TheFinish's page

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

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

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

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

But yeah this is a funny interaction for sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. I agree.

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

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

Truly, the most OP class.

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

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

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

Implement's empowerment has two:

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

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

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

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

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

Is it? Normal Invisibility also states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheFinish wrote:

Ryangwy wrote:

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

This is actually just built into the Bravado trait:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is actually just built into the Bravado trait:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheFinish wrote:

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

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

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

** spoiler omitted **

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

Easl wrote:

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

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

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

Easl wrote:

But it is unclear whether this reaction can do that.

It is not unclear. Ready does not Disrupt.

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

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

Trip.H wrote:

Megistone wrote:

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HammerJack wrote:

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

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

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

Some reactions and free actions are triggered by a creature using an action with the move trait. The most notable example is Attack of Opportunity. Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.

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

.

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

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

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

"Reactive Interference wrote:

Trigger: An adjacent enemy begins to use a reaction

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could anyone point out where this was clarified? Thanks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ascalaphus wrote:

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

That's the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saying it does is actually a houserule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you can do instead is something like:

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

Combat Begins:

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

Your first turn comes up in initiative:

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

Hope it helps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheFinish wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay yeah, I see it now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For reference:

O-Yoroi

Bulwark Trait

Laminar Trait

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poisoned Sticks and Stones lets you apply any injury poison to your sling bullets, which you normally can't do because they deal Bludgeoning Damage, and you need weapons that deal piercing or slashing.

It also gives you a pool of simple injury poisons per day which just deal 1d4 damage with no save, so you can always use the feat even if you don't buy or craft other injury poisons.

Lonely Army does not include a clause saying MAP does not apply, so it applies as normal, correct.

Correct, the effect of Deathblow only applies if:
- Your sling bullet is poisoned with your simple injury poison (so not other injury poisons like giant centipede venom or wyvern poison and so on).
- Your Strike hits and you are hidden, unnoticed or undetected by the target.

If those two things apply, they need to make a Fort Save vs Class DC or they die. And it's an incapacitation effect.

Okay, what about something crazy with Shadow Sheathe? If you put a loaded Dagger Pistol into a Shadow Sheathe (possible because the melee mode has Thrown), and you draw, switch modes, fire, then draw a new copy of the Dagger Pistol from the Shadow Sheathe, is the copy loaded?

If yes, then it works with Crescent Cross in a similar way: make the knife half of the Crescent Cross your Gleaming Blade, take Hurl at the Horizon so it gains the thrown trait, which means it qualifies to be put inside a Shadow Sheathe. Then you can draw it for free, switch to ranged mode for one action, then use Crescent Cross Training.

For this to work, you have to keep your spark in the Gleaming Blade I guess, otherwise your Crescent Cross loses the thrown trait. But this way you can get infinite uses of Crescent Cross Training as a three action activity. Maybe usable at level 10 with Exemplar dedication and two ikons. Or give up Transcendence as a Exemplar, which seems bad.

You almost had it, it still works but not in the way you think. Drawing a weapon from the sheathe as a free action is part of it's Immanence effect, and as you pointed out, the spark has to be in your Crescent Cross for this combo to work. Meaning that while the sheathe does give you infinite copies of the Crescent Cross to draw (because that's just part of the sheathe's general effect), you still need to spend actions to draw it, so this combo doesn't work.

However, the Crescent Spray action lets you switch mode as a free action before firing so this still works out fine, assuming you jump through all the hoops.

Tumble Through: Get rid of it since it is just a stride action that doesn't really require you do anything like Tumble Through.

Or make it clear that Tumble Through is an action that requires you actually Tumble Through an enemy.

Clears up confusion with the Liturgist Practice where it has been interpreted that Tumble Through is just a stride that for some reason required a different name.

Be nice to have a more clear ruling that Tumble Through is a separate action requiring you to Tumble Through, so I don't have to argue with people about a rule that used to be clear but apparently hast lost clarity for some reason.

Clear rules make the game easier to run.

