yellowpete's page

Right, by strict RAW you still have to cram your Readied action in between the start of the foe's Strike action and its targeting step (which is the very first thing it does), as that's the only thing checking for reach. This is the exact kind of 'rules-precision' for the trigger that I think the GMG guidance is intending to prevent.

Actually had this exact discussion on these boards a while ago in the context of comparing animist to sorcerer.

Ultimately it depends on what the GM/table find reasonable.

If you're going into a telegraphed encounter (classic case of opening the door with creature noise behind it while not having been noticed yet), it should be no problem to pre-apply it in any case where, say, drinking a potion or elixir would also be fine. There's no indication it makes any noise or other telltale sign that would give you away.

I also think it can be used reasonably as an improvised exploration activity, as it compares closely to other existing base actions that are represented by exploration activities in that mode. I.e. it's a single action without mechanical usage limit, similar to Raise a Shield (Defend activity) or Seek (Search activity). In that case you'd be considered to have it applied in any situation in which you otherwise would also have, say, your shield raised if you declared Defend, or gotten a check to find a trap before stepping in it if you declared Search.

yellowpete wrote:

I'm worried that you missed the bit on the power of modifier phrases like "just before."

"I Ready a Stride to trigger just before I'm hit with an attack."

Good luck trying to argue with someone that getting hit is not char-observable.
(Again, the so called "wide" latitude on Ready triggers being observable does not address the issue of time-stop powers)

No, on the contrary you missed my point repeatedly. Observability is but one criterion that must be enforced, so even if we determined that your trigger was 100% observable (don't agree, but also don't want to argue it since it's irrelevant), that does not secure its validity. It's a necessary, not a sufficient criterion. The GM can introduce other, unrelated criteria for Ready triggers in a completely rules-compliant way that end up preventing it. GM Core encourages them to consider that option.

For example, here are some triggers that are in-world-observable:

"When my character feels like it"

"When my character perceives any enemy moving, talking, attacking, or doing any other perceivable thing"

Do you think a GM can end up finding these invalid in a rules-compliant way? If so, you agree that observability is not necessarily sufficient.

Once you have those 2 or 3 RaW pieces, there's not really a different outcome that a 100% rules | 0% vibes GM can come to; Ready:Dodge is just the rules on what Ready can enable (because of the precise timing available to Reactions systemically).

Nah, that's not a reasonable take. A 100% rules GM can look at the GM Core rules on Ready, see that they give her wide latitude on how to adjudicate the viability of Ready triggers in addition to lining out one helpful consideration (observability), and then determine that such a dodge isn't in line with the principles that she decides to apply. Not a single rule was broken or infringed in that process (To be clear, neither would it be if she ended up determining that Ready dodge was possible).

On the other hand, a 100% rules approach also leads us to the conclusion that only the targeting part of a Strike has a reach requirement, but not any other part of its resolution. So on the contrary, the hyper-literal approach actually isn't so helpful to your case.

That's not how most tables run occurrences like this.

You're lumping two different things together here. Yes, I think most tables would let the latter parts of a Sudden Charge be 'wasted' if for some reason the character became unable to Stride halfway through. It's been the case everytime I've seen it come up.

But for your specific case, meaning the wasting of a single atomic action due to an 'interruption' somewhere in the middle of its resolution process, I can't even think of another case that would bring up this question other than your specific suggestion about Ready here. So I doubt that many tables have made their minds up about that much more specific case at all.

Yes, read literally, the different rules sections contradict each other on this topic. The reasonable course of action imo is to follow the End Your Turn rules, as that solution is better for playability.

For this combo, definitely magus with investigator archetype. If you want Investigator base class, go Eldritch Archer instead for the same effect but better. You need free DaS, but that isn't too hard to achieve for an engaged player in any campaign that isn't just a string of random, unconnected encounters (and even then it still works with feat support).

You already roll the second save at the end of the creature's next turn, even though an entire round hasn't passed. It's for simplicity, so you don't have to keep track of who first poisoned who. It shortens the first interval, yes, but the poisoned creature still always gets a chance to act before the next save. So that's the compromise for playability.

Very similar to the frightened condition as well – it can be vastly more or less useful depending on how initiative is ordered. But having to keep track of the time in initiative when the condition was first applied would not be worth the extra fidelity.

The most powerful feat I know of that does something similar in effect is Transcendent Deflection, which other than taking the level 10 feat slot and being usable once per 10 minutes has negligible cost (you can break basic weapons as the runes need only be on your handwraps). Nevertheless, the fiction there is different, as the hit is blocked rather than evaded. I don't think there's another case where being missed entirely is modeled in the proposed way (by the character moving out of reach during the attack), it's always some circumstance bonus to AC instead (because the normal way to 'dodge' an attack is to have one's AC exceed the attack roll). So, if a GM doesn't want to essentially introduce a parallel and very different mechanism for resolving the same thing, that'd be a valid reason for them to rule against this usage.

