I think it should work for a flying character. 3D movement opens up the floor and ceiling IMO.
Yeah stuff like this makes me kinda think this is going to get some errata or a look at. Just seems kinda weird and underwhelming like why would I even try to shoot these out of a crossbow at those levels why not just shoot the crossbow and do more damage. Unless you knew a target had a massive weakness to holy/unholy and at low levels that just isn't common enough to warrant all of this. The weapon is still a thrown weapon so you add Str damage so at first, you could be doing 1d4+3 [vs 1d8 for normal crossbow] and that's not bad and it can trigger S and P weaknesses [and Holy]. At 4th, you can pick up the upgrade feat and add 1d6+4 B, so able to trigger all the physical weaknesses + you can add silver or cold iron. And if the target has none of those weaknesses, you can always fire the crossbow normally. An interesting character would be to pick up both Bloodseeking Blade [Sukgung] and Consecrated Panoply.
The class REALLY needs a way to be able to increase the size that can use their feats on. Hard locking it to 1 size bigger just sucks.
I'm very concerned about the Daredevil having a focus on press actions which is inherently going to be at lower accuracy. I just don't like it as it currently is. I feel the features are fairly underwhelming and the class just feels all over the place. It sort of feels like the class should fighter levels of of accuracy to offset press action lowered numbers.
The link to Demiplane takes you to the Impossible Class Playtest, not the Risks and Rewards Playtest.
For exploration wands and scrolls, studious spells and maybe dedications (or other items giving slots) are what you'd use. That's the cost of the magus chassis, you don't use magic as liberaly as a full caster, it isn't your role. But the same rational also works for spellstrike. Why not get some scrolls [w/ Striker's Scroll] and maybe a dedication for some focus spells and spells? The result is the same [more available spells to use in exploration] but it also allows for more spells in combat. Sounds like a win/win. On most days 4 spells is enough, especially if you supplement with scrolls, wands, staves, and so on. Sure, especially with Fused Staff, but that's only is you both want to use consumables on the regular and also want to toss around a lot of cash on spell items [staves and wands] while also managing armor and weapons and all the other stuff you want. Magic equipment shouldn't be a crutch to make a class work at baseline. I have a similar complaint with thrown builds.
The feat doesn't explicitly state "You cannot transform into objects with broader mechanical implications", but I think the intent of the feat is very clear that you're only mimicking the form of that object and gaining something like hardness is not the intent. IMO, the feat seems to imply that you'd have to be able to transform into objects with broader mechanical implications. The form in the name can't be used if you take damage from heat/fire. Same for a wok or a waffle iron. Sledge hammers and mining picks would have to be hard enough to affect stone. A portable anvil, like what's in the Repair Toolkit, has to have the ability to survive being hammered repeatedly and not be damaged. That said, I'd make sure it's limited to the "form of a simple tool or object", so no special materials [an adamantine sword isn't "simple"], so any hardness would top out at 5. That'd mean taking damage from falls over 10', and anything like being fired through a wall would hurt quite a bit: a catapult deals 5d10 bludgeoning and you get to take 5 off... It would mean that metal tools actually work, such as a frying pan not taking fire damage from use.
What if instead the user had two daggers with a returning rune on each? It would meet the requirement at the start (and also doesn't specify whether the strike is melee or ranged) but as soon as the first strike is made the thrown weapon would become ranged and "fail" the check. Then as the strike ends the dagger would fly back in the hand of the user, becoming a melee weapon again and thus the requirement would again be met for the second strike. The easy way to make sure there aren't any issues is to wear free hand weapons: if you wear gauntlets then throw daggers or get disarmed, you'll always have a weapon in hand. About the usage of Twin Takedown with melee weapons with thrown trait, I simply don't allow using them with Twin Takedown once IMO the feats is clearly made to not be used with ranged attacks. The usage o thrown trait to workaround this is just a don't wanted workaround that takes advantage from 2 rules that probably aren't just wasn't consider working together. This is a grey area. While requiring melee weapons implies melee Strikes, it departs from other similar feats like Double Slice, that are explicit is requiring a melee weapon for the strike. It most likely isn't intended, but I don't see any issue allowing it, since thrown builds can always use some help and it's not overpowering anything. Requiring Dual-Weapon Warrior just for a dual throw ability on a ranger just seems a bit mean.
