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?
I can almost guarantee that was meant to be a skill feat. There is a thread somewhere in the general category I believe that printing mistakes like this one are posted. I’d suggest adding your comment there.
Here's the RAW for wall of stone: http://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=365
* Can you create a full 6-sided box using wall of stone?
A wall as described in the text of wall of stone requires a definable height and length, with a width of 1 inch throughout, not any shape that fits within a certain area. The reason why a staircase works, for example, is because it does fit those restrictions.
_..|_
.....|_
^ Is just a wall with a few corners on it.
(ignore the periods. They're there for spacing)
BTW, a simple way to determine if something qualifies as a wall based on the definition in the spell is to try to draw it from a certain perspective with a single line. The line can be straight, jagged, curved, etc., but as long as it's possible to draw it with a straight line, then it's a wall. Then, based on the other descriptions, this line can be upto 120ft long, and be oriented anywhere on the 3D grid, with a height (the dimension you can't see, because you're looking straight at it) of upto 20ft.
* Does your wall have to be anchored to anything?
* Can you create a wall in the air? Does it fall if so? How much damage does 120'x20'x1" worth of wall falling on someone do?
Nothing says that it must be anchored / need to not be in the air, and I'd say it's strongly suggested that you very much don't need an anchor, since otherwise stairs built out of a simple wall wouldn't be structurally sound. This also eliminates the need to worry about a falling wall.
* Does every section of the wall actually need to fall on the grid?
* If you make stairs, do the risers for the stairs need to be 5' high?
Technically yes, but that's there more for ease of use. I'm guessing most GMs will be lenient with this as long as it's to make things easier and not harder.
* The rules explicitly mention that you can use the wall to create a bridge or stairs. How does the bridge not collapse on itself?
Magic
Such a weird way to word a spell
Agree to disagree. I think it's worded fine. It seems the biggest source of confusion (which I've heard from a few people) is asking about other shapes like cubes, which only really arises because they go out of their way to say that you can build the wall vertically or horizontally. They could have taken that line out, of course, but then you wouldn't be able to create stairs or bridges with this spell, which is a big deal and, IMO, a huge nerf to it. So, they made it clear that was allowed. They even gave examples of simple shapes that can be made from a wall placed horizontally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the RAW for wall of stone: http://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=365
The rules for Wall of stone are simple, however they are hotly debate because they are interpreted differently by people. There is a balance problem with certain interpretations. I personally have come around to the position that it is a problem if it is used in certain ways.
Go search the forum there is a lot of discusion there.
The bottom line is you are not going to like my answers because I can't be definite about much at all here.
* Can you create a full 6-sided box using wall of stone?
Probably. I would say yes. How much emphasis do you place on the terminology "a wall" ? Some people read that very narrowly and think of a simple plane of 1 inch stone. But the spell goes on to say that you "can shape the wall's path". Is that limited to 2 dimensions?
Not explicitly. PF2 from what I can see doesn't really bother to go into 3 dimensions for most its rules (please correct me if I've missed something here). Yes fireball has an area of effect but the 3 dimensional nature of it is often not explicit. It is just described in a 2-D way, despite having a volume. Most worlds are assumed to have 3 normal spatial dimensions. However a bridge is typically a 3 dimensional structure. As are stairs. Both are explicitly allowed.
However some GMs like to put some sort of sanity limit on the complexity of what you can cast with a single casting of Wall of Stone. It is a summon Wall spell not a summon Citadel spell.
* Does your wall have to be anchored to anything?
Many Earth type effects do need to start from the ground.
Though it is not explicitly stated here, it is a reasonable commonsense position.Personally I do require it to be anchored.
* Can you create a wall in the air? Does it fall if so? How much damage does 120'x20'x1" worth of wall falling on someone do?
Totally unclear. Personally I wouldn't allow it to be created free in the air. Obviously a wall can be destroyed or pushed off a cliff and used in an attack. Your GM is just going to have to make something up. My advice would be to try to find a playable middle ground that is useful but not devastating.
Allowing Wall of Stone to be used as a generic 2 action drop some rocks on people, area of effect attack, is going too far IMHO.
* Does every section of the wall actually need to fall on the grid?
Only for ease of placing it on the map. It is supposed to be built up of 5ft sections.
