Unbinder of Fetters's page

The Headless Xulgath has the Choke Slam ability that lists a Fortitude save the target has to make but it doesn't list what happens as a result of that save.

It seems like it's probably the same as the Xulgath Spinesnapper in book 2, but I'm curious if there's supposed to be a different set of outcomes.

They just pasted the Furious Claws ability before the list of outcomes. Otherwise the outcomes don't make sense b/c Furious Claws doesn't have an associated saving throw, plus the Critical Success result presumes the creature was grabbed which is not a requirement of Furious Claws (and also seems incompatible with using all four arms to attack).

If you move them to the right place, it is very similar to the spinesnapper's ability except that it allows the victim to escape the grab if they critically succeed.

I could understand a response that was like:

"I'm very confident these allegations are untrue."

or a response like:

"These allegations are shocking and we will investigate."

But this? I mean, come on. Come on.

Buying and selling intelligent/sentient beings is kind of creepy and violates the baseline lines/veils position of Paizo as I understand it.

There's already an optional rule to add 4 degrees of success to martials: critical hit/fumble decks.

And they do a fun job of it, most of the time.

Anything beyond that is more likely to bog down the game with having to remember more things, which is the opposite of why I tend to pick martials. My numbers and actions do their thing, double their thing, or they just don't do their thing.

Well, 5 degrees of success:

Nat-20 crit
Crit
Hit
Miss/crit-miss
Nat-1 crit-miss

By popular demand, I've elected to write up my thoughts on how Pathfinder 2e naturally creates an excellent environment for 'OSR' style 'Combat as War' elements as another solution for the difficulty of the encounter guidelines, and indeed, a fun and exciting way to play the game that awakens the full potential of the system (e.g. really uses its systems to maximum effect.)

I would favorite this post 50 times if I could.

Ravingdork wrote:

I was there for close to ten years. Was there on the last day.

...and I wasn't?

Ravingdork wrote:

Saying it was only triple digits is hyperbolic.

No, my comment about triple digits wasn't hyperbole, it was an actual measurement.

Had I said something like "Nobody was even around anymore" that'd be hyperbole. Or if I tried to characterize a forum that easily had 5,000+ concurrent users online on some of it's better days as if it having just a few hundred of them still hanging around were anything but a small portion, that might be hyperbole too.

I was on those forums for nearly 15 years, going back in the gleemax days, and this fits my recollection as well -- by the end, the forums were a shadow of their former glory.

Hobit of Bree wrote:

Seems weird that order matters. So if I have an archetype already, I can use this and have two.

But if I take this first, I can't later take an archetype until I finish that archetype.

Don't see the need for the lack of symmetry, but I agree it's RAW.

But why would you take Multitalented when you haven't already taken an applicable dedication feat?

I guess maybe because it is an ancestry feat slot, and getting a class feat in place of an ancestry feat is decent? But yeah it seems like that is not the typical use case.

Guntermench almost convinced me before I was thrown again into a state of uncertainty lol.

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Maybe not final say, but more guidance on how rules should should while they work on errata. That way it can't be used as an arguing point after they officially fix an issue.

If only you'd been around for the last 15 years you'd know why this does not work.

Well it seems there is some disagreement about whether and why this didn't work, much of which would arguably be solved if they nuked the forums / empowered volunteer moderators to aggressively moderate. Especially since, as has been argued extensively above, other communities have managed to do this sort of thing successfully.

Paizo can very easily select one person to be the rule czar. That person would have the final say and be able to give direct answers to rule questions. Some may not like what final arbitrations are made, but it’s better than leaving it to player debate.

I'd even be okay if they sometimes said "Hey, this is an issue where we think both interpretations have merit, so your GM will have to decide (pending errata)." I suppose they might have to arbitrarily pick one for PFS, but that's no worse than the status quo and I don't really care b/c that doesn't affect me.

I mean, then individual designers could provide some transparency about how they think about the rules and how they would run things, which would be cool, and if people don't like it and can't deal with their emotions appropriately they can be blocked.

I think we're having this conversation in two places.

The distance you can Leap doesn't matter when you Long Jump unless you roll a failure, where you Leap normally. A success with a Long Jump sets your maximum Leap distance to the DC set for the jump, which is the distance you are jumping. It doesn't care about how far you can Leap, it overwrites it.

