Wes 9's page

Alot of things can give you access to spells or other non-common things, it tells you they give you access, it can also be rewards in AP's.

If something say it gives you access to an rare or uncommon thing you have access to it.

Edit.
Access Entries

Nothing in pf2 get reach from growing in size unless the effect say it do.

So it dont matter if its an animal companion or not.

And all Animal companions have the reach that is stated in their statblock for their respective attacks, most are 5ft.

For example Giant Frog's tongue attack have 15ft.

Finoan wrote:

No, that is the example of the rule. And it is a bad example.

What that section defines is that Focus Spells cost focus points to cast.

It then gives a specific example of where that isn't true without saying "this isn't a focus spell." So no, it does not say that.

Quote:

So Courageous Anthem is not a Focus Spell by the definition of a Focus Spell. Its inclusion as an example and illustration of a Focus Spell that should not add a Focus Point to your Focus Pool is an error in the example. It is not proof that a Composition Cantrip can violate the rules that define a Focus Spell and still be considered a Focus Spell.

So the thing in the focus spell rules that is cited as an example is not a focus spell and is an error? I find that pretty hard to believe, when there's a specific carve out in the focus spell rules for spells that do not cost focus points.

"I'm right because the rulebook itself is wrong" is... something.

Yes something is definitely wrong in some place, but we still get the gist of it so no major issue.

But lets compile the spread out points.

Composition Spells: talks as if all Compositions are focus spells.

Composition Cantrips: Never call them Focus spells, the closest is the extra text that they don’t cost focus points.

Composition Trait: Clearly separates them into Focus spell OR Cantrips,
This would never be needed if the cantrips also are Focus spells

Focus spell: Have a example that composition cantrips dont give focus pool, implying they are focus spells in some way or the example is pointless.

Its also say that "the spell has the focus trait". (Something the cantrips don’t)

Bard Archtype: Specifically calls counter performance composition a focus spell "This is a focus spell" but that text is not there on the courageous anthem composition cantrip.

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

So the intent even from paiso suggests that the cantrips are for all intents and purposes not intended to be focus spells, they don’t cost focus points and don’t generate focus points.

So they are Focus spells only in relation, not even in name since they are never directly called focus spells themself.

But that is also never really an issue, since you get both the cantrips and regular focus spell at the same time as bard.

Only way is if you take bard archetype and only select 'courageous anthem composition cantrip' and then try to take a feature that require you to have a focus spell.

Compositions are focus spells. Composition cantrips are focus spells with an extra property that they don't cost a focus point (because Bard says so) and don't add to your focus pool (because the focus rules say so).

Composition cantrips are special composition spells that don't cost Focus Points, so you can use them as often as you like.

Even the composition Trait separates them into either Cantrips or Focus spells, never both.

To cast a composition cantrip or focus spell, you use a type of Performance. ....

Same with Hexes neither of them are implicitly Focus spells but they can be.

The extra text on Composition Cantrips is just to make it clear they don’t cost a focus point since the class just talked about Focus compositions.

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

Psychic sadly dont have any Focus spells it even say that in its class entry

"However, unlike other spellcasters, you don't gain focus spells that cost Focus Points to cast. Instead, you use your Focus Points to boost or modify your psi cantrips by applying amps"

They should have given Psychic a free action Focus spell named Amp instead then it would be clearer.

Yes i think it fair to say they just forgot to update that part.

what’s in the Parasynthesis is kinda pointless to the rule itself tho and is just a reminder / clarification that while a craft check, it don’t use the normal craft times.

Normaly you dont replace attacks.

you just gain more

Most stances give you an natural attack, and some times locks you so you can only use that attack while in the stance.

But that information is on the stance.

Also alot of stances are themed around you mimicking the type of attack with you hands, like Wolf stance

"You enter the stance of a wolf, low to the ground with your hands held like fangs"

You dont grow a Jaw attack you just mimic one with your hands.

Archetype feats "slots" are Class feats.

....the character receives an extra class feat at 2nd level and every even level thereafter that they can use only for archetype feats.

A feat with this trait can be selected when a class grants a skill feat or general feat

So RAW you need to use your regular Skill feat or General feats for the Archetype feats with the skill trait.

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

With how few good Skill feats there is most of the time its a good things when Archetype's give you the options for skill feats, and it lets you exit them quicker.

rarely do i see someone wanting to waste a Free archetype slot for skill feats.

Personally i don’t think they should be able to and i would inform them that there is a better way.

but i have see GM's allow skill feats be placed in class feat slots.

Fistbump of Healing!

