breithauptclan's page

There are some things in that list that I agree with, but many more that I don't think are needed.

Compatibility with Mythic Paths is a problem, but it is a problem for several classes, not just Summoner.

I'm glad that Ostentatious Arrival was changed to not cause damage to the Summoner.

Regarding extra reactions:

unlike classes like champion divine reflexes, rogue preparation, gunslinger Slinger's Reflexes, swashbucler Reflexive Riposte, ect ect,

I'm not sure how much fits into that 'etc etc' there. Feats that give extra reactions each round are rather rare. Most classes don't have one. The only ones that I am aware of that you missed are Fighter and Thaumaturge. I might be missing some in things like Commander or Exemplar. But still, I think there are more classes that don't have a feat to get an additional reaction each round than there are that do.

a uniquely powerful and talented master of the arcane arts, a cut well above your typical NPC wizard or sorcerer.

Uh... Isn't that what any Arcane tradition PC spellcaster is supposed to be?

Or are you actually meaning 'a cut well above the existing Wizard and Sorcerer classes'? Because that would be a homebrew class and my first question would be, "what are you going to give up in the name of game balance in order to get the 'cut above' spellcasting power?"

For a rules answer:

I would consider that to be a justification for using a Level-based DC for a Jump check instead of a Simple DC.

From there it is just a matter of GM adjudication of the DC based on circumstances. The rules don't give much more guidance than that for such things. It is up to the table to decide how likely they want this to succeed.

I think this is less of a rules question that can be answered and a place in the rules where things are left up to the GM to determine based on the needs of the plot.

No, it shouldn't be a simple way for the players to remove important NPCs. At least not without GM approval and probably a skill challenge encounter to determine their success at their scheme.

Similar with important items - whether it is important to the characters or the plot. The players shouldn't be trying to gimmick away plot items that way, and the GM shouldn't be perma-swiping the PC's equipment by way of Spacious Pouch shenanigans.

But as far as the rules go, it is fairly clear on what it does list. If the bag is ruptured, the items in it are lost and at least not easily recovered. What is not covered by the rule is if the items are able to be recovered by other means or if the Spacious Pouch can be repaired and can be reconnected to the same extradimensional space.

shepsquared wrote:

Idk why it would be an issue to remove AI generated images from the guides. The art isn't why anyone ever opens them, and you can pretty obviously replace them with random anime screenshots and get the same effect.

Ain't that even more direct copyright infringement?

Disclaimer: I'm not expert on copyright law.

I am suspecting that with the derivative work being non-profit and the use being both limited in scope and duration (one still image from a long video) and very transformed (the new content has no relevance or competition to the original work), it would have a good argument for fair-use.

It is probably in the same category as using a still screenshot of a movie as a meme template.

It is still very much ambiguous despite the recent errata.

The errata mentions that the previous wording was too limited, but that is in regards to the specific items that it allowed activation of. Previously it listed out 'scrolls', 'wands', and 'staves' specifically and didn't include other Cast a Spell activate items such as 'spellhearts'.

The ambiguity comes from "the spellcasting ability from a spellcasting archetype" being undefined. Many people will take that to mean the dedication feat because it gives you the ability to cast cantrips. But no rule ever actually says this. It can just as validly mean the Basic Spellcasting feat because it has a name that closely matches the wording of the general rule for spellcasting archetypes.

Also, the rule preventing characters that have only Focus Spells from using Cast a Spell activation items, Non-Spellcasters with Focus Spells, mentions that game design reason for that is because the character does not have Spell Slots. Which indicates that Cantrips alone and no Spell Slots (such as what you have with only the Spellcasting dedication feat) would also not qualify.

So you are still going to have to check with your table for how you want to play the game rather than relying on RAW. The RAW is ambiguous.

Agreed.

If Hexes were supposed to be limited to one active at a time, there is a much clearer way of saying that already with the Bard's Composition spell rules.

Hexes are only limited on casting them. Not in keeping them active.

And the biggest problem is that different people won't even agree on what the intended result is in some cases.

Take the example of a Magus with a shortsword who casts Runic Impression to get a Flaming rune on it, drinks an Energy Mutagen (fire), and casts Flame Wisp - then makes a successful attack with that weapon.

So we have:
slashing damage from the sword itself.
Fire damage with the magical trait from the Flaming rune.
Fire damage without the magical trait from the alchemical mutagen.
Fire damage with the magical trait from the Flame Wisp spell effect.
(Mechanically, Flame Wisp just adds bonus fire damage to a Strike with the affected weapon. But because of its narrative description, many people consider it to be a separate effect instead of bonus damage attached to the Strike. Even though Flame Wisp has no separate attack roll or save.)