FWIW, while I agree with you regarding the action in general, Sayre is on record stating the Liturgist interaction with Tumble Through is completely intended (but it was on Discord, so I can't link to it directly). You can find transcribed quotes here and here

From Treasure Vault Remastered:

The Gauntlet Bow, the Rotary Bow, the Sukgung and the Taw Launcher are described as Crossbows, but the table on page 30 lists their weapon group as Bow.

The Crescent Cross and the Lancer are described as being a combination of a weapon and one or more crossbows, but the table on page 31 lists the weapon group of the ranged portion as Bow.

Given that the Remaster rules introduced the Crossbow weapon group, I'm positive these instances are a mistake and all of these weapons should be in the Crossbow group, not Bow.

TheFinish wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

I mean you’re right about MTG, a computer can run a game of MTG and resolve everything that comes up.

I would hate for Pathfinder to get so restricted in its writing and the outcomes it can provide that it becomes like a card game and it no longer needs people to GM it.

Pathfinder having MTG like rules would be a boon, not a bane. You can have all the flavor text you want and have clear mechanical rules. 1st edition Dark Heresy did it (really, all the FFG 40,000 games), 4th edition D&D did it, LANCER did it, etc.

Having a situation like Stunned, or boomerangs, or what an "instance of damage" is, as well as many others, doesn't add anything to Pathfinder besides needless ambiguity that detracts from the game.

Clearly separating how the game wishes the effect to be perceived (flavor text) from what the effect actually does (mechanics text) is better for everyone. You can still run into problems with them having conflicts, but it is much easier to adjudicate, and it also makes it much easier to ignore one side or the other if you don't find it fits with your game mileu.

And it will in no way lead to GMs no longer being required, anymore than clear rules have led to MTG now only being played by computers, against computers.

Wasn’t one of the stated goals of the remaster project to move away from flavor text in rule books?

My claim for stunned at least was that the first sentence is not flavor text.
It seems it wasn’t considered important to describe the condition by those who decided what would go on the GM screen. So maybe it wasn’t consequential and should be cut out as well is what I came after the conversation. But this wouldn’t be the only time the GM screen differed from the final remastered rules.

All due respect, are you sure you're responding to the right post? You've pivoted into completely unrelated territory here and it's incredibly jarring.

As for whether having less flavor text was a design goal for the remaster, I don't know and I don't care. Paizo can have as much or as little of it as they desire, I just want it clearly separated instead of intermingled with actual mechanical rules.

I mean you’re right about MTG, a computer can run a game of MTG and resolve everything that comes up.

I would hate for Pathfinder to get so restricted in its writing and the outcomes it can provide that it becomes like a card game and it no longer needs people to GM it.

Pathfinder having MTG like rules would be a boon, not a bane. You can have all the flavor text you want and have clear mechanical rules. 1st edition Dark Heresy did it (really, all the FFG 40,000 games), 4th edition D&D did it, LANCER did it, etc.

Having a situation like Stunned, or boomerangs, or what an "instance of damage" is, as well as many others, doesn't add anything to Pathfinder besides needless ambiguity that detracts from the game.

Clearly separating how the game wishes the effect to be perceived (flavor text) from what the effect actually does (mechanics text) is better for everyone. You can still run into problems with them having conflicts, but it is much easier to adjudicate, and it also makes it much easier to ignore one side or the other if you don't find it fits with your game mileu.

And it will in no way lead to GMs no longer being required, anymore than clear rules have led to MTG now only being played by computers, against computers.

I think a fair ruling would be:

If you throw it, it returns. That's what the text says. It's not meaningless flavor text (there's no such thing in Pathfinder 2e).

Unless your arm catches on a branch during the throw or something else causes you to somehow "fail" the throw, then it always returns.

If you target someone with a Strike and miss your target, then it returns. That's explicitly stated. This does make me wonder what happens on a Critical Failure though. Does it not return in that case since a Critical Failure is not considered a Failure?

In any case, if you hit something with the boomerang, it does NOT return. That's because that's how boomerangs tend to behave in real life. They're not like Warrior Princess Xena's chakram.

