TheFinish's page

The question to me is about the ally who cannot step, or could until someone else stepped into the only place the character could. It seems weird to say that pincer attack has a prerequisite that a squad mate must be able to step in order to benefit from the ability, especially if they were going to step but an ally stepped into the only place the character could step. That feels a little retroactively countering to the character’s choice.

I do agree that responding to a tactic, whether you end up engaging in the optional actions involved or not, means you can’t respond to any other tactics.

Responding to a tactic and getting no benefit except one or more enemies are now off guard to you doesn’t feel like a game breaking exploit to me. The commander could have just spent an action tripping a foe or moving into a flanking position. As a GM, I wouldn’t make the player pay their reaction for that benefit, but even for those that do the commander can grant a free reaction to an ally so it’s probably fine balance wise either way.

If an ally cannot step, then they should get no benefit. I mean if you're immobilised you can't respond to any tactic that says you can Stride/Step, how is this any different? If a player's character is Grabbed, would you allow them to spend the reaction anyway? I don't see how "I can't move but I'll benefit from this tactic that is predicated on people moving" makes a ton of sense.

An ally blocking your movement is something to discuss with the table, ideally, but yeah its perfectly fine to say "Nah I'm not responding, Mike took the place I was going to use so I just won't step." That's not retroactively countering anything so much as good table manners. It's like going "I'm going to cast fireball" and a friend goes "Dude I'm gonna be in the AoE" and the caster going "Oh my bad I'll cast lightning bolt instead". If the GM went "No you said you were casting fireball, so now you have to cast it" we'd all think they're bananas.

And sure it's not a huge deal with Pincer Attack. It's more a problem with Thundering Charge and/or any future Tactics they might print.

My reading is that each player must decide to respond to the tactic before any character starts performing the action or not. If someone steps where you were going to step you don’t get to retroactively not respond to the call, you responded, but did not take the ensuing action.

If you had to step to benefit from the ability then the tactic should specify that.

I see. I personally disagree but if that's how you want to run it, that's fine.

Pincer attack says the squad mate can step. Not that they do step or must step. In order to make the choice to step or not they have to first respond to the tactic. The enemy becoming off guard is contingent on someone stepping next to them, but they are then off guard to all the responding allies regardless. The tactics trait explains what responding means, but it is a simple choice on the part of the player. So it could even just be one ally who steps and makes an enemy off guard to every other squad mate who responds, and it is still a useful ability. It is definitely one of my favorite tactics.

All tactics are a "can" clause (except the aforementioned Trainings, which are sort of general buffs). None of them say a squadmate must do X. Hence, squadmates have a choice to respond (by doing X) or not respond (by not doing X).

The tactics trait doesn't say what responding means. It says to use a tactic you must have squadmates and those squadmates have to be able to perceive you, among other tihngs:

The only time responding is even mentioned is that you can only do so to one tactic per round.

In the case of Pincer Attack, responding to it means using your Reaction to Step. I don't see any reading that indicates otherwise.

Whether the squad mate steps or not doesn’t determine whether they responded to the commander’s tactic.

Is this stated anywhere? Because a thorough read of the Commander doesn't specify one way or the other.

Except for Mountaineering Training and Naval Training, I'd assume "responding" to a tactic is doing what the tactic tells you to do: Stepping in Pincer Attack, Interacting to Reload with Reload!, Raising a Shield with Shields Up!, etc.

But you're saying a squadmate can say "I respond to this tactic" and then do nothing? Aside from the fact that I don't think this does anything except with Pincer Attack, I can't find anything that supports this reading. is it elsewhere in Battlecry?

Of course, the thing I'd do is get a Moderate Sturdy and then start buying Runes with Greater at 13th... it's much cheaper.

Yeah, the initial cost is a bit higher (going from Moderate Sturdy to Greater is 2.000 gold, buying a Greater Reinforcing Rune is 2.500) but after that upgrading your rune is far cheaper and you end up saving around 7.000 gold overall, which is a good chunk of change.

One of those weird quirks with shields.

