The Rot Grub's page

For those who have consternation about this move for the future of 2E: don't underestimate the power of brand and goodwill in the TTRPG community. Paizo initially became a success with Pathfinder because it had produced content for WOTC in the form of Dungeon and Dragon magazines. The huge market that is playing 5E is not actively rejecting Pathfinder; they are playing 5E because (1) the people they know are playing it and (2) why learn a new system? The marked step-up in quality over WOTC adventures will turn a lot of these new eyes in Paizo's direction. This is a great move.

Is this the final artwork?
Won't 5E players in a store just skip over it seeing Pathfinder being so prominent?

Will there be a Player's Guide?

Wow, a lot of posts since I last checked here!

(Not to single out anyone, but yeah I hope my upcoming video on the Stealth and Awareness rules can clear a lot of prevailing confusion about what the terms and actions mean, since in my opinion they are not presented well in the Core Rulebook.)

Yes, for me seeing what Sneak does on a success "you are undetected during your movement..." settled the question in my OP for me.

What seems to be tripping up people accepting both that the Fighter make an AoO if the Rogue were to Stride away hidden, AND be able to Sneak away undetected without provoking an AoO (which I think is the correct reading of the rules), is the seeming thematic disconnect.

For it to "make sense," I think it's important to take step back (pun intended!) and remember what exactly being Hidden means, and what it doesn't mean.

Remember that in the Core Rulebook that being Hidden means we know the location of a creature. This is true even as they move: the Failure result of the Sneak action is that you remain Hidden throughout your movement. This means that something -- the GM and the player can fill in the fluff as to what that "thing" is - reveals your location to the other creature.

The Core Rulebook describes hearing as an imprecise sense for humans, which at best can only perceive the location of a creature, but is not precise enough to make a creature Observed to you. So one way to imagine how a Sneaking creature fails to become Undetected actually gives away their position is that they are making noise as they move.

So in my OP, the rogue is hidden. (We can assume that she did Create a Diversion as her first action on her turn, to become Hidden to the fighter.) If she were to Stride away, she would alert the Fighter that she's doing this somehow, and there is a good chance that the sense that the fighter is using to detect this is hearing, as we know from the CRB using this as the example of an Imprecise Sense. The fighter hears or senses somehow that she is trying to move away, and can take advantage of the opening. Meanwhile, she must succeed at Sneaking away to foil his sense of hearing (and/or other senses).

Does it sound outlandish that the fighter can react so quickly to the opening made by leaving the square while hidden? First off, if she is hidden because she just Created a Diversion, it's perfectly believable that the fighter somehow perceives that it was a ruse to escape and tries to land a hit on her anyway (with a 50/50 miss chance). Now, what if the rogue is hidden by virtue of being actually invisible? (Let's say, she was invisible and failed a Sneak check to walk up to the Fighter... remember that she's not Undetected!) In that case, it is more outlandish for the Fighter to suddenly sense the Rogue leaving. But in a fantasy game outlandish things will happen! If we can accept invisibility in our fantasy, it isn't much more fantastical that someone can sense an invisible creature leaving. (Leaving aside a lot of supernatural monk abilities...) Fighters have an amount of training that is preternatural to the point of seeming almost magical, the way champions in competitive fighting react so quickly to openings in a fight.

(Another reason it's hard to imagine why Attack of Opportunity would happen in this situation is the artificial turn-based structure of combat in TTRPGs. If we accept that it is a necessary abstraction of actual, simultaneous combat, it is easier to suspend disbelief and accept that a skilled fighter will, in the chaos of combat, find a chance to get in an extra blow when an opponent lets their guard down, even for just a moment.)

The Sneak action says you're "undetected during your movement and undetected after." If the movement triggers the AoO, but you're undetected during said movement, you can't really be targeted.

I do think that language settles it, and adheres to the "common sense" in my post above.

Success You’re undetected by the creature during your movement and remain undetected by the creature at the end of it.

I feel a little silly being a lawyer and not rereading the first sentence of the Success result!

Aside from metagame knowledge, what would cause the Fighter to decide to use their reaction on AoO?

In the threads where a hidden creature Striding away is discussed, the general assumption is that the creature is not trying to quietly move away. This would also apply to standing up, and all manner of actions that trigger an AoO.

(Interestingly, an invisible spellcaster who uses only a verbal action does not trigger an Attack of Opportunity, even though the Fighter arguably can hear words being spoken better than it can perceive an invisible person moving their hands and what-not. The triggers for Attack of Opportunity adhere to balancing considerations that rise above common sense in a number of cases.)

