TheFinish's page

How do you price ammunition made of precious materials? Do you just use the "weapons" formula (e.g. Adamantine = 1400+140/bulk), or is there something else?

How does ammunition with bulk "-" factor in. (Just the base price then?)

In GM Core, page 240, it states:

"To determine the Price of 10 pieces of ammunition, use the base Price for a single weapon, without adding any extra for Bulk."

Sidenote, this is absolutely terrible pricing, but them's the rules.

Tbh I would totally dig the first press action of each turn being at +0 MAP. However, it would totally remove the "risk" factor of the class (though its not like I think they truly managed to represent "risk" with the class honestly).

Of the feats presented I think only Hit or Miss (at 10th) and Risky Overextension (at 16th) properly give you a Risk/Reward feeling.

When Risky as a trait got mentioned during the stream playtest, I sort of assumed feats would follow the format of: Attempt a Trip/Shove/Tumble Through but add the following Critical Success and Critical Failure effects on top of the usual. Not the bespoke actions we got.

I mean Bold Bluffs adds Risky to Feint and that's it!

I just want to point out that Combination Finisher on a Gymnast is already giving them the equivalent bonuses of Adrenaline but for their finishers instead of their Press attacks.

Agile Maneuvers at Level 6 also gives Swashbucklers the same benefit as Adrenaline for all the Athletics maneuvers.

Let me go on, actually.

Part of why I am concerned regarding these classes' direction, is my perceived continuation of removal of creative freedom by virtue of printing what might previously have been available to everyone via checks, and locking it behind a bespoke feat.

Daredevil, in particular, takes activities which might previously have been GM fiat activities, such as kicking a foe and using the momentum to propel yourself backwards, and putting it behind a class feat.

I don't know about you, but I would not ever had let anyone do Forceful Kickoff Stunt as a check. Saying you want to use the enemy to Leap backwards? Sure, that's cool as hell.

Asking me to roll Acrobatics vs their Forittude DC to push them back at the same time (so, a Shove, but with Acrobatics)? And if you Crit succeed you push them further than a Shove, and your Leap doesn't provoke reactions? And if you Critically Fail you're off-guard until the start of your next turn? That is quite a leap (ha!) forward from "can I bounce off this dude".

I will agree on one thing though: neither the Daredevil's fun maneuvers nor the Slayer's whole trophy system should really be locked behind a class. They should at most be subsystems for a GM to add to the game for everyone who wants to participate in, not just these guys.

Two-handed weapons also seem fairly cut and dry to me, I don't see anything that grants you an exemption from needing a hand free to use them.
I'm super open to being convinced otherwise on this point, because lightly armored, two-handed weapon user getting their athletics maneuvers sounds super sweet and fun to play. Grapple would likely be off the table, but having access to all the others would be great.

The simple answer here is that the action itself does not say they need to, all the Stunt Feats have the same Requirements line: "The target can’t be more than one size larger than you" and nothing else.

They then call for an Athletics Check or an Acrobatics Check, depending on the Feat. If we go look at the skills themselves, you will notice they do not say you require a free hand to use them in general, with that stipulation being instead on the specific skill actions (like Grapple, Trip and so on).

Therefore, when the Stunt feats call for these checks, and they don't specify needing free hands, then...they don't need them. Many of them have the same effect as an Athletics action (for example, Rebounding Fall Stunt is essentially a fancy Trip), but because of how they're worded they do not need free hands. Hence my question for clarification.

Thats what I get for not properly checking. I wrote worse, saw they were equivalent, was going to change it and forgot.

It's still not very good since it's cantrip damage but with more restrictions. At least the ancestral breath weapons recharge every 1d4 rounds and are just an ancestry feat. The vials are one of your two Tools, they should really be usable more often from the get go.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to play these classes in any meaningful way, so my impressions come only from reading them.

Daredevil:

- I noticed that all the Daredevil Stunt Feats have a requirement that an opponent must be no more than 1 size larger than you, which is fine of course. But Daredevils do not seem to have any class features or feats that allow them to affect larger sizes, like Titan Wrestler does for Athletics. Is that intended? It seems to me pretty against theme to force the Daredevil to grow themselves if they want to affect bigger things, and it disproportionately affects Small daredevils, who will not be able to use their cool feats on anything bigger than Medium unless they use magic or other effects to increase their size.

