TheFinish's page

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.

They don't really meaningfully interact with each other, as far as I can see.

"Into the Fray" always happens first, because it has a trigger of "you roll initiative".

You can't use Eternal Composition for with Fortissimo Composition. Fortissimo is not a composition cantrip, it's a spellshape focus spell.

What you can do instead is something like:

- During exploration, use Eternal Composition to declare Courageous Anthem as an exploration activity.

Combat Begins:

- Into the Fray triggers, and you get to draw your weapon(s) as you roll initiative.
- Per Eternal composition, you are affected by Courageous Anthem as if you'd cast it your previous turn (as is everyone within 60 feet of you).

Your first turn comes up in initiative:

- Courageous Anthem ends, since it has a duration of 1 round, and those effects end when your turn begins.
- Per Into the Fray, you can use a free action to Stride if you meet certain conditions. If you don't take this as your first action, you lose it.
- You can now take your turn as normal.
- You can use Fortissimo Composition (free action) and then use Eternal Composition to use your quickened action to case Courageous Anthem.
- You still have 3 actions to use.

Hope it helps.

In Combat, the rules are pretty clear that your Companion will not really act unless you command it, per the rules:

"Your animal companion has the animal and minion traits, and it gains 2 actions during your turn if you use the Command an Animal action to command it; this replaces the usual effects of Command an Animal, and you don’t need to attempt a Nature check."

There are ways around it. In general, the feat that makes your animal companion into a Mature animal companion also gives it 1 free action to Stride or Strike when you don't command it. But otherwise, if you don't command them, they do nothing in combat.

The minion rules are a bit more open ended, since they state:

"If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don't act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please."

So, to answer your question: generally, no, your animal companion will not follow you for free during encounters. You need a feat for it to be able to move for free once per round, otherwise you need to command it. Outside of combat, the animal will probably follow you around with no commands needed, though if you want it to take an exploration action you do need to Command it.

A whole lot of points

1 - Yes, all Martial Multiclass Dedications (which is what I was talking about) give you training in the respective Class DC. We can argue the Magus straddles the line here, but I challenge you to find me a single non-spellcaster Multiclass Dedication that doesn't train you in their Class DC. Spellcasting dedications give you training in spell attack and spell DC, as expected, but not Class DC.

Which makes sense, because caster classes rarely have anything that calls for Class DC, and when it does, it allows you to use Spell DC instead.

You wanna know how many caster feats call for only Class DC? One:

Pesh Skin

And I don't think I need to point out why that might be the case.

2 - Diverse Weapon Expert isn't a waste of space for a ton of classes because Fighter Dedication only gives you Trained in Martial Weapons. Any class that never gets Expert in Martial (of which there are a ton) gets a benefit.

We can argue Weapon Proficiency is better, but my point stands.

3,4 - I have already responded to this earlier.

5 - Spell DC is literally called Spell DC and Spell Attacks in all (non-remaster) classes. Go look at the details of Remastered classes, you will notice they don't say "Trained in Class DC", they say "Trained in Alchemist Class DC", "Trained in Barbarian Class DC" and so on and so forth.

There's many class DCs, there's only one Spell DC. They are not equal and never have been.

6 -I don't know why you keep bringing up Kineticist Impulses. Even if Impulses only said "your class DC", it'd obviously still be Kineticist Class DC.

I mean, in that same paragraph, later on, it says "This means your impulse attack roll is typically 10 lower than your class DC."

You gonna tell me that's any Class DC? No, because it's obvious it's Kineticist class DC, like it's obvious with all other classes.

The whole part of Impulses is important because it defines Impulse Attack Modifiers, which no other class has an equivalent of.

7 - I didn't skip anything, I very clearly said if an Archetype doesn't provide a Class DC of its own, you use your base class DC. Clear as day.

8 - Replacing infused item DC with your class DC is part of the 12th level Alchemist Archetype feat that increases your Alchemist Class DC to Expert, called Alchemical Power.

9 - I actually wouldn't have expected lowered class DC if it wasn't right there. But it is, so I use it.

