graystone's page

graystone wrote:

(...) For instance, when you see text that says prey, is it related to Hunt Prey or not? You have to make a judgment call and use context clues since prey isn't capitalized. If flavor was clearly distinguishable from rule text, it'd be easier for everyone involved on what's meant to be a mechanical effect and what's meant to be evocative as a possible outcome of the effect.

As a nitpick, lots of mechanical keywords aren't capitalized, such as "attack", "spell", "feat", "anathema", "trained" or "light armor".

I think "Hunt Prey" would be capitalized because it's an action (like Strike or Cast a Spell), but "prey" or "hunted prey" isn't capitalized because it's not the action itself but the aftereffects, just like lowercase "damage" is an aftereffect of a Strike.

Not much of a nitpick since I'm of the opinion such things SHOULD be capitalized to make a clear differentiation of Mechanical and casual text if they aren't otherwise clearly identifiable.

To be clear on what I meant, I meant the distinction as a negative. I get differentiating them, since they are different, but I do not think that differentiating them needs to come hand in hand with narrative text being belittled as compared to rules text since I still think they're two parts of an important whole. My issue with the term "flavor text" is the negative connotation, not the differentiation.

Similar to Claxon, I'm giving it no positive or negative spin. I've been calling it fluff since the old red d&d box days and it wasn't meant to belittle it anymore than crunch was to elevate the mechanical. Some people want to take offence without actually taking the context on the entire comment and shifting the word seems pointless if whatever new term would have the same meaning.

What I find silly is saying one part of the whole is less needed than any other.

On this, I'll have to disagree. It's 100% expected that people are going to value different parts of a product from other users. An experienced players isn't going to value the 'just starting up' section as much as the others for instance. And for some users, especially those making up their own setting, the flavor text that exists for Golarion, might be of little to no importance to them. The same can be true of those that just want the mechanics: there are those of us that would truly like sections with just the mechanics. What's needed by the users of the material isn't exactly the same.

Now to illistrate the other side, I know someone that's read all the dragon-lance material for d&d even though they don't play d&d for the story and lore and couldn't care less about the mechanical bits. What's important/needed is a shifting scale depending on who you ask and what they plan to use the material for.

As a fan of narrative description myself, I've always found this distinction a bit silly as well. Isn't it all a beautiful part of the bigger whole?

Myself, I think the distinction is important because in whatever game i'm playing, that descriptive text may not apply but the mechanics stay the same unless there is a house rule. Secondly, if care isn't taken, flavor text written in a casual way can just confuse things. For instance, when you see text that says prey, is it related to Hunt Prey or not? You have to make a judgment call and use context clues since prey isn't capitalized. If flavor was clearly distinguishable from rule text, it'd be easier for everyone involved on what's meant to be a mechanical effect and what's meant to be evocative as a possible outcome of the effect.

I see clear instances of flavor text that has no direct bearing on the actual rules. For instance, the text in Needle In The God's Eyes that says "With sinews of bronze and thews of iron, you leap to the heavens, piercing the arrogant eyes of the gods" isn't an actual requirement that you need a god as a target of the ability. It's pure 100% flowery text and it's removal ends up with an ability that works the same as with it.

"Flavor text" in RPGs is a made-up distinction. If it's in the rulebook, it's part of the rules—full stop. Designers have said as much. The idea of tossing out anything that "sounds too narrative" just because it’s not a stat block? That’s not how these games are written. Ignoring the descriptive parts only leads to bad rules calls and worse arguments. Treat the whole text as rules unless the book says otherwise.

I find it the other way around: if you insist on taking everything in the text as a mechanical rule, it "only leads to bad rules calls and worse arguments".

For instance, if we assume everything is a rule, Elemental Fist requires a Fist attack and Flying Kick requires a kick. Or taking the text in Needle In The God's Eyes that says "With sinews of bronze and thews of iron, you leap to the heavens, piercing the arrogant eyes of the gods" as an actual requirement that you need a god as a target. There is VERY clearly text in the rules that's just for flavor and I find suggestions otherwise to be disingenuous.

On the topic of Hunt Prey, you'll find prey used elsewhere in the rules so it's not quite as clear as seeing prey as a reference to Hunt Prey. For instance, the Slippery Prey and Prey Mutagen aren't referencing Hunt Prey and the Lion Claw talisman says "When you activate the claw, you learn to pounce on your prey in one fluid motion" which isn't a reference to Hunt pray either even though "your prey" appears. So it takes reading the whole item/ability and using context clues to figure it out. Even though it IS pretty easy to figure out, It'd be nice if prey was Prey when referencing Hunt Prey abilities since they do use prey often enough in casual fluff text/names to make it relevent.