- In the same vein, Stunt Feats have the Attack trait while calling for generic Athletics Checks or Acrobatics Checks. It's clear that we would apply MAP to these as normal, but how do we determine if Agile applies too? None of them say they require a free hand, so a Daredevil could do them with a two-handed weapon, or with both hands occupied. I assume the player would decide, but does that mean they could just choose Fist anyway, since the Fist profile applies to other non-listed unarmed attacks you can make. This could do with some clarification, I think.

Slayer:

- I really think the biggest issue right now is Mark Quarry being a 10 minute exploration activity that can simply fail. It makes Instant Enmity and Endless Enmity almost must haves from what I can read, and it seems very similar to Person of Interest and Suspect of Opportunity from Investigator but even more restricted. Since quite a lot of Slayer features revolve about your Quarry, and unlike Investigators (which are pretty broad) your Quarry is one single creature that you have to somehow know of in advance, I think it'd be better to make it a lot more similar to Hunt Prey, otherwise I don't forsee the gameplay loop with a Slayer being very fun.

- The Signature Tools are just not balanced against each other at all. Bloodseeking Blade* is by far the best, followed by Warded Mail, and the other two are severely underwhelming. The Vials, in particular are very bad since Ignition Vial provides damage worse than a cantrip (2d4+ 1d4 every two levels, compared to Haunting Hymn which is 1d8 + 1d8 every two levels) but has a frequency of once per minute until specialised. I realise that because it's Relentless one of the actions can be the one you get from Quickened if you trigger On the Hunt, but that honestly is still not good enough.

*Minor point, but since it can be any kind of weapon, maybe just change it to Bloodseeking Weapon? It feels very strange to refer to a crossbow as a Bloodseeking Blade.

Those are my main observations. Overall I am pretty underwhelmed by the classes presented here. They both work mechanically but personally do not excite me in any way. It's a pity I won't be able to play them to see if that changes my outlook, but life is life. I hope other people have fun putting them through their paces.

I think it's much more likely Web missing Unarmed is an error. Even without it, the description is clear that all attacks granted to an Animal Barbarian are Unarmed and in the Brawling Group, doesn't matter if they don't have the Trait.

For comparison, the Foxfire Feat also gives an unarmed ranged attack that lacks the trait, but nobody's going to argue it isn't an Unarmed attack.

The Web should therefore benefit from anything that benefits Unarmed Attacks, including Brutality.

gesalt wrote:

What's funny is that magus doesn't really have a problem with their spell DC even now. Compared to a full caster the gap looks like this:

01-04: -1 (+3 vs +4 int)
05-06: -0 (int evens out)
07-08: -2 (proficiency)
09: -0 (catch up in proficiency)
10-14: -1 (int)
15-16: -2 (casters gain prof, magus +5 int)
17-18: -1 (recover proficiency, lose apex)
19: -3 (legendary)
20: -4 (int)

While this is certainly what a Magus could hypothetically get if they max their Intelligence at every possible turn, the Magus is a class that will, in all but two cases, depend on four attributes before even factoring Int. Getting that +3 in Int would mean sacrificing the defenses of a 8 HP/level class that, under all but one set of circumstances, has to get into melee range to do their thing. Although Magus players will sacrifice some of those stats for the +2 needed to dip into a multiclass archetype, leaving the gap at -2 to begin with, I've rarely seen players aim for a +5 to Int unless they were a Starlit Span.

I can confirm that in my personal experience, only Starlit Span magi went for Int +3 and kept it up. Most left it at +2 to access Psychic Dedication and never touched it again.

In fact during my admittedly short sting running/playing PF2e, I've seen more magi go for +0 Int than +3.

I actually make it a player choice on whether they want it to scale like Additional Lore or not, since some characters are trying to leave their past behind and it wouldn't make sense for them to keep getting better at something they dislike to do.

But yes it's a good idea overall and it really doesn't unbalance the game at all.

You definitely don't create magazines when creating alchemical or magical ammunition, you create single bullets/arrows/bolts/sling stones/etc, as Tactical Drongo explained.

Ruleswise, there is no "reloading" a magazine for a repeating weapon. The ammunition is the magazine, as the tables show. Realistically though you should be able to put pellets in an air repeater magazine, bolts in a repeating crossbow magazine, etc.

That's something you'd need to talk to your GM about tough, because it requires a lot more bookkeeping on your part as a player. Not only would you need to keep track of which magazine is loaded with what alchemical/magical ammunition, but in what order too. Plus if you fill up a whole magazine with ammo that requires activation, you're basically giving up one of the main advantages of repeating weapons, since you'd need to activate ammo after every shot or you'd waste it. Which is effectively like reloading after every shot.

