Thod's page

I think it's just a matter of counting.

If you're going to reload a heavy crossbow that takes 2 Interact actions. If you're grabbed that means that you need 2 flat checks for trying an action with the manipulate trait.

If it's only a light crossbow then it's only 1 Interact action that triggers 1 flat check.

And with a bow it's 0 Interact actions, so 0 flat checks.

What is the difference here to spell casting?

There are 1 action, 2 action and 3 action spells.

If I cast Magic Missile - do I have to do

1 flat check for the single action
2 flat checks for the double action
3 flat checks for the triple action

To me it was the same - loading a Heavy Crossbow is one 'action' with a cost of 2 'actions'

Is there wording in the spellcasting that make it clear it is different to something like reload? Because by that logic - reload heavy crossvow = 2 flat checks I think most spells need 2 flat checks as well.

Mathmuse

I think the issue is in your name. You treat a number exactly what it is - zero means zero.

Take a step back and look at it from a developer/writer point of view - not a Maths point of view.

In Maths we are well aware of integer and decimal numbers. For rules simplicity you would avoid decimals as the plague.

Now we have the situation where an interact (drawing an arrow) is so small that it doesn't warrant to add a full action to it. Guess what a Mathematician would do if he wants to avoid decimals? He rounds to the closest integer.

To me This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. sounds pretty much that the developer rounded the total effort of interact actions to zero.

I'm with you that true zero interact means no manipulate. But 0.1 (I made that up) rounded to zero and we might have a different story.

Just my small contribution

It's magic. Just invent a sense which is acceptable to you. But introducing arbitrary restrictions is really awful behaviour for a GM.

Following RAW isn't an arbitrary restriction

Targets
Some spells allow you to target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally.

Sustain doesn't has the range restriction - but targeting does !! So you can't target from another plane if that planes distance is > the spell range.

Here is a 100% legal level 1 version that can be used in most dungeons and achieves 90% of the benefits from the Maze spell

Action 1: Stride (outside of the room with BBEG)
Action 2: Close door

Action 3: sustain whatever you want to sustain

Disadvantage: yes - the BBEG could follow you more easily as into a maze - but there is a good chance he is busy fighting your comrades and a surprising number of enemies actually don't pursue.

Advantage 1: you could actually still hear your comrades shouting a 'it's save to come back'
Advantage 2: you actually have 2 actions remaining instead of 1 as Maze also needs to be sustained

This leads to the question - why then isn't this tactic not being done more often? Because in most cases it is a bad tactic. If you target someone you need line of sight.

Also - Second Edition is much more of a collaborative game compared to First Edition. Flank / offering extra HP to hit / being an extra body helps keep you comrades up. A 'tank' in 2e might stay up 3 times as long as a squishy - but that is far from 20 times in 1e.

Actually - there is already a 7th spell that achieves what you want with Maze - Ethereal Jaunt. One level lower and as long as the enemy has no force or abjuration effects it only has positives.

I went through the list of spells with Sustain - the only situation I could truly see to make sense is

Your party is being slaughtered - most (all) of your allies are dead. You cast Revival and Maze away in the hope your raised comrades will finish the job.

One more bit - some comments here did mention Dimension Door. Dimension Door in 2e has the restriction of line of sight - so it seldom works to get you to a safe place - unless in a wide open space to give you a head start (or to dimension door behind a wall of force).

CRB: List of sustained spells
ANTIMAGIC FIELD
CALM EMOTIONS
DANCING LIGHTS
DIVINE AURA
DROP DEAD
DUPLICATE FOE
ENTHRALL
ETHEREAL JAUNT
FIELD OF LIFE
FLAMING SPHERE
FORBIDDING WARD
GATE
GHOST SOUND
HIDEOUS LAUGHTER
HYPNOTIC PATTERN
ILLUSORY CREATURE
IMPLOSION
LOCATE
MAGE HAND
MAZE
MIND PROBE
MIND READING
MISLEAD
PRESTIDIGITATION
PROJECT IMAGE
PRYING EYE
PUNISHING WINDS
RETROCOGNITION
REVIVAL
SCINTILLATING PATTERN
SCRYING
SPIRITUAL GUARDIAN
SPIRITUAL WEAPON
STORM OF VENGEANCE
SUMMON
UNFATHOMABLE SONG
UNSEEN SERVANT
VIBRANT PATTERN

APPEARANCE OF WEALTH
COMPETITIVE EDGE
MAGIC’S VESSEL
PROTECTOR’S SPHERE
WORD OF TRUTH
IMPALING BRIARS
STORM LORD
DREAD AURA
PROTECTIVE WARD

I would probably just suggest sparing yourself (and your GMs) the stress and save up 11gp for the weapon you actually want (or 35gp for a +1 weapon).

Nope - that is why we are here

As GM here is my take

Pro - yes a clan gun is fine to use

There is a way to read the access condition for PFS to overrule both access conditions.

--------------------

Con - no a clan gun isn't fine to use

We are talking a brand new 1st level character and the player already voiced that he likely will use the rebuild rules anyhow to rebuild that character

The player jokes that if there is an errata then he should get credit for it - so he is aware that this relies on a certain reading of the rules

There is a boxed text that explains the the reverse isn't allowed - a dwarf doesn't get access to the clan pistol as he has to fulfill both requirements. This seems to show RAI that the reverse is on shaky grounds but that box is (not surprisingly) missing in the access document.

Asked first time how he thinks he got access to the gun it was cheekily suggested that his character killed a dwarf. I cheekily suggested back in this case I would have to suggest infamy.

----------------------

All of this doesn't play out in a vacuum. Lore wise the Society has issues with how they are perceived. This has been there since Season 1 of second edition - and it seems to come to the forefront in this season.

The group just starts 1-01 and the first task they want to do is - influence Gorm Greathammer - Faction leader and source of lots of lore. The scenario suggests to lower the DC for good roleplay.

So I'm asked to reward good backstories and interactions for everyone else and judge it best using my understanding of the world of Golarion but in the case of a clan pistol I just ignore any embarrassment to a dwarf caused or any taboo broken as it is just lore and fluff.

I would be a lot more forgiving in different situations.

As Gortle says - the equivalent of the escape action was done by your ally who killed the grappler.

Delay might be used more often then you think to gain (or lose) a condition (effect?)

I delay to become quickened (wait for the wizard to cast haste)
I delay to become un-blinded (wait for someone with light to move first into darkness)
I delay to become concealed - Fog Cloud or somethin similar to be cast before I flee
I delay to become un-deafened - wait for character with silence to move out of my area
...
Restrained - I delay for the barbarian to smash the slaver chain before fleeing

The list will go on for a while.

There is even a condition that places you in auto-delay so that allies can remove it - dying - it moves your initiative in front of the creature who caused it.

PFS often gets depicted here on this board as the bogeyman for RAW and the final arbiter. So let me share my personal experience (5-star, 4-glyph GM) how I would expect Plate Mail and Druid to be handled.

You will get away on 80% of tables with wearing Plate Mail. The number is an estimate and not for the reason you think. In games there is only a limited amount of time to do character reviews. That is the amount of GMs who likely (at a F2F game) won't even notice you wear plate.