TheFinish wrote:

Then Enemy 1 is now off-guard to the Commander and the Squadmate block until the start of the Commander's next turn, but Ally 1 gets no benefit.

Hmmm. I read that sentence as:

"that opponent is off-guard to melee attacks from [you and all other squadmates who responded]..."
not
"that opponent is off-guard to [melee attacks from you] and all other squadmates who responded..."

IOW no ranged attacks at all. But I guess the grammar supports either.

Man I somehow missed the "melee" thing there. Talk about forests and trees.

Yeah its definitely not for ranged.

So the Commander's own Step doesn't trigger the effect, but he can still benefit from others taking the reation?

Correct, whether the Commander steps or not doesn't matter, since whether or not they themselves end up adjacent to an enemy is irrelevant for the tactic itself. But the Commander will gain the benefit of the tact against all enemies an ally steps adjacent to, unlike his squadmates who will only benefit against enemies other squadmates end up adjacent to.

I'm not sure about the RAI here. It seems counterintuitive to demand PCs move away and then back in to get the benefit. As a GM it would be a reasonable handwave I think to say as long as you've designated them squadmates, they don't have to move if they're already next to the targets. But on the other hand, an argument could be made that the benefit is coming from the enemy not expecting the pincer, so in that respect if the squadmates all just stay exactly where they are, there's no surprise or lack of expectation on the enemy's part. Thus a GM could reasonably interpret the tactic as requiring some actual movement in order to get an opponent off-guard. It's up to your table; I don't think handwaving it would be OP but I think you're correct about that scenario and the RAW not giving OG to Enemy3 if PCs 2 and 3 don't move.

I think another issue here is that despite the tactic's name it doesn't actually require doing any kind of pincer.

If you have Enemy 1 engaged with Ally 1, and then 20 feet back you have the Commander and a block of 5 squadmates, all with ranged weapons, and the Commander calls for Pincer Attack...

Then Ally 1 Steps to still be engaged with Enemy 1, and your 5 squadmates use their Reaction to step 5 feet back (as does the Commander)...

Then Enemy 1 is now off-guard to the Commander and the Squadmate block until the start of the Commander's next turn, but Ally 1 gets no benefit.

That's not really a Pincer Attack so much as a...weasel war dance, I guess?

I'm in almost this scenario in a pbp game right now, and this is my first time playing a Commander, so I appreciate helping me fully understand this too. Originally I had just thought Pincer Attack let everyone step and then granted OG, but as you're detailing, it's more complicated than that.

In our situation:
Commander uses Pincer Attack and takes his own reaction to Step adjacent to Enemy1 and Enemy2. PC2 is already adjacent to Enemy1, and PC3 is already adjacent to Enemy2. Due to terrain, PC2 and PC3 cannot step without moving away from the enemies, so they do not Step. PC4 (who is a rogue) takes the reaction to Step up to Enemy1. None of the enemies are flanked.

Is this correct?
Enemy1: OG to Commander and Rogue (thus granting Sneak Attack). Not OG to PC3 who did not take a Step.
Enemy2: OG to no one? Despite the Commander Stepping and PC2 already being adjacent to them, PC2 did not Step, so Pincer Attack doesn't grant OG? What if the Rogue has a reach weapon and thus threatens Enemy2, but isn't adjacent?

Edit: I realize a map would make this much easier to understand.

Unfortunately I think the result is that Enemy 1 is off-guard to the Commander, and Enemy 2 is off-guard to nobody.

The crux of the matter is this line:

"If any of your allies ends this movement adjacent to an opponent, that opponent is off-guard to melee attacks from you and all other squadmates who responded to Pincer Attack until the start of your next turn."

In your example, only one ally responded to Pincer Attack, which is the Rogue. That ally did end up adjacent to an Enemy, which is Enemy 1. Enemy 1 will therefore be off-guard to the Commander, and all other squadmates, but as we established there are no other squadmates, because only the Rogue reacted to pincer attack. And you've said nobody is flanking, so no other off-guards.

