graystone's page

No archetypes have feats other than their dedication at level 2.

That's not true.

Aldori Duelist has Dueling Acumen, a skill feat, that's 2nd, meaning that they can finish it at 4th level without needing free archetype.

Curse Maelstrom has Familiar Oddities as a 2nd level skill feat.

Herbalist has Fresh Ingredients as a 2nd level skill feat.

Mind Smith has Malleable Movement as a 2nd level skill feat.

Martial Artist has Powder Punch Stance as a 2nd level feat.

Red Mantis Assassin has Twin Feint as a 2nd level feat.

Tattooed Historian has Agent of All Holds as a 2nd level feat.

Trick Driver has Express Driver as a 2nd level skill feat.

The result is that with Free Archetype you can buy your way out of many Archetypes at 4th level by spending your 4th level Class feat on an Archetype feat

Several don't even need free archetype: skill feats 2nd to 4th allow it too. In just the A's:

Alter Ego has a 3rd level skill feat, Archaeologist and Artillerist has a 4th level skill feat.

I know I always force my player monks to only use kick unarmed attacks when using Flying Kick and Fist attacks when using Elemental Fist and One-inch Punch. I wouldn't want to ignore flavor text cuz it would NEVER lead me wrong... What kind of madness would ensue if they could punch with a flying kick! :P

...then surely you wouldn't mind if my ghoul got satiated by using Consume Flesh on an earth elemental, or a fire wisp? /rhetorical

I don't see anything breaking here: you have to have a corpse that you can eat. Elementals tend to not leave corpses or have inedible ones [like it's made out of large rocks]. So, the DM would let you know if a killed creature qualifies. So, no I don't mind if a DM allows elemental creatures work with it. As far as intent, they list a requirement for raw meat in the curse so IMO they would have done the same for Consume Flesh if that was required from a corpse. ;)

I meant that food definitely isn't free in the system, and firewood could be.

And I meant that you're talking about something that's LOWER than the smallest coin in the game. A poor meal is 1 cp so when you're talking about something that's just PART of that meal, it's a negligible price that is the equivalent of free for our discussion. It's like saying an earth kineticist couldn't make a piece of chalk because 10 pieces are a cp and that's a price. Are you really quibbling about fractions of a cp? The requirement is "Elements you create (using Base Kinesis to generate an element, for example) must typically be ordinary materials of negligible value" And I can't think of a better definition of that than LESS than a cp.

That again is only a matter of the general question: could they make exactly what they want and everything they want? If they can, they could as well make strawberries.

I can't see how they can't or else you'd be saying water kineticists wouldn't know if they are making fresh water or having a flame that can't burn normal items [cool flames can be as low as 212 F temp]. I've never seen kineticists have to create random items with the ability. But lets assume it's totally random [lets pull up that random chart]; it's a 2 action ability so even at 1% for what you want, you'll likely get it after 10 min.

graystone wrote:

As far as food, the inner bark of certain trees, such as pine, birch, and willow, is edible and contains carbohydrates, fiber, vitamins (e.g., vitamin C), and minerals (e.g., potassium). At 500-600 calories a pound, you'd only have to make @5 pounds per person. So 2 uses of Base Kinesis covers 1 person.

LOL! Adventurers listening are absolutely sweating bullets right now.

"They're asking us to eat eat 5 pounds of tree bark now? I thought the jerky was bad enough"

You're in luck, you can make bark into something like jerky! I will admit, bark isn't the tastiest food but it's better than starving.

And wood plane is for the overwhelmingly major part is about ... wood. Of different forms and types, animated or not, but mostly it's wood. And leaves. What it's not is a fruit or vegetable garden. So, take this piece of fine oak wood and use it normally :)

I'd also like to point out that there are trees like the crocodile-bark tree and the traveler's palm that release drinkable water when pierced, making even having a strict 'only wood' requirement would allow for water.

As far as food, the inner bark of certain trees, such as pine, birch, and willow, is edible and contains carbohydrates, fiber, vitamins (e.g., vitamin C), and minerals (e.g., potassium). At 500-600 calories a pound, you'd only have to make @5 pounds per person. So 2 uses of Base Kinesis covers 1 person.

