glass's page

glass wrote:

Paizo do not have the bandwidth address imaginary rules problems.

"If it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem" almost verbatim, laced with a tinge of condescension (because clearly my players -- along with all other people who have posed this question here and elsewhere -- are just imagining things).

Not remotely "verbatim". Not even similar.

You yourself said you read it the same way I do. And even if your players read it slightly different, so what? I think they're wrong, and it is not condescending to say so, but its such a low impact thing you can just go with whichever.

The "condescension" that mostly seems to be coming from you.

I agree! And if you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have the agreed the entire time. The problem is that my players don't, even after reading this thread.

So what's the problem? Tell them you're the GM and you're going with your interpretation of the rules (they can consider it a house rule if they prefer).

Or if you prefer, tell them you're going with their interpretation of the rules. If people occasionally have to come out of delay earlier than they would by RAW, that a minor annoyance at worst AFAICT.

Paizo could solve this problem in five minutes with a FAQ entry

FAQ entries take a lot longer than five minutes, and with their various tribulations lately, Paizo do not have the bandwidth address imaginary rules problems (they do not seem to have the bandwidth to address real rules problems in a timely matter). If the fact that someone somewhere could possibly misread a particular rule was enough to generate an FAQ entry, the FAQ would be near infinite. Because someone somewhere can always misread any given rule, no matter how clear you try to make it.

I do not understand how this sort of reception is supposed to help the game, or Paizo, but we should be trying to do better than "if it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem."

What reception? People saying that you can Delay into the next round, and that the rules are fairly clear on that score? Given that you can and they are, I'd say that's exactly the sort of reception you should expect.

glass wrote:

Unlikely, given that the non-Vancian Psychic is pretty clearly less well regarded than the Vancian Cleric or Druid.

They're all running on fundamentally the same basic mechanics, so this distinction isn't really important.

The distinction between Vancian and non-Vancian casting is not "really important" to the question is whether Vancian casting is the root of casters' problems? I am lost for words.

Object: Part of the issue is general english usage & technical terms.

1) The wall is a spell effect and has a duration. If I had to use a phrase, at best it is a "temporary object".
2) Spell descriptions scroll down to Conjuration school and then creation. Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence. Here RAW considers the Wall of Lava held together by magic which makes it not the usual object.

(Bolding mine.) You appear to have inadvertently proved that the wall is in fact an object (it is certainly not a creature, and those are the only options).

It may not be "the usual object" but object possession does not care about "usual"-ness, just whether it is an object (and its size).

if this was a "Yes" it would have a lot of implications, like possessing Create Pit:C2.

What exactly is an is not an object is not well defined, and before I saw your post above I would not have considered create pit's pit to be one, but it seems like technically it is.

That obviously has the potential to lead to some oddities. But since the pit an absence rather than a presence, if you possessed it there would be no body to become an animated object, which would seem to aleviate most of them.

Quote:

The wall Once per round as a move action, you can direct the wall of lava to erupt. so it cannot be considered unattended.

I find that persuasive. Thanks one & all.

Whether it is unattended is a better question than whether it is an object. I'd love to be shown otherwise, but I don't believe there is ever a concrete definition of "attended". But ISTM that it is generally used to mean worn, carried, or wielded - being magically controlled from a distance does not seem to cut it.

As a GM, I would not let you possess the wall of lava.

You could attempt to possess the BBEG, but that's not what you meant.

Not with object possession, presumably? (Unless the BBEG is actually a construct.)

Wow, that generated a lot of discussion. It answered my question pretty comprehensively, so thanks everyone!

BTW, this should probably be in Rules Questions. Flagged.

The spell wall of lava is Conjuration (Creation), so I would say that its effect is an object. It is debatable whether it counts as unattended object, but I think it probably does. However, it is definitely not a construct.

Therefore IMNSHO, you can cast greater object possession on it, but you'll get the standard object-possession version with the CP, not the control construct version.

Back in AD&D 2e, the Monstrous Compendia were in 3-ring binders, so you could arrange them however you like.

...in theory. In practice, I would often struggled to arrange them as I wanted because they were often quite wide-ly spaced creatures on either side of the same sheet. I'm not sure if the OP's project will have the same issue.

A cat is a quadruped.

Yes, but it cannot usually stand on its rear feat. It could maybe pop up and swipe with both front claws simultaneously then immediately put them back down, but it certainly isn't biting while it does that.

Unless you think it attacks with diagonally opposite front and back claws? Which would be covered by my "or at least make them weird".

Do you think that a Thunderbird would stand on its wings to claw with its legs?

No, I think it attacks with one leg, puts it down, and then attacks with the other. Remember that the cat example was in service of not adding an unstated requirement for full attacks to be simultaneous.

Apparently, Paizo thought that you had to use at least some of your legs to stand.