In-case peopel dont read general forum and have missed it.

You all spoke, and we’re changing course! With the Pathfinder Spring Errata blog just around the corner, take a look at this note from our design team about how we're addressing the weakness rules!

The Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

We released a clarification on how to apply weaknesses and interpret “instance of damage” with the set of FAQs for the 2nd printing of Pathfinder Player Core. With the overall negative response to the clarification, we want to acknowledge the community's preference for something easier to apply, as well as the particular concerns about the possibility of repeatedly triggering the same weakness multiple times in a way that feels unintuitive and exploitable. We hear you about the wording of the text in Player Core being too vague for all but the simplest situations, so we’re looking at both an erratum to that text and a full clarification with a deeper level of detail for those who want it.

We’re removing the old clarification to avoid further confusion. For GMs looking for immediate guidance, here’s the general idea behind the upcoming version, which should cover most situations: Each Strike, spell, or other effect can trigger multiple weaknesses, but each weakness can be triggered only once. All the damage being done as a part of the effect, regardless of its source, is combined before processing the immunities, weaknesses, and resistances. For example, a Spellstrike using thunderstrike and a shock weapon would combine all the electricity damage. For resistances, you still apply only the highest resistance if more than one resistance would apply to a single source and type of damage. This primarily happens with weapons that have a special material; a Strike with a cold iron spear against a creature with resistance 10 to cold iron and resistance 5 to piercing would reduce the damage by 10. Resistance to "all damage" still works as written, but will be reviewed during the process for consistency with any other revisions.

In reading your responses, we are seeing that

...

I think you understand it correctly curses are harder to remove,

often they add some way to remove them, but it could be further ahead in the adventure path, or they assume the party get to high enuf level to be able to pick it up themself(even then they usualy have options like a scroll or staff that can be found as such).

Corrupting Spite while not harmless and cant kill you itself. so i dont see the big issue. at maximum you get drained 4 (and they get a new save each round, to become better or worse)

sooner of later you will find someone that can remove it (in a large city for example) or level up to pick a remove curse option yourself,

Paiso if you see this include abit more information and scenarios in the example. maybe something like this.

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

Elemental Instinct(Fire) Barbarian, with +3 striking holy Conducting flaming cold iron battleaxe, with Sun's Fury and Flame Wisp cast on it/him. it also used Rage(Fire) and following up that with Conduct Energy(free action) before striking

A Terotricus Effected by Wish-Twisted Form Giving it Resistances fire 10; Weaknesses fire 5, cold 15, cold iron 15, holy 15, slashing 10

Lets say the damage roll results in
4 fire damage from the flaming rune,
7 fire damage from conductive,
7 spirit damage from the holy rune,
16 slashing damage from the cold iron battle axe,
12 fire damage from rage,
1 spirit damage from Sun's Fury spell,
4 fire damage from Sun's Fury spell,
and 3 fire damage from Flame Wisp spell. So we’re starting with a total of 54 damage.

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

this tests both 2 types of spells that add damage to strikes, multiple different sources that adds the same damage type to a strike and resistance + weakness to the same type that also have multiple sources, while still keeping the holy and material weakness.

tried to find a better monster but could not find one that fit and decided i did not want to make a custom one so i slapped on Wish-Twisted Form instead

Agree with Finoan, and i dont see anything from the FAQ clarification that would imply or change area weakness. if anything as he said the holy example would make it more clear that it would be once.

Just pushing out a Leshy iconic because its popular i feel is the wrong things to do.

it need to have a reason beside popularity, it need a reason to exist and preferably have a great story.
you can always tell if something is forced so i rather not have one then have a badly done one.

let them cook if it take them years to include a leshy iconic so be it.

I Would say the base items changes, and then you apply the reinforcing runes effect.

I agree with taks, Ascalaphus and ScooterScoots on this.

Ofc its Each square. that both make more sense to me and is whats written.

But i do agree that its weird and an oversight that Large PC's have special rules that dont apply to large NPC's in cases like this.

as a side note: Im starting to wonder why are some people on this forum always trying to bend/Balance the rules to minimize the effect of resistance and weakness?

why cant something be effective or ineffective is the right circumstance?

and most creatures would be aware of their weakness, and would not run straight thru something deadly without cause.

Ofc everyone is allowed to run the game as they see fit, but as a rule question it would be Each square

Must say some realy do some crazy mental gymnastic to justify how they want it to work, rather then reading and treating it as all the other rules.

Lets go through them, and make some comments after each rule section.

If you have resistance to a type of damage, each time you take that type of damage, reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed number (to a minimum of 0 damage).

