shroudb's page

"You remember that Trolls have a very weak save, you just don't remember which one."

Lol. that's no information. Everything has a weak save. You gave absolutely nothing.

If I was the player in question, I would wait until end of session and announce you that "ok, since you don't want to play Dubious, I'm changing it to X" (and that's changing, not "retraining")

I am hoping there is something in the rules I have missed.

I just cited the Rules in the 2nd post, what do you mean?

DC is based on Total modifier of the roll.

Total modifier includes ALL bonuses and ALL penalties.

So the rules clearly say that circumstance bonuses are included.

shroudb wrote:

Worst case for Improved is picking up something "cheap" and having a net positive of abilities due to the discount.

The whole idea was to avoid spending the junk Feat on Improved, hence presenting the option to delay the Archetype. In a F Arch game, if I was committed to FM, I'd likely take it at L8, getting Dedication + Conduit in both slots then, and unlock out at L10 with Incredible.

Yes, it would suck to leave the familiar unimproved until then purely for mechanical reasons. (and suck to delay the genuinely good L8 / 10 Feats). But, that plan would allow for a Dedication + Feats at 2, 4, 6 to break the lockout of a prior Archetype.

- - - -

The Improved Familiar Feat, and specific familiars in general, have real issues.

Much of the appeal of the familiars is the "pick each day" flexibility, yet specific familiars are permanently locked into that one choice and the list of specific abilities.

The notion that you can instead get a Feat to +2 to the familiar's abilities rather than a -2 discount is... kinda silly. It puts a clear order to preferring the +2 first, then maybe considering the -2 discount if you want a specific familiar *and* those extra abilities.

- - - -

For any future player reading the rules on specific familiars, it's worded in a way that looks worse than it is. You are not banking and spending the required # of abilities to grab each from the list of granted abilities.

Instead, think of it like spend --> receive.

You spend the # of required ability slots, and the familiar that pops out has that set of familiar abilities, plus unique stuff below. If that spend leaves you with abilities remaining, then you may use the leftovers as normal.

Meaning that Improved Familiar is always +2 abilities (if the familiar cost 2 or more), but only if you use a specific familiar.

- - - -

I do wish there were Common versions of the genuinely good (and thematically flexible) options like the Rare Spirit Guide. No way my GM would...

You're way overthinking it.

Picking something like a wisp will cost you 1 ability and give you Flier, Speech, Elemental (which has several immunities) and some miscellaneous other things.

Assuming you wanted fly or speech, both of which are popular options, it's a net gain without restricting the flexibility of the familiar since you've only spent 1 ability.

shroud wrote:

I agree that Dubious Knowledge is a terrible feat, I ban it on my tables, but allowing someone to pick it up and then straight up refuse its benefits is not what a GM should do.

This is why I LOATHE that they attached the feat automatically to the Thaumaturge: its really kills my enjoyment of the class.

Meh, just don't use it.

On my Thaum I have never asked for it to be applied regardless the result of a recall check.

I don't think my gm even remembers, or care, for it either.

Keep in mind that it won't stack with the Con bonus to damage since both are Status bonuses though.

shroudb wrote:

Doesn't FM get Incredible Familiar, just at level 10 instead of level 8?

I think that's just normal archetype behaviour, granting a class feat with 2 level delay.

Welp, you are correct, good callout.

It looks like there is some jank around this, most of the time Feats like Enhanced Familiar have 1 unified Feat page with the *(at a diff level) disclaimer if there's an archetype delay.

For whatever reason, Incredible Familiar (Familiar Master) is it's own isolated Feat on a unique page, and the FM Dedication on AoN does not list that Feat on the Dedication page.

That's what I get for not fully dissecting AoN before making a statement.

- - - -

If a Witch does want the full +4, then they can take FM for the +2, Conduit for the meta-magic at L4, then wait until L10 for the +4 if they don't want the other Feats.

If a Witch delays taking the FM Dedication until later, that Feat does give them another option for escaping the lockout RaW.

IMO it's still a significant speedbump many tables will want to houserule, especially in FA games.

- - - -

I think pf2e could benefit from a general rule that allows matching Feats to satisfy lockout requirements.

You can pick up dedication at 2, impoved/conduit at 4, conduit/improved at 6, so at 8 you have already fulfilled the lockout requirements and pick something different, and then return back at 10 for Incredible without having a blank/bad space.

Worst case for Improved is picking up something "cheap" and having a net positive of abilities due to the discount.