I'd argue that the Fighter attacking the Rogue moving away is not completely strange lore-wise, since the Fighter is trained for battle and actually knows the person is there with hostile intent, and so if they can get in a free hit they will.

All that said, common sense in this case says that "Sneaking" involves deliberate effort to avoid notice from the Fighter, so that it would not trigger. Because this seems to match the expectation of what a "Sneaking" creature is doing, I'm now inclined to have it not trigger an AoO.

I tend to agree with you guys... I prefer to have a creature's Stealth check before combat determine whether it is noticed. This is consistent with what the terms mean. If you successfully "Avoided Notice," then you are noticed until you become noticed, even if you act later than others.

This is arguably RAW, since it is consistent with the definition of Unnoticed in the Core Rulebook, versus what reads as advice in the Gamemastery "Guide."

I also think the bolded sentence is just clumsily worded. It is intended to describe the enemies as a group, not every single member of the group. The "awareness" conditions each describe a relationship between one creature and one other creature, and this adheres with common sense. So if the "mark" never gets any sign that the Assassin is around, the Assassin is unnoticed.

Captain Morgan: I like to use their pre-Encounter Stealth checks to Avoid Notice to determine awareness. Then, if one side becomes aware of the other, they may choose to instigate an Encounter. (I've always found it weird, to conflate initial awareness of a hostile group with initiative rolls. It's possible to become aware of an enemy, but be slow on the draw.)

Let's say that a rogue is Hidden and is adjacent to a Fighter, so the Fighter knows that the rogue is there. The rogue tries to Sneak away.

Normally, if the rogue tries to Stride away, the Fighter gets an Attack of Opportunity against the rogue, while rolling a DC 11 flat check to target the rogue, as I've seen in a number of threads.

The Sneak action says that on a successful check that "you're undetected." The first sentence you "move to another place while becoming or staying undetected."

Let's say the rogue Sneaks away successfully. Does it avoid Attack of Opportunity?

I think the rogue doesn't, because the Fighter knows what square you're in and will try to attack it.

What do other people think?

I'm working on an explanatory "Rules Lawyer" video about the Stealth rules, and I watched How It's Played's video on Perception. But I have yet to see any rules element where it is useful to note that a creature is Unnoticed, with one exception.

That exception is the Assassin archetype, which has a 12th level feat Assassinate, which requires that you be Unnoticed to your mark when you attack them.

Are there any other situations worth noting?

Also, I have a question about how Assassinate works. Language from the Gamemastery Guide suggests that, even when an Assassin succeeds at Avoiding Notice and is undetected to monsters, that it ceases becoming Unnoticed once a monster gets a turn in initiative:

From the GMG on page 11:

To determine whether someone is undetected by other participants in the encounter, you still compare their Stealth check for initiative to the Perception DC of their enemies. They’re undetected by anyone whose DC they meet or exceed. So what do you do if someone rolls better than everyone else on initiative, but all their foes beat their Perception DC? Well, all the enemies are undetected, but not unnoticed. That means the participant who rolled high still knows someone is around, and can start moving about, Seeking, and otherwise preparing to fight. The characters Avoiding Notice still have a significant advantage, since that character needs to spend actions and attempt additional checks in order to find them. What if both sides are sneaking about? They might just sneak past each other entirely, or they might suddenly run into one another if they’re heading into the same location.

So my reading of this is that, even if Assassin succeeds at remaining Undetected before combat and "marks" their target before combat, if the "mark" rolls a higher Perception for initiative then the Assassinate ability becomes unavailable. Is this correct?

The Determination feat can remove a "nonpermanent condition" automatically. It can only be used once per day.

There are some conditions that are obviously not permanent, like frightened or some conditions that have a set endpoint, like a monster ability that makes you "Stupefied 1 for 1 minute."

But what about the Drained condition that does not have a duration? It is arguably permanent, but it also goes away with a full night's rest? Same for Doomed.

I did a search on Archives of Nethys and am finding no definition for "nonpermanent."

Thanks in advance.

I think at lower levels you can at least decrease the DC for aiding if it is appropiate.

** spoiler omitted **

But I agree it does feel odd, but I think it goes hand in hand with a lot of the system with heroes at low levels being somewhat inexperienced and struggling with most tasks.

In the Beginner Box there is an instance of Aid (in the second room), where the DC of the original task is used for the DC to Aid. Makes sense to me (and I've never been a fan of it being rarely useful for new players, and a guaranteed crit at high levels)

Pretty much universal "Eh..."