The one silver lining to PFS's (otherwise quite sad) decline is that I no longer have to worry about what random nonsense Paizo decide to put in the FAQ. I'll just stick with the actual rules in the actual rulebooks.

We finished chapter 9 (I think) of Savage Tide last night, and will be rotating back to Strange Aeons next Sunday. Meanwhile on Thursdays, we are continuing to explore Scarwall in Curse of the Crimson Throne.

I am a player in all those. I am running Abomination Vaults on Thursdays and we will be rotating back to that after we finish the current chapter of CotCT. But that's PF2.

As I see it, it breaks down like this:

Defending says "the weapon's enhancement bonus" in the singular and doesn't address multiple overlapping enhancement bonuses on the same weapon (even though almost every defending weapon will be masterwork so will have at least two). So the solid RAW answer the OP was looking for probably does not exist.

You could read "its enhancement bonus" as "one of its enhancement bonuses" or "its built-in enhancement bonus" (in which case the GMW trick wholly or partly works, respectively) or you could read it as "the enhancement bonus it is actually applying to attacks" (in which case it mostly doesn't). GM's call either way.

That in turn has a knock-on effect on how it works with the AoMF. If it is "built-in" then such an amulet is useless. Either of the other calls make it functional.

Personally, I would go with "the enhancement bonus actually applying to attacks" except that I would allow user to keep the masterwork enhancement if they completely traded the magical enhancement bonus(es). But that last part is straying into house rule territory, however you read the RAW.

Amulet of Mighty Fists CL5 Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.

Defending CL8 (+1) This ability can only be placed on melee weapons.
there seems to be a RAW disconnect in the verbiage.

Not seeing any disconnect there. Unarmed strike is a melee weapon.

Consider a Thunderbird.

2 claws attack, 1 bite. It requires a full round action to use its attacks, but with your interpretation, it needs to land to make a full attack.
If it lands, it is standing on those two legs, so even with a lenient interpretation, it can make only 1 claw attack. They aren't iterative attacks, so they are done at the same time.

While I agree that hovering is not (and should not be) an action, I don't think this really illustrates it. I am not aware of any requirement for attacks within a full attack to be simultaneous, and it would break a bunch of things if there were (or at least make them weird).

For example, cats cannot usually fly, and also need their paws to stand on. Does that mean a cat can never use both their claw attacks?

This is getting exhausting. I am not going to waste time or the energy doing yet another point-by-point response (it mostly the same mix of true-but-irrelevant and utter nonsense that I have already debunked, so you can just look at my previous posts for the rebuttal). But there were a couple of things I wanted to respond to specifically:

Pointless sniping about capitalization of words at the start of sentences as per standard English punctuation aside

I decide how my name is spelled, not you. You got it wrong, and I corrected you. That is not sniping, and it has nothing to do with punctuation.

I do not believe I have ever got your name wrong, but if I ever did and you called me on it I would not accuse you of "sniping". Instead, I would apologise and try to get it right in future. I guess that illustrates the difference between us pretty well.

a commitment to take a feat later is not a dedication feat.

This is an excellent example of what I meant by "true but irrelevant". It is obviously true, we all know it's true, I never suggested otherwise, and it has no bearing on the argument. So why say it, other than to make an already-long post longer and more tiring to respond to?

The second part is an inference with no textual support from the rules.

And this is an example of the nonsense. It is an inference, from the rules that make them incompatible. There doesn't need to be an extra rule that says "it is illegal to take these incompatible options" for this combo, any more than there is for any other pair of incompatible options you could name. The fact they are incompatible, according to their own rules, is sufficient.

"It is illegal to combine options with incompatible requirements" is the default (a default I am sure you would agree with in the vast majority of cases), not just for PF2 but for any rules system where you select options. You are the one claiming the default does not apply here, so the burden of proof is yours. I don't have to produce a citation to prove it is illegal, you have to produce one to prove it is legal. And you have not done that (because, I strongly suspect, you cannot do that).

I suppose I was the first one to use the word intent so that must mean it's automatically a non-sequitur on my end though.

No, not just because you were the first to use the specific word "intent". Because I never talked about the concept of intent using any words, except to tell you more than once that that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. Even in the paragraph you tried to cherry pick to make it look like I had said intent mattered, I didn't actually say anything of the sort!

I have used the word "know" from time to time, but I already acknowledged that that was an imperfect shorthand at least some of the times I used it. And anyway, knowing is not the same as intending.

Yeah... Magus has this weird thing like the Gunslinger where playing the subclasses as intended can actually just make you weaker than if you just didn't. The subclasses tighten your options rather than expand them.

I wanted to ask for more details on this, but it would be drifting off-topic so I started a new thread for the question. If Kitusser (or anyone else) would like to follow me over there, that'd be great.

Not being overly familiar with magi or gunslingers in PF2, I wanted ask about something from the Psychic Support thread. Since it doesn't really have anything to do with psychics, I thought it was better to do so in a new thread (although I will link this thread from there once it is up).