Yeah, but we don't have firewood or kindling cost in rulebooks (thankfully) :) We do have rations' or meals' costs.

Without an actual description of what each contains, rations or meals having a cost are pretty meaningless. A cucumber isn't a meal or ration. For instance, a ration by definition is "a food allowance for one day". A singular use doesn't create that so it's not a ration by itself so it has no listed cost. Much the same as a meal unless you're trying to tell me a single cucumber counts as one of those meals. So, IMO, we're looking at the same thing as firewood with no listed cost for individual food items, just the aggregate of several pieces of food.

Yes, food is probably not "precious" (debatable for a starving person), but it's definitely valuable and its cost is not negligible.

If you look at it that way, then simple wood has value, even if it's as firewood or kindling.

Given your fixation on nutritional realism

On the contrary, I replied to YOUR nutritional realism that nutritional food wouldn't also provide water. Once you accept it giving you the food requirement, I can't see an argument that it wouldn't also the water requirement too.

The scenario itself identifies two pools of resources -- food and water -- and makes no attempt to differentiate between types of food, their relative nutritional value, or says that one can be interchanged for the other.

I don't think someone needs a degree in Nutrition Science to know fruits and vegetables have a lot of water in them and knowing that to come to the conclusion that eating such foods would slake one's thirst. My comment was on accepting it as food and not as water: it's pretty much a package deal with either it working as both or neither.

So even if you allow Fresh Produce / Base Kinesis to make edible plant matter with nutritional value capable of sustaining the party, the players still have a finite amount of water.

I'd disagree as vegetables and fruit have high water content: cucumbers, for instance, are 96% water, strawberries have 92% and even at the low end, potatoes have 79% and bananas 74%. Even nuts can have 50% when harvested and even after that, nuts [and seeds] have 5-13%.

If they are eating enough fresh food to feed themselves, they should have no issue with water.

"You can spend 10 minutes emblazoning a symbol of your deity upon a weapon or shield."

Neither option is unarmed attacks, so no.

Rarity traits are not a power creep excuse system. It's thematic related to scenario or adventure (like this ancestry is uncommon or rare in Inner Sea but it's common in Tian Xia or in another plane. Or this teleport spell is uncommon because it can trivialize adventures where the travel is the challenge).

While i agree Rarity shouldn't be a power balancer, isn't teleport in the exact same category as 1st level flight from ancestry, as both "can trivialize adventures where the travel is the challenge"? The only difference i can see is the scale of travel that can be avoided, so if rarity on teleport is fine, then so to should it be fine for starfinder ancestries with 1st level flight.

What are some possible uses for this feat?

It's so you have enough time to use the items you create or to hand them out to those that will. say you're a 9th level alchemist and you Quick Alchemy, making 2 tools or elixirs. Now you're down 1 action and have one in each hand. Unless the alchemist themselves is drinking both that means you're unless you're right next to allies, you can't get rid of both before they go bad unless an ally comes over to you to get it, burning up their actions to get to you and to drink/use it.

Now if you have enduring alchemy, you have 2 rounds to use them: you can make them, move over to an ally and give one a drink and then next round drink it yourself or move and give it to someone else.

Would allowing the enduring alchemy feat to include "bombs" be broken at all?

It's pointless most times as anyone throwing bombs will usually take Quick Bomber, meaning that when they get Double Brew, they make 2 items and if one is a bomb, they then throw a bomb all in a single action. This means they still have 2 actions left to throw the other bomb meaning it's rarely an issue using your bombs in the normal time.

“I am the only one like me you will ever encounter can get very “protagonist energy” very quickly.

I mean, the game kind of does this already with Rare classes and ancestries. You can make a Kashrishi Reflection Exemplar with the Chosen One background gives off more “protagonist energy” than a Kasatha Mystic for example. Not everyone wants to start off with local connections or to be a cookie cutter fit in a campaign and they don't need Starfinder to get there. Heck, you could have a [human, android, ysoki, ect] Knight of Golarion or a Golarion Survivor Human anything might fit in better than some PF2 characters.

This particular problem regarding Eidolons has devolved into quibbling about whether an Eidolon can use a doorknob or not.

To be fair, it's actually a valid question based on the wording of various sections and can have "wildly different conclusions. It can be from 'can't interact with any object' to 'just can use some magic items.'