Again, the most straightforward reading (and RAW for that matter w/o getting too lawyer-y) is that when an ability's asking for a Class DC, the PC can use their best Class DC. Anything any other reading requires extrapolation which yes, can sound reasonable, but isn't written anywhere.

No, the most straightforward reading when archetypes and classes specifically grant their own Class DCs is that you're supposed to use that Class DC for abilities of said class or archetype that calls for it.

If it was hard to tell which ability came from which class or archetype, and therefore which DC I have to use, I'd agree with you. But it isn't hard at all.

If the classes and archetypes just granted training in "Cass DC" and not "X Class DC", I'd agree with you. But they don't, they grant specific DCs.

You're the one wildly extrapolating here, not me.

Here are the feats I took as a thief rogue/starlit span magus give you an idea of feats I like with the combination. You're going melee, so you'll want different stuff. But many of these are very good for a rogue /magus.

This seems like a very bizarre build to be honest:

Arcane Fists + Point Blank Stance + Gang Up + Opportune Backstab makes me think you wanted to be up close and personal, which completely defeats the purpose of Starlit Span.

Especially because while your fists are d6s, pre-remaster Thief Rogue didn't add DEX to damage on Unarmed Attacks, so you'd actually be better off with a free-hand finesse weapon like a Bladed Gauntlet or Tekko-Kagi.

I am curious, what was the play pattern idea here?

For an MCD Commander (esp. backrow like archer or caster) it feels like an easy transaction just to Plant Banner and allow an enemy to spend their actions on it. Especially so if the PC only preps non-Banner Tactics. That's like a free False Vitality for all allies hit in round one, w/ possible recharges and a Slow 1 (or worse) whenever an enemy does attempt to grab it. And if you're still next to it, you might be able to yoink it anyway (and Plant & retrieve again if whimsical). I'd likely avoid doing this w/ a horde of fast peons who have actions & movement to spare, but vs. a boss, sure, ruin your offensive routine w/ this distraction.

That is kind of...very hard to do. The only tactics that don't rely on your banner are:

- Mountaineering Training
- Naval Training
- Double Team
- Pincer Attack
- Reload

All the others require affecting people in your aura, and per the Banner class feature, you only have that aura while the banner is visible and in your possession. Plant Banner lets the aura keep working when its planted (and makes it bigger), but per the feat you lose the benefits of the feat and all other banner benefits if someone steals it (or destroys it).

So it isn't impossible to do, it just limits you severely and lowers the Commander's battlefield power tremendously.

TheFinish, I used to reason how you're doing re: Class DCs/MCDs. It's a reasonable assertion, but just an assertion until you provide a citation. Note that I've seen no actual citation for what you're claiming and I'd scoured. I'd thought I'd read such a thing once or that some feat or ability had specified that class's Class DC. I couldn't find anything supporting that notion. So no, AFAICT you don't have to prefer your MCD's Class DC over your base class's. The abilities say to use one's Class DC w/ no such qualifications, so any Class DC will suffice.

The evidence supporting the notion is all Multiclass Archetypes giving you specific Class DCs plus other feats in some Multiclass Archetypes upgrading them, which is a waste of space if you're not supposed to use the Multiclass' Class DC for those feats.

Well, since any class's Class DC will suffice, it might be the MCD's if its higher. t=This can happen if one avoided one's KAS (which I've done w/ several experimental build concepts, a few which could actually work).

Do you not see your double standard here? You are admitting there's more than one Class DC (because there are) and then you're assuming you just get to use the highest one for everything. Where's your source for that claim?

And while lack of a reason here may impel a player to provide one, that gap doesn't provide evidence there's an answer, much less any player's specific one. Paizo would kinda have had to specify which abilities need that class's Class DC exclusively (as it does under Impulses for Kineticists for example of how that would look).

You don't need rules to tell you that if you're a Fighter, Dazing Blow's Class DC refers to Fighter Class DC, not the Monk Class DC you got from Monk Dedication. And the Stunning Blows you get from Monk Dedication uses your Monk Class DC, because it's a Monk thing.

