Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream!

[gwynfrid]

I'd like to talk about the Relay Spell feat. The text says "Your ally can use you as the point of origin for their spell, calculating range and cover from your space instead of their own." This isn't a great wording, because as far as I know, the term "point of origin" isn't used in this way anywhere else in the rules. Also, this wording doesn't mention line of effect. This prompts a few questions.

For Relay Spell to work:
1) Does the caster still need to have line of effect to the target?
2) Does the relayer need to have line of effect to the target?
3) Does the caster need to have line of effect to the relayer?
4) Does the caster need to see the target?
5) Does the relayer need to see the target?
6) Does the caster need to see the relayer?
7) If the spell is meant to have an effect on both the caster and the target (example: Vampiric Touch with the caster using Reach Spell), does the relay change anything to this?
8) If the relayer is under an invisibility effect (let's assume either that the answer to question 6 is No, or the caster has See Invisibility active) and the spell causes damage to the target, does the relayer become visible (is the Relay Spell reaction hostile in this context)?
9) Who decides on the final target of the spell?
10) Does the relay work if the caster is not willing?
11) Does the relayer automatically know what the spell is, other than by trusting the caster's word?
11) (Assuming the relayer decides on the final target) Can the caster block the spell from taking effect if the relayer chooses a target other than what the two agreed?
12) Does the relayer need to have the spell in their spell list?
13) What happens if, after the caster casts the spell, the relayer for whatever reason decides not to use the Spell Relay reaction?
14) What happens if for some reason the caster and relayer can't communicate?

[Exton Land]

The Recall Knowledge skill action doesn't have a failure outcome (presumably you don't learn anything at all). In the gamemastering section of the CRB (pg 506) the rules expand upon follow up Recall Knowledge checks in a section titled Additional Knowledge:

CRB pg 506 wrote:

"Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a check to Recall Knowledge, rolling another check to discover more information. After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should adjust the difficulty to be higher for each attempt. Once a character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless—the character has recalled everything they know about the subject.

1) What does the failed check refer to. Any failed Recall Knowledge check, or to checks after you've already gotten some information from a Critical Success, Success, or Critical Failure, meaning you can keep Recalling knowledge till you get one of those three success conditions after which failures mean future Recall Knowledge checks are fruitless.

2) These rules imply you cannot ever succeed at a future check to Recall Knowledge about a topic until you learn more about it; how is this abstracted in the rules, we can try again after level up, after a skill increase in the relevant skills, only after specifically learning about the creature?

3) How does the rules on Additional Knowledge work with the Known Weakness investigator feat? Are players barred from taking the Recall Knowledge action even if it'd be "fruitless" with regard to additional information? If they can take the action are they able to critically succeed at the Recall Knowledge action do they get a +1 to hit on the Devise a Stratagem roll?

4) As in Question #3 above. The Rogue racket Mastermind says "If you successfully identify a creature using Recall Knowledge, that creature is flat-footed against your attacks until the start of your next turn; if you critically succeed, it's flat-footed against your attacks for 1 minute." If you first fail your recall knowledge check, can you try again to successfully identify it again to make it flat-footed? Or are you barred from future Recall Knowledge attempts because they are "fruitless".

5) The Rogue feat Analyze Weakness calls out as the requirement "You must have identified a creature with Recall Knowledge." Is this requirement satisfied with a Critical Failure, but not a Failure since there is not "correctly" limitation on the ID (noting its difference from the Mastermind racket's requirements.

[Ed Reppert]

Uncanny Dodge is an archetype feat available, apparently, to both the Rogue multiclass archetype and the Shadowdancer archetype. In both cases it grants at tenth level the rogue's or barbarian's "deny advantage" class feature, available to both classes at third level. So, as the description of the archetype feat says "a different level for access than the original feat". First, I think what they meant to say there is "original class feature", right? Anyway, that's not the problem. The problem is that, at least according to archives of Nethys, Rogue Dedication is a prerequisite for the this feat for both the Rogue multiclass archetype and the Shadowdancer archetype. Really? My not-a-rogue base class with the Shadowdancer archetype has to also take the Rogue archetype to get this feat? That makes no sense to me. Has this been fixed in errata already, and I just missed it?

