TheFinish's page

The magus would need to use the ranged d4 version due to the wording in Ignition, which says:

"If the target is within your melee reach, you can choose to make a melee spell attack with the flame instead of a ranged spell attack, which increases all the spell's damage dice to d6s."

So you can only make Ignition as melee spell attack if the enemy is in your melee reach.

Now, if the enemy is within melee reach of the magus, they could choose to make ignition as a melee spell attack and then attack with a ranged attack, since Starlit Span says:

"When you use Spellstrike, you can make a ranged weapon or ranged unarmed Strike, as long as the target is within the first range increment of your ranged weapon or ranged unarmed attack. You can deliver the spell even if its range is shorter than the range increment of your ranged attack."

But because you would need to be shooting someone right next to you, it's not a very useful feature.

No, it's specifically for Monk Feats and Abilities. Archetypes do not count.

Some abilities from archetypes do still work though. For example if you use Monastic Archer Stance with the Gakgung (a bow with the Monk trait), then Heaven's Thunder from Jalmeri Heavenseeker would add the damage as usual.

Also note that for Martial Artist (and any Archetype), the feats that normally have the [Monk] trait do not have it when taken from the Archetype, as described in "Additional Feats":

"Some archetypes include a list of “Additional Feats” that appear in other sources. The list includes each feat’s level, which might be different than normal when gained from the archetype. You can take the feat as an archetype feat of that level, meaning it counts toward the number of feats required by the archetype’s dedication feat. When selected this way, a feat that normally has a class’s trait (such as the fighter trait) doesn’t have that class trait."

Just repeating it, since it has been brought up for years:

Scare to Death has the Fear & Emotion traits, but not the Mental trait. Currently it can be used against mindless/mental-immune enemies.
Though since the Starfinder 2e Player Core has it also without the Mental trait, I'm starting to believe this is intentional.

The Fear trait always includes the Emotion and Mental traits, and Emotion always includes Mental, per the description of the traits themselves, so while it may be intentional its still good to point out because right now it's still a mistake either way: if its not supposed to have the Mental trait, it still has it by virtue of having the Fear and Emotion traits. And if it is supposed to have it, not having it listed alongside Emotion (which is also redundant, by virtue of the Fear trait) causes confusion.

I suppose the question would be, does this Goddess empower clerics in your setting? If she doesn't, she probably wouldn't empower Champions either. And if she's mostly uninterested in worship I suppose that would be the case.

I read earlier today that it was currently impossible to sanctify arcane spells.

I'd like for us to put it to the test; can we find a way?

The easiest is from the Seneschal Witch Feat Spiritual Secret. All you need is to be an Arcane Witch with a Faith Tattoo and you're set.

Note that because a Witch can choose any list this also lets you sanctify any occult and primal spells too, depending on patron.

There are questions about how long Quick Alchemy Poisons last.

The most common ruling I heard is "until start of next turn in your hand, 10 minutes on your weapon". But that isn't a actual rule.

Also, what about Familiar Poison Reservoir? Would it last 10 minutes in there?

This was clarified in the latest round of Errata (Player Core, Spring 2026):

"Quick Alchemy creates an item that remains potent only until the start of your next turn (or end of your current turn for a versatile vial), and says that an effect created by such an item that would have a duration longer than 10 minutes lasts for 10 minutes instead. The part saying the item “remains potent” means the item can be Activated only in that time frame. The effect is any ongoing effect after the item’s activated.

Similarly, if you created lethargy poison, you would need to Activate it by applying it before the start of your next turn, then the weapon would remained poisoned for up to 10 minutes. If someone waited 9 minutes, then hit with a Strike with the poisoned weapon, the affliction could last beyond the 10-minute limit due to the exception for slow-acting afflictions described in the sidebar on page 61."

The poison must be activated before the start of your next turn, per Quick Alchemy. So using Quick Alchemy poison with the Familiar's Poison Reservoir ability is tricky, though not impossible.

Well.. you are correct in that failure effects also apply on critical failure if nothing is listed.

However you have still been running it wrong as you missed the relevant text within Swashbuckler finishers and the press trait.

Player Core 2 pg. 158 Swashbuckler Finisher wrote:

Some finisher actions also grant an effect on a failure. Effects added on a failure don't apply on a critical failure.

Player Core pg. 139 Press Trait wrote:

Some actions with the press trait also grant an effect on a failure. The effects that are added on a failure don’t apply on a critical failure.

Ohhh thank you very much! So much stuff to keep track of in this game, I swear.