In any case, I don't see significant pushback anymore that a GM can be rules-compliant here regardless of which way they decide the case, because the decision of which principles they want to enforce for Ready triggers is largely left up to them by the rules.

Here's another such case: Compound Triggers. If a GM rejects my "An enemy approaches within 5 feet, or casts a spell, or draws an item, or attacks someone, or takes cover" trigger, they're well within their right to do so regardless of whether some written reactions also have compound triggers (they do) or whether the case is explicitly mentioned in the guidance on adjudication of Ready (it's not).

Right, just letting you know that while you professed agreement with Trip, what you're saying is actually in contradiction with his central thesis in this thread: That such a Readied action, with a trigger cleverly formulated by the player, would resolve in the middle of the attacker's Strike action and essentially force them to waste it (while increasing MAP as usual) instead of just costing them one more action for additional movement.

Well no, Zephyr Slip doesn't do what Trip wants to do. It triggers off movement. What Trip wants to do is to trigger off a specific point in time within an enemy's Strike, namely after they've committed to it but before the dice are rolled. He then wants the Strike to auto-miss, still costing the action and MAP.

The bottom line is to ask your GM how they'd run it. Nothing in the rules or this discussion can save you from that conversation, I'm afraid.

If you ever do get to make extensive use of it at a table, absolutely give an update about how that went (just from a pure game quality perspective). I have a really tough time imagining it would make for smooth or satisfying interpersonal game flow (with all the non-standard interruptions at very precise times, burden of metaknowledge, and so on), but if the worry is misplaced I'd love to know.

In your example, the Gogiteth wouldn't be able to use its reaction at all, as Stepping doesn't trigger reactions. But we can adapt the scenario so that it works for the question you're trying to adress – it's a swashbuckler trying to Mobile Finisher the monster with Stride + Strike instead and their last bit of movement barely brings them into reach, upon which the Gogiteth skitters away.

I think it's correct that the Strike is 'lost' in that case. Well, it's still performed (probably at thin air if there are no other targets), but it can't target the Gogiteth.

Back on topic, there are enough Reactions that trigger after an attack has been committed, but before it lands, for me to see that as 100% a valid trigger moment. Plenty of "but have not rolled" triggers.

There's really 0 text in the sidebar to indicate some stages of actions are "invalid" to use, etc.

I guess I'll just reiterate that what triggers are or are not used in pre-written reactions is not a criterion for what triggers can be formulated for Ready. The two are entirely unrelated.

The GM Core section on Ready gives the GM wide latitude to decide which triggers they consider valid and for what reasons, and advises them to make use of that, both generally and in the specific outlined case of triggers that refer to game- rather than world concepts. Thus, whether it's valid to declare something like 'committing' to do this or that as a trigger depends on what principles the GM chooses to apply. They might say that 'committing' in and of itself isn't observable. They might even create another principle of "Doesn't make the game annoying" and forbid it because of that. Or, they might allow it. None of these would be them breaking any rules.

Player-created Ready triggers have special rules for their validity, pre-written triggers don't. The whole comparison between the two is a red herring. Yes, some reactions in the game use triggers that a player cannot declare for Ready (like all of them that only reference game concepts).

It's a bit weird because one would expect it to give a point in time for a singular event such as 'the persistent damage returns', but then it doesn't. It gives a condition that must be fulfilled for that event, but no indication as to when in time to check for that condition (just vaguely gesturing that it's in the future by use of that tense in 'will return').

So, I think it's just not very cleanly written and it's more helpful to think about intentions than the rules per se.

If we interpret it as only returning on the next stage of the poison, the sentence is meaningless, as the same poison without that sentence would work identically.

If we interpret it as the persistent damage returning immediately after removing it, that would make the part about being able to attempt checks to recover from it meaningless. It would very likely be written as "While the poison is ongoing, a poisoned creature cannot recover from this persistent bleed damage" or some such.

So, somewhere in between is probably what they were going for, I guess? Maybe the false assumption by the author was that you try to recover first before taking your damage that round, and they wanted to give you one round of no damage for your successful 'recovery'. If you think that's reasonable, you could translate that into the actual mechanics roughly with "As long as the poison is ongoing, if the target recovers from the persistent bleed damage by any means, that persistent damage will return at the end of their next turn".

But Divine Spells do not get it. Neither do spells that aren't energy meaning void and positive energy spells and force spells don't get it. that's why channeler's stance is primarily built for use with Steward of Stone and Fire.

This isn't quite right. Vitality and void damage are both energy damage also, see https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2308

_______________

I think being grabbed does impact the Liturgist somewhat more than other characters, casters and martials alike.