Can't find it ATM, but pretty sure that the rule is everything that modifies a Check also modifies the appropriate DC.

The sum of all the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties you apply to the d20 roll is called your total modifier for that statistic.

Your DC for a given statistic is 10 + the total modifier for that statistic.

Doesn't FM get Incredible Familiar, just at level 10 instead of level 8?

I think that's just normal archetype behaviour, granting a class feat with 2 level delay.

I too am usually doing it more organically than staying strictly within the set activities.

I usually ask the players what they are doing while wandering around, but as the situation around them changes and they describe how they react to those changes, I adjust their tactics as best as I can to match what they actively are doing.

If they spot some murals and the rogue goes over there and starts looking at them trying to figure them out, he's no longer avoiding notice, he's investigating. If the ranger follows the tracks to the cave and then tries to listen in, he's no longer tracking, he's scouting. And etc.

I really wish they explicitly called out the Protector Tree as a summoned creature with a more elaborate stat line. As it is written now is inviting a head-on collision between the fiction and game elements.

Sure, spells like Black Tentacles/Slither also conjure undefined stuff with just AC and hitpoints and nothing else, but it is also much more simple and obviously does its thing independent from the caster.

Protector Tree is much more complex. There are just so many messy edge-cases if it has no mind of its own and needs the caster to determine who are allies and enemies (on a round-to-round basis even because otherwise it can't protect eg. new summons).

Ok, sure, when confused you have no allies so Protector Tree can't do anything, but do unconscious or dead casters have allies? Do casters have allies and enemies in another plane of existence (eg. under the effect of Maze/Quandary?). Or less extreme, if it is a spell effect from the caster, and it isn't an aoe, does it target your ally when it prevents damage and suffers from miss-chance when the caster is dazzled/blinded?

It is just so much more elegant when it is just a summoned creature with a mind of its own...

I mean, there are a lot of spell effects that call out Allies or Enemies and have duration.

Most of the things you describe (extra allies spawning, caster going unconsious, and etc) also apply to them.

Take the Incarnate series of spells as an example, same deal.

Making it a "creature" would be beyond weird imo. Since it's just a tree, without any intelligence of its own.

Furthermore, since we're talking about the kineticist version, that just makes it permanent if not destroyed, how would a "thinking creature" even work? Would you spawn a village of tree creatures? Would they be smart for a minute and then their intelligence would go poof away and they would revert to normal trees afterwards? And etc.

It would just be messy without any real upside imo.

shroudb wrote:

I do not read that as example.

I read it as specific exception of the normal rule.

An exception would be better if it was written differently. The bolded words are pretty standard for meaning an example.

An exception would be more like:

"You’re a treasure trove of information, but not all of it comes from reputable sources. When you fail (but don’t critically fail) a Recall Knowledge check using any skill, you learn the correct answer and an erroneous answer, but you don’t have any way to differentiate which is which. Or you know something is significant, but not whether it’s good or bad."

Sorry at work, hence the small messages with multiple edits.

But as I wrote above, when someone says:

This is done THIS way (1 right+1 wrong). And then follows with:" This can occur as "Something different than 1 right+1 wrong"."

Then that reads to me as exception.

shroudb wrote:

By RAW you need to give "a significant something" and do not say if that's "good significant" or "bad significant".

Again, that is not 'By RAW' that is 'by example'.

Dubious Knowledge wrote:

This can occur as not knowing something is significant, but not whether it’s good or bad.

The RAW is that you learn the correct information and some extraneous incorrect information.

I do not read that as example.

I read it as specific exception of the normal rule.

Normal: 1 right+1 wrong. "This can occur as: something different than 1+1"

But just to bring the conversation back on topic, and since we're on the Rules forum:

The extra sentence doesn't say "give incomplete information". It says "knowing something is significant, but not whether it’s good or bad"

By RAW you need to give "a significant something" and do not say if that's "good significant" or "bad significant".

So, knowing an element but not knowing if that's good or bad.
Knowing that there was something about speed and agility, but not if they excelled or they were terrible at it.
Knowing about spells, but not if they are weak or strong against them.
And etc.

shroudb wrote:

By no means "a few tests" are enough. There's literally 2 dozen different weaknesses across monsters.

Fire, Cold, Holy and Positive cover most weaknesses.

Also you are not facing the bestiary, you are facing a single creature. If it's not roten or skeletal, chances are high that you don't have to test Positive. If it's aflame, maybe Fire is not a good bet but Cold is. In most cases, you'll need a couple of checks to find the good one if you are not playing silly.