The Basic rules for any resistance, that all the sections under it still follow and they just provide more specifics/Examples of some cases.

Resistance can specify combinations of damage types or other traits. For instance, you might encounter a monster that's resistant to non-magical bludgeoning damage,
meaning it would take less damage from bludgeoning attacks that weren't magical, but would take normal damage from your +1 mace (since it's magical) or a nonmagical spear (since it deals piercing damage).
A resistance also might have an exception. For example, resistance 10 to physical damage (except silver) would reduce any physical damage by 10 unless that damage was dealt by a silver weapon.

Just rules for special cases on some monsters. we can ignore this most of the time

If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value, as described in weakness.

The referensed Weakness text:
If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value.
This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing.

........

But i do agree that Holy/Unholy might have some problems here, even if they probably should fall under materials in my eyes, they should tho only happen once so maybe treating them like the water example is better, (but its more a issue if how the trait is applied rather then the resistance rules)

It's possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely.

This is also a rule people stumble over in their thinking, but only if you ignore the first section and try to extrapolate more rules from just this text.

resistance to all damage falls outside the basic rule for resistance "each time you take that type of damage, reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed number" since "all Damage" is not a type,
so they spell it out and explain that all damage is equal to having resistance to all different damage types and gives a nice example of it.

Why they talk specifically about multiple damage type effects is to make it clear that the one instance of "resistance all" is applied to all possible applications of it and not only applied once.
This is not an issue for multiple different resistances since they already only apply once, but they all do apply to the same effect per the basic rule.

This is how Foundry do it and how i chose to do it at my tables, there is no mental gymnastics needed(just a basic rule with 3 very specific exceptions)

Just to make it clear to Vlad, since he asked his question with both Wizard and sorc

Wizard is a Prepared caster so they dont need to.

While Sorcerers is a spontaneous and needs to learn spells at the rank they want to cast it.

NorrKnekten and Easl is correct,

the bleed is not increased, even if the bleed was not a crit effect it would not be increased since it dont say its increased.

Human Exemplar with Fighter dedication wielding a Greatsword and fullplate

Daughter of Gorum, no record of her existence before Gorums death now she wanders in searching for new and larger battles.

leaving it open if she really have any connection to Gorum or his death,
or if she is just a fanatic follower trying to keep his legacy alive.

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

simple and abit corny but i like it :p

Emanation and Auras, there is still several spells and effects that hints to be auras but dont have the aura trait, this makes play with them vary greatly depending on the GM, and official errata would be appreciated.

to give one example Incendiary Aura.

i would just handle it RAW

I would follow : Gain actions when commanded or Gain actions when the master decides not to command the companion (for those who can act without command).

It feels like the most simple way to do it.

i Would agree with this

Creatures in the area that breathe air and aren't holding their breath must spend a single action on their turn straining to breathe the stagnant air; once they do, they still mostly breathe their own exhaled air, taking 3d6 poison damage (basic Fortitude save) and becoming fatigued.

So when they creature starts its turn in the area,

Not needing to breath or holding its breath counters the entire spell

just to make it clear, the action you are forced to take have nothing to do with holding its breath, its just an action tax similar but mechanical different from slow

can a pc that has a claw or bite attack put runes on his claw or bite?

same answer as before, the solution is Handwraps they put runes on "all your unarmed attacks" dont care where they are or how you got them

Apart from Battleforms, poor Wildshape druids

if we assume that we are not mythic creatures and...

Mythic Resistance only being bypassed by Mythic Strike and Mythic weapons that would makes it more inline power vise to Mythic Resilience that screws caster over big time.

but both sounds horrible/unfun to play with.

and if i dont misremember where there not a few low level mythic weapons in that book aswell? so its not only level 20 items.

but personally i agree that we would be mythical creatures, and the mythic rules as a whole are just made to favor martials more.

A more important question is what happens when a monster sets the DC to 20, and you set it to 10?

Example a Barbazu (which makes persistent bleed damage require a DC 20 check to recover from.)

bleeds a Naari(ifrit) with Cindersoul (The DC for you to recover from persistent acid, bleed, and poison damage is 10 instead of 15 (or 5 if you have particularly effective assistance).)

they are both try to override the normal 15, neither of them lower or increases the DC.

Reactive Strike only gives you the option to use that reaction, dont matter if you have that feature 100 times.

What you are seaching for is something that give you more reaction actions, and they are rare. (think playtest commander had one extra reaction)

The spell would not work RAW, since you would still be on Doomed 4.

but as a gm i would advice about that let them change they mind on casting that spell in that case.