As another caster, you probably use an action to try to Escape. If it fails (as it likely does), no problem, you cast a spell, eating the relatively low failure chance imposed by Grabbed. While you are certainly in lots of danger, your contribution is barely diminished.

As a martial, you often don't care much about being grabbed because it doesn't stop most of the things you want to do (Strikes, maneuvers). Spending MAP on trying to get out is almost always the wrong play. Instead you just accept the off-guard condition and go to town with your full offensive power. Being grabbed only really disables you meaningfully if the GM rules that you can't hit an appendage that outreaches and grabs you.

As a Liturgist who wants to double Sustain (especially some combination with EoB), it really sucks. You can try to Escape, but depending on what are by my estimations the most common circumstances that works maybe 25-55% of the time. In the not-improbable event that you fail, you don't have a great backup plan. Just spending two individual actions to keep your spells up is low impact, doubly so if one of them is EoB. But trying to Escape again also sucks – your success chance has roughly gone to 5-30% and if you fail again, one of your spells will drop for sure and your impact becomes negligible this round. Honestly, if you don't have a plan other than Escape to leave the grab, the most consistently useful move is probably to only choose one spell to sustain and try to Cast another 2-action one at that point, ignoring Grabbed. Even in the department of getting help from your party you have a disadvantage: You can't Delay after another party member that might e.g. forcefully move the enemy to free you, as that will immediately end your sustained spells.

And you can Quicken an Apparition spell with a divine spell. So you could eclipse burst then drop a quickened fireball. So quicken apparition may not be usable with divine spells, it is usable in conjunction with divine blasting spells.

It is usable with your divine spells as well. The only limit is that the spell must come from your animist class, so you can't quicken an archetype/innate spell with it but your divine prepared spells are compatible.

And now, consider that from level 10 you can replace those 'empty' Circle of Spirits actions with max rank-2 spell castings instead, by burning the apparition of the last vessel spell you cast, respectively. It does end up fairly efficient, once to twice per day anyhow.

But yes, can confirm it sucks to get grabbed as a Animist trying to pull something like that off, it can throw a major wrench in your plan. Athletics modifiers are rather high on monsters. You best have a plan for when it happens, preferably one with higher odds of a good outcome than a regular Escape check.

This really is not true.

I need to emphasize that the "presumed rule" about Ready being heavily restricted in its trigger is outright a telephone misreading / lie.

There is no way to read that text and conclude that there is some special power-limit being placed here. It is entirely about the player getting to write their own trigger, and making sure it follows proper logic on being a character-observable trigger. There is no "but you might want to be careful with this power" implication anywhere.
[...]
The only kind of trigger that would need a GM to call for adjustment is one that breaks the character-observable principle. Nothing about timing, power concerns, etc. That pretend power-limiter never existed, no matter how many times someone's used it as an excuse.

If you think my first argument was one about power, you misunderstand me. I don't even think this tactic is powerful except in rather niche circumstances, but it has no bearing on the argument either way. Also, you might not want to throw around accusations of lying so liberally if you're looking for a good discussion.

The argument is that this GM Core passage gives the GM the responsibility and ability to restrict what triggers players may formulate for the Ready action ("you might sometimes need to put limits on what they can choose"), giving them also a single example principle that they should apply (purely-gamist triggers). But that example principle is not an exhaustive list. It is led with 'Notably, ...', which implies that there are other principles to consider as well which aren't explicitly listed (and since they aren't, it falls back to the GM to determine what they are).

For example, a player might want to use the trigger "When my character feels like it", which surely is observable to the character in-world, but still a complete subversion of the purpose of having to name a trigger at all. The GM has rules permission by this section to shut it down, just like they can shut down references to creatures 'committing' to do this or that.

As if to support the point that silver bullet spells have become much rarer, Dismantle actually wouldn't work here since a box that can't be removed or opened can't be meaningfully said to be 'in your possession' either ;)

Yeah, the RAW argument against it is that it can be ruled as not a valid trigger to declare for Ready specifically (which has restrictions that don't exist for pre-built reactions). The restrictions are found in GM Core as posted above by Baarogue and seem almost specifically intended to prevent this kind of more gamey application of Ready. A GM is totally within their rights as given by the rules to shut down this usage. Even if you think you can make your desired trigger compatible with the in-world requirement somehow, the section only gives that requirement as one example of things that a GM must shut down with regards to Ready triggers, not as an exhaustive list. The GM can certainly tell you more such requirements to further preserve what they understand to be the spirit of those instructions.