Essentially if only one squadmate responds to Pincer Attack, then that squadmate will never benefit from off-guard provided by Pincer Attack.

Wouldn't Cats Eye Elixir work as a cheap fix.

Cat's Eye Elixir wrote:

For the next minute, you reduce the flat check to target hidden creatures to 5, and you don't need to attempt a flat check to target concealed creatures. These benefits apply only against creatures within 30 feet of you.

Dazzled says all creatures are concealed to you so I dont see why not.

Yes, it'd work fine. Since Dazzled just makes creatures concealed, anything that lets you ignore the Concealed condition works. Echo receptors work, cat's eye elixir works, Blind Fight (the feat) works. Probably a lot of other things.

Confusing colors is a Rank 8 spell though so I suggested the more permanent item based solution. Cat's eye elixir only lasts one minute, which is its main drawback.

(and if you do Battle Medicine with Assurance you can just use a basic toolkit anyway).

Kind of but not really? Assurance will let you hit base DC at level 3, you hit DC 20 at level 6, DC 30 at level 14 and you never hit DC 40 (because assurance maxes out at 38: 10 + 20 level + 8 legendary).

It's ok for Treat Wounds if you have infinite time, it's terrible for Battle Medicine where you very likely need all the healing you can get right now. Using an action to heal someone 2d8 HP at level 5 is very questionable.

All that said, Vasodilation should absolutely apply to Battle Medicine.

The playtest Necromancer was already weird with the lore, given the "undead" that it conjures never had enough of a soul to count as actual undead in the setting (so that followers of Pharasma and most of the Holy deities don't automatically kill on sight) and they're not using any matter that was formerly alive (because its necessary to be able to create thralls anywhere for the class to function, even if you don't have any bodies to do it from). This is the diet coke of necromancy in class form.

The only reason why anyone knows they're "undead" at all is because the class explicitly claims they are. But they don't fit with how undead have traditionally worked in Golarian at all. The way Necromancer works, its effectively really a Conjurer that uses magic to create undead-themed temporary meatsacks that only animate on command.

It would be trivially easy to reflavor thralls into basically anything from any tradition because they have so little connection to being undead mechanically that it's all just narrative flavour anyway. You could take the same class, change it to primal, change the thralls to plants instead, and it would work exactly the same way.

As a matter of fact you could probably name it Summoner* and it'd be just as fitting. Aside from the names of its features, the only thing that really even remotely codes it as a "Necromancer" instead of a generic minionmancer is Undead Lore and maybe Mastery of Life and Death (except you could very easily turn that to a nature theme too). Everything else is super easy to just reflavor into something that never interacts with undead.

*If we didn't already have a Summoner, of course.

Unfortunately there's nothing you can do in that regard since the spell specifies it affects all creatures.

One way around this is for everyone to get echo receptors since they give you precise hearing out to 40 feet, allowing you to ignore both Dazzled and Blinded at that range.

Thats correct in regards to the fascinated condition. The spell explicitly says though "If you attack or take a hostile action, the fascinated condition ends only for the creature that's attacked."

Yes, because normally Fascinated states:

"This condition ends if a creature uses hostile actions against you or any of your allies."

So lets say you cast Luring Wall and five enemies fail their save. They would all now be Fascinated.

Next round you attack one of them. Without the clause you quoted, Fascinated would end for everyone who failed. It would end for the one you attacked because you used a hostile action against it, and it would end for all their friends because you used a hostile action against one of their allies.

With the clause, Fascinated ends only for the one you attacked, and everyone else is still fascinated.

They can all still attack you while fascinated though, nothing there changes.

I had a game where another player took Debilitating Shot, it can indeed be very strong but he did run into a couple of situations where he hit but dealt no damage (he was using a composite shortbow) due to Resistance, which meant it didn't do anything.

That said it's still amazing vs solo bosses, against an encounter with multiples enemies it's alright but not crazy.

Fascinated does not prevent creatures from attacking you, all it does is this:

"You take a –2 status penalty to Perception and skill checks, and you can't use concentrate actions unless they (or their intended consequences) are related to the subject of your fascination, as determined by the GM"

So they could actually strike you at any point while you're Sustaining the spell, assuming they have the actions to do so.