It would have made more sense if the class had, for instance, also gotten running reload for free as a minor example. Then there would be two things you could do to rehabilitate your action economy. Literally twice as much tactical depth to reloading!

Yep, much like the swashbuckler gets tumble through AND their special panache generation action so you have options.

How many crew does it take to change a lightbulb Aid a pilot?

Aid gives a circumstance bonus, so doesn't stack with other Aid successes. One crew member can aid just as effectively as ten crew members.

While they don't stack, the bonus for a crit success goes up with proficiency, so once you are unlikely [or unable] to fail a roll of 15, multiple people can roll to try for a crit for a +1-3 higher bonus. Multiple crew gives a built-in explanation of how you're trying to help AND your proximity for those multiple Aid rolls. So I'll have to strongly disagree that "One crew member can aid just as effectively as ten crew members": getting multiple rolls to try for a double, triple or even quadruple bonus can be MUCH more effective than a single try.

Only Minion mounts like Animal Companions and Summoned creatures move slower because they can only be given 2x Stride actions each round. If you rent or buy a horse you can Command it to Stride 3x each round. Granted, it will die if sneezed at... much like the vehicle will.

Yep and some even have Gallop too. The difference is that vehicles often also allow for passengers that do not also have to spend those actions: this means that the vehicles end up being faster than what's chasing them while also having actions left to do something else. So someone chasing you on a non-minion mount sure can use the same number of actions to follow you, your passengers can actually DO something else to slow them down or stop them while the pursuers can only move [unless they have some kind of move+attack ability]: if they attack, they lose actions and start falling behind.

All in all, it's not "laughably slow", which is what I was commenting on.

Captain Morgan wrote:

I don't really think vehicles are meant to be PC purchases.

Vehicle mechanic AT suggests otherwise.

I don't see that as a particularly good argument. The Using Vehicles sidebar notes; "The vehicle mechanic plays best in a campaign where the PCs adventure together in one shared vehicle that the mechanic can enhance, such as in a pirate campaign on a single vessel." As such, its "best" usage is with a group vehicle, not a single PC purchase or any PC purchase [DM: surprise, you now own a boat] as it can be the basis for the campaign itself as the central plot device that allows the characters to adventure.

Land vehicles are laughably slow

Not really. Many are the speed of the driver or steed or an equivalent speed. As most can bring passengers along, that's free movement for them. Add to that that they can also move up to 3 times speed, they can outrun a lot of creatures and mounts that have to be controlled as they only get 2 actions to move.

and the rules for piloting leave much room for failure and little for fun.

If you're playing with a vehicle as a central part of the game, having the high Int or Dex character take the Trick Driver Archetype makes it much easier. Add to that that even though larger ships have higher DC's, they also have a greater number of crew that can Aid in the check and all they need is a lore skill to do so [a single skill feat, Additional Lore, gets you scaling proficiency in one]. It's also not hard to cast a spell for bonuses to Pilot either.

Altogether, this means that you can get Speed x2 without much issues and you can have x3 with a reasonable chance to get x3. This does mean that you have to lean into making it work and spend some resources and extra actions, though not that much. That said, the overall rules work best for chase scenes than back and forth combat: it's generally easier to kill the crew and with the price tag of vehicles, it's a sizable haul and not something you want to destroy.

I can't say any character was broken: just some tweaking here and there. I HAVE had several that are now possible that weren't possible before the remaster.

Well yeah, If you are asking about what items to make at the start of the day you are rarely going to hear "Make me this situational thing".

I'm including start of day AND Quick Alchemy in my statement/post. People just don't request mutagens in my experience.

Not really, All i'm sensing is a big Chestertons Fence.

Was the situation they were offered even considered at all when they were handed out?

Myself, I have SPECIFICALLY asked party members if there were any alchemical items they wanted me to make and I too rarely hear 'make me a mutagen' over a wide range of games and players. So it doesn't have to be a situation where the alchemist makes a specific item and then tries to get people to use it: it happens when you let them have input into pick what you make.

graystone wrote:

As far as class HD, that part of a total package: taking a mutagen doesn't get you a spell list so it's an apples to orange argument IMO to make a tangent comparing class HD and taking unhealable damage.

Like I said: different perspectives.

I'm not looking at what my HP are on Quicksilver and saying, well, do I have the power of a full Spellcaster now that I've put my HP to this level? Does everything balance out?

I'm simply concerned with "OK, if I make this choice to gain these particular benefits, will my Bomber survive?"

