graystone's page

Find me one person threatening to stop purchasing books over this in this thread. The people saying they won't purchase more are talking about a hypothetical mass adoption of genAI, which is not what is happening.

the linked reddit thread has more than a few that say this. Here are my thought from another thread on this.

Anymore, there are people that scour every pixel of new media so they can pull out their digital torches and pitchforks on a snipe hunt for the dastardly AI invaders. Myself, it looks like upscaling issues. Could it be AI? Sure it could be but it could be human error too IMO. Now I'm not an AI image expert but I doubt random discord user #34756 is either so I'm unworried by it. I sure wouldn't threaten to not buy the book because of it.

So overall, it's good to bring this to Paizos attention so they can look into it but that's as far as I think it needs to go. I don't even see AI upscaling in the same category as AI generated art; it's not making or substantially altering the images. People just hear AI and get triggered.

VerBeeker wrote:

There is a person saying the art of the banquet hall and other locales is AI generated/upscaled on the subreddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/PSJbiw3HnQ

Im going to hazard a guess that its not really an AI image and more the OP is just mistaking human error as AI error. Like I am absolutely 100% certain I can replicate the "AI horses" blending into one another with a camera so its definitely not as a sure of a bet as one would imagine.

Anymore, there are people that scour every pixel of new media so they can pull out their digital torches and pitchforks on a snipe hunt for the dastardly AI invaders. Myself, it looks like upscaling issues. Could it be AI? Sure it could be but it could be human error too IMO. Now I'm not an AI image expert but I doubt random discord user #34756 is either so I'm unworried by it. I sure wouldn't threaten to not buy the book because of it.

So overall, it's good to bring this to Paizos attention so they can look into it but that's as far as I think it needs to go. I don't even see AI upscaling in the same category as AI generated art; it's not making or substantially altering the images. People just hear AI and get triggered.

Speaking of class archetypes, at least one of them (the vindicator ranger class archetype) actually has a 1st level archetype feat (Domain Initiate) that can be selected at 1st level... which can make it possible for a vindicator ranger to select a second archetype dedication at 6th level (eldritch archer, perhaps; although it might be better to go with a Wis-based casting archetype like MC cleric).

Palatine Detective has a skill feat at 4th so it can take a second archetype dedication at 6th. Runelord has 2 2nd level skill feats so it can take a second archetype dedication at 4th.

If an archtype is at level 1, you either don't print level 2 feats so that everyone can pick their first-non dedication at 4, which would be weird, especially if FA is in play (assuming FA is amended to grant a feat at 1). Going 1-4 then 4-6 just feels disjointed.

But we have situations where you already go from 1s to 4th, like ancient elf and Eldritch Trickster. IMO, it's a ship that's already sailed. I'm not a huge fan of having to pick human to snag 1st level feat on a caster, but I don't see the paradigm changing this edition.

I have to imagine dedication feats are level 2 because it would create a lot of weirdness with classes that do not get level 1 feats. If everyone had a level 1 feat then I imagine putting them at 1 wouldn't matter.

Why would it be any weirder than every non-martial class offering 1st level feats but not offering 1st level feat slots?

Finoan wrote:

Eryx Marrow wrote:

My question for the forum: Is there anything in the strict RAW text of the Core Rulebook or Technology Guide that actually stops this, or have I successfully achieved Universal Malicious Compliance?

From a strictly rules standpoint, the problem starts here:

Eryx Marrow wrote:

I realized something critical: if magnets exist, the basic laws of electromagnetism apply.

That is an unproven and likely incorrect assumption.

We are talking about a fantasy setting. There is no reason to think that a magnet works due to electromagnetism instead of magic.

Modern Earth exists in the setting though.

And the Technology Guide [pf1] has Magboots that use "powerful electromagnets", EMP pistol/rifle that "emits a beam of electromagnetic energy" and a rail gun that "fires from its electromagnetically charged barrel".

graystone wrote:

There are several Ancestries that don't age in the conventional sense like Automaton, Poppet and Skeleton or have VERY long lives, like Sprites having 1000+ lifespans or Yaoguai at several thousand. Elves at a 600 year life spans are on the low end of long lived ancestries.

Sure, but just living a long time doesn't mean you know everything. The 1,000+ year old sprite doesn't know how to build a space-based accelerator if they've spent their entire life learning how to stab with a spear and cast spells. And if there was no story justifiable reason for the sprite to level up and gain the skill "Lore: engineering" or whatever, then they just don't have it.

Oh, I wasn't implying anything about the OPs post or the viability of his idea. Just pointing out if lifespan is used as a factor for it, there are Ancesties with far more of it than Elf.

Cool, you better be playing an elf, because it would take a few centuries from understanding that magnets are a thing to working out literally any of that technology and a few more centuries to build the industry necessary to provide the materials to even start building the manufacturing necessary to build it.

There are several Ancestries that don't age in the conventional sense like Automaton, Poppet and Skeleton or have VERY long lives, like Sprites having 1000+ lifespans or Yaoguai at several thousand. Elves at a 600 year life spans are on the low end of long lived ancestries.