And yes, on a Failure they just need to use one action to move towards you. They could then move away if desired.

There's already quite a few in the game, my personal wish from those that we don't have in 2e would be for them to remake the Aspis Agent and the Tattooed Mystic.

Without that line in Field Vials I'd say the situation was ambiguous. With that line though I think it's pretty clear Combine Elixirs is supposed to work with Mutagens.

Especially because Combine Elixirs very specifically creates a "hybrid concotion" with all effects. You're not drinking two Mutagens, you're drinking one mutagen with two benefits and two drawbacks.

Which would mean you could, theoretically, be able to be under the effects of four mutagens once you hit Level 13 (double Combined). Which sounds pretty fun to be honest.

another thing to note with the hazardous terrain is that RAW the size of the creature really changes the effectiveness of it.

as it's written, the damage is for each squar you enter, and a huge creature (as an example) could get 3-5x damage per movement (depening if moving straight or diagonically) compared to that to a medium creature.

without resistances, using coral eruption as an example, it could mean that an enemy takes 9-15 damage per 5ft of his movememnt as oppossed to a different enemy taking just 3

3d terrain (like some impulses) can make it even worse, with a huge creature entering 9 squares simultaneously when moving even straight through it...

I think that isn't the intent, especially since Howl of the Wild states:

When a Large PC moves through hazardous terrain or a similar obstacle that causes damage based on the number of squares the PC moves through, they take damage only once for each 5 feet of movement—a minotaur shouldn’t take four times as much damage for crossing a burning field as a human!

Sure, this is talking about PCs, but it should realistically apply to everything.

I'll be honest, I always thought the Carry rules worked for it as familiars are only 1 bulk.

But honestly, it could be much clearer because the question comes up ALL the time and I feel like it's something that should've been default in there.

Also...

Errata: Independent familiar ability to be in line with similar cases with animal companions. Your familiar should be able to take 1 action for free, but you cannot command your familiar if you do so.

It's weird that this got added to many animal companion feats, but the familiar one was left alone.

AFAIK the Independent Familiar does work that way? It states:

" In an encounter, if you don't Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round."

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?

Does the spellshape entry itself limit the combo?

Archives of Nethys wrote:

Spellshape
Source Player Core pg. 302 2.0
Actions with the spellshape trait tweak the properties of your spells. You must use a spellshape action directly before casting the spell you want to alter. If you use any action (including free actions and reactions) other than casting a spell directly after, you waste the benefits of the spellshape action. The benefit is also lost if your turn ends before you cast the spell. Any additional effects added by a spellshape action are part of the spell's effect, not of the spellshape action itself.

The part saying you must use a spellshape action directly before casting the spell you want to alter.

It says must, meaning it may not be an option to use a spellshape and not cast a spell you want to alter. If that is true then sure the character can cast extend into extend but then must commit to a spell that doesnt also require they cast a spell after like extend requires.

If a player is declaring they want to use an action on a spellshape they also need to have the actions to cast a spell after it or they dont meet the requirements in the spellshape description that they must use it directly before the spell they want to alter.

I can see someone argue that this statement is just ment to determine order of things not a requirement to actually follow through but It seems to me that it can be enforced as written as a requirement.

The very same rules specify what happens if you don't use Cast a Spell immediately after (you waste the spellshape) so its clear to me that its intended for you to be able to "waste" them by using other actions in between.

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.

Palatine Detective only ever grants Innate Spells, if memory serves, and the rules are clear that neither those nor Focus Spells allow you to use Wands/Scrolls/Staves.

Rogues get a Skill Feat every level, so Rogues can get them at 7. So can Investigator, with a few more restrictions. And Swashbucklers, again with restrictions.

The effect of this one is definitely more in line with a skill feat than a Class Feat, so that's how I'd rule it.

The rules on this one are IMO very clear:

"When attempting a High Jump or Long Jump during a Sudden Leap, determine the jump distance using Long Jump's rules, and change your maximum distance to double your Speed."