This number will drop if you go to VTT and drop even further in PBP or PBD.

Disclosure - on average the number of mistakes I pick up when looking across character builds at tables is 2:1 in disfavor of players. On the other hand 95% of rules discussion are if you pick up some 'strange' build in favor of the player based on questionable interpretations of rules.

In case of metal armor and druid expect the majority to rule against it. This reflects several strong opinions here. There are exemptions - sometimes it is a GM or even Venture Officer in an area who starts such a trend and you will have local pockets where something is ruled different. Don't be shocked if that ruling will be challenged if you go to a convention with a wider intake.

How would I rule?
Level 1 / unexperienced player: I ask politely to rebuild ahead / even mid scenario if only picked up later - assuming someone just didn't know the rules
Higher level: Depends. A Plate Mail with several feats spend to be able to wear it and possibly runes on it can be difficult to change on the fly.
At the same time the excuse it is a one time use doesn't fly. If you bought it 2 levels ago then you used it repeatedly - even if not at my table or in this specific game.
I dislike to be THAT GM who stands up and invalidates your build. But on rare occasions it has happened. Ideally we get to a solution that works for both the GM and the player.

Actually 2e changed one aspect of light / darkness.

If you are in darkness without dark vision then you can see someone in light as long as there is nothing blocking it.

Magical darkness I think is the exemption.

So if you have your bullseye lantern low then you will see the halfling even if there is no light in the square above the halfling.

On my phone - so won’t waste half an hour to hunt it down in the rules. Check sight / darkness / light. 2e rules are not always straight forward where to look for such details - but I’m 95% sure that is correct and somewhere explained in the CRB and now explicit.

Throwing a rope with light forward, downward (example of the well) or upward can be done with various simplicity.

A) downward automatic - gravity - just fix one end

B) forward - attach a weight on one side to throw it

C) upwards - use a grappling hook as weight (you might get away in b with improvised items)

Mathematically the 50 foot rope is 3 1/2 light spells. One cast at 0, 20, 40 (and 50).

No harm done for rule of cool down a well - but should be clarified it is not as intended and as GM I would stop it as soon as they start to abuse it.

In my view the hold or strapped is a game mastering / playing issue - not a rules issue.

Here is a made up example - for more interesting reading I did create a little bit of a story.

Merisiel was down close to dying, Ezren was down - not in a better shape. So it was up to Ezren and Kyra to take out the Undead Lich. Side by side they fought - shields raised in unison - Kyra's shield blazing from her goddess power (Emblazoned Armament), sword and scimitar striking in unison.

Would they all die here now or could the prevent fate and walk out glorious? Valeros landed a near final blow - that is when disaster struck - the Lich raised his claw and Kyra went down - seriously hit by the Lich.

In game play you want:
A) Valeros to hold the shield - so he can drop it and has a free hand to do battle medicine on Kyra.
B) Kyra to have the shield strapped - so if Valeros is doing battle medicine that she can use a 3-action heal to prevent Merisiel/Ezren from dying and to get urgently needed HP back to the whole party (yes - to make it more dramatic I use emblazoned armor on the shield)

In reality it is likely that neither the player of Valeros nor the player of Kyra even considered if the shield is held or strapped. There is no box on any character sheet (I'm aware off) that specifies if a shield is strapped or held - yet - in this fictitious example it could be the difference between TPK or a memorable story.

That is why my advice is - first time you come up with the situation rule in favor of the player if needed - but after that it sticks. Often player don't want to take advantage of the situation but rather haven't even spend time to consider if it is held or strapped - until it makes a difference.

Yes - in an ideal world you ask the question at the start of a game or tell your GM before the game. But who is perfect as GM or player?

You can hold or strap a shield. I’m not aware of anything that by RAW prevents either.

If you hold it - you can drop it for free but it can be disarmed and is also dropped if you go unconscious.

If you strap it, then you can’t drop it for free - but you don’t drop it if you go unconscious.

You can even hold or strap a buckler. Holding a buckler has the added disadvantage that you can’t use the hand as free hand when not using the buckler.

As GM I rule:

Shield - default held
Buckler - default strapped

This is the most common case and in most situations the most beneficial to a player.

Players (or very special situations - you wake up and grab your buckler) can overrule the default.

I only allow the ‘Schroedinger’s Shield’ aka the player decides only after the fact if it was strapped or held once. If a player insists - I always do X then fine - but I keep memory of that and will rule the same way next time.

The problem of failing saves comes up again and again - every other months at least.

The issue with 2e is not can you opt to fail - the question would be - can you opt to fail and avoid crit fail or if you opt to fail - what fail condition would apply.

Somewhere else I did the Maths for damage spells. It showed there are circumstances where failing is superior to rolling a dice as it avoids crit failure.

This makes voluntary fail messy in 2e and that is the main reason in my opinion why you don't find it allowed unless it is specifically mentioned in the spell description (yes - some do allow failure).

You've become senseless. You can't act while stunned. Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose, possibly over multiple turns, from being stunned. Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost. For example, if you were stunned 4, you would lose all 3 of your actions on your turn, reducing you to stunned 1; on your next turn, you would lose 1 more action, and then be able to use your remaining 2 actions normally. Stunned might also have a duration instead of a value, such as “stunned for 1 minute.” In this case, you lose all your actions for the listed duration.

Stunned overrides slowed. If the duration of your stunned condition ends while you are slowed, you count the actions lost to the stunned condition toward those lost to being slowed. So, if you were stunned 1 and slowed 2 at the beginning of your turn, you would lose 1 action from stunned, and then lose only 1 additional action by being slowed, so you would still have 1 action remaining to use that turn.

Instead of highlighting the second and fourth sentence I highlight the third one. It clearly states how many actions you lose.

Trying to circumvent this by clever timing is just trying to make stun a lot more powerful through a technicality in the wording.

There is a conflict here:
a) when to reduce numbers of stun (normally at the start of a turn)
b) how many numbers of actions to remove

Even

Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn. If you have conflicting conditions that affect your number of actions, you choose which actions you lose. For instance, the action gained from haste lets you only Stride or Strike, so if you need to lose one action because you’re also slowed, you might decide to lose the action from haste, letting you keep your other actions that can be used more flexibly.

Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can’t act. When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately.

So I go with Aw3som3-117 - the only bit that isn't spelled out is how to do the Maths if it happens during the turn of a character.

You need to read the whole stunned condition.

stun (part of)Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost. For example, if you were stunned 4, you would lose all 3 of your actions on your turn, reducing you to stunned 1; on your next turn, you would lose 1 more action, and then be able to use your remaining 2 actions normally.

Stun 1 means you lose 1 action. Yes - you can’t act while stunned. But if an enemy has 3 actions then he loses the first on stun 1 and can act afterwards as stun is over.

It even tells you as example that on stun 1 you only lose the first action and carry on.

There is a HUGE difference between stun 1 (lose 1 action) and stunned 1 round.

The latter tends to come with the incapacitation trait and makes it difficult to apply on a boss.