Breath of life are not ment as a catch all save spell, since death effects and "leaves no remains" still pierces it, so not that out of this world if doomed 4 also do that.

thera are other spells you can use that work after death instead, like Shock to the System.

Both are legal in my opinion,
you dont path "through" anything in both examples, even 20 and 60 in example 2 are against the wall not through or over it.

in example 1 if 5 and 10 can occupy the same Corner, then 25, 30, 85, 90 can aswell.
so ither the spell dont work at all or that is legal.

Trip.H is right, this will be up to the GM what to include and RAW we can only use the list paiso provided.

it might even be RAI since they reprinted some old item on the food list and not some others, so they obviously looked back on old items when they made the list.
but since book space is a thing its also possible they had to cut some items to save space.

YuriP wrote:

Currently we use Mark's interpretation from playtest time, How It's Played, and FoundryVTT where each damage type creates a new, separate "instance" to be resolved in IWR.

No one knows if it's official (because Paizo has never said anything officially), but it's currently the least problematic rule regarding IWR because it allows weaknesses and resistances to act separately.

Yes it does seem to be the simplest way forward.

However when does shield blocking happen?

Since the trigger is when you "would take damage", it must happen after resistance/weakness, its best not to over think how this would look, its a balance/gameification of the mechanic that make it "not over complicated" with recalculating and stuff.

The book have a seperate section with only alchemical foods, they all have Alchemical and Consumable trait, All of them are things you eat or drink and have a food reference or pun in the name.

so i would not let all Elixir into that category even if the book list a few elixirs in the list.

its need to be something more then just "you drink or eat it"

so the best guidline is do the item have a clear reference to food or drink in its name (or description) is the closes definition we have.

but since some of the old items like jurneybread is reprinted in the book, it could be as simple as that list is all there is and nothing else.

1 - General rules say "Always round down unless otherwise specified."

2 - This is abit of a gray area, but i belive its after ress and weakness

3 - Critical immunity say "When a creature immune to critical hits is critically hit by a Strike or other attack that deals damage, it takes normal damage instead of double damage. This does not make it immune to any other critical success effects of the actions, such as a critical specialization effect or the extra damage of the deadly trait. "

Feel like peopel stop reading half way
they prob have not updated it since to them everything is there.

If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value, as described in weakness.

you cant stop reading here, you need to go to Weakness and read the rest.

If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing.

So only way for this rules to even matter is Material and/or Holy/Unholy attacks.

Since they use natural language and the usage of the word "usually only" make its oblivious that this is something rare and not something that would occur with virtually all runes and class features that add damage to a strike.

so only the truly "overlapping" damage types (as the example showed) slashing cold iron cares about that rule, everything else that is just added damage of a singular type is just added damage

So a [1d12 slashing] + [1d6 fire] + [1d6 cold] + [1d6 acid] + [2d6 precision]
that dont have Holy, Unholy, or a material type would trigger all the listed Resistances and weaknesses

atleast i dont need to do any mental gymnastics to understand what they wrote and came to the same conclusion as both Foundry and the developers.

Personaly i feel like ither everything is pre remaster(for all players and monsters) or nothing is. it feels wrong to mix and match.

on to the topic of battle forms, i stoped even trying to use them since the rules are horrible (as you might have noticed),
to much are unclear and will depend alot on you GM's ruling, so for me druids have lost one of its core pillars.
but i have accepted that since they have not even wanted to comment on the state of Battle Forms for years now, let alone giving a erata or clarification.

i dont see the problem.

there are tons of things like that, so sometime you have to ask the gm, for example is this a spell with X trait since i have this feature and so on,

Same with OPs the seek action, you know that you tried to do a seek, so you can always remind the gm that if you failed you try to use that feature.

I agree with Bluemagetim, why take away good strategy/planing?, that is like saying since you bought a ladder the wall is now dubbled in height.

use logic rather then wim, if they try to prebuff just outside the door without subtle trait, then they will most likely trigger the combat.

if noone is around to hear it, then let them and then track how meny rounds of the buffs they waste getting to the encounter.

De incentivizing strategy is one of the worst things a gm can do even if they have good intentions.

In what book is this feat? cant find it anywhere.

my guess is that since Shifting faces is to impersonate someone of the same size, larger then life is a follow up that lets you take the form of someone large or huge instead, something you cant do otherwise.

but since i cant read the feat atm, thats just a guess on what the prereq do.

Yes, i dont see why this would change the rule the when you reach a new stage of an affliction you suffer its effect.

