th3razzer's page

Anyone have any stores they recommend that would sell these sketch versions? Any that would also ship somewhere? I am overseas, active-duty, and not near a "local game store," but would absolutely love to have the sketch-versions of the core books.

My order's payment authorization was 10 days ago and still no shipping. Does this order need to be bumped?

The sticky thread on this forum says they'll be handled by end-of-week hopefully, but the authorization will expire by then (I believe it lists the 20th as auth. exp.).

Any help is appreciated.

There has to be a point where having scads of worn items becomes ridiculous.

Like if you have a polearm, and you want it to be "worn". Or a ten-foot pole. Or a ladder.

But it would appear that there is no RAW limitation, apart from tool sets.

I mean, the problem comes when you take things to the extreme, like wearing 60 short swords. Under most cases, will you be carrying dozens of L items? On one hand, you may not have much of a reason to, but on the other, you don't have much reason *not* to.

The inventory rules work fine when used as intended but can get weird when taken to their full extent. This was true before this errata so not much has changed.

...If you have a high Strength score, you usually don’t need to worry about Bulk unless you’re carrying numerous substantial items.

...

Bulk Values
Items can have a number to indicate their Bulk value, or they can be light (indicated by an L) or negligible (indicated by a —) for the purpose of determining Bulk. For instance, full plate armor is 4 Bulk, a longsword is 1 Bulk, a dagger or scroll is light, and a piece of chalk is negligible. Ten light items count as 1 Bulk, and you round down fractions (so 9 light items count as 0 Bulk, and 11
light items count as 1 Bulk). Items of negligible Bulk don’t count toward Bulk unless you try to carry vast numbers of them, as determined by the GM.

Estimating an Item’s Bulk
As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk, an item weighing less than a few ounces is negligible, and anything in between is light. Particularly awkward or unwieldy items might have higher Bulk values. For example, a 10-foot pole isn’t heavy, but its length makes it difficult for you to move while you have one on your person, so its Bulk is 1. Items made for larger or smaller creatures have greater or lesser Bulk, as described on page 295.

I would agree that it becomes ridiculous after a point. As a GM I really only pay attention to Bulk when it seems it is being neglected or abused. If it doesn't make sense for the character to be able to "wear" a 10 foot ladder, 2 boulders and a small child, I probably will veto that yesterday.

What I actually appreciate is the difference in held vs worn vs stowed. It's now clear that your appendages (typically 2) hold items and manipulate them, worn is "accessible" but still stored in something or on something, and stowed actually means tucked away. I think it clears it up quite nicely.

I read it as the character actually taking damage, i.e., 20 damage would not instakill because the character does not take 11 of that damage; but 31 damage (11+2*10) would instakill.

But I am biased against the massive damage rule in general so I admit I will stretch to find any loophole I can.

I would disagree with this reading.

You are right in saying that the damage is subtracted from temporary hit points first, but beyond that it changes the ruling.

In another scenario, say you had that same character at 5 HP of his total 10.

5 / 10

Then we add the 11 temporary hit points

16 / 10

His total "to-kill-instantly" threshold is still 20. Just because you have a bigger buffer to your "actual" HP doesn't mean you didn't meet the insta-kill "requirements." You are still taking 20 damage. As in, all resistances, circumstances, etc. etc. are all tallied and calculated, meaning you do take 20 damage or more.

That is the only requirement for being one-shot, is that you take a damage value equal to or greater than double your maximum HP.

Just like how temporary hit points can't heal you back from the dying condition (because it's not healing), they also don't modify anything else. You can actually fall unconscious even if you have temporary HP if something deals direct HP damage to you. They're tallied separately.

An incorporeal creature or object has no physical form. It can pass through solid objects, including walls. When inside an object, an incorporeal creature can’t perceive, attack, or interact with anything outside the object, and if it starts its turn in an object, it is slowed 1. Corporeal creatures can pass through an incorporeal creature, but they can’t end their movement in its space.

An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.

Incorporeal creatures usually have immunity to effects or conditions that require a physical body, like disease, poison, and precision damage. They usually have resistance against all damage (except force damage and damage from Strikes with the ghost touch property rune), with double the resistance against non-magical damage.

I would appreciate on-stream, or otherwise, any clarification on this still existing issue.

The way the above checks out players and incorporeal creatures cannot even attempt Strength-based checks, meaning STR-based melee strikes.

However, you've got this little interesting tidbit:

Physical Damage

...
Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures have a high resistance to physical attacks that aren’t magical (attacks that lack the magical trait). Furthermore, most incorporeal creatures have additional, though lower, resistance to magical physical damage (such as damage dealt from a mace with the magic trait) and most other damage types.

Emphasis mine. How would someone make an attack with said mace against an incorporeal creature if they're not allowed to even attempt STR-based checks, i.e. Strike? Maces do not have the finesse trait.

Further, why are finesse attacks somehow able to hit an incorporeal? Why if I, say, slap the rapier (a weapon with the finesse trait) against a ghost it won't hit, but if I whip it around gracefully I can somehow finagle it to hit?

That and a huge bevy of other issues exist with this trait.

What I think the developers actually meant:

1) you cannot attempt STR-based skill checks against incorporeal creatures
1a) likewise, an incorporeal creature cannot attempt afforementioned checks against you
2) incorporeal creatures do not need to attempt flight checks each round to stay aloft/hover
3) incorporeal creatures are not affected by gravity and other natural forces which require a physical body
4) incorporeal creatures are not affected by spells which require it to have a physical body
5) in the cases where a spell specifies "mind" as the target of a spell, an incorporeal can be targeted

Why is it that I've posted three weeks ago AND emailed about wanting to cancel my Subscriptions and yet people posting they want to cancel orders/subs from a week ago are receiving answers and having their requests seen?