@Elsra - I actually started an answer to show it is circumstantial - until I made the Maths for a specific example and crafting turned out superior.

I take a level 10 Wizard - crafting a batch of 4 level 3 scrolls. He is expert crafter and expert Akademia Lore. I therefore give him a +19 skill for either

Average income as crafter: 5.6 gp per day

Average income for akademia Lore: 3.6 gp per day. So why do I earn more as crafter compared to a dayjob?

The reason is the DC. I used level 3 scrolls as it seems they can be done in a decent time and still be useful.
A level 3 scroll is a level 5 item - so the DC is actually a low DC18 - leading do a high chance of crit success and zero chance of crit failure.
This means I earn at level 10 but I have to do a check vs level 5.

Here is the Maths in detail:

Sorry that this forum isn't table friendly and I don't want to spend half an hour to render it nicely

+19 skill, DC18 - scroll level 3
Outcome|Chance|Income|Days total|Days Paid|per day|Chance*Income
Fail|5%|0|4|0|0|0
Success|40%|5|24|20|4.17|1.67
Crit Success|55%|10|14|10|7.14|3.9

Sum of last column 5.6 gp

+19 skill, DC27
Crit Fail|5%|0|0
Fail|30%|0.7|0.21
Success|50%|5|2.5
Crit Success|15%|6|0.9

Sum of last column 3.6 gp

Edit: The last columns are income per day weighted by chance to allow summing them up as crafting is across different number of days.
I haven't optimized it yet for what level crafting at which level of play yields the best income. Also of note - I could write some scrolls while stuck in a small village for 2 weeks waiting for good weather to get across a moutain - good luck to use Academia Lore in such a place.
BUT - it is a lot of investment, you actually need to be able to use the items you craft to get a benefit and your GM might just handwave the need to find a realistic dayjob - no matter where you are.

I'm also unsure how you can work out the spellcaster ability modifier for the monster and it proficiency bonus going off the monster stat block?

Hammerjack already mentioned DC-10.

You find the rules in the CRB on page 447/448

Spell attack roll result = d20 roll + ability modifier used for spellcasting + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties

Spell DC = 10 + ability modifier used for spellcasting + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties

If I call ability modifier used for spellcasting + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties equal to X

then

Spell DC = 10 + X

and

Spell attack roll result = d20 roll + X

or

Spell DC -10 = X

It is a little bit backward - and if you have attack spells they normally add the attack bonus explicitly. But DC -10 is easy enough to be done.

I tried to analyze what is actually RAW - as what does it mean numerically.

Let us start with what all agree on:

CRB p.621

You can be simultaneously affected by multiple persistent damage conditions so long as they have different damage types. If you would gain more than one persistent damage condition with the same damage type, the higher amount of damage overrides the lower amount.

That is clear - only the highest amount of damage of a certain type applies.

Next step - how is damage defined:

Damage is sometimes given as a fixed amount, but more often than not you’ll make a damage roll to determine how much damage you deal.

Actually that is step 1: Roll the Damage Dice and Apply Modifiers, Bonuses, and Penalties

So the CRB actually says - to determine the damage you have to roll the dice and apply modifiers to figure out what damage is.

It is claimed that d8 is greater then d6. Actually if I roll a d6 and a d8 then the following happens:

The estimated damage of d8 is indeed higher - 4.5 vs 3.5 but if you actually roll both then

The d6 is expected to be higher in 31.25% of cases
The d6 is expected to be the same value as the d8 in 12.5% of cases
The d6 is expected to be lower in 56.25% of cases

So yes - in 68.75% of cases the d8 yields the higher (or equal) damage. But that is a far cry from stating damage of a d8 is (always) greater then d6.

But does it actually matter?

Here is a table for d6 - taking the highest value

Number dice -> expected value
1d6 -> 3.5
2d6 -> 3.95
3d6 -> 4.64
4d6 -> 5.07
5d6 -> 5.34
6d6 -> 5.51

Eventually it is near to guaranteed that you roll a 6 at least once - so this will lead eventually to 6.

Now the same in %
1d6 -> 100%
2d6 -> 113%
3d6 -> 133%
4d6 -> 145%
5d6 -> 153%
6d6 -> 158%

So 3 instances of d6 persistent would end up more or less the equivalent of d6+1 and 6 instances would be d6+2 (using expected value - it never can go above 6 !!)

So in reality we tend to ignore this. The few extra % is just not worth the hassle to keep track as GM. My opinion of what is expected of a GM is that he should weave an interesting story and keep the group entertained.

The rules are there to set expectations - not to bog down the game play.

Now there is a much bigger problem with persistent damage - getting rid of it !!

Using a d20 greater / equal 15 means that in 5.7% of cases (just above the chance of a nat20) you still have persistent damage after 8 rounds. Rolling that many dice is tedious - doesn't add to the fun. So here is what happens mathematically if you roll for each instance seperate to end:

Number of d6 persistent -> average dice rolls to remove it -> chance to fail after 10 rolls

1d6 3.33 2.8%
2d6 4.71 5.6%
3d6 6.34 10.8%
4d6 8.12 20.5%
5d6 9.98 36.8%
6d6 11.88 60.0%

What do I do in my games?

1) I try to actually apply persistent damage - I would guess in 25%+ cases it gets silently forgotten (also by players)
2) I take the 'highest dice' and roll only once - so in case of d6 and d8 I use a d8
3) I do exemptions in case of 4 persistent vs d6 persistent and 5 damage reduction - in this case I roll a d6 with the off chance to get a 6
4) A single check removes all instances of a given type

Is this RAW? In the most literal reading of RAW likely not (see my own analysis) - but it is pragmatic and keeps the game going. It is also how I see it normally done at game tables.

Also keep in mind - in my view the two real issues influencing the true damage at the table aren't even discussed

a) forgetting to apply persistent damage (VTT and automation can help here - players seem fine if you forget to remind them of their damage ...)
b) getting rid of every single instance

The tale of the undefeatable champion
The Imp Ruas Wri was proud of his clever schemes.
Outside the Castle was a large sign:
Adventurers - Beat my champion in a fight and you can gain gold and silver.

Rules:
1) You pay an entrance fee. If you win - the same amount will be paid back double to you. If you lose - your fee is forfeit.
2) You have up to 10 minutes time
3) Any weapon or magic allowed
4) You can spend as much time as you want to prepare - but you only can try once

A group of adventurers came along. Looking for cheap money they decided to give it a try.
Amiri was first. She paid 1000 gold, no preperations needed for her she thought. Which champion was there whom she couldn't fight?
She entered the castle. What she saw looked pitiful. An old peasant was sitting on a chair in a glass house. An imp sat on another chair close by.
Poor guy - Amisi thought as she charged. She deliberately decided to deal non-lethal damage - that poor peasant could be beheaded with a single swipe.
Alas - when she tried - some red glowing runes showed up in an evil looking language. And no matter how hard she tried to strike - she just couldn't target the poor peasant.

