TheFinish's page

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.

Blue_frog wrote:

You keep saying I don't read your posts, but it seems you don't read mine since I already offered mathematical proof for this.

Every level, a sorcerer gets a signature spell that gives him one more option for his higher level slots.
So at level 4, a sorcerer knows 4 level 2 spells + 1 from lvl 1 signature.
At level 6, he knows 4 level 4 spells + 3 from lvl 1,2 and 3 signature.
At level 12 he knows 4 level 6 spells + 5 from lvl 1 through 5 signature.

So every lvl6 slot of a lvl 12 sorcerer has 9 differents options to choose from.

And so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, the wizard can indeed tailor his selection on a daily basis, but he still cannot choose more than 3 different spells +1 static, which gives him way less options.

I don't know how to spell it out more easily, honestly.

Congratulations on demonstrating you don't understand how spontaneous spellcasting works. Spells in your repertoire don't auto-heighten when you cast them with higher-rank slots unless they're signature spells -- that is in fact why signature spells exist to begin with. By having jump as a 1st-rank spell in your repertoire, you won't be able to cast its 3rd-rank version unless you either add it to your repertoire again as a 3rd-rank spell, or make it a signature spell. So yes, your Sorcerer may be able to cast more spells with their 6th-rank slots... but most of them will be cast as lower-rank spells, and I don't know about you, but using a 6th-rank slot to cast a 1st-rank runic weapon doesn't sound like a very effective play to me.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but Blue Frog's example isn't saying spells auto-heighten.

What he's saying is that your signature spells are, effectively, more spells of your highest rank.

If you're a 7th level Sorcerer, you have access to 4th Rank Spells. Your repertoire will have 1 4th rank spell from Bloodline and 2 you can pick yourself.

But, if you've picked Signature Spells correctly, you will also have those available, at minimal loss.

For example, if your 1st Rank Signature is Force Barrage, your 2nd Rank Signature is Blazing Bolts and your 3rd Rank Signature is Fireball, then, using your 4th Rank Slots you can cast:

- Your Bloodline Spell
- 4th Rank Spell A (your choice)
- 4th Rank Spell B (your choice)
- 4th Rank Force Barrage (which is no different than 3rd Rank)
- 4th Rank Blazing Bolts
- 4th Rank Fireball

So while the Sorcerer only has 3 slots, they can use them to cast any of these 6 spells, in any combination. Yes, up-casting some spells is worthless, but that's where Signature spell selection is crucial. If you do it right, then you can expand your options without giving up too much power.

The 7th level Wizard meanwhile will only ever have access to a maximum of 3 spells (school slot + 2), and the broader they go the less they can cast each of those spells.

1) Yes. The Splash damage from the Ikon is still damage from your Strikes, so it would trigger Mortal Weakness or Personal Antithesis just as if you'd hit.

2) Both, I'd say. It gets weird of course, but Twin Stars is very specific in saying "these copies are identical except for one mirrored feature, such as a sun motif on one and a moon motif on another." So if one is your Implement...the other is also your Implement.**

3) Again, refer to earlier, the copies are identical except for cosmetics, so both guns will have the exact same ammo when you make the copies*. Does this create problems if you later end up with more ammo in one than the other and you un-split them? Probably, yeah, but it's minor, and this is a super rare divine gun, so who cares.

*So if you split them with 6 rounds in the magazine, both will have 6 rounds. If you Split them with 3, both will have 3, and so on and so forth.

**This would, however, turn off Implement's Empowerment, since now you're wielding two one-handed weapons. That are also your Implement. Boy does Implement's Empowerment need some clarifications though.

vyshan wrote:

So with this war, are we going to see Cheliax take more beatings and stop being a threat, or be utterly defeated and another big bad empire is removed from the board?

I am afraid about the same thing to be honest. "Hellbreakers" sounds a lot like Cheliax will loose this. And removing the last "Big bad evil empire" might feel good while doing so in the story itself, but leaves a big hole afterwards narrative-wise.

To be fair, Cheliax works as a bogeyman but every time they appear in APs they get the stuffing kicked out of them and end up taking the L (which makes sense, since they're villains).

Even if we take into account that they win in Hell's Vengeance, this is counterbalanced by how thoroughly they got trounced in Hell's Rebels.

However, I don't think the AP will see Cheliax gone. I think a much better bet, given the geographical positions involved, is that Andoran takes part or the entirety of Isger, which has already tried rebelling before.

That would deal a blow to Cheliax without removing them from the board, so to speak.

I like that we're finally getting official half-giants, but at least in my home games I'll have to weigh them against Battlezoo's excellent Giant ancestries to see if they're worth including.

I do think they look slightly comical, but there's much weirder things in Golarion so it doesn't bother me too much.

TheFinish wrote:

PathMaster wrote:

Someone said they can use Advanced Weapons as the base for their Weapon Innovation, but don't get the initial modification.

You can apparently start with a Level 0 Advanced Weapon (so, no Barricade Buster) as your Innovation, but if you do then you do not get an initial modification.

I have no skin in the game with inventors- never played one, not really interested, etc.

The idea of picking the already anemic "you get a weapon with an additional trait" option and instead getting NO additional traits is so strange, it loops around to being funny to me.