IMO, it falls under Mastery of Life & Death as the Thrall doesn't pick the damage. "Whenever one of your thralls Strikes, you can choose for that damage to be spirit or void damage instead of physical damage." So it's an active ability. This is similar to how Flesh is an active ability, where "you can cause the thrall to leave behind difficult terrain" instead of it being automatic. Neither is an ability the Thrall uses.

graystone wrote:

Warmagon wrote:

Anne Archer wrote:

As an Archer Ranger, I don't have a free hand to dedicate to consumables. The second hand is used to draw and fire the arrows. That's why it is listed as "1+" in the weapons chart.

Sure, I could walk around with the potion in exploration mode, but the minute combat starts the potion is in the way.

It's pretty nice to do with potions you plan to drink R1.

well it has to be a potion you'll want to drink no matter the combat.

For an archer ranger, quicksilver mutagen?

Why would you ever hold a mutagen? Collar of the Shifting Spider is a thing past the first few levels and it bypasses the hand and action requirement for mutagens. Secondly, I personally wouldn't be using one every single combat [unless an Alchemist was making enough for every one] since you have to keep buying on level ones to make the bonus better than your weapons bonus.

Anne Archer wrote:

As an Archer Ranger, I don't have a free hand to dedicate to consumables. The second hand is used to draw and fire the arrows. That's why it is listed as "1+" in the weapons chart.

Sure, I could walk around with the potion in exploration mode, but the minute combat starts the potion is in the way.

It's pretty nice to do with potions you plan to drink R1.

well it has to be a potion you'll want to drink no matter the combat. What potion do you want to drink in an encounter where you'd normally not WANT to use resources because it's an easy fight? Otherwise, you're spending actions putting it away or dropping it, which can have consequences depending on the environment.

I get where you're coming from and agree you can't access everything in your square at any given time while Tiny RAW, but why do you continually presume the door or cookie jar or whatever is always on the completely opposite side of the square from them and never in their space?

When did I say that? I said it's up to the DM to figure that out and the tiny PC can't assume that they can interact with something in the square unless the DM says so unlike a small/medium PC which CAN assume that.

You don't need to access the entire square at once to be have the door within that square be in the PC's space; if their space (which again, could even be 4.9 feet and still be Tiny) can be easily moved within the square to where the door is then that's what's important.

If it's outside the space of a creature, then some check might be required; again, by the rules that 6' medium PC can't automatically reach something out of it's 5' square. This means a tiny PC might need to High Jump or Climb to get within reach where a bigger PC might not. I never said the rule actually make sense, just what they say.

It's also worth once again pointing out that the original feat mentioned moving 'to a higher place within your space' which only makes sense if you accept that your space isn't just your body and can extend past your height so long as it's within the Tiny range.

That just means that the original feat didn't make sense from a rules perspective and didn't actually do anything. If it was meant to allow the tiny PC to interact with the environment like a small/medium one, it would have needed to say square not space as the rules for a tiny PC's space didn't change in the remaster. I didn't notice that that feat needed errata. I think it happened because most time, the rules are made from a small/medium PC's perspective and people tend to use space and square interchangeably as the most common PC's space is a square so it can get overlooked when that changes.

using the exact same terminology. Seems pretty clear to me what the intent is and how this maps onto a situation like this (square marked in paint with yellow) where a Tiny PC is expected to be able to reach the door just fine now.

It says "A Tiny creature can typically reach objects and parts of the environment in its space without difficulty, though the GM might rule otherwise in certain situations."

What it doesn't say is 'A Tiny creature can typically reach objects and parts of the environment in its Square without difficulty, though the GM might rule otherwise in certain situations' when it could very easily have done so if that's what it's meant to say. It clearly defines it's space as a "Less than 5 feet" cube, which is smaller than a 5' standard square. So if the intent is as you say, they failed to convey that when it was easy to make an explicit statement of that. And to be clear, I'm arguing the RAW, so even if the RAI would be that they can interact with anything in there square, it wouldn't alter my argument; very simply, a creatures space doesn't equate to a square for creatures outside small/medium creatures and reaching/interacting is limited to it's space , which again is only a square for small/medium creatures.

PS: personally, I have no issue with tiny creatures interacting with the entire square they are in. I'm just pointing out that, by the actual rules, they don't get that.

You seem to be confusing spaces and squares at the end there. Tiny PCs fill less than one square - they absolutely have a space they take up all of within that and it can be pretty much anything under 5 feet depending on the kind of Tiny PC. To be clear: Tiny is anything from <1 to 4.9 feet, the average doorknob in the US is 3 feet off the ground, and many cats that are well under 2 feet tall can jump up and open doors with them.

Regardless, you’re saying even though the writers have now gone out of their way to explicitly change the rules and add “hey, for Tiny creatures if it’s in their space they can reach It” what they actually wrote was essentially “hey, Tiny creatures have the interact action”?

Come on now.

It's you that seems to be confusing squares and space. They spell out what falls under "A Tiny creature can typically reach objects and parts of the environment in its space without difficulty, though the GM might rule otherwise in certain situations."; it's the Space entry as a cube. It's right there. What you're trying to say is that that somehow means that they then have the same ability to interact as those with a bigger cube of space. that's be like saying a medium creature can interact the same as a large one and that is also clearly not the case. You conflate the tiny creatures space with the square it's in but those are different things.

Secondly, I went into the 2.5' cube and space because YOU brought up Foundry and 4 tiny creatures fitting in a space; I was just expanding on what that would mean when taking in all the other info in that section.