So the Jump Distance is determined like Long Jump for both, meaning it's going to be the result of our Athletics Check (if we Succeed) or our Leap (if we Fail), but if we do Succeed we also have a limit of our Speed x2 instead of just our Speed.

This doesn't really invalidate Cloud Jump for a couple of reasons:

a) It's a Class Feat, not a Skill Feat. So not everyone is going to have access to it and it's designed to be more powerful.
b) It's always two actions no matter what, whereas Cloud Jump can be one Action.
c) It's limited to twice your Speed no matter what, while Cloud Jump can go up to triple if you really need to.

Plus, if we stop to think about it, Sudden Leap allowing you to use Felling Strike would be pretty terrible if we were using normal High Jump distances.

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".

Wow. The new troop rules are WAY more complicated than I thought.

Aren't they supposed to be easier to manage than multiple individual creatures? The more I read about them, the less that seems to be the case.

You can always just ignore the whole Segments thing and play them as a big swarm that gets smaller as you hit the HP thresholds. Four 10x10 sections is just one big 20x20 square, you reduce it to 15x15 at first threshold and then to 10x10 at second, with lowered capabilities as described in the statblocks (and keeping in mind their immunities wrt single target spells and such)

Much easier to run and they work perfectly fine, even if this method makes them cover less ground as they start losing segments.

Yes, even though the creature couldn't normally attempt to Grapple your Minotaur, because Grapple's Critical Failure says it just happens then it's a valid choice for them to pick grabbing you when you get a crit fail.

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).

So, of the changes you mentioned:

- Rascal is definitely an option but it's sadly not well supported, and Dirty Trick has several downsides. Not only the one you mentioned regarding Reach, but also the fact that it is both Manipulate and Attack, meaning you get the worst of both worlds by provoking Reactive Strikes and incurring MAP. Also aside from one feat (Dastardly Dash), Dirty Trick has no real support or further development.

- Gymnast is a good choice if you have at least +2 STR. The Whip has Disarm and Trip, so if you take Disarming Flair you now have 2 actions you can do at your weapon's Reach that grant you Bravado. The +1 circumstance bonus from Stylish combatant will help you mostly keep up so long as you improve STR to +3 at level 5 (if you start at +3 STR and go up to +4 you're actually better at those maneuvers than most people).

- The third option to keep you as a pure DEX user is Battledancer. Take the Acrobatic Performer Skill Feat and you can use Acrobatics when you use Fascinating Performance, letting you focus on just Acrobatics, which means you don't need Charisma or to upgrade your Performance skill. Fascinating Performance's effect is very poor, but it has no range limit (the enemy just has to be able to see you)

If you want to go into thrown weapons, the third option is your best bet, and I'd switch the Whip out for a Starknife. Twirling Throw sounds good but it's actually a much better idea to either get a Returning Rune on your Starknife or getting yourself a Thrower's Bandoleer. That way you just spend money for a better effect, but I'm honestly unsure how PFS does treasure, so you know better than me in this regard.

They might also just critically hit, which is why the roll is important and why the Gliminal Rule is a nice compromise.

TheFinish wrote:

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

No you’re not. You’re forgoing your rider effects. You could do exactly the same thing by demoralizing your pet mouse or some s%%$. Panache is tied to skill actions, which can be used for their useful effects. If you’re tumbling through an empty space panache is the only thing you’re getting, no demoralize or grapple or bon mot or whatever.

What rider effects? The main rider effect of Tumble Through is literally moving through someone. Swashbuckler only has two feats that add more riders to Tumble Through, Tumble Behind and The Bigger they Are, and The Bigger they Are doesn't matter for this conversation because it's a specific action.

So sure, if you have Tumble Behind you're losing that effect, which is incredibly minor.

Again, if you set the DC of Tumble Through to Level Based DC or anything lower, then Tumbling through empty squares becomes one of the best things to do to gain Panache because you're rolling against an incredibly low DC and your penalty for failure is losing 5 feet of movement. Compared to the other ways to get Panache, this would be way too good.

