TheFinish's page

Air Walk can be cast on a buddy so as long as you have anyone who can cast Divine or Primal spells and your GM allows it, you shoudl be fine.

It is a team game after all.

I'm a big fan of both the high damage stances, like Dragon, or the defensive ones, like Crane. Tiger is pretty cool too for the mobility.

Most of my monk builds to date have been in the ballpark of level 10, give or take a few levels.

If there's one thing I've noticed, is that most characters keeping up their AC up will have about a 30 at level 10.

My monks consistently seem to have 28 or 29 instead.

That's likely because you don't prioritise DEX while not taking Scaly Hide.

A Monk that goes +4 DEX at Level 1 and upgrades it at every possible instance ends up with AC 30 (10 base + 10 level + 5 DEX + 4 expert + 1 item) at level 10 without a shield (though I despise monks with shields).

Champions and Guardians are going to be 31 (10 Base + 10 level + 4 Expert + 7 item), Animal Instinct Barbarians who take Animal Skin will be AC 30 (same as the Monk, but +3 DEX and +3 Item instead of +5/+1), everyone else with Heavy Armor is going to be 29 (same as Champion or Guardian, -2 because of Trained), everyone else with Light/Medium is going to be 28 (-1 compared to Heavy due to item bonuses), and non-Monk Unarmored folk are going to be 27 (-1 on Light Armor because they will have 1 less item bonus). All of these w/o shields and assuming they fill their DEX cap (or in the case of Casters, have +4 DEX) of course.

Every point of DEX you shave off hurts the Monk's AC unless you can get a bonus elsewhere. Scaly Hide (from Dragonblooded) is the best bet because it continues to use your Unarmored Proficiency and allows you to keep maximum AC with DEX at only +3 from 5th level onwards, freeing up your boosts for STR.

Drakeheart Mutagens also work wonders but they have drawbacks and will be very expensive both gold-wise and action-wise to upkeep unless you have an Alchemist friend to keep you topped up.

Mountain Stance is another option in theory but it's horrible compared to alternatives and should not be seriously considered if you want to optimise.

That's basically why your Monks have low AC. You don't need super high STR as a Monk unless you want to use Monk Weapons. Stumbling, Tiger and Wolf Stance give you d8 finesse/agile attacks which is more than good enough to contribute if you want to do damage.

So since a Composition Cantrip is a type of Composition Spell, and a Composition Spell is a type of Focus spell... Then wouldn't a Composition Cantrip be a type of Focus spell??? Even if it doesn't cost a Focus Point to cast.

As NorrKneten pointed out in the post above yours, these are Focus spells but they don't add to your Focus pool because they don't require a Focus point to cast.

Which is something new I learned looking into this topic, so that's nice.

You're correct on all counts, don't let people on reddit getting things wrong get to you.

If the spell doesn't say "Focus X" on the name, doesn't have the [Focus] trait, and doesn't require that you spend a Focus point to cast it, then it isn't a Focus spell, simple as.

In related questions, when do you continue a fall you started in a previous turn? Start of your turn or End of your turn?

I'm pretty sure this one is "end of your turn" due to the wording of the Fly action

"If you're airborne at the end of your turn and didn't use a Fly action this round, you fall."

ust to make sure I'm processing what you're saying...you're argument is basically "Incredible Movement only applies to land based movement. So you'll get 55 ft when on the ground. But you'll get 40 because your base speed is 35, and then you apply Shory bonus for +5 fly speed".

That's pretty reasonable.

Under no circumstances, to RD's original question, would you stack incredible movement and shory aerialist.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

There is no doubt that Incredible Movement does not apply to flight speeds. The ability applies a status bonus to speed, and the rules tell us when abilities refer to speed, it is only land speed.

So if Ravingdork's Shory Monk was Dragonblooded and took True Dragon's Flight, they would gain a flight speed of 20 feet, increased to 25 thanks to Shory aerialist. Incredible movement would not apply for flight, but it would apply to their land speed.

But if your flight speed is based on your land speed, do we include the bonuses or not? That's the ambiguous part.

In most games I've played and run the answer has been "Yes" just for ease of bookkeeping, but this isn't as clear cut and can really go either way.

However, because Incredible Movement and Shory Aerialist are status bonuses, they would never stack if we add Incredible Movement to determine our flight speed. You get the highest, as usual.