That's fair and makes sense to me. But how is that different from the fact that, say, Power Attack overrides the normal damage your Strikes do, and yet runes that modify the damage of Strikes in general aren't ignored?

(I'm not saying that they aren't different, I just want to understand the reason).

Unbinder of Fetters wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Cloud Jump says you would go 60ft on a successful DC 20 check, Flamboyant Athlete would make that a DC 10 check.

So per your example, you could make a DC 50 check to jump 180ft.

Ok so, to be clear, you are saying that Powerful Leap can't combine with Flamboyant Athlete? Because that's the only scenario that leads to a calculation of DC 50.

They both set your vertical jump to 5ft. They would combine for a horizontal jump if you just did the basic Leap action, but that's not what you're doing.

Powerful Leap extends your Leap by 5ft, great. Long Jump doesn't care. "The DC of the Athletics check is equal to the total distance in feet you’re attempting to move during your Leap" means the DC for jumping 180 feet with Cloud Jump is going to remain at 60, since that's how far you're trying to jump. Then it goes down from Flamboyant Athlete reducing the DC, to 50.

But Leap is a subordinate action to Long Jump. So wouldn't things that modify Leap in general modify the Leaps you do with Long Jump, much like things that modify how Strikes work in general (like weapon runes) modify the Strikes you do with, say, Attack of Opportunity?

Ravingdork wrote:

Steelbro300 wrote:

Answering rules questions on Twitter should not be the default at all. I mean, look at his Shield Master rulings. Anyway, much better to not answer directly and go through official channels like errata if necessary.

What shield master rulings? I totally agree that's a poor format for answering rules questions. A great many people don't really bother with the hot garbage dumpster fire that is Twitter.

Basically, he changed his ruling about whether you could do the Shield bash before you Attack. My point was that answering rules questions and treating them official on Twitter (or a forum) is not a good idea. I'd be fine with changes to rules, but put them into official errata!

See, I kind of thought his approach there was particularly admirable. He gave a thoughtful explanation of why he ruled it one way the first time, and then what led him to change his mind eventually. That kind of transparency with respect to designer goals, intent, and thinking is fantastic. One thing I miss about the really old school rule books is that they used to go into detail about the motivations behind the rules, and I think that stuff really helped people decide whether & to what extent they should house-rule things. And really, what's the harm in occasionally getting something wrong and changing your mind three years later?

It doesn't make sense to apply Flamboyant before Cloud Jump. Cloud Jump helps you decide how far you're jumping in the first place. Since it triples the distance you jump, you're not actually attempting a 180 foot jump, but a 60 foot jump. You make that decision before you ever start worrying about the DC.

I just don't think it makes any sense to try to parse it the other way. Method 2 and 4 don't work.

Do you also think then that Methods 6 through 8 don't work on the second problem? I tend to agree with you but I feel like my intuition on the second problem is a little different for some reason.

Cloud Jump says you would go 60ft on a successful DC 20 check, Flamboyant Athlete would make that a DC 10 check.

So per your example, you could make a DC 50 check to jump 180ft.

Ok so, to be clear, you are saying that Powerful Leap can't combine with Flamboyant Athlete? Because that's the only scenario that leads to a calculation of DC 50.

You still can't Leap farther than your Speed, though, right?

With a +29, a Speed of 60, and multiplying the distance you can jump, I don't think such a character could ever fail to Leap anywhere within their Speed.

Cloud Jump includes this line: "You can jump a distance greater than your Speed by spending additional actions when you Long Jump or High Jump. For each additional action spent, add your Speed to the limit on how far you can Leap."

I think a factor in that may be one of perception. Both from the perspective of the persons doing the answering in that they do not have to tolerate even the slightest amount of misbehavior where on an "official forum" there can be more of a perception of being expected not to just say "you bugged me, so I blocked you."

That's a fair point. I certainly think these forums should be moderated more aggressively and I'm sure there are volunteers who would provide that labor for free.