Sure, I get it, advanced weapons have more traits, we need to be balanced, yada yada. But it's so funny to have an option where you just basically don't have a subclass for the entirety of low level play.

BEHOLD! My masterwork! My ultimate example of my genius! My greatest invention: a weapon that already exists, but now no one else can use!

I like to imagine you essentially did something like 40k Orks: you've made an object that functions like something that already exists, but in such a roundabout and perplexing way that nobody else knows how in the nine hells you're supposed to operate it.

Explode and Mega/Gigavolt are AoE effects, they very quickly lose their steam. Being able to cast them more than once at the cost of an action like Spellstrike would not be such an upside.

Overall, I don't think we really disagree. I fully admit that there are weird things around Overdrive, and it's unclear if it's meant to be often on like Rage or rarely on like Boost Eidolon as it's a bit in between. I also don't think the Inventor is a top class in the game so comparing it to the Barbarian, which is now rock solid since the remaster, will just show its limitations. But that's always the case when people compare to top classes in this game, other classes always look weak in comparison.

What I do think is that people focus way too much on Overdrive. It's a tool for the Inventor, not a necessity like Rage is for the Barbarian.
I also think that the class is fine as is in terms of power. There are many classes that are not really better: Swashbuckler, Investigator, non-Thief/Ruffian Rogue, Alchemist, Thaumaturge. Actually, most of the classes that are "martials with a twist" are in line with the Inventor so I think it's the balance point for Paizo.

Explode and Gigavolt are AoEs, but what about Searing Restoration? Megaton/Gigaton Strike? Electrify Armor? Deep Freeze?

There's a lot of Unstable actions besides the ones you keep bringing up and basically all of them aren't powerful enough to justify Unstable as is.

As for your last paragraph, I heavily disagree. Overdrive is as much (if not more) a core part of Inventor as Unstable effects. Without it you're just plain worse in the damage department than everyone else, especially because your KAS isn't your to-hit stat. I mean, just comparing:

Swashbuckler: You have KAS in a to-hit stat. Bravado ensures you get the full benefit of Panache even on a failure and even against things that would be immune (such as Intimidating mindless creatures). Your Bravado actions do more than just give you extra damage (except Battledancer, which requires feat investment).*

Investigator: Devise a Stratagem can be a free Action. It doesn't require a skill check. It allows you to use your KAS as to-hit and it adds damage on top. And if you get a low roll, you can use it for something else.

Non-Thief/Ruffian Rogues: You can have KAS as your to-hit (remember, the rackets allow you to switch KAS, they don't force you.). You can still get Sneak Attack off by simply flanking, meaning your damage bonus doesn't require a check. And when it does require a check, it does more than just enable Sneak Attack (remember, Overdrive just gives you more damage).*

Alchemsit: Actually in the same boat as Inventor, though they far outstrip them in versatility.

Thaumaturge: Exploit Vulnerability gives full damage bonuses on F, S and CS (unlike Overdrive) and, on a S and CS, gives additional benefits in knowing resistances/weaknesses/immunities (and even more, with a single level 1 feat).*

So no, they aren't in-line with Inventor. They were, before the Remaster (particularly Swashbuckler and Investigator) but post Remaster most of them are just better.

*One thing to note here of course is that all three of these depend on enemy values, unlike Overdrive. This means they'll be easier against lower level enemies and harder against higher level enemies, which we could argue is why their F effects are more powerful than Overdrive's. But Overdrive is also the only one of these that actively damages you in a CF and prevents you from trying again, and I will reiterate that all it does is increase your damage, so IMO it's still a worse use of an Action than any of them.

I agree with Baarogue, Hurl at the Horizon doesn't turn your weapon into a permanent thrown weapon because it's an Immanence effect that only exists while your spark is in it. The item needs to have a permanent thrown to allow this. Follow a more updated rule:

Transferring Runes - Source GM Core pg. 225 2.0 wrote:

...

f an item can have two or more property runes, you decide which runes to swap and which to leave when transferring. If you attempt to transfer a rune to an item that can't accept it, such as transferring a melee weapon rune to a ranged weapon, you get an automatic critical failure on your Crafting check. If you transfer a potency rune, you might end up with property runes on an item that can't benefit from them. These property runes go dormant until transferred to an item with the necessary potency rune or until you etch the appropriate potency rune on the item bearing them.
...

I actually see this more as a weapon with a Shifting Rune than anything else.

If I have a Warhammer with a Shifting Rune and I turn it into a Trident (Thrown 20ft), I can now inscribe the Returning Rune on that Trident. If I shift it into a form that doesn't have Thrown, the Returning Rune is suppressed and stops working.

As long as the spark is in the Greatsword, the greatsword is a Thrown weapon and can therefore be inscribed with the Returning Rune. If it loses Thrown, the rune just stops working. There's no need to complicate it further than that IMO.

Someone said they can use Advanced Weapons as the base for their Weapon Innovation, but don't get the initial modification.

You can apparently start with a Level 0 Advanced Weapon (so, no Barricade Buster) as your Innovation, but if you do then you do not get an initial modification.