The more important argument against it is that it's either pointless or has the strong potential to lead to obnoxious table interactions, depending on how you treat knowledge about it (i.e., is it obvious to enemies that a character is Readying something, and if so, what). You imagine playing with this being super cool, but I think you highly overestimate the enjoyment of having to work around all the meta-knowledge (you know the headache if you've ever had a monster undetected to one PC and hidden to another), conversational stopping points of checking whether people want to react to this or that, and disappointed expectations. I think part of the reason that Ready is so costly action-wise is that paizo wanted to (wisely) discourage its use in situations where opposing parties are already closely engaged.

Just showing up to a table and expecting it to work mid-encounter without any prior discussion sounds like a terrible idea, btw. Well, if your response to being shut down and weirdly looked at is going to be anything other than "No problem, I'll do X instead", anyways.

I'm still a bit skeptical myself. You're not taking the Step action. You're taking the Elf Step action. That's not the same thing. The rules for subordinate actions make it pretty clear that "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions." Developers go to a lot of lengths to keep things in isolation so that combos like this aren't possible. Why would they make an exception here? I agree that it may well be TGTBT.

Nah, it definitely checks out. Compare for example the Sneak Attack feature, it adds damage "if you Strike" an enemy (and fulfil some conditions). But clearly it also works with the likes of Twin Feint, Skirmish Strike etc, even though the Strikes you make as part of those actions are only subordinate.

By the rules that's how it works, yes. You get a free sustain rider whenever you Step, and Elf Step makes you Step twice.

Guardian with reach, Juggernaut Charge and a line of mines seems like a fun combo

*latest calculations*

Small correction: Cardinal Guardians becomes available at 14, not 15. If it's not an upgrade over using divine slots instead, that's interesting, though I can't honestly say I understand that tool and what exactly you have defined there so it's tough to double check the math.

I think the idea with Elf Step is one of the following:

1. Start 2 sustained spells on round 1 that will buff each other with Cardinal Guardians (only option I see is Earth's Bile + upcast Invoke Spirits), then sustain both at once with Elf Step starting from turn 2 and use the other two actions to cast another blasting spell (possibly choosing whichever apparition spell would get the save penalty that round, but probably just divine spells starting from round 3). Rinse and repeat.

2. Start with Hungry Depths (assuming that it will always hit despite its lower mobility on Sustain), then Channeler's Stance + Earth's Bile + Sustain Hungry Depths on round 2, then the same routine as above from round 3 (Elf Step for both sustained spells + one 2-a blast spell). Even slower setup, but Hungry Depths' damage isn't quite as anemic as Invoke Spirits (+ you get the Stance in there for two spells) so I suspect it turns better in terms of total damage than the first method probably in round 4 (complete guess).

Edit: Actually, 1. is probably improved by doing Stance + Earth's Bile + Quickened Invoke Spirits (only rank 5) instead.

It started with comparing Animist to Sorcerer blasting numbers, which led into a discussion about how much setup (in actions) either class needs before it can start putting out its best DPR. I argued that Sorcerer can use their setup (Anoint Ally) repeatedly during exploration and thus have it ready before their first turn, where an Animist cannot do so perpetually or at all because they're using a Stance action (can't use outside of initiative) and/or Focus/apparition spells (limited by points/slots) for that.

The suggested repeated usage of Anoint Ally during exploration met with resistance here mostly for flavor reasons, with people saying that they'd have trouble imagining this in a non-tone-destroying way and thus would be likely to not accept it at the table. I suggested a way in which I would seek to avoid such a tone mismatch, such as by fictionally upholding the rune magically rather than constantly re-applying it (in the same way that one might fictionally keep a shield raised while advancing with Defend, instead of lowering and re-raising it every 6 seconds as in the mechanical representation of that activity).

I agree that it would keep you adjacent to your chosen target. I'm not suggesting that this or any other flavor interpretation or straight up reflavoring of an ability ought to change the resolution of any game mechanical aspects, be they imposed by the rules or the GM (such as social encounter expectations).

Certainly for low level it opens things up a lot conceptually, you start more fleshed out. At high level, it can sometimes be too much almost, and that's also when the power increase will be most noticable (as you stack up more and more feats over baseline assumptions, so to speak).

Overall, I think it makes the game better, certainly when you tie it in conceptually with the campaign as you plan to.

That is one intention, another is to make item power level scale more closely in alignment with cost (i.e., exponentially rather than linearly) so that it doesn't become optimal to spend your high level paycheck on the myriad of low level items you can afford with it, with each of them only being marginally weaker than the single on-level item you could have gotten instead.

Though they kind of didn't prevent that anyways because scrolls and wands exist. Frankly I don't think you're breaking much by making invested items scale automatically because that investiture limit will be hit quickly, at which point on-level items will still be an upgrade worth striving for. Wouldn't recommend it for consumables though unless you want to see your martials periodically stocking up on dozens of doses of clown monarch and similar stuff.