That is why this errata is not at the top of the queue.

I don't know that this is true: Minions out of encounter mode, instances of damage and other things have been questions since the game started and can impact all levels of play while causing issues and they still aren't fixed yet either. Some problems they just don't seem to want to fix.

graystone wrote:

HammerJack wrote:

The rules also tell you that Unique doesn't apply to the DC to recall about the general creature type.

It does say something like that in one of the books [Gamemastery]: it notes it's Unique for "discern specific information about" a Unique NPC but when "encountering" such an NPC, their Ancestry follows the rarity for that Ancestry.

This means that if you're trying to recall if an NPC is an orc, it's a Unique DC, but if you mean them, it's a Common DC.

Let's be honest; if this is something players/DM's are expected to know, it should be spelled out in a Main core book.

I assume that would apply to level as well. A high level unique orc shouldn't just be treated as common to know things about orcs, but you should also be rolling against the base Orc DC, not the one boosted for this individual's level.

I don't agree as ancestries have abilities [feats] that they get from levels. A level 1 DC can't tell you about a high level unique orcs Spell Devourer.

Trip.H wrote:

ugh, how the hell did this not get an errata yet?

Because it really only causes problems on the rules forum. Essentially we are quibbling over edge cases.

In an actual game, the players are going to create a ruling that makes sense and allows the character to be playable and fun and run with that. And pretty much any ruling that they come up with is going to be reasonably balanced.

Pretty much. Every group makes up their own houserule for how it works and goes with it.

Still, Trip.H has a point. It IS trivially easy to add the word "magic" into 2 places or removing the word magic in 1 section. It's low hanging fruit that shouldn't need much if any debate about it.

The Stone of Weight fuses after being carried for one minute. https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=608

Ok. That's fall under 'curses that activate by moving or entering an area', something the Eidolon can do. As far as the Stone, the description explains it; "It reappears in your possessions within 1 minute if you discard it". So if one gets the Stone, 1 min after summoned, the Stone shows up on it.

Quote:

Many cursed items can’t be discarded. Some use magic to fuse to the wielder, making it impossible to remove the item, while others attune to their owner and return even if discarded. (This section uses the term “fuse” to describe either situation.)

If an Eidolon is cursed and dismissed, what happens to the item?

That was explained above in that they can't USE the item. In your quote is says "fuse to the wielder" and Wielding means "When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it." This means the eidolon never has to worry about that kind of item since they can never use/wield it. there are curses they activate simply by moving into an area or moving an abject, things an eidolon can actually do. They can also only attune to items with the eidolon trait, so no worries there either unless it's a cursed item with the eidolon trait.

Alright, how about a ladder? It's equipment, not terrain. https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2729 So eidolon can carry a ladder, but can it set one up? Or use it? Can it unfold a folding ladder? https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1396

This is a similar situation to the door.

The key here is use is equated with wielding/wearing/activating [ie, actively manipulating the item] in the rules. You can't bring in a broader usage of use, like using a rope to climb, or the eidolon literally be unable to do anything as it has to use air to breathe and use the floor to walk, ect. So tossing a grappling hook would be a no no but climbing up one should be fine.

Manni#7168 wrote:

I'd appreciate clarification from Paizo.

You'd be very lucky if you get one.

Yeah, that'd be winning the lotto jackpot level of luck there [especially if it was actually here and not some random podcast or post on another site].

This entire sidebar is talking about wearable equipment & invested gear.

The issue has always been that two other sections restrict item use and make no mention of magic [meaning more sections do not read this way].

eidolon trait [SoM 57]: "An item with this trait can be used or worn by an eidolon only, and an eidolon can't use items that don't have this trait."

Key terms, summoner [SoM 51]: "An item with this trait can be used or worn by an eidolon only, and an eidolon can't use items that don't have this trait."

Since there is no conflict in restrictions, IE magic items are still items meaning all sections can be true, this leaves the RAW at no item use. It's not an uncommon houserule to just look at the 'Gear and your Eidolon' and pretend the other sections read magic items though.

Given the above, I am confused that a key is an item, and a doorknob is an item, but the eidolon can use one and not the other to preform the same action.

