TheFinish's page

Without that line in Field Vials I'd say the situation was ambiguous. With that line though I think it's pretty clear Combine Elixirs is supposed to work with Mutagens.

Especially because Combine Elixirs very specifically creates a "hybrid concotion" with all effects. You're not drinking two Mutagens, you're drinking one mutagen with two benefits and two drawbacks.

Which would mean you could, theoretically, be able to be under the effects of four mutagens once you hit Level 13 (double Combined). Which sounds pretty fun to be honest.

another thing to note with the hazardous terrain is that RAW the size of the creature really changes the effectiveness of it.

as it's written, the damage is for each squar you enter, and a huge creature (as an example) could get 3-5x damage per movement (depening if moving straight or diagonically) compared to that to a medium creature.

without resistances, using coral eruption as an example, it could mean that an enemy takes 9-15 damage per 5ft of his movememnt as oppossed to a different enemy taking just 3

3d terrain (like some impulses) can make it even worse, with a huge creature entering 9 squares simultaneously when moving even straight through it...

I think that isn't the intent, especially since Howl of the Wild states:

When a Large PC moves through hazardous terrain or a similar obstacle that causes damage based on the number of squares the PC moves through, they take damage only once for each 5 feet of movement—a minotaur shouldn’t take four times as much damage for crossing a burning field as a human!

Sure, this is talking about PCs, but it should realistically apply to everything.

I'll be honest, I always thought the Carry rules worked for it as familiars are only 1 bulk.

But honestly, it could be much clearer because the question comes up ALL the time and I feel like it's something that should've been default in there.

Also...

Errata: Independent familiar ability to be in line with similar cases with animal companions. Your familiar should be able to take 1 action for free, but you cannot command your familiar if you do so.

It's weird that this got added to many animal companion feats, but the familiar one was left alone.

AFAIK the Independent Familiar does work that way? It states:

" In an encounter, if you don't Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round."

It seems to have that verbaige to clearly show free actions and reactions are not compatible but it doesnt qualify the prior sentence by necessity. The following sentence about your turn ending and losing the benefit seems to be there for situations where someone else's reactions stops you and you ahve no actions left.

I can see why you pointed it out though, but I can see alternate explanations for those lines.

If you cant use actions other than Cast a Spell after using a Spellshape action, then the whole sentence is wasted space, and moreover it goes against the Spellshape actions themselves, all of which are "If your next action is to X" (or similar wording, but theyre always an if clause). Why write it as a conditional if the intent is for you to be unable to do anything but Cast a Spell?

Does the spellshape entry itself limit the combo?

Archives of Nethys wrote:

Spellshape
Source Player Core pg. 302 2.0
Actions with the spellshape trait tweak the properties of your spells. You must use a spellshape action directly before casting the spell you want to alter. If you use any action (including free actions and reactions) other than casting a spell directly after, you waste the benefits of the spellshape action. The benefit is also lost if your turn ends before you cast the spell. Any additional effects added by a spellshape action are part of the spell's effect, not of the spellshape action itself.

The part saying you must use a spellshape action directly before casting the spell you want to alter.

It says must, meaning it may not be an option to use a spellshape and not cast a spell you want to alter. If that is true then sure the character can cast extend into extend but then must commit to a spell that doesnt also require they cast a spell after like extend requires.

If a player is declaring they want to use an action on a spellshape they also need to have the actions to cast a spell after it or they dont meet the requirements in the spellshape description that they must use it directly before the spell they want to alter.

I can see someone argue that this statement is just ment to determine order of things not a requirement to actually follow through but It seems to me that it can be enforced as written as a requirement.

The very same rules specify what happens if you don't use Cast a Spell immediately after (you waste the spellshape) so its clear to me that its intended for you to be able to "waste" them by using other actions in between.

Don't forget to make use of Anoint Ally on whoever your frontliner is so you don't have to go into the fray yourself!

But yeah this is a funny interaction for sure.

Reading through all the feats it does seem that the unfortunate conclusion is that you still need to take Enhanced Familiar for no gain if you wish to take Incredible Familiar as a Draconic Acolyte with the Draconic Familiar feat, because:

- Incredible Familiar requires Enhanced Familiar. There are no ifs or butts about this one.
- Enhanced Familiar and Draconic Familiar, as you point out, have the same kind of wording of "You can select four familiar or master abilities each day, instead of two" instead of the wording you find on the Witch which is Your familiar gains two additional familiar abilities (Wizard has similar wording). Which means both feats bring your total familiar abilities to 4 and do not stack with each other.

As a GM I'd personally allow you to take Incredible Familiar if you have Draconic Familiar, but per the actual rules this is not allowed. You'll need to discuss it with your GM.

Palatine Detective only ever grants Innate Spells, if memory serves, and the rules are clear that neither those nor Focus Spells allow you to use Wands/Scrolls/Staves.

Rogues get a Skill Feat every level, so Rogues can get them at 7. So can Investigator, with a few more restrictions. And Swashbucklers, again with restrictions.

The effect of this one is definitely more in line with a skill feat than a Class Feat, so that's how I'd rule it.

The rules on this one are IMO very clear:

"When attempting a High Jump or Long Jump during a Sudden Leap, determine the jump distance using Long Jump's rules, and change your maximum distance to double your Speed."

So the Jump Distance is determined like Long Jump for both, meaning it's going to be the result of our Athletics Check (if we Succeed) or our Leap (if we Fail), but if we do Succeed we also have a limit of our Speed x2 instead of just our Speed.

This doesn't really invalidate Cloud Jump for a couple of reasons:

a) It's a Class Feat, not a Skill Feat. So not everyone is going to have access to it and it's designed to be more powerful.
b) It's always two actions no matter what, whereas Cloud Jump can be one Action.
c) It's limited to twice your Speed no matter what, while Cloud Jump can go up to triple if you really need to.

Plus, if we stop to think about it, Sudden Leap allowing you to use Felling Strike would be pretty terrible if we were using normal High Jump distances.

Sustaining a spell isn't casting it, so yes, you can cast a Hex and Sustain a different Hex in the same turn.

It is unfortunately unclear in quite a few cases, and we have contradicting information.

The Champion feature Blessed Armament says "and you grant the armament a property rune of your choice from the following list: fearsome, ghost touch, returning, shifting, or vitalizing.", and it had to be clarified in errata that this does not count against the rune limit of the Champion's weapon...but the Errata also says "Unlike many similar abilities, it can be used even if the weapon already has its maximum number of property runes."