YuriP wrote:

I don't think that comparison with Arcane Cascade is a good comparison because magus also have SpellStrike as it main ability

And the Inventor has Explode and then Mega/Gigavolt as its main ability. So I really do think the comparison is fitting.

Now I agree that Overdrive is weird. The fact that you can technically activate it outside combat is odd and it's unclear if it's an expectation or a mistake. Also, it's not really better than Arcane Cascade as Arcane Cascade doesn't have a chance to miss and it comes with additional effects when Overdrive additional effects are close to non-existant and specific to some Innovations.

You also forget the extra 1d6 of damage the Inventor gets at level 9. Actually, with a critical success to Overdrive, the Inventor has roughly the damage buff of the Barbarian: 4 at level 1, 5 at level 3, 6 at level 7, 1d6+6 (9.5) at level 9, 1d6+7 (10.5) at level 10, 1d6+8 (11.5) at level 15 and 1d6+9 (12.5) at level 20 compared to 3 at level 1, 7 at level 7 and 13 at level 15 for a Fury Barbarian.

So I still disagree with you when you paint Overdrive (and the Inventor) as weak. It's clunky and much harder to play than a Barbarian and I agree that the class is not part of the top martials like the Barbarian is, but it's not as bad as you say.

Maguses can Spellstrike more than once per combat 100% of the time though, unless combat is literally super short. An Inventor can only use their "main ability" twice per fight 30% of the time until level 14, where they finally get to use it twice. Yay.

Your Overdrive comparison also kind of falls flat when you realise an Inventor starts with only a 15% Critical Success Chance, and they max out at 40% CS chance*. This means you're much more likely to spend an Action and only get Half-int to damage, and while you can use actions in subsequent turns to try to get a CS, now you're comparing 2 actions to get Full int to damage to a Free action on rolling Initiative, there's just no comparison here, Overdrive is bad. It was sort of OK when the Inventor came out but the Thaumaturge and remastered Rage have made it even worse.

*Due to how level based DCs work and when Item bonuses become available, the CS chance of Overdrive fluctuates between 35 and 40% at levels 9+, but it's 40% at 20th so I went with that. My main point is you have higher chances of not getting a CS on your first Overdrive.

My big question is: Does Munitions Crafter have a larger batch size for Level 0 Black Powder rounds?

If not, making 4 pieces of ammo at first, ramping up to 14 at twentieth... it's in an odd place.

Yes, the same OP in the original reddit thread clarified that you can make Level 0 Black Powder rounds in batches of 4.

"When crafting alchemical ammunition, including black powder in doses or rounds, using advanced alchemy, you create ammunition in batches of 4 (meaning that if you were 4th level and used all of your advanced alchemy consumables to create alchemical ammunition, you could create a maximum of 24 rounds). You cannot use advanced alchemy to Craft horns or kegs of black powder."

What's interesting to me specifically about Munitions Crafter is how it interacts with other Archetypes (Poisoner/Herbalist/Alchemist) that give you Advanced Alchemy benefits.

Since, RAW, it'd mean you use the highest number of them but can now use them for anything you could do with either feat.

So if you're a Gunslinger with Munitions Crafter and you take Alchemist Dedication, and then take Advanced Alchemy, you can craft 4+Half Level or any kind of Alchemical Consumeable. Which means you cap out at 14, vs an Alchemist's 17, which seems...very weird.

And for those saying Gunslingers don't get Quick Alchemy: they do, that's what Munitions Machinist was changed to, and IIRC it gives you 4 versatile vials for munitions/bombs.

You could also simply cast 4th Rank Silence on yourself and then open the door, in which case the bell will be within your 10 foot silence aura and not emit a sound.

Is it a good use of a 4th rank spell? Probably not. But it'd work.

I wouldn't use the term nerf. The ability doesn't answer the two questions I originally posted in the rules text, I see GM adjudication in terms of the abilities scope as required.

PC pg 256 Foil Senses wrote:

You are adept at foiling creatures’ special senses and
cautious enough to safeguard against them at all times.
Whenever you use the Avoid Notice, Hide, or Sneak actions,
you are always considered to be taking precautions against
special senses (see the Detecting with Other Senses sidebar
on page 433).

The feat is providing the ability to always be in the act of foiling senses, it doesn't provide the means to foil them (meaning there is an assumed stance that the pc always has the means if they do), it doesn't provide the knowledge to foil them(another assumed stance the pc knows all methods for all senses, even ones they've never encountered or heard of before if they do) Those are questions left to the player to figure out and the GM to adjudicate.

Based on the responses from others in the thread it seems they have already assumed these to be automatic from the text so I may be in the minority in seeing it more nuanced leaving room for the pc to run into a sense they didn't know about and may not have the means on them to foil until then next time they encounter it.

Foil senses doesn't require knowledge, or really means. It's automatic, they are always considered to be taking precautions.

Now, the GM is in their power to declare some senses are just impossible to take precautions against, which is fine (after all, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, the sidebar says many special senses can be foiled, not all). But all the ones you can take precautions against, the character with the feat will take precautions against. Even if they don't know they exist. They're just that good at stealth. It's a Master level skill feat, they can do that.