How much of that should be the same instance of damage?

* All of it is one instance of damage?
* Two instances of damage: one instance of slashing damage and one instance of fire damage?
* Two instances of damage: one instance of slashing and fire damage from the sword, rune, and mutagen, but the Flame Wisp is a separate instance of damage because of its narrative description?
* Three instances of damage: one instance of slashing damage, one instance of magical fire damage, and one instance of non-magical fire damage?
* Three instances of damage: one instance of slashing damage, one instance of fire damage from the rune and mutagen combined, and the Flame Wisp is a separate instance of damage because of its description?
* Four instances of damage: all of those are separate?

At this point I am not even asking about what the rules actually say about it (or what game developers have previously said about it unofficially). Because I am well aware that the game rules don't specify any one of those ruling options as being more correct than the others.

What is interesting is how each of those rulings interacts with other rules regarding resistances and weaknesses.

If all of the damage is one instance of damage, then that is a good ruling for a creature with multiple weaknesses - only one of the weaknesses would be triggered. It would similarly be good for an attacker if the target has multiple resistances (but not resist all) because only one of the resistances would take effect.

If each damage type is a separate instance of damage, then that is also good for the target with a fire weakness since only one instance of fire damage is present to trigger weakness with. If it is ruled that those fire damage entries are separate instances, then the same attack will trigger a fire weakness multiple times. And the opposite for a creature with fire resistance - they want the ruling that each of those fire damage line items is a separate instance of damage because then their fire resistance would apply to all of them separately.

Rule concern 1) Please define the phrase "instance of damage."

Bwahahaha! Best of luck with that. I've been asking for that for literally years.

I think they painted themselves into a corner on it. There isn't a consistent definition that can possibly be created that will work 'as intended' in all cases.

Finoan wrote:

So when the first line says 'foes' in the first line, that isn't the game term of 'enemy' used when talking about ally and enemy.

What do yo think the word means, then?

A narrative meaning of 'foes'. The people that you intend to harm with the spell. Either because they are mechanically your enemies that you need to defeat in order to conclude the encounter, or because you have made a judgement call to damage anyway out of necessity.

The typical case for these damaging or harmful AoE spells is to cast them in a way where they include as many enemies as possible and don't include any allies in the area of the spell's effect. So having the narrative description of the spell reflect that seems reasonable. But it doesn't mechanically override the targeting rules of the spell.

If the spell lists 'Area: Burst' then an evocative description about 'blasting foes' isn't going to change that. It can also be used to blast allies too if you really feel like it.

If the spell is supposed to be more selective in its targeting, then in will need to clearly state that in the mechanical description of the spell's effect. Like Divine Wrath does by stating "You deal 4d10 spirit damage to enemies in the area".

But now I feel like I am just repeating myself. Are you actually confused by my logic and reasoning, or are you just nitpicking at the wording of my post because you don't like what I said but have nothing better to argue against it with?

I'm confused if people are complaining about the game mechanics (special materials have a cost to acquire in order to get a special effect on equipment made from it) or if people are complaining about a particular bit of lore (this particular material doesn't have any in-game reason for being expensive or hard to find).

If the benefit of Duskwood isn't worth its cost (mechanics), then that is one thing to look at. With Druids no longer needing non-metal equipment, the value of Duskwood may be diminished quite a bit. But that is something to look at on a case by case basis for each material.

But I don't understand why people are thinking that Duskwood is equivalent to a random tree branch.

Duskwood is a very lightweight wood found primarily in old-growth forests in south-central Avistan

It is from a regional tree that requires a specific environment to grow. You don't just stumble across it in any forest or have people growing it accidentally as a decorative tree in their yard. There may be farms for it. There might not be. Harvesting of it may be closely monitored and guarded by a Druid guild.

Your target can either grab you, as if it succeeded at using the Grapple action against you, or force you to fall and land prone.

If the creature doing the grapple is not capable of succeeding because of a size difference and lack of any feat overriding that, then I don't think it is going to work. The critical failure effect is just an auto-succeed of the Grapple action. The Grapple still needs to have its requirements met.

I would allow the other option to force landing prone. It doesn't say that you are tripping the opponent, so the size requirements of trip don't apply.

I'm going to go a different direction. Mechanics be damned - if the party wants to run from battle, and the GM is good with that as a plot event, then the encounter should switch from combat mode to a skill challenge. Turn it into a chase scene. Set a challenge level and base skill check DC and number of VPs needed to escape. Drop out of initiative order for combat and start rounds of chase scene.

