Inaccuracies or possible errors

[Malk_Content]

So if the misfortune effect is persistent I would rule half king luck doesn't work.

You use hl, it's fortune effect is cancelled by the ongoing misfortune and thus doesn't occur. The misfortune effect also doesn't occur, but the previous roll still stands.

[Edge93]

Bardic Dave wrote:

pixierose wrote:

3) alternative ruling: you roll a third die you take the median number. canceling the lowest and highest numbers

Very clever! I doubt there's a cleaner way to make the two effects "cancel" if that's your desired outcome.

Lol I was going to throw in my idea of rerolling the lower of the two, but this is a tad better perhaps.

[painted_green]

Most of this has been addressed, but here are my opinions on the presented judgings (in the special case of a persistent misfortune effect making you roll twice and you wanting to use Halfling Luck):

Roll a third die and take its result
As RicoTheBold said, this basically negates the misfortune effect. Of course, the misfortune made it likelier for Halfling Luck to be necessary in the first place, but the result is the same as if you had just rolled badly on the roll with a single die and no misfortune. Clearly, the fortune and misfortune effect have not "cancelled each other out".

Roll two more dice and take the lower of the two
I am not sure how to feel about this. It is clearly not consistent with RAW since nothing cancels out, but since I think there is no way to be consistent with RAW here, that doesn't really matter much. I do feel that the fortune effect gets the short end here and that I would only actually use Halfling Luck in this situation if I am convinced I only require a pretty small number on the die to succeed. There is also the issue of analogy with other situations here. If the misfortune effect was an analogous fortune effect, the example that RicoTheBold cited explicitly states that Halfling Luck is supposed to be forbidden here, but a ruling by analogy might conclude that you are allowed to roll two more dice and take the higher of the two.

Roll two dice one after the other for the misfortune roll, then if Luck is used, take the result of the first one (or some equivalent method)
This is problematic because you will know the result of Halfling Luck before you use it, which is clearly not intended.

Same as the previous method, but the dice are rolled in secret and the GM only tells you the result of the lower roll
So now you have a 50% chance of a bad roll, and a 50% chance of what essentially is a "straight roll" in the interval from the lower roll to 20. So your decision now depends on how far below the DC you think your low roll is. This is a weird thing to enter into consideration for what should have been a simple straight roll, in my opinion.

Forbid usage of Halfling Luck
This is even worse. It does not feel fair to me to have a rule that misfortune and fortune are supposed to cancel each other out, but then you cannot use a fortune effect you have to cancel a misfortune effect simply because it happens *after* the roll - which should normally make it better than a fortune effect you have to announce beforehand!

Roll a third die and take the median
So you have the two dice from misfortune. You think the lower one is a failure (otherwise, you would not consider using Luck). With this method, what are the options? Well, you either think the other roll is a success - then using Luck gives you a straight roll, which, as discussed above, seems to me to negate the misfortune effect entirely. Or you think the other roll is a fail - in which case you would not use Luck ever, since there is no way you can succeed with it. This does not seem like a good method.

Announce Halfling Luck before the misfortune roll to cancel it
This is the solution that makes the least sense if you want to try and approximate RAW (the Luck trigger not being fulfilled), but it is also the solution I feel I could get behind the most. It is the only solution in which the fortune and misfortune effect actually *do* cancel each other out. In my opinion, the non-rule-conforming usage of Luck is less important in this case.

[Tiene]

Why not roll one die at a time for Misfortune? Roll one die see the result, if it fails (but isn't a critical failure), you can use Halfling Luck to prevent it from possibly becoming a critical failure by preventing the second roll.

[Squiggit]

painted_green wrote:

It is clearly not consistent with RAW since nothing cancels out

I'm not sure I agree with this assertion. Yes, nothing cancels out, but a reroll isn't in the same category as an effect modifying the base roll in the first place, so I'm not convinced that canceling out is even relevant here.

There's no way for two effects that don't even apply at the same time or to the same thing to cancel each other out in the first place, so I think searching for a way to satisfy that requirement doesn't make sense.

[MongrelHorde]

The Raven Black wrote:

Fortune cancels Misfortune. You roll again and take the new result

After re-reading I think this is the answer to the halfling luck dilemma.

There are two parts to halfling luck.
1: The re-roll
2: Pick the better of the two (fortune).