Alright so, in the rules for Checks, under Step 4: Degrees of Success (Player Core 1, Page 401) it states:

"Some actions and abilities have stronger effects on a critical success or failure. For example, a Strike deals double damage on a critical hit. If an effect doesn’t list a critical success effect, the critical success effect is the same as the success effect, and the same goes for critical failures."

How does this interact with abilities that add effects that an action doesn't have?

Lets take for example Certain Strike or Confident Finisher.

Both of those add a Failure effect to Strike, which doesn't have one. Per the rules cited before in checks, this added effect would also apply on a Critical Failure, since Strike doesn't list a Critical Failure effect and thus we use the (newly added) Failure effect, right?

This is how I've always ruled it, but I recently did a one-shot with some new players and they expressed confusion when I allowed the Swashbuckler to deal their Confident Finisher Failure damage on a Natural 1, saying their other GMs hadn't ruled that way.

Have I been running things wrong this entire time or is this just a hidden quirk of the rules people might (rightfully) miss?

What is a bit strange here is that this is still listed as a free action rather than a free action with a trigger. So by strict RAW trolling you couldn't cast the spell as a free action unless it is during your turn that you are getting reduced to 0 HP.

Yeah, I think they didn't format it like other Free Actions with triggers due to space, similar to Battle Cry. But they are both clearly still free actions with triggers. Those being "You would be reduced to 0 hit points but not immediately killed" for Mortal Herald and "You roll initiative" for Battle Cry.

The alternative, as you say, is to assume they just almost never work, which doesn't seem intended at all.

TheFinish wrote:

In my opinion, because you're casting the spell at 0 HP but not Unconscious, being hit and damaged again, whether normally or with a crit, will bring you to 0 and knock you Unconscious, foiling the spell.

I can certainly see where that is coming from, but I don't think any further hits will "bring you to 0" as you already were at 0 and it's impossible to reduce hp any further. So if the hit is not disrupting the spell as normal, e.g. critical hit Reactive Strike, then the spell is not disrupted.

This is a very old question which relates to when Reactions occur and how they resolve, and I don't really wish to rehash that old argument.

It'll up to Momar and/or their GM to rule on whether a creature brought to 0 hit points by a Reaction gets to complete the action or activity that triggered the Reaction if said Reaction didn't Disrupt it outright.

This is probably sensible, but it's a bit of a flavor loss because with certain Eidolons one likes to imagine they actually are an devil that resides in Hell doing devilish things when it's not by your side and maybe even reporting to their superiors in the infernal hierarchy or something. Devil eidolons aren't actually a thing in 2e but you get the idea, and there are angel and demon eidolons. I find "eidolons are just some planar/magical essence that don't really exist or do anything when you're willing them into existence" to be much less interesting narratively. It feels less like you've formed a supernatural bond with a powerful being and more like you're just a sorcerer who figured out a strange summoning spell.

This one's on me, but I should've specified: I think this is true for those Eidolons which are described as such, in which I include: Beast, Construct, Elemental, Plant and Swarm. Those are explicitly noted as essence (of one form or another) given shape by the Will of the Summoner.

I agree wholeheartedly that the other Eidolons are very much supposed to be existing entities, whether they be souls (the Phantoms and Undead), echoes (Dragon) or a member of their creature family (Angel, Demon, Fey). And I admit I really wish we got a Devil Eidolon. Maybe we will in Impossible Magic, but for now at least there is the one in Summoners+!

1) After damage is applied bringing you to 0 hit points, but before you become unconscious.

So you would end up with whatever health was provided by the Heal spell, conscious, and without gaining any Wounded condition (because you never went Unconscious/Dying).

2) The spell still has all of its traits, so it still provokes. The timing is very tricky, however:

In my opinion, because you're casting the spell at 0 HP but not Unconscious, being hit and damaged again, whether normally or with a crit, will bring you to 0 and knock you Unconscious, foiling the spell. The only difference will be whether you start at Dying 1 (from a hit) or 2 (from a Crit).

I think you mistakenly made the thread twice, so maybe you should erase the eye beam one?

Anyway to answer the question: Yes, Energy Beams do double damage on a critical hit, because that is an effect of the Strike action, not the weapon itself. The persistent fire damage is...I guess the equivalent of the critical specialisation effect, since the Energy Beams have no weapon group and specifically say they can't apply critical specialisation.

GM OfAnything wrote:

Yeah, while unmanifested, plant eidolons are formless spirits much like those that can animate a leshy.

Got a source? Or just an assumption or theory?