The issue is that the magic doorknob isn't being used as a magic item or an independent item at all: the normal use of the Phantasmal Doorknob is as a spellheart attached to armor/weapons. In your question, you tried to sidestep it but it becomes part of the door instead of its own item you activate/use in your example: you are opening the door, not Activating the knob and that is the difference IMO.

There is a difference between holding and using an item for instance: the same applies here. you can hold a two handed sword in one hand, you just can't swing it. For the knob, you can turn it to open the door, but you can use it as a spellheart. Being unable to use doesn't mean you can't Interact with it.

I'm still unclear on cursed items and eidolons.

Cursed depends on how the curse activates. If it's picking it up or opening it they can get the curse but if it's activating it then no.

I don't think the game becomes more fun when RK is extra hard.

If you just ignored the rarity modifiers to RK it would still be tough just by the monsters you really care about being higher level than you.

Agreed. Personally in the rare situation of my DMing, I go with a sliding scale with the 'normal' DC giving basic info and higher rolls [uncommon, rare, unique mods] allowing for more detail. This give people that invested in the right Lore a chance for some nice benefits while allowing for the safety net for everyone else. This way, the PC's with investments in the skills for Recall at least don't have a much higher chance of crit failing than succeeding.

Can an eidolon open doors?

They are listed under environment and Interact is to "use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain so, IMO, I'd give them a pass on this one. If the DM sides with it being an item, then no: however, they could always Force Open the door instead of opening it.

Can it use keys?

Keys are items without the Eidolon trait so, IMO, no.

Can it trigger an alarm?

Alarms aren't used by those that set them off but by the person setting them.

If I replace a regular doorknob with a phantasmal doorknob (TV PG 127), can it open the door? Does matter if it's in encounter mode or combat? Does it matter who knows about the magic item?

Type of doorknob wouldn't matter, nor would mode of play, IMO.

Loaded dice are nonmagical, but luckless dice are cursed. Luckless dice appear to be loaded. Can an eidolon be subject to a curse? Can it use the cursed item at all? Could a party use their eidolon as a curse detector? If the eidolon becomes cursed, it can't abandon the item casually. What happens if it is unsummoned?

Loaded dice are items without the Eidolon trait so they can't use them and use is what triggers the curse.

graystone wrote:

HammerJack wrote:

The rules also tell you that Unique doesn't apply to the DC to recall about the general creature type.

It does say something like that in one of the books [Gamemastery]: it notes it's Unique for "discern specific information about" a Unique NPC but when "encountering" such an NPC, their Ancestry follows the rarity for that Ancestry.

This means that if you're trying to recall if an NPC is an orc, it's a Unique DC, but if you mean them, it's a Common DC.

Let's be honest; if this is something players/DM's are expected to know, it should be spelled out in a Main core book.

It is also in GM Core. That is a core book.

You are right, I didn't remember it being reprinted in the GM core.

I mean... 'this is a reason to have decent Str on non-melee characters or at least not go straight for Sentinel dedication' seem a perfectly good reason for me?

there is very little else a non-melee person would want with Str when Dex is right there: ranged attack, saves and AC: If I'm putting enough points into Str for it to matter for armor, I'm pretty much going to be melee since you aren't seeing better AC unless you have at least a +3 Str and can wear Heavy.

Yes, it's still math, but it's fairly easy math.

It was always easy math, they just moved a decimal point and lumped more things into the same groupings. IMO, it just seems like change to make both groups unhappy.

Yes, it's still math, but it's fairly easy math. And the ways to 'bypass' it are still a significant cost (in either feats of magic items) at low levels.

The feats might not be of significant value [depending on your skills, they might not be overly exciting and you can get Hefty Hauler from backgrounds] and Ant Haul is a 1st level spell that lasts 8hrs. Heck, since we're focused on low levels, A simple horse can carry any gear not needed for the next fight and has as many hp as the PC's. So it just goes from annoying at low levels [unless you're a Str character] to pretty much ignored at high [I mean, how much is a wand of Ant Haul past the first few levels? or a Spacious Pouch?].

Sure, you'll eventually reach the point where it doesn't matter, but that's also true of, say, climbing and swimming.