Yeah, this could use an Errata or a stealth patch.

As for homebrew, there are some items that offer a higher-DC version of themselves for a higher price. Perhaps they can be a guide for pricing higher-DC versions of other items.

You're completely correct and as far as I can tell it's intended, yeah.

Is there something I don't know as to why it's intended? The Drifter reload ability lets them do their signature reload while dual wielding. Would it be overpowered to allow it for the Pistolero?

(I suppose the Pistolero can have a repeating weapon in one hand, but the repeating firearms seem a bit weak.)

Why does it feel the more we comb through the more restrictions we find?

As for AC reaction, well AoO in general would be great to have on animal companions. But yeah there aren't any that I am aware off.

As for anyone wonder them being able to act when you command, even when not your turn, would have the semi-obvious "let's set up for something" perk.

As it turns out, there is an Animal Companion, the vulture, which has an Advanced Maneuver that uses a Reaction:

Vulture

Advanced Maneuver Feast on the Fallen
Reaction
Healing Manipulate
Source Pathfinder #149: Against the Scarlet Triad pg. 80
Frequency once per hour
Trigger A creature adjacent to the vulture is reduced to 0 Hit Points
The vulture consumes a piece of the defeated foe, regaining 18 Hit Points. If the vulture is a specialized animal companion, increase the Hit Points regained to 30.[/b]

Granted, it appears in an AP and not a rulebook... I'm guessing it snuck its way past the editors/developers who were on top of the Animal Companion rules.

I'd be inclined to allow Grab an Edge as a GM, as it's so commonsensical and not gamebreaking and, as we see here, the developers gave this one a pass. I am guessing that the RAI of "your minion takes no actions outside your turn" is to prevent Ready and Command.

The pistolero seems to be intended for dual-wielding pistols, as the illustration of the pistolero pictures her doing just that. But her Slinger's Reload ability, Raconteur's Reload, does not make a provision for not having a free hand. (The Drifter's special reload does.) It looks like a dual-wielding pistolero needs to take the Level 1 class feat Dual-Weapon Reload, to be able to reload while wielding two pistols. But this is its own Action; it cannot be combined with Raconteur's Reload.

Is my reading correct? And is this intended?

Actually it appears at the beginning of your quote : "A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn, doesn't have reactions, and can't act when it's not your turn."

That's it! Thanks.

Short post!
Commanding a minion lets it take 2 actions. Can you Ready to do this?

Anyone else suspicious that Constructs' ability modifiers increase by TWO when they become Incredible? (G&G page 33)
I think that must be typo...

5e would need rebuilding from the ground up to end with a cohesive system, and I'm not sure WOTC is willing to flip their golden goose upside down even if it resulted in a better game for casual and experienced fans alike...

The hidden news behind the announcement that the new edition will be "backwards compatible" is that this complete redesign is likely postponed for another indefinite period (another 10 years?) I wouldn't be surprised that part of the reason for not releasing new classes has been that they are waiting for the 2024 version before they start to expand into new classes.

Action Economy? "Can I use my bonus action to do X" is the 1º most asked question from new 5e players for a reason, the entire thing is inconsistent, and weaponizing one's bonus action is the easiest way to break the existent power curve. A worthy revision would need to define the worth of a BA in a clear manner and offer a way for every class to fill theirs with something useful if its meant to be a part of the regular Action Econ.

I'm making One Bold Prediction(TM) of what D&D will change, to become "more like PF2e" while remaining backwards compatible:

Allow players to make a single attack with their Bonus Action, but with some form of mechanical disadvantage.

(This would also mean a reworking of monster hit points to reflect the PCs doing relatively more damage.)

Also, we already see some of the previewed statblocks now giving monsters something to do with their Bonus Action.

It will become more 2E-like because everyone will be able to do more than 1 significant thing per turn. But it will still be relatively clunky as well (compared to PF2). It will mean some happier players, however - if they're at a loss as to how to use their Bonus Action, they'll just attack again like they've already been doing. Lastly, it would allow players and DMs to come up with more things to do with the Bonus Action, because now it at least incurs an opportunity cost for not making an attack.

"PF2's player base may actually have more former/current 5E players than former/current PF1 players at this point"

is something that's explicitly true of r/Pathfinder2e interestingly, we've done surveys about it there, its like 60% former 5e players at last count, and I can only imagine its gone up in the months since.