* The rules explicitly mention that you can use the wall to create a bridge or stairs. How does the bridge not collapse on itself?
I assume it is strong enough. Yes technically it tougher than steel at this point but whatever.
* If you make stairs, do the risers for the stairs need to be 5' high?Such a weird way to word a spell
Not specified, but probably the case that it is 5ft high steps.
I normally just ignore that providing the steps are a simple layout.Yes weird.
Wall of Stone is a problem spell. Just seek clarification from your GM before you learn it and as a GM be consistent.
Hey there. A friend of mine and I were talking about the Champion class in 2e, and he wanted to know if it was possible for there to be a variant of Champion for the other alignments, not just on the Good portion of the Good/Evil axis. I'm asking for him here, mainly because I don't know if it's been answered before, so I thought I'd bring it up to you all. :)
Evil champions currently exist as well. You can see them here Link
Neutral champions don't currently exist (and may not ever, depending on if they can find a good path for them.) Some homebrews exist for them I think?
So I know how in 1e Swift action spells and spell-likes did not provoke, with the idea being that the action was too swift to react to, but does that same logic still apply to 2e if an action that would normally provoke is brought down in action economy to, say, a Free action, such as in the case of the Balor, which can Dispel Magic as a rider effect on an attack for free once per round, though that may be its saving grace as by RAW the mechanics of innate spells means there's nothing about free action spellcasting that removes its components, including the ones that make it provoke.
Logically, since a free action is theoretically even faster than a Swift, this all probably shouldn't be the case, but I can't find any arguments against it in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I know how in 1e Swift action spells and spell-likes did not provoke, with the idea being that the action was too swift to react to, but does that same logic still apply to 2e if an action that would normally provoke is brought down in action economy to, say, a Free action, such as in the case of the Balor, which can Dispel Magic as a rider effect on an attack for free once per round, though that may be its saving grace as by RAW the mechanics of innate spells means there's nothing about free action spellcasting that removes its components, including the ones that make it provoke.
Logically, since a free action is theoretically even faster than a Swift, this all probably shouldn't be the case, but I can't find any arguments against it in the rules.
Nope, there is nothing in the rules that makes a free-action spell remove components or anything else that might cause it to trigger a reaction unless the ability specifically mentions doing so. Moreover, in PF2 reactions aren't triggered by an amount of time doing something, but rather the activity itself, and the character being trained to capitalize on that split second where an opponent's back is turned, they're focused on something else, or in some cases even something as simple as flubbing an attack (critically failing), which is certainly a very small time-frame. Reactions can even be triggered by something done via someone's reaction.
Regarding swift actions: trying to fit PF1 logic into PF2 is a recipe for many rules errors, as the systems are rather different. That being said, there's nothing that says this can't be turned into a homebrew rule that applies to other reactions and free actions, and it really wouldn't change much from a balance perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Soo many DM's get this wrong it drives me crazy, I want a solid answer, please.
Under Barbarian instinct (Giant)
When wielding such a weapon in combat, increase your additional damage from Rage from 2 to 6,Does that mean if I hold a one-handed Large weapon, and a Shield boss or just an empty off-hand, and I hit with anything besides the large weapon, do I add the 6 rage damage to the fist/shield bosse attack?
Technically, that seems to be the case, though I doubt it was the intent. Furthermore, the Specialization ability clearly specifies that the damage bonus is only with the Large weapon. It's not definite proof (since under certain interpretations you could still deal +6 with your shield boss and +10 with your large weapon), but it does kind of hint at the likely intent behind the damage bonuses I think.
Must a player or creature be immediately adjacent to an object or character used for the purpose of providing cover? For example, would a creature in the open have cover from a halfling hiding thirty feet away behind a large tree stump? All the examples that I could find seem to indicate that "behind" includes the meaning of being adjacent to the object/creature providing the cover. Thank you for any clarification that you can provide.
Could you please provide an example in which cover seems to require being adjacent to the relevant object/creature? It's hard to comment on without knowing the reason for that interpretation. The specific examples in the picture show adjacent objects, but those are just meant as examples. The rules themselves (including the explanation in the picture provided) don't mention adjacency at all.