As as a side note, good luck to anyone trying to demoralise their pet mouse, if said mouse was acquired via the Pet feat. It has the same save values you do, so you're really scaring yourself.

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.

I think "a square adjacent" instead of "the square adjacent" is reasonable to say, because there can be multiple squares that are both fair choices for that.

For example, consider this situation, with you ‍♂️ and a spider ️.
.

◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️
‍♂️◻️◻️◻️◻️
◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️️

The blue spots would be reasonable, they're the shortest to you. The top red one is not the shortest path so can't be direct. The left one goes past you, which doesn't survive a good-faith plain text reading of the ability.

Unfortunately, fetching bangles has a limit of 20 feet, and that spider is 25 feet away, so the ability doesn't work! :p

Jokes aside, I agree with you. Pull the spider the shortest distance towards you. If more than one square qualifies, let the player choose.

And it is, obviously, forced movement.

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.

Finoan wrote:

Considering that the other classes that have a way to get the core mechanic of the class are getting a nerfed version of it, I think it would need to be more restrictive than a Hex Cantrip or permanent Familiar ability.

Magus Archetype can get Spellstrike at once per battle.
Rogue Archetype gets Sneak Attack with a non-scaling amount of damage.
Thaumaturge Archetype gets one Implement and only the first entry-level benefit for it.

Things like that.

So if gaining the Hex Cantrip via Witch Archetype, I would do something like make it a 'Focus 1' instead of a 'Focus Cantrip'.

That said, for Bard archetype, there is the option at lvl 8 for getting the equivalent "1 action class defining focus cantrip".

I wouldn't mind it being there for them Witch archetype either (and leaving the unique familiar abilities solely to the Witch as a defining feature).

I was just about to point this out. Level 8 for the Patron Hex Cantrip, leave the familiar ability restricted to full class witches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheFinish wrote:

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

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

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

** spoiler omitted **

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

No, exiting range is not disrupting actions. Disrupting is specifically ending another's actions partway through completion. The disrupted creature is outright prevented from finishing the action.

Moving outside of range does not invoke that disrupt mechanic.
A Gogi that reactively skitters outside of range of an in-progress Sudden Charge does not "disrupt" as a Reactive Strike might.

Even the new Warping Pull can cause this evasion for any multi-hit ability, such as Flurry of Blows. The Reaction teleports the ally after the first hit, and now the 2nd is ineligible.

I do not know how an honest contributor to the discussion could misconstrue this by accident, after this has already been clearly explained before.

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

Easl wrote:

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

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

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

Easl wrote:

But it is unclear whether this reaction can do that.

It is not unclear. Ready does not Disrupt.

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

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

Finoan wrote:

Unicore wrote:

The closest I would allow to this strategy is for a player to ready to move away when someone ends a move action adjacent to their character. That feels like a narrative thing that makes sense and is easy to arbitrate without getting too hokey.

Ending a move action is a game mechanic.

I would allow Ready for a move action triggered when an enemy moves adjacent, but the enemy doesn't necessarily end their movement at that point. They can continue their current move action to follow you as you leave.

I disagree with this. Once they have moved adjacent, their move action is done.

It is made clear if you want to move when someone else moves to keep up, that usually costs a reaction. If you allowed them to move again because the target moved, then you give them abilities that allow this with a reaction for free and you devalue abilities like Zephyr Slip that use a reaction to move away from an adjacent target.

If the target uses its move to get adjacent to you, it doesn't suddenly get to move again because they have more move and you moved using a resource. That I would not give them.

Zephyr's slip trigger is "A creature enters a space within 5 feet of you." and a Stride can move you up to your speed. If a creature moves within 5 feet of the spellcaster, the spellcaster uses Zephyr slip, and the creature still has movement available, they can (and should) pursue the caster, if that was their intent. This is perfectly acceptable.

In the same way they could continue their movement if they did not intend to stop within 5 feet of the caster, because they were trying to reach someone else (or, if they have the Reach, move to a position where they can threaten both the caster and a buddy, or something).