[Dubious Scholar]

That sounds like it may just be a Nethys issue.

[Ed Reppert]

I'll have to dig out my APG I guess.

[Ed Reppert]

Hm. It's an "additional feat" listed with several others in the beginning general description of the Shadowdancer Archetype. There's a reference to the CRB (page 229), where we find it as part of the Rogue Multiclass Archetype, with a prerequisite of "Rogue Dedication", which I suppose is where the AoN entry comes from.

Personally I would rule that if you're gaining this feat via the Shadowdancer Archetype, you need the Shadowdancer Dedication as a prerequisite, but not the Rogue Dedication. But I can't find anything in RAW that actually says that. :-(

[Bingo23]

Specifically, I would appreciate your assistance please in the interpretation of a Rule pertaining to The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game please (Page 16, Core Set Rulebook, After the Scenario0.

"..........Next, if you won, the party earns the reward listed on the scenario. If you completed every scenario in the current adventure, the party also earns the adventure reward, and if you completed every scenario in the Adventure Path, the party earns the Adventure Path reward. Common rewards include 'hero points' and Loot cards.........."

Will successful completion of the Scenario 1*: Rumble Road (the standalone) attract the Adventure Reward (in this instance a 'hero point') please, as my understanding is that it is merely a ‘one off’ situation, with no real necessity to actually play it and secondly, my understanding of the text Rule, is that there is a requirement to have completed each of the 1A, 1B and 1C Scenario's before a further Adventure Reward (hero point) is attained.

[Rysky]

You would have better luck with that in the ACG forums, this thread is for questions about Pathfinder Second Edition :3

[sushijon]

question: A human aasimar champion. Does he/she receive either a human feat or an aasimar feat or both?

[FowlJ]

They receive the same number of ancestry feats as everyone else, but they can be picked from either the human or the aasimar feat list.

[Doc Midnight]

Your answer is on p149 APG under “Additional Feats.” The archetype gives access to the feat at the indicated level.

Ed Reppert wrote:

Hm. It's an "additional feat" listed with several others in the beginning general description of the Shadowdancer Archetype. There's a reference to the CRB (page 229), where we find it as part of the Rogue Multiclass Archetype, with a prerequisite of "Rogue Dedication", which I suppose is where the AoN entry comes from.

Personally I would rule that if you're gaining this feat via the Shadowdancer Archetype, you need the Shadowdancer Dedication as a prerequisite, but not the Rogue Dedication. But I can't find anything in RAW that actually says that. :-(

[Doc Midnight]

RAW, do Clinging Shadows Initiate and Wild Winds Initiate satisfy the prerequisite for Prevailing Position of having “at least one stance feat?” Neither of these have the Stance trait, but both give access to a stance. RAI, I would definitely allow it.

The folks at Lone Wolf Development maintain that a “stance feat” is a feat with the Stance trait. Changing the wording of the prerequisite to “a feat that grants a stance” would eliminate any ambiguity.

[Nefreet]

I am loathe to ever agree with HeroLab, but since the official SRD entry for Prevailing Position links to the Stance Trait, it appears they have this one correct.

[Doc Midnight]

Sadly, I think I have to agree, RAW. Hopefully it gets errata’d.

Nefreet wrote:

I am loathe to ever agree with HeroLab, but since the official SRD entry for Prevailing Position links to the Stance Trait, it appears they have this one correct.

[Asethe]

The issue is the feats don't grant access to stances, they grant access to focus spells, and the focus spells initiate the stances. Unlike Crane or Dragon or whatever, they are not stance feats, they are focus spell feats.

That being said, if you are in either of those stances, and have an actual stance feat to qualify for Prevailing Position, you can still use it to get out of the spell granted stance and gain the benefit as the PP trigger doesn't care how you got into the stance, just that you are in one.

[Themetricsystem]

I have to agree, this looks like a simple oversight where they forgot to add the Stance Trait to the Clinging Shadows Initiate feat itself. Very odd indeed, the two feats work with each other but CSI doesn't count as a valid pre-req despite that.