This is horse#$+!. Cancel my subscriptions.

In short, I've been pretty dissatisfied with my experience with this Subscription model for some time now, but recently has been the last straw.

I understand COVID-19 is a serious issue and threat, and (amazingly) that's not why I wish to cancel my subscriptions.

For years I've had various subscriptions in Starfinder and Pathfinder 2e, and with each product line I've had the same issues and I (stupidly) bore it with patience thinking it was just a level of dissatisfaction I'd have to expect:
-orders would continuously "disappear" INTO the dregs of, get this, OTHER ORDERS
-orders, if ever notified to me, would indefinitely stay as "pending" with no attempts to bill my payment method
-when restarting subscriptions (as for my job I move unfortunately quite frequently) I would be assured my subs would start, yet entire books would be simply "skipped" and I'd have to, yet again, reach out (even though I would be told that after all the paused/held items were shipped it would be business as normal)
-in the process of fixing one issue with an order, problems would be created for subsequent/future orders

I'm, quite frankly, done. I really only use PDFs, and now that I see (yet again) another order pending since July 10th, with no email/notifications, as part of a "fix order" for previous sub issues, INSIDE or PART OF another order, with no payment attempted at any time, it's ridiculous.

What's more, I wouldn't be able to enjoy a PDF copy unless the hardcovers ship, and the PDFs are anywhere from $10~$30 cheaper. Why am I subscribing if my orders will be lost, indefinitely pending, and more expensive?

Please cancel all of my subscriptions. I'd save nearly half the price of the order if I simply waited and I could guarantee I'd get something instead of patiently waiting for nothing.

Scratch this. Close it.

See: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4344k?Cancel-Susbcriptions-Immediately#1

They're the same place.

Perhaps chalk up the confusion to a difference in how it's pronounced in the local dialect.

So it is actually a typo, but flavor it "as you will" sort of thing?

Is there a more official/correct spelling?

Official reply here:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs433x4?Meravon-or-Merovan-Pathfinder-2e-AP

Ironically, my own post.

This is as simple as it needed to be.

th3razzer wrote:

which is problematic as the entirety of the World Guide hinges on it being spelled with the 'a' and 'o' situated as spelled above.

th3razzer wrote:

Which urges the question does the "Merovan Road" lead to Meravon or Merovan? Kind of important when world building and using canon as your foundation, my guy.

I consider myself pretty interested in the details and having a good idea what lies just off the map, and expanding the world to feel real around the PCs.

But I cannot fathom the scale at which you perceive this to be an issue. It's one place, it's very clearly not a typo that makes it hard to figure out both spellings refer to the same place. Pick one spelling.

If the typo made it hard to determine what place they were talking about was I'd be frustrated for sure, a road to Oppara called the road to Westcrown, etc.

Anyway... Good luck finding an answer that pleases you.

So, essentially, what everyone will answer (summed up) is "no one cares about spelling, go [creative expletive] yourself my guy" because no one can be $*#@ed to sit down and just have a discussion/figure out what it could mean?

Sure, perhaps it doesn't matter to you. Or any of you.

That's all fine and good, but why bother posting to make that known? Obviously I'm posting because it's confusing and there are tons of locations in 2e that exist on maps but don't have specifics. If one book has spelling A, and another spelling B - both eerily similar - and the second book goes into great detail about this location, it still leaves people wondering if it is the same location mentioned the first time 'round.

And if you come to find out later it *was* two locations, then the choice in combining them only serves to create headache down the road as you effectively either must retcon all of what might transpire in your game around that area or bite the the bullet and do any number of things to create a new "second place" that should have been that way from the beginning.

So yeah, heaven forbid I asked a gorram question as to whether these were the same location or not.

Holy hell, people.

Did you just start 4 threads about a single typo?

3, the first being apparently in the "wrong area" in General.

The other 2 are in this subforum and Extinction Curse. So only 2 essentially.

That's somewhat besides the point, isn't it? If I could have gotten an answer with one thread it would have been answered already, wouldn't it?

Instead, someone wanted to mention it should be anywhere but there.

So, minimum, it would force me to create at least one more thread to find whatever "correct" subforum it would go to.

That being said, do you actually have something to contribute to my question or did you just want to put someone else down asking a superfluous question?

So, on the map, there is a road that goes south from Turpin Rowe called "Merovan" Road, not Meravon.

However, the World Guide calls it Meravon. Which is accurate? Or are they two separate places? It's very confusing and a horrible typo multiple times.

To elaborate, this is a horrible typo in the sense it's performed multiple, numerous times. "Merovan" is not just in a single sentence, or here and there, but across maps and paragraphs, in descriptions and also makes reference to the city "east" in the Immenwood, meaning it very well could be referencing Meravon - which is problematic as the entirety of the World Guide hinges on it being spelled with the 'a' and 'o' situated as spelled above.

Which urges the question does the "Merovan Road" lead to Meravon or Merovan? Kind of important when world building based on a canon foundation.

So, on the map, there is a road that goes south from Turpin Rowe called "Merovan" Road, not Meravon.

However, the World Guide calls it Meravon. Which is accurate? Or are they two separate places? It's very confusing and a horrible typo multiple times.

To elaborate, this is a horrible typo in the sense it's performed multiple, numerous times. "Merovan" is not just in a single sentence, or here and there, but across maps and paragraphs, in descriptions and also makes reference to the city "east" in the Immenwood, meaning it very well could be referencing Meravon - which is problematic as the entirety of the World Guide hinges on it being spelled with the 'a' and 'o' situated as spelled above.

Which urges the question does the "Merovan Road" lead to Meravon or Merovan? Kind of important when world building based on a canon foundation.