When I played through Guns and Gears our GM compromised with the Gunslinger and allowed them to single-load alchemical/magical ammo into their Repeating weapons, just to save everyone a headache.

I'd chalk this up to sloppy editting, every weapon listed in the table is one weapon, not two. If you want to dual wield Black Powder Knuckle Dusters you have to buy 2, same as any other weapon.

TheFinish wrote:

Waldham wrote:

Quote:

Make a melee Strike using your gauntlet bow as a gauntlet. If the Strike is successful, you automatically latch onto the target, giving them the grabbed condition, then make a ranged Strike against them with your gauntlet bow. This Strike does not trigger reactions normally triggered by ranged attacks. If you are holding or wearing an injury poison, you can apply it to the bolt used in the attack as a free action before making the ranged Strike.

If the characters uses a crescent cross, is it the blade of the crescent cross that suck in the opponent ?

2- Whether the blade is struck or not isn't particularly relevant, the important part is you're using the Crescent Cross to grab so you likely can't use it for anything else.

Guys, what are you even talking about?

Requirements. You're wielding a loaded gauntlet bow.
You can't use this feat with anything but gauntlet bow.
Crescent Cross can't be used with it at all.

You can with the feat Crescent Cross Training which I assume OP has because otherwise, as you point out, you can't use Infiltration Assassination with it.

I'd go with Awakened Animal (Bear) Fighter and then ask the GM to allow you take Rivethun Invoker since it seems like it would fit your character concept perfectly, as the archetype is all about channeling spirits to create magical effects but doesn't rely on spells.

Fighter doesn't upgrade your natural Awakened Animal weapons directly but it does provide a lot of solid all around options to work with the natural weapons playstyle.

Another option would be Monk (and the Archetype) for a similar feeling, and Qi Spells do also fit pretty well with your concept.

Hello, I have a question about the Infiltration Assassination feat.

Quote:

Make a melee Strike using your gauntlet bow as a gauntlet. If the Strike is successful, you automatically latch onto the target, giving them the grabbed condition, then make a ranged Strike against them with your gauntlet bow. This Strike does not trigger reactions normally triggered by ranged attacks. If you are holding or wearing an injury poison, you can apply it to the bolt used in the attack as a free action before making the ranged Strike.

It gives a grabbed condition automatically if the strike is successful, is it right ? If the characters uses a crescent cross, is it the blade of the crescent cross that suck in the opponent ? DC to Escape is the Athletics skill + 10 from the crossbow infiltrator ?

Is the grabbed condition only during its turn of the crossbow infiltrator ?

There is a MAP on the ranged strike.

Thanks for your future answer.

In order:

1- Yes, if the Melee strike hits, the enemy is automatically grabbed.
2- Whether the blade is struck or not isn't particularly relevant, the important part is you're using the Crescent Cross to grab so you likely can't use it for anything else.
3- Yes, the Escape DC should still be calculated as normal, so it'd be the Athletics DC of the character using Infiltration Assassination.
4- In this case I would assume the intention is to give the Grabbed condition until the end of your next turn or they Escape (like Combat Grab), but as written they actually gain the Grabbed condition until they Escape, since it has no listed duration, but that seems like an oversight.
5- Yes, the ranged Strike suffers MAP since nothing in the feat says we can ignore it.

TheFinish wrote:

The only way to get any kind of range is by being an Inventor*, since then you can slap Ranged Trip on something like a Sukgung and trip people 200 feet out. But then, you're playing an Inventor, so there's that.

You can get it on a 10th level aiuvarin character [Multitalented (inventor) + Basic Modification and no ability requirement]. So a 10th level gunslinger could use that Sukgung to range trip from 200' [or 400' away if they pick up Far Shot] ;).

Absolutely. Though usually the problem I run into the most with these kinds of setups is that characters who want to be using ranged weapons are usually not built for Athletics maneuvers, since Athletics requires proper investment into Strength (especially with the -2 from Ranged Trip tacked on) to work.

The best setup I saw for this was actually a STR based Aiuvarin Precision Ranger who did what you say (Mutitalented at 9th for Inventor -> Initial Modification at 10th) and slapped Blunt Shot on a Gauntlet Bow. With Far Shot he had 120 feet of Ranged Trip, which he mostly used to bring down annoying fliers. Called it his pocket net gun.