Yeah... Magus has this weird thing like the Gunslinger where playing the subclasses as intended can actually just make you weaker than if you just didn't. The subclasses tighten your options rather than expand them.

So, which subclasses are we talking about? And what are the issues with them? What do they do and/or not do?

Glass, my point about class archetypes is that when you actually take the class archetype, at level one, you do not receive the dedication feat.

As previous covered multiple times, this is true but irrelevant. You don't get the Dedication at L1, but you do have to commit to it at L1. And it's "glass" not "Glass"!

There’s nothing that prohibits gaining an ability that says you must later take a dedication in the dedication rules.

Look at you own wording there: "must". If you take the archetype, you "must" take the Dedication feat at L2. Therefore, if you cannot take the Dedication feat at L2, you cannot take the archetype. That's pretty basic!

“Dedication lockout” doesn’t do s~@+ until level two.

In most circumstances, it doesn't do anything until L4, but that is not a hard and fast rule. In this case, it matters right from level 1.

And as for the new player thing, that’s my point exactly. It’s useless to argue about intent or whatever because we both know that if someone without any intent did it you wouldn’t think it was fine then.

You don't get to say "that’s my point exactly" when your point has nothing to do with mine. I never mentioned intent, so your bringing it up is a non-sequitur. If your point was really exactly my point, obviously you'd be agreeing with me! EDIT: I mean, obviously you literally can say it (you did). But it doesn't help with communication or advance your position.

ETA:

SuperParkourio wrote:

I think the heritage should allow a class dedication feat in addition to multiclass feats.

I agree and that is how I intend to run it should it ever come up at my table.

I might actually do the same thing.

Anyone insisting that this should result in an illegal build is looking for a problem rather than a solution.

Obviously, if you house rule it to be legal, it's legal. Were you expecting someone to argue otherwise?

I do not get how asking for an incompatibility to be more clearly delineated in the RAW is bad for the people who already get it.

Is this aimed at me? Because I don't think it would be bad per se, I was just pushing back against the idea that it was necessary. There is no rules problem to fix.

You can improve the wording of just about anything, and sometimes it is worth heading off potential misunderstandings even if not structly necessary. If enough people genuinely believed they were compatible, then that would be something to look at (but note that that is not happening in this thread - the people I have been arguing with acknowledge that they are incompatible, but then bafflingly insist that you can take them both anyway).

Anyway, let's be honest, Paizo does not have the bandwidth at the moment to be tweaking the wording of things that already work when there are things that literally do not. (How many spells does an oracle know?)

EDIT: Wow, that's a mammoth post. Lets see if I can do something about that....EDITX: Spoiler tags were behaving weirdly, but I think it's working now....

I do think your (and others') demand for a specific rule telling you that you cannot take incompatible options is unreasonable, which is why I keep trying to show you that it is the default. My analogies have been imperfect (or in one case, flat out wrong), but the underlying point they are trying to convey is solid.

TLDR: While I have not always expressed it perfectly, my position has always been and remains that class archetypes and Ancient Elf have incompatible commitments that you enter into when you select them at level 1. As such, they are an illegal combination. Illegal combinations not working together is not a rules problem, it is a normal part of the rules. Asking for this specific combination to be explicitly called out as illegal when the incompatibility already makes it so is unreasonable special pleading.

glass wrote:

There is no paradox, there is no rules hole, there is no problem. The unsupportable claim that there is does not become any less nonsensical with repetition.

A legal 1st level character can become illegal at 2nd...

No, it cannot. Because you select both the class archetype and the heritage at first level, and you know at first level that they are incompatible. So it is already an illegal combination when you select it. How and when that incompatibility would manifest is irrelevant, because you can never get to that point.

All I have been arguing for "you cannot take two options with mutually incompatible requirements". It should be obvious and uncontroversial. It is the opposite if nonsense.

glass wrote:

Good thing I never said "Just don't use it" then, eh?

That's exactly what you said.

glass wrote:

It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination in the first place.

Please stop deceptively editing my posts. Yes, I said that you cannot take two incompatible options on the same character, and I stand by that. "It" in context was the singular option you straw manned me as saying you should not take so you could pretend my argument led to ridiculous conclusions; a distinction I further clarified in the sentence immediately after the one you quoted.

EDIT: I have just had a look through your other recent posts and they all look pretty reasonable. What the hell happened to you in this thread?

I would not say I am worried - Paizo have had some pretty bad issues recently, but there are reasons to be cautiously hopeful that things will things will improve (now that the Remaster process is finally pretty much done, hopefully things should be a bit less rushed).

If they do, I will continue to buy their products as interest and cash flow allows. If not, I'll spend my money elsewhere. Either way, it's not something worth worrying about.