And from the perspective of the people asking the question, there's a definite difference tossing a tweet at someone that maybe they respond to eventually and being on the official forum and not getting the response you desire. I refer to it as the Sandwich Error Tolerance Variance; if someone makes you a sandwich, but it's not quite how you wanted it to be, what you perceive the relationship to be affects how you react - such that if you feel someone was doing you a favor making the sandwich you're unlikely to even complain that it's not perfect, but if you feel it is the person's job to make you a sandwich it's more a question of whether your complaint will be reasonable or over-the-top than it is of whether you'll feel it's worth complaining about.

So I've received responses from Jeremy Crawford 100% of the times I've tweeted at him. Mike Mearls is hit or miss but only Crawford's answers count as official so that's okay. And I really don't see people arguing with Crawford, he pretty much ends all arguments because he wrote the rule. Presumably also he could just block people if they are jerks, which speaks to your point about forums vs other social media.

Unbinder of Fetters wrote:

I've often heard this argument but the fact that Paizo used to do this for Pathfinder 1e while remaining a profitable business kind of suggests that Paizo could afford it if it were a priority to them, like it used to be.

They learned a lot while they grew as a company.

But my point is simply that from a pure financial standpoint, it is possible to answer questions and without the business becoming unprofitable. Whether it is wise or optimal are separate questions. I'm just objecting to the often-repeated "They are too small of a company to even be capable of doing this" line.

Unbinder of Fetters wrote:

The toxicity is weird because (a) you don't really see the equivalent toxic reactions to Jeremy Crawford--who incidentally does a *ton* of things besides answering rules questions on Twitter; and (b) neither the PF2 discord nor the Arcane Mark discord seem toxic at all.

Probably because they aren't giving out individual rulings for people to bicker over. They learned their lesson from the past, or from others who experienced it. If they change that policy though, give it time. Those communities will get rocked too.

Huh? Jeremy Crawford very much gives out individual rulings for people. You can tweet him yourself and he will answer your questions, and all of those conversations get archived into Sage Advice. I've asked him several questions on Twitter and received a reply 100% of the time. They've been doing this for nearly 7 years.

EDIT: Oh I see, you mean the Discords. Which, fair enough, but moderators in the PF2 Discord give out unofficial answers and I never see the bickering that we have here on the forums. And sometimes Mark does answer questions in an unofficial capacity on his Discord (I mean there was a thread here that cited one instance of that a couple days ago, no?) And these forums are toxic in the status quo and they aren't even answering questions here.

Unbinder of Fetters wrote:

In retrospect perhaps deleting their forums was a super smart move by Wizards of the Coast.

I will NEVER agree to this sentiment. That was an awful move on their part if you ask me. It disenfranchised a huge section of their consumer-base. Just scattered them to the winds for no practical reason. Since then, there have only been small, isolated communities scattered across the net with no cohesive central community hub with which to gather. I have never played...

Well, I mean, a) the Paizo forums certainly is not the largest community of PF2 players. The Facebook group, subreddit, and Discord(s) are all more active. And b) they get answers to anyone who asks without the associated toxicity, and we don't, so as much as I liked those forums, I can't argue with the results.

I guess it depends on what it means to "cross" the wall. It seems to me like if you cross the edge of the wall on either side, you've crossed the wall for the purpose of determining if you have encountered fire. So the "to intersect" definition of to cross is probably what I would apply here.

Also, Paizo as a whole is MUCH smaller than WotC, which is backed by the monolithic Hasbro. Paizo can't afford to have one dedicated "rules master" without taking significant time and energy away from more profitable projects they could be working on instead. WotC on the other hand, can afford an entire team or department of staff where that's their sole purpose.

I've often heard this argument but the fact that Paizo used to do this for Pathfinder 1e while remaining a profitable business kind of suggests that Paizo could afford it if it were a priority to them, like it used to be. I agree though that the toxicity of the community is a major deterrent.

The toxicity is weird because (a) you don't really see the equivalent toxic reactions to Jeremy Crawford--who incidentally does a *ton* of things besides answering rules questions on Twitter; and (b) neither the PF2 discord nor the Arcane Mark discord seem toxic at all. In retrospect perhaps deleting their forums was a super smart move by Wizards of the Coast.

Is there a basis--whether RAW, RAI, or general GM good judgment--to determine the order of operations for Leap-related feats?

To give a specific example of a PC in one of my games, a level 17 swashbuckler whose Speed is 60 when he has panache has the following relevant feats: Quick Jump, Powerful Leap, Cloud Jump, and Flamboyant Athlete.