She went out when her 10 minutes where over. I lost - powerful magics protect the champion. I couldn't land a single blow she told her comrades.
Ezren thought - Magic - that is easy. He cast Stoneskin, Mirror Image, Protection from Fire and Protection from Evil before paying 2000 gold and walking in.
Seeing the runes he cast Dispel Magic - but no matter how often he cast it - it seemed never to be strong enough. He used Lightning Bolt, Magic Missile and in the end even the strongest Fireball spell he had prepared.
All he achieved was some minor burn marks on the chair - spelling out - "RavingDork was here". Actually, he was sure that writing wasn't because of his fireball - but must have appeared when his Area Dispel Magic removed a minor illusion hiding the blemish in the wood.
Defeated - Ezren went out. True Evil there is at work he told his comrades? I have never seen such a weak champion – but evil protects him from all my magics.
Upon hearing this - Kyra went in. She paid her 4000 gold to win back what her comrades had lost and went in.
Seeing the Abyssal Runes she tried to exorcise them - using her legendary knowledge of Religion. She tried to channel positive energy, Smite Evil, nothing seemed to work. Defeated she went out.
It is impossible - you just can't get to the champion. He is locked behind impenetrable protections.
Hearing this Merisel thought that couldn't be a problem. Taking her best Thieves Tools and paying 8000 gold - she went in.
Using her unparalleled perception she looked for secret openings, a lock to open - something to use her legendary Thievery Skills. But there just was nothing - 4 glass walls and a roof on top. The whole contraption was so pathetically small - there wasn't even space for someone else in there.
Defeated - the adventurer group left - having been tricked out of a large sum of money.

Half an hour later - Rincewind - the worst Wizard ever - happened to come to the same place. Ruas Wri was in a good mood. Seeing that the poor Wizard hardly could afford anything he offered to change the rules. All his money and 1 year of servitude against the money of the adventuring group from earlier.
Tempted - Rincewind paid his 2 silver pieces and 5 copper and entered. But seeing the challenge he knew immediately - that was beyond his capability.
But he didn't want to give up fully without a fight. So he cast his most powerful spell he had remembered that day - illusionary object - and turned the tiny glass house into an outhouse - including a pretend door and a heart.

He was just about to leave and give in to his defeat when a miracle happened. The poor, unarmoured and weapon less peasant inside the glass house had spent all the three silver pieces given by Ruas Wri to get drinks in the local pub.
Having been late in the morning he had rushed to the castle - not able to empty his bladder ahead of time. For hours now he had been inside - fighting. And the illusion of the outhouse was just too much. He gave up, he accepted defeat. He knew he would lose his soul - but he fingered the teleportation ring given to him and got out.
His bladder defeated by too much drink and an illusion.
Ruas Wri appeared next to Rincewind. I don’t know how – but you have defeated my champion. Here is the reward. He handed over a large bag of gold – just as he heard crashing glass inside the courtyard.
The house keeper was making his round. I haven’t seen this outhouse before – but it seems in a bad state. There is a lose plank. He took out a hammer and a nail – only to hear a crashing sound of broken glass. The outhouse was still standing there – the plank still lose. Not knowing what had happened but instinctively sensing it was bad, he quickly disappeared.

You don’t target something on the other side with teleport.

You target yourself on the same side.

Then you ask - Scotty - beam me to x.

X can be on the other side as long as you can see it.

Pathfinder tries to offer choice - but 2e also tries to exact consequences based on the choice.

Strapped:
The hand is free
You can't drop it
Takes extra action to unstrap

Held:
The hand is occupied
You can drop it
No extra action to unstrap

If you use a buckler, you likely do so to have a free hand. So you want it strapped. Otherwise the buckler is just an inferior shield - all the disadvantages, no advantages.

For a shield it seems the advantages for holding it outweigh the disadvantages. Unless you have the feat Nimble Shield Hand you can't hold anything else anyhow and can't really use the hand.

For example battle medicine. Assuming your other hand holds a weapon then you need a buckler and have it strapped or a shield / strapped and Nimble Shield Hand to be able to use it without dropping/storing items.

As GM I assume as default:
Buckler strapped
Shield held
Shield if player has Nimble Shield Hand - strapped

Otherwise - let me know ahead of a fight. I might tolerate a different decision once - but then this will be the default for the rest of the game.
Yes - ideally I would ask ahead of time - but it is one of these seldom used rules/options that you only realize the moment it makes a difference that you should have asked ahead of time (player wants to drop shield as he wants to do battle medicine on dying comrade without dropping weapon or he doesn't want to drop shield when going unconscious him/herself).

Please do not muddy the waters even more.

Line

Source Core Rulebook pg. 457 2.0
A line shoots forth from you in a straight line in a direction of your choosing. The line affects each creature whose space it overlaps. Unless a line effect says otherwise, it is 5 feet wide. For example, the lightning bolt spell’s area is a 60-foot line that’s 5 feet wide.

There is a definition of a line and it is straight. It even shows how a line is used on a grid.

Saying a line of effect can be bend would need evidence and not lack of it when other lines are handled as straight.
Especially as common use also mainly is straight.

With a burst spell, the target is a point within range. Which doesn't take an attack roll to successfully target. And you only need to be able to see it.

Here is your likely misconception.

You need to be able to see it AND have line of effect.

The part about seeing a target it because dim light or otherwise imprecise sense does incur a DC5 or DC11 flat check - which isn't needed if you can see the target with a precise sense.

There was a discussion a while ago which Ravingdork started. It was about targetting when you use a magical sensor / eye. The sensor does give you precise sense. I still can't cast a fireball in the next room just because I installed some form of magical sensor there. Line of effect is still needed in addition.

UbertronX nicely gives the example of a glass window. A wall of force more or less is a shatter resistance wall of glass that is magically reinforced and doesn't even allow ethereal creatures through.

Teleport effects work because you cast it on one side and it beams you across to the target.

Visual works if you create a visual on your side and someone on the other side is harmed by it. You can use the light cantrip to blind a Duergar on the other side (Light Blindness). What you can't do is to cast light on the other side of the wall to blind him/her. In this case no magic needed - a hooded lantern or torch would work the same way.

But you can't throw the torch through the wall to reach a Duergar 30 feet away with bright light.

A mirror on a stick would allow you to see around a corner. You would have precise sense of what is around the corner.

A mirror on a stick doesn't allow you to cast around a corner from the safety of total cover - because you lack line of effect.

There are three options:

A) allow climb always to work

B) you specify every single situation where it works with DC

C) you specify every single monster

D) you leave it to the GM

Paizo in 2e deliberately moved a lot decisions to D)

I’m surprised to find this in 1e: — A perfectly smooth, flat vertical (or inverted) surface cannot be climbed.

So spiders never were able to climb a smooth ceiling. Only the slippers of spider climb do allow ceilings as well. And these got changed from low level to 7th level.

Let's start with Line of Effect:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 457 2.0

When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called a line of effect. You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier. Visibility doesn’t matter for line of effect, nor do portcullises and other barriers that aren’t totally solid. If you’re unsure whether a barrier is solid enough, usually a 1-foot-square gap is enough to maintain a line of effect, though the GM makes the final call.