The fortune part of Halfling luck (pick the better of the two) is negated by Misfortune.

That only leaves the re-roll. In effect re-roll and take the new result.

[painted_green]

Halfling Luck does not let you take the better result; you have to use the second one.

[pixierose]

I still am the mind that halfling luck has the fortune tag to balance it with other fortune abilities. And as intended, it should let you simply roll when dealing with misfortunes. but thats primary a gut thing, so we sha'll see once this eventually gets answered.

[MongrelHorde]

painted_green wrote:

Halfling Luck does not let you take the better result; you have to use the second one.

That's a change from the Playtest then. I only have the playtest PDF at work.

[Phntm888]

I don't have my books yet, and I can't consult my playtest materials right now, but does Hafling Luck have the "Fortune" tag on it?

To me, it seems that any ability that has the "Fortune" tag could cancel out any ability with the "Misfortune" tag. So, if you were under a "Misfortune" effect, you could use Halfling Luck to cancel out the effect for one roll. Based on what I've seen so far online, that seems to be how the system is set up. It's a scenario where the tag of the ability supersedes the text of the ability.

[The Raven Black]

Halfling Luck is used as an example of a Fortune effect in the PF2 CRB.

I realize I had not read Halfling Luck with enough care.

I would go with the idea of rerolling but with the Misfortune effect still in place on the reroll.

[thewastedwalrus]

Another possible error might be that the Mountain Stance Monk Feat has a trigger listed instead of requirements like every other Stance Feat. If a trigger even makes sense for something outside of a reaction or free action, this particular instance would also mean that a monk could enter the stance, don armor in some way during an encounter, then gain the benefits of both the armor and the +4 status bonus to AC.

[Squiggit]

The trigger makes sense to me, otherwise every time your feet left the ground you'd have to reactivate the stance.

[lordcirth]

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Another possible error might be that the Mountain Stance Monk Feat has a trigger listed instead of requirements like every other Stance Feat. If a trigger even makes sense for something outside of a reaction or free action, this particular instance would also mean that a monk could enter the stance, don armor in some way during an encounter, then gain the benefits of both the armor and the +4 status bonus to AC.

I thought this too, but then it was pointed out that a Requirement would drop you out of stance when you jumped.

[Captain Morgan]

Rangers either have the most powerful version of AoO in the game, or Disrupt Prey should be a reaction, not free action. (And the latter is probably the case, since I imagine it was meant to work with Snap Shot.) Even with it as a reaction, it is still probably the best as written because it disrupts ANY of the triggering actions.

Sudden Leap lists its number of actions as a fighter feat but not a barbarian feat, which is luckily easy to figure out once you know it is the same for both of them. (Also, it lost Sudden Charge as a prerequisite, and is significantly buffed in terms of allowing you to stride before you jump + treating your max jump distance as double your speed + lower long jump DCs generally. An optimized jumper has at least +20 to the roll. All that means you should retrain out of Sudden Charge once you take this, because it lets you jump 20 feat on a natural 2 and lets you attempt to move up to triple your speed in total plus ignore a ton of difficult terrain.)

[Cintra Bristol]

I don't have my book with me, so my wording may not be exact...

Reading the Alchemist, for the Mutagen specialist, there's a line that gives them a benefit which is something like, "Mutagenists can use any mutagen, even one that wasn't brewed specifically for them."

But I can't find anything, anywhere else, that indicates mutagens are limited to being used by a single individual they were brewed for. As far as I can see, anyone who obtains a mutagen can choose to use it and accept the benefits and drawbacks thereof.

So should that Mutagenist benefit line be removed (and anyone can use any mutagen), or am I missing some restriction on mutagens that's defined elsewhere?

[The Raven Black]

Some feats, such as Feral Mutagen, give you special effects for mutagens that you created. I guess that the Mutagenist will always benefit even if they did not create the mutagens themselves.

Language could have been streamlined between the feats and the description of the Mutagenist though.

[ikarinokami]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Rangers either have the most powerful version of AoO in the game, or Disrupt Prey should be a reaction, not free action. (And the latter is probably the case, since I imagine it was meant to work with Snap Shot.) Even with it as a reaction, it is still probably the best as written because it disrupts ANY of the triggering actions.