Merovan vs Meravon is a "very confusing and a horrible typo"?

I'm sure there is an answer, though this should be in the Extinction Curse forum tbh. But if you don't get an answer, just pick one of the two near identical options and stick with it I guess.

While I'll repost this elsewhere, yes, it is a horrible typo in the sense it's performed multiple, numerous times. "Merovan" is not just in a single sentence, or here and there, but across maps and paragraphs, in descriptions and also makes reference to the city "east" in the Immenwood, meaning it very well could be referencing Meravon - which is problematic as the entirety of the World Guide hinges on it being spelled with the 'a' and 'o' situated as spelled above.

Which urges the question does the "Merovan Road" lead to Meravon or Merovan? Kind of important when world building and using canon as your foundation, my guy.

So, on the map, there is a road that goes south from Turpin Rowe called "Merovan" Road, not Meravon.

However, the World Guide calls it Meravon. Which is accurate? Or are they two separate places? It's very confusing and a horrible typo multiple times.

CRB states:
A character gains training in certain skills at 1st level: typically two skills from their background, a small number of predetermined skills from their class, and several skills of your choice granted by your class. This training increases your proficiency ranks for those skills to trained instead of untrained and lets you use more of the skills’ actions. Sometimes you might gain training in a specific skill from multiple sources, such as if your background granted training in Crafting and you took the alchemist class, which also grants training in Crafting. Each time after the first that you would gain the trained proficiency rank in a given skill, you instead allocate the trained proficiency to any other skill of your choice.

Does this apply also after first level? If, say, you take something like an archetype, feat, or otherwise that gives Trained proficiency and you are Trained, does that phrase above still apply? Or does it only apply at first level?

It doesn't specify either way it seems.

Hello,

This subscription order was placed Jul 10th yet it is still pending? Is something holding it up? I've yet to see any attempted charges on the associated payment method and I've also not gotten the initial email stating this order was placed.

Seems as though my subscriptions have readjusted or activated correctly, and the Bestiary 2 is on its way and in my downloads. No problems for now, close thread.

Seems as though my subscriptions have readjusted or activated correctly, and the Bestiary 2 is on its way and in my downloads. No problems for now, close thread.

Hello,

Apparently something must be wrong with my subscriptions. They do not show up under my name here in the forums like they did before.

I had suspended them while I was moving earlier this year, but started them back up after I settled in. I got many of the items I missed because of the suspension since they "pile up" and order all at once.

However, I never received an email or notification about Bestiary 2, and no order was created per my subscription.

I suspect some or all of my subscriptions were not reactivated correctly. The next item my subscription showed was the Advanced Players Guide, even when the Bestiary 2 came out.

While I have had an order placed and it will be shipping out to me whenever it is fulfilled, I ask the following:

Please cancel, and then add my subscriptions back to my account. If it is possible to reactivate them correctly, I would prefer it done that way.

...okay, so you're not customer service yet you're answering the thread, thereby driving my thread lower?

And, yes, I am a subscriber. Does "Pathfinder Rulebook" listed along with
"The following subscriptions are associated with this account:
Pathfinder Rulebook
Pathfinder Lost Omens
Pathfinder Adventure"
not mean what I think it means? And I've been a subscription-holder since:

Tuesday, December 03, 2019 10:06 PM

I have received PDFs, shipped items, etc etc.

So... having gotten all of the products BESIDES the Bestiary 2, that is, yes, odd. I'm not clueless, but thanks for making it take longer. That's infuriating and unhelpful.

I didn't even know it was releasing, and I have an active subscription (three, in fact).

Why was an order not automatically placed, paid, etc. etc.? Why am I only just seeing this when I saw a post on Archives of Nethys?

Please fix my subscription.

Hello, to preface this is all based on my memory of somewhere being written that if an attack or similar thing deals 0 damage (mainly in the course of it being reduced to 0 through resistances and such) that any abilities attached to it do not "go off" or activate/happen.

The situation is this:

My players were accosted by a roc. It has Improved Grab, which allows it to use Grab as a free action as part of its talon melee strike(s).

The roc used Flying Strafe and attacked two party members. It succeeded against 1 and missed against the other. It used Grab and then the Snatch ability activated automatically allowing it to move half its fly speed while grabbing or restraining a creature.

To the point, the player was able to use Shield, reduce the damage from 19 to 4 (15 hardness) before any resistances applied, and was under the effect of Inspire Defense at 6th level (3 phys. resist). That still meant 1 damage. She was carried up and away. (don't worry she lived)

However, I'd like to pose a hypothetical: say the res. was 4 and she took 0 damage. Technically Grab says only that the "previous Strike was a Success", not necessarily that it needs to deal damage. Would the Grab still go through, even though no damage was applied?

I want to say yes, but I'm unsure if there's an over-arching rule that calls attention to something like abilities where additional effects it only activate if at least 1 point of damage was applied per the ablity or attack triggering it.

The question is this:

Transmutation as a trait states that it alters the form of something (to varying degrees). Polymorph is a specific instance of Transmutation, and Polymorph specifically says any polymorph effects attempt to cancel each other out.
However, what about Transmutation and Transmutation? Or Transmutation and Polymorph? Say if a Druid wants to cast Fly on herself and then on the subsequent turn cast the focus spell Wild Shape and change into a bear. Can she then benefit from the first Transmutation effect and her new Polymorph?
Further, if the bear has a different speed than her base (for simple maths let's say base is 25 feet and her new bear is 30 feet) does her Fly spell only give her 25 feet of flying (since it's 20 feet or base, whichever is greater) or 30 feet since her new "movement speed" is 30 feet?