If an ally is unconscious, that is going to be a problem. But not an insurmountable one. The lack of a party member contributing skill checks for the chase challenge is punishment enough to represent the team carrying their unconscious ally. You can also have it only take one round of chase scene to have one character cast a healing spell and the fallen character can start contributing to the chase at that point.

Note that that's also a requirement for spells like Gouging Claw and Ignition to actually be able to benefit from flanking.

Then that would indicate that Gouging Claw and Ignition would, by RAW, not benefit from flanking.

Going against the way that you want the rules to work or the way that you have been running the game for a long time doesn't mean that the rules say something different than what they say.

There is only one kind of Spell Attack Roll.

The spell attack itself can be ranged or melee or even something else entirely, but you will only ever be making the same kind of roll.

I'm going with this.

Melee attack roll is a physical attack roll that uses your STR modifier by default.

Ranged attack roll is a physical attack roll that uses your DEX modifier by default.

Spell attack roll is a magical attack roll that uses your spellcasting attribute modifier.

Calling something a 'melee spell attack' is a shorthand for "a spell attack for a spell effect made at melee range". Similarly, a 'ranged spell attack' is a shorthand for "a spell attack for a spell effect that has a range farther than melee range".

This means that a "+2 item bonus to melee attack rolls" does indeed enhance melee spell attack rolls, right?

If something modifies "melee attack rolls", then it only modifies melee attack rolls. It doesn't modify spell attack rolls no matter what range they use.

There are also the Improvised Weapons rules. That is what I would use for any time a character wants to use an item as a weapon when it isn't a weapon designed for their character's physiology.

You weapon proficiency is not used.

You do use your class proficiency. That does make a difference.

I haven't used a Troop creature myself, I am just analyzing the rules text. The rules for Troop have changed a bit since they were first printed.

Current Troop Defenses rules have the troop separated into segments 10 feet on a side that have to stay adjacent.

Damage is dealt normally, though the Troop trait lists that most Troop stat blocks will have a weakness to Area or Splash damage (that would need to be listed in the stat block though, the Troop rules don't have a default weakness value to use).

For non-damaging effects: They are immune to single-target effects - an effect has to be able to target an area or at least 5 creatures. And each 10 foot segment would be affected by an effect separately - making their own save and suffering their own effects. And if an effect takes a segment out of commission for an entire round or more, that segment disperses and the overall Troop creature's stats are adjusted accordingly.

And if an effect does both damage and a non-damage effect, apply the damage first and then the non-damage effect.

So for Slither, the spell is an effect that does both damage (3d6 piercing and 1d6 persistent poison + heightening), and a non-damage effect (Grabbed or Restrained based on save results). The damage would be applied first and would affect the entire Troop creature. I would also have the save rolled for damage apply to the segment of the Troop closest to the origin point of the spell for the non-damaging effect instead of rolling all of them separately. For additional segments that are in the spell's area, they would only roll a separate save for the non-damage effect. Since neither Grabbed or Restrained prevents someone from continuing battle (Restrained still allows trying to escape), then there is no option to remove an entire segment of the Troop from that effect. If one or more of the segments is Immobilized, then the Troop Movement rules would mean that the Troop couldn't move in a way that moves those segments. It would still be able to reshape to get the other segments to move around though.

The big thing is the amps, that are great. But kind of too good. Especially since you don't have to deal with any negative or mechanic of a conscious mind (say managing cycling between cold and fire damage of Oscillating Wave) it's just a renewable powerful spell at basically no cost.

I'm curious about this.

I don't see any negative mechanics of Conscious Mind. Including Oscillating Wave in the general case.

The only time Oscillating Wave becomes something that even needs worked around is when fighting something that is resistant or immune to only one of cold or fire damage. Many of the creatures that are resistant to one of those are also resistant to the other one, which makes using either damage type effectively equivalent.

Some misconceptions about Oscillating Wave (that would be a houserule nerf and make this Conscious Mind much more difficult to deal with):
* It doesn't lock you out of casting spells with the wrong type. You can still cast Ray of Frost (pre-Remaster) at long range every round. What it does is changes the damage type of Ray of Frost to Fire damage every second round. And you can still cast Frostbite (Remaster) every round to target Fortitude Save instead of having to switch to Ignition and target AC.
* Changing the damage type of Mindshift abilities like Psi Burst and Psi Strikes is optional. You can also just leave them dealing their normal damage type.

But putting aside Oscillating Wave for the moment, what other Conscious Mind has anything that could even be considered a downside?

Are there / what are the circumstances where you decide "okay, that's gotta be a mistake" and ask the GM / tell the players to edit that text to "fix" that oversight?