PS: As to the 3' door knobs and cats jumping, as the rules are written a 6'11" medium creature "can typically reach objects and parts of the environment in its space" which is a 5' cube and that's the rule you said solved your issues. They can typically reach LESS than their height with that rule so it doesn't seem strange a 2.5' tiny creature couldn't reach a 3' door knob... :P I'm not saying the rules make a lot of sense, just saying what they actually say.

It does, though. Tiny creatures have to enter a space (aka: a square on a grid map) in order to do things in it like stab enemies.

This quote just means they use the same method for interacting with an object: if they're in the same square, they can.

That makes perfect sense since it's applying the same outcome to both cases. Which is how you'd want the rules to work generally since consistency is a good thing.

You skipped over my next post. "The Space entry lists how many feet on a side a creature's space is, so a Large creature fills a 10-foot-by- 10-foot space, or 4 squares on the grid". They use the same method BUT that means that they in fact do not have the same ability to interact with the entire square as a small/medium creature does. A "Less than 5 feet" cube is clearly less that a 5' cube. Now that might not matter depending on how much less the DM makes it but it might and both outcomes are RAW.

To this specifically:

This quote just means they use the same method for interacting with an object: if they're in the same square, they can.

The section and quotes from it specifically do not mention a square when it talks of space. It could easily have done so but when it defines it's space it makes it clear it's space [and therefore its ability to interact] is less than a full space. It seems odd to do so it it is in fact meant to instead to be the entire space.

graystone wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

From the book itself, page 61, Tiny PCs

Quote:

A Tiny creature can typically reach objects and parts of the environment in its space without difficulty, though the GM might rule otherwise in certain situations.

Can we resolve this digression now?

That doesn't actually help, as a tiny creatures space is listed as "Less than 5 feet" and not a square. [Table 9-1: Size and Reach]

So it's 100% up to the DM what the space is and if it's enough for them to reach objects and parts of the environment. All we know for sure is that it's less than small and medium creatures can manage.

Tiny creatures still take up space (on Foundry it's visualized as being in a 4th of a square) within part of the square though, and objects likewise are in part of a square/space when things interact with them.

So if the Tiny creature is in the corner of the square with the doorknob, then that's in its space and can typically be interacted with as per this new rule. It seems wild to claim that because it isn't in every part of the square simultaneously it can't ever be in any significant space there with objects without GM fiat, nor would there be any reason to bother to add the new sentence if wasn't intended to say anything.

"The Space entry lists how many feet on a side a creature's space is, so a Large creature fills a 10-foot-by- 10-foot space, or 4 squares on the grid" would mean that they'd occupy a 2.5'x2.5' cube going by what you stated Foundry does and they could only reach up 2.5', so a door knob 3' off the ground would be unreachable. Space is quite clearly stated, and for tiny, it is NOT counted in spaces as they specifically fill less than one.

From the book itself, page 61, Tiny PCs

Quote:

A Tiny creature can typically reach objects and parts of the environment in its space without difficulty, though the GM might rule otherwise in certain situations.

Can we resolve this digression now?

That doesn't actually help, as a tiny creatures space is listed as "Less than 5 feet" and not a square. [Table 9-1: Size and Reach]

So it's 100% up to the DM what the space is and if it's enough for them to reach objects and parts of the environment. All we know for sure is that it's less than small and medium creatures can manage.

I think it is very much a question whether a thrall looks anything like a creature capable of being threatening on its own.

We very much know that everyone DOES find Thralls threatening as they can flank. To flank you have 'to be able to act, you must be wielding melee weapons or be able to make an unarmed attack, you can't be under any effects that prevent you from attacking, and you must both have the enemy within reach.' So people think the can act and attack them.

I don’t think it takes recall knowledge to identify that a 1 hp undead magical construct that can’t even block movement registered as a creature enough to require a recall knowledge check to treat differently than a skeletal champion.

How exactly do they know it has 1 hp? Attacking and killing Skeleton Guard summons [4 hp] vs a Thrall [1 hp] isn't much different.

Or that they don't block movement. And how do they know they can move through Thrall? Do you allow people to walk through Illusory Creatures without a check? They impede movement through their spaces less that Thrall do.

Illusory creature has a fair bit of language in the spell explaining how and why creatures will interact with it the way they might with a regular creature.

To explain the illusion, sure; they still don't affect movement through them, it just requires a check. I don't see why you give the info for free without a roll for Thralls.

but it is not clear that creatures need to respond to things that don’t even move on their own or at near the pace of other creatures, much less take actions, are a full threat to be taken seriously.

Can't say I agree. You can't tell if they act on their own [Command isn't detectable] and Flanking shows creaures think they can act and attack them. seems threatening enough. I don't know why it'd be assumed it's less dangerous than a summoned -1 level Skeleton without a check.

I think considering that Pathfinder has always underlined "it is clear to anyone intelligent enough that the Eidolon is under the control of the Summoner" that the Necromancer and their Thralls should work the same way.

But an Eidolon doesn't work like a Minion or a Thrall, and some of them have independent actions that don't require direct commands. So seeing someone do something and a skeleton appears, it might be a Companion, a Summons, a Thrall, an Illusory Creature, an Eidolon, ect and they would have NO idea if they could take actions on their own or need Commands without a Recall check.