I don't see anything that states you cannot be under the effect of multiple Transmutation effects, only the instances of Polymorph. However, wouldn't a form-change still interact with Polymorph in some way?

RAW it looks like no, but I want to say that you couldn't cast Fly (or other transmutation effect) and then slap on a Polymorph effect (Animal Form, Pest Form, True Polymorph, Baleful Polymorph, etc) and gain the benefits/drawbacks of both? This sort of affects Alchemists' mutagens.

Close this thread. Order shipped.

Close this thread. Order shipped.

Per the GMG:

For a creature that can cast as many spells as a PC spellcaster, the highest spell level the creature can cast is half its level rounded up. It gets five cantrips. If the creature’s level is odd, it gets two spell slots of the highest spell level (plus three spell slots of each lower level), or three spell slots of that level (plus four spell slots of each lower level). If its level is even, it gets three spell slots of the highest spell level (plus three spell slots of each lower level), or four spell slots of that level (plus four spell slots of each lower level).

So... what ultimately dictates whether they get 3-4-4-4-etc, or 2-3-3-3-etc? The odd/even level makes sense to dictate whether you get 2/3 or 3/4 of the highest level the monster/npc can cast.

Am I missing something? Is there some paragraph that clearly explained which set is chosen? At first I thought it might be Spontaneous vs Prepared casters (Spont. being 2/3-3-3-etc, and Prep. being 3/4-4-4-etc), but that doesn't seem to hold water when I take a gander at other NPC stat blocks.

In fact, even in the GMG it doesn't follow the "rules" or "guidlines". Take a look at Zealot of Asmodeous on pg. 213:

Divine Prepared Spells DC 19, attack +11; 2nd harm (×3), restoration, see invisibility, shield other; 1st detect alignment, magic weapon, spirit link; Cantrips (2nd) detect magic, divine lance, forbidding ward, read aura, sigil

That's 6-3-5! Nowhere close to what is recommended.

Priest of Pharasma is a tiny bit closer as far as Prepared Casters go, but still far off the mark:

Divine Prepared Spells DC 24, attack +16; 3rd circle of protection, heal (×3), searing light (×2); 2nd gentle repose, silence, spiritual weapon; 1st disrupting weapons, mindlink, spirit link; Cantrips (3rd) detect magic, disrupt undead, light, read aura, shield

That's 6-3-3-5, but still nowhere close to the build rules (unless, hopefully, missing something).

Any help here?

Order 19164545 has been pending since last Sunday. It says expected to ship 1~5 business days, but now says "Was expected to ship" instead. Moreover, my card has not been charged. Not even a hold for the funds and drop.

It's just sitting there pending. I'm sure that's what's holding it up is getting the funds so that it can begin shipping.

A single monster your own level is definitely a match for a single PC.

Per the encounter guidelines an Extreme encounter is 160 XP for a party of four.

That means 160/4=40 XP is an Extreme encounter for a party of one.

Guess what XP a monster your own level gives?

...that isn't how that works... at all.

The table is with the ASSUMPTION and UNDERSTANDING that it is designed for 4 players in the party.

Meaning a "trivial" encounter is 40 XP, meaning that's a level 0 monster.

Scaling down by missing players is in increments of 20 at "Moderate" threat. If I'm missing, say, 3 players, that means 3 x 20 = 60 XP. I'm allowed 20 XP budget if I'm playing with 1 player to make that "Moderate" challenge.

In your own words "Guess what XP a monster your own level gives?" ...uhm, still 40 XP, but I'm not able to use that. I get 20 XP, which is worth a monster -2 levels, meaning a PC of say, level 7, can have a "Moderate" challenge of 1 monster at level 5.

Severe then goes to 30 XP, which is -1 level. Level 6 monster.

Oh, hey, heck that out, Extreme then is 0 level from the party, meaning a monster of their own level. Level 7 in this example.

So a PC going 1-on-1 with a monster of their level is treated as Extreme no matter what. That would mean that there shouldn't be an expectation that the PC pulls through. It's quite honestly a coin-flip.

The Rulebook lists Extreme challenges as: "...encounters are so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters, particularly if the characters are low on resources. This makes them too challenging for most uses. An extreme-threat encounter might be appropriate for a fully rested group of characters that can go all-out, for the climactic encounter at the end of an entire campaign, or for a group of veteran players using advanced tactics and teamwork."

Too challenging for most uses. That doesn't sound like 1-to-1 level/power equivilancy to me.

But that's why I posed the question. I just didn't enjoy your ignorant math.

Order 19164545 has been pending for around 4 business days. Isn't it supposed to ship within 5? The order was placed Sunday, but I haven't seen movement?

Question for the community.

I am trying to figure out the relative strength of a monster that possesses a level equal to a PC. As far as I can tell, a monster of, let's say, level 7 fought a PC of level 7, the monster would almost always win (barring environmental effects/bad rolls/random interactions/etc). A monster of similar level to a PC being superior is certainly not new, and in fact it's something I've been able to count on as a GM.

However, the question I want to ask is: just how much stronger is the monster than a PC? (Note: I use the term "monster" in this discussion as a stand-in for any non-player character/adversary.)

Using the resources available to me, the difficulty/encounter table assumes that a "Moderate" challenge is effectively a "50/50" battle (meaning there is some risk of failure, but not significant enough to be truly terrifying). Most battles should, arguably, rest at this tier (with higher and lower tiers used at GM's discretion). When I observed the Moderate threat XP budget, a GM can reasonably employ 2 monsters of levels equal to the PCs. What this effectively seems to mean is 1 monster of level X is as strong as 2 PCs of level X (again, environs/out-of-the-norm hazards/bad or unlucky rolls/etc not factored in).

I say a 1-to-2 ratio because all encounters assume a party of 4 player characters, with an XP bump/reduction based on the number of missing party members.