I bring up Legendary Sneak again. Why do we need to justify how/why/when we're taking precautions vs X but not the fact we can literally disappear into thin air, in broad daylight, without actual magic or any other help?

Plus, trying to put "knowledge" as a stopgap works...once, per sense. After that, the PC knows that sense exists and will therefore take precautions against it. And that's assuming they don't learn of it from a book or something.

I think the way to handle this is that "faculty members at a magical university do not offer their time freely and excessively to just anybody who asks."

Like the PCs identify "this magical statue is a hazard, and probably shouldn't be doing that" and tell a member of the faculty or staff is a reasonable way to handle the situation, they should get XP for "oh, here's your problem- the switch was set to evil" sort of solution. The general rule is "if you figure out a solution to prevent/bypass/avoid/etc. a fight, you get the XP for the fight."

But there should be no way that the professor would follow the PCs into the store-room. They were responsible for safety in a public places students might wander into, but it's not tenable to insist that "the contents of every locked room are safe enough for someone who is capable of bypassing the lock."

So you have the faculty member insisting the students "be careful in there" and "if you see my missing alembic, please grab it for me" but not following the PCs to get in the dungeon. The thing about deep storage at universities is that nobody really wants to go in there anyway.

Like the reason to avoid "this NPC who is much higher level than you solves the problem trivially" be a part of gameplay is that it's not fun, not that the PCs don't get enough XP or loot this way. SoT is specifically like "magical graduate school" and any grad-student/faculty interaction in real life is likely to result in "the graduate student has more stuff on their plate after talking to the faculty member, not less."

The problem here is that the school is supposed to be safe, and a learning enviroment. If, in the real world, someone found loose tigers in an unused university building, the answer wouldn't be "well you're not supposed to go there anyway, if they eat you its your fault", it'd be "oh dear lord what?!" and it'd be dealt with. Not by the faculty, but critically, not by the students either. In pathfinder the threshold for "loose tigers" is much higher, of course, because the students can run around with swords and spells, but even then anyone with an iota of self preservation would go looking for people who they know can deal with this: the faculty.

The good thing about the magic school is that the teachers can turn those situations into learning experiences, since they are training "adventurers". But having the faculty straight up ignore obvious dangers to the student body on school grounds is incredibly jarring. Especially since the Magaambya isn't supposed to be a "kill or be killed" training from hell kind of school. Then answer shouldn't be "lol.lmao. ok well don't go there." it should be like what Mathmuse did "very well, lets see if I can teach you about how to deal with these situations."

I haven't read Strength of Thousands, but I hope the AP at least has guidelines for what to do if the students do what anybody would do and just go ask the teachers. Otherwise...chalk one up to space constraints I guess.

Question: Foil Senses and Bloodsense

Yesterday my character (a rogue with Foil Senses and Legendary Sneak) was spotted automatically by a creature with Bloodsense without any roll.
The GM argued that my character must be aware of the special sense and describe how they are trying to avoid it.

However, it seems to me that this is actually a basic rule that doesn’t require the feat:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2405&Redirected=1
As shown there, any character is allowed to attempt to take precautions against a special sense, provided they know about it and can describe how they are doing so.

That said, the feat clearly states that the character is "ALWAYS" considered to be taking precautions:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5151&Redirected=1
"Always" means they are doing so regardless of whether they are aware of creatures with special senses or not.

My position is that, if this weren't the case, the feat would have no mechanical effect. The procedure for avoiding special senses by describing how and why is already available to everyone, even without the feat. Therefore, if the feat does anything at all, that "something" must be allowing Stealth rolls always, even when the basic procedure (the one that is available without cthe feat) wouldn't apply.

What do you think?

You are 100% in the right in this situation, though this seems more like your GM knows this perfectly well, they just don't like it. Which is fine, but then you really need to talk about it or it'll just get worse.

Out of curiosity, do they have the same problem with Legendary Sneak? I'd think the ability to straight up disappear from view in broad daylight with zero means of concealing yourself would be a lot more jarring than "I sneak so well I can avoid echolocation".

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Mathmuse, you're right to avoid Extinction Curse. I signed up for the circus, and then got pulled away to save the world, and I didn't want to go. I wanted to keep going with circus shenanigans.

Actually this might be worth doing an entire thread about... I cannot stand when an adventure does not deliver on its core promise. I was promised circus shenanigans, and I'm still disappointed that later volumes did not follow through.

Hmm

I think a large part of the problem might be that books in the same AP are written by different people, so you can get vastly different feel and expectations. One persons view of a theme or trope might be different then another's so the story could start leaning one way or another. Two books later you might be very far from the original feel.

For SoT, I haven't played it, sounds like your supposed to be self motivated teens, not efficient problem solvers. YA adventures are all about having to take on responsibility because adults are busy with other problems. In Mathmuse's example the teacher should likely either ignore the request or take the time to figure out what they are doing and then tell them the guard is there for a reason, maybe don't mess with it.

Many APs seem like they have a hidden contract that suggests you play it a certain way, maybe it's a genre piece or heavily thematic. Not knowing or caring about that view can make a lot of the interactions in the story not work as intended. A noir detective story, a horror story and a heroic high fantasy story all ask for very different mindsets, yet can all be played with the same rules and even same characters.