It's pretty easy to tell which Class DC applies to which ability.

Plus there are Archetypes which do not provide a Class DC yet have abilities that require one...abilities which mirror the same language.

Then you just use your main class DC, because the Archetype isn't providing an alternative.

Lastly, MCDs extract a steep cost by doubling the level. And many of these pricier feats would become worthless if stuck at Trained. There'd be an awkward inconsistency in value across the board.

Archetypes being lower powered than the main class is perfectly acceptable. Do you think it's fine for the Fighter that Multiclassed Monk to have the same Stunning Blow DC as an actual monk? Do you think it's ok for the Commander who multiclasses Alchemist to be better than an Alchemist at using DC based alchemical items from level 15 onwards?

This is a balancing act, and constraining a Multiclass' Class DC progression is expected. They should be weaker.

As I said in the title. The guardian's Group Taunt is not only better than other lvl 8 feats but something that probably every guardian character will want to take once that the most common thing is to face more than one enemy in an encounter.

This makes me think that this feat is so mandatory that it should be a class feature instead of an optional feat.

Do you agree? If you made a guardian character, you would even drop Group Taunt in your build? Please don't consider that someone for some reason would do this but if you really would play as guardian you will drop this feat?

Group Taunt, better than Mighty Bulwark? Yeah, I'm sorry, no.

One of them lets you Taunt 3 dudes, the other effectively gives you 3-4 attribute boosts in Dexterity for free (most Guardians I've seen are Dex 0 or +1) for what matters most.

There's no contest here on which Feat is getting taken at level 8.

TheFinish wrote:

Anything that calls for Spell DC/Spell Attack roll that isn't a spell, regardless of source, uses Druid DC, because Druid DC = Oracle DC for everything except spells. Including Cursebound feats.

This is exactly the piece that I don't understand where it's coming from...and even if I did I don't think I would run it that way because it's completely unintuitive to me.

It's completely unintuitive to you because it's just unintuitive in general.

It's not a corner case per se because it's not super rare, but in general people multiclass into something with the same spellcasting ability modifier (INT/WIS/CHA) as their main class, so this discrepancy never shows up at all. If OP was a Sorcerer MC-ing Oracle, there would be 0 difference between the Spell Attack and Spell DC for their spells. If they were a Fighter, and they multiclass Champion and then they also multiclass sorcerer, and then they also multiclass bard, same thing, their Spell DC and Spell Attack would be the same (all of them use Charisma).

Yet the rules are clear: an archetype's spellcasting ability only applies to spells and nothing else, which means there will a difference only when casting spells. So OP and foundry are playing completely by the rules, though their GM can see fit to change it.

Edit: I just had a thought that they could have simplified everything (if there intent really was to "harmonize" the DCs) by simply saying that characters have a character DC, which is their proficiency + main class attribute. And that you use that character DC in place of class or spellcasting DC. Cause that seems like maybe what they tried to do....but way more awkwardly.

This would just be a huge boon for Martials MC-ing into casters because they can use physical stats for casting, which is huge, while Spellcasters getting to use their casting stat for Class DC is basically worthless.

TheFinish wrote:

Claxon wrote:

This is a bit confusing to me because the ability doesn't reference spell DC at all.

It makes me feel that it should be class DC, and not spell DC, though they are calculated similarly.

However, the main difference that will happen is that class DC proficiency often doesn't progress on caster classes.

Probably debilitating dichotomy should mention saving against class or spell DC, unless there is something that covers that generally class feats use one or the other that I'm not remembering.

Which DC you use is in the Cursebound trait, which says:

"A cursebound ability that allows a defense uses your spell attack modifier or spell DC unless noted otherwise."

Debilitating Dichotomy doesn't note otherwise, therefore it uses Spell DC.

Alright that's great. Thanks for pointing that out.

In that case, because it's from the cursebound trait, which is coming exclusively from Oracle....I would actually say it's using your Oracle spell DC.