I ask all this because I'm not entirely sure what type of effect adding an NPC or two to the adventuring party to help them out would have. I'm not sure what level I should set them at, since it seems 1 monster of the party's level effectively acts as "two" PCs.

Does this seem accurate? Is there any official word as to the power relativity between monsters and PCs?

What's more, I'm not sure what effect building these NPCs as PCs first and then applying the monster building rules after would have vs. building them from the ground-up per monster building.

Hello th3razzer,

I have unsuspended your Rulebook, Lost Omens and Adventure subscriptions. You should see an order for the GM Guide and Gods and Magic in order 19164545. Let me know if you see anything that may be missing! You should see a confirmation email now with the new shipping address applied. Thanks!

To my knowledge it all seems up to snuff. The Lost Omens subscription only has the World Guide, Character Guide, and Gods & Magic, yes?

Otherwise, it seems they're all on track.

Hi th3razzer,

Thanks so much for your patience. In the past few days I have been the primary person to reply on the forums so I thought I'd take a minute to reply as I know that you are not the only person here who has been waiting quite a while for a response from our team.

Our intent is never to make anyone feel overlooked and I'm sorry that our forum triage implied this. We currently only have a team of 4 working through an inbox with over 600 emails dating back to February 26, as well as the CS forums. We're doing our best to get to each request as quickly and efficiently as possible.

March subscriptions have begun shipping so I've been prioritizing cancellations as well as some orders that seem to have been placed in early-to-mid February. Around that time, we rolled new code that caused some hiccups in shipping. I'm investigating any orders I believe may be outstanding February subscriptions and having those combine and ship out with March subscriptions. While our warehouse was able to get the vast majority of them shipped, I'm making sure these are taken care of out of an abundance of caution. I apologize that this made it seem like I was ignoring your request.

Those specific instances aside, I'm currently working through forum threads posted at the beginning of last week. I anticipate getting through the queue today or tomorrow. Since I'm here and have already looked through your request, I have gone ahead and unsuspended your subscriptions. I'll detail the products and order number directly in your original post. Thank you!

Thank you for your reply. My intent was never to bash or speak ill of any CSR, and I can imagine a team of 4 is not quite the force you need to handle hundreds of backog inquiries, not to mention the ones appearing by the numbers.

Unforunately, sometimes the addage of the squeaky wheel and grease holds true, and so if I didn't speak out my personal belief is I don't have much of a right to have "hurt feelings" or opinions. I usually try to wait several business days before asking for any sort of spotlight.

I hope I've caused no offense or bad taste in the mouth, since I know you and your team are doing all you can and I'm very appreciative to your response.

th3razzer wrote:

Why do threads above and below mine have resolutions, but I'm all but ignored?

I absolutely don't represent Paizo, but I'd like to try to at least speculate.

My best guess is that you're looking at triage. I imagine given a backlog of customer-service issues, there most likely is a more nuanced approach to closing issues than a simple FIFO (first-in, first-out) queue.

What I mean is, imagine if there's an issue which is a week old and will require eight man-hours to resolve. Then there are eight issues which are six days old, but will only require one man-hour each to resolve. It becomes sensible to at least consider spending a day clearing out the eight issues that are only slightly less aged. While neglecting the time-intensive task indefinitely isn't acceptable, deviating from strict FIFO has the best overall results.

Similarly, imagine a case where the warehouse is in the process of sending out a month's regular subscriptions over the next three business days. In the support queue are twenty requests which is are a week old, asking for reactivation of a subscription. There are also ten requests which are only six days old, which ask for cancellation of subscriptions. In this case, it is urgent to handle the cancellation requests first. The consequence of failing to cancel within the crucial next three days is that a customer is billed after logging a cancellation, resulting in lost product because Paizo would likely have to refund the shipment and probably wouldn't request it be returned. The consequence of failing to process the activations within the next three days is that those customers will get their brand new shipments after the existing subscriptions are handled... likely on day 4. The activations can realistically be processed any time in the next three weeks without impact beyond "I wanted this product sooner".

There are also some issues which aren't possible to complete immediately. There could be database problems...

While illuminating, your briefing is not a topic I am wholly unaware of. I understand that there is much more "under the hood" than is immediately visible or apparent.

That being said, the reason that I posted this was to get CSR eyes-on, as I'm watching orders that share the lack of "time-sensitivity" being addressed and solved, all inside of a mere hour of it being posted. I mean to point out the threads/posts that request minor research into the current status of an order, a modification to an order (such as adding/subtracting items), and the like. Cancellations are time-sensitive and overall I don't consider it abnormal that they would be resolved as soon as humanly possible, for the very reasons you listed above.

It would make the world of difference for a CSR to simply respond to it and notify me that, yes, my thread/post has been seen. It's a very anxiety-filled experience to watch your thread "tick" its way to the bottom little by little, all the while similar threads are resolved at the top almost "instantly." This also has *no* guarantee that it's been seen whatsoever - hence why I added the linked text to use the words of CSRs themselves to ask the fundamental question to my problem: if calls, emails, and posts can't get my issue seen, what will? I can't imagine it is very difficult to reactivate a subscription, since that's taking it out of suspension. As Paizo reps have explained to me, all of the products during the suspension stack-up and are all shipped upon reactivation, so it really sounds like a database is handling this "queue." Wouldn't it be a pretty fair assumption to make that hitting "reactivate" (or similar 'button') would... reactivate it? Send all those products on their way?

Let me preface: I've been viewing the threads for quite a while now since the temporary suspension of the phone lines.