Sudden Leap lists its number of actions as a fighter feat but not a barbarian feat, which is luckily easy to figure out once you know it is the same for both of them. (Also, it lost Sudden Charge as a prerequisite, and is significantly buffed in terms of allowing you to stride before you jump + treating your max jump distance as double your speed + lower long jump DCs generally. An optimized jumper has at least +20 to the roll. All that means you should retrain out of Sudden Charge once you take this, because it lets you jump 20 feat on a natural 2 and lets you attempt to move up to triple your speed in total plus ignore a ton of difficult terrain.)

disrupt prey is weird. I couldn't decide it if was really powerful or really weak. because free actions are different now. in general they only occur on your turn.

[painted_green]

ikarinokami wrote:

disrupt prey is weird. I couldn't decide it if was really powerful or really weak. because free actions are different now. in general they only occur on your turn.

This is not quite true. Free actions without a trigger occur only on your turn, but those with a trigger (like Disrupt Prey, if indeed it is supposed to be a free action) can be taken at any point as long as the trigger is fulfilled (but only one per trigger). See the explanation of the action types on page 461.

[kitmehsu]

I think the trick is that it is limited to your hunted prey, so only a preselected creature(or creatures with later feats) can actually trigger it. So it's stronger, but less flexible since you can't switch your prey outside your turn

[The One True Mango]

kitmehsu wrote:

I think the trick is that it is limited to your hunted prey, so only a preselected creature(or creatures with later feats) can actually trigger it. So it's stronger, but less flexible since you can't switch your prey outside your turn

This is exactly correct. You are trading out the ability to AoO anyone for the benefit of being able to infinitely AoO your specific target.

[painted_green]

That is what I thought as well, but I do wonder about the interaction with Snap Shot. It feels like it should apply to Disrupt Prey as well. Maybe change the wording of Snap Shot to include Free Actions with a trigger?

[Ascalaphus]

Is written Disrupt Prey even triggers on Steps (and can disrupt them). Because Steps only stop Reactions from triggering in response, not Free Actions.

However, it leaves Snap Shot as essentially useless unless you go multiclassing for a usable reaction to use it on, which also can't really be what they intended.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Is it a correct read that any logical 'Hard' armour could be made from wood?

[Rysky]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Is it a correct read that any logical 'Hard' armour could be made from wood?

As long as hard means "not metal", possibly, since it calls out metal is used for metal armor and weapons.

Then immediately follows with the GM is final arbiter for what items can be made from a material.

[imposeren]

page 182 (Rogue) Possible error:

* Weapon Specialization (lvl 7) states:
> with weapons and unarmed attacks in which you are an expert

* But default rogue features do not allow to get expert in unarmed attacks, because "Weapon Tricks" and "Master Tricks" do not mention "Unarmed attacks"

This might be intentional (but still I can't find a way to get expert unarmed attacks for rogue through any archetype), but this makes "multiclass druid archetype" of "Wild order" far less usable than other orders.

Maybe at least "Ruffian" Rogue should gain expert/master proficiency in unarmed attacks? (this can be described the same way "automatic medium armor progression" is described for Ruffian Rogue")

The same problem is relevant to "multiclass Monk archetype" (good for Druid and Barbarian, but bad for fighter, ruffian rogue, champion)

[Squiggit]

It's probably future proofing in case an option comes out later on, given that unarmed attacks aren't weapons and therefore have to be called out separately.

That said it does feel pretty weird how hard Paizo made it (read: impossible) to upgrade unarmed proficiency. It almost makes me wonder if they might have forgotten to add some new options when they took Unarmed off the simple weapon table.

[imposeren]

I understand that this might be "a window" for combining class-archetype
(that are not yet available) and multiclass-archetypes: e.g. when some class archetype enables unarmed attacks improvements.

Still, the general problem is "bad" efficiency of unarmed oriented multiclass archetypes for classes that have no progression of unarmed attacks proficiency:
* Monk archetype is only good for: barbarian, druid.
* "Wild order" oriented druid archetype (with focus on attacking shapes/morphs) is only good for: monk, barbarian.
* Both archetypes are far less usable to other combat oriented classes because they do not have progression to "expert or master proficiency of unarmed attacks. Fighter is a bit better case because she starts with expert, but still lacks "master" proficiency