graystone's page

I mostly dislike that implementation, let me list some reasons:

I don't see how the ritual requires an undo cognitive load or loss of agency because it requires both DM buy in [it's a RARE ritual so the Dm HAS to allow it in] and player buy in [by hunting down and using the ritual]. At worst, if a player feels bad after using it, then they don't use it again. As far as the DM, they just have to pick what they'd have picked if they were the PC and since the DM presumably knows or has access to the PC's spell list and should have a good idea what they can do: they'd just have to pick useful spells, not check each and very spell for the perfect loadout.

Just to get some objective numbers out there.

Arcane (including legacy spells like Power Word) has 17 unique spells on its list. Notable ones are Summon Construct, Disintegrate, and Contingency.

There is also the intersection of the Arcane list and individual classes to think about. Between bloodlines, deities, mysteries, and/or other such things, even those 17 unique spells aren't unique to arcane classes, in paticular the Wizard; an Imperial Sorcerer can pick up Divine Decree [Divine unique] or unfathomable song [Occult unique] or Tree of Seasons [Primal unique] while a Phoenix sorcerer gets Contingency and Disintegrate added to their Primal list. This leaves the class that's JUST the Arcane spell guy [Wizard] out in the cold without a way to poach other lists spells while seeing their own Lists unique spells usable by other Lists users. It'd be nice to have a solid set of actual unique spells in each List.

For myself, Arcane would feel better if it had a few good spells per spell rank that are unique to the list. It has Contingency and Power Words [all 7+ power words are uncommon] and... nothing else jumps to mind. It'd be nice have some lower rank common spells that are just Arcane.

The Familiar Master flavor description says "the clever monkey that picks the lock of the thief's cell", but that monkey can't actually use thievery to pick locks even with the Skilled ability any longer.

Well, considering the rules continue to say that Companion Items are the "only items a companion can use", there is an issue even if they regain trained skill use. The familiar/minion rules have always been a bit of a mess; we still have no guidance on out of combat use after all this time for instance.

Hi all,

Interested in the new PF core books but I have an allergy to errata.
Is there any indication of when 2nd printings will be done, and if they will include errata?

I know it's a work in progress and future printings will continue to recive updates.

the original core rulebook had 4 printings with errata added each time. Waiting for the second printing isn't a guarantee you'll have a book with all the errata in [or even the majority of errata it will eventually have in total]. The only way to make sure you'll be able to have something without worrying about errata is to get a PDF as that allows you to download the most current version with errata added.

And as a side note, even with the PDF, there are some things in the errata that will not show up in the books/PDFs. For instance, there is a core rulebook printing 4 clarifications that acts as an actual FAQ and isn't printed in the PDF/books.

So good luck with that allergy.

Finoan wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

Basically, if you're mounted and want to move anywhere, you must command your mount to move.)

This is pretty much contradicted by the mature Animal Companion text

Which makes it a textbook case of Specific Overrides General.

No. Does the Specific text on animal companions override the General text on mounts? Or does the Specific text on mounts override the General text on Animal Companions? I've seen people argue both and it is totally unclear to me which wins.

But it's not worth having the discussion here. It's very unlikely a resolution will be reached and, even if it was, it wouldn't affect other tables.

It is, in practice, something that IS handled differently at different tables. No argument will change that fact.

EDIT: lol I typed out an almost identical post and I noticed yours.

Bluemagetim wrote:

That clears up a lot Guntermench. Thank you for posting those sections.

And I can see now there is no such parallel for the phrase You’ve become senseless.

The thing is...this has always been the wording. This has been the case since release, it didn't change with the remaster.

People just ignore it.

I don't think it's as much ignore it as never connecting the dots between multiple places in the rules: it's not like people are ignoring part of a singular whole and completely written out in one place rule. If you do a search for 'can't act' on Nethys, the sections you mention don't show up in the first hundred entries.

graystone wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

graystone wrote:

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

Like I said: different perspectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tridus wrote:

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

RAW is a troll ruling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deriven Firelion wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

HammerJack wrote:

And that plethora is:

Constructs. Pretty much just constructs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

graystone wrote:

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

Kind of had my eye on the conrasu of Monad.