Why is it that more recent threads are being resolved, but threads like mine are slowly moving towards the bottom with no resolution? Supposedly it's going from bottom-up, meaning that older threads will receive their resolutions first (makes sense, clear the back-log and all), but more recent threads are reaching their resolution, whereas I've sent multiple emails (spaced apart by many business days) with only an automated response to the email after maybe the 4th email?

I then decided to post here, since it seems resolutions are coming faster than email, and yes, I did bump my own thread, but before reading the above linked post. However, even then, newer threads are being resolved within hours of posting, and they're for roughly the same thing that I need help with.

How does this make sense? I wouldn't imagine reactivating suspended subscriptions is all that difficult? Why do threads above and below mine have resolutions, but I'm all but ignored?

Hello, uhm, is anyone going to respond to this thread? Several other threads/posts have already been resolved after this one.

No email response and/or thread response.

Hello,

I've tried emailing several times, and my order-cancellation email was received and responded to, but not the emails regarding my subscriptions.

I would like all 3 of my suspended subscriptions reactivated, please, as my move is complete and new address added to the account.

If possible, please list the products that will be in the coming shipments, as there was an issue before where my subscription skipped over a book, and I would not like to miss any since the subscriptions' suspension.

Thank you.

I think that's the intent, Rysky, but I'm a bit unclear on it too.

I think the intent is that you can still attack a ghost (since they're resistant to nonmagical weapon damage and that would be kinda strange if you can't), but what about Grapple or Trip?

Again, seems obvious that Trip is probably the kind of Strength-based check they're referring to, but a Trip check isn't really that distinct from a Strike action, what with both of them being attack rolls that use similar attribute modifiers.

And then, since the text specifices 'strength based' does that mean you can trip a Ghost, but only if you're doing it with a finesse trip weapon, so you can roll Dex instead?

I think we can navigate this rule to figure out developer intent, but there's enough weirdness with the text that I think it warrants some attention from Paizo nonetheless.

Also "it's a check based on your Strength, but not a Strength-based check" is some real PF1 era pedantry. Not enthused about that kind of paradigm showing up again here.

That disheartening, honestly. It is pedantic, to the nth degree.

If checks that use Strength as an attribute bonus aren't "Strength-based", then tell me just what the hell is? If a check that is using an attribute for numerical reference (i.e. *any* check with a d20 essentially) is not based on that attribute, then what should it be called? "A check that just so happens to add Strength as a bonus, but we're both agreeing to keep it mutual and take it slow since we've both been hurt by rolls in the past. I really appreciate how he listens"-check? Come on, people, at a certain point you actually need to figure out that just because you can say what it isn't doesn't mean you've answered for what it is.

So, Rysky, hate to say it, but this time you're wrong about that Strength nonsense. And if it's all the same, we're pointing at the evidence (which you've all actually done for me, so I won't reference it at any great length). Strikes use melee or ranged attack rolls as appropriate. However, Strike is an action, not a check. It requires a check. Please don't use that as an argument because it's invalid and useless and, ultimately, does nothing but convolute the question.

Melee and ranged attack rolls are classified as checks. The CRB dictates as such. As I stated before, AC is still a DC, even though it's a "special" kind of DC.

The ultimate question is: since melee is a STRENGTH-BASED CHECK (per CRB) does that mean incorporeals/corporeals cannot attack each other with melee attack rolls unless they possess the finesse trait? And if so, why the random distinction?

Sure, rules as intended could be something argued about all day long, but Paizo, I can't read your mind. I don't much care what you *intended* to mean - the words in the book that tell us GMs how to do A, B, and C respectively have said something that is just frustratingly vague enough to not be able to be solved.

Will I make a ruling at my table? Absolutely. I have to. But am I frustrated that something this simple doesn't have a straightforward answer? You bet your arse I am.

Incorporeal

An incorporeal creature or object has no physical form. It can pass through solid objects, including walls. When inside an object, an incorporeal creature can’t perceive, attack, or interact with anything outside the object, and if it starts its turn in an object, it is slowed 1. Corporeal creatures can pass through an incorporeal creature, but they can’t end their movement in its space.

An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.

Incorporeal creatures usually have immunity to effects or conditions that require a physical body, like disease, poison, and precision damage. They usually have resistance against all damage (except force damage and damage from Strikes with the ghost touch property rune), with double the resistance against non-magical damage.

...so, they're immune to melee attacks from corporeal creatures that don't have the finesse trait? It states that said creatures can't even *attempt* Strength-based checks against them (and for those of you who want to point out Strike is what a creature is attempting, it states that Strike uses the appropriate attack roll as per the Attack Roll rules, which call out ranged vs melee rolls, and that they are checks (much like AC is a special type of DC, but it *is* a DC), and specifically that they are Strength-based checks).

It doesn't help that every incorporeal monster has finesse trait for their melee attack(s) or sometimes they don't have melee attacks at all. The only exception to this seems to be the Adventure Path monsters, which are the only ones that don't have the finesse entry to their melee attacks.

So, now not only can incorporeals maybe hover/not hover/are affected by gravity/aren't affected by gravity, but now you can't even attack them and they can't attack you unless it is a ranged attack, magic, or finesse.

Seems like an error to me. I think it's likely the intention is that strength-based strikes can be attempted, but no other strength checks can.

While I understand most likely this is just very poor wording on the count of Paizo, it doesn't change the fact that the way it's worded in the trait/keyword and the rules for checks don't in any way clarify that it shouldn't be all checks - even melee Strength-based ones.

This is the same argument and issue that comes up with their flying.

Just some simple clarification is all we need; am I asking the world, here? Omission of specifics doesn't mean that very basic rules interactions are somehow now "allowed" due to "common sense" and the intention of the rules. If I could figure out the intention of the rules I wouldn't be asking the question.