This was my experience with Outlaws of Alkenstar, where book 2 is a giantic swerve that also ends up not mattering at all story wise. It seemed like someone had an idea for an (admittedly cool) dungeon but didn't know what to do with it. If I ever run it I'll have to rewrite most of the volume.

Teridax wrote:

But again, this is a narrative, not reality. Pre-remaster, the Rogue was certainly not weak, but was never considered this exceptionally strong class either...

Not sure where you've been, but rogue was considered the best martial class in the system next to the fighter until it was joined by bow magus. Rogue getting buffed saves and buffed gang up only further locked that in.

Generally speaking, I wouldnt say rogue is so much the favored child as martials are favored as a whole. Only nerfs they got were killing flickmace and crit specs. But buffs? Rogue fort saves and gang up, barbarian lost rage penalties and the action tax, assorted buffs to other classes. Casters? Witch made out like a bandit while everyone else has been almost static since launch or nerfed in some way. The focus point buff buffed everyone equally seeing as many martials either get focus spells naturally or dipped into champion, psychic or blessed one for easy points.

Don't forget Thief Rogues getting to add their DEX to Damage on Unarmed Attacks. That was also a huge buff they got in the Remaster just because.

Honestly I can't think of a single targeted nerf that hit Rogues specifically the way Sure Strike hit the magus or changes to Schools hit the Wizard.

Even Fighters, for example, lost the ability to have more than 1 weapon group at their highest proficiency with the changes to Archer and Mauler. Rogue's been living large since the Remaster. And they weren't really struggling before.

Guntermench wrote:

"Don't have great AC"

They have literally the average AC and absolutely nothing prevents them from carrying a shield. Nothing stops you from taking a feat or two to get heavy either.

The average AC with 8 hit points isn't great. You don't get armor mastery until level 19 like most classes with master armor. That's a pretty painful journey to the average armor class with 8 hit points for a class that does best up close and personal in melee. No heavy armor either.

Of all classes, only Monks, Champions, Fighters and Magus have a straight out better AC progression than Rogue. The Ranger, Thaumaturge and Inventor are in a weird spot because while they get Expertise at 11th, Master is still at 19th, just like the Rogue.

Setting aside Monk and Champion, the Rogue is behind Fighter and Magus for 4 levels: 11, 12, 17, 18. For the others, they're behind in 2: 11, 12.

This is essentially nothing. Sure, 3/6 Rogue Rackets can't easily get Heavy Armor, but 2/6 (Ruffian and Avenger) can do it with a single General Feat, or Sentinel/Champion Dedication. And Rogues can use a Shield for AC about as well as anybody else.

And I should point out, for 2/6 rackets (Scoundrel and Mastermind), ranged builds are a lot more viable thanks to their mechanics (though Scoundrel does need Pistol Twirl to work effectively).

Now, sure, not every rogue will want a shield, whether because of aesthetics or because they have low strength and they need the bulk. But on the other hand, they have in-class defensive options like Nimble Dodge/Nimble Roll, Mobility, Predictable!, Skirmish Strike (especially with Reach), plus Deny Advantage.

All of this to say the Rogue is in a pretty average spot defensively, except for their Fort saves, which are just terrible for a frontliner. This S->CS ability helps a little, but I've been playing a Rogue and I've failed most of my Fortitude saves, so it wouldn't have made much difference.

Unicore wrote:

Badly underpowered spells don't break the game, and don't need to take up time and attention away from new, better material. Boosting bad options is squarely the realm of homebrew stuff.

To my mind, this suggests that you don't think the devs have a responsibility to fix these things. I disagree.

Playing Pathfinder as a PC (as opposed to a GM) is premised on the idea that, if you play competently and are not extremely unlucky, you should be able to (a) meaningfully contribute to overcoming challenges while (b) playing a character who feels heroic. Badly underpowered material doesn't do this; that is, it doesn't deliver the results we reasonably expect from the products we pay for. People who sell defective products are responsible for fixing them; there is nothing at all wrong with holding the developers accountable in this respect.

Plus, Unicores statement here appears to boil down to "well if they release better stuff later, just use that stuff". Which is just power creep, and its a weird stance to have on a game that prides itself on "balance" and avoiding "ivory tower design". Releasing mediocre things that are later replaced with shinier, better things helps with neither.

TheFinish wrote:

My Starlit Span made plenty of use of Sure Strike to make sure her Amped Imaginary Weapons landed as hard as possible. All her Studious Spell slots were Sure Strike, and tbh they probably still will be. Plus a retreival belt full of sure strike scrolls.

The spell is still basically unbeatable for those slots anyway, unless I need to prepare water breathing (as a Pixie Sprite, gecko grip was of dubious use thanks to my wings).

This is the strongest argument in favor of this nerf I've yet seen.

I mean...I guess? Like I'll still use Sure Strike and keep it slotted/bought. It just went down from 2/fight to 1/fight (I don't think I ever managed to use it three times in a single fight for my Amped spells).

The power of the spell relative to others I can prepare in Studious Spells, and especially considering it's cheapness through scrolls, is still huge. That hasn't changed.