OTOH, I will admit to being a little sad about what has happened to PFS. And that aspect doesn't seem likely to turn around any time soon.

glass wrote:

People keep talking about "two conflicting rules directives" as if this is an unsolvable problem, but it just isn't. It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination in the first place.

'Just don't use it' is a terrible argument that could be used excuse literally ANY error or needed errata.

Good thing I never said "Just don't use it" then, eh? Indeed, I could not have, because there is no singular "it" for me to tell people not to use. We are talking about a combination of two things (which AFAIK are unproblematic individually), not a single item.

My arguments in this thread are unlikely to have any general applicability, because these arguments do not come up often. Not because the situations don't come up often: "Options A and B are perfectly legal individually but illegal in combination" is common as dirt. But normally everyone just accepts that and moves on, rather than pretending there is some terrible rules problem with that incompatibility.

And if people do start talking about there being a problem with selecting incompatible options, I am fine with "don't" being general advice for those cases.

Ascalaphus wrote:

I don't consider this an error needing errata.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for it needing errata, just that there is an odd hole in the rules that can cause a paradox.

There is no paradox, there is no rules hole, there is no problem. The unsupportable claim that there is does not become any less nonsensical with repetition.

glass wrote:

EDIT: SBG does not apply because there is no rules issue here to resolve. "You cannot take Ancient Elf and also be a Flexible Spellcaster" is no more a rules contradiction than "You cannot take Ancient Elf and also be a dwarf".

…but you can be an ancient elf and also a dwarf. You would be a dwarf aiuvarin with the elf atavism feat. You can just do that. Dwarfs have a long enough lifespan, one “measured in centuries”.

Okay, nit picking acknowledged. I did not know about that feat. Is there a feat to get two elf Heritages on the same character? If not, pretend I said "Ancient Elf and Arctic Elf". If there is, pretend I picked two other options that are actually incompatible. EDIT: How about "full (not MCA) fighter, wizard, cleric"? (You could get two out of three in a Dual-Class game, but I don't know any way of being all three.) EDIT2: Technically that's three options, but the principle is the same.

Or just pretend I appended "without using an extra feat".

As an aside, how do you know dwarves live for hundreds of years? I cannot find it anywhere.

Anyways, even if not literally false, this analogy would still be terrible.

It would be fine.

If dwarves were invalid picks for ancient elf because they didn’t have a long enough ancestry, how is that at all comparable to the situation at hand?

It would be a situation where two PC options that are legal in isolation are not legal in combination, without its being a rules contradiction, and without SBG being invoked. Obviously, this is not something that should need demonstrating, but *gestures vaguely at the thread*

The current issue at hand is that you have two conflicting rules directives, in a circumstance that doesn’t even exist at the level which you make the decisions that would later cause it.

True but irrelevant. If you take a class archetype at first level, you know at first level that you are committing to spending your L2 feat on the Dedication. If you cannot make that commitment, at first level, then you cannot take the archetype. The Dedication feat is not a surprise sprung on you at L2 - you know it is coming!

People keep talking about "two conflicting rules directives" as if this is an unsolvable problem, but it just isn't. It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination in the first place.

My solution as a GM is to ask for the Hovering check first.
If it fails, the character can take a standard action and then is forced to move (if preferred, he can take a double move or a full round action that includes moving).
If it is successful he can stay in place.

This is what my group does, with the additional stipulation that you can 5 ft step if (and only if) you successfully Hover. It might be slightly house-rule-ish though.

Having reread the relevant text, I am going to partially reverse my position and say that it is only mostly clear. It remains entirely clear that you cannot take a class archetype at level 1 or 2 and take a multiclass Dedication feat for a different archetype at level 1. "You cannot do two things with mutually contradictory requirements" is as simple and clear as it gets.

However, you can take the class-archetype Dedication at higher levels if the class archetype does not change any features until higher levels - I am not aware of any that do that, but even if none currently exist, one could be published (or homebrewed) next week/month/year.

As long as there as you have enough levels to comply with the minimum commitment for the first Dedication before you have to take the second, there is no catch 22 and the combination is legal.

(For a moment, I thought there might be an argument about whether Ancient Elf's language overrode the Class Archetype's language about taking the Dedication at 2nd level - I don't think it does, but for that to be relevant you need a class archetype which was also a multiclass archetype - not something that is like ever to exist IMO).

EDIT: SBG does not apply because there is no rules issue here to resolve. "You cannot take Ancient Elf and also be a Flexible Spellcaster" is no more a rules contradiction than "You cannot take Ancient Elf and also be a dwarf".

Hoping [its being Pathfinder only] might change one day. I can definately see a good ol'Castlevania style romp in and around Bastardhall full of all things creepy and dark would be insanely popular to players of other tabletop systems (and thus a good money maker for Paizo).

I thought the previous AP adaptations were done by third-party publishers under licence. Did I get the WEOTS?

NGL I'm a little surprised at how hostile the reaction to the OP is here. This is like, pretty standard weird rules quirk territory.