With how easy it is to get climb/swim speed, that point can easily be 1st and they aren't abilities that low their usefulness.

Bulk specifically exists to simplify exactly that compared to the terrible old days of lbs, and I use it at my table. Notably, the way it's calculated, you only need about 20 things for it to matter on characters for which it'll matter (the smallest bulk is 1/10 and most people will have things with real bulk). The thing that comes up most often are low Str people (usually casters) wearing medium armour and trying to have a pile of consumables in easy reach. Trying to find the line for those guys is not easy without bulk!

But they replaced math with... math. It seems like a side-grade at best. people that didn't like keeping track of equipment still don't while people that do find Bulks lack of coherent measurement not what they want. It didn't get rid of fractions, multiplication, subtraction or division: they just lowered how big the numbers got. It left me wondering 'why?'. The only reason seems to be to punish low str players for a few levels until they get a way to bypass it. For myself, it seems like a lot of work to keep someone from having a few extra consumables on hand.

The rules also tell you that Unique doesn't apply to the DC to recall about the general creature type.

It does say something like that in one of the books [Gamemastery]: it notes it's Unique for "discern specific information about" a Unique NPC but when "encountering" such an NPC, their Ancestry follows the rarity for that Ancestry.

This means that if you're trying to recall if an NPC is an orc, it's a Unique DC, but if you mean them, it's a Common DC.

Let's be honest; if this is something players/DM's are expected to know, it should be spelled out in a Main core book.

Unique is another case where people desperately need to read all the rules about rarity and RK, and not blindly use those AoN DCs. It is very important that the Unique DC is only used for what is actually Unique about the individual, not for information about any base creature type that they are a special individual of.

I think it's more a case that the game shouldn't use the same tag if it's not meant to be used in the same way. The literal rules for Unique tell you to increase the DC of Recall Knowledge checks related to Unique creatures. The rarity system itself is to blame here with it having double or tripple duty [hard to find vs game disrupting vs unique creature vs unique npc...].

It's worth noting that five cubic feet of volume is pretty big still- enough to make two life-size statues.

This will of course depend on what it is a life-sized statue of. 2 average humans? Sure, they're 2.3 cubic feet. 2 average Nagaji? Not so much with their average 6'8" height and 230 lbs weight. Could get a whole pile of sptites though.

Bulk is one of those rules that I always felt pointless. I don't recall a single table I was in that used bulk rules, but GMs still asked players to not carry around 1000 things in their backpack because it didn't make sense. The few times I remember bulk being discussed it was usually for players searching ways to mostly ignore it, which usually isn't particularly difficulty (bags of holding being the easiest and most accesible option). Thats why I kinda ask myself if there's a ton of tables that don't use them (or don't use them RAW at least) and those who use them search for ways on how to ignore it, why don't make it a "a GM determines if you are overencumbered or not" rule and call it a day? It would also save a ton of page space if you removed the bulk of every single item.

Agreed. I prefer the 'you can carry a reasonable amount of gear and if you pass that threshold the Dm can give you encumbered' houserule. I've seen RAW bulk to 100% ignoring it [and things like normal ammo, food, water] and I have yet to find a situation where I found Bulk added anything positive to the game. They could take the space used to explain Bulk and use it to explain how to use minions in modes other than encounter mode or what an instance of damage is and I'd be much happier.

But using Lore for Recall Knowledge gives a penalty to the DC rather than a bonus to the roll, and I think that that is why I keep forgetting it.

It wouldn't be hard to use the penalty to DC as a roll bonus instead if that's easier to recall.

EDIT: the only thing I can think it'd mess with would be Assurance: Lore.

On the flip side, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that a naked human and a human wearing heavy armor with a bunch of large weapons, packs, and gear all stowed on their person are exactly the same difficulty to carry.

I don't really agree as Bulk itself doesn't make a lot of sense on its face as a useful measurement of anything. It encapsulates "size, weight, and general awkwardness" and I'd argue that the main factor in size and general awkwardness in a PC would come from the PC themselves as the rest is strapped/attached to the person: that leaves weight and that just isn't going to be as much of a factor as the game seems to minimize its relevance in favor of usability like how weighty things like 999 gold coins have no bulk even though they'd be heavy in weight while 1000 coins are as 'Bulky' as a staff even though the weight difference in an ounce and it had no discernible change in size or general awkwardness. Add to that that you can have a 7'5" 320 pound male Nagaji and a 4' 61 pound female Tengu both being the exact same 6 bulk and I just don't see how/why equipment is a factor.