Quick Jump: Long Jump = 1 action

Powerful Leap: Increase distance by 5 feet

Cloud Jump: Triple the distance, plus if you spend additional actions, your maximum jump distance increases by your Speed to maximum distance

Flamboyant Athlete: DC decreases by 10

--
Problem 1: Assuming he spends 3 actions on a Long Jump, his maximum distance is 180 feet.** What is the DC of a 180-foot Long Jump?

It seems to me like there are a couple ways to calculate it.

Method 1: DC starts at 180. Cloud Jump triples our distance so 60. Powerful leap gives us 5 extra feet so 55. Flamboyant Athlete reduces DC by 10 so 45.

Method 2: DC starts at 180. Flamboyant Athlete reduces the DC by 10 so 170. Cloud Jump triples the distance so 57. Powerful leap gives us 5 extra feet, so 52.

Method 3: DC starts at 180. Powerful leap gives us 5 extra feet, so 175. Cloud Jump triples distance so 59. Flamboyant Athlete reduces the DC by 10 so 49.

Method 4: DC starts at 180. Powerful leap gives us 5 extra feet, so 175. Flamboyant Athlete reduces DC by 10 so 165. Cloud Jump triples the distance so 55.

All of those methods assume all three can be combined, but Flamboyant Athlete says that it "doesn't combine with other effects that reduce the DC." None of the other feats say they reduce the DC, but functionally it seems like Powerful Leap reduces the DC by 5 and perhaps also Cloud Jump can be said to reduce the DC by one-third. If Flamboyant Leap can be combined with Cloud Jump but not Powerful Leap, then the possible DCs are 57 and 50, and if Flamboyant Leap cannot be combined with either, the possible DCs are 59 and 55.

So it seems like the DC for a 180-foot jump could be 45, 49, 50, 52, 55, 57, or 59.

**Technically his maximum distance is 240 if he is quickened but even in the best case scenario of calculations the DC would be 65 and even rolling a 20 he cannot hit 55, so there wouldn't be any benefit to spending 4 actions on the Long Jump.
--
Problem #2:

Finally, the question can be considered from another direction: what is the least distance he could possibly try to Long Jump with 3 actions without having to make a roll as even a 1 is a success?

His Athletics modifier is currently +29. So, if he rolls a 1, he gets a 30, and it is one degree of success worse than it otherwise would be, so we need the DC to be 20 so that the 1 is converting a critical success into a normal success.

Normally, that would be 20 feet, but...

Method 1: -> 60 feet (Cloud Jump), -> 65 feet (Powerful Leap)

Method 2: -> 60 feet (Cloud Jump), -> 70 feet (Flamboyant Athlete)

Method 3: -> 60 feet (Cloud Jump), -> 70 feet (Flamboyant Athlete), -> 75 feet (Powerful Leap)

Method 4: -> 25 feet (Powerful Leap), -> 75 feet (Cloud Jump)

Method 5: -> 25 feet (Powerful Leap), -> 75 feet (Cloud Jump), -> 85 feet (Powerful Leap)

Method 6: -> 30 feet (Flamboyant Athlete), -> 90 feet (Cloud Jump)

Method 7: -> 30 feet (Flamboyant Athlete), -> 90 feet (Cloud Jump), -> 95 feet (Powerful Leap)

Method 8: -> 25 feet (Powerful Leap) -> 35 feet (Flamboyant Athlete), -> 105 feet (Cloud Jump)

So the possible minimum auto-success distances are 65, 70, 75, 85, 90, 95, or 105
feet

--
I'm tempted to go with DC 45 for problem #1 and 105 feet for problem #2, since my general principle is that if there is no good reason to prefer one interpretation over another, I default to the interpretation most favorable to the players. But I'm curious if there's some order of operations principle that would dictate a RAW answer, as well as how people would adjudicate this at their tables.

I think no, because though the spell could be cast by someone with arcane magic, it is being cast by someone with divine magic, and so this version of the spell has the divine trait but not arcane trait. The wording of Recognize Spell says "the spell's tradition", not "one of the spell's traditions." The different spell traditions presumably work differently, and if the casting didn't look different, it really wouldn't mean anything for a spell to take the trait of one tradition and not another.