That's bound to only increase over time, as 5E continues to grow while PF1 remains relatively stagnant. At some data point in the future it will get to 80-90 percent.

I'm a long-time poster, and I thought this video from my Rules Lawyer channel would interest people in this thread.

It is titled "New D&D Edition Announced! 5 Things It Should STEAL from Pathfinder 2E"

The TLDR (and time stamps):

0:00 - WOTC's Announcement
3:08 - Competition Is Good
4:34 - #1. More Choices in Character Advancement
5:53 - #2. Parallel Advancement Tracks
7:38 - #3. Rein-In Overpowered Options
9:45 - #4. Add Rules Where They're Needed
12:43 - #5. More Unique Monster Abilities

Not getting crit is mostly what a "tank" does in this edition, and every point of AC reduces the chances to be crit by an actual, significant amount.

Quoted for truth. The way the math works out, Raising Your Shield often doesn't reduce a monster's first Strike having a regular success against you at all, but it often reduces their chance to crit by 20, 30, 50, or even 67 percent.

It seems to me that Recall Knowledge is trying to fulfill two different roles that call for different DCs.

Take learning about the Ghost Mage as an example. Let's say a Level 8 party encounters a Level 10 Ghost Mage and wants to know its weaknesses. (Note that the Bestiary also contains a Level 4 Ghost Commoner.)

-Character A is a Ranger with the Level 1 class feat Monster Hunter. This lets the Ranger attempt a free Recall Knowledge against a creature as part of their Hunt Prey action. If this critically succeeds, the ranger and allies get a +1 circumstance bonus against their next attack on the creature. This effect seems to call for the LEVEL-based DC, as it makes the

-Character B is a Wizard who wants to find weaknesses of the Ghost Mage. He tries to Recall Knowledge on the Ghost Mage for this purpose. The key information to learn is that they have resistance against all damage, with perhaps 1 or more ways to bypass that resistance. Now... does the GM use a Level 10 DC for this check? But the Level 4 Ghost Commoner has the same ability. So does this call for a Level 4 check? Within the universe, it doesn't make sense that the Ghost Mage's DC should be higher simply because its level is higher.

Lastly, on repeat checks...

I have an Investigator player in my party who has a class feat that lets him Recall Knowledge as part of Devise a Stratagem. When he critically succeeds on such a check, he gets a +1 bonus similar to the Ranger's Monster Hunter feat. I am rolling a secret check for him EVERY time he uses it, even if he failed previously against a particular creature, because it feels like the ability is too weak if I don't. It also feels like my house rule is "within the lore," because the +1 bonus is a temporary one-time boost and they are looking for momentary advantages, which (to my mind) is different from permanent weaknesses of a creature.

I second the OP's suggestion and hope that these questions get answered! I appreciate the allowance for GM fiat, but when it leads to widely divergent outcomes that affect players' build plans as the OP pointed out, this desperately calls for clarification.

It is, IMO, important to the class fantasy of this class that they have magic technobabble.

It's a class entirely about the obscure, and unusual. And also, it's fun to learn new words through games for many people.

So I'm a big fan of Esoteric Antithesis as a name. More word-salad for me please.

From a designer standpoint that makes perfect sense.

But after having experienced it (see my video), this is my playtest feedback as a player. I found that it was a net minus, and I think the goal of using an esoteric term can still be achieved via other words (see my comment above).

Verzen wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

There is one name they can use that would also likely answer a question as to whether a 1E class is returning - Bane

I guess issue is that this is now a rune

But there is something in this. A new 2e YouTuber did a review of this class and was stumbling over the words.

Link?

https://youtu.be/SXhDGfgavqw

That is me! =D

Esoteric - "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest."

Antithesis - "a figure of speech in which an opposition or contrast of ideas is expressed by parallelism of words that are the opposites of, or strongly contrasted with, each other, such as “hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all sins”"

That definition of antithesis makes even less sense to me, given the context. Antipode seems more appropriate, if the idea is that the piece of esoterica is the pole of a dichotomy, the other pole being the target. And it's appropriately "esoteric."

I think even "Esoteric Opposition" would be easier to wrap my mind (and tongue) around. Or "Esoteric Focus."

I usually don't quibble about relatively minor things, but I've found this so hard to grok in my head and use in play.

Attack of Opportunity is already a mouthful, and I wish there were a more elegant way to say it. But at least you can say "I AoO the monster."

But as for Esoteric Antithesis - how do we use it in a sentence? There's nothing natural about it and I get no picture in my head!