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

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

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

** spoiler omitted **

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

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

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

Squiggit wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justnobodyfqwl wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since they mean very different things and one is more permissive than the other, it is contradictory if you're looking at it from the direction of "are basic tools allowed?" Because one of those rules says "yes" and the other says "no".

This has been a source of confusion ever since SoM came out.

But they don't mean very different things: one just has broader implications than the other but they are VERY similar things. Again, IMO no inherent contradiction as one also includes the other. It even makes sense where one mentions magic items specifically as it also goes on to explain that it can only invest 2 items and it can benefit from certain magic items invested by you after it mentions it can't wear or use magic items.

It's when you get to more generic entries you see "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" in a section that isn't about magic items.

And again, I'm not saying it isn't confusing to do so or even that this is necessarily correct RAI: I'm just saying that I can't point to it and say that it's inconsistent. It's not like it's the only place in the game where rules are worded differently and in this case, neither one is worded in a way as to make it not work with the other: Both 'can't use items' and 'can't use magic item' are compatible and exist side by side.

In this case with Eidolons and item use though, the rules are inherently contradictory.

I'd disagree. One says they can't use magic items without the trait and one says they can use items without the trait: since magic items are items, it's not inherently contradictory [it's basically like one place saying you can't use squares and another saying you can't use rectangles]. It IS confusing to have it worded differently.

The subset of items that are nonmagical items and the subset of items that are magical items are different subsets of items.

That's like saying a magic staff if different from a non-magic staff for proficiency... they are the same for proficiency. And if I damage one, I look under Item Damage and not 2 lists with one for magic items and one for non-items. The only distinction is in the lists for buying them.

For myself, once a thread gets into DPS talk, it's about the time I stop paying attention: People start pulling out charts and graphs and walls of text that go on for dozens of paragraphs. I'm just not interested enough to wade through them when the conclusion is often a point or 2 of damage difference than whatever comparison point there is[and lets not get into what buffs are expected/should be added into the equations].

Now if it's about DPS in a more general sense [you know, someone isn't figuring it out down to the decimal point], then I don't mind.

2- the technical argument:

"Once you really think about It you realize that damage Isn't important at all" well, i might sound mean for what i'm going to Say, but then you (you as impersonal) Haven't thought about It enough.
Any Given fight Is fundamentally a race between Two cars, damage Is the ONLY thing that makes the cars go forward, everything else (heal, utility) Is setting back the other car.
-ps: technically buffs put a multiplier on how fast the car Is going, so there's that.
Both are equally important! If the car doesn't go forward you'll lose, if the other car goes faster and you don't hold It back you'll lose too!

Well, using the car analogy, it's a team of cars vs a team of cars and no individual car has to cross the finish line. Some cars might block other cars, slowing them down. Some might actively boost your car. And some might just let you bypass the entire racetrack altogether.

When you look at it this way, as a team, you can see that JUST thinking about DPS would be bad. For instance, it might help the team more for a 'car' to move into flank even if that drops it's DPS. So it's not so much 'don't think about damage' but 'don't focus on just damage'.

It is an open question. You will have to talk to your GM for a final ruling at your table.

For my ruling: I go with the rules text of the rules, not the summary given in the sidebar or the Eidolon trait.

Gear and your Eidolon wrote:

Your eidolon can't wear or use magic items, except for items with the eidolon trait.

So an Eidolon can open doors and throw balls and use Healer's Tools.

Yes, the eidolon trait says:

To the OP, this is what can throw off most item use: one section says magic items and the other says just items. This means you can find your eidolon literally unable to pick up or use ANY item except the 2 items with the Eidolon trait. So it's an 'ask your dm' question.

-You lose the shields benefits if the hand is no longer Free.[/b]

This is the wierd part for me, Basically it states you can raise shield, then release and still benefit from it... not sure this is Rai or just in regards to the buckler.

Wielding Items

Raise a Shield
Source Player Core pg. 419
Requirements You are wielding a shield.

So, no, you can't release and benefit from a shield by the wielding rules.