And what if you DON'T metagame based on % of monsters in a book that an actual Character has no access to?

Again, if you wish to not give information, just tell your player that you don't plan to allow Dubious to work, don't try to bamboozle him.

shroudb wrote:

Basically if you simply say "it has some weakness" you are cheating your players out of their feat, since that's so extremely vague that's functionally no different than saying "you got nothing".

When saying "Fire is important, but you don't know if it is weak to it or has resistance to it" you either give the same information than on a success (if the monster as a weakness to fire as your player will certainly test it somehow) or no information at all (if it has a resistance to fire as noone cares about that).

By stating "it has a weakness" I actually give an information that is less interesting than on a success but still much better than on a failure (as you should rather quickly find the monster weakness with a couple of tests). So I think it respects the power level of the feat much better than your sentence.

And the whole "You should give a good and a wrong information" of Dubious Knowledge is why I decided not to play it at my tables. It's a pain to find 2 pieces of information that seem equally probable and that somehow satisfies the player (because as you say if the "good" piece of information is not interesting at all the player can be sad). "The monster either has a weakness or a resistance to fire" is the kind of answer I don't want to look for.

By no means "a few tests" are enough. There's literally 2 dozen different weaknesses across monsters.

Saying that not knowing if an element is a weakness or a resistance is irrelevant because resistances are irrelevant is disingenuous phrasing at best, misinformation at worse.
Or do your casters throw fireballs against fire resistant enemies?

---

I agree that Dubious Knowledge is a terrible feat, I ban it on my tables, but allowing someone to pick it up and then straight up refuse its benefits is not what a GM should do.

You make your mind and either allow it, and play its benefits, or you simply disallow it.

What you dont do is allow it and play "gotcha" against your players.

shroudb wrote:

Basically if you simply say "it has some weakness" you are cheating your players out of their feat, since that's so extremely vague that's functionally no different than saying "you got nothing".

Well, we're talking about a failed roll. "You got nothing" is perfectly fine for most failed rolls, so in that respect, not cheating the PC out of anything. AIUI Dubious Knowledge isn't supposed to give a good answer on a fail, it's supposed to give the PC a gamble, a risk. I'd stick with that conceptually regardless of how Paizo parsed the new last sentence. "Fire is an imporant part of this creature...but you can't remember if they have a weakness to it or gain strength from it" seems about right.

Yeah, that was my example.

I find that example fundamentally different than "it has a weakness".

shroudb wrote:

I think it's meant to be more like "you know this creature had something to do with Fire, but you don't recall if it resisted it or was weak to it."

You know the significant object, but not how it's significant.

Simply "it has some weakness" doesn't reveal the significant object, but it reveals how it's significant. Which is the opposite of what the feat is saying.

I hope my players will forgive me, then. Because for me it's a distinction without a difference.

There's a gargantuan difference between What vs How in scope

That's why the feat specifically gives the What.

Basically if you simply say "it has some weakness" you are cheating your players out of their feat, since that's so extremely vague that's functionally no different than saying "you got nothing".

That's why it is important that the Significant thing being said, and just leave out the "how" it's significant.

Let's see... absolutely maximized skills might be an human Investigator with the Alchemical Sciences methodology and the Rogue multi-class archetype and then loading up on Additional Lore feats.

Human can net you Skilled heritage which gets one of your skills to expert or Versatile Heritage which can net you another Additional Lore feat.

Investigator has good starting proficiencies and proficiency progression on par with Rogue while the Alchemical Sciences methodology allows you access to a range of skill boosting alchemical items.

The Rogue Archetype provides Rogue Dedication (an additional skill proficiency) and later Skill Mastery which allows you to bump one skill up to master proficiency and another up to expert.

Finally, Additional Lore grants you another lore skill and automatically progresses it up to legendary proficiency. Depending on how willing your GM is to let you apply lore skills in interesting situations, a selection of campaign relevant lores can be quite potent.

---------------

Some additional thoughts:
-Human also gives access to Cooperative Nature and Cooperative Soul, both of which improve aid checks immensely and ensure that even if you aren't the best at a skill in the party, you can still buff the one who is.
-Acrobat Dedication takes acrobatics up to legendary proficiency if you can fit it in.

Keep in mind that you can pick up Skill Mastery multiple times unlike most feats.

So multiple extra Master proficiencies.

Interesting, it makes Dubious Knowledge much less of a pain in the *** for the GM. It's the kind of feats I was forbidding around my tables as I have other things to do than making up believable stuff. Now, it is much more interesting as I can say that "You know this creature is weak to something but you don't remember what exactly!" and other half-answers.