And the answer is, across 22 levels of playing a Bomber (1-12, 1-10) yes. I get very concrete benefits that mesh well with my primary concept: I want to throw Bombs at things. For me, it's a complete win.

lol and for myself, the answer is that I'm LESS likely to survive. Movement and distance doesn't prevent return fire from weapons and ranged spells [especially with base range at 20' and with farlobber 30'] and in addition, the mutagen lower saves on some of the nastier effects. So for me, it's a pile of negatives unless you can ensure you're only fighting melee only enemies that are slower than you...

At the end of the day, voluntarily dropping my hp to the lowest caster levels and dropping fort saves by a prof level for a +1 to hit and some bonus movement is too much for me. If you're good with that, then great. But I hope you can understand where it's a bridge too far for others.

I am genuinely curious: is 6 HP/level a deal-breaker for you when choosing your Class? In other words, are Psychic, Sorcerer, Witch & Wizard off the table for you due to their HP?

For me, the PF1 Burn was a deal-breaker for me with Kineticist. So in a similar way, I also wouldn't take mutagens that do similar things.

As far as class HD, that part of a total package: taking a mutagen doesn't get you a spell list so it's an apples to orange argument IMO to make a tangent comparing class HD and taking unhealable damage.

Tridus wrote:

Splitting it up into multiple bags to distribute that weight more is cheesy, but it's also entirely valid RAW since backpacks and other such things exist. It just serves as a good example to highlight the absurdity of the entire bulk system if you get outside of the very narrow confines of "a medium size adventurer carrying their own stuff".

RAW is a troll ruling.

technically correct is the best kind of correct. And, IMO, the entire Bulk set of rules is troll ruling so... Since none of it makes any sense RAW, why count ANY of it trolling? Does either way actually improve your gaming experience? Does carrying a few extra bags of gold break a game? Not mine.

Right, just asking for clarification as it sounded like you were saying that you had to be mounted in order to activate it. But we are on the same page.

Oh, I understand you now. Yeah, we're agreeing. ;)

graystone wrote:

It's usage 1 hand so you can use the lance one handed while mounted and the ability in question requires riding a horse to use it. This way, you can use the lances special ability to 1 hand it mounted.

I presume you mean use its activated ability while one handing, Because you can already use a regular lance one-handed due to its Jousting Trait?

Yes.

It also does not mention needing to be mounted to use, Rather it states that there is an additional/different effect if you were to be mounted while using it.

"You evoke the spirit of the unicorn that donated the alicorn lance's horn, which you ride in a shining charge."

"If you were already mounted when you Activate the horn, the unicorn spirit takes shape around your steed, granting it a +10–foot status bonus to its Speed for the charge."

You LITERALLY are riding a mount for the ability. The only difference is if you start on a mount or the ability makes one.

It's usage 1 hand so you can use the lance one handed while mounted and the ability in question requires riding a horse to use it. This way, you can use the lances special ability to 1 hand it mounted.

LOL. If a player tried to put 10 bags of 1,999 coins on a horse, I'm counting it as 19,990 coins, and thus 9 Bulk, not 9 L.

If you check the coins per carrying creature (as I believe was intended), not per container, you can avoid some of the shenanigans.

How is it shenanigans? ANY other discrete item is counted as such so why are bags of rocks that are 1 bulk 9.99999999 l treated one way and a bag of coins with the EXACT same 1 bulk 9.99999999 l treated differently and added together? Why would coins be singled out as one individual item even when not stored as such? IMO, I'd call shenanigans on you if those bags got treated differently because one is called 'coins' and one isn't. It NEVER says [or suggests] to add all containers together in one grand total any more than you have to add all your daggers together before you adjust for Large.

Seriously, would you force someone that had 10 Marbles to add all the 200 marbles per bag BEFORE checking or just count each bag as individual items? If you aren't making them count them as a 1 bulk item, why would you make them do the same with coins?

Castilliano wrote:

Yes, each item of 1 Bulk converts to one L, but Bulk rules defy algebra (see above). Each unit of Bulk for larger items converting into 1 L Bulk would be ridiculous, and I'm shocked you'd suggest it.

I was merely being thorough, suggesting as many different possible interpretations as I could think of in the moment.

You just have to play with Toy poppets and non-Pixie Sprites to convert their 1 Bulk bodies into L. That way you can carry 200 of your fellow party members... :P

Not only that but there is a bigger fish to fry before you get to Exempla Dedication. Mythic rules in general, it makes no sense that they can be this far broken and not in the overpowered format.