I'll be honest, I'd rather see Reaper's Weapon Familiarity (2) and Osteo Armaments (8) apply to thralls instead, allowing you to summon thralls with greatswords, scythes, and axes and then upgrade them to +1-+3 striking ones. then we wouldn't need to bother with trying to melee with the necromancer themselves.

Thanks man... but they do allow magazines, the slide pistol ( https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=206) allows for up to 5 barrels that you can fire one at a time. Would that not allow me to use it as a 0 reload for at least 4 shots?

That's a BIG NO!

If you read the traits the slide pistol has, you'll see it has Capacity 5.

Capacity says "After a capacity weapon is fired, you can select the next loaded barrel or chamber as an Interact action that doesn't require a free hand." That's not a reload 0, it's a reload 1 you can do without needing a free hand.

Or you can look at the side pistol's stats and see that it lists it at Reload 1 and not reload 0.

If you want to use Hunted Shot, you need a Repeating weapon [Air Repeater, Barricade Buster, Long Air Repeater, Repeating Crossbow, Repeating Hand Crossbow, Repeating Heavy Crossbow], a bow [Hongali Hornbow, Gakgung, Shield Bow, Bow Staff, Long Bow, Short bow, Daikyu] or some thrown weapons [Shuriken, Chakri].

Or, more simply, how does the Necromancer, with Int-based casting and summoning of thralls, function with each spell-list? Is a Primal Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?

Is an Arcane Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?

Is a Divine Necromancer broken in terms of mechanics?

(Lets forget for the moment about the nomenclature of the thrall powers, bony barrages and necrotic bombs can be refalvoured….)

I think those are the wrong questions to ask. I'd ask, 'would a pick a list Necromancer affect what abilities it gets' and from my perspective, it very well might. So then I'd go to 'what list best fits the theme'.

Just feels like a broader newer concept, with a strong, new theme and tight narrative concept that the player base can get behind for a book they understand will garner better results than a rehash of an old and much-beloved concept (necromancer) shoehorned into mechanics to fit the system (thralls) and given only one source of power (occult) which admittedly fits, is nowhere as interesting or as fulfilling as a new concept (thrallmaster) with mechanics that fit both the system and the theme (thralls) and a choice of spell-lists to suit the source (pick-a-list).

From my perspective, it'd be shoehorning to try make the class multi-tradition. Now other mechanics might be possible for the class, but they are likely ones that don't need playtesting. For instance, the class might have undead summoning or undead companion abilities [or even subclasses], but those aren't things that need playtesting.

However, as “the concept” hasn’t been fully explained, and we have the fairly tight flavor blurb at the beginning of the class becoming for some an ur-text, and for others merely a…flavor blurb, there is more disconnect in trying to work together to understand “the concept”.

I don't think we need a full scale "concept": we are clearly playtesting the thrall mechanic and seeing how that mechanic works with the basic class framework. There is a point where extra mechanics/background becomes a distraction from the data you want. For myself, I'm fine with the amount of info we go. If I had a complaint, it's that we have no word on things like how Mastery of Life and Death works.

AestheticDialectic is making the simple point that "mastery of life and death" implies control over vitality and void magic, which isn't the forte of the Necromancer's occult tradition, and you're distorting the semantics of what they're saying by essentially telling them "we have heal at home".

He gave his opinion and then I gave mine. I'm as entitled to an opinion as he does and it includes not seeing it the same as him. IMO, it IS semantics: there isn't a distortion from my perspective. He also wants a divination focused class and I don't and again, it's about semantics, where he's clinging to what the name meant in the past and I'm to the current meaning. And yes, I AM telling him "we have heal at home", just not Heal. Now if the argument was that they don't have Harm so they could heal mindless undead, I'd be more sympathetic/understanding as that seems like something missing to me.

Secondly, my semantics comment is on the difference between the Healing and Vitality traits for spells: there is VERY little ground between them theme/lore-wise. Most people aren't going to know the difference between a vitality heal and a non-vitality heal on a living creature and you wouldn't be using it on an undead so... I'm not seeing the huge gap in feel/theme.

You yourself list several spells that would be the perfect fit for a Necromancer and aren't occult, whereas the healing spells you list aren't exactly a thematic match for a necromancer type when you're summoning gentle breezes or conjuring icicles (and unless something was changed recently, purifying icicle is not on the occult list either).