Are there any other instances where some other feat gives someone access to a Stance that doesn't have the Stance Trait?

[Ed Reppert]

Doc Midnight wrote:

Your answer is on p149 APG under “Additional Feats.” The archetype gives access to the feat at the indicated level.

Ed Reppert wrote:

Hm. It's an "additional feat" listed with several others in the beginning general description of the Shadowdancer Archetype. There's a reference to the CRB (page 229), where we find it as part of the Rogue Multiclass Archetype, with a prerequisite of "Rogue Dedication", which I suppose is where the AoN entry comes from.

Personally I would rule that if you're gaining this feat via the Shadowdancer Archetype, you need the Shadowdancer Dedication as a prerequisite, but not the Rogue Dedication. But I can't find anything in RAW that actually says that. :-(

I read that. It says that the feat "counts as an archetype feat" of that level, and that if it has a class trait, it doesn't for purpose of this archetype feat. But it does not say that the prerequisites don't apply.

[Gortle]

Abilities like Tidal Surge are not actually spells are they? Despite the magic school trait in this case Abjuration???

Asking because I'd really like to have another one via the familair ability Innate Surge

[Asethe]

Gortle wrote:

Abilities like Tidal Surge are not actually spells are they? Despite the magic school trait in this case Abjuration???

Asking because I'd really like to have another one via the familair ability Innate Surge

Sadly, you're right. It's an effect, not a spell

[Nefreet]

Gortle wrote:

Abilities like Tidal Surge are not actually spells are they? Despite the magic school trait in this case Abjuration???

Asking because I'd really like to have another one via the familair ability Innate Surge

Regular +1 Armor also has the Abjuration Trait.

[grandobsidian]

How does the level 17 Elf ancestry feat "Magic Rider" work with teleportation effects that normally only allow one target such as Shadow Jump?

[FowlJ]

It doesn't. It specifically says 'teleportation spells that transport more than one person', so it has no effect on spells that don't do that.

[Karana Wonapalei]

I love that sprites are in the game as playable!

I have a question, or maybe it’s a suggestion…

Now that sprites are playable, would you consider sprites as an option for Wild Order Druids who have both the Thousand Faces and the Soaring Shape feats?

[Castilliano]

Karana Wonapalei wrote:

I love that sprites are in the game as playable!

I have a question, or maybe it’s a suggestion…

Now that sprites are playable, would you consider sprites as an option for Wild Order Druids who have both the Thousand Faces and the Soaring Shape feats?

Sprites are still Fey, which Thousand Faces doesn't do.

Thousand Faces also only does Small and Medium (then Large) which takes them off the table.
So I can't see Paizo considering that at all, though you could ask your own GM of course.

Strix on the other hand seems to work, since there's no mention of rarity under Humanoid Form. I don't think I'd allow it unless the PC meets a Strix (because Rare ain't Uncommon!) and had Soaring Shape too.

[Gortle]

Castilliano wrote:

Karana Wonapalei wrote:

I love that sprites are in the game as playable!

I have a question, or maybe it’s a suggestion…

Now that sprites are playable, would you consider sprites as an option for Wild Order Druids who have both the Thousand Faces and the Soaring Shape feats?

Sprites are still Fey, which Thousand Faces doesn't do.

Thousand Faces also only does Small and Medium (then Large) which takes them off the table.
So I can't see Paizo considering that at all, though you could ask your own GM of course.

Strix on the other hand seems to work, since there's no mention of rarity under Humanoid Form. I don't think I'd allow it unless the PC meets a Strix (because Rare ain't Uncommon!) and had Soaring Shape too.

A Sprite Druid can still use Humanoid Form/Thousand Faces. It is a good way of becoming a more traditional size.

Strix and the other races with wings still have to take the right ancestry feat to get flight. So don't expect that you will get that. But its a cool look anyway.

[Karana Wonapalei]

Well, I don’t expect it, but it wouldn’t be terribly unbalanced. Druids can become tiny, can fly, and can sprout functioning wings from their backs (wild morph + soaring shape).