"I've studied it! Now I use Esoteric Antithesis!"

"I've now studied the creature's flaws. Now I attach my esoterica to my implement to create an antithesis."

"I make an Antithesis."

"I oppose it with my Esoterica (Antithesis)."

Given the flavor description, I most naturally want to say "I prepare my weapon" or "I attach a charm." Other people can probably think of better words than that. But as it currently stands, I feel a real disconnect with the current terminology.

(By the way, I might have been the first commenter to point out that I had a problem with Circumstance bonus and Conditional bonus starting with the same letter during the PF2 Playtest! I don't know how many headaches and missteps were prevented by changing the latter to Status, but I'm sure it has helped!)

Fling Magic is not a spell (and so therefore uses neither somatic nor material spellcasting actions). It does not have the attack trait and is therefore not a ranged attack.

So from my reading, it does not provoke Attacks of Opportunity.

It also doesn't provoke some other reactions -- it does not have the Concentrate trait, either.

It doesn't call for an attack roll; rather, it calls for a Reflex save.

So you can stand in an enemy's face, use Fling Magic, and swing your weapon, all without suffering any attack penalties and with no danger of provoking the usual reactions.

Am I right in reading this? And was this intended?

Got it. Thanks!

I just want to make sure I understand the rules as written:
-If Esoteric Antithesis is used against a creature that has no weaknesses, does it still have a custom Weakness against weapon Strikes from the Thaumaturgist?
-If yes, it looks like this combines with the Thaumaturgist's ability to effectively add 2 to their damage if they wield a one-handed weapon

The latter would be "make-up damage" to make up for the fact that they're not wielding a two-handed weapon, for a Thaumaturgist wants a free hand to hold/Interact with their implement.

Then, the Esoteric Antithesis gives, at the cost of two actions (or one action on a regular failure on the Recall Knowledge check), a +2 (plus half your level) bonus to damage with their weapon Strikes.

I just want to make sure I'm reading this all right.

A major feature of psionics in many forms of media is that they can be used subtlety (stranger things comes to mind, with El's powers not having any manifestations at all), so it seems strange to me that the psychic doesn't have access to conceal/silent spell or a similar metamagic feat. I know I could multiclass to wizard or witch, but this feels like something that should be available without multiclassing

Agreed. I thought this was would be addressed by the substitution of verbal actions, but alas the text says they create the same auditory and visual manifestations when they cast spells that other spellcasters do.

I assume this is an editing error? (There is no PF2e class that doesn't improve at least to expert in Perception.)

It seems particularly anti-theme for the class, and particularly for the Infinite Eye unconscious mind, to never improve beyond Trained.

I'm pretty sure it's 5 normal cantrips and a unique one, just like Witch and Bard!

Ah, you're right. (With regard to the bard which is more relevant, as its a spontaneous caster.) I was basing my statement on the sorcerer, which learns 4 cantrips plus the cantrip from their bloodline.

Okay, so I suppose the Psychic is intended to have 3 "free choice" cantrips plus 3 from their Conscious Mind feature.

The Psychic's Spell Repertoire feature (pages 4-5) says that you gain "three occult cantrips of your choice." Later, it says "Your choice of conscious mind also grants you additional spells in your repertoire, starting with an additional 1st level spell and two cantrips listed in your conscious mind."

The Conscious Mind class feature actually grants three surface psi cantrips. Is this an editing artifact? I'm not aware of any PF2e spellcaster with a Repertoire having six cantrips at Level 1. How many occult cantrips "of your choice" should a Level 1 psychic have?

Do we know what time the PDF will become available?

The Rot Grub wrote:

For both of these feats, what happens if the first Strike kills your target? Do you "spend" the 2nd Strike and does using the feat count as 2 attacks as your Multiple Attack Penalty?

I haven't seen where the rules address this spefically. This has been debated before and there was some disagreement. I believe the consensus was that you pay the penalties of increased MAP (or two action cost) regardless of whether you have to physically commit to the second attack. Similar to Rapid Shot in 1e, if you intended on using Rapid Shot, you had to pay the -2 penalty on the first shot, even if you didn't fire the second. So the idea is that you're using the Double Slice technique at the start, you don't get to opt out of it if the second attack isn't possible or desired.

Quote:

Must you do everything stated in an ability? So, Strike the target, and Strike them after they fall? If the answer is no, does it still increase your MAP to -10?