Knuckle Duster is singular throughout the entry, the Black Powder Knuckle Dusters are plural throughout the entry. Could be different people making the entries: knuckle-dusters is commonly used for singular items, like brass knuckles, so it's not surprising that they didn't change it or think of it as sloppy editing: the editor/checker might fall on the side of using the s on the end.
Is there a reason people keep mentioning taking it as a 7th level general feat? Who's doing that? People mention it's a 7th level feat because it's level as a skill feat that requires Master. Skill feats go level 1 [trained], level 2 [expert], level 7 [master] and level 15 [legendary]. Saying 'hey, it's a 7th level feat so it competes with other 7th level [and then legendary] feats' doesn't implies taking it as soon as possible. And the whole point is that someone might not even pick it up until level 10, 12, or even 14 (same as Crashing Slam) -- especially given Acrobatics is often a secondary or tertiary skill. I sure didn't get that as your main point. If your numbers for the ratios is for Kip Up by 20th level, I'd be more likely to go with them for dex martials [you eventually run out of useful skill feats] but the 'value' of it weakening prone/trip lessens the longer it is till it's take. On non-dex martials, getting master on Acrobatics isn't something I see often. On NPC's, I can't recall any NPC with Kip Up.
Still a huge ratio IMO. I do not think 9% to 25% of Martial PCs have it.Creating a NPC with it is perfectly reasonable. MOST of the NPCs having it is not. Yeah, I'd be surprised if "30-50% of NPCs overall" had master acrobatics, let alone have picked that specific feat. I might be able to buy 9% of martial-like NPCs have it but up to 50% of all npc and 35% of all opponents? Can't see it.
The only way to get any kind of range is by being an Inventor*, since then you can slap Ranged Trip on something like a Sukgung and trip people 200 feet out. But then, you're playing an Inventor, so there's that. You can get it on a 10th level aiuvarin character [Multitalented (inventor) + Basic Modification and no ability requirement]. So a 10th level gunslinger could use that Sukgung to range trip from 200' [or 400' away if they pick up Far Shot] ;).
Ofcourse this doesn't mean they can hide their spellcasting but its still neat that effects like Silence doesn't stop them.I think a 2nd-rank Silence on the Psychic would actually hide the auditory manifestations of his spells, so if he is invisible as well… "Your spells still have clear and noticeable visual and auditory manifestations, as normal for a spellcaster.” Invisibility makes you invisible, not your manifestations. Invisibility: "Illusions bend light around the target, rendering it invisible." The target, not the manifestations. So you'd still get the normal spellcasting visuals.
Also like to note that pets being unable to use actions with the attack trait means that they can't escape grabs and the like. Very bizarre change. Feel quite sorry for any witch whose familiar is grabbed now. They made an exception for Escape and Force Open. "The Pet feat restricted Strikes, but was intended to be broader. Change the final sentence of the first paragraph to “A pet can’t take attack actions except to Escape or Force Open.”"
Wow, I didn't think instances of damage would get explained until PF3. Overall, I can't say I'm upset about this batch of errata. Some errata needs errata, like polymorph and non-natural speeds, but that's par for the course with PF2 errata. Also, was nerfing the Pet feat on anyone's bingo card??? At least they can still Force Open. ;)
Gunslingers can actually have a fix for alchemical ammo they make! They have a feat for activating ammo when they create it with quick alchemy.
What!? Where?Like, I feel bad for OP here who has no chance of getting an official answer and thus the best we can do amounts to "RAW is X and we run it like Y because Z reasons." Because when we can't even get answers to the most basic things that should be really easy, what hope is there for anything else?Well, we just got the errata for the psychic's entropic wheel amp that didn't work, so maybe there's hope after all. they added several 2026 spring errata to the FAQ.
Let me just look up 'instance of damage'...
However, that's in part because one of those class features vastly expands the flexibility of spontaneous casting. I didn't mention signature spells as those are part and parcel with spontaneous casting.