In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected. If there’s no line of effect between the origin of the area and the target, the effect doesn’t apply to that target. For example, if there’s a solid wall between the origin of a fireball and a creature that’s within the burst radius, the wall blocks the effect—that creature is unaffected by the fireball and doesn’t need to attempt a save against it. Likewise, any ongoing effects created by an ability with an area cease to affect anyone who moves outside of the line of effect.

Now have a look at Wall of Force

Spell 6

EvocationForce
Source Core Rulebook pg. 382 2.0
Traditions arcane, occult
Deities Casandalee, Grundinnar, Isis, Nethys
Cast Three Actions material, somatic, verbal
Range 30 feet
Duration 1 minute
You form an invisible wall of pure magical force up to 50 feet long and up to 20 feet high. The wall has no discernible thickness. You must create the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost. The wall has AC 10, Hardness 30, and 60 Hit Points, and it's immune to critical hits and precision damage. The wall blocks physical effects from passing through it, and because it's made of force, it blocks incorporeal and ethereal creatures as well. Teleportation effects can pass through the barrier, as can visual effects (since the wall is invisible).

Wall of force is immune to counteracting effects of its level or lower, but the wall is automatically destroyed by a disintegrate spell of any level or by contact with a rod of cancellation or sphere of annihilation.

The wording is slightly different: "solid physical barrier" vs "blocks physical effects from passing through" - but honestly - something that blocks physical effects to me counts as a physical barrier.

That leaves the last step:

Under targeting we find:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 304 2.0

You usually need an unobstructed path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an area, or the place where you create something with a spell. More information on line of effect can be found on page 457.

So a Wall of Force can block a Fireball in two different ways.

A) it blocks the part of the burst that is on the other side of the wall.
B) it blocks you casting the centre of the burst on the other side of the wall

You can't even use something like Chain Lightning to cast around by having line of effect to the first target as it explicitly says you need line of sight effect to all of them.

The best you can do is - make the wall not too high, step far enough back and cast the fireball in the air above the targets at 15 feet height at a point which isn't blocked by the wall.

Source Core Rulebook pg. 464 2.0

If you land on a creature, that creature must attempt a DC 15 Reflex save. Landing exactly on a creature after a long fall is almost impossible.

Critical Success The creature takes no damage.
Success The creature takes bludgeoning damage equal to one-quarter the falling damage you took.
Failure The creature takes bludgeoning damage equal to half the falling damage you took.
Critical Failure The creature takes the same amount of bludgeoning damage you took from the fall.

None, a quarter of the falling damage of the goblin, half of the falling damage of the goblin or the same.

So the less damage the falling creature takes - the less damage does the creature fallen upon take. If there is no damage to the creature falling then there is none to the creature fallen upon.

...

For your reading to be correct we would have to have some other context for what a critical hit is.

...

Ok - now I see where different interpretations come from.

I would say with an emphatic yes - there is a lot of context.

Jared Walter cites page 445.

I did list the 18 uses of critical success / critical hit when used in conjunction with property runes (just scroll up).

I will even go beyond that

There are 73 mentions of 'critical hit' in the CRB (word search). Lots of them include phrases like 'if your Strike was a critical hit' or . 'a critical hit with
a melee Strike'. 8 out of the first 10 explicitly mention Strike in conjunction with critical hit. The two others use Goblin Weapon and attack instead.

So throughout the book critical hit is being used in places where it either is a critical success of a strike or could be a critical success of a strike.

There are 350 mentions of critical success in the book. In a few places it is used together with a strike - but more commonly it is used for any roll or effect that was a success and a nat 20 or did exceed the DC by 10.

So just to say it again - there is a lot of context how critical hit and critical success are used throughout the CRB and in which cases one seems preferred over the other.

So we end up with the allusion of a clarification they are the same vs the repeated use of the term in conjunction with strike or situations that imply/might be a strike.

So yes - either side could be right. I'm clearly in the second camp unless shown something more concrete.

Sometimes it is useful to take a step back or to look at similar runes in context

I just looked at the wording of some other property runes

This weapon is empowered by flickering flame. The weapon deals an additional 1d6 fire damage on a successful Strike, plus 1d10 persistent fire damage on a critical hit.

Weapons with wounding runes are said to thirst for blood. When you hit a creature with a wounding weapon, you deal an extra 1d6 persistent bleed damage. On a critical hit, it instead deals 1d12 persistent bleed damage.

A disrupting weapon pulses with positive energy, dealing an extra 1d6 positive damage to undead. On a critical hit, the undead is also enfeebled 1 until the end of your next turn.

When you critically hit with this weapon, the target becomes frightened 1.

All four runes have in common, that a critical hit has an effect.

The Flaming Rune is probably worded best. It mentions Strike.

The Wounding Rune starts to get murky. It uses hit instead of Strike.

Disrupting now really gets undefined. Extra damage - it doesn't even specify if you strike or hit.

Fearsome only has an effect on a critical. So there is no hit, strike or other wording we can use.

I don't think anyone argues that the first three should work on a trip - so why is that the case?

Wounding uses instead - that is the strongest wording - and a success on a trip isn't a hit. Flaming uses plus - the tripped enemy already takes d6 bludgeoning - so why do we not apply the 'plus' to it - because we associate the plus with the Strike.

I never realized how badly Disrupting is worded. Extra damage - extra to what? I assume a successful strike. The 'also' is also rather weak.

In summary:

I found 18 different property runes with extra effects on a critical hit. Some clearly rule out non-strikes. Some indirectly rule out non-strikes. Some - like fearsome - have wording that is up for interpretation.

My interpretation - ALL property runes need a hit/strike to trigger the critical hit effect. Everything else would lead to different case by case meaning of the wording critical hit for property runes and a cherry pick by users.

Fun bit - compare the wording for Axiomatic and Anarchic. Where does it make sense that one allows to be counted for trip, the other doesn't? Oh - and let me know which should be which before looking up the wording in the CRB.

Other Property Runes with critical hit effects

Crushing: Weapons with this rune empower your strength, and attacks with these weapons leave your foe staggered. When you critically hit a target with this weapon, your target becomes clumsy 1 and enfeebled 1 until the end of your next turn.

Corrosive: Acid sizzles across the surface of the weapon. When you hit with the weapon, add 1d6 acid damage to the damage dealt. In addition, on a critical hit, the target’s armor (if any) takes 3d6 acid damage (before applying Hardness); if the target has a shield raised, the shield takes this damage instead.

Frost: This weapon is empowered with freezing ice. It deals an additional 1d6 cold damage on a successful Strike. On a critical hit, the target is also slowed 1 until the end of your next turn unless it succeeds at a DC 24 Fortitude save.

Shock: Electric arcs crisscross this weapon, dealing an extra 1d6 electricity damage on a hit. On a critical hit, electricity arcs out to deal an equal amount of electricity damage to up to two other creatures of your choice within 10 feet of the target.

Thundering: This weapon lets out a peal of thunder when it hits, dealing an extra 1d6 sonic damage on a successful Strike. On a critical hit, the target has to succeed at a DC 24 Fortitude save or be deafened for 1 minute (or 1 hour on a critical failure).