I am not seeing any hostility towards anyone, but especially not towards the OP (who seems to have correctly divined that they are incompatible, barring an additional rule which does not exist, but can easily be house-ruled in.).

glass wrote:

By your own wording, they are "mutually exclusive" - by definition therefore, you cannot select both of them. You have to pick one or the other.

You missed the 'otherwise' there which is kind of the point.

But there is no "otherwise" in the rules, that is purely your invention. They are not "otherwise incompatible" - they are simply incompatible. It is not possible to simultaneously both take and not take the class archetype's Dedication at level 2, and there is nothing that exempts you from either requirement.

Unless you can provide a rules quote to the contrary, in which case I will of course reverse my position (but I would still ask you why you had not provided it already).

'Obviously I shouldn't allow my players to stack them' is a perfectly reasonable ruling, but so is 'obviously this is an exception to the norm since the feat is packaged with the option.'

Either are fine at your own table, but OP is just pointing out the lack of explicitness here, hence the thread being in rules discussion and not advice.

No rulings are required. The first is RAW, the second is a perfectly reasonable house rule.

Finoan wrote:

Ancient Elf not removing the restriction on taking additional dedication feats is not unclear.

You can select two character options that provide you with feats that are both otherwise mutually exclusive with each other.

There's no defined rules mechanism for resolving the inconsistency and we've already seen multiple opinions on how the interaction should be resolved.

That's like, the literal definition of unclear.

Is "you cannot select incompatible options for your character" really a rule that needs to be explicitly stated? IMNSO, that is the obvious default. By your own wording, they are "mutually exclusive" - by definition therefore, you cannot select both of them. You have to pick one or the other.

I don't think this is an edge case, and I don't think the rule Ascalaphus quotes is even necessary. There is simply no issue here to solve.

Accusing others of invoking abuser tactics over a class discussion? Mods don't get paid enough for this s%&&.

Kinda yeah. While I understand (and share) the frustration of the people talking about "gas lighting" they really should find a different term. By definition, gas lighting requires a close personal relationship (family, romantic partners, close friends); an abuse of trust from one of the people the victim should be able to trust the most. Even if the tactics may be somewhat similar, forum posters do not have the kind of relationship necessary for gas lighting to be possible.

No forum poster is going to make me question my grasp on reality (although they might make me question theirs).

Gas lighting is a truly awful practice, and using the term where it does not apply trivialises that.

Which is not to say posting in bad faith, or making arguments so poor they are indistinguishable from bad faith, are okay. They very much are not, but they are a long way short of gas lighting.

TLDR: Please don't cheapen the term "gas lighting" by using it for frustrating forum conversations.

Guys there is a thread for discussing that balance change, move it there please.

Replying across threads is hard to do with the board software not supporting quote notifications and links back in quotes, but I shall try....

All this assumes an equal distribution of creatures in adventures. Which, nice as it would be to get a more balanced distribution of creatures, isn't exactly how it's done.

It is really not psychic players complaining about this.

Please see my response over in the Remastered Psychic thread.

Quoting a couple of posts from the Impossible Magic thread, to respond to them in a more appropriate setting.

Tridus wrote:

There's ballpark ~100 non unique creatures weak to slashing or bludgeoning. I can't get an exact number because I can't get the filter to behave how I want it. Probably doing something wrong. Comparatively, there are exactly 2 weak to force, and they're from the same AP. So in terms of exploting weaknesses, this change is a massive loss.

There are ~288 non-unique resistant to both bludgeoning and slashing from what I can tell on AoN (usually in the form of physical resistance), but that's out of ~2840 non-unique creatures.

All this assumes an equal distribution of creatures in adventures. Which, nice as it would be to get a more balanced distribution of creatures, isn't exactly how it's done.

It does, because that is a reasonable assumption (the only reasonable assumption) across the span of the whole game. Obviously the theme of an adventure is going to affect the mix of adversaries compared with monster books. But there are a lot of adventures and they do not all have the same theme. So you cannot assume that the mix more favourable to either version of IW.

It is really not psychic players complaining about this.

Add me to the list of non-Magus players complaining about it, although TBF I have never played a Psychic either - for PF2 I have mostly been the GM, and have only been a handful of sessions with a PC (I cannot remember which classes, but I am pretty sure not Magus).

Is this persuasive then?

No. Because....

"If you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike to cast a psi cantrip,” an activity that includes a Strike casting a psi cantrip wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action casting a psi cantrip."

...this is the same failed argument again. Strike is a particular, defined activity. Replacing that with different text which does not represent a specific defined activity obviously changes the meaning. (And also because you shoot your own argument in the head later in the post.)

Cast a Spell is a special activity that is an exception to this, allowing it to be used with amps and spellshapes.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2734&Redirected=1

Linkified.