So Kindle Inner Flame, which grants the flaming rune and doesn't specify it doesn't take up a slot probably does take up a slot, which means it'd suppress one of your two runes (corrosive or frost). But it's wording is exactly the same as the Champion feature, so it's....unsure.

Same with "gains the effect of". I generally run it as it not taking up a rune slot, but the feat Harbinger's Armament has that same wording and also feels the need to specify this doesn't take up a slot. Is that just reminder text, or should we assume feats that don't have that wording do, in fact, take up a slot?

The whole situation is a bit messy, you'll need to work it out with your GM I'm afraid.

You can Ready anything that costs 1 Action or a Free Action (as long as the free action doesn't already have a trigger) so you can ready 1 Action spells even though technically Cast a Spell is an "activity".

Wow. The new troop rules are WAY more complicated than I thought.

Aren't they supposed to be easier to manage than multiple individual creatures? The more I read about them, the less that seems to be the case.

You can always just ignore the whole Segments thing and play them as a big swarm that gets smaller as you hit the HP thresholds. Four 10x10 sections is just one big 20x20 square, you reduce it to 15x15 at first threshold and then to 10x10 at second, with lowered capabilities as described in the statblocks (and keeping in mind their immunities wrt single target spells and such)

Much easier to run and they work perfectly fine, even if this method makes them cover less ground as they start losing segments.

Yes, even though the creature couldn't normally attempt to Grapple your Minotaur, because Grapple's Critical Failure says it just happens then it's a valid choice for them to pick grabbing you when you get a crit fail.

Yeah. I agree.

As an aside, Timber Sentinel is also very strange in that it has a kind of narrative power the game has desperately tried to curb. Create Water isn't a cantrip anymore, so that you can't spend all day making a lake... but a kineticist can absolutely spend all day repopulating a forest. That's kind of silly, isn't it?

Hey, Kineticists can also spend all day creating a lake! If they're Wood/Water, they can do both! And if they're Earth, they can play Minecraft without a computer!

Truly, the most OP class.

The two reactions do have different triggers, but not in a way that matters in this particular case.

Despite the fact that triggers are worded as one, Reactive Strike effectively has three triggers:

- A creature within your reach uses a Move or Manipulate action
- A creature within your reach makes a Ranged Attack
- A creature within your reach leaves a square during a move action it's using.

Implement's empowerment has two:

- The target of your Exploit Vulnerability uses a concentrate, manipulate, or move action.
- The target of your Exploit Vulnerability leaves a square during a move action it's using.

When the target of your exploit vulnerability stands up in your reach, they're fulfilling the first trigger for both Reactions. Now these triggers are different, but they're so similar in this situation as to be indistinguishable, so the following would apply:

"If two triggers are similar, but not identical, the GM determines whether you can use one action in response to each or whether they're effectively the same thing"

And in this case they are indeed effectively the same thing. Both Reactions are being triggered by the dude standing up, so you only get to pick one to use.

I would kind of run it like this, as the PC PoV outcome is similar, but imo the spell jumping to full Undetected is an important enough detail to quibble over.

Is it? Normal Invisibility also states:

"Illusions bend light around the target, rendering it invisible. This makes it undetected to all creatures, though the creatures can attempt to find the target, making it hidden to them instead."

And yet if you go read Invisible, it goes into more specifics, saying if

"If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to them (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak"

I've always ran Disappearance as just Invisibility++. You are effectively Invisible to all senses, which means:

- You can't become observed while invisible except via special abilities or magic. -> And because you're Invisible to all Senses, scent/echolocation/other non-visual Precise or Imprecise senses can't passively locate you, unlike with normal, visual-only Invisibility. They must use Seek, or else Counteract the spell somehow.
- Per the rules found in the Hide and Sneak actions, any action except Step, Hide, Sneak or other "unobtrusive" actions (as determined by the GM) takes you to Observed -> But we're Invisible to all Senses, so we can't be Observed, we remain Hidden.
- Because you're always Hidden, no matter what sense an enemy has (per the rules of Invisible and the Disappearance spell) you can always Sneak without Cover/Concealment to regain your Undetected status.

My table personally takes "count as Invisible" as shorthand for "refer to the Invisible condition to see how to resolve this" and thus, "see the unseen" doesn't work, but other ways to counteract the spell (like true seeing or dispel magic) work fine.

I should also point out that anybody can basically do what Disappearance does by just having Legendary Proficiency in Stealth, the Foil Senses feat, and Legendary Sneak. Granted, you don't have the (pretty good) "always Hidden" passive, but once you're Undetected from Hide->Sneak nobody can find you except with Seek either (or until you reveal yourself, as usual).

So, of the changes you mentioned:

- Rascal is definitely an option but it's sadly not well supported, and Dirty Trick has several downsides. Not only the one you mentioned regarding Reach, but also the fact that it is both Manipulate and Attack, meaning you get the worst of both worlds by provoking Reactive Strikes and incurring MAP. Also aside from one feat (Dastardly Dash), Dirty Trick has no real support or further development.

- Gymnast is a good choice if you have at least +2 STR. The Whip has Disarm and Trip, so if you take Disarming Flair you now have 2 actions you can do at your weapon's Reach that grant you Bravado. The +1 circumstance bonus from Stylish combatant will help you mostly keep up so long as you improve STR to +3 at level 5 (if you start at +3 STR and go up to +4 you're actually better at those maneuvers than most people).

- The third option to keep you as a pure DEX user is Battledancer. Take the Acrobatic Performer Skill Feat and you can use Acrobatics when you use Fascinating Performance, letting you focus on just Acrobatics, which means you don't need Charisma or to upgrade your Performance skill. Fascinating Performance's effect is very poor, but it has no range limit (the enemy just has to be able to see you)

If you want to go into thrown weapons, the third option is your best bet, and I'd switch the Whip out for a Starknife. Twirling Throw sounds good but it's actually a much better idea to either get a Returning Rune on your Starknife or getting yourself a Thrower's Bandoleer. That way you just spend money for a better effect, but I'm honestly unsure how PFS does treasure, so you know better than me in this regard.

They might also just critically hit, which is why the roll is important and why the Gliminal Rule is a nice compromise.