While I'll agree mythic needs an overhaul, it's about as low on my priority list as an issue can go since it's a niche rules set that will likely never affect me. I'm much more likely to see something Rare like Exemplar Dedication. So, while elemental barbarian, Sin Wizards and sword champions were PRETTY low on what I'd like to see errata for, at least I might actually see them in play unlike Mythic.

Fortune: "You can never have more than one fortune effect alter a single roll."

Skill Stratagem: You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your next Intelligence-, Wisdom-, or Charisma-based skill check or Perception check involving the target before the start of your next turn."

Let's Try That Again: "Reroll the triggering skill check and use the new result, even if it’s worse than your first roll."

The other players are 100% right, you can't use both as both are Fortune effects. There are fortune effects that do not involve rerolls. For instance, Unity allows the use of the caster's save modifiers, Tempt Fate gives save bonuses and can shift a success to a crit, Prophet's Luck gives bonuses/minuses to rolls, ect. Just because a Fortune trait normally involves a reroll doesn't mean that's the ONLY effect a Fortune effect can have.

Well, I guess the only people you have to convince are the other people at your table. Best of luck to you.

"A constant spell affects the monster without the monster needing to cast it": it doesn't feel like I have to do a lot of convincing to do with this being said in the rules. I mean it LITERALLY and EXPLICITLY says you don't have to cast it. IMO, it'd be you that has to convince people that "spending the normal spellcasting actions" is Casting a Spell when it JUST told you they don't have to cast and it says it's an activation vs Casting.

Highlighted relevant part. It's not "normal number of spellcasting actions", it's "normal spellcasting actions". While it does say it's kind of not casting, when you need to spend normal spellcasting actions I would rule it is almost like normal spellcasting, with all traits and effects. So maybe Counterspell won't work (though it's extremely strange when it's a spell which can be counteracted), but other reactions based on traits absolutely will work.

I take the highlighted part as telling you that you spend the same number of actions, not that it's some mysterious pseudo-casting when it specifically tells you what I highlighted: "A constant spell affects the monster without the monster needing to cast it" especially when it states "reactivate" and "normal spellcasting actions" when it's SO, SO much easier to say 'A constant spell once cast affects the monster for an unlimited amount of time.' and 'If a constant spell gets counteracted, the monster can recast it.'

They went out of their way to make it non casting. If they wanted it to be casting, it takes a LOT less space and can be much more direct in saying so.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I concur with Squiggit. That is how I would see it as a DM. Spell was never cast. It's a spell effect to simulate an innate ability of the creature.

Not exactly. As Finoan said, it is actually a spell. Which means that when it's dispelled (and it can be), it has to be actually cast again.

It doesn't say it's cast though: it's activated using the same actions. In fact it says it's NOT cast.

Constant Spells
Source Monster Core pg. 358
A constant spell affects the monster without the monster needing to cast it, and its duration is unlimited. If a constant spell gets counteracted, the monster can reactivate it by spending the normal spellcasting actions the spell requires.

So if the Jann has Truespeech dispelled, it can spend 2 actions to reactivate it. It goes out of its way to say it's not cast but activated.

HammerJack wrote:

And that plethora is:

Constructs. Pretty much just constructs.

I could have sworn it included undead, oozes, and some aberrations.

Oozes are precision damage not nonlethal. It's almost exclusively constructs for nonlethal. You can nonlethally beat an undead, say A lich, to 0 hp. The only thing is that you can't knock them unconscious [immune], so the final hit has to be something that deals lethal.

edit: Double checked, and it seems that you could kill an undead with a nonlethal. Getting Knocked Out [Player Core pg. 410] says "When undead and constructs reach 0 Hit Points, they're destroyed." So looks like punching a skeleton to death is a go.

WatersLethe wrote:

Awakened Animal:

Your heritage gives you a special unarmed attack instead of the fist unarmed attack humanoids typically gain.

So unless you pick an animal that happens to also have a Fist attack, you don't have a Fist attack.

Oh dear. It seems I've been playing my awakened giant spider incorrectly then, smashing skeletons and what not.

You're doing it right.

"The Unarmed Attacks table (page 277) lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you'll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body. Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks."

Just because Fist got replaced doesn't mean that you don't use it's "statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body". The Fist replacement is covered in "Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks." A bear awakened animal can still kick you with an unarmed attack using the 'fist' stats.

Why they put that it's a replacement is beyond me though as it complicates things for no gain that I can see. For instance, that awakened bear? I see no reason they can't use a punch attack using the 'fist' statistics which makes the replacement text meaningless IMO. The only way to look at it is that somehow awakened animals somehow lose the ability to attack with other parts of their bodies, which doesn't seem RAI.