I have mentioned this in a different thread (because this KEEPS getting asked) but I believe the developers didn't intent to make crit immunity only prevent "double damage". Here's my opinion, with absolutely no proof to back it up so it's basically just a hypothetical situation:

They probably initially wanted any "crit" attack to become a success instead. But due to the unwritten rule about modifying the results of a roll, you can still end up with a "crit" under the right circumstances. To fix this, they just made it say they take "normal damage", but the main mistake was saying "instead of double damage". It may have sounded fine to them at first, since most attacks deal double damage on a crit, but they forgot about some spells simply dealing increased damage on crits, and forgot about Fatal/Deadly traits. This lead to the current discussion.

I think it is simpler than that (or maybe this is just another way of saying what you are saying). They probably initially thought that immunity to critical hits was self-explanatory -- the target can be normal hit, but not critical hit. Then they realized that technically, because of how they defined immunity, someone could read it and say "ah, so if you roll a crit, it takes no damage, because it is immune to those" because, well, these forums. So they wrote the inelegant phrase, not thinking about the other (perhaps in their minds rather obvious) immunity to stuff like deadly and fatal.

Completely conjecture but it seems highly plausible to me.

Unbinder of Fetters wrote:

I mean, I don't think either of us -- or at least, certainly not me -- is in a position to make business judgments about what Paizo staff should be spending their time on.

Well, that's what asking for more errata is, so maybe don't do that then?

I mean, I have a preference and I don't think I need an MBA to express it. They can note it and then decide what makes sense to do.

Honestly, I really appreciate the engagement with the community that many of the devs already do. It's really great to get insights on what they were thinking about when designing certain things. I certainly don't think those efforts are a waste of time, or if they are, I appreciate them nevertheless.

I still believe certain issues could be resolved with a slightly more prioritized errata schedule. I understand why you think they shouldn't prioritize errata and related efforts. I honestly don't know if you are right; I'm simply speaking for myself as a fan and customer about what I think has value and what I would like.

Paizo spending work-hours on something only 5% of the folks playing the game even care about when they could spend those work-hours on something that might matter to a significantly larger portion of the folks playing the game is just not a good prioritization of work-hours.

I mean, I don't think either of us -- or at least, certainly not me -- is in a position to make business judgments about what Paizo staff should be spending their time on. That said, do more than 5% of the player base play PFS? Did more than 5% of the player base buy, say, LO Legends? Do more than 5% of the player base attend cons? I suspect the numbers are far less than 5% for stuff that they actively spend a ton of work-time-effort on.

I'd also guess that not all players/customers are equally important. I suspect that a random member of that 5% -- I'll just stipulate to that number for the sake of argument -- who cares about rulings and insights from the designers about their intent and design goals is far, far, far more likely to own every book and have multiple Paizo subscriptions than a random member of the other 95%.

The benefit is "the first time you hit your hunted prey..." If both you and your animal companion get it, then you get additional damage the first time you hit, and your companion gets additional damage the first time they hit. If the damage applies just once, the benefit would be marginal.

If you have more than one prey, you'd get the damage the first time you hit each prey. If you share the multiple preys and associated edge, everyone you share also gets the extra damage the first time they hit each prey as well.

At least that's how I read it.

I have a group of 20 people I play with, all digitally at current though some of them have also been to house back in pre-pandemic times.

First of all, I can't imagine playing with 20 people, so hats off to you for pulling that off. But I think a group that large is rather unusual and probably not representative. In any event though it is neither here nor there -- if even one person in the group (generally the GM) is clued in to the digital rules, the dissemination of information isn't a problem, and the people who don't care, well, don't care.

This is all beside the point. And in any event, I don't care in the slightest about pfs so I'd be perfectly happy with a community-led effort that, when appropriate, highlighted dissenting views and bullet-pointed key arguments.

I do not think I have ever been part of a community before where people will so passionately and vehemently argue that communication and customer support is not merely unnecessary, but a bad thing that the customer base does not deserve.

The amount of self loathing and flagellation is impressive.

Personally I am not convinced Paizo despises their playerbase as much as thenobledrake and others seem to think they do.

I mean, I agree, but this community is pretty toxic. Other game systems seem to have little to no problem with developers commenting about the rules and issuing rulings. I was playing 4e and 5e during the first edition of pathfinder so I didn't see it, but from everyone's account the community behaved extraordinarily and rather uniquely poorly. The amount of toxicity I've seen on these forums is also a bit wild.