Its in the descriptions of the Eidolons themselves:

Plant: "Your eidolon is an intelligent plant, formed from the same disembodied fragments of nature's life energy that become leshys"

Beast: "Your eidolon is a manifestation of the life force of nature in the form of a powerful magical beast that often has animal features, possibly even several from different species."

And in the general rules for Eidolons, it says:

"Though each eidolon is a unique creature and there are many types of eidolons, each draws upon a particular tradition of magic and manifests from related essence"

"Primal eidolons usually manifest from life essence. Their forms resemble creatures found in the natural world, such as beasts, plants, fey, or some combination."

And in the Eidolon Class Feature Description:

"You have a connection with a powerful and usually otherworldly entity called an eidolon, and you can use your life force as a conduit to manifest this ephemeral entity into the mortal world. "

So I always viewed Eidolons as amorphous intelligences given physical form by their Summoner when they're manifested. When they become unmanifested, they simply discorporate and return to their home plane. In the case of Plant and Beast Eidolons, they disspiate into life essence on the Material Plane.

TheFinish wrote:

"Plants are not all sunflowers" objectively means "some plants are sunflowers"

Set subset involves the funky U symbol, A⊆B stuff.

Going straight from [P != {S}] to a set subset relationship is invalid logic.
I hope when phrased that way it finally clicks, but that's a repeat of the same logical mistake I've been trying to explain for a while.

We may know via outside knowledge that "some plants are sunflowers," but you are not getting there by valid logical proof.
You are misusing your knowledge of plants and sunflowers being set subset, to claim the actual logical instruction is something that it plainly is not.

You are starting from your intuited output of what the result should be, then working backward to claim the input agrees with it.
You need to genuinely execute that input as it is.

Math limits numbers to having only a single identity, if x = 5, then it cannot = 6. That's not normal.
When you're in logic, you don't even know what [thing] is categorically. Who knows what [x]'s limitations are.

________________________
You are taking shortcuts that we all agree are mechanically changing the outcome of pf2 gameplay, but are insisting that your personal intuition is as valid as textual instruction.

The reason this disagreement is still ongoing is because this is not an argument about textual interpretation. (directly)

You are interpreting the structure of an activity in your own way (container instead of flat chain) and giving that structure mechanical meaning, giving it the ability to override the text via extra mechanics.

Insert: [Old lady clip: "that's not how that works, that's not how any of this works"]

Trip, what in the nine circles of hell are you even talking about anymore.

The textual rules we're discussing are:

"Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions."

Everything that comes after that are two examples (out of many you could use)

So if we use Skirmish Strike, we're not using Step and we're not using Strike. An ability that allows us to use Skirmish Strike does not allow us to use Step or Strike; an ability that allows us to Strike does not allow us to use Skirmish Strike.

And we also have:

"This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. [...] The subordinate action doesn't gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in."

So we know that when we use Skirmish Strike, the subordinate-Strike and subordinate-Step have all the traits and effects a non-subordinate Step or Strike would have, and we don't have to spend more resources to use them.

Reading both of these paragraphs one can reach the conclusion that the text considers executing subordinate actions as different from "using" those actions (a vague term that shows up in several reaction triggers) by themselves, which is why they do not count for any ability that looks forward or backward.

Aside from that, the structure of an activity (as you refer to it) already has mechanical meaning. You must spend all actions required for an activity at once, it cannot be done piecemeal. If something disrupts an activity, you lose all actions spent and do not regain any. And like all actions (which they are), they have a definite start point and a definite end-point (because otherwise the game doesn't work).

Beyond all of this, there is the actual game and examples of feats and abilities it presents us.

I have already provided at least seven examples of player Feats or item abilities that do not work. One could claim these are designer mistakes, but considering the number of them and the fact they run the gamut from pre-remaster to relatively new releases, this is unlikely.

At the same time, you have failed to provide any player ability that doesn't work under the interpretation I and others in this thread have provided. ScooterScoots has rightfully pointed out there are several monster abilities (or rather, several monsters with the same ability, but I'm willing to bet there's others that work like Double Attack buried somewhere in the bestiary sea) that assume the game works under your interpretation.

This is a valid point of contention that has to be addressed, but as ScooterScoots (and others) have pointed out, the only way to square this particular circle is that for abilities that call out "last action" in prerequisites, both the Activity and the last chronologically taken action within it can be used to qualify. This isn't too far-fetched, but it conflicts with the idea that using an activity is not the same as using the subordinate actions. If using Double Slice is not using Strike, then how can I qualify for something that requires I use Strike? That is something GM's need to decide. My personal opinion is that monsters are cheating bastards and they get to do stuff PCs can never do.