PS: I guess you could try to argue that you could use the Animal Attacks in place of fists for other body attacks, but being able to 1d6 P beak kick seems even less likely RAI.

Goblins having an ability that vaguely resembles the scene does not equate to me actually describing that ability. Being two degrees from Kevin Bacon does not actually make one Kevin Bacon.

It's Kevin Bacon vs Kevin Bacon with a fake plastic mustache... the degrees of separation is negligible. Both are about people on fire, in a mundane sense, and people taking damage for grappling them. There is nothing you can say that would convince me that they aren't virtually identical...

Environmental effects are not exceptions. Water being boiling is not an ability of the water unless the DM chooses to characterize it as such, nor with acid lakes, etc. Otherwise the concept could be said to only apply to house rules and GM fiat, as feats and spells and disease are not exceptions.

Environmental effects ARE exceptions as they aren't what normally happens. In base game you don't have high winds, boiling water, ect. Now that might be normal for the game you run or for the area you go to, but that doesn't make them not abilities. Same for feats and spells and disease as they are things that aren't normal for the base game. Everyone isn't diseased or can cast spells, hence they create exceptions. If you don't think these things are abilities, then what do you think is one? Nothing about abilities suggests that there has to be an active element to an ability, for instance.

Now as to who's ability something is, that's DM fiat, as the rules don't go into that.

I did not call out an ability of any kind. :p

What you described WAS ability goblins have a feat for. That was my point and why I made the post.

Secondly, mundane has no bearing on whether something is an ability.

If you fall into a vat of flaming oil which is deemed to be sufficient to catch someone else on fire - as I said, in the mundane sense - that being on fire is not an ability. It is possibly a condition, affliction, or effect, but it's closer to an environmental condition that happens to be localized on a person.

ability [page 452, player core 1]: "This is a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules."

So a condition, affliction, effect or even an environmental condition all count as abilities, as they "provide an exception to the basic rules". It in NO way matters why there is an exception, so anything that would damage someone the grappler alters the normal rules and is an ability. So if someone takes burn from grappling someone, no matter if it was a goblin feat or because the target is on fire, it was because of an ability that caused it. Ability is referring to a RULE that alters the normal game flow, no matter who or what causes it.

Not even sure how such a being could even come about short of "a wizard did it."

I mean... One of the possible origins for them is exactly that: "Some historians think them a failed experiment of a wizardly cabal". The true form of a conrasu is an abstract chunk of spiritual essence, so it's not hard to imagine some other kind of essence could get caught up in there as opposed to the more traditional biological reason for a heritage.

I'll be honest, with as far out there that their 'normal' existence is, adding 1/2 orc seems like the least problematic part for my role playing them or figuring out their background with how alien they are.

Secondly, Talos is an option too. How hard is it to imagine some elemental metal essence is in a conrasu, either in the core or the plant. They have Rites to enhance the plant parts with magic, a connection to Axis, Light and plants. Would a rite for a connection to the plane of metal be so odd?

graystone wrote:

If you think this will be a big deal, play an Orc or 1/2 orc. Take the feat Iron Fists. Your problem is over. Or a Talos with Ferrousoul. Dwarves can do it for 2 round with Spark Fist. there's also quite a few Dedications that do it.

Kind of had my eye on the conrasu of Monad.

Well, you can still be a Conrasu with a Dromaar heritage.

And without an ability like that, the persistent damage from being on fire would not normally harm someone who is grappling you.

If someone is grabbing and rolling around with something that is on fire, I'd expect them to take fire damage. You grab the wrong end of a Torch, and you take fire damage.

I mean, you grapple a Black Pudding, you take acid damage because it's covered in acid. You grapple a Living Tar and you might be stuck because it's covered [or IS] in tar. I mean they don't spell out that grappling a Striding Fire would cause fire damage, but I personally wouldn't be surprised that someone would take damage.

Secondly, it was besides the point; Agonarchy picked something as an example that was LITERALLY a spelled-out ability that runs counter to his point.

I'm not sure if fists can be "wielded"* but that ambiguity is rather secondary to the rest of it, which is quite clear: fists are not weapons. Things that refer exclusively to weapons do not apply to fists.

Many abilities and options that refer to deity favored weapons in PF2 assume that they are weapons, which causes many such abilities to fail to operate as (presumably) intended.

