Did the Mind Smith archetype get reprinted with extra feats and traits?
From a quick look it seems to have had nothing done to it.
Search Posts
So can this non-mindless int -5 creature figure that out? Not clear. I don't know why they wouldn't: we're talking about the same difference as there is between 13 and 14. Even plants without an Int score are capable of holding a conversation; You can Speak with Plants and that "spell doesn't make them more friendly or intelligent than normal". So -5 is higher than a scoreless bush and that bush could understand basic situations about its environment. The concept of 'up' and using an ability they have are things a plant can do so why would a cave worm struggle? Also look at Awakened Tree [int -5] "Invested with a workable set of instincts and the ability to mobilize and attack, these awakened trees follow the commands of their master and fight to protect their home." Having Mindless seems to be where they have programmed or limited understanding kicks in. You have a bit of a point, that typical animal level intelligence is like a -4 int modifier, and that most things with a -5 int modifier are considered mindless (which is what the cave worm has, though it is not mindless). It's the other way around: for Mindless "Most, if not all, of their mental attribute modifiers are –5." And they don't even follow that rule as I don't recall something with all -5's [or even close*]. There are plenty of creatures with -5 and not Mindless just in Animals. For instance, Cave Fisher has -5 Int and can lurk, lay in wait for prey and leave decoys. Flash Beetle are listed as being trained and domesticated. Giant Scorpion are trained as pack animals and war beasts. Giant Stag Beetles are uses as mounts, pack animals and war beasts. -5 int creatures seem to be treated any different from -4 for the ability to train, learn and/or understand. It should also be noted that it says "gifted, patient, and brave animal trainers can condition cave worms to serve in all manner of roles, such as living siege engines, shocking methods of executing foes, or merely pets." Even the "notoriously dim witted" Cave Worm isn't Mindless. * While Mindless says mental stats are usually -5, only Int is usually that. Even your basic -1 Skeleton Guard has -0 in it's other mental stats.
I wonder if we tell them they messed up enough if they will 're-re-master it' like they did with the remaster death and dying rules that were wildly unpopular. It's always possible, if unlikely. How many times has Alchemist been 'fixed'?
Imaginary weapon also can hit 2 targets, so it was a major outlier in power for a focus spell option at 2d8 heightening So 2 people in melee with a d6 caster without armor is a good thing?
A summoned cave worm would also struggle to pull it off because it's a minion. 2 actions and 0 reactions means the worm would Strike, Improved Grab, Swallow Whole, and wait until next turn to Regurgitate. Haste on the cave worm makes it into a 1 round rotation. strike [quickened], improved grab [free], swallow whole [1 action], regurgitate [1 action]. Just like with getting speak with animals, getting haste by 17th isn't a burden.
If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands. They are animals, so Speak with Animals isn't a particularly hard spell to come by for a 17th level caster if they are going to regularly summon them.
The book with Necromancer, Runesmith AND remastered Magus is Impossible Magic. It was announced today! All 4 actually. "Strike with both spell and blade with as a magus.
I'm more than willing to compare it to any other cantrip level healing... Since there isn't any, it doesn't seem like such a black mark. I can say that across my 3 post-remaster Chirs, I've never encountered a situation where I wanted to use my FVs to get a dying ally off the floor. Not a single occurrence across 3 APs. And I've seen it used a handful of times. It was used at time where they COULDN'T use the things you suggest because they couldn't reach the target to give them a elixir or wanted to stop dying but didn't want to provoke a reaction from the Interact action from Activating the elixir next to the target which was within reach of the enemy. Also makes me think about options that are so broadly useful, that they completely cover such an edge-case niche, like Dr's Visitation. Sure, there are better things but they are an investment: Visitation is 2 class feats and is taking up your Archetype so there's an opportunity cost. Secondly, there is still a check so the possibility for failure is there [unless you've got assurance and a high enough Medicine skill]. Plus it's unavailable until 4th where the VV is available from 1st. Again, I'm not saying it's amazing but it has a use and it's not the worst thing out there. You can get actions that are better but they have a cost and you might not have seen a use for them because the alchemist in your case did take the cost to get those better actions but they aren't part of the alchemist chassis and shouldn't be assumed that everyone will do so. You're argument seems to be that a 0 investment option is worse than a 3 feat one [medic dedication, visitation, battle medicine] or using 2 resources [Soothing + Numbing] and I can only say 'yeah, that should obviously be the case'. A cleric casting a single action Heal twice on someone is better than casting Stabilize too but that doesn't mean there isn't a use for Stabilize: even when you're out of your other resources, you can still fall back on your cantrips. The Soothing + Numbing could have been 5 F.Healing + 10 tHP every turn, when the FV was still stuck at avg 7 HP total. Yeah, the per turn benefits of the buffing elixirs were 2x. Sure, but how many battles do you get through when you give each combatant 2 elixirs for each one?