Rather, to be direct, if it was a case of general-trumps-specific then awesome, but none of the way any of this is written does this; in fact, I found this by accident! It's actually "terrifying" because creatures can't even *attempt* said checks against incorporeals. Not that they roll and fail, just that they can't attempt at all - from milisecond one they are well and truly incapable of melee Strikes as the trait is currently written.

Incorporeal

An incorporeal creature or object has no physical form. It can pass through solid objects, including walls. When inside an object, an incorporeal creature can’t perceive, attack, or interact with anything outside the object, and if it starts its turn in an object, it is slowed 1. Corporeal creatures can pass through an incorporeal creature, but they can’t end their movement in its space.

An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.

Incorporeal creatures usually have immunity to effects or conditions that require a physical body, like disease, poison, and precision damage. They usually have resistance against all damage (except force damage and damage from Strikes with the ghost touch property rune), with double the resistance against non-magical damage.

...so, they're immune to melee attacks from corporeal creatures that don't have the finesse trait? It states that said creatures can't even *attempt* Strength-based checks against them (and for those of you who want to point out Strike is what a creature is attempting, it states that Strike uses the appropriate attack roll as per the Attack Roll rules, which call out ranged vs melee rolls, and that they are checks (much like AC is a special type of DC, but it *is* a DC), and specifically that they are Strength-based checks).

It doesn't help that every incorporeal monster has finesse trait for their melee attack(s) or sometimes they don't have melee attacks at all. The only exception to this seems to be the Adventure Path monsters, which are the only ones that don't have the finesse entry to their melee attacks.

So, now not only can incorporeals maybe hover/not hover/are affected by gravity/aren't affected by gravity, but now you can't even attack them and they can't attack you unless it is a ranged attack, magic, or finesse.

I guess I get hung up with the idea that just because Cantrips are automatically heightened, it doesn't mean they *must* be cast at that highest level.

Every other spell or metamagic ability that heightens or allows you to heighten spells states the keywords "can" (optional), indicating to me that heightening is always an option. Does it require you to prepare a spell in a higher slot, learn it at that level, or designate it as a signature spell? Yes.

Can you heighten spells to levels that don't provide a specific listed benefit? Yes. (Lookin' at you, Magic Missile at even levels).

Cantrips are heightened automatically, yes, but nowhere does it say you absolutely need to cast it heightened. The automatic or given is that Cantrips heighten, not that they are locked in at the highest level.

Would that not then indicate that you have access to the earlier versions of the Cantrip (or Focus Spell in some cases)?

Is it a niche thing, yes. But the argument that "Why would you ever *not* cast a Cantrip at its highest level?" is not a valid position for the question in play.

In fact, one of the examples I think some people are looking over is in how Wild Shape is worded.

Core Rulebook pg. 401 wrote:

You infuse yourself with primal essence and transform yourself into another form. You can polymorph into any form listed in pest form, which lasts 10 minutes. All other wild shape forms last 1 minute. You can add more forms to your wild shape list with druid feats; your feat might grant you some or all of the forms from a given polymorph spell. When you transform into a form granted by a spell, you gain all the effects of the form you chose from a version of the spell heightened to wild shape's level. Wild shape allows you to use your own shapeshifting training more easily than most polymorph spells. When you choose to use your own attack modifier while polymorphed instead of the form's default attack modifier, you gain a +2 status bonus to your attack rolls.

If you used Wild Shape and...

As a correction: Cantrips and Focus Spells cannot be affixed, crafted, or made into wands/scrolls and the like.

However, the previous points do hold true.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42wl4?Have-we-discussed-falling-ghosts-yet

Seriously, it's 2020. Why do I have to manually code URLs?

I saw that post. I just felt it didn't get much traction. It's also not much of an answer. I appreciate the link all the same.

Ghosts. Flying. How am I supposed to interpret this?

Technically the Fly action states that a monster/creature may hover (i.e. move 0 feet) to Hover in place. This is all fine and good, and I get that, but I have a few sticking points:

1) If a ghost/shadow/incorporeal creature has *only* a fly speed, what happens if they don't use a Fly action to hover? Do they then proceed to plummet 500 feet per round? That seems a bit excessive.
2) If they possess any abilities that require 3 actions (perfect example is a Greater Shadow's innate divine spell darkness which is a 3-action Cast a Spell activity). Does he need to allow himself/itself to plummet 500 feet just to cast darkness? Is he always burning an action simply "existing" in the same spot?
3) Incorporeal creatures have no bodies to speak of (or rather, no physical bodies), so does that mean they aren't affected by gravity? Can they "stand" upon the ground, since they aren't able to make any Strength-based check to interact with objects/things?

This Fly rule seems to be a hilarious (and admittedly, simple) oversight to make. Why not simply add in the Monster Rules that monsters/creatures that possess a fly speed only need not use that Fly action to "move 0 feet" to hover?

Or, on the flip side, why not simply modify it to allow it to be a Free Action so that they are able to "follow the rules as written" by tying it to the action economy?

It just seems ridiculous that we haven't heard anything regarding a glaring rule that seems to plague Paizo from PF1, SF, and now PF2e.

Further? It gives an example of "Manuever in Flight", with Hover being listed under expert. Does this then indicate creatures must be Expert or better to hover? It says no such thing in the base Fly action. What is this referring to?

Moreover, monsters are not "trained" in skills, they simply receive bonuses/modifiers representing anything from "low" to "high" scores (the full variation being something like 'terrible' and 'extreme' if I recall).

So what gives, Paizo? How is this such a hard question to answer? I know how I'll homebrew or adjucate, but it shouldn't require GMs to sit down and ponder 5 different rules interacting with each other to figure out.

I guess I get hung up with the idea that just because Cantrips are automatically heightened, it doesn't mean they *must* be cast at that highest level.