Grievious: When your attack roll with this weapon is a critical hit and gains the critical specialization effect, you gain an additional benefit depending on the weapon group.

Anchoring: This rune prevents enemies from escaping your grasp by fleeing to other planes. If you critically hit a target with an anchoring weapon, the weapon casts dimensional anchor on the target (DC 27, counteract modifier +17).

Impactful: This rune thrums with pure magical energy. Weapons with the rune deal an additional 1d6 force damage on a successful Strike. On a critical hit, you can choose to force the target to succeed at a DC 27 Fortitude save or be pushed 5 feet away from you.

Hopeful: A weapon with a hopeful rune exudes positivity. On a critical hit with this weapon, you inspire your comrades, pushing them to fight harder and stand for your shared convictions. Allies within 30 feet that share at least one alignment component with you gain a +1 status bonus to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.

Anarchic: When you critically succeed at a Strike with this weapon against a lawful creature, roll 1d6. On a 1 or 2, you deal double minimum damage; on a 3 or 4, double your damage normally; on a 5 or 6, you deal double maximum damage.

Axiomatic: When you critically succeed at an attack roll with this weapon against a chaotic creature, instead of rolling, count each weapon damage die as average damage rounded up (3 for d4, 4 for d6, 5 for d8, 6 for d10, 7 for d12).

Brilliant: This rune causes a weapon to transform into pure, brilliant energy. The weapon deals an additional 1d4 fire damage on a successful Strike, as well as 1d4 good damage to fiends and 1d4 positive damage to undead. On a critical hit, the target must succeed at a DC 29 Fortitude save or be blinded for 1 round.

Keen: The edges of a keen weapon are preternaturally sharp. Attacks with this weapon are a critical hit on a 19 on the die as long as that result is a success. This property has no effect on a 19 if the result would be a failure.

Bloodthirsty: The magic in this rune sings in time with your attacks and coaxes you into finishing your opponent. When you critically hit a target that's taking persistent bleed damage, your target becomes drained 1.

There is a reason that the companion doesn’t gets reaction as otherwise a character with companion gets two reactions - one for himself/herself, one fir the companion.

Does it always make sense?

No - see the grab an edge reaction.

Are there alternatives? Maybe a shared reaction. But that would be more complex and would lead to other issues.

I have often enough seen melee fighters with no ranged weapon at all - suddenly realising their stupidity if there is a flying creature.

Draw a light hammer - only possible if you have one.

It is surprising how many players don’t have backup.

I just did a PFS scenario with a barbarian player. Just ahead of the last fight there is a real possibility to lose the weapon.

If that happens then improvised weapon is the only option if you have no backup.

So the issue as GM is - find a balance between avoiding misuse vs nerfing a player while trying the best to stay as close to the rules as possible.

@SuperBidi

Here you go:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 279 2.0

While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.

An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.

So reload 0 means you do 2 actions in one (draw arrow and shoot). This doesn't add to the action count - just a single action - but you still would have the manipulate trait as part of drawing.

And grappled means you still need a flat check if you have manipulate as a trait at some stage during your action.

I too hate this being not accurate at all, but on the other hand I can guess that the moment you drink the potion you have in mind what you want to escape/runaway from.

And that's it.

A dragon TKd your party and you are scared to death and wanna try to run away? The dragon would be the reason making you flee for a whole minute a super high speed.

The earth is falling under your feet and everything around you seems beginning to collapse? You run for your life never looking back until the fleeing condition expires.

Or at least, this is the way I see it.

Humble Gamer got it pretty right apart of of one detail.

Dragons - at least in Open areas - are the one enemy not to run from - rather play dead and hope or find cover.

Dragons - if they can fly - are the fastest creatures in the bestiary and even +40 on your speed is very likely not enough.

Dragon Speeds (Fly)
Type young/adult/ancient

Black 100/120/150
Blue 100/150/200
Green 120/160/200
Red 120/150/180
White 80/120/160

Brass 120/120/150
Bronze 120/140/200
Copper 120/140/200
Gold 140/180/200
Silver 100/140/180

They would love to see you running away. Makes the hunt just that more interesting. But they will catch up.

The Vorpal Weapon property is 17, but it is bestowed from a 20th creature which also gives it major striking. Does the incapacitation compare to a 17th level rune, 19th level from the max rune on the weapon, or 20th which is the level of the creature?

In my view Incapacitation goes with the monster level if that is giving you the effect.

Let's have a look what the Balor entry says

Bestiary pg. 83

Infuse Weapons (divine, evocation) Any weapon a balor wields becomes a +3 major striking vorpal weapon made of cold iron and silver while the demon holds it. A weapon that isn’t eligible for the vorpal rune doesn’t gain its effects. The balor can change its evil damage to chaotic whenever it attacks. The demon can conjure a whip made of flames with an Interact action. This whip gains the same benefits as other weapons the balor wields.

I would go with the level of the Balor. There are Balor Lords who can be even higher level (21-25).

Scouring the Bestiary for examples to back this up / invalidate this

The Giant Wasp is a Monster level 3 with Giant Wasp Venom. For this you would go with the monster level 3 and not the Giant Wasp Venom in the CRB that is level 7.

Interestingly - Purple Worm is level 13 (same as the Purple Worm Venom) but in the Bestiary lacks the incapacitate trait.

I also certainly would say - it clearly isn't level 19. Just because other runes are higher level don't upgrade the Vorpal Rune.

Edit: Replying to Black Raven - is it the item creating the effect - or the Creature - aka the Balor who enables his weapon to decapitate with the vorpal effect. It goes back to an ordinary weapon if he drops it - so I would go with creature level - but I can see arguments for the other way.

@beowulf

You didn’t answer my very simple question - is the wall I build and made a photo allowed or not.

Now the why: if you say no then a cube isn’t allowed as a cube needs a net to be made.

If you say yes and a net is allowed, then you can build a 240 foot long 5 foot high wall.

If you say - but that is not what you want/say how you do it then I can show you with photos how it is done.

Take a 120x20 foot wall and use an U-shaped 5feet wide part of it. Some clever folding later and you have a 240 foot long L shaped wall.

So again

Is

XX
X

Allowed.

Do you allow any net that fits inside 240x20 or not.

As far as I can tell - all we disagree about is if you can use a net with max shape 240x20 or if it has to be a rectangle.

A net allows options like
A cube
A 240 long wall
The Wall with door I posted

And the way I understand the rules a net is not allowed. You have to cut out/leave out/add individual sections from the rectangle wall.

Paper is just quicker to use compared to build it up in Hirst Arts to make my point.

Doesn't the attacker only benefit from the weakness with the highest value that they qualify for?

You got me thinking

CRB. p.453

If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and a given material.

You got me thinking - but I still think my example was correct.

So what is the same 'instance'?

If you have a cold iron striking longsword then the damage is 2d8. So if a monster has weakness slashing and cold iron then only the higher works.

If you have a Flaming Longsword, then 1d8 is slashing and d6 is fire and I would regard this as 2 instances. This would be in line with the comment that to use only the highest applicable weakness only happens when a monster is weak to physical and a material, as that is one instance of dice rolling.