This interpretation makes all of the rules passages valid and meaningful, doesn't contradict any existing rules, doesn't invalidate specific magical runes or abilities, and maintains verisimilitude and expectations that might be based on knowledge of real life boomerangs.

That's probably how I'd run it in my campaigns.

I still think there is enough rules ambiguity that it can be argued to return on a Successful Strike as well though.

Regarding the Critical Failure thing*, the rules actually cover it: if there is no effect listed for a Critical Failure, you just use the effect of a normal Failure instead, per Player Core, page 8:

"Note that not all checks have a special effect on a critical success or critical failure and such results should be treated just like an ordinary success or failure instead."

So, for throwing a Boomerang, both a Failure and a Critical Failure have it return to you. Same way if you Critically Fail your Perform check using Lingering Composition, you get your Focus Point back.

As for success on a Strike, I'd rule it doesn't return. Giving a returning rune for free with no caveats is definitely Too Good, but also that just isn't how boomerangs work. Now if you throw it for laughs and it doesn't hit anything then sure, we'll assume the PCs are good enough to have it always return. But if it actually hits something? You're gonna need some magic or feats to have it bounce back.

*I need to point out though, that the Recovery trait never mentions Failure, it states "an unsucceful thrown Strike". That covers both Fail and Crit Fail equally.

Balkoth wrote:

Errenor wrote:

I absolutely will block both diagonal movements. Provided there's no actual space in the first case and allowing (of course) tumble through in the second.

Which creature(s) is/are getting tumbled through?

Also, if there's an enemy fighter with a non-reach weapon to the bottom left (SW) of C1 or upper right (NE) of C2, which (or both) gets an AoO?

I run it the same way as Errenor.

I set the DC at the easier of the two reflex DCs.

Neither would get an AoO, just like they wouldn't get an AoO if the same diagonal were occurring without the presence of C1 and C2.

But Tumble Through very specifically states you must attempt the check "as soon as you try to enter the enemy's space" and the Success line also states "You move through the enemy's space, treating the squares in its space as difficult terrain".

Since difficult terrain only matters when entering a square, and we're moving through a space, we either trigger an AoO (because we Tumbled through, which means we entered said square and then we exited said square, fulfilling the prerequisites) or we don't need to Tumble through and we don't trigger an AoO.

As for OP's questions, with the caveat that this is how I'd run it and there really isn't anything written for pure RAWW:

1 - No, unless the PC is incorporeal/can move through walls/is mist and there's a small gap between them that the map just can't really show, etc. If it's literally two solid walls and a bog standard human PC, no.
2 - No if the wall is still solid, 90 degree wall. If the "wall" doesn't fully occupy the 5 foot space, then yes.
3 - They can move diagonally just fine.
4 - They can move diagonally just fine.

This sort of question always stymies me because I have never had a strong intuitive sense of distances. So some kind of general rule or even guidance would be appreciated. In 1E, as was mentioned, it was DC 0 to see a visible creature, modified by +1 per 10 feet away.

Assuming an “average person” has a +4 Perception (It was a class skill for Commoner, seems reasonable to have dropped a skill point in, and assuming Wis 10, they’d be about 50/50 to see a human sized creature 150 feet away. While I admittedly don’t have a great sense of distance, that seems absurd to me, considering a football field, with end zones, is 320 feet, and people buy tickets to watch football from the end zones. That said, the length of a football field is probably the longest benchmark I intuitively grok, so I’m not sure how far would be reasonable.

You need to remember 1e also had rules to take 10 and take 20. Using Perception was just an action, so that Commoner can just take 10 for a 14, allowing them to automatically see any visible creature up to 140 feet away, or they can take 2 minutes (20 times as long) to see creatures up to 240 feet away.

As for distances, you're not exactly wrong. The numbers would make more sense if they were about identifying creatures at those distances, rather than simply detecting them. Because yes, if you seat down to watch a football game, you can tell there's players on the other end of the field, but can you tell who they are?

(Fun fact about 1e rules, I had a player once who read the table on modifiers, saw the modifiers for "Through Door" and "Through Walls" and thought you could just see through those as a PC without the need for any items or magic.)