The criteria that I use is: When the ability is no longer fun to use.

As another example that isn't so clear about power level, but emphasizes the fun factor:

Flames Oracle. They get Incendiary Aura at 1st level. Their Curse causes them to take persistent fire damage. Now, technically since Incendiary Aura is an Emanation shape and the caster can choose to exclude themselves from the effect, the two are able to be used together safely as long as the Oracle does choose to exclude themselves from the Incendiary Aura effect.

But that isn't as much fun. Incendiary Aura doesn't give that option to exclude to the rest of the party. Anyone else in the aura is going to suffer the drawbacks. Enemy and ally alike. It creates an interesting risk/reward setup and gives a good reason to check that the enemies aren't using fire damage before firing off the focus spell. Excluding my Oracle character from that makes the combat less interesting.

But having my own curse triggering the effects of Incendiary Aura each round is a bit punishing. So that is the point where I went to my GM and asked if we could write in an exception specifically for the Oracle curse's persistent fire damage from triggering specifically my own casting of Incendiary Aura.

-----

Another related and interesting question is: What criteria do you use to decide if an ability has a fatal flaw in a way that makes it too good and needs to be houserule fixed?

Inventor Dedication for Basic Modification to get Entangling Form would do it since that adds Grapple/Trip/Disarm traits to the weapon. That's obviously expensive in terms of feats (and needing the INT to get into it), but it works.

Inventor archetype was my first thought too.

I think there are a couple of archetypes with feats for allowing Trip while your hands are full with a 2-hand weapon. I'm not aware of any for Grapple though.

So you need to get Grapple trait onto the weapon itself.

For Talismans, there is the Binding Coil.

Looks like we are back.

So someone decided they did not like alignment and convinced everyone else to leave it out of the game.

Well, not quite. It was more legal reasons than anything else. But close enough.

Reading through the rest of the OP, it feels like you are already answering your own questions. You just don't like the answer.

What is a Cinder dragon, what make it tick. What is the culture of Cinder dragons? Are they selfish, kind hearted, stern but fair, reckless and passionate. ... what drives them. Sometimes the description on monsters for whatever reason is light on these aspects meaning I guess I have to fill that in.

Yes. That is the point. You get to fill in the culture and motivations of each creature that you put in there as an NPC with screen time.

If the PCs don't ever interact with the Cinder Dragon other than to roll initiative and kill it, does it matter what their culture or motivations are?

Culture matters especially in fantasy because it is about the great conflict Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos.

Well, not necessarily. The great conflict between Good and Evil is a common trope, but is hardly mandatory.

Alignment was a shorthand that helped to flesh all of that out.

Cinder Dragons are CE, Ok the are cruel and selfish like a red dragon, LE ok then they are ordered and believe in discipline and conquest, N, they are balanced and react as mother nature, their personality dormant until they erupt.

Sure, I agree that alignment did not force a creature to be one way or another

This seems contradictory. You want alignment as a shorthand for the creature's personality, but also need to mention that alignment doesn't really indicate a creature's personality.

So, I'm not entirely sure that you actually understand what you really want.

-----

Essentially, removing alignment is cutting out an unnecessary and confusing indicator that doesn't really indicate anything.

It also has the effect that we no longer subconsciously try to shoehorn every enemy of the same type to be clones of each other. While most people would at least cautiously, and maybe grudgingly, agree that alignment was not an inviolable creature stat, it still caused a lot of subconscious racism by proxy... and comics mocking that. Goblins were evil and were remorselessly attacked on sight. As were Kobolds, Drow, Troglodytes, ... simply because that was their race.

I don't think Pathfinder2e or tabletop gaming in general is worse because of the removal of alignment and having to at least consider some sort of morality of your own choices based on something other than easily visible physical characteristics of the creature in front of you. It is a life lesson that is best shown rather than told. And a TTRPG game is a place to learn such lessons with no legal consequences if you get it wrong a few times.

HammerJack wrote:

You have to have the Blood Magic feature first to use feats that give an alternate Blood Magic option.

You've just invented that. Where's this coming from? Why?

HammerJack quoted his rules source.

Let me see if I can explain it a bit more clearly.

Blood Magic is a class feature that a base class Sorcerer gets at 1st level.

Whenever you cast a bloodline spell using a Focus Point or a sorcerous gift spell using a spell slot, you choose one blood magic effect you know to benefit from. You begin play with the benefit listed in your bloodline and can gain others through sorcerer feats.

It is one that you don't gain from the archetype.

Without that class feature, you can know as many Blood Magic effects as you want. Knowing the effect doesn't give you the ability to use them when you cast a Sorcerer spell.