That being said, yes, there are reactions which do specifcy a creature ends their movement within 5 feet, for example the viper and in those cases yeah, you've ended your movement, you don't get anymore. But that circles back to the whole "not all triggers we see in reactions in-game are valid triggers for Readied actions" discussion.

Sorry for the late reply.

Let me clear the cramped space issue first. There's no need for an open space, or even a big room. Being able to Stride (or Leap) two squares away from the wight is enough, so I think a 4x4 room would suffice. A simple corridor also works, if it's long enough - in that case the group doesn't run in circles, but retreats one or two squares per turn: the enemy has to stop at the foremost PC, who will Stride behind the others when attacked.

Let's analyze Readying to Stride when attacked at range. The enemy would come close to the PC, and stay there because it's not their turn. It can't make its Final Spite attack in case it gets dropped, because it's out of reactions.
What it would accomplish is that the PC wouldn't be able to employ the tactic again that turn, being left with two actions only, so I guess that the wight would be able to strike a single time next turn (as you say, as it Strikes(wasted)-pursues-Strikes). All in all, by playing like this, the wight will be able to Strike once (with -5? Does the wasted Strike apply MAP? Interesting question) every two rounds. Granted, the PCs aren't expressing their best potential either.

Readying to Grapple or Trip could work when the PC doesn't have space to Step away (another question arises - would you let a readied action with a trigger on movement apply in case of a Step?). Again, it only puts the wight in a condition to maybe do something next turn.

But I have to admit that there are, indeed, things that the wight could do. Still, I think the way I rule simultaneous actions is more consistent, and better for the game overall.

A minor quibble, but you need at least a 6x6 room for this tactic to "work" properly. In a 5x5 Room, the Wight can reach anywhere in the room from anywhere else in the room (barring the party landing a movement speed penalty on it), so the party is in a really horrible spot. It's even worse than that in a 4x4 room, because if the Wight stays in the center squares, it only needs to Step once to have one or more party members in reach.

Firstly, and maybe I wasn't clear, the Wight needn't stride towards whoever attacked it. The Wight can just keep pressure on one person at a time, ensuring it's always adjacent to it at the start of the Wight's turn, which is the only thing the Wight needs to do.

To whit, there is no reason why the Wight needs to Strike-Pursue-Strike. It can just Strike-Pursue-Grapple. The fist is Agile, which means the Wight is taking this Grapple at +8. The highest Fortitude DC a 1st level PC can have is 18 (CON KAS at +4, Expert Fort). That's a 10+ to Grab, at the hardest, but it's going to be much lower in practice. If the Wight is gunning for a cloth caster, it's going to be way lower (in the 5-6+ range, depending on Fort).

And once it lands the Grab, escaping it is very hard for 1st level PCs. The best Escape you'll have at Level 1 will come from a Fighter, and it'll be at +9 (+4 KAS, +4 Expert on the Unarmed attack, +1 level) vs an Athletics DC of 22. That's a 13+ on a Fighter, 15+ on most other martials, and 16+ on Casters with +3 DEX/+3 STR.

If the Wight does grab, then the grabbed PC is in serious trouble. If they get lucky and Escape in one action, they can keep their tactic going at the cost of not doing anything to the Wight for one turn. If they don't Escape in the first try though, their chances plummet and they can no longer use their tactic. If they can't escape at all, the Wight has a whole turn to wail on them, including just another Grab, at a much higher modifier (with its full +12, the Wight is looking at 6+ on a Kineticist, less on everyone else). Even if they do escape on the 2nd try, the best they can do is 1 stride, so the Wight can keep up with Stride-Grab-Strike.

Time is not on the PCs side here if the other 3 stick to ranged attacks. Especially because if the Wight kills someone, the party's going to have to deal with another Wight in d4 rounds. Not to mention hitting AC 20 at range without off-guard and such is not easy for Level 1s. And the Wight still has 67 HP for people to chunk through.

Trip.H wrote:

Megistone wrote:

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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