The rules don't say gear counts, but it also doesn't say gear doesn't count. But it leads to utterly nonsensical outcomes if gear doesn't count, like you can load up someone to max encumbrance and have someone else carry that person, and all that gear suddenly doesn't exist.

The entire bulk system leads to utterly nonsensical outcomes as I can stuff a halfling in my backpack, have one under each arm and be perfectly fine for moving, attacking, ect all day. As such any 'it doesn't make sense' arguments about Bulk don't hold water with me. The low Bulk number for carrying PCs was clearly put there so you could easily move PC, like moving them to safety; having to add equipment means there would be no point in doing so as your equipment plus their equipment plus their bulk would likely push most PCs past their limit of 10+PS bulk. I can't imagine the only reason it was made was for dragging.

Bulk as a system just doesn't work very well as soon as you get outside the common scenario.

I'd say it's closer to 'Bulk as a system just doesn't work very well' and leave it at that.

PS: As a side note, I've seen both ways ruled in play.

Up thread where they were discussing flyers picking up another character and flying with them would be difficult because of how bulk affects speed

I think you could give dragonkin a ancestry feat strong wings that would allow them to fly with 5 additional bulk paired with hefty hauler would give them 7 additional bulk that would allow them to fly non champions or defenders who are at 10 or more bulk.

What would the group think of a feat for champions and defenders to half the bulk of their armor and shield at between 6 to 8 level.

Ravingdprk the two must have feats for rogues are Gang up at 6h and oppertune Backstab at 8th and for the Guardian Group Taunt at 8th level.

Bulk of Creatures, Player Core pg. 269

Nothing says those numbers are modified in any way by equipment worn by the carried PC: A naked PC and a fully equipped PC have the same bulk [difficult to handle, size, weight, and general awkwardness]. Or a DM could read it as JUST the PC but with the push in the errata to simplify and make bulk less punishing, I'd think having to add equipment would be noted if required.

IMO;
RAI: a cube 5' per edge
RAW an 18" x 18" x 27" rectangle or five 1'x1'x1' cubes

A low level Commander has what, 5 tactics known and 3 active? If they've invested 2 known and at least one active one into that and it happens to come up, then that's their class investing a chunk of power into being able to do that.

Mountaineering/Naval Training are ones I'D take if I thought there was any chance I'd run into those checks if I was playing a Commander as just preparing it allows the use of your Warfare Lore for Climb/Swim checks so you don't have to worry about low Str and/or Athletics. You can also swap out tactics in 10 min, so as long as it's not an Immedient need, you can swap them in.

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

2) There are Pathfinder ancestries that also get flight at level 1. I recognize that the Dragonkin has a longer flight speed, but I still don't think that this is game breaking. What was game breaking in this context was having the PC ferry the other players. There are rules for PCs being mounted by other PCs, and as a GM I would have applied those rules to the challenge.

Carrying someone across a gap sounds far more like using the Bulk of Creatures rule than PCs as mounts rule.

OP didn't mention those being carried trying to take actions mid-lift.

I do think OP's story is a good cautionary tale about mixing PF2 and SF2 not being quite as harmonious as top level discussions have indicated.

Yeah, this. We have bulk rules so a princess carry is possible that wouldn't give the carried person the actions they would if in a mounted position. I can't see enforcing mounted rules UNLESS the character is actually mounting the other PC in some way like a Sprite on a Dragonkins shoulder.

graystone wrote:

Christopher#2411504 wrote:

- Aldori Riposte Disarm option still uses the free Hand, so it would break the Stance. Probably should have a exclusion or not require a hand

Disarm only requires you have at least one hand free: nothing says that hand is used up up so it remains a free hand.

The "Multiple Attacks with Athletics" Sidebar makes it very clear you are using that empty hand for the disarm.

Grapple never says your hand is occupied by the creature you are Grappling. But we all are smart enough to figure that one out.

(That those Actions need to say it clearer is another Errata I requested).