"Some rules will refer to the Cast a Spell activity, such as “if the next action you use is to Cast a Spell.” Any spell qualifies as a Cast a Spell activity, and any characteristics of the spell use those of the specific spell you’re casting."

That's a good find, but it really doesn't help your case. In fact, it rather does the opposite, for two reasons. The first is that it does not carve out the exception you claim. With no elaboration to the contrary, the implication is that "next action" being able to refer to the first action of a larger activity is standard.

Secondly it does carve out a different exception: If you cast a spell, that "qualifies as Cast a Spell" for the purpose of things which care about "your next action". By that metric, Spellstrike is Cast a Spell for Amps.

A couple more: a familiar in contact with its master does not count as a seperate creature for teleport, dimension door, or other instantaneous transport spells.

Wizard bonded objects: a hand holding a bonded weapon, wand, or rod counts as an empty hand for spell casting.

I feel like we do these, even though none of them are formally in our HR doc. I should probably add them.

Breath of life is a "cure" spell for spontaneous casting purposes.

We have not done this one, but I am tempted to add it too.

Not nearly as many as I am tempted to, because at some point it would be less a few house rules and more a rewrite of the game.

I resemble that remark! Years ago I had a massive multi-page house rule doc, decided it was too unwieldy, and started over with a new shorter one. Which started growing. The shorter one is up to 16 pages now!

TBF, that is partly due to how it presented - some things are spelled out in full rather than (or as well as) being bullet-point changes. For example, there is a table collating what each Knowledge skill covers from various sources, as well as incorporating our own changes. There are also sections covering using 3.0/3.5 content and Multitrack (our version of gestalt), an Index, and a Changelog.

Despite my tendency towards verbosity, I tried to keep the major house rules to a minimum: There are only ten (really nine, because no 3 is a partial exception to no 2):

There is a much longer list of Minor House Rules, because each time we come across something wonky or unclear and resolve it, we write it down. I am not going to list them all here, but most of the entries in are small QoL fixes, only affect a small subset of characters or situations, or are how you would expect it to work anyway if you had not dug into it.

Some of the more noteworthy are

- all classes with 2+Int skill points are increased to 3+ (considering bumping them to 4+)

Four as has worked fine for us, although as you can see from the above spoiler, we made an exception for Int-based full casters.

- Meteor Swarm functions as it does in 5e

I like that! Word-for-word exactly as 5e, or just the save-once-damage-once aspect?

glass wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

The fact is that PF2e spellcasters only have problems because they are playing with old hardware. By that I mean they are using vancian casting on a new system.

Unlikely, given that the non-Vancian Psychic is pretty clearly less well regarded than the Vancian Cleric or Druid.

I honestly would want to know why people don't consider spontaneous casters as vancian casters when they are pretty much the same thing.

Simply answered by pointing out that they are, definitionally, not "pretty much the same thing." They are different things. Opposite things, even. Conversely, I don't know why a handful of people want to broaden the definition of "vancian" to the point of uselessness.

Vancian casters memorise/prepare/slot individual instances of spells, and each specific instance is used to cast that spell (and only that spell). Spontaneous casters do not have to do that - their slots are fungible, and only assigned to individual spells at casting time (which admittedly makes "slot" a poor term in that case, as nothing is ever slotted into them).

Most, if not all the problems from the psychic (and arguably a ton of casters in the system as well) comes from the fact that its a vancian caster.

Zero of the psychic's problems arise from its being vancian, because it isn't. Please stop trying to redefine words with a well-understood and useful meaning. Especially when you already have "daily".

The fact is that PF2e spellcasters only have problems because they are playing with old hardware. By that I mean they are using vancian casting on a new system.

Unlikely, given that the non-Vancian Psychic is pretty clearly less well regarded than the Vancian Cleric or Druid.

Spellstrike is an activity that includes casting a spell, so it does not meet the requirement of the new amp wording "if the next action you take is to cast a psi cantrip" as your next action is not to cast a psi cantrip, it is to Spellstrike. The rules are pretty clear on this.

You may be correct, but that quote is not persuasive and neither are any of the other arguments posted in the thread so far. Absent a stronger argument to the contrary, I have to agree with Angwa.

The quoted example refers specifically to a "Strike" and is analogous to the wording of Spellshapes which require Cast a Spell. However it is disanalogous to the text of the new Psi-Amp as quoted in this thread, which does not care which particular activity you use to cast a spell, only that you do in fact cast (small "c"). And you cannot appeal to its saying "action" rather than "activity" because casting Imaginary Weapon is already an activity even with Cast a Spell.

As The Raven black said, this has been the operation of things for a long time. Since 1E, even.

That might be the issue though - they are applying PF1 logic to PF2, but they are not the same. In FP1, resistances with very common but vulnerabilities were much much rarer. So a rare damage type is almost always an advantage. But in PF2, weaknesses to particular damage types is much more common - if not as common as resistances, then not far behind. More things resist Bludgeoning than Force, but more things also take extra damage from Bludgeoning than from Force. So it is no longer as pure an upgrade.