As stated, haven't seen this officially addressed. However, you should note that Hunted Shot/Twin Takedown/Flurry of Blows do not require that you attack the same Target while Double Slice does. And again, the argument I would make is that you're using a technique and you don't get to opt out of it, halfway through the attack because that's not how the technique works from a physical perspective. It's like a quarterback starting his motion to throw the ball long...he doesn't get to change his range halfway through his throwing motion. To throw long, he's going to throw it differently than if he throws it short.

Quote:

I'm wondering whether the design intent is that you do declare beforehand that you're using X ability which involves 2 or more Strikes, and you swallow the resulting multiple attack penalty regardless of what happens.

Yes. I believe you have to declare the tactic before you roll dice and then you're committed to it. Whether or not you have to burn another arrow isn't specially stated, but I would argue...

Thanks. Okay, so no authoritative answer but all your reasoning here corresponds with my gut. I think these interpretations are a good thing, because it gives you occasion to not always do the same thing every turn. Sometimes you may want to just do a regular Strike instead of one of these feats against a low HP enemy.

Hunted Shot is an action that consists of making 2 Strikes against your prey. Double Slice is a 2-action activity that states you make 2 Strikes, each with a different weapon, against the same target.

For both of these feats, what happens if the first Strike kills your target? Do you "spend" the 2nd Strike and does using the feat count as 2 attacks as your Multiple Attack Penalty?

Must you do everything stated in an ability? So, Strike the target, and Strike them after they fall? If the answer is no, does it still increase your MAP to -10?

I'm wondering whether the design intent is that you do declare beforehand that you're using X ability which involves 2 or more Strikes, and you swallow the resulting multiple attack penalty regardless of what happens. It seems like that would create an interesting tradeoff that makes using these abilities not always an automatic choice. You have the option of using the ability that is a more "efficient" use of your actions, but you sacrifice the flexibility of pivoting to do something else if you were to do a normal Strike that might defeat the creature.

(Similar question for Flurry of Blows and there is only one creature within reach.)

Personally, I don't think they would pick up the weapon and use it in the middle of a battle. Most PCs I know generally wouldn't do so.

It's an obviously magic weapon. Magic, especially magic you know nothing about, should be approached with a degree of caution. Especially if you're some noob bandit who knows little to nothing of magic.

Frankly, unless there was some story element that pushed my PC to grab an opponent's magic weapon to complete the battle, I'd leave it for after the battle. Let the magic types examine it, check for curses, does it have some sort of alignment restriction (like good characters holding it are enfeebled), etc.

Also, warriors typically use the weapons they are used to. Picking up a strange weapon and getting the feel for it in the middle of a life and death situation isn't optimal. I know the mechanics of PF2 don't account for handling an unfamiliar weapon, but not every longsword is balanced or feels the same. Now, if the bandit lost his weapon and the only weapon to hand was the strange magicky-one, then maybe the bandit would pick it up and use it.

This harkens back to the old idea that if a PC drops a magic weapon, or uses a magic thrown weapon, or anything along those lines, an NPC should just scoop it up and run off. After all, that magic weapon is worth a lot of money. Your average bandit would probably consider it a win to simply grab the loot, run off (leaving the other bandits to their fate) and survive the battle with magic loot he can sell (or use).

Comments about kicking the weapon away or doing something similar is common in real life and fine in battle.

Comments about enemies picking up the weapons of fallen opponents is correct AFTER THE BATTLE. It's not too common for opponents in battle to be policing up weapons in the middle of a fight.

Will no enemy EVER pick up the weapon... no, NPCs vary and the GM has to decide what happens. There may very well be an NPC who would pick up your magic weapon in the middle of battle, but I...

This isn't limited to (1) magic weapons and (2) picking up weapons to use themselves. The main benefit of taking an enemy's weapon is to deny them the benefit of it, not to gain the benefit yourself - your weapon is probably already is the one most suited for you.

I made a post at the subreddit recently where the barbazu devil's reach weapon in a confined room, while it had an attack of opportunity made the combat MUCH harder for the PCs. Now, if it were not a solo monster but was part of a group of monsters that had healing, it would be a completely valid tactic for the PCs to take the reach weapon away from it while it was downed. (Assuming of course that it were houseruled that it becomes Unconscious when downed.)

Similarly, PCs often have a weapon that, if they lose it, would significantly lower their fighting ability.

To address a few answers, I'm not asking whether it's an intelligent tactic. I think it is. But for my table, I think it is a "mean" tactic given the way the PF2 rules work by moving the downed PC lower in the initiative (usually), and I'm wondering given specifically how the rules work whether others agree.