The Raven Black wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Specially because there are other ways to do ranged maneuvers just changing your weapon.

From 60ft away ? Without needing to invest in STR or Athletics ?

Not exactly that much distance because most Ranged Trip weapons are 20ft but due to how ranged weapons rules works you still can do a 40ft easily with a -2, especially if you are a fighter and that's would be probably the same attack roll value that a spellcaster would use with Telecnetic Manouver spell.

My point was just to exemplify that at last for trip the ranged maneuvers are not that rare (kineticists also can make ranged Shove pretty easily) to do without use a limited resource like spell slots, special a rank 2 one and still need to have a free hand and a Titan Wrestler.

Anyways that was my thoughts about a possible RAI and Balance, RAW the spell is subject to both requirements.

Ranged Trip specifically cannot be attempted beyond the first range increment, and even within this increment it's at a -2 penalty. The only way to get any kind of range is by being an Inventor*, since then you can slap Ranged Trip on something like a Sukgung and trip people 200 feet out. But then, you're playing an Inventor, so there's that.

As for the spell, I just let it ignore size and hands.

*Or getting Far Shot from Ranger, since 40 feet ranged trip from a Bola is usually good enough.

The problem here is just that there's no gameplay reason for the Clockwork Macahuitl to be a level 8 item and cost 550 gp. It isn't out of line with other Advanced weapons, and it adds nothing that could justify the price.

Yep, definitely d12s. By the time the spell deals damage, the creature has already taken damage from a Strike or Spell, so it gets upgraded.

Claxon wrote:

And people accounting for kip up is crazy to me. NPCs aren't built as PCs. You don't need to worry about a PC feat. How often do NPCs have a kip up like ability? I'm sure it exists, but I don't recall encountering it. Which to me says it's very infrequent.

I'm playing in Age of Ashes, and the answer is quite often. Like almost every significant NPC (not necessarily every random guard mook) who's humanoid and martial-like has it past level 12 it's felt like.

Without spoiling anything since you're still playing it, I will say this is 100% down to your GM. No enemy in AoA has an ability equivalent to Kip Up in the entire Adventure Path.

And it's not just FA games where you want to be taking dedications, that's every game. Typically I have 2-3, and I've seen great builds with 4. Not so many with zero/wouldn't take an archetype if not for exemplar. I think the only class where that might make some sense is kineticist since it has so little out of class synergy (but why not at least multitalented alchemist?) I'd go as far as to say that archetype sequencing is a core optimization skill in pf2e.

I mean, it's very easy to see why kineticists wouldn't take Multitalented Alchemist:

- Not everyone plays a human kine and wastes two Attribute boosts on Intelligence
- Not everyone plays an Human/Aiuvarin kine

I do find it fascinating how different tables can be though. I've never been in a non-FA game where people took dedications except for the old Magus -> Psychic combo or Ruffians with Fighter or Mauler. Someone taking 3 dedications in a non-FA game sounds bonkers.

But is slam down enough better to justify a 4th level feat, on fighter, a class with really good feats?

I mean, yes? What other thing are you going to take at 4th level if you're all in on being a Two-Handed Fighter? Swipe? Maybe Powerful Shove? Both of those are worse picks than Slam Down. You likely already took Intimidating Strike or Lunge at 2nd, I guess you could take the other one? There really isn't a lot of competition at low Fighter Levels, getting Slam Down isn't a bad choice at all.

Crashing Slam at 10 definitely has to be thought about though.

Now if your main point is that Slam Down shouldn't be a 4th level Feat, I don't think anything would change if it was 1st or 2nd and you kept the others as is. Two Handed fighters would still take it at some point, you'd just be rearranging orders slightly.

TheFinish wrote:

Kip Up makes up some of the deficit by eliminating the main drawback of Strike+Trip, but that has a notable opportunity cost for most classes (namely everyone not named Rogue or Swashbuckler; or anyone without the Acrobat dedication)

In one campaign I'm running, 4 out of 6 players have it.

In the second campaign I'm running, I expect 2 or 3 out of 5 players to get it. The main two who I'm confident won't get it are both Champions.

In the campaign I'm playing in, 3 out of 5 people at least have it (not sure about the Druid or Wizard).

None of the campaigns are jammed pack with optimizers, there's a few but it's mostly pretty casual players.