** spoiler omitted ** I don't think Rousing Splash is a good comparison because it's not healing or dealing with a downed person. I've seen it used to stop people that were downed and couldn't be reached and that's just not something you can do with Rousing Splash. That's why I used Stabilize as a comparison point as that seems to be where it has the most value. IMO, it's a fair and balanced alternative for ranged stopping of dying. If you're just looking at what it can do to a 'normal' person it's not going to look like a big amount of healing for the actions but when looked at as ranged stabilization, it doesn't compare badly to Stabilize as it doesn't require a 'hit' like healing bomb. Now don't get me wrong, it's not amazing or something you'll use all the time. It's going to be used in the same limited situations like with Stabilize. I was mostly pointing out that it wasn't the worst actions you could be taking as you'd said.
Yes, this is how I've used it. Hit someone in the back and start the cone from them. This can be particularly effective if you get around cover with it since you can aim it around corners and such as long as one target is visible.
Chirurgeon's isn't that bad. Compare it with the Stabilize cantrip: Stabilize takes 2 actions, 30' range and loses dying but stays at 0 hp. Chirurgeon VV takes 2 actions, 20' range and heals the base damage number. It has the coagulant trait [1/10 min per target] but as you level you get the ability to ignore it when the target is 1/2 or lower hp. IMO, it's not bad. Now Mutagenist and Toxicologist... You can make Toxicologist work if you can get a bow proficiency and never have to move [1 action on quick alchemy, 1 on applying poison and one on the Strike and that can turn pretty unsatisfying if you need actions for anything else. I can't even think of a situation where a Mutagenist VV is useful.
By definition, everything you do in the game creates an effect. So it really doesn't matter of it's explicitly or implicitly mentions create in a spell description. For instance, under Effect [Player Core pg. 426] it explains "Casting a fly spell on yourself creates an effect that allows you to soar through the air, but casting the spell does not require a check." For an effect duration is states "For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect" and "Most effects are discrete, creating an instantaneous effect when you let the GM know what actions you are going to use." The second quote shows that an instantaneous spell, like fireball, is created as much as one with an ongoing duration. Range and Reach and Line of Effect have similar uses of create. IMO, it'd be better to go with 'creates a tangible physical effect'.
Something to also keep in mind is that Force Fang has a reach equal to your weapons reach OR the first range increment of your weapon if you can use ranged spellstrike. This means sparlight span magus can use Force Fang at more than 3 times the range as they could Force Bolt [100' with a longbow in hand vs 30']. the fact that it matches your weapon range can be a pretty big boon. Considering that it's competing with Shooting Star only makes Force Fang look even better the majority of the time.
Secondly, it IS possible to be master in crafting at 2nd. I meant expert at 2nd, not master. ;)
It would be possible to get that through some dedication feat, but since that would use up the Level 2 Inventor Feat, then it'd be impossible to get the Reverse Engineer Feat at the same level. through the Inventor Archetype, you can use Basic Breakthrough [gain a 1st or 2nd level Inventor feat] to take it at 4th: if the level was raised, you'd have to use Advanced Breakthrough and wait till 6th. So it being 2nd instead of 4th matters there. Secondly, it IS possible to be master in crafting at 2nd. Vehicle Mechanic gives you expert in Crafting with it's dedication, meaning with Free Archetype, you could pick up it and Reverse Engineer. So it's not clearly an errata or something that needs/requires fixing. I wouldn't mind them dropping the requirement though.