On the other hand, Mark's discord and the general pf2 discord seem like really nice places. It might just be a forums thing.

...I don't actually think it's "most folks" interacting with the rules digitally. Pretty sure most still buy hard copy books, store them on shelves, and have a vague awareness that errata is a thing at best, but rarely ever actually go find or use it because it's not an issue to them.

I would be shocked if this were the case, but I suppose data would be helpful here. I buy hard copy books, and even store them on shelves, but a) at the game table it is always quickest to look up rules digitally; b) if building a character, I use pathbuilder, and I suspect that isn't a minority position; c) after a year of pandemic the vast majority of players play digitally at least some of the time; d) if there is a critical mass of casuals who regularly play pf2 but who don't or very rarely consult archives of nethys or pathbuilder, those people don't care about errata anyway so they literally aren't affected by it anyway.

Gortle wrote:

So. Is there any option of establishing a community based FAQ or Wiki?

Would there be any value in the community trying to come to some sort of concensus. Even if that concensus was grey on some issues?

There is value on the very rare occasions that the community achieves something approximating consensus.

But that happens very, very rarely. To take the subject of this particular thread as an example, many many threads have not led to anything approximating consensus.

There IS also value in the community coming up with a place where the various arguments on a particular subject can be recorded. But doing that in an unbiased way is quite difficult and doing it in a biased way would be worse than not doing it at all.

Honestly it would be kind of cool to have something like this where in areas of active controversy, a succinct statement of the key arguments on each side appears. Would have to be curated by folks who were invested enough to understand what was at stake in each controversy but not so invested that they edited polemically.

paulstrait wrote:

As I understand it, you can disrupt actions without dealing damage.

Many riders trigger on dealing damage, so you can stop those if you resist 100% of the damage. Persistent damage (particularly bleed) is explicitly flagged as a rider that "usually" is not applied if damage is reduced to zero, but that the GM should use their judgment.

This effect triggers on a critical hit and a critical hit simply doubles damage, but doesn't indicate a minimum. So I don't think there's any reason that the crit wouldn't disrupt the action.

So the argument is that it expressly has to state that it needs to deal damage to count as it being a limitation, similar to the likes of Felling Strike, and that because Attack of Opportunity does not have that limitation, a critical hit from an Attack of Opportunity still disrupts the relevant actions.

That's right. Something like the Pin to a Spot feat that applies the restrained condition "if you hit and do damage," or a Wraith's Drain Life ability that triggers "When the wraith damages a living creature."

BTW, an Attack of Opportunity can disrupt a move action if you have one of a couple feats that buffs it that way. That can be annoying to deal with if you knock someone down and don't let them stand up.

Part of me wonders why they don't follow up with an answer to this question at the end of the day. I know that they don't have all the time in the world to be replying to rules questions, but in the cases where there is no consensus, and threads like this always spiral out of control, it makes me wonder if that same lack of consensus applies to them as well.

At this point, I'm unsure if we'll ever see a response from them on this subject, which is a major feelsbad.

Yeah I know all the arguments for not answering rules questions, but I mean two or three a year wouldn't be asking for a lot and it isn't like the designers could possibly be unaware of the issues. Or, hell, indirectly answering by releasing some errata would be even better. With most folks interacting with rules elements digitally, the downsides of a more regular errata schedule really are small.

As I understand it, you can disrupt actions without dealing damage.

Many riders trigger on dealing damage, so you can stop those if you resist 100% of the damage. Persistent damage (particularly bleed) is explicitly flagged as a rider that "usually" is not applied if damage is reduced to zero, but that the GM should use their judgment.

This effect triggers on a critical hit and a critical hit simply doubles damage, but doesn't indicate a minimum. So I don't think there's any reason that the crit wouldn't disrupt the action.

Many people have responded to that argument. The consistent answer being that that's an item that works that way.

But if it is just about that item, why the word "so" ? The formula of "x, so y" would make sense if there is a preexisting rule according to which y would follow from x, but it seems like an extremely odd way of communicating some idiosyncratic property of just this sole item (not to mention the oddity of giving the item a weird special deviation rule in the first place). As an enthymeme, it only makes sense with the implied minor premise that ammunition must be made with sufficiently pure materials in order to be usable with higher level magic items.