So while you are technically correct that you can take the feat to learn the Blood Magic effect, that still doesn't give you the Blood Magic class feature that lets you use it.

It is much like the Psychic archetype. The dedication does not give you the Unleash Psyche class feature, and no archetype feat grants it. So you can technically take the Psi Burst feat, but will not be able to use it since the action has the Psyche trait.

Yes, the ruling that Primary Target uses no additional ammunition for any weapon is for framing the extra damage as just a mechanics thing.

Mechanically, the player rolls to hit like they would for a Strike and if successful they deal extra damage to that primary target.

Narratively, the character uses their weapons training and experience to make sure that they hit this primary target extra hard with their area weapon. They don't shoot the weapon at that primary target additional times (or somehow manage to throw the same grenade at someone a second time).

Frightful Presence (and most Creature Abilities) are intended for combat.

If you are talking to a Dragon for more than a minute, then as the GM, feel free to fudge the rules of these combat abilities a bit to make them make more narrative sense.

The Aura Creature Ability rules mentions that it can be ruled to not affect allies. It even uses Frightful Presence as the example.

So extrapolating from that, I could rule that during a social encounter, even if not considered an ally, the Frightful Presence is not causing fear to the point of game mechanical impact. It doesn't require a save and doesn't cause the Frightened condition. It just causes a narrative 'sense of unease and awe' that can be role-played as the players see fit.

OK, first - basic PF1 => PF2 paradigm/meta changes.

For player tactics:
* Blitz attacking (attack, attack, attack, the only defense is dead enemies) is a bad plan. Spend some actions on defense.
* Yes, only making one attack in a round is still a good and productive round. Your first attack is your best attack anyway.
* Battles are won by the group, not by individuals. Focus on party tactics and powerful combos, not on individual power.
* For many enemies, attacking their stats is a good plan. Debuffs can become rather important.
* Similarly, buffs for your allies is also important. The most universally available and constantly repeatable buff is Aid.

For GM:
* Level is the most important stat. It overrides pretty much every other consideration of encounter balance. Don't send over-leveled enemies at the party.
* It is more fun and engaging to have lower level enemies that are 'fighting to win' than to have higher level enemies that you have to 'hold back' with in order to avoid TPK.
* Yes, it is expected that the party is at full HP before every fight. Attrition isn't supposed to be an encounter balance consideration. Only spell slots and n/day abilities suffer attrition.

Next, for this particular group of PCs.

Lay on Hands is pretty good for in-combat healing. It would be better if there were more options, but you don't need a dedicated healer. Like Losonti mentioned, Monk with Battle Medicine is pretty nice. Combo that with Robust Health (once you are high enough level) if going that route.

What you do need to do is work on taking less damage. The Champion is the king of damage mitigation. Between Shield Block and Champion Reaction, they should be able to prevent a good chunk of damage each round. Make sure that the party (at least the Monk) stays near the Champion so that the Reaction can work.

If it is at all possible, make the enemy spend actions on Stride rather than spending your own actions on Stride. A Champion and Monk aren't the greatest ranged damage dealers, but if the enemy is even worse at it, then use the ranged options anyway and force the enemies to come to you. Especially with a Gunslinger as backup. Enemies probably don't want to get into a ranged combat battle with a Gunslinger. So if the party can shave off half the enemy's HP while they are closing the distance to you, all the better.

Enemies sometimes have a weakness that can be exploited. Whether that is a particular damage type that they have a literal weakness to, or a lack of some combat options (like having no ranged attack at all) that you can take advantage of. Also, enemies usually have some sort of special abilities, reactions, or unique attacks that they will make use of that you will need to be aware of to try and mitigate or avoid. This often makes battles feel more like a puzzle to solve rather than a nail that you hit with the same hammer as last time. That is at least the intent. So you are going to want to research your enemies. If your characters know that you are going to be facing fey, ghosts, and phantasms, then they should spend some time in town researching the basics of those types of creatures in general. And then when combat breaks out, it is often a good idea to spend an action or three on Recall Knowledge to find out any special things about these particular enemies that you are facing. It is certainly better action use than making a 3rd attack at -10 penalty.

Yes, this:

You have studied the delicate balance of life and death to such a point that you can dance between them with ease. Whenever you cast a spell or use an ability that would deal void or vitality damage, use the weaker of the target’s resistance or immunity to void or to vitality. For instance, if the creature were immune to void and had no resistance or immunity to vitality damage, it would take vitality damage from the spell or ability. Resistance or immunity to both (or to all damage) applies as normal.

Only affects Void and Vitality damage. It does not modify how Void or Vitality healing effects work.