Except that the auditory trait has the extra complexity of the caster needing to be able to make the sound, thus it creates extra complications for the spell itself to have it or for the specific part about creatures making noise. Actually, it's spellcasting that requires the caster to make noise as the spell doesn't have Subtle. "Casting a spell requires the caster to make gestures and utter incantations, so being unable to speak prevents spellcasting for most casters." So I'm not seeing anything lost because you might have to make noise after you just made noise. :P I think it makes much more sense to remove all of the sensory traits from this spell, and perhaps illusions as a whole because the complexity of multiple senses interacting with each other and how that affects illusions is too complicated. If anything, the illusion tag should clarify all of this without the need for those extra tags. Maybe? Maybe not. After some thought, I like those traits as I can, at a glance, tell what senses the illusions covers without even diving into the text.
Requiring an at-table edit to the statblock of a creature to use its specific abilities as written seems like an oversight to me? But Paizo can decide. What edit? the ability works 100% with Strikes and gets a bonus if it happens to have a magic item that matches the ability. I'm not seeing any "at-table edit" needed. Worst case, it's an unused ribbon ability that doesn't take away from its use with Strikes at Sense range. the change to remaster is only the lose of using Touch of Idiocy with the ability.
Boundless Reach works on Strikes and would work on any touch spells they might gain access to from magic items. As such, it doesn't seem like an obvious error or oversight. Even in the pre-remaster, it only had a single default touch spell.
It happens, the formating can get me too. I sometime wrongly attribute a quote when i copy/paste from multiple people. ;)
Yep, that thread goes over it with pretty much just Themetricsystem disagreeing. I stand that threads posts. PS: by the way, you really mangled the link. As is, it's non-functional as you left the default link and just slapped on the new oneto the end of the default one.
Spellstriker staff actually has a shifting rune and so you would look at the shifting rune entry to see what a shifting rune does which tells you what remains when you activate it. But, once again, it make NO mention of losing anything magical either for the item or the rune. As it's a specific weapon that can change its shape, it'd be logical to make a callout if using it would remove it's abilities, especially as the rune doesn't do so explicitly. And as I argued before and have not been corrected by any rule the qualities of a staff are also being changed when the weapon changes its shape. The WEAPON traits change, the Staff trait was not. The onus is on you to show something changes, as the base assumption is things don't change unless an explicit rule does so. So you haven't proved your theory and are using a Burden of Proof Fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam), where someone claims something exists and puts the onus on others to disprove it. It's shifting the burden of proving a rule [that the magic of staves mysteriously vanished when its shape changes] to others instead of actually proving that they do. Nothing about altering it's weapon properties infers that it's non-weapon properties changes: nothing says its Staff trait is removed or altered. They are statistics of the item and now its a different item for a time. It has different weapon stats: full stop. It in no way mentions anything else changing. Just like the spystaff has to explicitly tell us it keeps its staff statistics even when it changes using its activation ability. I don't think that's saying what you think it's saying. Note that it says the "The staff’s statistics don’t change" and not 'The Staff Trait don’t change.' This means you can change it into a Musical Instrument and it still counts as a staff weapon. What it does NOT say is that it keeps the Staff trait or that it retains it's magical abilities. You keep conflating staff and Staff: you can have a staff that isn't a Staff and you can have a Staff that isn't a staff.
Thing is the shifting rune description doesn't say you keep magical features of the items original form and there isn't a rule that tells us it should. You that that backwards. It would need to tell you something is lost for it to happen: why do you think it vanishes without an explicit call out? it's like saying 'you lose your spell slots because you because someone cast Shrink on you'. There is as much rules to back that up as there is to say 'your staff loses magic because it changes to another weapon'. For there to be an effect in the game, there has to be a rule to back it up. Shifting is explicitly describing its functions and makes no mention of other abilities: the fact that it doesn't go into things outside it's function doesn't point to anything but a narrow description of its effect: it HAS to mention runes and any precious material because those can change with its shape [a normally metal weapon can change into a normally wood weapon and runes can require a specific type of weapon to work on]. Nothing in shifting effects it's other magic, so its not mentioned. EDIT: I also noticed that the Spellstriker Staff, the staff with Shifting in it, makes no mention of losing anything when shifted. You'd think that'd be an important call out if losing them was a stealth rule in the game.