Which I believe uses your charisma. I'm actually unsure how that works on a caster class with an caster archetype, if you have two spell DCs. It seems like it should, or else you basically get all the benefits of using a single spell casting stat.

I don't think it makes sense that a regular oracle would use their charisma based spell DC, but somehow when using the dedication you would use your other spellcasting DC (which might not be charisma based).

I just don't think that's right.

Basically, when it comes to caster classes with caster archetypes, your Training in Spell DC (so, Trained/Expert/Master/Legendary) is going to be the same for all your spellcasting, whether main class or Archetype. Taking Expert/Master spellcaster isn't going to upgrade your proficiency in the Archetype, since your main class spellcasting DC will always be higher, it will simply give you more slots.

But while the training is the same, the spellcasting attribute might be different, as is this case. However spellcasting attribute always applies only to casting archetype spells, nothing else (you'll find the same wording on all archetype dedications).

So lets take OPs Druid/Oracle. At level 2, they pick up Oracle Dedication. They have WIS +4, CHA +2.

Their Spell Attack for Druid Spells is +4 (wisdom) + 2 (trained) + 2 (level) for +8. Spell DC is +18.

Their Spell Attack for Oracle Spells is +2 (Charisma) + 2 (trained) + 2 (level) for +6. Spell DC of 16.

Anything that calls for Spell DC/Spell Attack roll that isn't a spell, regardless of source, uses Druid DC, because Druid DC = Oracle DC for everything except spells. Including Cursebound feats.

It's weird, but it's how the rules shake out.

Martials w/ their Class DCs already benefited from using one's top proficiency, which is why I think Paizo mirrored that for casters. Also there's no "this is a Ranger ability so only use Ranger Class DC" nor a "this comes from a Dex-based class so use your Class DC Proficiency, but with Dex". In harmony with that reasoning, I wouldn't override the straightforward reading.

Thus, use your highest Spell DC.

(I do read Kineticist as having exceptions due to phrasing.)

This is actually incorrect, if you read all the Martial Archetype dedications, every single one of them trains you in X Class DC (Alchemist, Barbarian, Exemplar, etc), which you're supposed to use for stuff that calls for Class DC from that particular class.

If you're an 11th level Fighter (Expert in Fighter Class DC), with Rogue Dedication (Trained in Rogue Class DC), you use your Rogue DC for Twin Disraction , not Fighter.

Alchemist, Commander, Exemplar, Inventor and Kineticist get feats to scale it up, but they all max out at Expert at 12th level, except Inventor (they get Expert at 15th) and Commander (they can get Master at 18th).

The dedications training you in specific Class DC and the feats to upgrade that Class DC do not make sense in a game where you're supposed to use your main Class DC for everything.

This is a bit confusing to me because the ability doesn't reference spell DC at all.

It makes me feel that it should be class DC, and not spell DC, though they are calculated similarly.

However, the main difference that will happen is that class DC proficiency often doesn't progress on caster classes.

Probably debilitating dichotomy should mention saving against class or spell DC, unless there is something that covers that generally class feats use one or the other that I'm not remembering.

Which DC you use is in the Cursebound trait, which says:

"A cursebound ability that allows a defense uses your spell attack modifier or spell DC unless noted otherwise."

Debilitating Dichotomy doesn't note otherwise, therefore it uses Spell DC.

Your Druid and Oracle Spell DC should be at the same level of training since the remaster made it so there's only one Spell DC across all casters.

It would differ on which ability to use (Wisdom or Charisma), however Oracle dedication specifies you use Charisma only for spells granted by the Archetype.

Debilitating Dichotomy is not a spell, so it should use your baseline Spell DC, which is the Druid one.

Okay yeah, I see it now.

So....destroying a banner will actually be pretty hard (depending on what you affix it to) but that just means the enemy is going to unplant it, and maybe steal it.

As to why the statistics matter, because unlike the wizards spellbook there are mechanical benefits and reasons for the Commander to plant their banner in the middle of combat. A wizard doesn't need their spellbook mid combat. And the rules go out of the way to say that people can interact with it to end the benefits. They can damage it or interact to "unplant" it, possibly running away with it. While Claim the Field does mean that the enemy now has to make a save to remove it, it is likely still worth while.