I guarantee no Magus will stop using as much Sure Strike as they can (or need), they'll just use it 1/fight on their big thing instead of "as often as they can", which, IME, wasn't ever more than twice in a fight anyway.

And Starlit Span will still be the best hybrid study, and Imaginary Weapon will still be worth the 2 feats it takes to get. Nothing of value will have changed.

I was always under the impression the Dedication was enough for item activations because it gives you Cast a Spell as a general use Activity, plus cantrips, and they all start with "You cast spells as a X".

I guess you could argue you don't have proper "spellcasting ability" until you can cast from slots, but that's not actually defined anywhere that I could find. So to me, "spellcasting ability" is having access to Cast a Spell as a general activity, which the Spellcasting class features and the Dedications give you.

But I agree it's still unclear. I think it would be much better if the sentence changed to either:

"The Dedication Feat from a spellcasting archetype also allows you to use Cast a Spell activations of items (such as scrolls, staves, and wands)."

or

"The Basic Spellcasting Feat from a spellcasting archetype also allows you to use Cast a Spell activations of items (such as scrolls, staves, and wands)."

Depending on which of the interpretations is the desired one.

My bad, I indeed meant skill checks, as ability checks are not a thing in Pathfinder. It does nonetheless sound like the better way to go, as it means Strikes and attacks no longer get excluded. Of course, it could be that the developers intend for Strength-based Strikes to not work against ghosts, but that sounds a little harsh.

Yeah. It's just weird that a ghost can grab a ghost touch greatsword and whack you with it (not very well due to their low STR, but they can), but you can't hit them back with the same exact same weapon.

I've always ignored this little rules hiccup and will continue to do so.

From my reading "the relevant statistic" seems to refer to Spell Attack Modifier and Spell DC. A Wizard has both, so we ignore the rest of the paragraph.

The Wizard would use his Spell Attack Modifier and Spell DC, both of which use Intelligence, for everything they activate using Trick Magic Item.

That's my two pieces of copper, at any rate. It seems like a very nice buff.

Disintegrate goes for jiCi's idea, at any rate. It's a spell with two failure points (the initial attack and the Fort save) but if you get a Critical hit on the attack, the enemy's Fort save is downgraded by 1 step.

Giving that blanket to Magus might be too strong, but I don't think so. With the Sure Strike changes they're not going to be Critting more than other martials and their Save DC will be lower than other casters' just because INT isn't their KAS + they need to priositise the physicals in order to not die. So the end result would be a lot of Success -> Failure.

The big problem with this one is it'd make Slow even more of a must have and we'd need a way to work out how it interacts with Incapacitation or other abilities that move a save's Degree of Success.

I think this is at least a reasonable middle ground between leaving the feat monstrously overtuned and nerfing it into the dirt, and I do prefer that Paizo went for this rather than going full-force with the hammer.

On that, I agree wholeheartedly. As for Mountain Stance, I'll agree to disagree.

While I agree that the feat is probably still on the stronger side, the point is that it got errata'd, when a whole bunch of people on this thread tried to shout down the mere idea that it would, let alone needed any degree of downtuning. I invite the people who took part in the dogpiling, the gaslighting, and the tone policing to look back upon this thread and see that this hadn't happened all that long ago.

But also, I do think the impact is larger than stated: for starters, Monks can't exceed their usual AC breakpoints at level 1, because their unarmored cap is reduced with this feat to begin with. At 6th level, Strength Monks can pick Mountain Stronghold to add to Mountain Stance, matching the AC bonus from this feat at that stage and eventually exceeding it with Mountain Quake (and I disagree that this feat line is bad, as it enables Monks to get Champion-level AC on top of their saves). In addition, cloth casters who want to pick this would also not be able to exceed the AC they'd get from picking Armor Proficiency, equipping light armor, and not dumping their Strength (in fact, they'd reach the same breakpoints at level 5 too). It has, in my opinion, successfully brought the feat more in line with other AC-increasing options, even if it's probably still stronger than other "natural armor"-style ancestry feats.

The Mountain Line is incredibly bad for several reason:

- It's a Stance, obviously, so until you hit level 12 and get Reflexive Stance you need to spend an action to get into it. This is terrible because it's providing your main defensive benefit, which means enemies that beat you in initiative have you at a great disadvantage. And remember, the Stance trait calls out it is only useable in Encounter mode, so you can't even make it an Exploration activity RAW.
- Its requirement of needing to keep your feet on the ground completely prohibits you from using it while flying, swimming or leaping. I don't think I need to explain why this is bad.
- It slows you down by 5 feet for no real reason.

Sure, you get a +2 to resist a few maneuvers, which is nice, and a decent unarmed attack (not mindblowing like other stances, but this is supposed to be defensive).

And while it is true that with Mountain Stance, Mountain Stronghold and Mountain Quake you end up with a total +6 AC vs Scaly Hide's +5, none of the disadvantages of Mountain Stance ever go away, and it comes online at Level 14. To make matters even worse, you can get the exact same benefit as Mountain Stronghold by literally just using a shield.