The 'constantly rubbing blood' part is your own characterization and not mine (nor part of the feat text, which leaves much up to the imagination) – I don't feel inclined to flavor or describe it that way or to make it gross or weird at the table. If someone simply cannot or does not want to imagine 'sustaining' this ability in any other way in their magical fantasy world, I've already said that I regard rejecting things for reasons of tone/flavor as perfectly fine. It's the simulationist objections (lack of enough blood) and the gamist ones (metagaming??) that were highly inconsistent and nonsense, respectively.

As for being irritating to deal with at the table, I think 'I keep my blood rune up on X while we explore' is hardly different from 'I keep my shield raised while we explore' in that regard; It's resolved in seconds.

Sorry but you're heaping nonsense onto nonsense now. I'm not playing a sorcerer in any game, and whatever I do or do not write in this thread would have zero implications on what I could or could not do with one if I did, as that would be a matter of the table/GM and not of the paizo forums. Forget that this accusation is baseless and uncalled for, it's not even coherent.

yellowpete wrote:

The character, in the process of using Anoint Ally as an exploration activity, makes no use of knowledge about purely gamist concepts.

Using the action every 6 seconds exactly does, though, as pointed out already.

The 1 action per 6 seconds was mentioned to illustrate why this is certainly justified as an improvised exploration activity, not to imply that the character in-world is somehow executing millisecond-precise actions like a metronome. The guidance on that (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2599) also says that exploration activities generally average to 1 action every 6 seconds, and to judge improvised activities based on that. Nothing changes about my general point if we treat the sorcerer as Anointing their Ally once per 6 seconds *on average* rather than with pin-point precision, and as such I think the metagaming criticism is quite bogus, not to mention it would apply to all exploration activities that are based on repeated actions.

As for flavor and simulationism, tables have different preferences and requirements. Like I already said, I think it perfectly legitimate to treat non-mechanical descriptions as unalterable (even though I personally like the 'flavor is free' approach more), and to deny the use of abilities in order to preserve the tone of the game.

For the simulationist argument however, it feels completely misplaced in the general context of the game system. PF2e is not a simulationist game, and lots of utterly unrealistic things happen in it all the time. A character sustaining the loss of 10 drops of blood per minute to me isn't even on the radar of ridiculousness when a character can be brought from the literal brink of death to having never been better within the span of a few seconds, even by non-magical means; or sustain multiple months of starvation only to be perfectly fine after eating a single bite of food and a few minutes of healing. It is clear that the game is saying: We don't care about these things too much, they won't be of importance in the kinds of stories we intend for you to tell with this system. So then, to forbid this Anoint Ally usage specifically on simulationist grounds because of blood loss seems awfully inconsistent unless you also generally alter the system in many other drastic ways to make it more 'realistic' (but also, you probably just want a different system at that point).

yellowpete wrote:

Well yes, something has got to give. If someone doesn't want to bother with characters collecting information organically before they determine their daily prep for the subject of that information (or plays campaigns where it's just not feasible somehow), but they still want the characters to have that information for gameplay reasons, but they also don't want post-hoc justifications for where the information comes from, but they also still want there to be a good narrative about where it came from, they have maneuvered themselves into somewhat of an unwinnable spot.

Hold on, why blame the GM for the flaws in your suggestion? This is a situation that could easily arise in an official AP, and many don’t even give the players the time to gather information at all on some occasions.

I'm blaming a set of apparently mutually exclusive requirements for a solution that therefore cannot be fully satisfied by any universal method – your suggestion, mine, or any other.

yellowpete wrote:

Teridax wrote:

If you didn’t know about turns and their durations, why would you be anointing your ally every 6 seconds? Why not every second or every 47 seconds?

The character would find out that they're too slow to do it every second

The action takes around two seconds to perform. This is quite obviously a flimsy excuse to justify metagaming knowledge of turn duration.

[...]

You are drawing a false comparison to justify your metagaming, and all to avoid spending a single action in combat.

The character, in the process of using Anoint Ally as an exploration activity, makes no use of knowledge about purely gamist concepts. The only thing they need to know is how long the rune lasts (which is observable to them). How combat is resolved makes absolutely no difference as far as I can tell, but maybe you can lay out more explicitly what exactly you think they wouldn't be able or likely to do without that knowledge and why, provided they still have the desire to always have a good amount of duration left on the rune and the in-world knowledge of how long a single application lasts.

It is already limited to one target. Any old rune fades when a new one is applied.

If you didn’t know about turns and their durations, why would you be anointing your ally every 6 seconds? Why not every second or every 47 seconds?