An on level enemy is going to succeed on the save around 50% of the time (maybe better). And unless they critically fail (not likely) they can repeat the action at no additional penalty beyond the spent action.

I know statistics matter, but the game does have enough rules to adjudicate those, and even provides examples.

The main problem isn't the game being unclear, it's that nothing except shields scales in HP, so anything but a shield becomes unuseable as levels increase because even though you get quite a bit of Hardness, that doesn't matter if your banner is still a 4 HP cloth pennant.

An easy stopgap solution for GMs and players here is to allow enhancing the banner with Reinforcing Runes, since that will help a ton.

Not much you can do about people yoinking it from the battlefield though.

Persumably you have to spend an action to unstrap your shield from your arm before you can plant it, very bad action economy to go that route.

I think a lot of people remain unaware of or have willfully forgotten the remastered strap rules for shields.

I haven't, but Plant Banner simply says you plant your banner as part of the action, so there's no reason to assume you have to spend an action to detach it in order to do so, whether it's a shield, a pole strapped to your backpack, or a pole strapped to your mount, or something you hold in your hand.

Just like how you don't need to spend an action detaching your shield to throw it if you have the corresponding shield augmentation, or you're using a shield that already has Thrown (like a Razor Disc).

TheFinish, where did you find the rules that says the banner takes on the hardness and hit points of the object it is affixed to?

I can't locate that text....but honestly I feel that's even worse (from a consistent rules) perspective.

I'm doubling down that Paizo needs to just establish specific hp and hardness for the banner (including whatever its affixed to) and that it shouldn't matter it looks like or describe it.

It's the last paragraph of the description of the Commander's Banner Class Feature, Battlecry, page 22.

Or in the main Commander Details page of Archives of Nethys, whichever you prefer (I usually stick to the books since AoN sometimes forgets to copy stuff over or just does it wrong).

I don't see what's particularly wrong with it, to be honest. If you never plant your banner, it's statistics do not matter at all. It occupies the same place a Wizard's spellbook occupies: an item integral to class function that cannot be meaningfully interacted with save for the GM wanting to make a plot point of it.

If you do plant it, there are more than enough safe options to make destroying it so time consuming you're winning the action exchange anyway. The big problem is how easy it is to steal and how hard it is to retrieve it if it happens. It makes Claim the Field basically mandatory if you want to plant the banner and even then that's no guarantee since Claim the Field's effect is Incapacitation, which means higher level foes might just yank it anyway.

An odd thing that stands out to me about the Animist is that they become in an Expert in their second save at level 3, two levels before every other full caster, and they become an Expert in AC at level 11, two levels before every other full caster.

Their AC expertise also comes two levels earlier than several martials that eventually get to Master proficiency like Exemplar, Gunslinger, Rogue and Swashbuckler.

It's an odd choice to give early defensive boosts to a class that isn't exactly lacking in other areas. I'm not sure what the logic behind it is, and I just thought it worth pointing out in a discussion about the balance of the class.

The save part isn't strictly true, since a Warpriest and a Battle Herald both bump their Fortitude to Expert at 1st level as part of their Doctrine, while Cloistered gets Fortitude to Expert at 3rd, same as the Animist.

The armor part is worth pointing out though since that is more unique, though I'm not sure it's a big issue unless you're playing a campaign that ends at 11.

A banner can already be anything handheld, since it can be:

"Your banner might be a literal flag or pennant, a decorated fan, a personalized totem, or some other highly visible and item of negligible or light Bulk."

I could literally just be a baton, like this made of whatever material you can think of.

As for first level, I'd classify a gauntlet the same as a steel shield, hardness wise (because a gauntlet is both a weapon and armor, but it's pretty thin armor, certainly not any more durable than a shield or sword) and let you use it, sure. It skirts the requirement of being highly visible but that's a minor quibble.

And as for tearing the banner off, it is both excessive and a waste of actions. Just grabbing the banner and running off is bad enough since it completely shuts down all your commander abilities, and the only way to get it back is killing the creature or disarming it.