So you could still restore HP on an Undead ally with the Harm spell - and probably on a Dhampir ally too unless your GM is trolling you with a strict RAW reading (at which point both Heal and Harm do nothing to a Dhampir).

So, I know they're introduced in the composition spells and hex spells sections of bard and witch, which are focus spells, and they're described in the focus spells section of the spells chapter of the book, but they're not called "focus cantrips" anywhere I could find. I feel like calling them that instead of what they're called in the books has the potential to cause more confusion and delay rather than relieve it.

I think that also causes a lot of confusion. Mostly when trying to talk about these types of spells in general rather than for a specific class.

If B is of type A, and C is of type B, then C is also of type A. That is the transitive property, which is used in math and logical reasoning.

Composition spells are a type of focus spell.

Composition cantrips are special composition spells that don't cost Focus Points

So according to what the book calls them, Composition spells are a type of Focus Spell, and Composition Cantrips are a type of Composition spells. So Composition Cantrips are a type of Focus Spell. They just don't cost Focus Points to cast.

So while calling them a Focus Spell Cantrip may be a bit more accurate, calling them a Focus Cantrip is pretty much equivalent. It is a generalization of Composition Cantrip, Hex Cantrip, and any future Focus Spells that have the Cantrip trait - so that we can talk about these spells as a category rather than having to list out each class's specific name for them.

You either have spells so high level few will see them or spells that aren't so good.

The example that I listed is at level 9. When you first get the Dancing Invocation ability and when you can first cast Invoke Spirits.

Even if there is only one spell that combos into an overpowered scenario, then that is a balance problem.

Liturgist is the only powerful practice. If you don't take it, you won't even be close to the power casters.

A 'must pick' is still a balance problem.

Yes, a different balance problem than what we are discussing previously. But it is one of the other major balance problems that I have with this Liturgist ability.

Is there a reason you couldn't burn two focus points to cast Earth's Bile twice, then each round thereafter sustain both?

There is.

Because vessel spells are a manifestation of a specific apparition, an animist can't cast or Sustain a specific vessel spell in the same round they have already cast or Sustained it (for example, an animist who has cast earth's bile during their turn can't then cast or Sustain another instance of earth's bile during that same turn).

-----

Does that mean you could:

1a: Earth's Bile
1a: Circle of Spirits
1a: River Carving Mountains

1a: Elf Step
- Step, Sustain Earth's Bile for damage
- Step, Sustain River Carving Mountains
- Stride
2a: Cast a regular spell

Yes, that works.

In fact, you forgot the subordinate action Stride that also happens when you first cast River Carving Mountains in your first turn.

The current RAW is yes, Dancing Invocation modifies all Step, Leap, and Tumble Through actions so that they also sustain one active Apparition spell or Vessel spell. This means that using Elf Step would sustain two of them.

I think this ability is quite a bit too powerful, and this type of interaction in one of the several reasons why.

For Vessel Spells, there is a limit of only casting or sustaining one instance of any spell each round, and only once each round. You can't cast multiple of the same Vessel focus spell, and you can't sustain the same spell more than once per round.

Apparition spells have no such restriction. They cost a spell slot, but you can cast them without other restrictions than their spell slot cost and action cost. Being able to sustain them easier makes a character with Dancing Invocation much more powerful than one without it. Being able to sustain more than one of them with one action is even worse.

There are many Apparition spells that have a sustained duration. More than a few that might be useful in combat.

* Laughing Fit
* Hypnotize
* Vibrant Pattern
* Dancing Fountain
* Whirlpool
* Wrathful Storm
* Invoke Spirits
* Mislead
* Vacuum
* Punishing Winds
* Aqueous Orb
* Frost Pillar
* Hungry Depths
* Implosion
* Quandary
* Field of Life
* Lifewood Cage
* Telekinetic Hand
* Figment

Any two of these could be sustained with Elf Step and Dancing Invocation. Or sustain one of them along with a Vessel spell.

A Witness to Ancient Battles Animist at level 9+ can sustain both Embodiment of battle, Invoke Spirits, and move 10 feet without provoking reactions. For one action.

Agreed. Sustain doesn't work for all spells.

Figment can be sustained because it lists its duration as 'sustained'.

Menacing Lament instead lists the duration at a fixed '1 round'. It cannot be Sustained.

Glamorize also has a fixed duration. Its duration is '1 hour'. It can be Sustained, but not to extend the duration. It can be Sustained for the special effect listed in the spell that the Sustain action causes.

Sprite and Gnome with Fey-Touched heritage are both explicitly Fey creatures.

There are several other ancestries that could easily be considered Fey if the table desires. Kitsune and Tanuki being the ones that come to my mind first.