The character would find out that they're too slow to do it every second, and also that this leaves them with no time to do anything else. Likewise, they would know that if the interval is too large, they might be surprised in a moment when the rune is about to fade. So, they do it regularly enough to not be caught without it active, but not so much that it debilitates their ability to move, all based on in-world information they have access to. An average of a 6 seconds interval between applications is the mechanical representation of that as laid out in the section about improvised exploration activities, but it changes little if you imagine these intervals to fluctuate somewhere between 3 - 20 seconds in the fiction.

yellowpete wrote:

But also, if I'm misunderstanding and it does actually rely on that somehow, does Defend then also rely on that knowledge, since it represents Raising your Shield every 6 seconds? I don't understand how this would create any asymmetry between the two activities.

Are you saying that bleeding yourself out for hours is equivalent to keeping your shield raised?

Well, let's not mix issues. This latest criticism of yours was specifically about metagaming around 6 second intervals, not simulationist concerns around blood loss. I'm trying to understand how this specific objection does not also apply to Defend, if it applies at all.

To me, it's more about suspension of disbelief.

It's easy to envision a champion doing the defend action, we've seen it many times in movies and books. It's just a guy moving cautiously with his shield raised.

It's a bit harder to envision a sorcerer sticking next to his buddy, cutting his own finger every six seconds to draw a rune on his back. Sounds ridiculous, looks ridiculous, and would probably be impossible to do for more than a couple minutes without losing focus somehow.

Yeah, if a table is just not flexible but rather very literal with the flavor of abilities then I can see this as a valid reason to want to avoid this. There are some less ridiculous interpretations that are yet compatible with the flavor as written imo, but I won't quibble about that as it's fundamentally a very subjective issue.

Your strategy relies on knowing that combat is turn-based and that turns last around 6 seconds. It’s pretty self-evident that characters in-game would not be aware of this knowledge, and most people would be unwilling to hemorrhage for hours on end just to get an exact 54 seconds of uptime on a combat ability, which would be particularly awkward during social interactions to boot.

I don't see how periodically using Anoint Ally during exploration relies on knowledge about turn-based combat resolution. It relies on the knowledge that the rune disappears after a minute and a desire to keep it from fading, which the character can reasonably have both.

But also, if I'm misunderstanding and it does actually rely on that somehow, does Defend then also rely on that knowledge, since it represents Raising your Shield every 6 seconds? I don't understand how this would create any asymmetry between the two activities.

Right, so a complete deus ex machina. It’d certainly be good to have that kind of guideline, but as the above should show, “just figure out a justification” I think is easier said than done if you want some sense of narrative.

Well yes, something has got to give. If someone doesn't want to bother with characters collecting information organically before they determine their daily prep for the subject of that information (or plays campaigns where it's just not feasible somehow), but they still want the characters to have that information for gameplay reasons, but they also don't want post-hoc justifications for where the information comes from, but they also still want there to be a good narrative about where it came from, they have maneuvered themselves into somewhat of an unwinnable spot. Neither your nor my suggestion (nor any other, as far as I can tell) could satisfy such a person.

To be clear, there's no problem with a GM saying 'I suppose that would technically work but it feels cheesy to me somehow, let's not do this during exploration'. Perfectly viable choice, it's their table. There is a problem if they instead pretend that the reason why it won't work is that the character doesn't have enough blood. That explanation is just not viable on so many levels.

I give one of the characters a vivid dream that shows them, or a flashback to some NPC telling them rumors about it (there has got to be some information out there, or else the PCs would never try to reach it in the first place), or a crazy adventurer who just barely escaped from there recently runs into the PC's camp. What's fitting depends on the context and tone of the campaign.

If I'm really out of ideas, I say 'hey X, you know that there are Clay effigy constructs guarding the lower levels of the crypt, how do you think you came to know that?' And if nobody has absolutely any ideas, then I assure them that it's fine for them to act on the information anyways and maybe keep in mind for future adventures I build to leave some open avenues for information flow.

I don't understand the charge of metagaming here. What is the player knowledge that is being used in a problematic way here which the character wouldn't have access to? Is it just that there is an expectation of upcoming combat encounters? Because then using Defend also is metagaming. Otherwise, please elaborate.

yellowpete wrote:

No, I'm suggesting doing it either roughly every 30 seconds if the GM will let that fly without spending your exploration action on it (guarantees at least 5 rounds uptime in an encounter), or every 6 seconds otherwise.

So you are telling me, in genuine seriousness, that your exploration strategy as a Sorcerer is to continually poke one of your allies every 6 seconds and expect your GM to let this fly without enemies reacting at all to some mage loudly and repeatedly anointing their ally across their dungeon? Because I don't see any GM letting this fly, and if a player tried doing this at my table I would give them warnings to stop, not because it'd make the Sorcerer too good at blasting, but because it'd be repetitious, irritating to constantly track, and a clear attempt to twist the original mechanic out of shape. Given that the anointment requires a drop of blood, I would also say it's not terribly sensible for a Sorcerer to bleed themselves dry just for this purpose.