Trouble is that the Banner is affixed to the shield, it's not the shield itself. Otherwise yeah, we could choose an adamantine anything.

This doesn't matter, because:

"An unattended banner has the base Hardness and Hit Points of a standard item of its type (usually cloth, thin leather, or thin wood; GM Core 252) or the Hardness and Hit Points of the object it is affixed to, whichever is greater."

So...yeah. Do in fact choose Adamantine anything, once you're able to afford it. But for early levels, Sturdy Shield with the Thrown shield augmentation is your best bet, by far.

TheFinish wrote:

Answer 4: Nothing in the Siege Engine rules prohibits minions from crewing a siege weapon. The descriptive text mentions "person" but that's just descriptive. It would be dumb for a necromancer to be unable to use skeletons or zombies to crew his evil cannon; or for wizards to not be able to use their big strong golems to load that bombard.

So, I would allow a Companion as long as it can meet the other requirements, meaning at least a free hand, and being able to roll the appropiate checks. For Construct Companion that means having the Manual Dexterity modification, as well as Miracle Gears if they want to do any non- Athletics check (like Arcana/Nature for the Mudmaker, or Arcana/Engineering Lore for the Burning Glass).

Well, even if you do allow a construct companion to crew a siege weapon, they don't ever get any weapon proficiencies. So they'll be stuck at the default DC

Yeah but that's inconsequential. The DC only matters when you Launch, Launch is always a single action regardless of Siege Weapon, and you can only ever Launch once per Round, so you'd never have the Construct Companion Launch.

In the context of Siege Weaponry you'd use them to Aim or Load, since that's where the 2-for-1 or 3-for-2 exchange benefits you the most. Then you just have anyone else launch. It only really works on weapons with Crew higher than 1, but it can be very good for quite a few of those to have your Minion take the place of an otherwise fully functioning crewman who can then use their own actions for something else.

Battlecry! did give us the Gravedigger's Call , if Zousha is still looking for stuff to adapt.

What kind of Banner?
One you can Plant in one action (so not on your back or shield) and that isn't your main weapon. One trick I hesitate to mention is putting the Banner on a Free-Hand weapon. Then when you retrieve your Banner, you should be wielding it, which means you retain a free hand.
And make it metal. So a gauntlet which also gives us "throwing down the gauntlet" vibes to begin a battle.

The objectively correct answer to this question is a Sturdy Shield with Shield Augmentation to give the Shield the Thrown 10 feet trait once you reach level 6 and take Claim the Field. You get the most durable banner available (by far) and all the benefits that come from Claim the Field. The 10 foot range is inconsequential when most people plant the banner right next to themselves anyway.

If you're willing to incorporate 3rd party things, Barbarians+ has the Untamed Instinct.

It allows the barbarian to begin with an animal companion, gives Command an Animal the Rage Trait, allows your Companion to use the Rage action (same benefits as you get) and gives them Raging Stride (1 action, the Companion can Rage then Stride). Raging resistance is piercing and slashing.

It also adds Mature/Incredible/Specialised to the Barbarian Class Feats at levels 4/8/14.

In exchange you deal the lowest rage damage, since you get no increase until Specialisation, where it becomes 4 damage, 8 if you have greater weapon spec.

There's more stuff to it like Instinct Feats and whatnot, but it's a solid base to homebrew from I think.

Answer 1: Anyone adjacent to a Siege Engine is crewing it, per the rules. When a single number is listed it is both Minimum and Maximum crew, per this line in Guns and Gears (page 74, in the example siege weapon statblock):

Crew The number of creatures needed to operate the siege weapon is listed here. If additional creatures can assist, there's a second number to indicate the maximum number that's practical. For instance, “4 to 8” indicates the weapon can't be operated by fewer than four creatures, and that no more than eight creatures total can crew the weapon at a time

Meaning, if your siege weapon lists only one number, that's all the people that can crew it, no more, no less.