It also lays bare the asymmetry of how knockouts affect PCs. PCs go unconscious; monsters die. If, in the universe, enemies assume there is a fair chance that a knocked-out creature is not dead, shouldn't that mean monsters go Unconscious at 0 hp and that a PC's 3-action Heal spell might raise up enemies again? But the rules as written clearly say this isn't the case.

I'm now coming around to the idea that it will make for a harrowing, memorable moment to use occasionally. The moving downward in initiative also simulates the time needed to recover from being knocked out.

The enemy consists of intelligent human bandits. The party's fighter charges forward with a +2 greater striking flaming longsword, and during the battle the bandits succeed at knocking out the fighter.

When you gain the Unconscious condition in this game, you drop everything you're holding.

Shouldn't a bandit pick up the weapon?

Tactically this seems like the right thing to do. But I see a problem with how this interacts with another rule:

When you fall unconscious, your initiative changes to just before the effect that knocked you out. This more often than not results in a delay before you can act again.

This rule allows the party to aid you in recovering, but it also delays when you can pick up your dropped weapons. So it feels like having an enemy pick up your weapon was something the designers didn't account for. And it feels especially bad if you couldn't rescue your weapon simply because your initiative was delayed.

What do others think about this?

I personally don't think it's thematic to interrupt one's exploration activity to do 2 seconds of preparing to aid and reacting with the Aid action, when it's a 10-minute activity like Treat Wounds. I'm thinking of letting them Aid, but needing to spend the same amount of time. And of course, they need to able to describe what they're doing and it needs to make sense.

Treat Wounds for me is a no brainer. I can see people helping. But yeah otherwise it looks like it's up to the GM. I'm a bit unhappy that this isn't addressed in the CRB, as Aid Another was a common thing in 1e and it's easy to anticipate that this is something players will want to do. (Even if it's just to say that it's allowed but it's up to the GM.)

As presented, it looks like something that only works in Encounter mode, since it is a reaction on someone else's turn.

The other day, one of my players wanted to Aid another at their Treat Wounds check. Is this allowed?

And what about Aiding someone in crafting an item? Would this add a circumstance bonus? And could they combine their efforts to make Crafting faster?

Word of warning: my players (remember the one with the unscrupulous tendencies) had their first session last night. They had just cleared the temple and started the "real" part of the prequalifying tournament.

The ki adept sisters issue their challenge and stake 2 feathers. The players win, of course.

They then head out to find another team.

I had them face the archers team. Sensing that this was really too quick for them to get so close to 10 silver feathers, I said that the archers wager 1 feather.

The PCs feel confident and say, "Aha! We wager THREE feathers!"

The archers were not willing to fight over 3 feathers, so they were inclined to refuse.

I look up the rules as written within the module for how wagers are handled. According to the module on page 9, the challenging team wagers a number of feathers. Then the other team must decide whether to fight over that number of feathers.

It creates an odd situation where teams that notice each other will have the incentive to "yell first," because they get to set the stakes for the fight.

I thought it made more sense for all the wagers to be agreed upon mutually by both parties. (And also, that conditions for the fight be agreed upon mutually. In this case, the archers wanted to start a long distance away, while the party members wanted to start closer while behind cover.) It only makes sense to me, in world, for such things to be mutually agreed upon.

Well, I share this story because I'm also wary about the speed by which some teams will reach 10 silver feathers. As written, the PCs should be able to find another team to compete with within 2 hours of searching. They likely can earn 10 silver feathers on Day 1.

I am thinking of making the wagers only 1 feather. The players immediately agreed to this, sensing that 10 feathers would have been too easy to get otherwise.

(I'm aware that there are some teams that are "meant" to be too strong for the party, such as Golarian's Finest which consist of eight(!) Level 12 creatures. But it would seem awfully strange if such a party trounced the party and does not end up in the final 10...)

Don't forget also that some sites will already be "cleared" by opposing teams. When I run this I'll want to make it feel like a living, breathing place and give a sense that the PCs are in a race against other teams. Maybe even have a rival team leave a taunting note for other teams saying that they killed amazing X monster, the loot was great, and "sorry you didn't get the silver feather we found" lol.

This is the comments on early APs like Age of Ashes and Extinction Curse, and even stand-alones like Fall of Plaguestone being adapted too. It takes a year or so to be fully actioned because of the writing schedule.

Agents of Edgewatch (which I'm GMing now) also has a pretty brutal first module. There is a day in the adventure that has about 900 XP in encounters for a Level 1 party. And the final part is a meatgrinder.