Shifting is changing it's physical shape, not it's magic. The Staff Trait is tied to its magical properties, not its shape. Where did you get the idea that shape influences an items magic unless stated otherwise? I sure don't recall seeing that in any of the rule books. For instance, if your Wand got turned into a dagger, can you point to a book and page where it says that it loses its magical powers and traits because of that? IMO, the effect changing something would have to explicitly state that it loses things or no lose happens.
Yes, but it does NOT say it's not held in the hand, just that it doesn't take it up. Those are 2 different things. You, by definition, can not wield a weapon that isn't held and you also can't change a weapon using the Shifting rune to a weapon with a different Hands, which is defined as the number of hands it's held in. So, yeah, you're holding a gauntlet in your hand. Remember, holding an item takes up your hand(s), and as you pointed out, wielding an item means holding it. [Free-Hand] specifies that you can use the [Free-Hand] weapon's hand to wield other objects, which implies that free-hand weapons don't actually take up a hand (on the grounds that mechanically, you can only hold one item per hand, so [Free-Hand] weapons must logically be treated as "not held" when worn but not wielded). And most significantly... I remember holding NORMALLY takes up a hand, but free-hand gives an exception to taking up the hand, but it doesn't give an acception to holding. All being able to wield another weapon proves is that you can hold more than 1 weapon in a hand, which isn't even limited to free-hand weapons. For instance, you can wield a hand crossbow in the same hand as you wield a Bayonet.
All that implies is that it's talking about wielding something other than the free-hand weapon. Taking up the hand isn't the same as held by the hand or preventing the hand from holding something else. For instance read Nimble Shield: "You are so used to wielding a shield that you can do so even while using the hand that’s holding it for other tasks that require the dexterity of a hand. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. You can also hold another object in this hand (but you still can’t use it to wield a weapon)." As you can see, you can hold multiple objects at once in a single hand. EDIT: actually, you could hold 3 things with nimble shield, your shield, a shield weapon [like a shield spike] and a held item, like a torch.
Right those specifically have the staff trait which makes them staves. right, and so too would a staff shifted into another form. Nothing removes the staff trait from a staff in another form. The Staff trait has nothing to do with it's weapon stats. How does a shifting rune handle weapons traits, do they stay the same? How do you mean? there is no 'weapon' staff trait. The magic item trait is "Staff: This magic item holds spells of a particular theme and allows a spellcaster to cast additional spells by preparing the staff." Why would anything change there? As to it as a weapon, that changes with the form. If your staff is currently in dagger form, it uses dagger weapon stats. The answer is exactly the same as the answer to any other weapon with a Shifting rune on it.
Entertainer's Lute is a lute that is a staff. Pipes of Compulsion are pipes that are a staff. Trickster's Mandolin is a mandolin that is a staff. Seer's Flute is a flurt that's a staff. Drums of War are drums that are a staff. Bagpipes of Turmoil are bagpipes that are staves. Musket Staff of the Void and Musket Staff of Force are a musket that's a staff. Spy Staff can change into a handheld accessory but keeps the same stats. Spellstriker Staff has the Shifting rune. Having a staff shape sure doesn't seem like a requirement to me.
Illusory Creature: "The image can't speak, but you can use your actions to speak through the creature, with the spell disguising your voice as appropriate. You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows." This is why it has Auditory. I don't disagree. However, did you notice all of the traits? Auditory, Concentrate, Illusion, Manipulate, Olfactory, Visual. If you have a Dm that doesn't read and understand the spell, a creature that can't smell, hear and/or see is immune to the spell even if they can sense one of the other traits. So something with no sense of smell would be immune even if the spell never created any scents. So, the spell should really move the sense Traits off the main spell and add them to the spell text for the individual effects. EDIT: I will also note that the sense traits do say 'This applies only to [sound-based/olfactory/visual] parts of the effect, as determined by the GM.' So the trait already silos effects from the spell as a whole.
But does the caster have to be able to speak for the illusion to speak? "you can use your actions to speak through the creature, with the spell disguising your voice as appropriate." Looks like Yes, you have to speak, else there would be no reason to disguise your voice. If you're making a voice not your own, there'd be no reason to disguise it. Now there is the question if the casters voice can be heard while he speaks through the illusion. Unknown and up to the DM. IMO, he can be heard. Look at Message: "You mouth words quietly, but instead of coming out of your mouth, they're transferred directly to the ears of the target." Note that the spell has Subtle, allowing it to be done stealthily, something Illusory Creature doesn't have. I'd expect something like what's in Message if the caster doesn't have to Speak.