This is what my point was about. Since Command a Thrall has no noticible effect, foes have no idea if the necromancer commanded it or it took an independent action, hence it's not obvious it's a Thrall and/or if it can attack without beings commanded without recall. For instance, you could have an Skeletal Servant Undead Companion and not spend an action to give it actions for a round, and it wouldn't act any different than a Thrall not given a Command; it's not acting didn't narrow down what it was very much.

What do you think is happening when a Necromancer is commanding a thrall if it is not magic?

It might be magic but the point is that it doesn't say it when similar abilities do. So, my point is RAW it's not Magic; it's undefined.

Minimally, I think, like a flaming sphere, it is pretty clear that the undead thing made of magic by a particular spell is under the control of the caster.

Maybe, but they don't know what kind of control without checks espeially when Command use isn't obvious.

It might be worthwhile to clarify that Command Thrall is a grave cantrip like Thrall Charge.

I'd put it in the same bin as Telepathy; an ability vs a spell. I don't think it needs a noticeable manifistation.

Thralls are completely incapable of attacking anything without magical commands to do so. That is probably visibly apparent.

Is Command a Thrall magic? It doesn't say it is and it's not a spell. Concentrate, necromancer and thrall are the only traits. Compair to Telepathy once, with it's aura, magical and mental traits; this makes it clear telepathy is magical.

Is it visibly apparent? Command doesn't have the Auditory, Manipulate or Visual traits. It isn't a spell with noticeable manifestations. So what's to notice.

Seems like it looks like the thralls just act on their own when Command is used IMO. Command seems as visible as Telepathy.

I figure it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a thrall and an actual zombie because thralls will just sit there idly when not being commanded, whereas zombies are generally moving constantly (albeit slowly).

That's not as easy to figure out when the actual Command a Thrall action doesn't have any obvious signs of use [no Auditory, Manipulate or Visual traits and it isn't casting so no manifestations], meaning that the Thralls will sometimes act without someone noticing it being commanded. So If a Necromancer tosses out a Thrall, after the obvious spellcasting, there might never be another clear command, meaning it might seem that they can do things on their own.

What does a thrall look like?

A skeleton or a vampire spawn or a construct or a zombie or ghost or a spirit or something else. There isn't a particular base look.

NotADragon wrote:

There needs to be, because it's super and fantasy, a weapon that is a polearm and shield combined.

I do not know which end the shield be placed.

Yes it's unrealistic and impractical, but it won't be the stupidest weapon in the rulebook.

Maybe like those old rapiers that had the cup-shaped hand guard at the base of the blade, but scaled up?

You would probably have to spend an action to re-grip it or extend the shield, or something.

The Parry trait.

War Lance is the closest hafted weapon with Parry.

A check to hear sounds through a door isn't a check against the door, even though the presence of the door modifies the final Perception DC. Same logic could be applied with Recall Knowledge checks.

It's not equitable situation though. Even if you equate the door to rarity, the base DC is based on the creature for Recall.

A Recall Knowledge check to learn about goblins in general is going to be the same number, regardless of whether I'm looking at a level 1 goblin, or a level 10 goblin general. The DC for a general check is determined by goblinkind, but not by those specific goblins. Ergo, it can't be "against" them.

The only problem here is that there is no Recall DC for 'generic goblin'. For instance, I can't just look up the DC for goblins, dragons or angels. This is backed up by looking at goblin entries. A goblin pyro is Recall Knowledge DC 15 • Humanoid (Society) while a Big Boss Goblin is Recall Knowledge DC 22 • Humanoid (Society). They list individual entry DC's and not one for a generic Goblin. You have to identify THAT creature before you can get information about it's Ancestry or creature type.

graystone wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Thralls are level -1 creatures, which means the DC to Recall Knowledge on them is <= 14.

Level -1 is meaningless. "Thralls automatically fail all checks, and any check made against a thrall automatically succeeds." So anyone that spends action[s] required to Recall automatically gets whatever info they want about them.

It's debatable whether or not a Recall Knowledge check is even made "against the creature."

The DC is often set by the creature, sure, but that's not necessarily the same thing than something that directly interacts with it, like a check to grapple, or a fireball.

If the check isn't gainst the Thrall then what is it against? The DC is set by the creatures level and rarity; seems creature based to me. For instnce, if I Recall on bob the builder, how isn't that a roll against bob since I have to check bob's level and rarity.

Thralls are level -1 creatures, which means the DC to Recall Knowledge on them is <= 14.

Level -1 is meaningless. "Thralls automatically fail all checks, and any check made against a thrall automatically succeeds." So anyone that spends action[s] required to Recall automatically gets whatever info they want about them.

I feel either of us at some point in this discussion misunderstood each other because since the beggining we agreed that casters using weapons in most scenarios isn't optimal, and that the only one that probably would want to ever use them is a wizard in the early game because they are that desperate for options.

I'll say I'd prefer every caster had an in class single action ability for those 3rd actions. But for low level wizards and some witches in particular, IMO, an optimal 3rd action can be a Strike with a ranged weapon. This is where we diverged I think. I've had that elf wizard that found that an Electric Arc + bow Strike was the optimal attack round through several levels. That and often other classes don't have a ton of 1 action option at low level so when they don't work it's a fine backup [like a Cobyslarni witch hex and fighting mindless creatures].