** spoiler omitted **

Wielding isn't any issue. What you're looking for with a fist is this line in wielding; "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively." How many hands do you have to hold your fist in? 0. Seems easy enough. If you can manage to use/wield a Freehand weapon, you can use a Fist. You're holding your fist in as many hands as you do with your gauntlet.

When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it.

Then there is this. ANYTIME you are able to/capable of attacking with your Fist, you are wielding it by definition. The ability to use the fist IS wielding it. It seems pretty straight forward that you're always wielding your unarmed attacks when you're up and able to take actions.

Squiggit wrote:

The default unarmed attack is d4 agile finesse NONLETHAL unarmed...

Fixed that for you. Can't overlook the -2 to hit if you're needing to kill something.

If you think this will be a big deal, play an Orc or 1/2 orc. Take the feat Iron Fists. Your problem is over. Or a Talos with Ferrousoul. Dwarves can do it for 2 round with Spark Fist. there's also quite a few Dedications that do it.

If you are currently on fire, in the mundane sense, you are not using a fire ability if someone burns themselves on you.

Torch Goblin is an ability that does just that though... :P

It says it "functions as a staff..." Unless it says otherwise, why would the Bonded Weapon not use all staff rules?

Why would is say it gains "charges equal to the highest rank of spells you can cast" since that's the default for staves? It does what is says and no more. It DOES NOT say it functions as a staff and stop there. It says it functions as a staff and then tells you exactly how many charges it has. Again, if it uses the staff rules, then you can never prepare that 2nd staff. As such, it by definition can't exactly function as a normal magic staff.

The thing with this feature is that it doesn't say you get charges by preparing it. You get charges when you make it: you have a personal rune, which appears on your bonded weapon. The weapon functions as a staff with charges equal to the highest rank of spells you can cast.

"Each day when you prepare your spells, you can designate a single item you own as your bonded item."

So each day you prepare you your weapon and it tells you doing so gets you charges equal to your highest slot: it never states you can re-prepare it for extra charges.

About the staff I can't see why you could not add extra charges from your spellslot into it. There's no rules preventing this.

the issue is, you never prepare the staff and thus never get the opportunity to add additional charges. If you DID prepare it, then you would be unable to prepare the second staff you can merge as you can only have 1 prepared staff.

PS: There is actually an issue with it never specifying how you regain charges...

Does a Runelord's bonded weapon follow the regular mechanics of preparing a staff if you don't merge it with another staff?

I get just what it says, "charges equal to the highest rank of spells you can cast". If you prepare another staff, you add it's charges and that is where you get an option to increase its base number of charges. The base runelord ability offers no such increase.

Disagree.

the RAW is quite and unequivocally clear; "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." A clear and straightforward statement. No 'are simple weapons for proficiency' or 'are considered simple weapons when attacking'. They just plain ARE simple weapons. Anything else is a house rule.

A table leg is intrinsically a non-weapon item

If a DM rules that it's an Improvised weapon, then the rules say it's ALWAYS a simple weapon. You'd need to change the fundamental wording of improvised weapons for your view to be correct.

But there are no hard-and-fast RAW printed rules to say one way or the other.

Sure there is: Player Core pg. 275 "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." Anything that could apply to a simple weapon can be applied to an improvised weapon. For instance, an exemplars Humble Strikes works on improvised weapons because they ARE simple weapons. You can use Verdant Weapon, Poison Weapon, Silver Salve, a Flaming Star or a Predator's Claw because they are always weapons. If you alter the rules so they are sometimes weapons, a LOT of things that should work on them stop doing so for no good reason.

A table leg - when you need it to qualify as a weapon in order to use your Strike ability with it - is an improvised weapon and counts as a simple weapon during the time that you are using it as such.

You're making up rules here. There is NO "counts as" in the rule. "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." Full stop.

Finoan wrote:

This reminds me of the debates about if you can inscribe a weapon rune onto a table leg because it is possible to use it as an improvised weapon.

That's not an improvised weapon; that's a club.

And even if it was only an imptovised weapon, it's ALWAYS a weapon, not sometimes: if something is an improvised weapon, it IS a simple weapon as much as a dagger is as there is no qualifier that it's only one when attacking with it. A torch, for instance, is ALWAYS a simple weapon.

I can't for the life of me imagine not playing a TTRPG ancestry because of details you don't like in the art. I've never felt that beholden to one specific artist's interpretation.

And for myself, I wouldn't expect to be able to alter the canon representation of an ancestry to suit my tastes at whatever table I happen to sit at. If I'm advocating for changes, I have better hills to fight on. For example, if a jotunborn NPC shows up in an adventure, I'd expect a similar look to what we already have and not what I'd rather they look like.