Edit: And Yaksha are an interesting case. They are explicitly originally from the First World (same as Gnomes), but they also appear to be explicitly not Fey.

Will this update allow us to troll the spambot posts and still let you nuke the entire thread afterwards?

Am I correct in assuming that a Kineticist without an actual reach weapon in his hands, will not be considered threatening unless he's adjacent to the opponent, even with Weapon infusion?

Yes. You have that correct.

Weapon Infusion can add the Reach trait to one particular Elemental Blast casting, but that doesn't persist permanently.

It is much like the Extending Rune. You don't keep the melee reach that you gain for more than the action that it modifies.

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Please cite text that would indicate this containerization. You really, really, really cannot poof-invent things like that when dealing with game systems like this.

Certainly.

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions.

That is the rule. That is the containerization. An activity contains its subordinate actions and using the activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions: not its first one; and not its last one.

That is the entire rule. The rest of that paragraph is an example. Examples are not a replacement of the rule. An example is not an exhaustive exemplification of the rule for all cases.

Nothing in that rule designates any distinction between forward-looking and backward-looking abilities. A 'if your next action is...' ability encounters this rule when looking at activities in the exact same manner than a 'if your previous action was...' ability does.

You are the one making the logic mistake. You are elevating an example to be the rule.

Yes. And I am not certain if there are any spears that both qualify for the Staff Acrobat archetype requirements and have the Thrown trait or not.

I don't think the Longspear itself has the Thrown trait. But I also am a bit busy and haven't checked if other spears that have Thrown trait could also qualify for Staff Acrobat.

But the Staff Acrobat ability only lets you use the normal melee Trip action. Not Ranged Trip.

At the same time I am wondering whether I could also trip people on range.

Range, no. You would need Ranged Trip on the weapon for that.

Reach Trip with the spear would work because of the feat that you mention.

Most of us will extrapolate from the clarifications for durations of effects caused by afflictions to also apply to durations of effects caused by spells. Because both have nearly the same rules concept - that conditions caused may or may not persist beyond the affliction/spell duration. NorrKnekten just quoted the one for spells, and the one for afflictions is similar.

The clarification given is:

Page 458 (Clarification): If an affliction makes me enfeebled 1 without listing a duration and the affliction ends, am I enfeebled forever?

The rules on Conditions from Afflictions note that a condition can last for a longer duration that the affliction that caused it, using drained as an example. There are three categories of effects from afflictions here.

1 Immediate effects like damage happen as soon as you reach the stage.
2 Conditions that have a way to end them by default last for their normal duration. This includes conditions like drained, frightened, persistent damage, and sickened.
3 Conditions that always need to include a duration because they don’t have a normal way to recover from them—such as clumsy or paralyzed—last as long as the stage of the affliction on which they appear. This also applies to effects that are ongoing but specific to the affliction rather than being defined conditions, such as a penalty to certain rolls.

Applying that to this spell means that the deafened effect would end with the spell's duration since deafened does not have a natural way of auto-removal. The Sickened condition would remain beyond the duration of the spell because it does have a natural way of auto-removal (Retching).

Among PF1e players, the biggest probably single turn off that prevents us from playing PF2e, and we want to, is the very unrealistic decision to NOT have weapon size affect damage.

For us, this taints PF2e because this major point of believability has been shattered

Like... seriously?

Maybe among a small group of players. But I certainly haven't seen that be the single biggest turn-off. That doesn't even break the top 10.

1) Lack of math boosting build options like Vital Strike, Power Attack, and Iron Will.
2) Lack of combinatorial and stacking build options that allow overpowering roll bonuses.
3) Enemies having enough HP that a blitz attack doesn't drop them in one turn.
4) Enemies having high enough bonuses that they can hit PCs.
5) The existence of Skill feats.
6) Debilitating effects of spells relegated to critical success effects.
7) The Incapacitation trait.
8) Lack of Sunder maneuver.
9) Familiars.
10) Shield mechanics.

Somewhere significantly below those is "medium characters don't do more damage with the same weapon than small characters do."

The pattern that I see is that weapons start with one upgrade slot and gain an upgrade slot with each increase in damage dice count.

As for upgrading a level 0 non-archaic weapon, it would follow the normal rules for upgrading an analog or tech weapon. The GM would need to determine the cost of each tier of improvement using other similar weapons as guidelines or the standard cost by item level table.

Yeah. The rules for Ikons are pretty clear that there are some that work for unarmed attacks. Much less clear is if they work for temporary unarmed attacks like those from a Stance. Nothing says that they don't, but nothing says that they do either.