And I've played in five campaigns that went beyond 7th level and the number of players who had Kip Up across all of them was 2. And I was one of them. And I was a Rogue.

And when I asked my players why they didn't consider taking it after the campaigns ended, the answer was always "Because this character wouldn't be good at Acrobatics". Different groups have different priorities, so ignoring Slam Down's benefits in preventing critical failures because you assume people will beeline for Kip Up as a rule isn't terrible useful when discussing the Feat's value (or lack thereof).

Kelseus wrote:

Does it have a clear benefit that can be used almost every fight? Also Yes.

I literally provided the math above showing that Slam Down doesn't even clearly increase the odds of Striking + Tripping successfully compared to Strike + Trip.

The main benefit is the first part you pointed out, allowing you to trip with any 2H weapon.

It doesn't change your overall odds of succesfully tripping, but it does greatly reduce your odds of critically failing a trip and it greatly increases your odds of critically succeeding (depending on how good your odds were in the beginning).

In the examples you used:

60/60 -> Slam down gives you a 3% chance to Crit Fail (0.6x5) while Strike+Trip gives you 20% (1-4 on the d20 since you from needing 9+ to succeed to 14+)

80/80 -> Slam down gives you a 24% chance of a crit (0.8x30) while Strike+Trip gives you 5% (you go from critting on 15+ to critting on 20s)

40/40 -> Slam down gives you a 6% chance to critically fail (0.4x15) while Strike+Trip has a whopping 40% chance to crit fail on the trip (1-8 on the d20 since you go from succeeding on 13+ to succeeding on 18+) although it funnily enough also has double the crit success chance (5 vs 2, both have 5% crit success chance but the Slam down has to hit)

Strike+Trip has more flexibility if you're facing something that can disrupt your activity, or if you want to Strike A but Trip B, or if you're worried your Strike will kill your target (and make the Trip useless). Otherwise Slam Down is always better than trying to Strike and Trip someone.

Kip Up makes up some of the deficit by eliminating the main drawback of Strike+Trip, but that has a notable opportunity cost for most classes (namely everyone not named Rogue or Swashbuckler; or anyone without the Acrobat dedication) since not only do you need to spend your precious skill increases in Acrobatics, you also need to get it to Master at 7th (which in the case we're discussing means delaying Master Athletics to 9th) and you need to spend your general 7th level feat to get it ASAP. It's not a huge cost and you can obviously delay it, but the more levels you delay it the better Slam Down looks versus trying to Strike and Trip someone.

I think Paizo wants to stay as far as possible from the 3.x / PF1 paradigm where players who knew the various options inside out and could find unexpected synergies would be able to build PCs that were far more powerful than one casually built by someone who did not know or care about minmaxing.

Which is why greater complexity will not equal greater power in PF2.

And the vanilla core classes tend to be the ceiling of power. Because Paizo does not want them to be the floor.

They have frankly already failed at this though. There's absolutely options that are more powerful than others and synergies that are pretty hidden (mainly because they rely on items, and there's a ton of items to wade through) that will result in some PCs completely overshadowing others.

And that is before we bring in Free Archetype, which I've found to be a very widespread way to play the game.

TheFinish wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

Oh ffs. That Pet nerf means that my familiar suddenly can no longer use Interact to toss items into ally hands, that invokes a pseudo attack roll. WTF Paizo.

Why would this be the case? Interact doesn't have the Attack trait, and I don't see anything in familiar abilities calling for that either. Is it a class feat or something?

Yeah, that example / sub-action for the item pass of Interact says you do so via a ranged attack, which is gonna hit that ban.

Quote:

You can also attempt to throw an item to someone. You typically need to succeed at a DC 15 ranged attack with a 10-foot range increment to do so.

Thanks, I'd missed that. Probably not hard to just allow that too.

Trip.H wrote:

Unicore wrote:

What has resistance to nonlethal and not immunity?

Spiny Loadstone spellheart. Doesn't even take an investment slot. I accidentally re-discovered how stupid the Imm,Weak,Res rules were because I wanted Needle Darts on my Ruby Phoenix Summoner.

And surprise, there's magic that makes all damage from both teams nonlethal.

I told the GM I was waving that resistance and pretending it wasn't there.

Spiny Lodestone doesn't make damage nonlethal. And I'm surprised you would want it on a Summoner, since needle darts MAPs with Eidolon attack. Save spells are much better for Summoners.

Spiney lodestone doesn't by itself, but forced mercy is a very easy way to do it, though since it's physical damage it wouldn't be too hard to rule with the new resistance/weakness rules.