What I said is the mechanical representation of what I'm suggesting. It's completely analogous to other exploration activities like Defend, where you use one action that has unlimited mechanical availability every 6 seconds. There's even a guideline on improvising activities exactly like this. There's also no indication that it's supposed to be any louder than raising a shield would be.

PF2e is a mechanics first game where flavor is best treated as free – just like I don't have to fictionally describe my character as repeatedly walking for 4 seconds, then lowering and again raising a shield for 2 seconds ad nauseum, I also don't have to fictionally describe them as smearing blood over the paladin every 6 seconds. I can just say 'I'll keep up the blood rune on the paladin as my exploration activity' just like I say 'I keep my shield raised as my exploration activity'. That's no more irritating to track or repetetive than any other exploration activity. I can even flavor it as Deriven and Blue_frog do, saying that it's mechanically my exploration activity, but really what it represents is me quickly placing the rune when we're about to run into trouble.

And I'd question the good sense of a GM who's making me count my blood drops for this or insist that I'm 'bleeding dry' when the ability does no bleed damage or any kind of other damage to myself. This extreme simulationist approach is wholly inappropriate for the system (are you going to keep track of how much total bleed damage people have taken as well throughout the day, convert that into liters somehow and calculate when it can no longer transport enough oxygen to keep them standing? sure hope not).

yellowpete wrote:

I think it's a far more interesting mode of interaction with the game for the players to have that information (or a relevant part of it) and make their own decisions based on that, rather than essentially asking the GM to play their character for a bit.

This is valid. I'll be very keen to see what implementation you propose for an activity, guideline, or something similar, that would ensure this and give the GM and players something reliable to follow.

(This would be tied into a larger GM guideline about information flow in general)

"Sometimes, the structure of a campaign doesn't lend itself well to characters spending a lot of time and effort on extensive research about the challenges ahead, or to players spending lots of session time on this. Nevertheless, many characters such as those using prepared spellcasting rely on having some amount of information about those challenges in order to use their tools effectively. In these cases, consider just giving out some actionable information to the players about likely upcoming dangers of the day, such as a prominent creature type, a relevant detail about an environment, or a commonly used game mechanic. You can collectively decide how this knowledge reaches the characters, depending on what makes sense in the context of your game. It might [some examples here]. Each player can then make a single check to Recall Knowledge on one mentioned aspect, potentially gaining more detailed insight on it. [A full example of what this might look like in practice]"

I am not a writer so I'm sure it's clunky. The gist is, the players need information for the game to be fun and interesting, so don't sweat it and just give them some, if you're not going to have preparatory recon/research be a regular part of your campaign.

It has a duration of 1 minute; using it outside of encounters runs the risk of having it run out early unless you're prebuffing right outside the encounter, which is not a likely occurrence. Is that what you're suggesting?

No, I'm suggesting doing it either roughly every 30 seconds if the GM will let that fly without spending your exploration action on it (guarantees at least 5 rounds uptime in an encounter), or every 6 seconds otherwise.

Okay can we get clear on Anoint Ally though before this circles around forever – this ability does not require an encounter action to use, as you can repeat it endlessly during exploration since there's no limit and thus you can always start encounters with it already active if you so choose. You can't do the same with vessel spells, or channeler's stance, or generally any of the 'setup' actions that have been proposed for the Animist.

Of course it's fair to acknowledge that this will take your exploration action at some tables, but that doesn't matter for a comparison that strictly looks at blasting capability. It's not some sort of bias towards the sorcerer, the setup just actually works differently (i.e., much more conveniently).

They have the 'option', yes. But why ever not use that option once they have it? There's no good reason, so then it becomes not reasonably optional, because the best choice is so obvious (use it, rather than not using it). Even in cases where a semi-informed choice about spells could have been made by the player alone due to information they already had, they will now understandably resort to just pressing the 'GM decision please' button anyways if they want the best odds, because it stands to reason that the GM will know even more to base that decision on. The player has then removed what agency they might have had in the situation and instead delegated it away, because they were so heavily incentivized by the ritual to do so. (again, all under the assumption that the GM isn't somehow just terrible at picking spells)

The GM, when they end up making those spell choices, is obviously basing those choices on some information they have. I think it's a far more interesting mode of interaction with the game for the players to have that information (or a relevant part of it) and make their own decisions based on that, rather than essentially asking the GM to play their character for a bit. Ideally, they would gain the information through prior exploration of or engagement with the world, NPCs and so on. But, even among ham-fisted solutions like this ritual, something like 'You will face a number of Stone Bulwarks in confined hallways riddled with traps, get ready' seems incredibly preferable to 'Your wizard prepares a couple of howling blizzards, safe passage and and scatter scree today'.