Ok, go back again and list ALL the 1 action actions a Wizard can do... You are UNIVERSALLY lumping casters together and then listing out things individual classes can do, NOT what casters have as universal options. SO, yeah, what's a wizard doing? Sure INDIVIDUAL classes might have some of those options, but not all.

Take witches once; is a Choir Politic witch casting share vision in combat? Spinner of Threads casting nudge fate every round? The Inscribed One is using discern secrets multiple rounds? Some classes and some sub-classes have options but not all casters.

Sure there are some classes that have reusable 1 action cost actions and other have some usable sometimes but that was never the point. There are some classes, like the wizard, that has little of those option. Your comment was "outside of character flavor, I don't see a single scenario or reason for a caster to ever use a weapon" and I was pointing out that that isn't universally the case; not EVERY single caster has good options for a 3rd action and a weapon at low levels can fill that when they don't have it or it's unavailable or unadvisable.

A ranged weapon Strike to deal d4 damage is IMO a second backup option to work as a backup of your main backup option if you can't use it for whatever reason. And as you said, it only really stays relevant for a few levels until weapon upgrades and enemy resistances start becoming more common.

My posting a reply was you stating "don't see a single scenario or reason for a caster to ever use a weapon". That's what I disagree with. A 2nd or 3rd backup is still a reason to have one and not so far out of possibilities that it's unthinkable a caster might use the option.

So effectively, that leaves most casters with just one weapon option: air repeaters.

Not really. There are multiple Ancestries with weapon familiarities that include long/short bows. They could keep it until high enough to not need it anymore and then retrain. For instance an Elf, Aiuvarin, Centaur, Conrasu, Duskwalker, Hobgoblin or Tripkee wizard.

Long air repeaters are simple weapons as well, but they have kickback, so I don't see a caster ever actually using one.

With the majority of cantrips being 30', wanting to take the repeater that's also 30' doesn't seem like an imposition.

I'm pretty sure every caster who isn't a wizard has a thousand better things to do than deal 1d4 damage, even at 1st level

Do they? Recall, for instance, are very DM dependant rolls [and even when they are useful, after used on a foe type you don';t need to use again] and often an extra 1d4 damage could be enough to kill an already wounded foe at lower levels. What exactly are these fabulous 1 action cost actions that casters can take, especially non-cha ones? For instance, what is the standard Wizard using as their 3rd action after a 2 action spell when they are in a good position and don't have to move?

outside of character flavor, I don't see a single scenario or reason for a caster to ever use a weapon.

At low levels, a caster can get some mileage out of a reload 0 ranged weapon by casting a 2 action save spell and then a ranged attack; it's essentially a free attack as they don't often have anything else to do with the 3rd action. Once they get enough 1 action abilities though, weapon use gets less appealing especially once you start needing runes to keep up.

IMO the real problem here is that, even if the polearm is supposed to be as a backup, it kinda forces that wizard to start with the highest Str modifier possible which likely means they'll be leaving their Dex modifier at +0 which is going to make their AC awfully low. However, if you ignore Str and allocate your stats like you would for any other wizard, then you effectively have a staff-flavored polearm that you'll never use.

Unless you are planning to take the Armor Proficiency general feat twice, the polearm is a flavorful feature and that's it.

The thing to remember here is that it's not just polearms but "martial polearms and spears". This means Dancer's Spear, Dueling Spear and Elven Branched Spears [and technically Filcher's Fork and Forked Bipod] are viable options for Dex builds. Even if you have your heart set on a polearm, as long as you don't tank Str, you could use a Finesse spear until your Str catches up with level ups.

On a side note, I'll say that I don't really have skin in the game here. There is actually very little reason to put Runes on an improvised weapon as the Archetype to use them well involves breaking breaking them [and 'normal' weapons have traits and usually better damage]. I'm arguing from a purely 'this is how I read the rules' point of view.

I will simply refer you to the last time we discussed this, and my proposed compromise for such cases. But none of those apply to etching runes

I don't really recall a specific thread so I can't really refer back. If there is a specific point you want to put forth, please repost.

I shouldn't have said the object is an improvised weapon only while you attack with it. The cleaner claim: the improvised-weapons paragraph never grants full weapon status, and the proof sits in the same paragraph. An improvised attack carries a -2 item penalty, and the GM assigns damage and traits per attack, "if any". If "improvised weapons are simple weapons" were full category membership, an improvised attack would deal ordinary simple-weapon damage at full proficiency with no penalty. It does neither. The errata's own note says what the sentence is for: "This dictates the proficiency modifier you use." Proficiency, not item status.

This just isn't true. For instance, Shoddy items take a –2 item penalty to attacks and checks same as Improvised weapons; this doesn't make them not weapons. And the fact that the DM sets traits and damage doesn't make them not weapons either. All it means is that the DM decides if an item can be an improvised weapon and what it's stats are. Once an item is an improvised weapon, it stays that way though. For instance, a torch is always an improvised weapon as per the RAW rules; in never stops being one.

Lastly, nothing implies transient weapon status let alone anything explicit about it. It's as simple as them saying 'For the purposes of proficiency, improvised weapons are simple weapons' and they opted not to. There's no rules text backing this up that I know.

So what the paragraph grants is attack-time mechanics for things that aren't weapons. What the object "is" between attacks is never asserted and never denied, because nothing in the rules needs it to be anything.