I don't know if anyone else has caught this, but in a first for 2nd Edition APs, the first volume of Strength of Thousands will only cover 3 levels.

I think this is a positive change, as the first 1-20 APs all tried to cover 4 levels in the first volume. There has been criticism that this leads to too many "filler combats" and crowds out other parts of the story during the most crucial part of the campaign when you're trying to hook people to the story. Also, the earliest levels are usually the most difficult so hopefully this will dial down the tendency in other first volumes of having several challenging fights back-to-back or feeling "like a slog."

(This AP also makes clear early on that XP will be awarded for accomplishments more than players may be used to, as opposed to combat. It will be interesting to see how this turns out!)

Hi all,

Let's say that a party encounters a Ghost Mage and recalls knowledge, trying to find a way to bypass its resistance to damage. The PC fails if the DC is for a Level 10 creature (which the Ghost Mage is), but it would succeed if it were against a Level 4 Ghost Commoner. The means to bypass their resistance are the same for both.

How would other people adjudicate this? By RAW, you use the level of the creature they encounter. But arguably in the lore this piece of information is lower level.

I feel like Recall Knowledge is not used enough for my players, so I'm inclined to give this information.

See some of my thoughts in this thread earlier. I think there's an aspect of entertainment to this entire tournament affair that explains some of the teams.

I will absolutely apply the use of daily resources to competing teams. I think it's fair for the players to expect that competing teams will be facing like challenges. (In fact, I'm going to be making clear that the Enforcers issuing challenges will be done evenly with all teams, to make it clear that there is some fairness being applied.)

I mean main reason is that 1) who wants to take part in competition where enemy is allowed to knock you out and take your stuff 2) the competition rewards (and other loot you can find) is meant to replace loot you would normally take from enemies.

I do agree that 3) its silly they can loot the bodies if they find them dead :P

But yeah, I think you just need to remind players that competition rewards are sufficient for their money problems and that there is loot they can find that isn't competitor equipment.

Yeah, I would just change the rule to "no looting" - all items are claimed by the enforcers. All gains are to be gained from the tournament or the island itself. The unlucky team is shipped to Tournament HQ and if they made a contingency plan to resurrect themselves then that happens (with their gear still belonging to them).

I think I know why the rule is written in the AP - there are some unsavory NPC teams who are meant to be lootable, namely the team that is trying to cheat and make their own silver feathers. I think the rule will be that what makes them lootable is the fact that they are caught violating the tournament rules; then their gear is forfeit (regardless of whether they're killed). The emissary's representatives have the authority to determine this when it happens.

The Rot Grub wrote:

Luis Loza wrote:

The Rot Grub wrote:

Some questions that came up as I explained the prequalifying round rules to my players. As you can tell they're a bit on the unscrupulous side lol.

Not a single scruple to be had in there!

Jokes aside, those are good things for me to think about. We're still a couple weeks off from starting (and I might do a bit of a team-building session or two to get used to playing at level 11)

Average age is 19, so figure, lol. When I lay down these extra rulings, they fell in line and are having fun with it.

Calpal wrote:

The phoenix necklace (page 75) that each team receives has the nonlethal damage thing figured out for you. It specifically has an activated ability to encourage nonlethal attacks.

Good to know! I imagine the vast majority of contestants will activate this ability. But once a side chooses to go lethal (ahem my players), then it's no holds barred.

And am I right that the phoenix necklace doesn't affect certain effects like fireball?

I'm pretty sure necklace does affect them since 1) its non lethal tournament 2) its artifact 3) some teams purely use spells as way of combat. I could be wrong, but it would be weird over sight.

Also now that I'm aware of that, pretty sure any group of players that on purpose leave necklace's special ability off after gaining it(to be fair, the friendly sparring match was before any of team would have gained their own necklace), should be disqualified by the rules considering there is no reason to not do that besides trying to kill someone :p I don't really see how it would make sense otherwise x'D

(on sidenote, your players will have hard time in the ap if they actively anger every other team on purpose x'D But I'm genuinely curious if its possible to beat ap while doing that since ap seems to give you really hard encounters later on and make them beatable by power of friendship)

I don't think my players would be inclined to kill, were it not for the specific rule of the tournament allowing you to loot your enemies only if you kill them. It's... a strange rule that doesn't have much in-world justification. They want to give people an item to encourage nonlethal bouts, and then they give an incentive to kill (and be killed)? I'm thinking of changing it.