The distinction between Vancian and non-Vancian casting is not "really important" to the question is whether Vancian casting is the root of casters' problems? I am lost for words.Unlikely, given that the non-Vancian Psychic is pretty clearly less well regarded than the Vancian Cleric or Druid.They're all running on fundamentally the same basic mechanics, so this distinction isn't really important. That's because no one complains about that. Take another set of classes, sorcerer and wizard, and you'll find that the one with the same kind of casting to the Psychic, the sorcerer, is more highly thought of because of the class features. To be honest, I've seen more people value a spontaneous casting than prepared overall. As for the Psychic vs Cleric or Druid, it's more that the Psychic only has 2 slots per level vs a clerics/druids 3 slots plus clerics/druids can pick any on level spell on their list they have access to per day and they have better class features. Spontaneous vs prepared doesn't impact the Psychic issues much IMO.
whereas in my opinion the Sniper is a bit more dependent on the battle map and how they act during exploration (you basically have to constantly Avoid Notice to be able to roll Stealth for initiative, and hope you've got cover or concealment to be able to Hide during combat). I got around this by taking the Spell Trickster Dedication which gets you Barrier Shield: it allows you to cast a Shield spell for standard cover, allowing your Slinger's Reload anyplace. You spend an extra action a round, so you're stuck in place, but it helps in a pinch.
As a long time DM and player, I tend to disagree. Sometimes table fixes work better than anything Paizo might put out. A group that finds a problem comes up with a table fix that the group likes can often work better than an official ruling from Paizo While that can be true, when you go to multiple tables you have multiple fixes. So you have to both unlearn the table you were at last and learn the new method. Having an offial stance at least allows go to a new table and when you ask about houserules, it'll be listed. With an ambiguous rule or non-rule [like minions outside combat], it might not come up as it's not replacing or altering a rule. Leaving things as 'ask your DM' rules is a bit pain in the behind for me at least.
I'm of a mixed mind on social media errata or rule updates. My big problem with social media/podcast/streaming errata is that I only find out second [or third, or forth...] hand if i hear about them at all. There is no place that collects them to easily reference so even when i do hear about them I have to wait for someone else to drops a link to them. This is like the days when I had to save links to every Dev comment on rules in the 3.0/3.5 times in the forums and it's not a fond memory.
I just wanted to comment on this part specifically as someone who has been into TTRPGs in some form or other for like 35 years. Yeah, I remember the Satanic Panic era. I went to D&D camp in the 80's and started out gaming with the blackmoor supplement to Chainmail. Good to see people that have been around gaming since the olden times. ;) Some of that is that some of the more talkative folks like Mark Siefter have left. I miss Mark. :(
As for the dart shield, the launching trait specifies "[t]he trait lists the type of weapon, such as 'launching dart.'” Since no other details are given, the dart launched by the dart shield should be treated as a dart ranged weapon: Price 1 cp; Damage 1d4 P; Bulk L; Hands 1; Range 20 ft. With it mentioning reloading taking the same number of Interact actions, I'd be more inclined to go with a reload weapon that fits the the description [spring-loaded device that can fire darts], a Wrist Launcher: Damage 1d4 P; Hands 1; Range 30 ft.; Reload 1
I can't say I'm worried but that's because I'm mainly checked out of PF2. I started with getting all the book but as the years went by and basic questions like 'what's an instance of damage' and 'what can minions do outside encounter mode' don't get answered, I started getting less and less and now I'm just borrowing books from a friend now or use nethys; I've gone from active buyer to passive player. Seeing things like the oracle spell list STILL unanswered and the newly set schedule errata being lackluster to say the least isn't encouraging me to start buying again. There has been remaster issues but they are just amplified issues that have been around since the start. I'm kind of sad as I've been giving them money since the dragon magazine days and have mostly enjoyed my purchases.