I think it's meant to be more like "you know this creature had something to do with Fire, but you don't recall if it resisted it or was weak to it."

You know the significant object (fire), but not how it's significant (good or bad).

Simply "it has some weakness" doesn't reveal the significant object, but it reveals how it's significant (bad for the creature). Which is the opposite of what the feat is saying.

I think there's just an extra "not" in that sentence.

I think they were going for:"This can occur as knowing something is significant, but not whether it’s good or bad "

So: "You recall something about how swords are sculpt, in hand or sheathed, being important, but you don't remember what it means that this statue is holding theirs"

So, the player now knows that the way the statue is holding his sword is "important" but not if it's "good or bad".

This counts as both the correct and the incorrect fact that Dubious would have given you.

As a bump up for a caster, there's also spells like Timely Tutor, that give your familiar a modifier of level+stat on any Lore you wish at the spot.

While not amazing modifier, since you cast it on the spot, you can always get extremely specific Lores that come with a -5 on the DC.

Quote:

Level 10 you also get to spend 1 action to give Reaction attacks, or bonuses to reaction attacks, for an ally, or even for the whole party if you spend a focus point and a few turns sustaining.

I would probably go for champion reaction instead.

I do not understand this comment.

What you spend YOUR reaction for (champion's reaction as an example) doesn't mess up with Foresee the Path, which only costs you an action (so it doesn't mess up with your reaction) and that you gain for free at level 10 and allows you to give Reaction attacks to the rest of your party.

I usually roll after as well. Not sure what rolling before would do. Do you still waste the attack if you don't make the DC 5? Can you not attack them at all with further attacks? That would be odd.

An easy example is the OP.

Not spending a hero point on an attack roll that misses due to concealment later.

If you roll concealment first, you don't waste your hero point.

---

I do agree, that as written, concealment comes when you try to target, which is before you roll the attack (but after you commit your action to it ofc).

The problem with To Battle is that it's very short range to affect someone, only 10ft around you most of the time for your aura.

I like the plan of simply going Infinite Eye Psychic, grab Message Amp at 6th, and as for archetype grab Air Kineticist and pick up Four winds and Whisper on the wind.

Now you have:
From kineticist archetype:
2 Actions to move up to 4 party members, repeatable as much as you want.
Easy repeatable party communication, from 1 mile to eventually planar side range.
From Psychic:
1 action + 1 focus to give Reaction attack
Reaction + focus for status bonuses
1 action to give damage to your allies
1 action to give Aid to attacks, or spend the focus points and give mega Aid +party wide buff

All the above should be online by level 7

Level 10 you also get to spend 1 action to give Reaction attacks, or bonuses to reaction attacks, for an ally, or even for the whole party if you spend a focus point and a few turns sustaining.

Given how spammable a lot of those things are, you will hardly need to spend your actual spell slots, which you can ofcourse tailor to fit the "Commander" style by simply putting in ally buffs to make your allies better. Stuff like heroism, haste and etc.

Also, if the tree is not an ally, is it an object?

And thus can it be repaired? (Not necessarily faster than casting it again, but curious).

The tree is just a spell effect.

It's neither an object, a creature, or an ally.

Shield also nice on wood kineticist.

attack your Allies? face the tree. attack you? shield block.

I also like it on warpriest. Usually the healers are a pretty good target for enemies, even smart ones, since they can easily negate whole turns of damage on their allies, so having a shield to make you sturdier when they try to focus you is always nice.

Can a Water Kineticist use Ocean’s Balm on themselves?

Yes. As long as they are living (thus not undead) they are a "willing living creature".

In pf2, when an ability is to exlude the caster it uses the language of "Ally" which is specifically NOT the caster himself but his allies only.

Keeping the enemies mobile, and/or large enemies (so that the kineticist can't protect both sides of a flank) are also easy ways to disrupt Tree spam.

In my experiece, there are fights it shines, and fights the kineticist is better spending his actions elsewise.

I want to preface the thread by saying that this is mostly a joke.

BUT

Is Speaking an Auditory effect?

I had this funny thought while catching up on some Bard feats for a martial bard, and reread Courageous Opportunity:

A creature within your reach uses an auditory effect, manipulate action, or move action; makes a ranged attack; or leaves a square during its move action.

And ofc the first thing that popped into my mind was the Big Bad starting his evil monologue and a Bard sucker punching him...