TheFinish wrote:

And yet Standard DC by Level or lower means you're always better off trying to Tumble Through empty spaces than through any creature with Reflex saves higher than Low

No you’re not. You’re forgoing your rider effects. You could do exactly the same thing by demoralizing your pet mouse or some s%%$. Panache is tied to skill actions, which can be used for their useful effects. If you’re tumbling through an empty space panache is the only thing you’re getting, no demoralize or grapple or bon mot or whatever.

What rider effects? The main rider effect of Tumble Through is literally moving through someone. Swashbuckler only has two feats that add more riders to Tumble Through, Tumble Behind and The Bigger they Are, and The Bigger they Are doesn't matter for this conversation because it's a specific action.

So sure, if you have Tumble Behind you're losing that effect, which is incredibly minor.

Again, if you set the DC of Tumble Through to Level Based DC or anything lower, then Tumbling through empty squares becomes one of the best things to do to gain Panache because you're rolling against an incredibly low DC and your penalty for failure is losing 5 feet of movement. Compared to the other ways to get Panache, this would be way too good.

As as a side note, good luck to anyone trying to demoralise their pet mouse, if said mouse was acquired via the Pet feat. It has the same save values you do, so you're really scaring yourself.

TheFinish wrote:

Ryangwy wrote:

I think it was ruled with... Performance? That a Swashbuckler can initiate a skill action against a creature normally immune to it due to traits (not the cooldown immunity for Demoralize) and still get panache if they passed the DC if the creature wasn't immune, so I'd apply the same for Tumble Through. If you fail the check... you still 'tumble through' the ghost and get the fail effect because that wasn't very bravado.

This is actually just built into the Bravado trait:

"If you succeed at the check on a bravado action, you gain panache, and if you fail (but not critically fail) the check, you gain panache but only until the end of your next turn. These effects can be applied even if the action had no other effect due to a failure or a creature's immunity."

The question of whether to allow a player to try to Tumble Through an Incorporeal creature's space (which isn't required to move through it) or an empty space (ditto) is up to GM discretion.

But since it's a player taking an action that's guaranteed to succeed and adding a chance to fail (and therefore end their movement early) in order to gain Panache, I'd allow it. It's basically the Swashbuckler doing cool acrobatics to pump themselves up. It's a bit harder to rule on the empty space (since Tumble Through requires an enemy's Reflex DC), but I'd probably just use Hard Level Based DC.

Hard level based DC would mean it is more likely you fail at moving through an empty area than a square occupied by a zombie. Which is obvious nonsense.

And yet Standard DC by Level or lower means you're always better off trying to Tumble Through empty spaces than through any creature with Reflex saves higher than Low.

It's a gamist tradeoff to allow the Swashbuckler to try to do something they can't ever do RAW while not making said action the go-to. Hard DC by level places the number almost squarely between High and Moderate Reflex DC, which is about right for something they shouldn't even be able to do. The alternative is to just tell the Swashbuckler "No", which is equally valid.

If you want an in-game expalantion, it's much easier to look cool dunking on a slow zombie than doing pirouettes on empty air.

I think it was ruled with... Performance? That a Swashbuckler can initiate a skill action against a creature normally immune to it due to traits (not the cooldown immunity for Demoralize) and still get panache if they passed the DC if the creature wasn't immune, so I'd apply the same for Tumble Through. If you fail the check... you still 'tumble through' the ghost and get the fail effect because that wasn't very bravado.

This is actually just built into the Bravado trait:

"If you succeed at the check on a bravado action, you gain panache, and if you fail (but not critically fail) the check, you gain panache but only until the end of your next turn. These effects can be applied even if the action had no other effect due to a failure or a creature's immunity."

The question of whether to allow a player to try to Tumble Through an Incorporeal creature's space (which isn't required to move through it) or an empty space (ditto) is up to GM discretion.

But since it's a player taking an action that's guaranteed to succeed and adding a chance to fail (and therefore end their movement early) in order to gain Panache, I'd allow it. It's basically the Swashbuckler doing cool acrobatics to pump themselves up. It's a bit harder to rule on the empty space (since Tumble Through requires an enemy's Reflex DC), but I'd probably just use Hard Level Based DC.

I think "a square adjacent" instead of "the square adjacent" is reasonable to say, because there can be multiple squares that are both fair choices for that.

For example, consider this situation, with you ‍♂️ and a spider ️.
.

◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️
‍♂️◻️◻️◻️◻️
◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️️

The blue spots would be reasonable, they're the shortest to you. The top red one is not the shortest path so can't be direct. The left one goes past you, which doesn't survive a good-faith plain text reading of the ability.

Unfortunately, fetching bangles has a limit of 20 feet, and that spider is 25 feet away, so the ability doesn't work! :p

Jokes aside, I agree with you. Pull the spider the shortest distance towards you. If more than one square qualifies, let the player choose.

And it is, obviously, forced movement.

Your group is wrong here. "Can attempt a saving throw" does not mean you can choose not to try the save to be immune to the effect. It means instead of just going unconcious automatically, you're allowed to try to resist the effect.

It's the same wording you'll find in a lot of spells. At most, like you say, you could assume it means you can choose to fail and just go unconcious, but it definitely does not allow you to just ignore the effect by refusing to roll the save.

Finoan wrote:

Considering that the other classes that have a way to get the core mechanic of the class are getting a nerfed version of it, I think it would need to be more restrictive than a Hex Cantrip or permanent Familiar ability.

Magus Archetype can get Spellstrike at once per battle.
Rogue Archetype gets Sneak Attack with a non-scaling amount of damage.
Thaumaturge Archetype gets one Implement and only the first entry-level benefit for it.

Things like that.

So if gaining the Hex Cantrip via Witch Archetype, I would do something like make it a 'Focus 1' instead of a 'Focus Cantrip'.

That said, for Bard archetype, there is the option at lvl 8 for getting the equivalent "1 action class defining focus cantrip".

I wouldn't mind it being there for them Witch archetype either (and leaving the unique familiar abilities solely to the Witch as a defining feature).

I was just about to point this out. Level 8 for the Patron Hex Cantrip, leave the familiar ability restricted to full class witches.

Is the GM's ability to restrict Ready triggers limited to observability? For instance, I would think a trigger of "anything perceptible" would warrant the GM to at least raise an eyebrow.

I mean the GM has the ability to restrict whatever they want, they're the GM. Only the social contract inherent to the game with regards to player expectations makes GMs run the game "RAW".