To me the simplest solution to this is that nobody can take any Siege Weapons actions (Aim, Load, Launch) if the crew requirement is not properly met. If there's more than the number of people needed, then people need to spend actions moving away from the Siege weapon before those actions can be taken.

Answer 2: No mention of hands required anywhere except for portable weapons, but this is clearly an oversight. You can't reload a cannon if all your hands are occupied! So while I get the RAW doesn't say anything, I'd require at least one free hand for all the actions and maybe even two depending on the weapon.

Answer 3: As Baarogue said, tails (including the Vanara one) are limited to Interact actions, which none of the Siege actions are, so they wouldn't really work.

Answer 4: Nothing in the Siege Engine rules prohibits minions from crewing a siege weapon. The descriptive text mentions "person" but that's just descriptive. It would be dumb for a necromancer to be unable to use skeletons or zombies to crew his evil cannon; or for wizards to not be able to use their big strong golems to load that bombard.

So, I would allow a Companion as long as it can meet the other requirements, meaning at least a free hand, and being able to roll the appropiate checks. For Construct Companion that means having the Manual Dexterity modification, as well as Miracle Gears if they want to do any non- Athletics check (like Arcana/Nature for the Mudmaker, or Arcana/Engineering Lore for the Burning Glass).

5e system just makes prepared the best option, though. We'd just replace one generally easier choice (pf2e style spontaneous) for one demonstrably superior choice (5e style prepared). I'd rather wizard be a second class citizen than all prepared casters having the lunch of spontaneous AND having more versatility

You could try to split the difference.

In 5e prepared casting, you get a ton of versatility because not only do you change your spells every day, all of them are effectively "signature" spells, since you can upcast them at will.

You could dial this back by just not letting Pf2e prepared casters cast heightened versionf os a spell if they don't prepare a spell at the appropiate level.

For example you're a 9th level universalist Wizard, you have 3 spell slots for levels 1-4, and 2 slots for level 5. In 5e, you can just choose to prepare fireball as one of your choices and you can cast it as a 3rd, 4th or 5th rank spell. In our system, you'd need to prepare fireball as a 3rd rank spell, a 4th rank spell, and a 5th rank spell if you want to cast it at those ranks. You'd still be able to cast 8 fireballs (3 at 3rd rank, 3 at 4th, 2 at 5th), but it'd take up 3 spell selections instead of just 1.

This is still better than a spontaneous caster because Prepared Casters effectively just gain a Repertoire they can change every day, but it's not quite as overpowering as full 5e style spellcasting. You'd need to tweak slots or give Spontaneous casters something more to keep both styles distinct but equally good.

I would rather if instead of going into the bestiary it was a simple template and like illusory creature where it uses the caster stats on the summon. The rank of the spell could define the amount of HP, damage a abilities that it have.

The good news is that Magic+ (the 3rd party book) does exactly this for both Summon and Battleform spells, and I'm gonna be using that from now on in all home games I run.

The bad news is it's 3rd party, so not something you can use whenever you want as a player.

For reference:

O-Yoroi

Bulwark Trait

Laminar Trait

Having Bulwark and Laminar on the same armor with no drawbacks aside from the standard Heavy Armor speed penalty was always good. But given how much the Guardian wants to dump Dex and has so many of their abilities tied to their armor it might border on outright nerfing yourself not wearing it if you play that class.

If you don't like the aesthetic. Too bad.

Also does anyone else find it strange that O-Yorori is just Full Plate but Better and didn't get a drawback trait in the Treasure Vault Remaster?

I'd argue Gray Maiden Plate is better because -1 bulk on Full Plate is better than +1 Bulk and Laminar while keeping the other stats the same. It makes it much easier to run around with a Fortress Shield because it's 8 Bulk total compared to the 10 of O-Yoroi + Fortress.

Even if you don't want to use a Fortress Shield, less Bulk from armor is always better just t carry more stuff, especially when I've never, ever, seen Laminar come into play during the Tian Xia campaign I played.

Definitely a candidate for Errata. As you point out it's basically a mirror to Invented Vulnerability, so the duration should be the same.