Trip. H is speaking in the context of Ruby Phoenix and talking about magic that makes all damage nonlethal, but this seems like something his GM has made up. Nowhere in the AP is this ever stated, and in fact the opposite (that people can die during fights) is the norm.

Oh ffs. That Pet nerf means that my familiar suddenly can no longer use Interact to toss items into ally hands, that invokes a pseudo attack roll. WTF Paizo.

Why would this be the case? Interact doesn't have the Attack trait, and I don't see anything in familiar abilities calling for that either. Is it a class feat or something?

Also like to note that pets being unable to use actions with the attack trait means that they can't escape grabs and the like. Very bizarre change. Feel quite sorry for any witch whose familiar is grabbed now.

The FAQ specified they can use Escape and Force Open, so that's covered.

The question to me is about the ally who cannot step, or could until someone else stepped into the only place the character could. It seems weird to say that pincer attack has a prerequisite that a squad mate must be able to step in order to benefit from the ability, especially if they were going to step but an ally stepped into the only place the character could step. That feels a little retroactively countering to the character’s choice.

I do agree that responding to a tactic, whether you end up engaging in the optional actions involved or not, means you can’t respond to any other tactics.

Responding to a tactic and getting no benefit except one or more enemies are now off guard to you doesn’t feel like a game breaking exploit to me. The commander could have just spent an action tripping a foe or moving into a flanking position. As a GM, I wouldn’t make the player pay their reaction for that benefit, but even for those that do the commander can grant a free reaction to an ally so it’s probably fine balance wise either way.

If an ally cannot step, then they should get no benefit. I mean if you're immobilised you can't respond to any tactic that says you can Stride/Step, how is this any different? If a player's character is Grabbed, would you allow them to spend the reaction anyway? I don't see how "I can't move but I'll benefit from this tactic that is predicated on people moving" makes a ton of sense.

An ally blocking your movement is something to discuss with the table, ideally, but yeah its perfectly fine to say "Nah I'm not responding, Mike took the place I was going to use so I just won't step." That's not retroactively countering anything so much as good table manners. It's like going "I'm going to cast fireball" and a friend goes "Dude I'm gonna be in the AoE" and the caster going "Oh my bad I'll cast lightning bolt instead". If the GM went "No you said you were casting fireball, so now you have to cast it" we'd all think they're bananas.

And sure it's not a huge deal with Pincer Attack. It's more a problem with Thundering Charge and/or any future Tactics they might print.

My reading is that each player must decide to respond to the tactic before any character starts performing the action or not. If someone steps where you were going to step you don’t get to retroactively not respond to the call, you responded, but did not take the ensuing action.

If you had to step to benefit from the ability then the tactic should specify that.

I see. I personally disagree but if that's how you want to run it, that's fine.

Pincer attack says the squad mate can step. Not that they do step or must step. In order to make the choice to step or not they have to first respond to the tactic. The enemy becoming off guard is contingent on someone stepping next to them, but they are then off guard to all the responding allies regardless. The tactics trait explains what responding means, but it is a simple choice on the part of the player. So it could even just be one ally who steps and makes an enemy off guard to every other squad mate who responds, and it is still a useful ability. It is definitely one of my favorite tactics.

All tactics are a "can" clause (except the aforementioned Trainings, which are sort of general buffs). None of them say a squadmate must do X. Hence, squadmates have a choice to respond (by doing X) or not respond (by not doing X).

The tactics trait doesn't say what responding means. It says to use a tactic you must have squadmates and those squadmates have to be able to perceive you, among other tihngs:

The only time responding is even mentioned is that you can only do so to one tactic per round.

In the case of Pincer Attack, responding to it means using your Reaction to Step. I don't see any reading that indicates otherwise.

Whether the squad mate steps or not doesn’t determine whether they responded to the commander’s tactic.

Is this stated anywhere? Because a thorough read of the Commander doesn't specify one way or the other.

Except for Mountaineering Training and Naval Training, I'd assume "responding" to a tactic is doing what the tactic tells you to do: Stepping in Pincer Attack, Interacting to Reload with Reload!, Raising a Shield with Shields Up!, etc.

But you're saying a squadmate can say "I respond to this tactic" and then do nothing? Aside from the fact that I don't think this does anything except with Pincer Attack, I can't find anything that supports this reading. is it elsewhere in Battlecry?