No, it quite clearly says they are simple weapons; they have wording when it's dealing with proficiency only and they didn't use it. The paragraph is about weapons that weren't built to be one, not about granting non-weapons damage.

That dissolves the weapon-ability worry. Brutish Shove doesn't care what the object is between actions; the feat makes a Strike with the weapon, and at that moment you are attacking with the object, so the improvised rules are live: it is an improvised-weapon attack, -2 and all, and the feat functions. Requirements met during an attack are met. If an ability ever required a weapon outside any attack, that would be a genuine gap in the rules and a GM call, and it would be a different question from etching.

That's not how Requirements works; for Brutish Shove Requirements: You are wielding a two-handed melee weapon.

Reading Rules Prerequisites: Requirements Sometimes you must have a certain item or be in a certain circumstance to use an ability.

It has to be that item to use it, IE it has to be a weapon before you can use the action. The activity requirements aren't the same as a subordinate action. And even if it worked for Brutish Shove, it fails for other like Dueling Parry that require wielding a weapon but do not involve an attack.

Etching doesn't need any transitory claim at all. Runes etch into "a specific type of armor, shield, or weapon, as indicated in the Usage entry" (GM Core 224), and weapon runes are "etched onto a weapon" (GM Core 236). Nothing in the improvised paragraph hands a tool a weapon Usage entry to etch through. When Paizo wants a non-weapon to take runes, they write it into the item, and Explorer's Clothing is the standing example. The errata that made improvised weapons "simple weapons" added no such exception.

"etched onto a weapon" plus "Improvised weapons are simple weapons" = RAW followed. Seems straightforward to me. You still haven't overcome the very explicit sentence "Improvised weapons are simple weapons". As such, I see nothing stopping Runes on an improvised weapon.

Same conclusion as before, minus the overreach: a Tool is not an etchable weapon by RAW, and a GM who allows it is house-ruling.

There is RAW that says it's a weapon and none that say it at any point isn't one. Not being "built to be a weapon" doesn't equate to isn't a weapon. There are no qualifiers on "Improvised weapons are simple weapons". So I'm going to have to disagree on what you see as RAW. To be honest, IMO, it seems like reading in between the line to get a conclusion you want.

Yes, yes. "Improvised weapons are simple weapons," but that's not all there is to it. You keep beating that one line and ignoring the one directly before it, The one that says WHEN an object is an improvised weapon

"If you attack with something that wasn’t built to be a weapon, such as a chair or a vase, you’re making an attack with an improvised weapon. Improvised weapons are simple weapons. You take a –2 item penalty to attack rolls with an improvised weapon. The GM determines the amount and type of damage the attack deals, if any, as well as any weapon traits that the improvised weapon should have."

So you're saying that I could never use abilities that require weilding a weapon with improvised weapons? Does that sound like the correct reading to you? For instance, do you think you shouldn't be able to Brutish Shove with a table leg wielded in 2 hands? Lots of things like this break as they have a requirement of wielding a weapon and ruling in a way that they are only weapons while attacking means you can't use them with improvised weapons.

Yes, "Improvised weapons are simple weapons," but also items only count for their usage while they are actually being used in that way.

No, the statement is quite clear; "Improvised weapons are simple weapons". It's much like a crossbow with a reinforced stock on it. It is simultaneously wielding a ranged and a melee weapon; there is no magic way to wield it as only ranged or only melee.

Hands:
This lists how many hands it takes to use the item effectively. Most items that require two hands can be carried in only one hand, but you must spend an Interact action to change your grip in order to use the item. The GM may determine that an item is too big to carry in one hand (or even two hands, for particularly large items).

Usage [held]:
If a character must wield the item to use it, this entry in the item’s stat block lists the word “held” along with the number of hands the character must use when wielding the item, such as “held in 1 hand.” The rules for carrying and using items are provided here.

The same hands you use for tools is the same as for wielding and there is no action to 'switch' from tool to weapon use. As such, you are wielding/using them when you have the required hands on them. As such, it's always a weapon, just one with an innate -2 to hit. There just isn't a way in game to hold a item that's a improvised weapon in such a way that they aren't wielding it as a weapon [unless they aren't using the required hands to use/wield].

Notice the rule's shape: it lives in the act of attacking. The object is an improvised weapon while you attack with it, and damage and traits are GM-assigned per attack. Nothing in it converts a tool into a weapon as an item, and etching is not something you do during an attack.

If this were true, how does the transitory weapon status work with abilities that require a weapon? Is the player just out of luck? That seems too bad to be true doesn't it?

the hivemind stands pretty firmly against it with the argument that an improvised weapon is not a weapon until you Strike with it.

That's not how it's written and is in fact it's stated in the opposite. "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." Not 'are counted as simple weapons' but are simple weapons.

He says no, given a previous errata that indicates the line "improvised weapons are simple weapons" is simply to dictate the proficiency modifier you use, along with the existence of improvised pummel.

When they intend for it to be just for proficiency, they state that. For instance, look at Ancestry weapon feats once. Take Dwarven Weapon Familiarity for instance: "for the purposes of proficiency, you treat any of these that are martial weapons as simple weapons and any that are advanced weapons as martial weapons." Improvised weapons could very easily say 'For the purposes of proficiency, improvised weapons are simple weapons' but it doesn't say that.