Apples and oranges: there is ALWAYS going to be spells that are on theme that aren't on a classes spell list when classes do not have a bespoke spell list.

I only care about the real world origin of the term necromancy for the class because my character I want to play I would like to commune with the dead.

You're in luck! Talking Corpse is an occult spell. Also, the real world definition is the "conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events."[merriam-webster and equivalent in Cambridge dictionary, Dictionary.com, Collins dictionary, yourdictionary.com]" If we're cleaving to that, it's an oracle more than a modern understanding of necromancer.

I want them to have the heal spell not because I think necromancers must heal, but because it comes with the domain of vital and void.

Fair, but I doubt it's in the cards. They can heal, just not Heal.

I just want options in the class that allow this kind of necromancer.

As long as it's on top of the normal necromancer abilities, sure I don't mind.

He summons the aid of spirits, consults the dead, put restless spirits to sleep, utilizes the powers of life and death in combat, and if he does make undead it's temporarily using the corpses of slain enemies (or specially prepared remains perhaps) to give his spirit allies/friends a more tangible form

Consult the Spirits: allows you "to contact lingering spirits, psychic echoes of the departed dead, and spirits from beyond reality, who tell you about things like strange auras, effects, or the presence of unnatural occult beings."

Most of what you want is in the class already or is available to anyone with a skill feat. Now it may not be in the way you want it, but they exist.

You are oversimplifying the issue.

That is the part I posted about: it's just the right amount of simplification. AND it's a simplification you made: "By giving healing abilities to clerics, druids, and witches but not to necromancers, we send the message that their belief system is invalid."

It's not just about healing; the concept of necromancy has changed from being associated with mediums communicating with the deceased to being viewed as the realm of evil corpse summoners.

If it's not about healing, why did YOU bring it up? Is it surprising the divination part is divorced from other parts of it: the divination is a far more universal aspect that transends a single 'user' type: Are oracles or shamans less deserving of divination? If not, it's a non-sequiter to bother about it. I'm all for the necromancer for getting cool speaking with the dead powers as long as they keep their undead abilities are in the forefront.

I'm simply asking for a little consideration for other cultures.

Because then it wouldn't be a necromancer, but a diviner? There are already plenty of other classes that can cover that. For sciomancy in particular, there are spells like Talking Corpse or feats like Automatic Writing or Consult the Spirits. What you seem to want out of the necromancer cab be made existing in classes and options.

I’m not asking you to reverse years of demonization, but rather to think about how this stereotypical representation may affect people. That’s not too much to ask.

I think it IS though, as no one is looking at the necromancer and saying 'oh, THAT is a misreprisentation of MY religion!' as far as I know. If they are, then the modern view of necromancy disagrees with them. We aren't talking about an 70's voodoo movie: no assumptions are baked into it about a specific religion or area on earth. You're getting offended for someone else and I'm not sure that hypothetical person exists: if so, THIS class is the least of their worries after 20+ years of harry potter having necromancy in it [Dark Art of raising the dead to create Inferi and charmed skeletons]. I haven't heard the hordes of people complaining that those books were demonizing those hypothetical people.

The basis of the modern zombie may have been in the old voodoo movies 50 years ago, I don't think anyone gives them a second thought these days.

It's okay to just want to see healing necromancers.

Agreed. I just didn't agree with 'If we don't give necromancers heal, we're disrespecting real people.'.

Yes, it matters because necromancy isn't just a video game trope; it's an ancient practice that many cultures have believed in—and some still do. Just because these beliefs are held by a minority doesn’t mean we can trample over their culture. Necromancers have faced demonization by the church since medieval times. By giving healing abilities to clerics, druids, and witches but not to necromancers, we send the message that their belief system is invalid. This perpetuates the stereotype from the Inquisition era that they are fundamentally evil.

Healing doesn't equate with being good and it's not being included doesn't invalidate ANYTHING about belief. Do we have the same kind of hand wringing about witches and the negative stereotypes about them with things like cackle and cauldron even though there are real life witches? Witchs and necromancers have a certian feel in the zeitgeist and the one you're suggesting isn't in the forefront of it. I haven't seen anyone complaining about how witches are portray in the game.