Ultimately the GM can decide if a trigger is valid, the rules only specify four criteria, spread between Player and GM Core:

- It has to be a single action or free action you can use (so not Readying Twin Takedown if you don't have the feat and whatnot).
- It can't be a single or free action that already has a trigger. (presumably because this is just mechanically bad to do as a player).
- It has to be something that happens in the game-world (so no Readying for when Pete eats a dorito at the table).
- It has to be observable by the characters.

It's important that the full rules for Ready in the GM core actually say:

"However, you might sometimes need to put limits on what they can choose. Notably, the trigger must be something that happens in the game world and is observable by the character, rather than a rules concept that doesn’t exist in-world"

That notably isn't exclusive. The action has to meet those criteria, but that doesn't mean if the trigger meets those criteria you have to allow it as the GM. You can always just decide it's not valid and work with the player to find something you both agree on.

The creature having reactive strike here would further complicate the whole thing in another way that just doesn't feel worth allowing this as a GM. If my character leaps away interrupting an attack action in progress, then wouldn't the creature's reactive strike have MAP (since it is happening during your turn and you have already taken an attack action, which has been paused)? The attack trait makes it pretty clear that your second attack action (which in this case would be the reactive strike) would suffer from MAP. So for your "worst case scenario," a creature likely capable of knocking an enemy prone on a critical hit (which usually involves some kind of save or check vs a DC in the remaster) is now automatically getting MAP for its first actual attack roll against you and is much less likely to knock you prone in the first place, and it has burned its reactive strike for the whole turn on an attack with MAP.

That makes this strategy seem extra valuable against such a creature, not less.

No because Reactive Strike says "This Strike doesn't count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn't apply to this Strike. ", so even if other reactions (like Opportune Backstab) would suffer MAP, Reactive Strike doesn't, and it never contributes.

If you try this against a creature with Reactive Strike you just eat a full bonus attack to the face, like everyone else.

TheFinish wrote:

Warping Pull triggers on damage, so it won't save someone from Flurry/Double Slice/Other stuff that combines damage from multiple hits. But it's super useful against something like Draconic Frenzy or similar, for sure.

Lol, this is the second time this thread I screwed up by using an example that was a specific exemption.*

Totally correct that the "combine damage" abilities like Flurry wouldn't get combo-broken.

** spoiler omitted **

Either way, Flurry is a bad example due to that unneeded complication, so I appreciate the callout.

No, exiting range is not disrupting actions. Disrupting is specifically ending another's actions partway through completion. The disrupted creature is outright prevented from finishing the action.

Moving outside of range does not invoke that disrupt mechanic.
A Gogi that reactively skitters outside of range of an in-progress Sudden Charge does not "disrupt" as a Reactive Strike might.

Even the new Warping Pull can cause this evasion for any multi-hit ability, such as Flurry of Blows. The Reaction teleports the ally after the first hit, and now the 2nd is ineligible.

I do not know how an honest contributor to the discussion could misconstrue this by accident, after this has already been clearly explained before.

Warping Pull triggers on damage, so it won't save someone from Flurry/Double Slice/Other stuff that combines damage from multiple hits. But it's super useful against something like Draconic Frenzy or similar, for sure.

Easl wrote:

The issue is whether a ready reaction can interrupt an action someone (or an NPC) is doing on their turn. If it can, then this works. If it can't, then this doesn't.

If the enemy spends the actions, but the actions have no effect, that is the definition of Disrupting actions.

Neither Ready, or Stride, or Leap list that they can Disrupt actions.

Easl wrote:

But it is unclear whether this reaction can do that.

It is not unclear. Ready does not Disrupt.

I mean it's also the definition of Concealed and Hidden neither of which Disrupt and both of which can cause someone to spend an action (or several) to no effect.

Not to mention there's already feats like Repel Metal, Soul Flare, Guardian's Deflection or even items like the Bracers of Missile Deflection or Fungal Armor that can turn a hit into a miss with 100% certainty without disrupting. Sure, they all have limits and specific use cases, unlike Ready, but saying Disrupting is the only way for this to happen is incorrect.

Finoan wrote:

Unicore wrote:

The closest I would allow to this strategy is for a player to ready to move away when someone ends a move action adjacent to their character. That feels like a narrative thing that makes sense and is easy to arbitrate without getting too hokey.

Ending a move action is a game mechanic.

I would allow Ready for a move action triggered when an enemy moves adjacent, but the enemy doesn't necessarily end their movement at that point. They can continue their current move action to follow you as you leave.

I disagree with this. Once they have moved adjacent, their move action is done.

It is made clear if you want to move when someone else moves to keep up, that usually costs a reaction. If you allowed them to move again because the target moved, then you give them abilities that allow this with a reaction for free and you devalue abilities like Zephyr Slip that use a reaction to move away from an adjacent target.

If the target uses its move to get adjacent to you, it doesn't suddenly get to move again because they have more move and you moved using a resource. That I would not give them.

Zephyr's slip trigger is "A creature enters a space within 5 feet of you." and a Stride can move you up to your speed. If a creature moves within 5 feet of the spellcaster, the spellcaster uses Zephyr slip, and the creature still has movement available, they can (and should) pursue the caster, if that was their intent. This is perfectly acceptable.

In the same way they could continue their movement if they did not intend to stop within 5 feet of the caster, because they were trying to reach someone else (or, if they have the Reach, move to a position where they can threaten both the caster and a buddy, or something).

That being said, yes, there are reactions which do specifcy a creature ends their movement within 5 feet, for example the viper and in those cases yeah, you've ended your movement, you don't get anymore. But that circles back to the whole "not all triggers we see in reactions in-game are valid triggers for Readied actions" discussion.

Sorry for the late reply.

Let me clear the cramped space issue first. There's no need for an open space, or even a big room. Being able to Stride (or Leap) two squares away from the wight is enough, so I think a 4x4 room would suffice. A simple corridor also works, if it's long enough - in that case the group doesn't run in circles, but retreats one or two squares per turn: the enemy has to stop at the foremost PC, who will Stride behind the others when attacked.