Secondly, I'm not sure what improvised pummel has to do with it.

Third, the FAQ stating "This dictates the proficiency modifier you use" is just restating what weapon categories do; they indicate what proficiency modifier you use. If it was meant to only be an indication of what proficiency to use, as I pointed out, they make that very clear when they want to; Replacing "This dictates the proficiency modifier you use" with 'this is for the purposes of proficiency only' if that's what they wanted it to mean.

So in conclusion, they errata'd improvised weapon and, in the remaster when they included other weapon options that were only for proficiency only, opted to only state "improvised weapons are simple weapons" [even when they had ALL the room they wanted to add context in the FAQ since it's not bound to a page count like the books]. This leads me to conclude that "improvised weapons are simple weapons" actually means what it says.

EDIT: also, having improvised weapons only count as weapons when in use [or for only proficiency] means that they do not qualify for prerequisites that require weapons. For instance, you couldn't Lunge as you aren't holding a weapon. Dueling Parry, Brutish Shove, Brutal Finish, Twin Takedown ect as you have to be wielding weapons before you can use them. A lot of weapons attacks/abilities break down and stop working for improvised weapon when you stop counting them as simple weapon and make them transitory ones.

Remember that this is a comparison argument. And I feel like people aren't making the comparison that I am asking about. I'm asking about having to choose between Ancient Elf Heritage and Class Archetypes - not between Ancient Elf Heritage and other Heritage options (or other Class Feats).

In your argument you made statements like "I have found absolutely no use for that Heritage" and "the useless Heritage"; I specifically commented on THOSE parts of the post as I don't see it as either of the quotes statements. I honestly couldn't care about the comparison part of your post as the only part that caught my attention was about Ancient Elf.

Because I have found absolutely no use for that Heritage.

I like it for feeling like you're multiclassing from the start. You multiclass a caster and you start off casting spells. You multiclass into Guardian/Champion and you start off with armor proficiencies. Monk multiclass gets you Powerful Fist. It may be just, but I kind of like that start.

On an objective level, it opens up your 2nd level feat if you're in a class that has good 1st-2nd level feats. For example, I could take an Ancient Elf [Witch (Paradox of Opposites)] Necromancer and I pick up a Familiar with Vitality Lash (and a second non-occult cantrip like Draw Moisture), gain the Religion skill and on top still get to take Invert Harm with my 2nd level feat. Vitality Lash is a pure upgrade from Void Warp with Mastery of Life and Death so it's a nice pick up on it's own plus all the rest.

IMO, Ancient Elf gives you a lot of bang for your buck. I mean, how many people take Human for the extra 1st level feat and it can get you an extra 1st or 2nd level one.

Good point, I forgot about the 15-foot speed. Probably a third speed. Either way, that makes a pretty good balance point for the thoroughness. As you said, 85 feet per minute versus 250 feet per minute works, as you're basically going at just above a crawling pace

If someone is doing this, it does make Bone Grim Fascination attractive for the +5' Thrall speed. ;)

You could meet a thrall whose Necromancer is far away or even dead.

Given the duration of Create Thrall [1 min], I think it'd be quite rare to find a thrall very far away from it's necromancer.

I would allow for RK based on its level to know it for what it is.

You don't know how dangerous a thrall is unless you can gauge the level of the necromancer as it's damage [and abilities used through it] are level based. There isn't any visual way of indicating the level of the necromancer from the thrall that i know of.

Secondly, you don't need to think about it's level, as "any check made against a thrall automatically succeeds' and Recall is a skill made against it. So anyone that takes the time to Recall knows it's a thrall. They'd just have to spend an action for each relevant piece of information.

graystone wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

The Necromancer can still have them strike, so it's not no threat. (Part of the reason I'm really happy for the change from playtest is that there's a credible reason for the flanking threat now.) And, in fairness, "level-relevant attack bonus" and "eventually more than a d6 of damage" are reasons for thralls to appear a little scarier than that level -1 rating. I'd still call it "much lesser threat" overall.

For myself, Bone Burst is what increases the threat level above "much lesser threat". If a smart enemy knows about Thrall, the fact that they could explode if they use a manipulate/move action or makes a ranged attack on top of the normal Commands ups the threat level IMO.

Note though that this is a feat of the Necromancer rather than an ability of the thrall itself.

Since Create a Thrall is an ability of the necromancer too, it seems a distinction without a difference. You'd use the same Recall to know about either one. I can't imagine anyone basing threat level off a Thrall without factoring in the Necromancer. The Thrall is no better than a potted plant without a necromancer around.

The Necromancer can still have them strike, so it's not no threat. (Part of the reason I'm really happy for the change from playtest is that there's a credible reason for the flanking threat now.) And, in fairness, "level-relevant attack bonus" and "eventually more than a d6 of damage" are reasons for thralls to appear a little scarier than that level -1 rating. I'd still call it "much lesser threat" overall.

For myself, Bone Burst is what increases the threat level above "much lesser threat". If a smart enemy knows about Thrall, the fact that they could explode if they use a manipulate/move action or makes a ranged attack on top of the normal Commands ups the threat level IMO.

I GM for a Necromancer in Abomination Vaults, they can just spam sooo many thralls that it would basically neutralize most enemies if they would focus thralls. 5 each turn, that is comparable with one of the strongest spells of the game, slow rank 6, right at level 1.

