true Paladin claiming to be one isn't supposed to be doubted. How? While you might point at the class features or the Paladin-exclusive spells, I find there to be several issues with those as solutions. One, probably every single class feature of the Paladin is swappable for something else via an archetype. Two, that makes a lot of assumptions about how average Joes are even aware of classes, class features, and what they're associated with. I.e., is Flip Rodriguez in American Ninja Warrior an 8th level Expert or a 4th level Rogue with a class feature boosting his Athletics to the level of what an 8th level Expert could do? Would you really be able to tell the difference? Could we in today's age of global communication accomplish such a thing? And could it be done with the world dialed back to news being relayed by messengers and bards?

There's also the question of Razmir. If information about Paladins is so widespread that they can somehow be unerringly recognized by the average Joe, how is being a deity not more unmistakeable? And yet, Razmir has the whole of his nation fooled. Isn't that a mark against the idea that unassailable reputations (such as the Paladin's) can exist that widespread?

Thing is, we already have a similar situation in the lore of the setting. I think we can solve this issue by looking to Norgorber. According to Inner Sea Gods page 109, it is literally impossible for Norgorber to be depicted with any kind of specificity. He can be average and nondescript, but his true appearance cannot be known or even accidentally lucked into. Cosmos-wide, such a thing just cannot be done.

Okay, so let's just do something like that for the Paladin. Create a literal game mechanic to preserve the Paladin's reputation.

Paladinic Authority (or "Mandate of Heaven" or whatever evocative name you like)
"By default, the Golarion setting and the Pathfinder Second Edition game operate under the existence of a trait called Paladinic Authority. With this trait in play, it is literally impossible for a character to claim to be a Paladin unless he is one. This ignores antimagic, dead magic, null magic, and literally anything and everything else that might try to circumvent this. Attempts to do so anyway in either voice or writing result in the character essentially acting out that scene in Liar Liar where Fletcher Reed kept trying to say the pen was re-... rrrre-... rrrRRREE-... blue. I.e., the entire multiverse is under a Zone of Truth spell, but only insofar as it pays attention to claiming to be a Paladin.

Characters must maintain an LG alignment and abide by the Paladin's code of conduct to qualify. Other characters can become aware of this (the general knowledge that claiming to be a Paladin can't be faked and the general parameters of the Paladin's code) via a DC 5 Religion or Knowledge (Religion) (or whatever the pertinent skill ends up being) check that they are always allowed to take 10 on."

So what does this do? Several things, in fact.

1. It lets the Paladin have the unerring recognition and unassailable reputation he's supposed to have. It's almost impossible for NPCs to not know that the guy claiming to be a Paladin actually is one. The fact that he could even successfully say that he was a Paladin must mean he is one. So even though he's splattered with blood and standing over a dead body, if he says everything is on the up and up, it must be so. He's either not lying, or we can trust him to be lying in service to a higher priority aspect of his code. He doesn't even have to go through the song and dance of showing his aura or casting his class-exclusive spells to prove this.

2. It gives a game mechanic to prove a Paladin's Paladinness that doesn't peel back the curtain of the world. By making it something that can be resolved in-universe, it refrains from leaning on the fourth wall and ruining the cohesiveness of the game world. After all, if I can be aware of classes, where does it stop? Do I know about hit points? Or the d20? Or how the world aligns with a 5-foot grid? Do I know that Talking is a Free Action?

3. It halfway solves the Razmir question. True, it does nothing to explain why being a deity is even a thing that can be faked, but at least it explains why and how Paladins have their reputation.

4. It negates the association of adhering to the Paladin's restrictions with getting/avoiding losing the Paladin's shiny powers. There are no mechanical power booststo a character picking this. He isn't trading roleplaying restrictions for better class features than another character with the same amount of XP would have. They're completely off the table. What he is trading some of his roleplaying freedoms (the ability to lie, cheat, tell authority to go stuff itself) for is roleplaying rewards (the ability to easily and reliably "grease the wheels" where a Paladin's reputation would help). It also means the player can have his character be a Paladin for the same reason his character wants to be a Paladin, as opposed to the character remaining a Paladin because he felt the call of good while the player is busy just avoiding becoming a Fighter without feats.

5. This makes it easier to remove for campaigns not meant to include Paladins with this kind of reputation. This trait can exist by default for Pathfinder Second Edition, Golarion, PFS, etc., while exercising the option of lifting this trait removes everything else associated with it. With alignment being something meant to be easily remove-able, this can only also be helpful.

6. Making this trait an aspect of the game rather than an aspect of the class prevents the class from being locked to only that concept. The chassis of the Paladin class is perfectly capable of covering everything a Warpriest or a multiclass Cleric/Fighter would represent and can do so in a less clunky manner and with more refinement. The exclusivity of the Paladin is attained by the Paladinic Authority trait, in the game, in the setting, and in PFS by default. Heck, characters with the Paladin class and adhering to the Paladin's code in a game with Paladinic Authority could even have more selective power compared to other characters using that class. I.e., at 3rd level, their class feature choices could be the entire list plus Righteous Ally while characters not keeping to the code would have a smaller list. Each individual option would be just as worthwhile, but the Paladin-y Paladin's list of choices would be bigger.

7. Conversely, this also prevents the concept from being locked to the class. A character who holds to the Paladin ideals but who wants to wage his fight against evil by being the best Wizard he can only has two options right now. Either he can act like a Paladin and say he's a Paladin without either the proof that he's truly holding to the code or the trust of others that believe he is what he says he is. Or he can spend one level on Paladin for class features he will probably never use (the Detect Evil, sure, but he's not going to be smiting or wearing heavy armor). Never mind that Rule #1 of being a caster is "Thou shalt not sacrifice caster levels". With Paladinic Authority being a trait outside and independent of the class structure, Good now has more ways it can fight against Evil and more varieties of Paladin can be made without clunky multiclassing or hollow claims.

Back in 3.5 (and probably earlier), a number of core classes had automatic pets. Druids and Rangers had animal companions, Sorcerers and Wizards had familiars, Paladins had mounts. You had to have them. You couldn’t not have them. The most you could do if your vision of a character with one of those classes didn’t include a mandatory pet is “forget” you had it, dismiss it, wait for it to die in combat and then never bother to replace it, or the darker option of hastening its death. All rather unpalatable and all a lackluster solution, in that you’re ignoring a class feature and not gaining anything in place. The 3.5 PHB2 introduced replacement options for all these, though I’m trying to remember how long it took for them to release that book.

Then Paizo introduced Pathfinder and the CRB had all of those classes, none of which mandated a pet. You could still pick one, but if a pet just wasn’t a part of your idea of a Ranger, you could select something else instead. Ditto the others*.

Paizo, you nailed this one on the nose. I’m not against characters with pets (I’ve got a Monk/Druid character with an entourage of awakened creatures), just against the lack of choice. Familiars, mounts, and animal companions are a core aspect of many types of heroic characters and they should still be expressible. BUT, picking one of those classes should not saddle a player with a pet (that is, a burdensome sack of hit points) if it just doesn’t fit his PC.

Paizo, please repeat this aspect from the P1E CRB next go around, too. By which I mean, repeat and expand upon. How many Cavaliers were Daring Champions, just to avoid having a mount? And my point actually isn’t about how many so much as if it was any at all. Same with the Witch, the Shaman, or the Hunter.

I’m just saying, let’s have pets, not burdens, companions and not obligations.

*