So I reiterate, though it's harsh, that Mountain Stance cannot compete in any meaningful way with Scaly Hide for STR based monks. If Scaly Hide is the 50th floor Penthouse, the Mountain Stance line is the 10th sub-basement. It is terrible and even this weird pseudo nerf to Scaly Hide doesn't change that.

Player Core 2 Errata (Fall 2024, 1st Printing) wrote:

Page 46: Scaly Hide could give certain characters much higher AC at low levels than intended. Change the second sentence to “When you’re unarmored, the scales give you a +1 item bonus to AC with a Dexterity cap of +3. The item bonus to AC increases to +2 at 5th level.”

Called it.

I honestly don't see the point in this much.

All it does is make it so that +4 DEX monks and +4 STR/+3 DEX Monks have a starting AC of 19. That's fine, but it doesn't address the primary problem: Scaly Hide is literally the best option if you want a full STR Monk because your other defensive option (Mountain Stance) is complete and utter trash.

As is, Scaly Hide is still the best option overall, by far, hands down for any build that wants to prioritise Strength. Arguably it still is for a full on DEX monk too, since it gives you better AC from levels 5-10, and it's equal at all other levels.

I guess -1 AC for levels 1-4 is significant enough, but in my eyes it's basically a nothingburger compared to the bigger picture.

Is a rune that is modified by a diacritic rune count as 1 rune or 2 for the purposes of feats like etch transpose (i.e., one action to move a rune). From the wording it sounds like the diacritic rune alters the base rune and makes a 'new rune' thus RAI/RAW I believe it counts as 1 single rune instance.

Per the Diacritic Trait:

"A diacritic can never be applied by itself, and any effect that would remove or invoke the base rune always also removes or invokes the diacritic rune."

So I assume Transpose Etching, which would remove a rune from one place to put it on a different target, also moves the Diacritic with it.

I love deadweight in conjunction with flesh magician and bone burst.

Summon two thrall, have them flank, one latches on with deadweight.

If they failed their save they have to kill the thrall to move. This induces map. They are now in difficult terrain and can't 5 ft step meaning they have to make a second attack at the second thrall inducing further map to move without risking a reaction bone burst.

They could attack the thrall not latched and be forced to spend a second action on the second and be in difficult terrain for their first movement. Or if they succeed, suffer -10 speed and a constant risk that they may trigger the thralls reaction that's latched onto them.

It's simply great value vs single more powerful opponents.

If the enemy is IN difficult terrain, they can step without issue. You cannot step into difficult terrain but you can Step out of difficult terrain with 0 issue.

In fact, making the space an enemy is in difficult terrain won't really do much unless the enemy is Large or bigger. A medium or smaller creature will take no penalty, since only moving into difficult terrain is bad.

I think perfected Thrall wins out by a long shot for several reasons:

- The P-Thrall is Medium, so it's easy to move around. The Living Graveyard is Gargantuan, but it has no way to move through enemies. It can easily be bottlenecked.
- The P-Thrall can deal very solid damage when you Sustain. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the Living Graveyard can only knock people prone on cast, not on Sustain, which appears to only move it + create 3 thralls.
- 400 HP is nice, but the Living Graveyard is just not much of a threat. It's a very big blocker and it spawns Thralls, but that is basically it. Keep in mind unlike the Perfected Thrall, it does not have a caveat regarding it's consumption, which means if you try to use it for any Focus Spell it just disappears.

The Perfected Thrall is just overall more useful: it can be more easily maneuvered, it can actually deal damage, and it can fuel several of your spells.

By comparison, casting Living Graveyard creates Thralls. This isn't bad, but it's not like you're going to have trouble creating Thralls at level 20.

I think if they need a separate action to apply, but an action compression for tracing a rune with a diacritic would be nice as a higher level feat.

This exists already, it's one of their 20th level capstone feats.

Shades of Meaning: "Whenever you Etch or Trace a Rune, you can choose to also apply one diacritic rune you know to it, as part of the same action."

It should definitely be lower. In fact, both capstone feats need serious revision, because they're frankly both absolutely awful.

From a purely RAW perspective: because Climb is used for moving up, down or across an incline, which is described as "an area so steep that you need to Climb using the Athletics skill in order to progress upward."

Is a tight rope an incline? Is a narrow beam? No. Therefore, no Climb.

Balance meanwhile is required on Narrow Surfaces and Uneven Ground. If it's one of those, you gotta Balance. No Climbing.

From a non-raw perspective, because it's the GMs call what surfaces require which skills.

Of course there are things that could, theoretically, be done with either. Your beam/rope example would be equivalent to going on a ceiling, which is called out in Climb Speed as probably requiring checks. But a Climb speed is not going to help you move across a slippery icy surface, or a ship being tossed around in a storm (both of which would be Uneven Ground).

The Dedication says "You can take the Cleric Dedication feat without needing to meet its prerequisites and before you take two other feats from the Razmiran priest archetype, but you must choose Razmir as your deity."

But what if I DO meet the prerequisites? Can I select a deity other than Razmir then? It seems that, that requirement is only needed to cheat the standard prerequisites and gain the Dedication perks.

It later goes on to say "when gained in this way" implying that you can gain it another (the standard) way.