Given that a bonus to one stat does not negatively interact with a bonus to another stat, can my Shory Aerialist stack his feat's +5 status bonus to Fly speed with his monk class' Incredible Movement status bonus to land Speed?

Normally like bonuses don't stack, but in this case we're not adding them to the same stat. One is applied to base land Speed while the other is applied to Fly speed; two different stats.

And since the fly spell's Fly Speed is equal to his land Speed, the IM bonus is already baked into his base Fly Speed.

Example: Aiuvarin Shory Human Monk 13 with Fleet, Nimble Elf, and Shory Aerialist

25 base Speed
05 Fleet
05 Nimble Elf
20 Incredible Movement
05 Shory Aerialist
==
60 Fly speed at Lvl 13

Do I have that right? Is this possible? Why or why not?

This is an interesting question and I think the answeris this: you either get a 55 foot land speed and a 40 foot fly speed; or you get a 55 foot land speed and flight speed.

Incredible Movement says we get a status bonus to Speed. The rules are clear:

"Whenever a rule mentions your Speed without specifying a type, it's referring to your land Speed."

So your shoony's land speed is 35 feet (25 base, +5 fleet, +5 nimble elf) and you're getting a 20 foot status bonus, for a total of 55.

fly says you get a flight speed equal to your speed or 20 feet, whichever is greater.

However, I couldn't find any rule, anywhere, that says we add bonuses to your land speed for the purpose of conversion. In game terms, your Speed is 35, you're just getting a 20 foot status bonus if you don't wear armor.

Since the bonus is always going to be "on", and for ease of bookkeeping, I can see people glomming them together, but in that case Aerialist wouldnt apply because it's a lower bonus, so you end up with both at 55.

I think the more correct interpretation is 55 and 40 though.

If they wanted Battle Cry to be like this, they only needed to put both statblocks one after the other. Except of course that, in both cases, the free action / reaction is the Demoralize.

There is even a format for this that they could have used if that was their intent, like Body of Air that bears the symbols of Reaction OR 2 Actions.

First, I have no idea why you keep saying "the free Action is the Demoralize". It is pretty standard for named Free Actions to just have the effect be "do X", such as Quick Shape, Rapid Assessment, Intuitive Illusions, Recognize Ambush and of course: Quick Tempered and Reflexive Stance, the two things OP was asking about. Battle Cry is no different, it is giving you a basic effect (Demoralize*) as a Free Action when rolling Initiative. It just lacks the formatting usually associated with free actions.

Secondly, you can't really use the same format as Body of Air as easily because both halves of Battle Cry have different Prerequisites, Triggers and Effects. So yes, you would need to print two statblocks, which take up more space, or you could just write it as two sentences and convey the same information in a different way, but then people get confused (as evidenced by this thread).

*And not even normal Demoralize. It needs to be against an observed foe, whereas normal Demoralize just requires you to be aware of a target. Meaning you can't use Battle Cry against Hidden opponents.

I don't think the formatting is to allow combos, mostly because of the second useage, as Tridus points out.

Since the skill feat effectively gives you:

Battle Cry [Free Action]
Prerequisites Master in Intimidation
Trigger You roll Initiative.

You yell a mighty battle cry and Demoralize an observed foe.

and then later:

Battle Cry [Reaction]
Prerequisites Legendary in Intimidation
Trigger You critically succeed an attack roll against a foe

You yell a mighty battle cry and Demoralize the foe you critically succeeded against.

These two are similar, but different in key, specific ways that means you can't really put one in the statblock of the other. So while we can think the format was chosen for compatibility, it might also simple be a space saving measure.

Loreguard wrote:

Otherwise you probably need to provide rules for retraining out of biological feats you no longer get use out of

Or Retraining to restore the armor to functioning state.

Retraining is basically how you regain use of your Animal Companion feat, Pet feat, or plebeian Familiar feat when your companion dies. So there is some justification for that too.

The problem with this is that as far as I can recall, most abilities that grant "natural" armor are not feats*, they're heritages, and heritages likely fall under intrinsic characteristics that the rules say you should not allow to be retrained without "extraordinary circumstances"

*Reinforced Chassis (Automaton) and Tough Skin (Kashrishi) are the only ones. And notably, Tough Skin specifically cannot be retrained out of or taken after 1st level.