This has not, however, been your position. Instead, your refutation has been centered on claiming that under my interpretation, abilities that do not care about "last" or "next" action prerequisites (which is what we're discussing) but rather add effects to the action itself (like Sneak Attack) do not work at all if used within activities. This is patently false, since the rules state clearly that subordinate actions have all the same traits and effects they'd normally have. This line of thinking was started by PixelPopper and almost immediately shot down, so I honestly have no idea why you've kept hammering at it for so long.

Because what myself and others are saying is that we read the rules as stating that subordinate actions do not count, specifically for abilities that have a Prerequisite that references the next action you take or the last action you took. That's it. In all other ways, they function exactly the same as their non-subordinate counterpart.

As I've laid out without getting any textual rebuttal, using an action as part of an activity IS the same as using the action standalone.

You are refusing to allow that to qualify as "using the action," which would then make such sub-actions "your last action."

"Ending the activity" is not a thing dude, you are assigning that concept mechanical significance that it does not have.
You do not retroactively "erase" what was "your previous action" because you hit the end point of the activity.

You see, this is the disconnect.

Yes, when you use a Subordinate action as part of an activity, that Subordinate action works exactly as when it is used on its own.

This does not mean it was the last action you took, if you did so within an activity. It's that simple.

And of course ending the activity is a thing, bro. If it wasn't how would you know when to start spending your remaining actions, or go into Step 3: End your Turn? Everything that starts has to end, after all. To claim activities start (which is necessary for the rules to make sense in the first place) they have to end.

Plus, you know: "You can use only one single action, activity, or free action that doesn't have a trigger at a time. You must complete one before beginning another."

So you start the activity, complete it (aka, end it), then you can do other stuff.

Plants are NOT all sunflowers

all sunflowers ARE plants

P != S,
S == P

Again, when talking about logic, you don't get to pull in all the rules of math.
A & B are not numerical values, so == and != loose their symmetry.

This is also...just useless in this discussion?

"Plants are not all sunflowers" objectively means "some plants are sunflowers"

"Using an activity is not the same as using its subordinate actions" has no such mirrored meaning, and it can't, because if it did it would mean using subordinate actions is the same as using an activity, which would allow you to, say, use Double Slice with everything that lets you Strike. Including within Double Slice. And that's just not how this works.

The equivalent is not your statement, it's "Flowers are not seeds."

There are no "versions" of a spell in PF2E. A 1st Rank scroll of force barrage, for example, is just that. There is no "occult" scroll of the spell or an "arcane" scroll, it's just scrolls. This is further reinforced by the scroll rules, which state:

"To Cast a Spell from a scroll, the spell must appear on your spell list. Because you’re the one Casting the Spell, use your spell attack roll and spell DC. The spell also gains the appropriate trait for your tradition (arcane, divine, occult, or primal)."

Notice how the spell only gains a tradition on casting, not crafting.

To summarise, if a spell is on your tradition's spell list, you can learn it from any source, be it a person or a piece of writing. A Druid can teach a Wizard fireball, and a Wizard can teach a Bard command and a Cleric can learn glowing trail and add it to their spell list from a scroll penned by a psychic.

So long as its on your list, it's learnable, following the rules outlined in Learn a Spell.

LazarX wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

possible.

If you enforce the duality of Free Archetype, why? If you allow for doubling up, do you have any concerns that it might get out of hand in some way?

From one end its doubling up on archetype feats. From the other, its shorting out on your class feats, so it balances out.

Free Archetype, no matter what choices are made, is a power boost.

A power boost is very debatable. Flexibility absolutely without question. The math of the system keeps the power mostly in check.

Not really? There was a post a while back on reddit here that can give you an idea of how much more power you can get out of Free Archetype if you really know what you're doing.

The boost will vary from player to player, but that FA is mostly a power boost is undeniable.

But there are also of examples of things that don’t work if the subordinate action isn’t your last action, and as I stated earlier it’s perfectly coherent for both a whole thing and a sub component of that whole thing to be the last thing you were doing

True but by that logic it is perfectly coherent for the whole thing and a sub component of that whole thing to be the next thing you're doing too, and the rules explicitly state this is a no-no, and that raises the question of why this would be asymmetrical in the first place.

Monsters are a wrinkle here but I personally just see them as an instance of specific monster abilities (in this case, Double Attack on the Zelekhut or the Kraken or whoever else you prefer) overriding the usual rules, because monsters get to cheat like that.