This perspective is offensive to the ancient cultures that have included—and continue to include—necromancy as part of their traditions. It deserves respect rather than being reduced to just another generic evil trope for laughs. This attitude reinforces the colonial mindset of "our culture is superior," a viewpoint historically held by Catholics that contributed to the destruction of many of these cultures in the first place.

It's now offensive to not give it healing? really? That's what you're going with?

It's similar to how witches have often been portrayed in media as demon cultists or how Gary Gygax treated foreign deities like Shiva as mere RPG monsters. We need to be more mindful and respectful of these traditions instead of demonizing them.

It's the difference between a fantasy game and real life. When did Pathfinder ever claim to be an acccurate portrayal of any specific real life group or profession?

Have you read the novel? The "monster" had free-will, the capacity for love, and was cursed only in having a creator that wasn't capable of the same. Life was properly created in that lab.

I don't get the point... You can make a construct out of bodies and constructs can be free willed and have emotions. Homunculus, for instance, historically referred to the creation of a miniature, fully formed human and Pathfinder presents it as a tiny construct that "gain(s) a spark of the creator's intellect, as well as the same moral values and some of the creator's basic personality traits."

You could do all of these with a PF1 Cleric who went down the path of necromancy and took the right crafting feats to make a golem.

For correctness, I'd change that to say "You could do all of these with a PF1 Cleric who went down the path of necromancy and took the right crafting feats to make a golem." Craft Construct, PF1 Bestiary pg. 314: Prerequisites: Caster level 5th, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Wondrous Item. There is 0% necromancy needed.

Firstly, I think you're confusing me with RPG-Geek. You accidentally put his name next to my quote, and I think we're also in agreement viz what a necromancer is and isn't.

Sorry! I somehow snagged the wrong name my bad!

I hope we get some proper Frankensteinean creature creation options in Rival Academies. The description has us being able to learn "Lepidstadt's bleeding-edge theories on reanimating flesh with electricity," so I'm really, really hopeful on that front.

Agreed! I also wouldn't mind some of the old PF1 alchemist options for body transformation coming to PF2.

Dr. Frankenstein is 100% a necromancer who created life, not un-life. If the OG doesn't fit the class the class is missing something.

He's 100% someone that made a fleshy golem [like Charnel Creation], not an undead.

Also, I'm not sure Frankenstein would be a necromancer. The Beast of Lepidstadt, the closest analog we have to Frankenstein's Monster, was created by Count Alpon Caromarc, who is an alchemist, not any sort of caster.

It seems more an Inventor to me, with a splash of alchemist/caster multiclass. Harnessing lightning to create 'life' sure doesn't seems like a necromancer at least.

Now, I'm not advocating for necromancers to abandon the idea of undead armies; I'm simply saying that we shouldn't disregard the roots of the myth. I dislike it when people say that necromancers can't bring people back, as that is the whole goal of the practice.

I think you are making the umbrella WAY, WAY too big for a single class. What you call pigeonholed, I'd call a selection of reasonable and popular themes. Raising dead, healing, making golems, divinations... I think you have to have realistic expectations about what ONE class can do.

A lot of people may disagree with me, but I believe a necromancer should have abilities like healing and raising the dead. What kind of necromancer can't revive people? People have become too accustomed to the Diablo necromancer and have forgotten that the whole point of being a necromancer is to resurrect the dead.

I think the fantasy is making undead and not raising the dead. I can't think of any fantasy where a necromancer is reviving people. Or healing non-undead. the healer/cleric fantasy is to heal and raise/revive people. If a necromancer tries to raise someone, I'd expect them to come back like pet cemetery.

I find it hilarious that in D&D5e true strike is utterly useless, but in PF2e it had to be nerfed.

As Kalaam said, it's really good. It's a solid spell that uses your casting stat to hit/dam and you can deal Radiant damage too. It's a fine melee cantrip for those that use a staff focus [it's a 1d8 attack] and it gets extra damage as it levels. You'll want Shillelagh though if you get more than 1 attack/round.