Technically, that seems to be the case, though I doubt it was the intent. Furthermore, the Specialization ability clearly specifies that the damage bonus is only with the Large weapon. It's not definite proof (since under certain interpretations you could still deal +6 with your shield boss and +10 with your large weapon), but it does kind of hint at the likely intent behind the damage bonuses I think.Soo many DM's get this wrong it drives me crazy, I want a solid answer, please.
Under Barbarian instinct (Giant)
When wielding such a weapon in combat, increase your additional damage from Rage from 2 to 6,Does that mean if I hold a one-handed Large weapon, and a Shield boss or just an empty off-hand, and I hit with anything besides the large weapon, do I add the 6 rage damage to the fist/shield bosse attack?
Wielding is not exactly Striking, so technically no.
There is no need to duplicate this question here. It has its own thread.
Indeed. The purpose of this thread should be to share links to the threads discussing these questions elsewhere.
Note sure how well that would work. At least if you post the question in this thread, whoever might answer it on a Twitch stream (see the first post, which states what the purpose of this thread is) won't have to go link-hopping to get to the actual question.
Also, I don't think this thread should be used to discuss possible answers to the question. That *is* an appropriate topic for other threads.
I have a player who created a Tengu Sorcerer with the Storm's Lash Ancestry Feat (free electric arc primal cantrip). Which ability modifier would I use for this one? Is it the same as her usual spell modifier (Charisma)?
I have a player who created a Tengu Sorcerer with the Storm's Lash Ancestry Feat (free electric arc primal cantrip). Which ability modifier would I use for this one? Is it the same as her usual spell modifier (Charisma)?
Here are the rules on this
You're always trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for your innate spells, even if you aren't otherwise trained in spell attack rolls or spell DCs. If your proficiency in spell attack rolls or spell DCs is expert or better, apply that proficiency to your innate spells, too. You use your Charisma modifier as your spellcasting ability modifier for innate spells unless otherwise specified
I have a player who created a Tengu Sorcerer with the Storm's Lash Ancestry Feat (free electric arc primal cantrip). Which ability modifier would I use for this one? Is it the same as her usual spell modifier (Charisma)?Here are the rules on this
You're always trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for your innate spells, even if you aren't otherwise trained in spell attack rolls or spell DCs. If your proficiency in spell attack rolls or spell DCs is expert or better, apply that proficiency to your innate spells, too. You use your Charisma modifier as your spellcasting ability modifier for innate spells unless otherwise specified
Thanks. I think my confusion was from assuming that certain magic traditions are ability-based (i.e. Arcane would be INT/CHA, Divine would be WIS) as per D&D. I realized earlier today (after I posted my question) that the tradition only really governs what spell list you would use...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a few questions on familiars. I've seen tons of debates on these but never any actual definitive answers.
1) Does valet work with independent? Valet states that when you command your familiar, it uses its two actions to transfer up to two items into your hand as a free action. However, the way it's worded makes it seem sorta vague if the command is required to gain the use of valet, or if it hinges upon your familiar's ability to simply act. Meanwhile Independent refers to Command with a proper noun, referring to the command action, while Valet dose not, which is why there's speculation that Valet's may just more be flavor text.
That all said--I don't feel like one worn item quickdraw a turn is game-breaking (and it's a way to alleviate the terrible action economy woes for non-bomber alchemists), so I feel like there could be intent for them to potentially work together.
2) Can familiars with manual dexterity use and Activate items, magical or mundane? It's stated in the companion item rules that animals can never Activate items, which is a general trait. Familiars are described as (usually) animals that have become something more. If they cannot because they are still animals, then does that mean specific non-animal familiars or leshy familiars can do so? Or does this refer just to companion magic items?
3) Poison reservoir specifies you must have a homunculus familiar. Does this require a specific familiar, or is it a flavorful way to describe an alchemical familiar? Homunculi aren't listed as specific familiars, but also aren't mentioned at all in the Alchemical Familiar feat, so if it's the prior it feels like a weird limitation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a few questions on familiars. I've seen tons of debates on these but never any actual definitive answers.
Sorry but asking it in this list isn't going to remove the debate. So take it under advisement.
1) Does valet work with manual dexterity? Valet states that when you command your familiar, it uses its two actions to transfer up to two items into your hand as a free action. However, the way it's worded makes it seem sorta vague if the command is required to gain the use of valet, or if it hinges upon your familiar's ability to simply act. Meanwhile Independent refers to Command with a proper noun, referring to the command action, while Valet dose not, which is why there's speculation that Valet's may just more be flavor text.