Without doing any in-depth analysis, I would guess Force is probably still an upgrade over Bludgeoning, due to incorporeals if nothing else. (It does still help against Incorporeal, right?) But I doubt it is enough of one to offset the reduced base damage, especially at higher levels.

Verzen wrote:

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Might be time to find a system that better serves your needs

There are no other systems. PF2E is better than D&D5E and pointing out what doesnt work mathematically for PF2E to change for PF3E and you coming in here telling me to find a diff system is as dumb as me pointing out what problems our gov has and some random person saying, "if you dont like america the way it is, leave." Lol

There are literally dozens of other systems besides PF2E and D&D 5e

Thousands, probably. But Verzen was clearly not being literal when they said that there were no other systems. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to find a group to play whatever their first choice would be - they get to choose from the 2-3 most popular systems (at best).

Blades in the Dark exists, but if everyone you know will only play D&D or PF it's existing doesn't do you much good.

LOL the two of you don't make 2% :D

It stays at 99!

I feel compelled to point out that 99! is a very big number.

Nevermind, I found the answer.

Honestly, I am not sure you did, exactly.

The direct answer is that Wild only helps with armour bonuses (and implicitly shield bonuses, although it forgets to actually say that) and enhancement bonuses thereto. Wild does not help with activated abilities, so they still do not work. And it also does not help with bonuses of other types, but they would generally continue to apply anyway so it does not need to. So far, so good. However, by explicitly allowing most types of bonuses and explicitly disallowing activated abilities, the part of the quote you bolded leaves any armour properties which are neither (such as energy resistance in your example) undefined.

It is clear that Wild does not change the effects of such properties, so if they worked for normal amour they would work for Wild armour. But it is not remotely clear if they work for normal armour.

EDIT: Just realised that the post I quoted was from 2017 so the OP may no longer care. Oh well, I've typed it up now. You've given me something to ponder, at least.

What about Wild armor even working with, lets say, Wizard Polymorph spells? Does it work or not? I haven't found any definitive answer other than some who say "armor of the wild only works with druid wild shape because the enchant only mentions druid wild shape."

That is the definitive answer. The Wild property says it helps people using Wild Shape, so that's what it does. Things do what they say, and don't do what they don't say.

It doesn't say it allows you to benefit from the armour bonus when under the effect of a wizard's Polymorph. It also doesn't say that it allows you to benefit from the armour bonus when you have left the armour at home. So it does neither of those things.

I am not QuidEst, but....

LOLWut? The +3 guy literally has a 10% increase in how often it succeeds.

No he doesn't. He succeeds on 10% of the total possible rolls where he otherwise would not have, but that is not the same thing.

You're totally going to have to walk me through that 33% reasoning.

If the +1 character would succeed on a 15+, then the +3 character succeeds on a 13+. That is 8 results rather than 6. 8 is 33% greater than 6.

Since it's been about a year and a half with no responses, I assume you figured it out on your own. Can I ask what you ended up doing about it?

And how you found Emerald Spire overall?

I have it on my shelf (so will hopefully run it some day), but have yet to look into it in any great detail.

Sysryke wrote:

Where could I find a complete list of Adventure Paths?

PathfinderWiki has a good list.

I was going to link, but it wasn't loading the other day when I tried to find it so I went with Tarondor's guide instead.

Quote:

How many could you play through with the same characters?

The older ones all go from level 1 to high level (16 to 20), so you really can't with those because you need a level 1 character again.

You could theoretically play two in parallel with slowed advancement, but it would create a lot of work for the GM to make them hang together without getting in each-other's way.

Quote:

Are they all set in the Golarion setting?

Pretty much, yeah.

If we're talking Paizo adventure paths and ignoring Starfinder (reasonable, given where we are), then there are three exceptions (the first three, from the Dungeon-magazine era). If we go beyond that then obviously there are a few more.

Quote:

What are some of the pros and cons to adventure Paths?

The big pro is a lot of work is done for you. There's a story, characters, traps, monsters, treasure, and such. It's all there, ready to go. This is a massive time saver if you can run the adventure, even if you change some stuff.

IMNSO there is another big pro which does not get talked about enough: IME, having a campaign with a fixed-but-distant end point is great for campaign longevity.

Before APs, I tried for years to run campaigns that started at level 1 and continued to high levels. I literally never succeeded. Every campaign stalled out after five levels, tops.

Also maybe even a alternative to the Vancian System.

What would that look like, and how would it differ from all the existing non-vancian options?

I have just run the numbers at level 7, and it looks like you are correct for attributes up to +3. I don't know what Wis my player's PC has OTTOMH, but they're a bard so I very much doubt it is higher than that (without then Medic boosts, +3 is ahead of Assurance but only by a fraction of an hp per roll).