I have [d8 slashing] plus [d6 fire]

This would also be in line with resistances. Btw. the same wording is used for resistances and there was somewhere a clarification that you would apply a resistance (if you have it) against slashing and fire in the above case.

Edit:Ninjaed by a long way by Breithaupclan

To be clear, this started from talking about 3d boxes with roofs and all 4 sides, not a simple "no boxing someone in" rule or something like that. I might have missed something, but I know Thod, Ubertron_X, and I never claimed E or F were illegal at least. My claim was more related to a single casting having to be a wall relative to some plane. Basically, if you can't draw it on a grid as you have with all of your examples (a straight line from some viewpoint), then it doesn't work. Not even talking about doubling back, which I have my own opinions on, but I don't really care enough to argue about.

That describes my position pretty well.

I'm also not aware of a direct mention of no doubling back or of a developer opinion. Please let me know if that exists (ideally a link).
I see the no doubling back rather as a result of the walls being between squares. You can't double back on itself as that space is already occupied.

This is my interpretation of what is and is not allowed with the shaping of walls. Marvel at my pretty diagrams!

In short, as long as the wall doesn't go through the same square twice, I believe you're pretty much good to go.

Nice work but ... looks to me like a lot of wasted time.

Source Core Rulebook pg. 383 2.0

Traditions arcane, primal
Deities Anubis, Ashukharma, Mazludeh
Cast Three Actions material, somatic, verbal
Range 120 feet
You shape a wall of solid stone. You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high. You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares. The wall doesn't need to stand vertically, so you can use it to form a bridge or set of stairs, for example. You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.

Bolded the part that is important

So Figure B should be legal - actually - it is just the mirror image of figure C.

Figure D: No - not legal. You place walls on top of each other

Figure E and F are actually identical.

Figure H should be non legal

Figure I should be legal

Figure J and K are identical

We can discuss if on the border between squares. implies that the wall is 1/2 inch in either squares or if the border itself is 1 inch thick or a 5 foot square is actually 4 foot 11 inch with 1/2 inch reserved for the border, or you really move 5 foot and 1 inch inch you step.

Or we just accept - the 5 foot square is an abstraction. The border is an abstraction. To fit the wall on the border we make it thin (1 inch) while in all purpose for a game it takes zero space.

It is called rounding - or all it is just a rounding error how we treat the thickness of the border.

Anyhow - RAW says - on the border between squares. So you can't even argue there is a double border (one for each square) as you seem to imply with the images.

RAW and Maths: you can’t make a box with (a single casting) of Wall of Stone.

Creativity??

Cast two wall of stones and a box (and a lot of other shapes) are possible.

This is the rules forum.

To repeat: RAW single cast of Wall of Stones and a box is not allowed. Houserule otherwise if you like.

RAW: cast wall of stone twice and you can build a box.

Simple as that.

But there is your fallacy.

You are reading something in to the scenario that is it not totally clear to everyone.

You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high.

The only bit I read into the rules is that the above describes a flat rectangle with dimension x long, y high and x up to 120 and y up to 20 feet.

If it is a rectangle - then it is mathematically impossible to fold it into a cube.

Is it allowed to make a wall that is 10 foot high at the start (first 5 foot), carries on for 20 foot being 5 foot high and then is 10 foot high again at the end - but in the other direction.

xoooo
xxxxx
oooox

x is my wall -o is empty space.

Such a shape could be folded to a cube.

Do I read into the rules that up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high describes a rectangle - Yes.

If it describe a rectangle - then yes - the rules (indirect via the rules of mathematics and topology) infer that a cube can't be formed. The rules don't have to specify it - it just isn't possible.

edit: You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.

This implies it is a rectangle (before folding) or the following is possible

xxxxxxx
xxxoxxx

o is a medium enemy who is in the way. It shows a 10 foot high, 35 foot long wall - with a cutout square. If this is disallowed (and my understanding is - it isn't allowed) then this directly leads to cubes being disallowed as well. If you don't believe me - try with a long strip of paper and fold it into the shape above (or a cube). A 65 by 5 foot strip can't be folded into the above shape - not even a longer one allowing double folds (which btw are disallowed by the rules).

YuriP wrote:

...

So can a caster thicken the wall putting it adjacent to other section?
...

I have no idea. :)

I don't follow this part at all.

Quote:

The path of a shaped wall can’t enter the same space more than once, but it can double back so one section is adjacent to another section of the wall.

It restricts that you can go through a space twice and therefore restricts the shapes you can build.

---
| |
---
| |
---

This is an allowed shape of a wall - to adjacent squares fully enclosed.

---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---

This is a disallowed shape of a wall - three adjacent squares fully enclosed.

A simple rule: There can be only 2 grid sections in the wall where an odd number of walls meet. These are the start and the end of the wall. There are multiple ways to 'fold' the top wall. But all start at one of the grid sections in the middle and end at the other one. These two places have 3 walls (odd number) meeting.

Try out to draw the wall in one go starting at a top or bottom corner. You will quickly find out it is impossible.

The one with three squares is just impossible as there are 4 grid sections with 3 walls next to it.

------
| |
------

Possible to shape (2 odd)

---------
..| |
-----

Not possible (3 odd)

The main reason for the rule is to avoid shenanigan like the cube. Yes - it means some shapes of wall that seem pretty similar are doable / some are not.

I doubt a GM will check them for mathematical consistency - unless you really try something weird.

Edit - ignore the .. in the last example. Not easy to do line art here if spaces are stripped off

A box of stone is mathematically not possible (with a single casting).

In Math exams (GCSE year 11 UK) one question that has been asked a few times is to be presented with 6 squares connected to each other.

These 6 squares are in different configurations. You get 3 or 4 configurations and have to check the ones that can be folded up into a cube.

A strip of 6 ins row is the easy one. Always no - just impossible.

Another easy one. 4 squares in a row, 1 protruding to the left at the start / one to the right at the end. Fold up the 4 to form a square, fold one protruding up to form the bottom, fold one protruding up to form the top.

There are others that are obvious / some that are pretty hard to envision.

Bottom line: no - a straight strip (wall) can’t be folded up to a cube. Topology doesn’t allow it.

Some quick stats - Abomination Vaults Book 1

Trivial - 1 encounter - 1.7%
Low - 16 encounters - 27.6%
Moderate - 26 encounters - 44.8%
Severe - 14 - 24.1%
Extreme - 1 - 1.7%

The stats use the classification printed next to them. I got all of them in a spreadsheet to calculate XP and that is why I could do that stat quickly.

This assumes you are at the right level at the right time.

And yes - it gets more towards severe at the higher level. Level 4 is 36% severe and it also has the only extreme one (9% for that level). Makes it nearly 46% of that level Severe/Extreme.

Having said this - this is a sandbox. My group went in their second session straight into level 2 and into a Severe 2 encounter (while still level 1).

They made friends with a certain boss upstairs who convinced them to go down there for him ...

The old and humble Magic Missile is a spell that you shouldn't underestimate in a severe or extreme encounter.

A three action level 3 Magic Missile is doing an estimated 21 points of damage (6d4 + 6 - averaging a d4 as 2.5). No save.