"When you reach a given stage of an affliction, you are subjected to the effects listed for that stage."/quote]

Dont forget that it get the Extra rune on its weapon that champion lost.

i think its can be better then what people realize.

you still have the 4 most important spell slots, and can still use wands and scroll for all utility a regular cleric could give.

No when an action tell you to make a strike as a subordinate action, it only the regular strike action.

you cant replace a subordinate strike, with another action that also have a subordinate strike

An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's 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

Tridus wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Does the new Guardian class receive something to negate this?

Given its defensive specialty, that feels like it should be able to.

It didn't in the playtest IIRC. Will it in the final release? We don't know.

It would be great if it did because it would give the class something on-brand and unique. "I'm this hulking wall of steel that gets in your way when you try to harm my friends" is definitely playing to the fantasy the class is projecting.

It's likely we will see major changes. Guardian was rough in the playtest (which demonstrates the value of playtesting!).

But you know where I'm getting at, right?

Your fighter trained for defense and heavy armors... should be trained to carry and use the heaviest shield without penalty, if desired.

yea they should prob give Fighter and other classes with Heavy armor the option to take a feat similar to Unburdended Iron.

untill then you have to take adopted acestry and train like the dwarfs for Unburdended Iron

Battle Forms

needs more of an Overhaul but an errata could clear up and fix some of the issues with it.

But both Flying kick and Waal run would be almost pointless if the base thing is you can do one action before you fall.

i would asume that they are special cases where you have time to do anything other then reaction before you fall.

and flying last round is not realy the same as jumping of a cliff, so i would not rule it the same as not using the fly action.

so you cant realy fall at the end of your turn nor after one action it needs to be something worse

RAW no, since you did not take the required option, you only have the options to prepare both types anyway from Versetile font.

If it was not for "Once you choose, you can't change your choice short of divine intervention" you could have just retrained and there would be no issue, but since they obviously wanted this choice to matter more then regular things and did not include in Versatile font that you also qualifies you for feats (if it an oversight or not we dont know)
im afraid you are out of luck.

For example they could have written in Versatile font that you now qualify for feat that require both, but the did not, they could have written in the requirement of Restorative Channel "healing font or Versitile font" aswell but did not.

Everything points to that they really wanted that choice to be binding and something you would need to plan ahead for.

They totaly did Battelform dirty, i understand they wanted to tone down Wildshape and the like from Pf1, but how they did it is a travesty, everything that gives a Battelform might aswell not exist just because of how bad and unscalable they are.

Its going to feel horrible as a caster using save spell to battle Creatures with mythic resilience.

Following the Monster creation rules we get this at level 13+

• 
  Ambusher: Fort: Low(R) Ref: High(R) Will: Average or High(R)
  
• 
  Brute: Fort: High(R) Ref: Average or Low(R*) Will: Low
  
• 
  Caster: Fort: Low Ref: Average(R*) Will: High(R)
  
• 
  Striker: Fort: Low Ref: High(R) Will: Average(R*)
  

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

Average % chances over all 20 levels VS monster with Mythic Resiliance on that Save

Low Save: 8.5% Full damage/effect (Failure), 49,5% Half damage/effect (Success), 42% No effect (Critical Success)
Moderate Save: 5% Full damage/effect (Failure), 38% Half damage/effect (Success), 57% No effect (Critical Success)
High Save: 5% Full damage/effect (Failure), 23.25% Half damage/effect (Success), 71.75% No effect (Critical Success)

Realy hope they just forgot the "made by non-mythic creatures" on Resilience, and they add it with a errata.

I always interpreted destroyed as there is nothing left.

else i see no reason to use distinction from normal.

Have heard and seen people say both ways.

So just for discussions sake:

RAW yes, no rules say otherwise.

Rai its unclear since the numbers make no sense if you use other rules for bulk.

Bulk is "size, weight, and general awkwardness"

and 5-10 pounds are 1 bulk

do the average medium creature weigh just 30-60 pounds? no thats silly
the number is purely how unwieldy a creature are to carry
so most equipment wont make mutch difference, weapons and shield if they are strapped might, but armor and small trinkets and potions wont change the unwieldiness mutch.

and you can assume that anything like that is why they added the
"This table lists the typical Bulk of a creature, but the GM might adjust this number." part.

but it wont be 15 bulk to carry the average martial

(Personaly i im on the fence how you should rules this, was just talking about what the rules say, and most people would say that its not fun to stop combat and adding up all the creatures equipments bulk. prob why they even included a table for quick creature bulks rather then having individual bulks for all creatures in there stats)

Edit: clarifications and typos