"Multiple Attacks with Athletics" Sidebar doesn't apply as the feat says "or attempt to Disarm the triggering opponent using your Aldori dueling sword" and "You are using an Aldori dueling sword to parry" and not with your free hand/fist as the sidebar says.

- Aldori Riposte Disarm option still uses the free Hand, so it would break the Stance. Probably should have a exclusion or not require a hand

Disarm only requires you have at least one hand free: nothing says that hand is used up up so it remains a free hand.

Aldori Parry seems miswritten.

The Action cost and requirements make it look like the other parry feats from Fighter and Swashbuckler.
Yet the actual text is like a passive rider effect for the Sword, adding the parry trait to the sword (and upgrading the bonus conditionally) without actually using it.
The Aldori Riposte feat makes it sound like it should be a parry action.

I'm assuming it's making the parry into an Aldori Parry so that it qualifies for the Quickened action you get for Duelist Form: if it was all passives, it wouldn't work with it.

Hi all

I'm double checking rules because the description for the transcendance ability for the Exemplar Horn of Plenty is confusing me, and my local GM slightly. If I used "feed the masses", would it be a single action, or a pair of actions? Both myself and the GM agree it's a max of two, and we would both like to figure out whether we're reading it wrong.

Single Action - Feed the Masses

Quote:

The horn of plenty allows you to transfer the effects of potions and elixirs to your allies. You Interact to draw a consumable from the horn and then Interact to drink it. Rather than nourishing yourself, the item’s effects are transferred to a willing ally within 60 feet, as if they had consumed it themself. If the consumable restores Hit Points, you can choose to divide the amount it restores between you and the ally freely (after rolling dice to determine the amount).

from AoN

It has the 1 action symbol, so it's one action: it DOES have 2 subordinate actions, but that doesn't impact how many actions it takes to use.

Subordinate Actions

"The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in."

As mentioned, a free-hand weapon is mostly an action economy thing for characters without an unarmed attack from ancestry or class; not having to draw or stow a weapon can be very useful. The "can't be Disarmed" can also be a nice feature.

Even for ancestries with unarmed attacks, a free-hand weapon can offer some things an unarmed attack can't: for instance, some things only work on weapons like alchemical blanches, poisons, ect. Have a Bladed Gauntlet on your off hand and now you can hit weaknesses to any physical types [B/P/S], can be made of a special material to trigger another weakness, can add a blanch or poison while Blazons of Shared Power can keep it competitive with your main weapon.

Say you're a dex build with a main weapon that is an Elven Curve Blade. You run into a monster with B or P or the special material you have your Bladed Gauntlet made out of and you can just drop the hand off the Bladed Gauntlet hand and attack.

Or another case is for unarmed builds, especially non- 9th+ monk ones. In the earlier levels especially, there isn't a lot of variety in damage types and a free hand weapon can bring that to the table when that static damage bonus matters more than the loss of the damage die. Plus if you have an alchemist friend that like poisons, now you have something to add them to.

Another is the alchemist, which had double brew making 2 items at a time: free hand weapons can let them do that without dropping something.

If this has already been answered could someone please send me the link.

For an Alchemist with the Bomber research Field; do all the feats and research field benefits affect the Bomber's Versatile Vials the same way they do Quick Alchemy bombs because they have the Alchemical, Bomb, Infused, and Consumable traits?

Example: could I turn an Acid Versatile Vial into a Megabomb?

Additive trait, Player Core 2 pg. 61

Quick Alchemy, Player Core 2 pg. 59
Quick Vial: You create a versatile vial that can be used only as a bomb or for the versatile vial option from your research field (it can't be used to create a consumable, for example). This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the end of your current turn.

So nothing with the Additive trait works. For example, Mega Bomb has that trait, making it incompatible with quick vials.

Thanks for the responses. Still curious if the community in general would consider reshaping the wood into rough impeding shapes spread on the ground for difficult terrain since creating cover also seems like a legitimate use.

I think any amount of unworked wood that's big enough to make difficult terrain and/or cover with the spell would be enough to be difficult terrain and/or cover without the spell. The spell doesn't move the wood, so it has to already be in place so...