I mean… playing a sprite would obviously be the best way to be a sprite. I just hope someone from Paizo considers this. I know the Starfinder game I’m in keeps getting updates that occasionally give my Solarian character new options to consider. Same with some of the newer PF1 classes—there are a lot of superheroic vigilante talents that did not exist last time I leveled!

I’m sure PF2 will have new feats, and since Wild Morph + Soaring Shape basically lets you become a fairy for a minute (especially if the GM allows wild morph to work while under the shrink effect), this would not really change the Druid’s ability so much as improve it (one spell, Form Control).

But the rules are what Paizo says they are, so I’m not arguing that they should be what I want. I’m just tossing this idea out there in the hope that Paizo developers see this and do as they will with this info.

[HumbleGamer]

I'd really like to read something about the sanctuary spell.

Currently, as it is written, it's a lvl 1 spell which prevents any aoe.

Given the current spell balance ( regardless the tradition or the level ), it seems definitely off ( the way it is written makes it more powerful than a lvl 5 spell ).

Quote:

You ward a creature with protective energy that deters enemy attacks. Creatures attempting to attack the target must attempt a Will save each time. If the target uses a hostile action, the spell ends.

I suspect that with "attacks" Paizo meant to say "Attacks ( or even physical attacks ) which target only the creature with sanctuary ( so it wouldn't be affected by aoe, and maybe even cleave physical attacks, in any way )".

Since it's lvl 1 spell which is pretty used, some clarification would really come in handy.

Thanks for reading.

[Cordell Kintner]

HumbleGamer wrote:

I'd really like to read something about the sanctuary spell.

Currently, as it is written, it's a lvl 1 spell which prevents any aoe.

Given the current spell balance ( regardless the tradition or the level ), it seems definitely off ( the way it is written makes it more powerful than a lvl 5 spell ).

Quote:

You ward a creature with protective energy that deters enemy attacks. Creatures attempting to attack the target must attempt a Will save each time. If the target uses a hostile action, the spell ends.

I suspect that with "attacks" Paizo meant to say "Attacks ( or even physical attacks ) which target only the creature with sanctuary ( so it wouldn't be affected by aoe, and maybe even cleave physical attacks, in any way )".

Since it's lvl 1 spell which is pretty used, some clarification would really come in handy.

Thanks for reading.

I've had GMs take the word "attack" literally, here's a case I experienced with Sanctuary.

I had it on my familiar and the enemy Commanded it to fly away (I was using it as an orbital cannon with Familiar Conduit). While the effect wasn't damaging to the familiar, it was definitely hostile. But was it an "attack" like the spell says? These are the questions we would like answered by the devs.

Also I would like to make sure I am using Familiar Conduit correctly with Sanctuary. The familiar is only hovering there, so I should be able to cast spells through it without breaking sanctuary right?

[Gortle]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

I've had GMs take the word "attack" literally, here's a case I experienced with Sanctuary.

I had it on my familiar and the enemy Commanded it to fly away (I was using it as an orbital cannon with Familiar Conduit). While the effect wasn't damaging to the familiar, it was definitely hostile. But was it an "attack" like the spell says? These are the questions we would like answered by the devs.

Really? Come on we were just discussing it over here

The terms hostile and attack are defined specifically in PF2 and are different.

Yes the it is possible to read the definition for attack more broadly. Just don't please. It will give you all sorts of headaches. Attack in PF2 is "anything with an attack roll or the attack trait". A Fireball is hostile but not an attack. Yes there is a reading in natural English, where attack means any hostile action, but it is also reasonable to use attack in the context of strikes and not more broadly. Context matters. It always has in English. This is what it is in PF2.

If attack meant hostile action there would be no reason to define hostile action separately.

Yes Paizo should be crystal clear. But if you think through the consequences, it is clear as to what the rule means.

[Cordell Kintner]

Gortle wrote:

Really? Come on we were just discussing it over here

Yes, which is why we're asking for clarification in the thread designated for asking for clarification...

Is "attack" meant for anything that targets the creature, or literally just Attack actions. We can discuss it over in that thread but here it should just be the question for clarification and that's it.

[HumbleGamer]

Gortle wrote:

Yes Paizo should be crystal clear. But if you think through the consequences, it is clear as to what the rule means.