Man, I don't like posting so soon but lunch made me miss the edit window.

I went looking further because it turns out Pathfinder writers use three ways to write the rules we're looking for "Your last action was...", "Your previous action was..." and "Your most recent action was...".

But I was able to find a couple more examples that do not work if we assume the last action you took is the Subordinate action in an activity, but not the Activity itself.

Tumbling Opportunist doesn't work because your final action would be a Stride (if you use Tumble Through) or a Strike (if you use Tumbling Strike).

Arcane Shroud would not work with the Spellstrike option.

The same applies to our old frenemy, Arcane Cascade.

Quicksoul runs into the same problem as Tumbling Opportunist.

That brings us to what, seven examples of feats that do not work if we follow the logic presented by Trip?

Yall are not groking that second example in the subordinate actions block.

Quote:

As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action

This example reveals that, even when there is a basic Strike action inside an activity, that does not make [example] compatible, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity.

We do understand the examples, what we don't get is how you can understand that [example] is incompatible with "your last action is X" because your last action was not X, it was ending the activity (or just, you know, the Activity).

As has been pointed out before, your interpretation runs into trouble immediately because we have an example in Flensing Slice* that specifically calls for an Activity (Double Slice) as a previous action, which is impossible under your interpretation but works perfectly fine if you look at Activities as containers when it comes to "next action is..." and "previous action was..." abilities.

Unless we function under the assumption that when using an Activity, your last action was both the activity (Double Slice) and the last Subordinate action (Strike), which seems even more counter intuitive, the only logical reading we can take from this is that subordinate actions don't count specifically for actions that look forward/back.

Moreover, from a purely gameplay perspective this is ridiculously easy to enforce and run as a GM. What was the last thing the player spent actions on? If it has the same name as what our ability requires, great. If it doesn't, it doesn't work.

*Before you claim Flensing Slice is a fluke or the designers being wierd, there are actually several other feats or items that work like this, like Channeled Protection, the ability from the Festrem Mortu, the ability from the Book of Warding Prayers (actually, all grimoires with "your last action was to Cast a Spell" qualify for this, so I'll just list those two), Cascading Ray and another you pointed out yourself earlier, Cratering Drop.

Wow, this is onto something.

The substitution it is talking about is the die roll, not the stat. That means an investigator could wield a non-finesse/agile weapon in addition to a suitable weapon or unarmed attack, roll a 1, then attack with their battle axe instead to get another chance to roll better.

In fact, they could really hack this by starting with +3 strength. Wield a reach d10 or a d12 while starting with a finesse unarmed attack. Roll well on DaS, use your unarmed attack. Otherwise reroll with your d12. Bastard swords would allow a lot of flexibility with this style.

I can't believe I didn't think of this before.

The only way to not use your DaS roll to attack someone is if you decide to attack a creature other than the one you used DaS on. As Greystone points out, once you choose the Attack stratagem your next Strike against the creature you chose in the round must use the DaS roll, no matter what kind of weapon you're using.

Hello, I have question about stance and "natural" unarmed attack.

For example, if a character with an ancestry has a Tail 1d6 bludgeoning (sweep, trip, unarmed, brawling group) as unarmed attack.

And with an archetype thlipit contestant, the character gains a lash melee unarmed attack that is in the flail weapon group, deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage, and has the grapple and reach traits.

Is it cumulative or only one of both ?

With the Golden Erinys Stance from archetype Sister of the Golden Erinys, you can make fury's fang unarmed attacks. These deal 1d6 piercing damage; are in the brawling group; and have the agile, backstabber, finesse, forceful, nonlethal, and unarmed traits.

With its stance, the character can strike with any part of the body, is it right ?

If the character uses its tail, the stance replaces the "natural" unarmed attack and the melee unarmed attack from an other archetype ?

Thanks for your future answer.

Think of it as different "attack modes" for your tail.

- Your "Normal" attack mode is d6 B; Sweep, Trip, Unarmed; Brawling
- Your "Thiplit contestant" attack mode is d4 B; Grapple, Reach, Unarmed; Flail
- Your "Golden Erinys" attack mode is d6 P; Agile, Backstabber, Finnesse, Forceful, Nonlethal, Unarmed; Brawling

Because none of these have the Morph or Polymorph trait, they're not replacing any part of your body, and can all be done with your tail. You don't have three tails, you've just learned to use your one tail in three very different ways, all with their distinct advantages/disadvantages.

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.