Every other spell or metamagic ability that heightens or allows you to heighten spells states the keywords "can" (optional), indicating to me that heightening is always an option. Does it require you to prepare a spell in a higher slot, learn it at that level, or designate it as a signature spell? Yes.

Can you heighten spells to levels that don't provide a specific listed benefit? Yes. (Lookin' at you, Magic Missile at even levels).

Cantrips are heightened automatically, yes, but nowhere does it say you absolutely need to cast it heightened. The automatic or given is that Cantrips heighten, not that they are locked in at the highest level.

Would that not then indicate that you have access to the earlier versions of the Cantrip (or Focus Spell in some cases)?

Is it a niche thing, yes. But the argument that "Why would you ever *not* cast a Cantrip at its highest level?" is not a valid position for the question in play.

In fact, one of the examples I think some people are looking over is in how Wild Shape is worded.

You infuse yourself with primal essence and transform yourself into another form. You can polymorph into any form listed in pest form, which lasts 10 minutes. All other wild shape forms last 1 minute. You can add more forms to your wild shape list with druid feats; your feat might grant you some or all of the forms from a given polymorph spell. When you transform into a form granted by a spell, you gain all the effects of the form you chose from a version of the spell heightened to wild shape's level. Wild shape allows you to use your own shapeshifting training more easily than most polymorph spells. When you choose to use your own attack modifier while polymorphed instead of the form's default attack modifier, you gain a +2 status bonus to your attack rolls.

If you used Wild Shape and wanted to pick a Medium animal due to space constraints, if you used the Focus Spell at Character Level 8, meaning level 4 for the spell, you are forced to use either the options from pest form (say, in the case of recon) or you must be Large, since any form chosen from Animal Form is heightened to match your Wild Shape. At level 4, Animal form states:

Heightened (4th) Your battle form is Large and your attacks...

Uh oh. You wanna be a small animal that has at least a little more hardiness to it so your scouting mission doesn't end in you getting squashed? Say a bear or cat, but you're in a narrower hallway? Looks like you don't GET a choice. Period. So unless you could choose at what level you cast Focus Spells or Cantrips, your options through odd loopholes get pidgeon-holed.

Heaven forbid they release more spells that all work off each other's heightened level or level in general (i.e. Glyph of Warding, you can nevere put a Cantrip in a glyph, even though wands, items, scrolls, etc. can all house cantrips of various levels) and it causes you to be unable to choose the options you want, just like the Druid here. You can craft specific levels of spells intro scrolls and the like, so does that mean a high level wizard or sorcerer can only *ever* make Cantrips at their highest level?

None of it adds up.

The title says it all.

The way I see the entries in the book, it sounds like the intention was to allow Cantrips, Focus Spells, etc to automatically heighten, not that they are required to actually be cast at that Heightened level.

Otherwise Wildshape, Ferocious Shape, and MANY more Cantrips and Focus Spells would be unusable after a certain point. If you are forced to cast it at its maximum possible level you have access to (typically character level/2 rounded up) then you're trying to sell me on the idea that your Cantrip, what, spirals out of control? You can't cast it at lower levels? Pull back on the reigns a bit?

"Hey, knock him out with just a tiny bit of fire."

Sorcerer proceeds to cast Produce Flame. Somehow loses control of faculties and must cast it at his highest possible. Unleashes level 6 Produce Flame, only intending to singe a little off the top.

Back to the point though.

If anything you would have a **much better** handle on the spell as you get better at it. Cantrips are your bread and butter, requiring little effort and minimal concentration. Getting better at something doesn't mean you then need to focus on doing less of it.

A marathon runner doesn't need to concentrate overmuch to run slower. A craftsman doesn't need to work extra hard to make a poorer quality product. You don't need to prepare to make ***less*** of a sandwich - just put fewer toppings on it.

For everyone's reference:

** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **...

I actually didn't realize it doesn't say "spell-like ability" and very specifically omits that verbiage as well as states that they are spells. Not even sure show I missed that distinction. Thanks for the catch.

As far as the second instance: I would say if they are that spellcaster, they should add that specific caster's ability mod. However, another quick read doesn't affirm for or against using whichever mod they may have that is higher. I just think it makes more sense that if they are a spellcaster from that feat, they should really only understand how to cast or invoke spells in "that way" (i.e. INT-based vs WIS-based).

However, in the instance of spell throwers on non-casters, which ability mod (if any) should be applied? I've been meaning towards just 10 + spell level, since it calls out potential "level 0" casters, meaning they expect non-casters.

Really stumped here. I've never had these things interact this way, and they stem from one source.

One of my players has a level 12 weapon, plopped in *mental block* spell gem (item level 11), and also has Technomantic Dabbler as a general feat.

I have a few questions:

1) Does Technomantic Dabbler make him a spellcaster, and I mean overall? The sentence that contains the spellcaster bit is also the same one that mentions what ability modifier to use for the spells. I'm hesitant to say yes, since it makes those spells spell-like abilities, and sounds like the intention is to use the CL only for calculations, not to qualify for prerequisites and whatnot.

2) The spell thrower fusion says you can cast the spell "as if you were a spellcaster with the spell on your class's spell list", but does that make you a spellcaster for that moment if you need to overcome SR? So if he is level 12, does he roll 1d20+12? Or does he just roll a d20? Also, because some spells can be both Mystic and Technomancer, which ability mod is added to the spell DC if it is a spell gem which can be both (if any)?

3) Technomantic Dabbler gives those spells as spell-like abilities, does this mean they are actually a caster? The same argument goes for equipment/items; using something that allows you to use an ability that is like a spell doesn't make you a caster, so why would this feat or feats like it?