It just seems to me like the natural reading of the "so" clause is that its author presumed that the restriction on ammo precious material quality existed. That seems much more probable than the alternative.

If there was a written rule that said "Atlanta Boulevard is a one-way street, so you can turn left on red," would it make sense to read that as "this is just a statement about what you can do on Atlanta Boulevard, nothing else"? Or would it make more sense to read that and think "hmm, seems like a street needs to be one-way in order for you to be allowed to turn left on red" ?

Personally I will admit that the evidence suggests RAI is probably for higher grade ammunition to be required to trigger weaknesses with higher level bows, and personally I've never argued one way or the other in terms of balance. However, the rules still don't say that.

I agree that the rules don't strictly establish this requirement on their own. My read is that there is enough ambiguity, however, that the clear and obvious intent should be controlling, but I don't have a strong opinion about that and could perhaps be convinced otherwise. I agree that the balance arguments one way or the other aren't super relevant -- and I'd note that it is a complete non-issue in my games because of the auto progression rule and I haven't noticed any crazy imbalances, and I would think that that variant rule would have to be more unbalanced than ruling incorrectly on this issue.

But a worm, an ooze or an amorphous creature, just don't have an underside or a normal orientation. They should be immune to being tripped.

Well, if you do an image search of oozes, they are usually fairly erect, with appendage like pseudopods and the like. So I think a "prone" ooze would be a bit splatted on the floor. To get back into the fight, it would need to puff itself back up, or "stand." So that all feels okay to me. (That said, I'm not sure why, say, the weapons with the trip trait would be especially better at splatting an ooze.)

It *does* seem to me like tripping a basilisk should be more difficult. Maybe targeting its fortitude dc instead of reflex might make more sense.

I run two games, and if I made any sort of ruling like that in one, my players would coup (or at least whine about it in their group chat passive aggressively). In my other, the group would expect me to think about something like that and render a judgment and might get irritated and eye-rolly if I handwaved and said "well, RAW, it isn't immune to the prone condition..." They would at least expect me to give an explanation/description of how the snake or ooze or whatever could be prone. The first group, on the other hand, would be irritated that I even felt the need to give such an explanation.

And there are a couple players that play in both groups -- fascinating to observe the effects of groupthink / distinctive group culture that emerges in very long term gaming groups. In any event, my GM philosophy is largely just to give the players the kind of refereeing that they want.

Hmm. I use the automatic bonus progression rule in my games so I've never had to think too hard about this question. I started this thread thinking it would be ludicrous to require higher level materials for ammo to access the benefits of higher level bow runes, but I've been completely persuaded. What seems damning to me is that no one seems to be willing even to try to respond to this argument:

You are convinently leaving out the actual part of the item that matters. This is the description of a Lesser blanch:

"The blanch provides low-grade cold iron, so you can use it on a magic weapon up to 8th level, or ammunition for such a weapon. It lasts for 1 minute."
It explains the rules almost exactly like the rules for special material weapons, and has the caveat for ammunition. There is no reason for me to mention the many other ways the item is useful because they are irrelevant to the point: If the designers intended for the grade of ammunition to not matter why would they specifically specify it in this item?

I just cannot imagine a world in which it makes sense to write "...on a magic weapon up to 8th level, or ammunition for such a weapon" if you can use that ammunition for weapons of higher level. Why would it be written that way otherwise? What purpose would such a clause serve? Barring a halfway plausible explanation, that just seems completely dispositive here.

I don't have a strong opinion about this -- gun to my head, I'd allow rage additional damage but not item-bonus-derived additional damage -- but doesn't the wording of the exception in the Dragon Transformation feat imply that the additional damage from raging usually counts as an "adjustment" that is disallowed by the polymorph trait?

You... [gain] the effects of 6th-level dragon form except that... you apply your extra damage from Rage

Doesn't the word "except" indicate that this is an exception?

paulstrait wrote:

Does anyone have a working link to the 2nd errata? The link Mark Seifter posted above is dead.

Should be https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq.

Should be, but isn't.

Does anyone have a working link to the 2nd errata? The link Mark Seifter posted above is dead.