That all said--I don't feel like one worn item quickdraw a turn is game-breaking (and it's a way to alleviate the terrible action economy woes for non-bomber alchemists), so I feel like the intent was for them to potentially work together.
I believe it works because specific overrides general. It should work and it doesn't break the game. Basically because the contrary argument is applying a general rule to essentially water down Independent into near uselessness. Exactly the same rules problem occurs with Cavalier Impressive Mount and Command an Animal, its just clearer that is works there. Its not game breaking it is supposed to work.
Lots of people disagree. Go find one of those threads to resurrect the chat in if you want.
2) Can familiars with manual dexterity use and Activate items, magical or mundane? It's stated in the companion item rules that animals can never Activate items, which is a general trait. Familiars are described as (usually) animals that have become something more. If they cannot because they are still animals, then does that mean specific non-animal familiars or leshy familiars can do so? Or does this refer just to companion magic items?
The companion item rules say: You might want to acquire items that benefit an animal or beast that assists you. These items have the companion trait, meaning they function only for animal companions, familiars, and similar creatures. Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items can qualify, at the GM's discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item
Familiars are described as animals. But there are several that are clearly not such as the Leshy Familiar and the Kitsune Star Orb. You can argue a Lesy is animal-like, but its a plant. A Star Orb is clearly a rock, not an animal. An Alchemical Familiar is clearly something else altogether
The item companion item rules probably apply to these as they are still familiars, these are the only items a companion can use catches them as the rules section sort of defines the term companion as animal companions, familiars, and similar creatures. Handing over a magic item is not activating it. I'd need to see a familiar ability that explicitly allows item activation, to allow a familiar to activate an item.
However some of the familiar rules specifically mention just animal. For example If your familiar is an animal that naturally has one of these abilities (for instance, an owl has a fly Speed), you must select that ability. GMs are going to be split on this one too. But Leshy and Star Orbs don't have any natural abilities. Innate Surge is a Master ability as well? Are your forced to choose that? Probably not. An Alchemical Familiar clearly doesn't have any natural abilities. Minor points but I think it is too hard to stick this rule to non animal familiars. So I let them have this small advantage.
3) Poison reservoir specifies you must have a homunculus familiar. Does this require a specific familiar, or is it a flavorful way to describe an alchemical familiar? Homunculi aren't listed as specific familiars, but also aren't mentioned at all in the Alchemical Familiar feat, so if it's the prior it feels like a weird limitation.
I see them as two names for the same thing. Homunculi is just the bestiary entry for an Alchemical Familiar.
But opinions will be divided on this.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a few questions on familiars.
#1 IMO, no. Valet specifically only works when you command it and independent only works when it's not commanded. As such, they are fundamentally incompatible.
#2 Only companion item IMO.
#3 *shrugs shoulders* There is currently no possible way to gain a homunculus familiar so as written, you can never take that ability. As such, it's up to every DM to allow it or not and if they do what limitations there is on it.
Huh, that's very strange. I wonder what the intent for poison reservoir is. It doesn't make sense to call out twice that the ability is meant for homunculi if it's just supposed to be a flavor thing, but it doesn't make sense for Paizo to publish an ability no one can qualify for either.
Familiars are just bundles of flavor anyhow, right? A rat familiar is mechanically no different than a cat familiar. Just call it a homonculous and I think you're golden.
Short of homonculi appearing in the upcoming Secrets of Magic, it makes a lot more sense than believing the designers put in an ability nobody could ever use anyways.
|
I guarantee that "Homonculus" familiar was an oversight whereby the Alchemist Familiar was supposed to have this specific name/type but that somehow got cut or changed while the Poison reservoir never got revised. That's not a RAW answer really, but to me it seems like the clear and obvious explanation of why this problem exists in the first place.
Familiars are just bundles of flavor anyhow, right? A rat familiar is mechanically no different than a cat familiar. Just call it a homonculous and I think you're golden.
For the most part, though a rat familiar can't learn to speak with cats or vice versa. The rules also go out of their way to say the default familiar is an animal unless the ability specifies otherwise, not a construct like a homunculus. I don't know why Paizo chose to do that considering how nebulous familiars are otherwise, but it's a thing.