Of course, the thing I'd do is get a Moderate Sturdy and then start buying Runes with Greater at 13th... it's much cheaper.

Yeah, the initial cost is a bit higher (going from Moderate Sturdy to Greater is 2.000 gold, buying a Greater Reinforcing Rune is 2.500) but after that upgrading your rune is far cheaper and you end up saving around 7.000 gold overall, which is a good chunk of change.

One of those weird quirks with shields.

TheFinish wrote:

Then Enemy 1 is now off-guard to the Commander and the Squadmate block until the start of the Commander's next turn, but Ally 1 gets no benefit.

Hmmm. I read that sentence as:

"that opponent is off-guard to melee attacks from [you and all other squadmates who responded]..."
not
"that opponent is off-guard to [melee attacks from you] and all other squadmates who responded..."

IOW no ranged attacks at all. But I guess the grammar supports either.

Man I somehow missed the "melee" thing there. Talk about forests and trees.

Yeah its definitely not for ranged.

So the Commander's own Step doesn't trigger the effect, but he can still benefit from others taking the reation?

Correct, whether the Commander steps or not doesn't matter, since whether or not they themselves end up adjacent to an enemy is irrelevant for the tactic itself. But the Commander will gain the benefit of the tact against all enemies an ally steps adjacent to, unlike his squadmates who will only benefit against enemies other squadmates end up adjacent to.

I'm not sure about the RAI here. It seems counterintuitive to demand PCs move away and then back in to get the benefit. As a GM it would be a reasonable handwave I think to say as long as you've designated them squadmates, they don't have to move if they're already next to the targets. But on the other hand, an argument could be made that the benefit is coming from the enemy not expecting the pincer, so in that respect if the squadmates all just stay exactly where they are, there's no surprise or lack of expectation on the enemy's part. Thus a GM could reasonably interpret the tactic as requiring some actual movement in order to get an opponent off-guard. It's up to your table; I don't think handwaving it would be OP but I think you're correct about that scenario and the RAW not giving OG to Enemy3 if PCs 2 and 3 don't move.

I think another issue here is that despite the tactic's name it doesn't actually require doing any kind of pincer.

If you have Enemy 1 engaged with Ally 1, and then 20 feet back you have the Commander and a block of 5 squadmates, all with ranged weapons, and the Commander calls for Pincer Attack...

Then Ally 1 Steps to still be engaged with Enemy 1, and your 5 squadmates use their Reaction to step 5 feet back (as does the Commander)...

Then Enemy 1 is now off-guard to the Commander and the Squadmate block until the start of the Commander's next turn, but Ally 1 gets no benefit.

That's not really a Pincer Attack so much as a...weasel war dance, I guess?

I'm in almost this scenario in a pbp game right now, and this is my first time playing a Commander, so I appreciate helping me fully understand this too. Originally I had just thought Pincer Attack let everyone step and then granted OG, but as you're detailing, it's more complicated than that.

In our situation:
Commander uses Pincer Attack and takes his own reaction to Step adjacent to Enemy1 and Enemy2. PC2 is already adjacent to Enemy1, and PC3 is already adjacent to Enemy2. Due to terrain, PC2 and PC3 cannot step without moving away from the enemies, so they do not Step. PC4 (who is a rogue) takes the reaction to Step up to Enemy1. None of the enemies are flanked.

Is this correct?
Enemy1: OG to Commander and Rogue (thus granting Sneak Attack). Not OG to PC3 who did not take a Step.
Enemy2: OG to no one? Despite the Commander Stepping and PC2 already being adjacent to them, PC2 did not Step, so Pincer Attack doesn't grant OG? What if the Rogue has a reach weapon and thus threatens Enemy2, but isn't adjacent?

Edit: I realize a map would make this much easier to understand.

Unfortunately I think the result is that Enemy 1 is off-guard to the Commander, and Enemy 2 is off-guard to nobody.

The crux of the matter is this line:

"If any of your allies ends this movement adjacent to an opponent, that opponent is off-guard to melee attacks from you and all other squadmates who responded to Pincer Attack until the start of your next turn."

In your example, only one ally responded to Pincer Attack, which is the Rogue. That ally did end up adjacent to an Enemy, which is Enemy 1. Enemy 1 will therefore be off-guard to the Commander, and all other squadmates, but as we established there are no other squadmates, because only the Rogue reacted to pincer attack. And you've said nobody is flanking, so no other off-guards.