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

I can't for the life of me imagine not playing a TTRPG ancestry because of details you don't like in the art. I've never felt that beholden to one specific artist's interpretation.

Oh it wasn't stopping me at all. Just more mildly curious if the jotun on the cover has legs like Cotton from King of the Hill.

I think it was directed at me. The ancestry would REALLY have to have something compelling for me to play them with a look that unappealing to me.

To be honest, I’m not sure this would be as satisfying for you as you imagine, unless these were cantrips instead of slotted spells.

An idea would be that you can use Reach of the Dead on them without destroying them. That way they wouldn't be 'dead' weight after their spell is gone.

I'm curious if the jotunborn actually have squat legs or if it was a perspective snafu/ sacrifice to fit the character in the desired cover art at an appropriate distance.

The non-cover art in the article show the same legs, so I think it's intended.

They look like big blue gorillas. They're illustrated as being so top heavy that I'm having a hard time taking them seriously.

Yes, I agree. As presented, I'll likely toss them in the pile of ancestries I never play as I don't like the look of them. The overly long arms and neck and the exaggerated trapezius muscles make it look like a cross between an ape, a giraffe and a body builder. Add the forehead jutting out as far as the nose does and it's a big no for me. If the plan was for a giant race that differed from anything 5e has, it did that at least.

I like that we're finally getting official half-giants, but at least in my home games I'll have to weigh them against Battlezoo's excellent Giant ancestries to see if they're worth including.

Yeah, I think if I wanted a giant, I'd go Battlezoo.

Easl wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

I would say that the 'same thing' is basically the same as saying 'the same source', is it from the same rule element? If so its a duplicate.

Isn't this exactly the situation with the Spellcasting ability though? It's a new day, you are doing your daily prep, and your familiar gets the Spellcasting ability. Then, it gets the Spellcasting ability. Then, if you're a witch, it gets the Spellcasting ability.

That is a duplicate effect, it is from the same source, and it references the same rule element. Yes?

Correct, Same rule element, same effect. The convention regarding duplicate effects kicks in and only one instance applies, In this case the one you selected last if we really want to follow the convention.

The exceptions to these are abilities that state they have a different effect when picked more than once. Like Skilled.

Nowhere is 'rules element' equated to 'source' in the rules. ALL 'rules element' means is that it's something capitalized [or italicized for spells] that has a specific rule about it. Anything else is what you're reading into it. Strike is a rules element: a creature isn't immune to subsequent Strikes once it's been affected by the first. Poison is a rules element. Being Poisoned doesn't prevent you from being Poisoned again. Disease is a rules element and you can be affected by multiple ones.

The rules element section is 100% moot in determining sources and sources have no direct impact on the game as no rules element calls for them [outside focus points].

I would say that the 'same thing' is basically the same as saying 'the same source', is it from the same rule element?

Again, where is the definition of what a source is? You are free to say it's the same source as I am free to ask what a source is and the rules don't tell us either. The only place I know that even mentions sources is Focus Points from Multiple Sources and for that it's whatever gets you a focus point or a focus spell. Where do you draw the line for "the same rule element".

From that, you could say your entire class could be a source or a specific features of the class or a specific feat or... I mean, is the source of focus for the Monk the class, the feat feature, the feat Qi Spell or inner upheaval/qi rush? We had this issue with sources [and nested sources] in PF1 and the solution for that in PF2 seems to be it doesn't use sources. :P

For myself, if you're hinging an argument on Duplicate Effects, the effect would actually have to be the same/identical effect: I don't see 'sources' as relevant if the result/effect different and/or different options where picked.

A better argument is the inclusion of 'you can time this more than once' in other familiar abilities, but sadly, we see reminder text in places throughout the rules so it's not definitive that such text is a requirement: more a RAI argument IMO.

These examples are effects that are from different sources or give different effects from the same source.

Duplicate Effects states "When you're affected by the same thing multiple times" and does not say anything about sources. It's as applicable to sneak attack and Precision ranger's damage as it is 2 Cantrip Connections. "Same thing" could be 'additional damage' as easily as 2 Cantrip Connections. Myself, I see Cantrip Connection [light] as not the same as Cantrip Connection [dancing lights]. You can feel free to disagree, but I don't see where the actual rules can prove either stance.

However, for spontaneous casters, that's pretty much exactly what the rule text says too.

Yeah, but as I recall it was said it was locked period, not just for spontaneous casters.

well yeah, The benefit of Cantrip Connection is +1 cantrip, You have already gained +1 cantrip to your maximum allowed so if you were to pick it again you would be subject to the Duplicate Effects convention.