Let's analyze Readying to Stride when attacked at range. The enemy would come close to the PC, and stay there because it's not their turn. It can't make its Final Spite attack in case it gets dropped, because it's out of reactions.
What it would accomplish is that the PC wouldn't be able to employ the tactic again that turn, being left with two actions only, so I guess that the wight would be able to strike a single time next turn (as you say, as it Strikes(wasted)-pursues-Strikes). All in all, by playing like this, the wight will be able to Strike once (with -5? Does the wasted Strike apply MAP? Interesting question) every two rounds. Granted, the PCs aren't expressing their best potential either.

Readying to Grapple or Trip could work when the PC doesn't have space to Step away (another question arises - would you let a readied action with a trigger on movement apply in case of a Step?). Again, it only puts the wight in a condition to maybe do something next turn.

But I have to admit that there are, indeed, things that the wight could do. Still, I think the way I rule simultaneous actions is more consistent, and better for the game overall.

A minor quibble, but you need at least a 6x6 room for this tactic to "work" properly. In a 5x5 Room, the Wight can reach anywhere in the room from anywhere else in the room (barring the party landing a movement speed penalty on it), so the party is in a really horrible spot. It's even worse than that in a 4x4 room, because if the Wight stays in the center squares, it only needs to Step once to have one or more party members in reach.

Firstly, and maybe I wasn't clear, the Wight needn't stride towards whoever attacked it. The Wight can just keep pressure on one person at a time, ensuring it's always adjacent to it at the start of the Wight's turn, which is the only thing the Wight needs to do.

To whit, there is no reason why the Wight needs to Strike-Pursue-Strike. It can just Strike-Pursue-Grapple. The fist is Agile, which means the Wight is taking this Grapple at +8. The highest Fortitude DC a 1st level PC can have is 18 (CON KAS at +4, Expert Fort). That's a 10+ to Grab, at the hardest, but it's going to be much lower in practice. If the Wight is gunning for a cloth caster, it's going to be way lower (in the 5-6+ range, depending on Fort).

And once it lands the Grab, escaping it is very hard for 1st level PCs. The best Escape you'll have at Level 1 will come from a Fighter, and it'll be at +9 (+4 KAS, +4 Expert on the Unarmed attack, +1 level) vs an Athletics DC of 22. That's a 13+ on a Fighter, 15+ on most other martials, and 16+ on Casters with +3 DEX/+3 STR.

If the Wight does grab, then the grabbed PC is in serious trouble. If they get lucky and Escape in one action, they can keep their tactic going at the cost of not doing anything to the Wight for one turn. If they don't Escape in the first try though, their chances plummet and they can no longer use their tactic. If they can't escape at all, the Wight has a whole turn to wail on them, including just another Grab, at a much higher modifier (with its full +12, the Wight is looking at 6+ on a Kineticist, less on everyone else). Even if they do escape on the 2nd try, the best they can do is 1 stride, so the Wight can keep up with Stride-Grab-Strike.

Time is not on the PCs side here if the other 3 stick to ranged attacks. Especially because if the Wight kills someone, the party's going to have to deal with another Wight in d4 rounds. Not to mention hitting AC 20 at range without off-guard and such is not easy for Level 1s. And the Wight still has 67 HP for people to chunk through.

Trip.H wrote:

Megistone wrote:

This tactic would completely shut down a solo melee enemy: [...]

It would certainly be a valuable tactic, but Ready is mirrored, and foes are supposed to be intelligent enough to adapt.

After one Ready:Stride dodge, the foe can invalidate the action in a large number of ways. Everything from ranged attacks, to first Grapple, Trip, or anything that disables Stride, etc.

If the foes combine this with Ready themselves, a whole plethora of options open up.
Things like Ready: "as soon as they try to leave my reach, or my turn begins, I Grapple a creature" to give the scary boss a whole turn up close and personal with a freshly grabbed PC.

.

And yeah, the most "potent counterplay" of this is simply for foes to instead target the PCs that don't spend 2A to hunker down into a ready stance.

If anything, this actually swings pf2's issue / 'quirk' with action imbalance away from it's abusable norm and back toward a solo-boss's favor.

Every creature on the field needing to spend 2A to create a "Dodge safeguard" to avoid a solo boss's attacks means that the more PCs outnumber the solo boss, the more actions the player side of the fight would have to spend for this tactic.

Imagine if all the martials Ready:Stride a dodge, then the boss just rotates to face the lone 6HP caster who reeeally wants that 2A chunk, lol.

There is no counterplay for a cairn wight (pre-remaster, I know, it's just the first example I found) facing a group of 1st level adventurers who exploit the ready-stride tactic.

Yes, all the characters need to play by the same tactic (boring, but better than the risk of being killed and raised as a minion, I guess), and at least two of them need to have a 1-action ranged attack.
I have already described how savvy players would act. The monster has got no options against that, because it can't ever act in melee range of anyone, and the PCs won't get into its range voluntarily of course. All it can do is aoe frighten them,...

The Carin Wight could just use the same tactic against them. Have it Ready an Action to Stride when an enemy uses a ranged attack against it. Unless you're having people fight the wight in the open field (instead of the cramped mausoleums and cairns they're supposed to be in), they will quickly close the distance on someone outside their turn, leaving them in someone's face to use 3 actions to strike-pursue-strike again.

Alternatively, it moves into range and readies to Grapple or Trip for when the enemy moves away from the wight (or when they attack, or whichever other trigger you prefer). Once immobilised, it can just maintain grapple and wail on them with its sword. Once tripped, a PC can basically no longer do their combo.

+12 Athletics means landing the grapple or trip is super easy, as is keeping the grapple going with it's first action (or tripping a character again) is almost a given, and then it has two sword strikes at +9 and +4, which against a level 1 PC is more than enough (especially since a succesful strike is likely to make them Drained 1 and make grappling easier) when they're off-guard.

If it's facing a party of level 1s in a confined space, they'll be dead sooner rather than later if they don't adapt. Remember the thing is Int +1, it's likely smarter than many members of the party.

If you want to stick with having a construct companion, I'd probably get rid of Concentrated Fire for Advanced Construct Companion and use the 8th feat on Incredible Construct Companion.

Concentrated Fire sadly just...doesn't scale, at all, and the mortar's AoE is small enough that pinging a single target when needed is just very easy. So getting more bang for your buck from your construct companion is a much better deal.

If you want to deal more damage though the path is clear: Megavolt at either 6th or 8th, then Gigavolt at 12th. Nothing else Inventor can do even comes close, especially since Explode is dead weight on a Mortar Inventor.

Seriously Paizo, why o why can't we just use Explode like a special mortar round?!