When I ran the numbers, I was forgetting the bonus for an expanded healers kit. So attributes up to +2 where Assurance is ahead, not +3. Which quite likely still includes my player's bard.

Whether or not there actually is a treadmill is not what matters (practically speaking, there is always going to be for level-appropriate challenges - that's what makes them level appropriate). What matters is how much it feels like one.

Now that's subjective - maybe the way things are staggered in PF2 does not help how it feels for you. But I think it does for me and, I suspect, quite a few other people.

Just to be clear, when I said this I was defending the principle of proficiency increases being staggered, not the specific implementation with regard to Spell Attacks.

So great that people want spell attacks to hit as easily as a martial's Strikes but do not consider the access to save spells, the free heightening of damage and all the other tricks a caster takes for granted that a martial lacks.

Actually, I am pretty sure everyone is considering Save spells - they are precisely what makes Attack-roll spells such a trap. If all offensive spells had attack rolls, the the internal balance would be much better (external balance is another question, of course).

D&D 4e had attacker roll for every kind of attack, and it worked great. PF3 should do that IMNSHO. And then rebalnce from there as necessary.

All of this discussion of spell attacks vs. saves is quite pertinent to my current experience. I get the feeling the casters in my game find the “vs. save” spells kinda deflating merely due to not rolling to attack - I’m rolling the opponents saves behind a screen…I guess it really affects a sense of agency.

Good point, and another reason to make everything "attacker rolls".

This would be easier for people running Extinction Curse to find if it were actually in the Extinction Curse forum. I have flagged it for a move.

A poster named Torrontor

That should be Tarondor. Apologies to that poster for mangling their name, and everyone else for the duff info.

The only ability that ghost touch confers on incorporeal creatures is to pick it up, move it around, and attack with it. Hitting objects is an attack, and so is a Combat Manoeuvre, so they can do those (provided it is Combat Manoeuvre you can normally do with a weapon). So that covers 2 and part of 1.

As for 3 and the other part of 1 (moving small objects around without attacking them), that depends on how much weight the GM puts on "Essentially, a ghost touch weapon counts as both corporeal or incorporeal." Personally I would allow them to do anything that a corporeal creature count reasonably do with their sword, but conversely would not allow then to, for example, take it through walls. So that covers A and B (albeit somewhat vaguely).

C at least has a fairly concrete answer - the description of the Incorporeal quality states "It has no Strength score, so its Dexterity modifier applies to its melee attacks, ranged attacks, and CMB."

EDIT: I am not sure what you mean by the last line. PF1 is long out of print; the only "official word" you're likely to get at this point is what was printed in the books back then. I cannot even find the PF1 FAQ any more! (Does it still exist somewhere?)

Medicine is one of the skills that assurance is wonderful for. If you do the math (and ignore hero points) you pretty much NEVER want to roll a healing check if you're just looking at average HPs healed.

I have just run the numbers at level 7, and it looks like you are correct for attributes up to +3. I don't know what Wis my player's PC has OTTOMH, but they're a bard so I very much doubt it is higher than that (without then Medic boosts, +3 is ahead of Assurance but only by a fraction of an hp per roll).

OTOH, he already has five feats and two Skill increases (counting Trained but not counting the free one from Medic Dedication) invested in this. Telling him he needs to spend yet another feat (which isn't even part of the Medic Archetype, so could not come out of his FA slots) to make it slightly quicker is not something I am interested in doing. Much better to house rule it to be significantly quicker without any further investment. And, to bring this back on topic, hope it is less fiddly and investment heavy in PF3 when it finally arrives.

While I'm not super-keen on [keeping attributes but not applying them to attacks], I suppose the main reason why is because I'm personally struggling to see what attributes bring to the table that other mechanics don't already.

As I think I said upthread, I am in favour of keeping attributes, but I also kinda agree with this. I would much rather they be gone entirely than be hanging around cluttering things up, while not applying to important rolls that you would intuitively expect them to apply to. That seems like the worst of both worlds.

I'm a little skeptical of this. The 'treadmill' never stops being a treadmill because of staggered proficiency, it's just that certain classes become uniquely bad at things at certain level brackets.

Whether or not there actually is a treadmill is not what matters (practically speaking, there is always going to be for level-appropriate challenges - that's what makes them level appropriate). What matters is how much it feels like one.

Now that's subjective - maybe the way things are staggered in PF2 does not help how it feels for you. But I think it does for me and, I suspect, quite a few other people.

At low level? Because a specced out Medic should never take that long once they have Continual Recovery, Ward Medic, and Assurance. (One of my problems with Medicine is that Continual Recovery just feels like a feat tax and I plan to house rule it into the skill itself next campaign I start.)

My AbV group is 7th level IIRC. They definitely have Ward Medic and Continual Recovery (along with a couple of other feats). I don't think they have Assurance because that seems to be a reliable way to just miss DCs most of the time.