For PFS, I have heard that they will first want questions like this sent to the community for volunteer rules lawyers to look at before making a PFS campaign ruling on. And, well, now you have that.

To explain how I balance my encounters; I tend to only use creatures and hazards in the range of PL+2 to PL-2 when possible. The party have only ever faced Extreme encounters twice, both of which they went into with an in-game day of preparation and knowledge gathering in advance, and both of which they were allowed to prebuff as much as they wanted before the fight commenced. Every other combat encounter I have ever run has been Severe at worst, and never more difficult than Moderate if the fight was against things with a lot of resistances and/or immunities.

No, that is pretty much right. That is what I would recommend for encounter design.

Three full casters, a Rogue, and a gish Kineticist is an interesting choice for a party. I'm with cavernshark on this one - this is a skirmisher party. They aren't going to like fights that force the toe-to-toe combat style.

So I'm thinking that this is a case where the play experience would be improved with changes to party tactics and maybe encounter setup (rather than encounter math balance).

Characters should be leaning into ranged damage options, mobility and movement types, and evasive/defensive abilities. Battles should feature varied terrain and options for mobile characters to get good defensive positions.

I get really confused how folks necro 6 year old forums and try to continue a conversation that ended years ago as if no time has passed.

Spambot Necromancers. The spam gets removed, but the thread remains revived and others reply to it.

Oh, also be aware of the action economy and mechanics of Hide, Sneak, Strike, and Fly.

When you Strike, regardless of what feats you have or if you have cover or concealment or neither, you will become Observed after the Strike action. You have to spend an action on Hide to become Hidden and then Sneak to become Undetected.

You also have to spend an action on Fly to remain airborne and not fall, though many GMs are going to allow Sneak with a Fly action to count. I find it hard to rule otherwise. Sneak uses Stride or Fly as a subordinate action, and using Fly as a subordinate action would still have all of the normal effects and traits of the Fly action - such as keeping you airborne.

So a round consisting of Strike, Hide, Sneak(Fly) would work fine.

A round consisting of Strike, Fly, Hide would also work decently well, but enemies are going to know what square you are in even though they can't see you there (which makes for a rather bizarre narrative description, but that is how the mechanics of stealth work).

However, a round consisting of Strike, Strike, Hide and you are going to fall out of the air.

And a round consisting of Strike, Strike, Fly and you are going to be observed at the end of your turn even with Legendary Sneak and Shooter's Camouflage.

Neither of those feats are affected by using Fly as your movement type. The Sneak action allows using a Fly speed to Sneak with as long as you have that as an actual movement Speed.

For Shooter's Camouflage the restriction is that you are in the proper terrain. If you are flying in a location that is not the proper terrain, then you are not going to benefit from the feat. The question would be in a scenario where the ground is the proper terrain, but you are flying so high that the terrain you are in is no longer part of that terrain.

So for example, if you have Camouflage for Urban terrain, but you are flying well above the height of the houses and buildings in the vicinity, then I could see ruling that you are in a Sky terrain instead of the Urban terrain.

Legendary Sneak has no restriction like that. You are simply allowed to Hide and Sneak without any cover or concealment. That includes places like the middle of an empty room, An open space directly in front of your opponent, or being 35 feet in the air over an empty field.

Like Squiggit says, it doesn't make any logical sense. It is a superhero fantasy ability.

Baarogue wrote:

Until they errata it, I will be allowing this item's precision damage to affect oozes despite their immunity to precision, citing specific over general as my justification. As with the bane rune, this still won't allow other damage types the target is immune to to affect it, such as slashing vs a string ooze

That seems like a good way to handle it. I think there are some plants and fungus immune to precision as well, so I think I'll add a line that 'creatures immune to precision are not immune to the precision damage from this item.'

For rules support, I would mention the Specific Overrides General rule.

Yes, generally oozes are immune to precision damage. This specific item says that it affects oozes.

The only legacy creatures that I can think of off-hand that I don't like and would prefer only the Remaster versions of is Golems.

Golem Antimagic was both hard to adjudicate and was brutal to spellcasters.

In a fight with a Golem, it is easily possible for a spellcaster to be completely unable to contribute any damage or debuffs to the battle. Buff and support casters were still viable, but that is all unless you are really lucky (or metagaming) on your spell traits and damage types.

And depending on how the GM rules on various wordings, the game play could be completely different. On one hand, the players could cheese throwing bottles of mundane water at a golem to trigger Golem Antimagic damage. On the other hand, the party could have the martial's weapons also get their fundamental rune damage negated.

The Bastions that replace Golems are a lot easier to understand and play with.