As for carrying around a cannon, that's going to be cute more than useful in 99% of adventuring situations. And personally, I don't like them because they don't scale all that well. But if your party's into it, more power to you.

I have a sorcerer the familiar master archetype. I am now level 6 and I have a question about improved familiar.

Improved familiar says that a specific familiar costs 2 less abilities to pick. I want to get a Nosoi familiar (my character is a Duskwalker with the Psychopomp bloodline) which costs 5 abilities. I can pick 4 abilities with enhanced familiar.

Does this mean I can take the Nosoi familiar with 1 extra ability, since it normally takes 5 abilities to pick but now takes 3, and I can pick one more ability since I get to pick 4 with enhanced familiar?

Or do I just get the Nosoi itself since it normally would take 5 abilities and I can take it at a discount (no other additional abilities, except for what the Nosoi gets normally)?

Thanks!

It's the first option. Think of your familiar abilities as a "pool" of points. Getting a specific familiar costs X points, and any left over can be spent as you wish.

A Nosoi normally costs 5 points, but Improved Familiar reduces it to 3 points, leaving you 1 extra point with which to "buy" any ability you choose, following normal restrictions regarding level and prerequisites: a Nosoi doesn't have Tough as a familiar ability, for example, so you couldn't give it the Construct ability. But you could give it Tough, and later, when you get Incredible Familiar, you would have 6 familiar abilities, minus 3 from Nosoi, and you coudl give it Tough, Construct and Fast Movement, for example.

EDIT: Forgot to add, this is explained in the section for Specific Familiars, where it says:

"If your familiar gains more abilities than the required number of abilities, you can use the remaining abilities to select additional familiar and master abilities as normal."

The problem with using Reactions to Movement to establish reaction timing is that IT is an exception to the general rule of Actions with Triggers on PC1 p.414, and that bit at the end is just returning to the status quo of reactions happening AFTER their trigger

Reactions occur after the trigger, yes, but this doesn't mean the enemy gets to complete the triggering action even if it isn't disrupted.

If a caster in reach of a Fighter uses Cast a Spell, and the Spell has the Manipulate trait, it triggers Reactive Strike. If the strike is a hit, it won't disrupt the action, but if may just kill the caster. If the damage is enough to get the caster to 0 HP, does the spell go off? I think most people here would say "No", and they would stil say "No" even if Reactive Strike didn't disrupt manipualte actions.*

If a Thaumaturge with Implement's Interruption hits and kills an enemy when they try to Demoralize the Thaumaturge with a normal hit, does the Demoralize go through? Again, I'd say No, and I'm pretty sure most people would agree.

Which means Reactive Strike/Implement's Interruption/Other such reactions are occuring at some point between the actions being expended but before the activity resolves.

And this all comes back to what does it mean to use an action or activity? (which is the verbiage of quite a lot of reactions) When do I use it, when I declare I will and spend actions, or after its completed?

Clearly for reactions to be able to Disrupt it has to be the former, otherwise the correct way to play them is to let the triggering action resolve, then check to see if the Reaction disrupts it and then retroactively erase it's effects if disrupted. But I've never seen anyone run it this way.

To bring it back to the Ready discussion, I pose this question: If your players are facing the certified classic (tm) situation of a cult member about to stab a sacrificial victim tied to an altar, and a player says "I ready an action to shoot them when they try to stab the victim", would you have the bad guy stab the victim, then get shot, or would you say the character gets to shoot (and maybe kill) the guy before they get to stab the victim?

*I was looking for spells that had Move but not Manipulate to put in this example to make it clearer even on a crit, but the only one is Unfolding Wind Crash so it'd be more of a corner case than anything.

HammerJack wrote:

The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride.

That is incompatible with how many Reactions presently function. Ruling like that would be to declare a number of feats / Reactions as illegal / invalid.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=446 wrote:

Some reactions and free actions are triggered by a creature using an action with the move trait. The most notable example is Attack of Opportunity. Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) 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.

If the Reaction happened second, then the most basic Reaction, Attack of Opportunity, would be crippled, only working when a 5ft chunk of Stride, etc, ends still inside one's reach. This text not only clarifies that is not the case, but also reveals that Reactions going first is the default that needs a special exception to override.

.

Do you have any text that claims the opposite of the above? Any text that indicates that Reactions happen second?

As far as I know, the Reaction ability specifies when it happens. Some are before, some after.

There are plenty of other examples besides attack of opportunity that rely upon Reactions going first, some even go before other Reactions, lol.

"Reactive Interference wrote:

Trigger: An adjacent enemy begins to use a reaction

Grabbing a sleeve, swiping with your weapon, or creating another obstruction, you reflexively foil an enemy’s response. If the

...

I'm not Hammerjack, but I don't think they're arguing over when the trigger happens, just what the trigger is.

The rules state here that triggers like "when they use a concentrate action" or "when they have X amount of hit points" don't work.

Therefore, something like "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet", as Hammerjack says, wouldn't fly.

It'd need to be something like "I ready to stride away when they try to attack me" or "I ready to leap away when they come within 15 feet of me" or "I ready to burrow when they cast a spell that includes me as the target".

And I don't see any of these as particularly powerful. You're giving up 2 actions and a Reaction for this to pop off, and it's not guaranteed.

The Guardian example above is in fact pretty bad. If the monster just goes after your friend, you basically took a one action turn for 0 gain. It was a complete waste. You would've been better off using Taunting Strike, Raising your shield and doing something else.

It can in fact be detrimental, since they could attack you, you move, then they move, strike a friend, and because you avoided their attack you're now out of position and can't use Intercept Strike to help your friend.

There's a lot of context that depends heavily on the encounter that makes this strategy worthless, which is why I've never bothered to use it and I've only seen it from my players like, three times.

TheFinish wrote:

I mean this works, sure, though....why Leap? Obviously if you're surrounded by Difficult Terrain it will carry you farther, but a Monk (or anyone, really) can just select Stride and you'll move more with less investment, no?

Though now I have a very funny image of a high level character with Cat Fall, Quick Jump and Cloud Jump Readying a High Jump to dodge attacks Paper Mario style.

Just for the sake of example clarity.

The "but that's gotta be cheating" impulse is waaaay higher for Ready:Stride than for Ready:Leap

Stride is extra funky in that it typically happens in 5 ft chunks. Trying to Ready a Stride to dodge melee swings would likely have a lot more GMs knee-jerking to say only the first 5ft can happen before the triggering action, or some other invented extra rules as a new restriction.