Wouldn’t that be the linguistic trait, not the auditory? It seems like part of the problem here is that the auditory trait includes the need for the caster to be able to make the noise, where as the visual and olfactory traits don’t have that same requirement. "You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM." Lie has Auditory, Concentrate, Linguistic, Mental, and Secret. Performance Act is Auditory, Linguistic, and Visual. If anything, I'd say the spell should add Linguistic, not remove Auditory. The thing to remember is that there is no need to speak in an identifiable language, the requirement for Linguistic. They could grunt, clear their throat, click their tongue, ect that doesn't require a specific language but conveys their meaning and/or fits their character. Linguistic would be a nested optional Trait that is only needed if another nested optional Trait, Auditory, is used So I can't see removing Auditory. The vast majority of things with Linguistic also include Auditory and I'd argue that the few that don't, should.
But as previously noted, it seems like the auditory trait has been used in a confusing fashion with some spells like Illusory creature technically being useless against the deaf. Illusory Creature has an option to speak through the illusion, hence the Auditory trait. It doesn't seem that confusing unless you just look at the traits and don't read through the whole spell. It could be cleared up a bit by moving the Auditory trait to the explanation of speaking through the illusion so it's clear it's dependent on using that feature.
Illusory Creature: "The image can't speak, but you can use your actions to speak through the creature, with the spell disguising your voice as appropriate. You might need to attempt a Deception or Performance check to mimic the creature, as determined by the GM. This is especially likely if you're trying to imitate a specific person and engage with someone that person knows." This is why it has Auditory.
Can a magus use Runic Impression on a staff to give the staff a property rune? Staves: "They can be etched with fundamental runes but not property runes." Runic Impression: "Your unarmed attacks or weapon gain the benefits of a weapon rune you choose when you cast this spell" The spell only grants "the benefits of a weapon rune" and doesn't etch on a rune, so it looks like it works IMO. It DOES later go on about property runes maximums so maybe they intended it to put a rune on but it never actually does that.
In this case, wouldn't the correct solution be to just rule that using a staff requires you to hold it in one hand? If players want to make it a gauntlet, then all power to them! They just can't actually use it as a staff unless it's actually a staff. Gauntlet has Hands listed as 1, so technically it uses as many hands as a dagger does. This would NEED to be the case to use Shifting to turn anything into a Gauntlet because the Effect is "The weapon takes the shape of another melee weapon that requires the same number of hands to wield" and "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively." You can't rule you aren't holding a freehand weapon because otherwise you could never wield them.
Looking at the new dragonblood stuff in the Codex, and I'm curious if you can use natural weapons from other sources to enable feats? ie; if I'm a werecrocodile and grapple someone with my bite, can I benefit from Energize Bite or does it have to specifically be the dragonblood's heritage jaws? Same question can be applied to claws, tails, wings, etc. Unless something calls for a specific attack, any of the required type will work. Energize Bite asks for a Jaw attack only so any Jaw attack works. For an instance with requirements, look at Lizardfolk Envenom Fangs feat. It requires Iruxi Armaments even if they somehow got Fangs from someplace else, they still need the feat that grants unarmed attacks [though technically you could opt to not take Fang from Iruxi Armaments if you had Fang already and pick another unarmed attack].
Probably doesn't help that it looks like Archive of Nethys doesn't mention any of this. It does include that text. Go to the Psychic class and look at the Key Terms right under Key Attributes and Hit Points. Under Amp, you'll see "you can't apply both an amp and a metamagic ability to a cantrip at the same time" in its text.
Focus spells are good! Well SOME focus spells are good. Some are really, really bad and a lot more are just mediocre. There are focus spells that are more valuable for the extra focus point they give than the actual spell itself.
Is this correct? Seems so. Assured Ritualist modifies a secondary check and Flexible Ritualist allows you to make one of those.