Point is, in my opinion, it doesn't really fit in a spell repertoire like the one provided by this 2e.

To think that, for example, a dragon ( but it could have also been a fireball wizard ) had to roll against the sanctuary to even cast its breath on the party is, in my opinion, ridiculous:

- because of the situation ( a silly one ).
- because of the fact it's a lvl 1 spell ( There's nothing this powerful in this 2e ).
- and because of fact it allows the caster to split the party in half by simply staying in the middle reducing the aoe damage ( which leads to the previous point ).
- because they simplified the mechanics ( Check the area > Cast > Roll damage/hit/saves ), I find odd that you have do deal with stuff like this ( Before you cast any aoe check if you can do that by beating the healer spell DC. If you can't you have to move your aoe in order not to hit him ).

Anyway, since it's a spell which is used plenty of times, and most important it's lvl 1 spell available since the beginning of any adventure, it would be just nice to have a word from the staff ( but it's like anything else in this thread ).

[Gortle]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Really? Come on we were just discussing it over here

Yes, which is why we're asking for clarification in the thread designated for asking for clarification...

Is "attack" meant for anything that targets the creature, or literally just Attack actions. We can discuss it over in that thread but here it should just be the question for clarification and that's it.

So do they actually answer anything on on twitch as promised? All I can see are product announcements?

Is there a transcript we can search?

[Quandary]

They are going to need one long stream to answer all the questions backed up in this thread.

Seriously, if expectations changed since they started this, they should make that clear so thread can be closed if appropriate.
Letting it stick around when the original premise is no longer true just seems misleading and unconstructive.

[Lucerious]

I have checked this thread several times as well to NOT see any follow-up from the devs. Covid is a legitimate excuse as to why there are so many delays and lack of answers, but I know my patience is starting to run thin regardless. A few simple answers can still be offered without having the complete finalized version of errata completed.

Theory-crafting is great, but some direct and final answers from those who wrote the rules here would be wonderful. And if there is to be a new stream, then please send the link.

[Asethe]

Lucerious wrote:

I have checked this thread several times as well to NOT see any follow-up from the devs. Covid is a legitimate excuse as to why there are so many delays and lack of answers, but I know my patience is starting to run thin regardless. A few simple answers can still be offered without having the complete finalized version of errata completed.

Theory-crafting is great, but some direct and final answers from those who wrote the rules here would be wonderful. And if there is to be a new stream, then please send the link.

AFAIR they never answered rules questions that already didn't have an obvious answer on the stream, but did answer lore and world setting questions as Payton was joined by James Jacobs for the weekly sessions.

The last stream was just before Christmas, and Payton left the company in January, and there hasn't been a weekly stream since, so this thread is mostly just for community help, and has been for some time.

[SteelfireX]

Is there anywhere to give feedback, contact the Devs etc.? I'm playing a Druid and I find it very annoying that I can't speak, cast spells, or take manipulate actions in Humanoid Form. It makes it a useless feat to take. And why can't I speak in Dragon Form or Elemental Form?

Have they stated any intention to Errata this?

[Nefreet]

Each product has a Discussion thread where you can comment, report typos or point out problematic features.

The Designers also do Q&A sessions at many of the Conventions, as well as the occasional livestream.

But they generally don't have much time to engage in direct discussion here (and it's probably better that they use that time to develop more content anyways).

[Nefreet]

SteelfireX wrote:

I find it very annoying that I can't ... take manipulate actions in Humanoid Form.

Humanoid Form is not a Battle Form, so you can perform Manipulate actions just fine. The spell even specifically tells us you can use your gear.

[SteelfireX]

Nefreet wrote:

SteelfireX wrote:

I find it very annoying that I can't ... take manipulate actions in Humanoid Form.

Humanoid Form is not a Battle Form, so you can perform Manipulate actions just fine. The spell even specifically tells us you can use your gear.

Thank you! I thought it meant all polymorph spells are Battle Forms. It would've been helpful if there was a trait that indicated it or something but I see now that many of the form spells say "battle form" somewhere within the spell.