There's gotta be some 1A teleport effect somewhere, which would be more ideal to make the example case as black/white as possible.

There's Dimensional Assault with its obvious problems (although you can totally teleport next to a friend and slap them nonlethally with a fist, flavor it as bumping into them). There's also Shrink the Span. We also used to have Dimensional Steps but that one's no longer available I don't think.

Stride doesn't happen in 5 foot chunks though, it's 1 action, same as Leap. RAW allows both, and both work exactly the same way. A GM that thinks one is cheesy will likely think the other is cheese as well, since it doesn't really matter how you're moving out of range, just that you are. And both get slapped with Reactions on the way out (if the enemy has any), so it's not a huge difference.

I mean this works, sure, though....why Leap? Obviously if you're surrounded by Difficult Terrain it will carry you farther, but a Monk (or anyone, really) can just select Stride and you'll move more with less investment, no?

Though now I have a very funny image of a high level character with Cat Fall, Quick Jump and Cloud Jump Readying a High Jump to dodge attacks Paper Mario style.

NorrKnekten wrote:

Doesn't matter, MAP explicitly does not apply outside of your turn unless otherwise stated in it's own definition.

I think the DM's argument is that that section is written under the assumption people only have one reaction per enemy turn which changes at higher level with the Tactical Reflexes feat.

A character doesn't get one reaction per enemy turn, they get one reaction per round regardless of the number of enemies, which can be increased by class features or feats.

That said, as others have pointed out, your GM is simply wrong here. MAP applies during your turn, so reactions you take during other people's turns never suffer MAP unless specified (like the Ready action). And to top it all off, Reactive Strike is a reaction with a further clause that it never adds to or suffers from MAP. You make all your Reactive Strikes at your full attack bonus, it doesn't matter when they happen.

They definitely don't change initiative since as you say, they don't have their own slot (they act on your turn).

By the same token I assume they would take their Recovery check at the beginning of your turn, though this isn't specified anywhere.

There's obviously going to be different readings and we have no idea of knowing what the intention is. So table variation is expected.

But what Falco is touching upon is the gist of it.
The distinction between "You are fascinated" vs "You gain the fascinated condition". Or as is touched very lightly upon in the book. The difference between gaining a condition and one being imposed upon you.

This falls in under an earlier clarification on how conditions work by placing them into two categories.

*Conditions that have a way to end them by default last for their normal duration or keep the conditions to end them, Unless otherwise stated.
*Conditions that always need to include a duration because they don’t have a normal way to recover from them, These end when the effect that gave them do, or another duration specified.

In Overwhelming Presence, the condition is baked into the spell effect — and if someone attacks you, the spell still says you are fascinated until the effect ends. If removed, You are still affected by the spell. And since the spell states that while affected, you are fascinated. That very much reads as an "Unless otherwise stated" clause, but there is ambiguity as to if it is intended to be. Expect table variation.

I really don't think there is a difference between "You're fascinated" vs "You gain the fascinated condition". It's basically the same thing.

Compare Overwhelming Presence with a spell like Burning Blossoms or a feat like Fearful Symmetry. Both of them use the same language as Overwhelming Presence (the target is fascinated) but both of them also call out exceptions to how the fascinated condition normally works.

Or, again, Confusion. Confusion states in Failure and Critical Failure "The target is confused for 1 minute", and 1 minute is the duration of the spell. Does that mean you can't end it early by damaging the target and having them succeed a DC 11 flat check?

The spell states:

You surround yourself with supernatural splendor, appearing to be a god or similarly majestic being, with an appearance, regalia, and iconography of your choice. Targets must attempt a Will save. Regardless of the outcome, the target is then temporarily immune for 1 minute.

Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target must pay tribute to you two times. Paying tribute requires that the target spend a single action, which has either the move trait (as they bow) or manipulate trait (as they offer up a token in their hands). They must pay tribute at least once on each of their turns, if possible. While affected, the target is fascinated by you and can't use hostile actions against you.
Failure As success, but the target must pay tribute a total of six times.
Critical Failure As failure, but the target must spend all its actions paying tribute, and they cannot take other actions until the tribute is fully paid.

My question is, does the fascinated condition automatically drop-off once you or one of your allies takes a hostile action against the enemy?

Yes, it does. Fascinated immediately ends if you do a hostile action against the Fascinated enemy or that enemy's allies. This spell doesn't change that. If you don't use hostile actions, Fascinated lasts as long as the spell lasts (aka, until tribute is paid in full).

The secondary effect of the target being unable to use hostile actions against you does persist for the whole duration of the spell though.

It's common for this to happen with spells. Fascinated, as a condition, has no end state beyond hostile activity. It can go on forever. The spell adds an end state (Fascinated ends when the spell ends) and keeps the original break condition (hostile actions). It's very similar to the Confusion spell: just because the spell says you're Confused for 1 minute on Failure and Critical Failure doesn't mean you can't slap someone out early by damaging them, per the Confused rules. It just means if you don't manage to do it, the confused condition goes away in 1 minute.

I'm playing a fighter who picked up Tactical Reflexes.

I was talking about the feat with someone and they said "If you take two reactive strikes on the same other creature's turn, MAP applies. I think it's in the errata. MAP is per turn."

I've looked through the errata for anything about "Reactive Strikes," "Attacks of Opportunity," and "Multiple Attack Penalty," but haven't found the section they're referring to yet.

Could anyone point out where this was clarified? Thanks!

If we look at the rules for Multiple Attack Penalty you will see that it says it does not apply to attacks made outside of your turn.

Moreover, as Red Metal points out, Reactive Strike itself says it does not suffer from nor contribute to MAP. Every time you use Reactive Strike, whether on your turn or someone else's, it will be without MAP, no exceptions.

All characters have hearing as an imprecise sense (at least by default) which means if you're Blinded you can still detect people using your hearing, they'll simply be Hidden (per the rules in Imprecise Senses ).

For any action that targets a hidden creature you'll need to pass a DC 11 flat check or it will fail (per the rules on the Hidden condition).

Your Reaction does not target your ally, per se, and so it cannot fail. The Strike you make as part of Retributive Strike though does target the enemy so that one can fail if you don't pass the flat check.