My takeaway is that Psychic Dedication needs to give Timber Sentinel. Only if we can Amp it. ;)
It can continue but "You remain cursebound until you Refocus, which reduces your cursebound condition by 1 in addition to restoring a Focus Point." This means you aren't likely to walk into a fight with all of your focus points and cursebound 4 unless you aren't using focus spells which seems like a fairly big loss. I don't want this. Add me to the list too. They finally made an oracle with a curse that I don't mind interacting with so I'd rather not move it back to one I'd hate.
Again, if you set the DC of Tumble Through to Level Based DC or anything lower, then Tumbling through empty squares becomes one of the best things to do to gain Panache because you're rolling against an incredibly low DC and your penalty for failure is losing 5 feet of movement. Compared to the other ways to get Panache, this would be way too good. Actually the best thing to roll is a performance check: it requires nothing but taking an action in combat. "When making a brief performance—one song, a quick dance, or a few jokes—you use the Perform action" and "Performing rarely has an impact on its own, but it might influence the DCs of subsequent Diplomacy checks against the observers, or even change their attitudes if the GM sees fit." A Standard DC seems fine for this as it's not specifically being rolled against anyone. Secondly, Panache states "The GM might determine that a check to perform a particularly daring action, such as swinging on a chandelier or sliding down a drapery, can gain the bravado trait. These checks typically involve at least a single action and a non-trivial DC. So the Dc doesn't have to be as hard or harder that the saves of foes you'll face but non-trivial [several places like Hazard Experience lists trivial as -5 or more levels lower than the party]. So even a -4 Simple DC or better should be fine for gaining Panache.
Traditional bucklers would be more likely weapons with the Parry trait. IMO:
The current buckler is closest to a lantern shield, a free hand shield. As such, you can always call it that if you want a real life free hand shield.
And you can't compare with attacking an empty space, there're completely different aim, mechanics and results. You can attack an empty space because it's written you can and there's even a rule how. Tumble through requires a creature for a check. If there isn't one I'm not sure even miming would work: miming walls works because they are very easy to imagine and stationary, but invisible creature could be everything. At the very least it's extremely hard difficulty to pull off :) You totally can compare it. This is a world with invisible creatures, objects that are creatures [like animated objects], creatures that look like items [like mimics] ect. If you can dodge around an incorporeal creature that's in no way stopping you, it seems like an identical situation. And again, saying no means you can't try to move through actual invisible creatures or you telegraph which spaces they are in. You can Tumble Through an invisible enemies space when you know it's there so why would it be anymore difficult to try with an unknown one [the DC doesn't change vs an invisible one]? You still aren't getting precise senses. You can attack an empty space because it's written you can and there's even a rule how. It's a direct corollary: you have an ability that only targets a creature but it allowed an attempt vs space that may or may not have a creature in it compared with another ability that targets a creature. Tumble through a space that might have an invisible creatures space seems to be on more solid ground than ruling that you can tumble through an incorporeal creature. Just do backflips. It's essentially the same but my disagreement is that I can see actual cases where you will 100% want to tumble through spaces you think has a creature. That combined with your "attempts and checks matter, not effectiveness" makes me draw the conclusion that it should work in a world where it works vs a ghost: you do some fancy dodging and have the potential to lose movement [in a combat] if you fail the roll. If backflips gets the Bravado trait, how is it substantially different from Tumble Through when it's essentially the same mechanically?
No. That's not logical. You terribly over-stretch. There's a difference between a real creature and implied one. It's a creature with no physical form. It offers NO resistance and requires NO effort to move past. It offer as much resistance as an successfully disbelieved illusion. Secondly, I don't see why it would work differently than attacking a square as described under Undetected. "If you suspect there's a creature around, you can pick a square and attempt an attack." If you disallow this then you make it so you can never make it past undetected creatures. So,IMO, it's a quite logical conclusion and well within reason. I don't see a logical reason you can an attack roll to attack an empty space but can't roll to tumble through an empty space. Third, you yourself said "attempts and checks matter, not effectiveness." How if an attempt to avoid an invisible creature not an attempt even if it proves ineffective by guessing wrong on the space? IMO, it makes more sense than getting to roll vs a creature that doesn't have a physical form: that's sounds more like a "terribly over-stretch" going into 'bag or rats' territory. At least the Undetected rules have you make a roll, unlike moving though the space of an incorporeal creature. :P
I then answered his question about tumble through in the second part of my original post: ""A corporeal and an incorporeal creature can pass through one another, but they can’t end their movement in each other’s space." This answers it all: there is no check asked for with this movement."Although I think they can still make a check if they want and get panache. As is in line with normal gameplay for Swashbuckler: attempts and checks matter, not effectiveness. But there still should be a creature, even if incorporeal. If they want a check and panache 'just because' they need a custom action and a GM's agreement. Yeah, like the 'swing on chandelier' example. For Tumble through though, if they can roll for an incorporeal creature then rolling for an 'Undetected' foe should also work by picking a square and rolling even if that square ends up not having a creature in it: After all, neither one offers any resistance to movement.