Finoan wrote:

Formatting shenanigans aside...

Battle Cry wrote:

When you roll initiative, you can yell a mighty battle cry and Demoralize an observed foe as a free action.

It is a free action. It says so right there even if the feat's title line doesn't have the free action icon. And since you are using it outside your turn, then it would have to have a trigger if you are going to use it at all.

A free action with a trigger would still fall under the same general rule about only triggering one qualifying action for any event.

I have no problem with people wanting to houserule that it shouldn't work that way and therefore works differently for specific interactions such as Barbarian Rage or Reflexive Stance. That makes a lot of sense due to balance considerations with those specific class features or class feats. I would keep the houserule specific to individual abilities that are also triggered on rolling initiative, rather than a general houserule that Battle Cry doesn't trigger on rolling initiative and gets blanket permission to be used alongside anything else that does.

It is a free action, but the trigger is not rolling initiative. It is choosing to "yell a mighty battlecry ...".

This is why Battle Cry is not an action, has no trigger and gives a choice with "you can". As opposed to Reflexive Stance and Quick Tempered for example.

All actions with Triggers implicitly include a "you can" in them since nothing forces you to respond to the trigger, doing so is an active choice.

Battle Cry is specifically called out as a free action, so I have no idea why you claim it isn't one. And as Finoan points out, Free Actions can only be used during your turn unless they have triggers. Battle Cry very obviously has a trigger ("when you roll initiative") even if the feat has not been formatted as such.

You can still run it an exception (I do myself) but mechanically it does clash with other abilities that work when rolling initiative.

yellowpete wrote:

You're not switching between those two described grips though with the sequence of actions that OP suggested. You start with the 2-h wielding grip and after the first Release, you only hold the weapon without wielding it. You're never putting it in the special underarm position described by Fatal Aim, and so you also don't need to use an extra Interact action to get it back out of that position.

Sounds super cheesy to me and I'd never allow for it.

You're either holding a weapon one-handed or two-handed. There is no third special option.

The balance cost of using a Deadly Aim weapon is that changing grips takes more effort.

Changing grips to wield the weapon in one hand takes more effort. If you simply Release to hold your Jezzail in one hand, that is valid, you just can't use the Jezzail to attack one handed until you Interact to position it properly.

Remember PF2E makes a difference between holding and wielding.

Wondering if they put the immunity in Sure Strike so that they can introduce items that boost spell attacks.

They didn't. They put the immunity in because sure strike is a Rank 1 spell it was very easily spammable at higher levels while providing a huge advantage, particularly when used by characters that already have good (aka, non-caster) accuracy (which, again, can easily get it because it's Rank 1).

I'm surprised that people in this thread don't recall Paizo themselves saying this, it's in the Fall 2024 Errata blog post.

Clearly, what's happening when an enemy moves, provokes a reactive strike, is rendered unconscious and still completes the stride is that you smacked them so hard you sent them flying however many feet it was they moved!

TheFinish wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

I default to FIFO unless an ability specifies different timing

It's funny because through years of playing MTG I just default to FILO unless abilities specify otherwise. The Stack is too ingrained in my brain.

Yeah, it does take a bit of a mental shift, doesn't it. Having the stack be reorderable feels wrong somehow.

I mean kinda? But in cases like these I let the reaction "disrupt" anyway. The archer dies, the evil spellcaster doesn't get to complete the 5th rank translocation, etc. They juse plain die.

It's more fun for my players that way. They would appreciate it going the other way for them, sure, but they would be incensed if they could only stop people with crits.

I default to FIFO unless an ability specifies different timing

It's funny because through years of playing MTG I just default to FILO unless abilities specify otherwise. The Stack is too ingrained in my brain.

cleanse affliction is the way to go yeah. It doesn't even need to be high rank, since the counteract rules state:

"If an effect's level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature's level."

A witchfire is level 9, so the rank of Witchflame would be 4.5, rounded up to 5. You can clear that on a crit on a Rank 2-3 cleanse affliction, or a success on Rank 4 or higher. if you're facing Witchfires these shouldn't bee too hard to find, it would cost you 40 gp to just pay a cleric to do it in a big enough town.

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.