:D

If the action uses Demoralize as a subordinate action, then it clearly has the same restrictions on timeout.

If the action says that you make a check to Demoralize, then it will likely be ruled to be the same since the Demoralize action also uses that language.

There are some things that don't do either of those. Scare to Death for example. Those I believe would be on their own separate lockout timing.

That's what I'm saying.

Dazzling display:

You perform a bewildering show of prowess, such as by whirling and flashing a weapon, that unnerves foes. Attempt Intimidation checks to Demoralize each enemy within 30 feet. If your last action was a critical hit against an enemy or reduced an enemy to 0 Hit Points, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your Intimidation checks. Regardless of the results of your checks, each creature is then temporarily immune to Dazzling Display for 1 minute.

It simply an AoE Demoralize.

In fact, as written (checks and not check) RaW you roll seperately against each enemy (which is just a lot of rolls for no reason imo, I can easily see this part being houseruled to use a single check vs everyone in most tables)

It will lock you out of demoralizing the targets further for 10minutes.

Last sentence though says

Regardless of the results of your checks, each creature is then temporarily immune to Dazzling Display for 1 minute.

It doesn't alter the Demoralize immunity. It gives a different, 1minute immunity, against the specific action of Dazzling display.

Which as pointed above it is important for Braggards, since they can remove the Demoralize immunity, but not the Dazzling Display immunity.

shroudb wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Can't a kineticist use proliferate to turn those saplings into big trees?

Proliferate is still bound by bulk limits per RAW.

While creating a sapling by itself is possible by mid levels, a full grown tree is probably above the bulk limitations of proliferate.

With respect, I disagree. The verbiage of the "cause the element to expand to fill its square" option is clearly intended to remove such limitations.

No?

Why would it?

Not a single of the Base Kinesis effects make any sort of mention about Bulk. The only mention is in the base action and then it lists possible uses of said action.

This impulse has a range of 30 feet, and the Bulk of the target must be negligible or light. The GM decides what Bulk the element is.

All that applies to ALL uses of Kinesis.

You gaining extra uses, without explicitly calling out Bulk removal, by RAW, do not touch said limit.

Or do you think, as an example, that:

Generate: You bring an ordinary, non-magical piece of the chosen element from its elemental plane. The element can be used for any of its normal uses. For example, air can be breathed by an air-breathing creature, and fire casts light and can ignite flammable substances.

Also has no limit, beause it doesn't mention bulk?

A size limit anda bulk limit are not synonimous. You caneasily generate a full cube of air and it doesn't cost much Bulk, but if you try to generate a full block of Earth it's far beyond what the impulse allows.

In fact, it takes a full 4th level impulse to make a single block of earth as it's sole power, so I'm 100% not buying that you can, with a level 2, make a full block as just 1/3 options of said feat.

----

End of the line is, that by RAW, nothing removes the limitation. So the limitation exists.

If you want in your homegames to houserule it otherwise, feel free, but what one "intends" to do and what is actually written are in this case quite far apart to apply it in a Rules as Written argument.

shroudb wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Powers128 wrote:

I noticed that dazzling display has a different immunity timer than the standard demoralize timer. I'm now wondering if immunity to demoralize is specific to the demoralize action or general to include the demoralize sub action with activities like dazzling display or reach for the sky. Why have a shorter timer when targets would be immune for longer normally? Thoughts?

Both those things are their own actions/activities. Immunities are also to those specific activities. Everything is correct it seems. Demoralize doesn't come into this. They even both don't say this: they say 'Intimidation checks'. 'To Demoralize', yes. Which means you use its effects, that's all.

BTW this also means that all bonuses specifically to 'Demoralize' action (not all Intimidation checks) won't work.

Dazzling Display specifically calls out that it is Demoralise action.

Similar to how you get the bonuses to your Strikes when you do an ability that has Strike as subordinate, you get your bonuses to Demoralise when you do Dazzling.

"attempt a single Intimidation check to Demoralize" "Attempt Intimidation checks to Demoralize"

No, I believe it doesn't.
It would if it were "make one Demoralize action using results for each enemy" or even simply "Demoralize each enemy".
It's not a subordinate Demoralize in short. Strike activities say 'make a Strike'.

It clearly states, as you pointed out "make a check to Demoralise"

it doesn't say something akin "make an intimidation check and apply the effects of a demoralise" like actions that only apply the effects, like battle medicine do.

it clearly states that it is, in fact, a Demoralise through and through.

If a feat said "make a ranged attack to Strike" you wouldn't apply the Strike effects? Because that's word for word what it says but for demoralise.