It's 20 cubic feet in volume so that's 2' x 2' x 5': so around Medium size. Or a cube, 2' 8 1/2" per edge. It's not a lot of volume to work with: cover would require making it fairly thin and require losing volume in making a base so it'd stand so it might get knocked over with the 1st attack. As for as difficult terrain, it'd not even be a foot deep covering a square and you can only make a rough shape so, again, if you have enough wood in a square that it might be difficult terrain, you might be able to... make difficult terrain.

Can you point to me where it says that.

Follow the link you provided for Proficiency Bonus. Read the last line.

graystone wrote:

Mangaholic13 wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Tridus wrote:

I think this discussion in general is really going sideways. Assurance was never meant to be "you succeed at things that are supposed to be a reasonable challenge without any failure risk". And people are proposing exactly that.

I have the feeling you think the difference between rolling and using Assurance is higher than it really is. Let's say you are a Strength martial that takes Assurance on Athletics at 6th level. Your Athletics modifier is +14, while your Assurance result is 20. A 5th level DC is 20, which means you need a result of 6 or higher on the die to succeed. You can reduce this a bit if you have an item bonus on Athletics or if someone aids you on the check. Yes, Assurance would be an auto-success, but unless you were to roll a 2 or 3 on the die you would also succeed with ease, plus the have the chance to crit succeed as well.

A character that maxes out a skill is pretty much assured (heh) to succeed on CL-1 or even CL+0 DCs with ease, while having a decent chance to crit succeed as well. Assurance removes the chances of failure (for CL-1 DCs) but also removes the chances of crit succeding. I agree with you that Assurance is tricky to buff because its really easy to make it too good of an option, and while I don't think the Assurance we have is bad but rather situational, I feel it could be a bit stronger and it would be perfectly okay. If you can already auto-succed on CL-1 DCs with Assurance, the next logical step would be CL+0 DCs. I think that beyond that it would be too much.

...Um, Exequiel, where are you getting 20 from?

The result of Assurance is 10 + your proficiency bonus without any other modifiers.
At expert proficiency, it would be +4, which makes it 14...

Plus level, which is 6.

You don't add your level to it... right?

Proficiency Bonus

"If you're trained, expert, master, or legendary, your proficiency bonus equals your level plus 2, 4, 6, or 8, respectively."

I prefer having the many options that Ancestry Feats allow, over the few automatic things 1E gave us.

This really isn't true as PF1 had Alternate Racial Traits so you could trade out any of those starting things for other things you might want AT 1st level instead of to a level you might not see before your game ends. For instance, a wyvaran could replace their wings with knowledge skill bonuses and/or their tail attack with other skill bonuses. IMO, it's a losing argument to say you have more interesting things or more options in PF2 in regards to race/ancestry vs PF1. PF1 was much more customizable at 1st and still had racial feats you could take after that. The only thing PF2 has in its favor, IMO, is that it had bespoke ancestry feats for 'free/extra' customization.

I'm confused. If I'm likely to succeed anyway, why am I wasting a valuable feat slot?

Well, I'll push back on "valuable feat slot". For quite a few skills, there is a dearth of skill feats for some levels or even interesting/useful ones in total. So how valuable that slot is can be questionable and vary depending on the skills picked. I often find myself picking the least awful skill feat for some levels and picking between niche feats which could include assurance.

I'm sure by 2024 we'll get a reprint of the book and the errata that comes with it... :P

I was being a bit facetious/snarky but even my sarcastic estimation was missed. Paizo doesn't disappoint with not answering basic questions. :P

I much prefer the "use your Class DC" approach.

This would make Kineticists and Commanders disproportionately better at using items than others for no logical sense as nothing in their kit suggests improved magic item use.

Battlecry! pg. 54

The Aldori Duelist's Dueling Acumen archetype feat should probably be level 4 instead of level 2, as it is only obtainable at that level when using the free archetype rules.

Dueling Acumen is a skill feat so there is no issue with non-free archetype characters as all characters get a skill feat at 2nd.

Where do they answer rules questions?

The only place seems to be on random podcasts or streams or in the errata passes. Which means there isn't a way to directly ask them. I'm not sure why they'd send you here for an official answer: we can give you our best guesses, but we can't make a Paizo statement appear. If i could, I have a list of things I'd like answered...