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

The fact that it's rare and optional or that someone might stop using it doesn't factor in my above comment because I'm working under the premise that it's already being used, because otherwise there is nothing to say about it.

As for cognitive load – the GM already handles all the world, NPCs and so on. Generally speaking, they have a lot more on their plate than the average player. So a ritual that takes part of the player's job and puts it onto the GM is exacerbating that imbalance and moving cognitive load in the wrong direction, in my opinion.

This is a ritual the player chooses to undertake, where they choose exactly how many spells they let the GM prepare. How exactly is their agency being taken away here?

If you have it, it is not an interesting choice whether to use it. There's no cost involved, no reason to ever not just 'press the button' and let the GM fill all the slots that your outcome will allow (unless the GM is somehow worse at spell preparation than you even with all the information they have). By agency, I mean the process of active deliberation and ultimately choice between multiple potentially viable options based on one's own criteria and available information. Essentially, exactly what the GM is doing in that moment.

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

- It requires the GM to know all the spells a player could prepare and what their likely impact will be, putting a lot of cognitive work onto them
- It implies that the GM knows what's going to happen during the day, and so only possibly works in campaigns that are quite railroaded (no judgment on such campaigns)
- It takes away the agency from the player that presumably is a good part of the draw of choosing a prepared caster to begin with. At best, if they previously also had 0 agency because they had no information, it leaves that state unchanged
- It can create bad feelings if later on, the spell choices of the GM turned out not that optimal after all (either in actuality or in the perception of the player)
- It can be narratively weak. The player ends with a specific prepared loadout but no explanation of why exactly they chose those spells, when the character should surely have one that they based their decisions on (even intuition is based on something). This could be easily adressed though by flavoring it more as divination magic rather than reasoning and evidence

I think if I wanted to help a prepared caster feel better about their stick, I'd just give them spell substitution from wizard (and compensate such a wizard in turn). Then the preparation can happen organically during exploration based on information they find, and they can further lean into that by investing into divination spells. The player has the cognitive and creative load to make it work, but if they do, it's also their own success rather than a gifted one.

If a table wants to gloss over exploration as well and is mostly interested in combat, they could emulate this by giving the caster a couple of flexible slots to fill in during the encounter as they want. Narratively then, those were the slots that the character had time to re-prepare while scoping out the opposition and we are finding out in real time which spells they ended up preparing.

The setup for Stance + vessel spell + sustained blasting apparition spell is more than a round long, and there are no really great sustained blasting apparition spells in the first place (invoke spirits has anemic damage for its level even after accounting for the stance, hungry depths is okay damage but is also a 3-a cast delaying you even further and doesn't move/grow far on Sustain). It could be interesting to analyze where the number end up with this strategy, but my prediction is that you'd have to go into a fairly late round before you see improvement over just vessel + blast. Happy for the numbers to correct me though.

For sorcerer you can easily Anoint during exploration btw, you just need like a single action every 30 secs which some GMs won't even sack your exploration action for but it's still worth it even if they do. Martials mostly go before you unless you build for initiative, so you can usually happily start double tapping Explosion of Power right from round 1 after your anointed buddy has closed into melee.

Traveling Workshop is better than what either of you seem to think, it's not just the tools that you get which would be a negligible benefit as Blue_frog correctly notes (only saving 1 Bulk and 5 gp would be a joke). After setting it up for 10 minutes, you are always treated as already having spent a day of work setting up for any items you Craft. But, to Craft an item for which you have a formula, you only need a single day of such setup before you can roll and finish your work. Meaning that, for items which you have a formula for, after setting up for 10 minutes you create any amount of them instantaneously (paying full price, but still). It's a sidegrade of Prescient Consumable – slower, only works on things you have the formula for, but up to your level instead of half and you can churn out a lot if you have the funds.

You can only use the items yourself (and in fact, have to do so in order to be able to switch off the Crafter in the Vault again) but it's still quite an interesting asset. Now, does it step on another class' toes, in this case the alchemist? Not really – it's still slower, harder to collect relevant formulae for and way more expensive than Quick Alchemy.

To me, it falls into the pattern that I see generally in the Animist. You do competetive things in your role as a mostly divine caster as you should, and you have a solid chassis, but if you branch out into other roles like martial or crafter/skill monkey, you never reach the overall effectiveness of a specialist of another class in that role.

You're making a mistake with Earth's Bile. It heightens at +2 rank, so would only deal an average 15 (before persistent) at level 11 and 20 at level 13.

Your save calculations are also a bit off, e.g. when the Mirage dragon succeeds their Fort save on an 8, that comes out to 5% crit fail (1), 30% fail (2-7), 50% success (8-17), 15% crit success (18-20) instead of your numbers which are shifted by one.