Powers128 wrote:

I noticed that dazzling display has a different immunity timer than the standard demoralize timer. I'm now wondering if immunity to demoralize is specific to the demoralize action or general to include the demoralize sub action with activities like dazzling display or reach for the sky. Why have a shorter timer when targets would be immune for longer normally? Thoughts?

Both those things are their own actions/activities. Immunities are also to those specific activities. Everything is correct it seems. Demoralize doesn't come into this. They even both don't say this: they say 'Intimidation checks'. 'To Demoralize', yes. Which means you use its effects, that's all.

BTW this also means that all bonuses specifically to 'Demoralize' action (not all Intimidation checks) won't work.

Dazzling Display specifically calls out that it is Demoralise action.

Similar to how you get the bonuses to your Strikes when you do an ability that has Strike as subordinate, you get your bonuses to Demoralise when you do Dazzling.

Probably because Firebrands has been written hastily and has several options that are questionable.

But as far as RAW is concerned, all options that Demoralise will be inflicting the regular immunity of Demoralise EXCEPT when specific wording in the ability itself alters that.

So, dazzling display will indeed give 1 minute immunity instead of 10 minutes, because it specifically alters the immunity duration, but all other options that do not mention anything about the immunity will be under the same 10min duration of the base Demoralise.

Can't a kineticist use proliferate to turn those saplings into big trees?

Proliferate is still bound by bulk limits per RAW.

While creating a sapling by itself is possible by mid levels, a full grown tree is probably above the bulk limitations of proliferate.

Plus, that's how the vast majority of Objects work.

Deal half their HP= broken
Deal full HP= destroyed

As an example, a broken wall means it just has a hole, you can get through it as a difficult terrain, but it can still be fixed. A destroyed wall is completely gone, reduced to dust, and needs building anew

alijen wrote:

It is behaving like a Mindless Construct, following the programmed commands. color blind test

I think this might be some sort of AI chat bot. The account was created ~7 hr ago and has no other posts.

It's linked something that is definitely unrelated (I WOULDN'T CLICK IT, could be malicious).

But man these things are getting harder to spot.

Considering it copied part of my post word for word, even my capitalization and breaking apart of "it's" to "it is", to post what it posted, it's a bot yeah.

I'm not that far in kingmaker, as a player, but given the size of a hex, and the fact that Timber Sentinel only makes saplings and not full grown trees, combined I can't see how they could break the campaign.

We're talking spending some serious downtime, in order for something like minimum 60 kingdom turns later (5 years for the saplings to even barely become trees) you turn a plains tile to a forest tile.

Given that the initial area is right by a massive forest already, I can't see this breaking anything.

Although all this is from a player perspective, so I may be missing something that only a gm would be knowledgeable about.

I believe a Double Slice with slashing and piercing would be treated the same as a single strike with a slashing flaming weapon; you combine them into one attack, but they are still separate damage types.

I Agree with Lordcith take here, you just combine them into a single attack for damage purpose. and do the same thing you always would do.

Double Slice:

Combine the damage from both Strikes and apply resistances and weaknesses only once.

To me that reads that you do NOT do "the same thing". Since "the same thing" is NOT to combine the damage, but count each seperate damage instance seperately.

Or to put it elsewise, what you say as "combine them as a single attack for DAMAGE purposes", means that you do combine the damage, not that you seperate the damage into two different damage types/instances.

But, as always, it would be much appreciated if for once we got a clarification from Paizo of what a "damage instance" even is...

Quote:

it's up to the incorporeal if it wants to phase through a wall, or a floor.

That isn't a persuasive argument with how the sentance is written: it isn't phrases in a way that 'must' pass wouldn't work as it's only talking about voluntary movement. Would another incorporeal be unable to push or drag one through a wall or do you think they can decide an object is solid to them and they can interact with it? I mean saying 'you can walk through the door' doesn't prevent someone from pushing you through the door.

While it doesn't prevent someone pushing you through a door, it also doesn't force you to always enter the door. You have to actively WALK through the door, as you said even yourself.

As written, it can be easily argued that it is exactly the same: you can go through walls/floor when you want to, and spend the actions to do so, or maybe if you're forced to. But that doesn't mean that you always HAVE to go through them no matter what.

p.s. if the whole paragraph is about "voluntary movement" to begin with, then where do you base your assumptions that anything in there applies to INvoluntary movement and not simply, as written, apply those rules for the voluntary movement they actually talk about?