Other than these wrinkles though the reaction still functions as normal. Nothing in the Blinded condition says you can't use Reactions, so as long as the triggers are met you can take them. Just at very reduced efficiency in some cases.

Compare for example with a reaction like Nimble Dodge where the trigger specifies you must be able to see the attacker. If you're blinded, you can't see them, so you can't use it. But Retributive Strike doesn't have this restriction, so it works fine.

EDIT: Also, forgot to say that you don't need the enemy to be in your reach for you to use Retributive Strike. You can use the Reaction at any range if both the enemy and your ally are in your aura. You only get to strike if the enemy is in Reach, but the damage reduction happens regardless.

Ascalaphus wrote:

If it's 3:00:55 o'clock and you wait "an entire minute", is it 3:01:00 or 3:01:55?

That's the question.

Another way of phrasing it is that an entire round has passed when initiative has come round to you again.

I honestly believe this is the common mistake so many people, myself included, actually do.

Contrary to previous editions, a round is not a duration in PF2.

It is a period of time between 2 events : when the first in Initiative starts acting and when the last in Initiative ends acting.

Note how there is zero reference in the RAW to your original position in the initiative while you are still delaying.

That is because the period between your original position in the initiative in the round when you delayed and your original position in the following round does not actually define a round.

Saying it does is actually a houserule.

What defines a round is explicitly stated: from fastest's first action to slowest's last action.

Initiative does not "come round to you again" while you are still delaying.

But this doesn't really work? If we look at effects that have duration in rounds (of which there are a lot), they do not work with your definition of rounds.

If you have Enemy A, Enemy B, Bard, Enemy C, Fighter and the Bard casts Courageous Anthem on their turn, the spell won't end when the Fighter finishes their turn (which would be the End of Round 1), nor will it end when the Fighter finishes their 2nd turn (which would be the End of Round 2). Per the rules on durations, it will end at the beginning of the Bard's turn on Round 2.

This is expressly shown here and here. Delay has to use different wording because it is taking you out of the initiative order, but the intent is clear, when they mean "a full round" they mean "when your pre-delay initiative would come around again". Because that's how all round based tracking works in PF2e.

This topic raised its ugly head again in a PFS special during a convention last week-end.

My PC was last in Initiative order.

I wanted to Delay into the next round to hit opponents with an AoE effect after the Fighter could step out of the area.

Another player reacted strongly that I could not Delay past the end of the 1st round (and thus that, because of being the slowest, I could not Delay at all) because then I was reaching the end of the round and Delaying beyond that was not allowed.

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

I found that interpretation preposterous as I thought being the slowest to act should not mean you could not Delay. And I argued that an entire round was between my original initiative in round 1 and my original initiative in round 2 (how I used to see rounds in 3.x/PF1) and thus I could indeed Delay in the second round.

I now believe we were both wrong, because PF2 redefined what "an entire round" is:

"A round begins when the participant with the highest initiative roll result starts their turn, and it ends when the one with the lowest initiative ends their turn."

So, in my case, the RAW seems to be, if I do not return to the initiative order soon enough:

Round 1 starts.

Round 1, my turn = I Delay (and am removed from the initiative order).

Round 1 ends. I have not yet Delayed an entire round without returning to the initiative order.

Round 2 starts with the participant with the highest initiative roll result starting their turn.

Round 2 ends with the participant with the lowest initiative ending their turn.

Round 3 begins.

I have then Delayed an entire round without returning to the initiative order.

- My actions from the Delayed turn are lost

- My initiative doesn't change

- My next turn occurs at my original position in the initiative order. On round 3.

Thoughts ?

You are in the right in theory, but your example is wrong IMO.

Lets say it's 3 enemies, you, and your Buddy, and the initiative ends up like this:

Enemy A
Enemy B
You
Enemy C
Your Buddy

Round 1, Enemy A, and Enemy B take their turns. You choose to Delay on your turn.

Enemy C goes, and you don't re-enter initiative.
Your Buddy goes, and you do not re-enter initiative.

We now begin Round 2.

Enemy A goes, and you do not re-enter initiative.
Enemy B goes, and you do not re-enter initiative.

At this point, you have spent 1 whole round in Delay, so per the rules you now come back into initiative in your original position, having lost all your actions from Round 1.

Because you can only re-enter as a free action triggered by the end of another creature's turn, there is no difference in this example between coming in after Enemy B or just letting Delay run its course and being reinserted normally. It also means you can only ever "gain" initiative if there are 2 or more creatures before you. If you go second, there is no way to ever go first.*

*At least, I think. If, in our example, you re-enter initiative after Your Buddy, I'm not sure if rules-wise you now become the last guy to take your turn on Round 1, or the first guy to take your turn on Round 2. But on the other hand I'm not entirely sure if this changes anything with regards to effects, so it might just be a non-issue.

Like Hammerjack said, you're adding those traits to the normal Shield Bash , allowing you to give your shield weapon runes and a few neat traits instead of a die upgrade through Shield Spikes/Boss.

I have derailed this thread enough, especially considering I answered OPs question ages ago, but I will respond to these two points before exiting the thread:

In the same vein, EVERY martial MCD should then have high-level options for improving that specific Class MCD. That would demonstrate your mindset among the devs.

This is simply nonsensical, because it assumes the developers want your multiclass DCs to be as good as your base class DC, which is clearly not the case. The multiclass dedications that get upgrades to Class DC are those that have several features that benefit from it.

It doesn't matter that Multiclass Fighter DC never goes past Trained, because the only Fighter feature that you can get from the Archetype that uses Class DC is Dazing Blow. It doesn't matter that Rogue DC never goes past trained, because the only thing that uses Class DC is Twin Distraction.

You're under the impression that having a lower class DC on a multiclass Archetype is crippling when the reality is most classes have 1, maybe 2 feats between level 1 and 10 that even use Class DC.

The classes that do care about their class DC get upgrades so they don't suffer as badly. Which is a clear sign that development intent is for each Class to use their own Class DC.

It actually takes a touch of RPG sophistication to get to your interpretation, so kudos, but I think that's a point against it.

I find this funny because it does not really take sophistication to realise that when a feat I took from my Fighter class says to use Class DC, I should use my Fighter Class DC. And when a feat I got from my Monk Archetype (which gives me Monk Class DC) says to use Class DC, it's quite natural to think it means Monk Class DC. Because otherwise, why give me specific Class DCs?

That's just the most straightforward interpretation.