There's generally little reason to spam Create Thrall. You either place 3 and blow one up for a Grave spell or you place 2 and have 1 strike and cast a save spell.

EDIT: Well, I guess you could toss out a few extra if you're a Reaper and you don't have to move but you're placing one less each Create.

Stepping in on the conversation about repeating a spell and fatigue, I don't think Create Thrall is suspect to fatigue, at least RaW. But, I think it should make you move at half speed. Things to note. Repeat a spell is for casting the same spell every 6 seconds. Create Thrall only needs to be cast once a minute.

Secondly, repeating a spell (typically 2 actions) is separate from sustaining a spell (always 1 action). Becoming fatigued only applies to casting a spell repeatedly as an exploration activity. But sustaining a spell indefinitely, does not make you fatigued anymore, that was lost going from Legacy to Remaster. You can sustain a spell for 10 minutes (or another specified time) until it needs to be recast, making cantrips indefinite, but requiring multiple castings of ranked spells, either way, sustaining no longer makes you fatigued when time runs out.

Commanding a Thrall does not count either as casting the Thrall spell, nor sustaining the spell. It is an entirely different action, so you should be able to create thrall indefinitely. Though I can see a basis of treating Command Thrall as Sustaining a spell as both are single action commitments, but again, sustaining a spell does not cause fatigue. Only repeating a spell (typically 2 actions), does.

So, this falls under the rules for Improvising New Activities. Using 1 thrall that gets replenished every minute should be allowable under these rules. But you'd move at half speed as you're taking 2 actions per 12 seconds (technically 4 per 24 sec; summon thrall, move, command thrall, move). Though, you can also command 2 thralls at 2 actions a round plus movement, but that would actually make you fatigued if you did that for 10 minutes. and you'd still be moving half speed. Alternatively, moving full speed with 1 thrall should also make you fatigued.

With how slow Thrall move, you could Create Thrall round 1 30' ahead, round 2 Stride 25-30', round 3 and 4 Command a Thrall to stride, round 5 you Stride, round 6 and 7 Thralls stride, Round 8 you stride and rounds 9 and 10 the Thrall strides. So, it's actually slower than 1/2 speed; it's 8.5' or 10' rounded up per round exploration with 1 Thrall.

Cantrip thralls are level -1, have one hitpoint, stand around unless directed, and don't even require an attack roll to hit. It really doesn't seem like it should be even a knowledge check to recognize them as a much lesser threat, and I would assume intelligent enemies would usually drop them in priority. I'd make exceptions for impulsive demons or anti-undead Pharasmins who haven't picked out the Necromancer, maybe.

I'd argue that enemies DO see Thralls as a threat as they can Flank. Flanking requires you be able to act, so foes clearly don't see them as just standing around doing nothing. And that's before you factor in Grave spells, reactive explosions [bone burst] or their casting spells at them [Reach of the Dead]. I can see plenty of reasons an intelligent baddy would want to clear the field of thralls near them.

Might not work at every table, but it satisfies me and both of my current Necromancer players, and can certainly allow for future necromancers as well.

So RAW this means that normally the necromancer is creating new thrall every 12 seconds all the time in Exploration? So at 1st level, that means he'll start any 'encounter' with 10 thrall [or 15 with Puppeteer]. If that works for you that's fine, but starting out at max possible thralls seems a bigger issue than it solved IMO. Personally I'd use the Improvising New Activities for an activity that makes a single set of thrall with Create Thrall then commands them with Command a Thrall so they start encounters with just one set.

I'll stand by the argument that the "decision making" clause of Repeat a Spell is broad enough that the GM is well within their rights to put their foot down on continuous use of thralls.

There isn't ANY "decision making" past placement so I think it's a rather specious argument. The "decision making" is in the Command a Thrall action which isn't a spell so any rule mention about "repeating a spell that requires making complex decisions" doesn't apply. If placing thralls with create thrall every few rounds counts as "a spell that requires making complex decisions" that causes fatigue, then just about EVERY spell would. I personally wouldn't accept it as a valid RAW reason to prevent its use.

Secondly, Repeat a Spell really doesn't fit what's happening, as again you aren't casting a spell every other round but are instead Commanding a Thrall every other round most rounds so even if something complex was happening it's happening only 1/10th of the time vs the 1/2 the time referenced in Repeat a Spell. I just don't see an angle you can come at this and make a viable argument for the "complex decisions" spell clause applying. Using Improvising New Activities for what's actually happening has a "model for strenuous activities where the PCs are using the equivalent of 2 actions every 6 seconds" that would apply for better than trying to make Repeat a Spells "decision making" fatigue somehow fit.

graystone wrote:

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Necromancers aren't uncommon. You are justified in having suitably intelligent enemies identify thralls and react much more tactically.

My necromancer would be THRILLED to have intelligent enemies take an action out at the start of combat to roll Recall Knowledge on my Thrall. ;)

Not so much of a benefit to the Necromancer if the enemies are spending that action before the battle starts when a Thrall wanders into the room and mindlessly stands around.

Given a thralls speed and the range of create thrall I don't see where the necro would be far enough away on a regular basis to miss out of the first round of combat if they want. Now if it's just for 'attracting an ambush', then, IMO, they'd be unlikely to attempt the Recall anyway; Just toss a hooded robe on them and send them in.