"It CAN pass" Not "it passes"

it's up to the incorporeal if it wants to phase through a wall, or a floor.

Shouldn't the Moonlit Spellgun have been consumed/destroyed upon use, like all the other Spellguns?

You can't load Spellguns, so it should be useless after a single use.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=491

It still has the consumable trait, which specifically states that it is destroyed after being activated unless explicitly stated otherwise. It just lacks a "flavour" description in what it disintegrates into.

to answer some of those:
skill feats are less important than general feats as far as "combat effectiveness" goes. You also get a lot less general feats than skill feats.

So with those in mind, Quick repair you should definately buy with a skill feat and not a general feat. Keep your general feats for the more... general stuff, like toughness, fleet, improved initiative, ancestral paragon, and etc.

as for when to get it, it's nice having it early on, even from level 1 (but not necessary), because it takes 10 minutes elsewise to repair, which is the standard amount of most things you do in-between combat (so as an example someone may refocus, which takes 10 minutes, or do some treat wounds, that takes 10 minutes, and etc) BUT it also takes you 10 minutes to recharge your Unstable if you've used it in that combat. So, now if you also have to repair your construct, it would mean waiting for 20 minutes. While with quick repair it means that instead of a 10min break, you do 11min breaks, which is more or less the same.

gadget specialist is "neat" but i would say it is better for melee inventors, due to blast boots being the best gadget (imo always) and that is mostly a mobility tool. I'd take it mostly for flavor, so if there are other important upgrades, like your construct feats, i'd certainly prioritize those.

Mega/giga volt is very nice ability, mostly when you get the gigavolt upgrade it starts to shine, because i have never been in an occasion that i couldn't ping-pong it off enough surfaces to get all the nasties while avoiding all the friendlies. One of the best aoes for martials.
But that's it, an aoe. If you are picking it only for the ranged option, you already are using a bow. Plus, you can only do 1 unstable per combat in most combats, and you should already be picking up the repair one for your construct. paired alongside the explode that you start for free with, that's already 2 options to spend said unstable.

Construct companions in general are a bit more sturdy but also a bit less accurate than regular companions, so they serve better as meat shields, especially since you have an unstable to repair it in-combat, so i'd prioritize using it as such instead of trying to use it in range. Especially if you go wizard, that also gives you even more ranged options, like a round of cantrip+bow" is servicable enough.

That said, 3 feat slots, in teh grant scheme of things, are not a ton, so you definately will have space for more stuff to put in.

Speaking of wizard and buffs, companions do not benefit from item bonuses except to AC and speed, so runic body is useless to them. Enlarge will work fine though. That said, it's not like an archetype will ever have enough spell slots to properly "support" although as a wizard, if you fill your spellbook with miscellneous exploration spells, you can bring those to help, if you have the full day to switch from your normal spell selection to those. But it won't be a combat thing.

An alternate Int based spellcaster that you can try is psychic, especially if you go with picking up Guidance as your amp, since you normally don't have focus points as an inventor, and that will give you yet another renewable resource to spend in a combat. I said Guidance because you are lacking a good reaction as a ranged inventor and you said you wanted to support, but you could go for an offensive amp as well if you want to double down on that. keep in mind though, that your dc will be behind a caster.

I'd say that an effect first has to move you in order for the check vs the grabber to happen.

So, in the above cases, my answer would be yes to both. First you need a succesful Reposition or a failed save vs Acid grip, to even attempt to "break the grapple".

Although, that then goes into the territory of if allies can waver their Saves vs friendly effects, which in my experience is always based on table variation if the GM allows it or not.

i'd personally rule that when Set Free it acts as an actual Animated Object.

So, similar to say, an Animated Broom, you can't simply grab it and use it. It is behaving like a Mindless Construct, following the programmed commands.

Of course, someone can try to "grapple" it, in which case it become murkier if it can even try to Escape, since it lacks everything else except a Strike attack bonus. Maybe i'd allow it to roll to escape using that, or maybe not, I thnk it will depend on the occasion.

shroudb wrote:

You mean a summoner picking other caster archetypes?

Yes

shroudb wrote:

That's clearly defined in the spellcasting archetypes subsection:

Quote:

All spell slots you gain from spellcasting archetypes are subject to the restrictions within the archetype.

and from Basic Spellcasting:

Quote:

At 6th level, they grant you a 2nd-rank spell slot, and if you have a spell repertoire, you can select one spell from your repertoire as a signature spell.

So this can be read as the general rule of the archetype spellcasting is overruled by the specific summoner ability....

it's the other way around actually.