No, it cannot. You literally can. Nothing prevents you from taking Ancient elf and a class archetype. It isn't until 2nd when you gain the second devotion feat that it becomes illegal. The fact that you know it will become illegal is besides the point. The argument is that the game allows it, not that it can be avoided. All I have been arguing for "you cannot take two options with mutually incompatible requirements" And all I've been arguing is that that isn't true as the game in fact does allow it. It's avoidable but nothing in the rules prevents it. I'm disagreeing with you that it's future illegality proactively makes the initial choice illegal. Please stop deceptively editing my posts. I responded it what you said. I used a complete sentence. I don't see how it's deceptive when it's a literal statement of yours. If you meant something else by that statement, it didn't come through to me. It sure sounded like you were saying you can ignore a rules problem by just choosing to not take them. How is "Just don't use it" and "It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination" not equivalent? I'm honestly curious what you see as deceptive. IMO, an avoidable problem is still a problem while you seem to think because it's avoidable, it's not a problem. Let me use a real life example,if I can easily see an obstruction in the road and avoid it, I'll acknowledge that the obstruction shouldn't be there; you seem to be saying it's fine to be there because you can avoid it so it isn't a problem. EDIT: I have just had a look through your other recent posts and they all look pretty reasonable. What the hell happened to you in this thread? I don't think my posting has changed here. I'm not sure why you think my not agreeing with you is being unreasonable or being deceptive.
There is no paradox, there is no rules hole, there is no problem. The unsupportable claim that there is does not become any less nonsensical with repetition. A legal 1st level character can become illegal at 2nd... I agree with the "unsupportable claim that there is does not become any less nonsensical with repetition" but I'm looking nat your argument when I say that. Good thing I never said "Just don't use it" then, eh?That's exactly what you said. It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination in the first place.
People keep talking about "two conflicting rules directives" as if this is an unsolvable problem, but it just isn't. It is trivially solved by not taking the illegal combination in the first place. 'Just don't use it' is a terrible argument that could be used excuse literally ANY error or needed errata. Paizo wouldn't have to make an FAQ, just put that on the page" 'You find a problem, it's trivially solved by not using the rules element in the first place.' Done... :P
If it’s a feat you have to take to make the subclass functional it should just be part of the subclassBut if raise a shield isn’t one sparkling targe is still afflicted with a terminal case of action economy inferiority.IMO, something like this would be better off being a class feat as you're aren't going to find the same kind of actions for the other subclasses. I could see something similar for the Starlight Span for reload/thrown weapons: if you could reload/draw and recharge your spellstrike at the same time, that'd open up a lot more weapons for them. Their conflux spell raises their shield and makes a melee strike. In addition they can take Emergency Targe to raise their shield when hit with a melee attack or fail a save vs a spell. This means by 6th level, they could use Shielding Strike 3 times [taking Force Fang and Cascade Countermeasure for 2 extra focus] and still have Emergency Targe as a reaction. Seems plenty functional; it can be a bit rough until you get all your ducks in a row but it's hardly the only subclass/niche to suffer from that. So IMO, it falls into the nice to have category, hence the suggestion for it to be a feat. That's an easier ask than getting a new recharge action for every subclass [that's reasonably balanced to each other] and somehow finding room for that in the existing class footprint in the book which is nigh impossible.
The resolution of this rules intersection is unclear. As Mathmuse points out, the Specific Overrides General rule exists for when "two rules conflict". This means an argument can be made that the rules for class archetypes is more specific than the general rule for all archetypes. As such, IMO the words used were correct. The fact that a DM has to make a ruling doesn't make it any less a rules issue brought about by a lack or rules clarity.
Astral Rain also does physical damage with the force trait, and reportedly that didn't change. Maybe they were wrong or spreading disinformation. (At least one guy on a Discord I'm on gave an answer to a question then embarassedly admitted he'd said it as a joke after it got repeated on that Discord, another one, and Reddit as a thing really in the remaster that no one, including other people with the new book, bothered to check...) I can confirm, it's Force trait and deals bludgeoning or piercing damage.
In that case it does look like imaginary weapon was singularly targeted. I guess that means that 2d8 heightening on a focus spell was decided to be too much. IMO, someone said 'we need to stop magus from picking imaginary weapon all the time', and when presented with multiple options, they just picked every single one even though any one of them would have done it. It's a classic 'nuke it from orbit' approach. Remove magus from the discussion and I doubt "2d8 heightening on a focus spell" that's restricted to melee would have been an issue.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. |