Essentially if only one squadmate responds to Pincer Attack, then that squadmate will never benefit from off-guard provided by Pincer Attack.

Wouldn't Cats Eye Elixir work as a cheap fix.

Cat's Eye Elixir wrote:

For the next minute, you reduce the flat check to target hidden creatures to 5, and you don't need to attempt a flat check to target concealed creatures. These benefits apply only against creatures within 30 feet of you.

Dazzled says all creatures are concealed to you so I dont see why not.

Yes, it'd work fine. Since Dazzled just makes creatures concealed, anything that lets you ignore the Concealed condition works. Echo receptors work, cat's eye elixir works, Blind Fight (the feat) works. Probably a lot of other things.

Confusing colors is a Rank 8 spell though so I suggested the more permanent item based solution. Cat's eye elixir only lasts one minute, which is its main drawback.

(and if you do Battle Medicine with Assurance you can just use a basic toolkit anyway).

Kind of but not really? Assurance will let you hit base DC at level 3, you hit DC 20 at level 6, DC 30 at level 14 and you never hit DC 40 (because assurance maxes out at 38: 10 + 20 level + 8 legendary).

It's ok for Treat Wounds if you have infinite time, it's terrible for Battle Medicine where you very likely need all the healing you can get right now. Using an action to heal someone 2d8 HP at level 5 is very questionable.

All that said, Vasodilation should absolutely apply to Battle Medicine.

The playtest Necromancer was already weird with the lore, given the "undead" that it conjures never had enough of a soul to count as actual undead in the setting (so that followers of Pharasma and most of the Holy deities don't automatically kill on sight) and they're not using any matter that was formerly alive (because its necessary to be able to create thralls anywhere for the class to function, even if you don't have any bodies to do it from). This is the diet coke of necromancy in class form.

The only reason why anyone knows they're "undead" at all is because the class explicitly claims they are. But they don't fit with how undead have traditionally worked in Golarian at all. The way Necromancer works, its effectively really a Conjurer that uses magic to create undead-themed temporary meatsacks that only animate on command.

It would be trivially easy to reflavor thralls into basically anything from any tradition because they have so little connection to being undead mechanically that it's all just narrative flavour anyway. You could take the same class, change it to primal, change the thralls to plants instead, and it would work exactly the same way.

As a matter of fact you could probably name it Summoner* and it'd be just as fitting. Aside from the names of its features, the only thing that really even remotely codes it as a "Necromancer" instead of a generic minionmancer is Undead Lore and maybe Mastery of Life and Death (except you could very easily turn that to a nature theme too). Everything else is super easy to just reflavor into something that never interacts with undead.

*If we didn't already have a Summoner, of course.

Unfortunately there's nothing you can do in that regard since the spell specifies it affects all creatures.

One way around this is for everyone to get echo receptors since they give you precise hearing out to 40 feet, allowing you to ignore both Dazzled and Blinded at that range.

Thats correct in regards to the fascinated condition. The spell explicitly says though "If you attack or take a hostile action, the fascinated condition ends only for the creature that's attacked."

Yes, because normally Fascinated states:

"This condition ends if a creature uses hostile actions against you or any of your allies."

So lets say you cast Luring Wall and five enemies fail their save. They would all now be Fascinated.

Next round you attack one of them. Without the clause you quoted, Fascinated would end for everyone who failed. It would end for the one you attacked because you used a hostile action against it, and it would end for all their friends because you used a hostile action against one of their allies.

With the clause, Fascinated ends only for the one you attacked, and everyone else is still fascinated.

They can all still attack you while fascinated though, nothing there changes.

I had a game where another player took Debilitating Shot, it can indeed be very strong but he did run into a couple of situations where he hit but dealt no damage (he was using a composite shortbow) due to Resistance, which meant it didn't do anything.

That said it's still amazing vs solo bosses, against an encounter with multiples enemies it's alright but not crazy.

Fascinated does not prevent creatures from attacking you, all it does is this:

"You take a –2 status penalty to Perception and skill checks, and you can't use concentrate actions unless they (or their intended consequences) are related to the subject of your fascination, as determined by the GM"

So they could actually strike you at any point while you're Sustaining the spell, assuming they have the actions to do so.

And yes, on a Failure they just need to use one action to move towards you. They could then move away if desired.

There's already quite a few in the game, my personal wish from those that we don't have in 2e would be for them to remake the Aspis Agent and the Tattooed Mystic.

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.