A level 3 Fireball - while superior against multiple targets has also 21 expected damage - on a failure (6d6 - with each d6 expected to do 3.5).

The advantage of the Fireball - it can hit multiple targets. It is only 2 actions (vs 3). It can do even double that amount on a critical fail.

The disadvantage - it only does half on a success and nothing on a crit success. Also fire resistance is common.

I stumbled upon this when I looked at extreme encounters (single BBEG) early on during season 1 of PFS scenarios. To my surprise Ezren was out-damaging Amiri and Valeros (I used the PreGens) in my simple methods of using 3 attacks (fighters) or a fixed amount of damage (Magic Missile).

The other bit I noticed - flat footed can be crucial. Ezren is doing 'more damage' standing next to a BBEG then being somewhere save and spamming electric arc.

What I mean with 'more damage'. Valeros or Amiri (not even counting Merisiel) would gain more additional damage from a flanking partner as Ezren would do from Electric Arc against a single target.

As GM I have seen Wizards thinking they contribute via their cantrip - when in reality a peasant with fists in a flanking position would make a larger difference to take down a BBEG more quickly.

Every fight is different. But it is important to inflict conditions in severe encounters. Flank if it is a single opponent. Focus fire if there are multiple.

Work together as a team.

I had read (but forgot) about a few arguments earlier. So to a certain degree we are going in circles.

Beowulf already mentioned some parts earlier - and came to a different conclusion as he said you could still 'wield' the shield. So I wondered - how can we read the same rules but come to such different conclusions.

A shield can be used as a martial weapon for attacks, using the statistics listed for a shield bash on Table 6–7: Melee Weapons (page 280). The shield bash is an option only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as weapons. A shield can’t have runes added to it. You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon. These can be found on Table 6–7. These work like other weapons and can even be etched with runes.

So the issue is:

The attach trait trait treat a shield plus shield boss/spike as 1 weapon (see above)

The runes differentiate between the shield (no runes allowed) and the boss/spike - weapon runes can be added. So it treats it as separate.

So we both agree that you can't wield a shield to defend - but treating the shield and boss/spike as a unit I also see it as no - you can't use it to attack while treating it separate you might get to the conclusion no defense but I still allow attack.

The broken condition doesn't go into detail what is broken with the shield. I have problems to visualize how it is broken and can't protect me but isn't broken and I can just attack someone. If it is stable enough to transfer the force of an attack to my enemy - why isn't it stable enough anymore to give me any protection?

But I guess there will be no convincing the other side.

I'm surprise nobody quoted the following

The replication functions only if you wear both rings, and it ends as soon as you cease wielding a melee weapon in one of your hands. Consequently, the benefit doesn’t apply to thrown attacks or if you’re holding a weapon but not wielding it (such as holding in one hand a weapon that requires two hands to wield).

So the question is: if the shield is broken - can you still wield the shield spike or not?

An attached weapon must be combined with another piece of gear to be used. The trait lists what type of item the weapon must be attached to. You must be wielding or wearing the item the weapon is attached to in order to attack with it. For example, shield spikes are attached to a shield, allowing you to attack with the spikes instead of a shield bash, but only if you're wielding the shield.

Broken is a condition that affects objects. An object is broken when damage has reduced its Hit Points to equal or less than its Broken Threshold. A broken object can't be used for its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses— with the exception of armor.

So in my view:

So in my view - if you have a doubling ring and a shield boss/spike you have to make a decision if you want to take the damage and keep your doubling ring working or break the shield and keep the health but lose the benefit of the doubling ring.

Attached says - you have to be wielding the item it is attached to. You can't just declare it an improvised weapon - otherwise attached has no meaning.

Edit:To clarify - in my view you hold a broken shield - you don't wield it anymore as it can't be used for it's supposed function.

Here is the issue how I see it

A) most bard spells are verbal - they do not provoke

B) most bard spells have performance - this might provoke

C) the only performance that has manipulate is play instrument

D) A cheap item bonus to performance is a level 3 virtuoso instrument for 50 gp

So as spellcasting bard you have a choice

Orate and sing - and don’t provoke - but also don’t get an item bonus

Play an instrument and get an item bonus and provoke

So there is a trade off. Ask the player why he uses an instrument. If his answer is to get the item bonus tell him the alternative and the cost.

Players choice what he decides.

Area All solid ground in the area is covered with grease. Each creature standing on the greasy surface must succeed at a Reflex save or an Acrobatics check against your spell DC or fall prone. Creatures using an action to move onto the greasy surface during the spell's duration must attempt either a Reflex save or an Acrobatics check to Balance. A creature that Steps or Crawls doesn't have to attempt a check or save.

The part of Each Creature standing is only valid when you cast. After that you can step or crawl without danger. This would imply you can also stand up and not move in any other way.

Otherwise you would step and still have to make a reflex save as you would still stand. It also means once you have succeeded on a reflex save you don't have to do another one - unless you try to move away faster as stepping away.

Edit: Otherwise you end up in an endless loop.
1) you are standing - make a reflex save
2) you succeed the reflex save - so you don't fall prone
3) you are standing - go back to 1)

Just wanted to add

There is a middle ground between

A) punishing players

B) deliver info on a golden platter

Find that middle ground and describe it using some RP fluff and most players will be happy.

An emphatic no.

What next:
Add improved initiative to diplomacy. After all a fight could break out if you fail.

It just opens a can of worms that you can’t close afterwards. If - on occasion - you miss the adjustment - fine. But openly allowing it just starts a slippery slope to be abused.

@Ravingdork The issue is - you can't take a single rule and ignore everything else.

CRB. P.92

Requirements Your last action was a successful Strike, and either you have a hand free or your Strike used a grapple weapon.

Would I rule that it can be done as the first action on the next turn when the last action was a successful strike. Maybe - and I'm open for discussion with a player.

But keep in mind - this is a 12th level Barbarian Feat

Bestiary P.343

Requirements The monster's last action was a success with a Strike that lists Grab in its damage entry, or it has a creature grabbed using this action.

Many, many monsters - including low level ones - do have the 'plus grab' ability. By the time I reached the 12th level for my players I have likely ruled 50 times in favour of the players and never allowed my monsters to use grab as first action next round.

AND - I never heard complaints.

So if I get into the discussion now my ruling is: looking at my 50 odd rulings before - never allowing it, I won't change my mind now.

As a GM it is important to be consistent. And I know you are a GM yourself. So ask yourself: did you allow your monsters to grab as first action next turn or not.

That answer should inform you how to answer the furious grab question. Anything else will mean different rules for players and monsters and should be avoided.

Does not change the fact that one does not really need to bother with non-scaling prophiciencies for anything but low-level one-shots

And while Rogue might not be focused on armor, having a different armor class barely makes the character more powerful

Turn it around

And while Rogue might not be focused on armor, not having a different armor class barely makes the character much weaker

...

2nd edition really tries to get away from the idea to take a class for x, another for y and a third for z to have all the nice features and to have them stack as well.

It is a different design philosophy. I like it that way - but I know of players who dislike the system because of it.