If you do meet the pre-requisites then yes you can take Cleric Dedication for any other Deity you want, following the usual rules. And you could still keep taking feats from Razmiran Priest, since the archetype doesn't require you to take Cleric Dedication for Razmir at any point, nor does it say you lose the benefits if you worship another god.

The thing is though, because Razmiran Priest only has 2nd, 6th, 10th and 20th level feats, the earliest you could take proper Cleric Dedication would be 12th, or 9th with Multitalented.

An interesting quirk here that I'm not sure is intended is that you could, technically, take Razmiran Priest Dedication and then, using either Multitalented or just waiting until level 12th, take Cleric Dedication and choose Razmir as your deity, gaining actual divine power from him. Since gaining devotee powers from him only requires having the Archetype, not the Archetype's particular brand of Cleric Dedication.

Or you could be a Cleric of a proper deity, take the dedication, then change your deity to Razmir. Which is even funnier.

The way I see it: Razmiran Priest lets you take Cleric Dedication. Cleric Dedication states:

"Choose a deity as you would if you were a cleric. You become bound by that deity’s anathema and can receive that deity’s divine sanctification. You become trained in Religion and your deity’s associated skill; for each of these skills in which you were already trained, you instead become trained in a skill of your choice. You don’t gain any other abilities from your choice of deity."

And then, in Cleric, under Anathema:

"If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity, you lose the magical abilities that come from your connection to your deity. The class features that you lose are determined by the GM, but they likely include your divine font and all cleric spellcasting."

And Razmir has Anathema, which are:

"Anathema: disobey Razmir or one of his priests, question the truth of the Living God"

Which means, if your priest loses faith, which would mean questioning the truth of the Living God, you'd likely lose access to all your cleric spellcasting, retaining everything else, but it's up to the GM in the end.

Well as I read it, Rupture is damage that must be dealt to the creature using Swallow Whole, which in this case would be the caster.

Plus, wouldn't we need to use the caster's own Athletics DC for Escape, and their AC and resistances (if any) for the Rupture? Because it's either that or doing it out of thin air.

Which makes me think the interdimensional space is linked to the caster and the caster will take damage.

If the extradimensional space came with it's own set of statistics it would be different, but that's not the case.

I was thinking about choosing Artisan Calling for my Crafting Witch because I want my goblin to evolve into a god of crafting. But the anathema of this Calling seems extremely limiting compared to the other Callings. Or have I just misunderstood it? In principle, I can't use anything that I haven't made myself. It's also almost impossible to have all the skills to make everything yourself.

It's one of those that depends on how lenient your GM wants to be. Since the anathema is "use a weapon or item crafted by someone else, except for the purpose of learning its function so you can understand how to create it yourself"

That last part is super vague, since it can be anything from "well you immediately know what this does, so you can't use it" (if, say, the item is uncommon) to "well you have the formula for it, so now you know the ins and outs and can't use it until you craft it" to "well this is a rather unique item so you'll never truly learn how to create it".

The "destroy the creations of other artisans" is also pretty bad, since again it's a bit too vague. Would destroying the trebuchets the enemy is using to beseige the city count? What about sinking a pirate ship? What about facing constructs in battle?

Not entirely sure what the idea was behind kneecapping Artisan this way, none of the other anathema are even close to these in how they restrict player characters.

Plane wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

In that case what is a good sturdy instrument that our barbarian can use to rhymically and soundlessly batter down the door or break the interrogated prisoner?

Upright piano

Subcontrabass saxophone
Octobass
Pedal Harp

Or if you want to go ludricrous (unlike the above obviously):
Cathedral pipe organ
Earth harp
Five meter drum

Carillon

The spell does specify handheld instrument, unfortunately. So I'm pretty sure only the saxophone would qualify.

I do agree it'd be funny to see the barbarian smashing someone with church bells though.

Like all DCs, it's 10+your modifier in the relevant check. So 40 in this case.

Is there any easy way to apply restrain easily as a martial outside of critically succeeding on a grapple check? I am rather curious as I am making a Wrestling Grappling Shark Instinct Animal Barbarian dual-class Exemplar for a game.

Yes, by using this feat Pin to the Spot

But no GM I've ever played with has allowed it, because it's clearly borked.

Honestly, the only thing holding the Spirit Warrior archetype back compared to the other two is having to invest in both a normal weapon for Runes as well as Handwraps, but if you're running an ABP game (as I am for at least two tables), it's basically a no-brainer option, especially for Rogue types, and that it's an Uncommon choice.

I really think Paizo should take another passover for these recent Rarity options, because it's starting to feel more and more like Rarity is being used to gatekeep powerful options instead of gatekeeping regional or truly inaccessible options, like it was originally intended to do.

Spirit Warrior has a 6th level feat to apply your Handwrap Runes to whatever weapon you're holding. And that same feat makes it so that targets you hit with a weapon are off-guard against your next unarmed attack and vice-versa.

And this isn't even getting into the fact Spirit Warrior Dedication, in addition to giving you Flurry of Blows/Twin Takedown, also upgrades your Fist to d6 and gives it Parry.

There's been quite a few "??" choices in recent publications to be sure.