Still, 2e has no guidelines so I'm afraid OP will have to eyeball it.

Gunslingers get quick alchemy from a feat in their core gunslinger class, NOT an archetype. The restriction you mention is specifically given under quick alchemy for alchemical archetypes.

This is both true and incorrect at the same type. Yes, the Gunslinger does not get Quick Alchemy Benefits from an Archetype. They're still gaining Quick Alchemy Benefits though, and they reference the Alchemical Archetype rules, not the Alchemist (specifically Player Core 2, page 174).

The same goes for Advanced Alchemy.

Now, the thing is, anyone can take Firework Technician and get infinite Versatile Vials anyway, which I honestly think is a mistake from Paizo, but we'll have to see.

From Guns and Gears (Remastered):

The Fireworks Technician Archetype references Infused Reagents in the Dedication Feat and the Jumping Jenny feat, despite Infused Reagents no longer existing.

To better explain myself, this is how I see it:

Forager: "While using [Survival] to Subsist..."

Wandering Chef: ""When using the Subsist downtime activity, you can use [Crafting] or [Cooking Lore] in place of [Survival], and if you roll a failure, you get a success instead."

Wandering Chef says [Crafting] = [Cooking lore] = [Survival] when you Subsist. Therefore, we can substitue [Survival] with [Cooking Lore] or [Crafting] in Forager and it still works fine.

I can see what other people are saying, but like Ravingdork says it's an order of operations thing. It's either.

We check Forager before applying Wandering Chef -> It works.
We check Wandering Chef before applying Forager -> It doesn't work.

And since this is such a minor thing, why not go with the one that lets the NPC/player do more stuff.

The way I see it, they should interact woth each other just fine.

Forager says whenever you'd roll Survival to Subsist (as opposed to Society) you get X effect.

Wandring Chef says whenever you'd use Survival to subsist, you can instead use Crafting or Cooking Lore.

So to me you can get the effects of Forager with Crafting or Cooking Lore. Honestly the effect of this is pretty much a ribbon and unlikely to come up in 99% of all games, so might as well do it.

Though I'm curious, since this is an NPC for your setting why are you asking? Just say it works and move on.

TheFinish wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

'm trying to find a way to also keep my second hand open for quickdraw for bombs since a lightning bomb/dread ampoule are easy ways to inflict debuffs. Also in the rare case you want to activate ammunition you still need that free hand. But realistically if you just give up on easy bomb access you can always carry the mace and a slide pistol which gives you 8 rounds of stab and blast before you ever need a free hand (without the feat taxes of course).

Keep in mind you can Regrip for free when you Reload weapons, so as long as you Release your gun after you shoot you're not losing any actions at all and you have a free hand basically every time you'd realistically want one, the one exception being Fatal Aim weapons.

You can? You learn something new every day. Sadly my guy is using a piercing wind, though I think I can still make it work. I've still got a rapier pistol rattling around somewhere I can also use if I gotta.

Ayup. It took a while for me to learn it too, but the Reload section in the Equipment chapter says:

"Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon."

'm trying to find a way to also keep my second hand open for quickdraw for bombs since a lightning bomb/dread ampoule are easy ways to inflict debuffs. Also in the rare case you want to activate ammunition you still need that free hand. But realistically if you just give up on easy bomb access you can always carry the mace and a slide pistol which gives you 8 rounds of stab and blast before you ever need a free hand (without the feat taxes of course).

Keep in mind you can Regrip for free when you Reload weapons, so as long as you Release your gun after you shoot you're not losing any actions at all and you have a free hand basically every time you'd realistically want one, the one exception being Fatal Aim weapons.

Stealth does really become an extremely useful tool for melee rogues, but at higher levels (13 for Halflings, 15 for Legendary Sneak).

Using your third action to Stealth is probably your best defensive option overall, the enemy has to either Seek (1 action less, and it's not guaranteed to work), use some other form to make you lose Hidden or deal with a 45% miss chance.

But yes at lower levels it's much harder to justify on a melee rogue, with a few exceptions, like if you have low-light/darkvision and the enemy doesn't and you're fighting in dim light.