Nothing in the summoner says that it overides anything, it's just the general summoner spellcsting feature that you are invoking, while the archetype specifically say that they have restrictions on spellcasting.

So the general rule of summoner is getting overidden by the specific rule of archetypes.

to put it simply:
nothing in the summoner has either permissive or restrictinve language, it's just a general rule. while archetypes have restricting language, hence specific.

You mean a summoner picking other caster archetypes?

That's clearly defined in the spellcasting archetypes subsection:

All spell slots you gain from spellcasting archetypes are subject to the restrictions within the archetype.

and from Basic Spellcasting:

At 6th level, they grant you a 2nd-rank spell slot, and if you have a spell repertoire, you can select one spell from your repertoire as a signature spell.

From expert spellcasting:

If you have a spell repertoire, you can select a second spell from your repertoire as a signature spell.

and finally from Master spellcasting:

If you have a spell repertoire, you can select a third spell from your repertoire as a signature spell.

So, regardless what Summoner has as an ability, the slots gained from a spellcasting archetype are bound by the limitations in said archetypes, including the fact that you can only reach up to 3 signature spells from one of them at Master Spellcasting.

I'm pretty sure all spontaneous casting archetypes already make all the granted spells signature.

no they don't.

Errenor wrote:

I really don't see how this could be read as if illusions were allowed to do Athletics skill checks. Damage is a game term. It's not any 'effect', it's damage. Results of athletics maneuvers aren't damage in general. So no, no Athletics for illusions. (Yes, there's also this small issue of not having relevant statistics).

Verbal skill checks and feats I'd allow considering it explicitly allows project and imitate voice and that you have basically full control over it and its appearance. Then it's obviously caster's skills in work like Intimidation. Don't know about modifiers though, they could vary. Ah, yes, and it's your normal actions with normal costs.

You are miss quoting me.

This is because per the rules for the spells state..
”The illusion can cause damage by making the target believe the illusion's attacks are real, but it cannot otherwise directly affect the physical world… If the image is hit by an attack or fails a save, the spell ends…If the illusory creature hits with a Strike…” (RE PC1 337)

Along with what I found in the Paizo FAQ, Core Rule book Errata. “Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time… An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty… An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game… Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.”

If it wasn’t for the FAQ, then I would have agreed with you.

QuidEst wrote:

See, that doesn't follow at all for me. Your skill at lying or acting obviously helps you make your illusion lie or act- because you direct it and speak through it. Your quoted text comes right after "The

...

Illusory creature is already pretty powerful even when it does only Strikes.

So the whole"I just want it to be useful" doesn't actually follow.

Even if we ignore how everything detailed is specifying Strikes and allow ALL attacks instead, then the modifier used should, by RAW, be +0 since the illusion has no skills and the only specified exception is for things you do by speaking through it, which none of the Athletic Attacks do.

The way I interpret that rule about using highest resistance on one instance is like this:

Let's say that a creature has somehow resistance to something like Silver and a different resistance vs Slashing.

If you attack with a silver longsword, you can't separate the damage. You can't say "this part is silver damage and this part is slashing damage". The damage is simultaneously both silver and slashing.

That's where that rule gets used. That's when you use highest between silver and slashing.

But if instead of a silver sword you had a flaming sword vs resist fire and slashing, then there are 2 different instances
You can easily discern that this, 1d6 is fire and this, 1d8, is slashing.

---

In the case of double slice though, you specifically combine the damage into 1 instance for resistances.

So instead of 1d6 slashing and 1d6 piercing, you get 2d6 slashing and piercing, the same way that it is for "silver and slashing"

You may not be aware of what you roll, but you can be aware of its results.

As an example, recall is a hidden check, yes, but if you recall and get "nothing" then you know that you didn't get any information.

similarily, if you sneak and you see the guard turn towards you, he probably heard you. if you sneak and they casually continue to chit-chat with one another without paying you any mind, you probably succeded (unles they are bluffing for whatever reason)

in the case of the aligator, it is an animal, so of simple intelligence. If it thinks that the enemy isn't aware of it, it will lunge. It doesn't need to know of any "result of a check".

Now, if the target was aware, and it was an elaborate ruse playing the unaware, then it will probably cost the aligator two actions to swim+strike as opposed to 1, but i would play it off as a gm that the lost action was due to the ruse startling the aligator.

---

for the second part, it's clearly a mistake that it lacks the action used to swim forward, which would have been actually Swim, and the activity would inherit the move trait from said action.