You gain an additional/bonus things all the time in the game that stack because they are different things. You raise your int and you get an additional language/skill without worry about Duplicate Effects, just like you can get sneak attack and Precision ranger damage on extra damage on a single attack or Resist Energy [fire] and a Resist Energy [cold]: I personally don't see the Duplicate Effects convention when the end effect is different. I mean, you don't have to worry about using Cantrip Connection and Cantrip Expansion together even though they give the same effect [additional cantrips]. As with a lot of the game, it leaves enough wiggle room you can go either way with a ruling.

Though the way I read it it states that you cannot change the cantrip if you were a spontanious caster. Effectively you need to decide the cantrip and can only change it trough retraining.

It take the same amount of time to retrain the pet feat for a whole new familiar as it does to retrain Cantrip Connection. Seems kind of lame and what is it trying to prevent? I can't see any balance issues with having an open cantrip slot: Gnomes can do it and the game doesn't explode.

Familiars are pets and follow pet rules except where otherwise stated. PC1 p212 "You gain the Pet general feat (page 259), except that your pet has special abilities..."

The discussion of pet abilities starting on PC1 p259 says "choose two of..." which, in my natural language read, I would take to mean two separate things taken from the list.

For myself, things like Cantrip Connection, where you it allows a selection of something else, would be a separate thing like how I'd say you can have a Resist Energy [fire] and a Resist Energy [cold] at the same time as the benefit is different. I was surprised that a DEV said in a video that you couldn't take Cantrip Connection twice [and that your cantrip choice was locked in].

Just because it doesn't have a stat block or a rules citation to link to doesn't mean that it isn't an item in the game.

And just because it replaces an item in game doesn't mean that it IS an item that requires hands and wielding it.

A rock is an item. It can be used as an improvised weapon. Dirt is also an item. As is the Healing Plaster dirt.

You are welcome to treat it as such: that doesn't mean that that's a rule.

If the GM prevents an Eidolon from using all items, then those would be included in the restriction as well.

Nothing in the spell REQUIRES the Eidolon to interact with it: the patient themselves can put it or the dirt on the wound.

The Eidolon wouldn't be able to throw a rock any more than they would be able to throw a Ball. Stat block existence and capitalization is irrelevant. Both are still items.

But rock throwing is a moot point as that ACTUALLY requires you to wield it in the rules: no such requirement is in the rules for the plaster.

Similarly, the Eidolon would not be allowed to use either Healer's Tools or the spell effects of Healing Plaster. Both are items that are being prohibited by the GM's ruling.

Point to where the spell explicitly requires this. You specifically do not have to pick up dirt: it has a range of 5'. No where does it require you to touch or place the plaster. I see no need for hands at all. Any of those requirements would be ones you yourself added to make it match what you see as RAI.

graystone wrote:

Blue_frog wrote:

graystone wrote:

I think it's mostly the feats Dual Studies [eidolon gains skill] and Skilled Partner [eidolon gains skill feats] that people bring up the most. Even those have some remedies like Improvise Tool for Craft or Magical Understudy [Healing Plaster] for Medicine.

I thought about healing plaster but if you rule that you cannot use healer's tools, then by the same token you shouldn't be able to use the healing plaster.

The spell doesn't make you treat wounds (which would work) but creates healer's tools that you have to use.

It doesn't manipulate the plaster per se. Neither is it an identifiable item. It says it "can be used in lieu of healer's tools" but doesn't say it must be held or worn to do so either.

It's a restorative substance presumably to be applied to the wounds directly. I find it hard to believe it can be used without being held or worn.

It's not summoned to your hand but is created up to 5' away [NOT touch] and 'dirt' isn't a specific item. Kick some dirt on someone and cast the spell and that person has a plaster on them [or have them put some dirt on their wounds]. It doesn't lists hand requirement, just saying it's used "in lieu of" the kit which isn't an explicit statement that it has the same requirements/restrictions as the kit.

Even if it has to be Interacted with, I've seen DM put it in the same category as 'simple' Interactions [like some tails feats allow] and allow Eidolons to use those kinds of actions as s 1/2 way measure so they can open doors and such but not use normal tools.

If you do say the nails qualify though then it needs to be both on hands and feet to make sense as to why the witch can now use either stance.

It doesn't have to make sense though: A changeling with Hag Claws can 100% use both stances even though they only have hand claws. In fact you wouldn't even need claws on both hands: for instance, an ancestry with claws that could take Golem Grafter and replace one arm with a Golem arm and still qualify with a single claw attack.