If there's no Tumble check, there's no panache generated, making tumbling but not theough any unwilling creature not useful to the original question. In his statement of facts in the OP, he said "Tumble Through: Specifies that the player moves through a square occupied by an enemy who is unwilling. " I was pointing out that this is in fact not correct: full stop. I didn't want someone reading the thread to assume what he posted was correct as it's been clarified RAI and RAW. I then answered his question about tumble through in the second part of my original post: ""A corporeal and an incorporeal creature can pass through one another, but they can’t end their movement in each other’s space." This answers it all: there is no check asked for with this movement."
From dev Sayre: "the 9th-level liturgist ability is intentionally "a move action with style while you Sustain". (And as others have noted, it's not literally all Strides, because it won't work with e.g. quicken effects that let you Stride.)" That ability is "Dancing Invocation (9th) The movement of your body grants power to your magic. When you Leap, Step, or Tumble Through, you also Sustain an apparition spell or vessel spell." The discussion was about Tumble Through and the ability to get jumps high enough to equal or exceed Strides. It's 100% intended that Tumble Through can be just a Stride with style. here are some threads about Tumble Through about this very thing.
It in fact does not say that. "You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy." They CAN try to move through an enemy, not that they must. You may use the Tumble Through action to simply Stride and never attempt to move through anyone's space. And? Just because it says "If you want to move through an unwilling creature’s space, you can Tumble Through it" in no way REQUIRES there be an unwilling creature to use it. It's a section named "Moving Through a Creature’s Space" so why would you expect it to mention uses that do not involve "Moving Through a Creature’s Space"? The ACTUAL entry for Tumble Through gives the actual requirements for using it. That says "You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy" and not you must try to move through the space of one enemy. This has been confirmed by Dev posts: they described Tumble Through as a Stride with style and it can 100% be used as just a Stride and qualify for things that require Tumble Through.
You have to get to Step 4: Determine the Degree of Success for both effects to take place, so it's up to the DM on what order to apply them. Myself, I'd apply Incapacitation second so both effects actually take place and cancel each other out.
It in fact does not say that. "You Stride up to your Speed. During this movement, you can try to move through the space of one enemy." They CAN try to move through an enemy, not that they must. You may use the Tumble Through action to simply Stride and never attempt to move through anyone's space. Question: Is Tumble Through necessary; can it be done simply to gain Panache when the square is not occupied by a creature who can demonstrate willingness or unwillingness for the other to move through it? "A corporeal and an incorporeal creature can pass through one another, but they can’t end their movement in each other’s space." This answers it all: there is no check asked for with this movement.
For a melee Toxicologist, it can be ok if you're running into a lot of baddies that can react to Manipulate triggers [and regularly has combats where they are attacking such creatures 3+ times with poison]. It can give them 12 poison attack without having to pull out more poison [1 from weapon, 1 from injector, 10 from rune]. That seems to be the most likely niche IMO. Plus if you're close to your Bulk limit, it saves you 1 Bulk. Another use is for Bane Oil, Burial Oil, Ghost Oil, Merciful Balm, Oil of Swiftness, ect. You can essentially have a rune you can switch to whatever situational rune you want every fight for a fairly cheap cost [or free with Cauldron]. So you just have to toss a well-rounded collection of oils into it and when you find yourself fighting a ghost, need to capture someone alive, have a mobile foe and need swiftness, ect and you're ready to go. I can see this rune being much useful than a static Ghost Touch, Bane, Vitalizing, ect rune if you are fighting different types of creatures all the time.
|