[HumbleGamer]

Is it known why they decided to get rid of the faq button ( I heard there was once, wasn't it? )

[Nefreet]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Is it known why they decided to get rid of the faq button

Schrodinger's FAQ: we're not sure if that's a frequently asked question because there's no FAQ button to find out.

[Gortle]

Nefreet wrote:

But they generally don't have much time to engage in direct discussion here (and it's probably better that they use that time to develop more content anyways).

As long as someone was occasionally addressing a few key issues I would agree with you.

Hmm.

[Unicore]

Devs answer lore and adventure design questions in product specific threads, because there is usually one person directing that product and the word of Dev only effects how players use that specific product. Even then, people can walk away making assumptions about the larger world that can be dangerous, so it is usually on a director to make calls about answering questions that are not process questions for specific writers.

Rules interpretation statements are much more tricky because rules changes can take time and saying “it works this way for now, but is under review” is about the quickest way to get players at each other’s throats arguing for their interpretation. It seems like a “don’t discuss game rules on the internet” is a general company policy outside off maybe saying, this is how I run this at my specific table...until an official errata is released.

[Gortle]

To be fair to Paizo, there are a number of rules clarifications that have been made. Obviously the Online Errata, but also Pathfinder Society has some not technically Paizo offical for home games but good enough for most of us rulings here, right at the bottom. These are also online in the Archives of Nethys already.

Its just that the majority of these are simple fixes. Someone in this list normally provides that answer if you ask about it. The broader rules questions like say the Battle Form problems have never been addressed. Despite being clearly an issue from the very beginning.

[Dr A Gon]

Is the Phistophilus missing Athletics? EDIT: It has neither Acrobatics nor Athletics.

Bestiary page 90

https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=112

[Orkilo Stoneheart]

This one should be a quicky, as it came up in a PFS game I played the other day.

With a Cavalier's "Impressive Mount" Feat (and similar feats for Mounted animal companions), is the Mature Animal Companion still able to take the free action when not commanded if it's still mounted? The Mounted Combat rules on page 478 seem to indicate no, but the Feat itself runs contrary to that.

[Sandslice]

Orkilo Stoneheart wrote:

This one should be a quicky, as it came up in a PFS game I played the other day.

With a Cavalier's "Impressive Mount" Feat (and similar feats for Mounted animal companions), is the Mature Animal Companion still able to take the free action when not commanded if it's still mounted? The Mounted Combat rules on page 478 seem to indicate no, but the Feat itself runs contrary to that.

In short, yes, your impressive mount can Stride or Strike even if not commanded.

The general rule for mounted combat follows the general rule for animal handling: for each successful Command an Animal action, the animal can act once.

Impressive Mount creates a specific exception: if you do not Command your mount, your mount still gets one action for Stride or Strike.

[Vel Cheran]

I have a question regarding Arcane Tattoos: it offers innate spells to any character who chooses it, but some of these spells needs to know the main incantation caracteristic of the character. Which one should be used then?

For example, if I choose Arcane Tattoos for a Barbarian, I really don't know if I should use Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma for his innate spells. I guess Charisma would make more sense as it's historically what was used for innate magic but I'm not fully convinced.

[Sandslice]

Vel Cheran wrote:

I have a question regarding Arcane Tattoos: it offers innate spells to any character who chooses it, but some of these spells needs to know the main incantation caracteristic of the character. Which one should be used then?

For example, if I choose Arcane Tattoos for a Barbarian, I really don't know if I should use Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma for his innate spells. I guess Charisma would make more sense as it's historically what was used for innate magic but I'm not fully convinced.

Charisma, by general rule, unless something tells you otherwise; the spell tradition does not matter.

[Falgaia]

I have a question that is likely errata-worthy. The Vigilante Archetype's Quick Change feat is available for access at 7th level with the requirement that the player must have a Master Proficiency in Deception to acquire it. This implies the feat would have the Skill trait, as most Skill Feats at Level 7 share these traits, and yet the feat does not have the Skill trait. Assuming the lack of Skill trait is correct, there would be no mechanical way to take the feat at Level 7 when access to it is unlocked, as Class feats are acquired at even levels. So, was this feat meant to have the skill trait, or was it intended to be a Level 8 feat?