I guarantee that "Homonculus" familiar was an oversight whereby the Alchemist Familiar was supposed to have this specific name/type but that somehow got cut or changed while the Poison reservoir never got revised. That's not a RAW answer really, but to me it seems like the clear and obvious explanation of why this problem exists in the first place.
This definitely makes the most sense to me though as far as what was probably intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but asking it in this list isn't going to remove the debate.
Yeah, hence why I'm kinda hoping that Paizo staff might see the question and answer it in stream (assuming they still do that), as the threads I've seen just run in circles endlessly and can get pretty heated. I feel like the familiars need a bit of an errata just for clarity's sake.
Until it gets any official clarification, it's probably gonna just be up to GM interpretation from table to table. I know that regardless of public consensus, in the games I'm in the GM's allowing for the added flexibility, just cause item management is kinda painful otherwise for Alchemists if you're not focusing on bombs. It doesn't feel like it's upset any balance yet.
I appreciate people giving their thoughts on the questions though.
^ Noble goal, but unfortunately Paizo has already made clear they aren't answering public questions in a stream like they originally intended and publicized when this thread was created. Inexplicably, they don't lock this thread even when people suggest that, despite admitting they don't plan to repond to topics raised here.
It seems some of your questions have been answered by other posters, but question would be why they need be posted here, as opposed to more topically focused threads. If you can find existing threads via forum search then great, and in many cases you can find that somebody already anwered your question, or if it hasn't been discussed yet you can create new thread. And Paizo developer staff do read the rules discussions, so the extent they are interested in addresing an issue in future Errata/FAQ, it's not particularly necessary to post here as opposed to normal rules threads.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Familiars are just bundles of flavor anyhow, right?
No, not when Specific Familiars are a thing that are by definition specific and defined: homunculus sounds like one of those more than the traditional animal based "bundles of flavor" the base familiars are.
I guarantee that "Homonculus" familiar was an oversight whereby the Alchemist Familiar was supposed to have this specific name/type but that somehow got cut or changed while the Poison reservoir never got revised. That's not a RAW answer really, but to me it seems like the clear and obvious explanation of why this problem exists in the first place.
Plausible enough and might be correct: Maybe we'll see something for it when the book gets errata.
^ Noble goal, but unfortunately Paizo has already made clear they aren't answering public questions in a stream like they originally intended and publicized when this thread was created. Inexplicably, they don't lock this thread even when people suggest that, despite admitting they don't plan to repond to topics raised here.
It seems some of your questions have been answered by other posters, but question would be why they need be posted here, as opposed to more topically focused threads. If you can find existing threads via forum search then great, and in many cases you can find that somebody already anwered your question, or if it hasn't been discussed yet you can create new thread. And Paizo developer staff do read the rules discussions, so the extent they are interested in addresing an issue in future Errata/FAQ, it's not particularly necessary to post here as opposed to normal rules threads.
Good to know, tbh this was my first time posting to the forums so I didn't know the history of this thread. I had searched and seen a few other posts on these topics, but as they didn't reach conclusions, and with the assumption Paizo was still reading this pinned post it felt fitting to ask here. None of the threads I saw came to a consensus on most of these questions so 'answered' kinda gets a bit subjective, plus I didn't wanna necro threads that had a lot of heated discussion. Making yet another thread entirely for it feels redundant as a result.
At the very least, my table knows how we plan to rule on each of these questions, but it would be nice to get some sort of official clarification. Maybe if they ever do live QnA's as part of their streams I might be able to catch one of those to ask something, though I'm not up to speed on most social media stuff from Paizo so I dunno if they even do that.
Plausible enough and might be correct: Maybe we'll see something for it when the book gets errata.
Is the APG slated to get an errata? If that's the case then I have a feeling all these questions will be answered when that releases.
Is the APG slated to get an errata?
There is almost always some kind of errata when the books get reprints, even if it's the off spelling errors and since it's a core book it's inevitable that it'll get a reprint: now no one knows how many, if any, rules issues will get looked at at that time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a critical success/failure effect in action battle medicine?
According to the rules of success and failure, if it is not written in the talent/action/magic, the successes and critical failures do not occur, they are only considered success and failure.
"If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead." CRB446
Since battle medicine is very detailed about what is and is not similar to the treat wound action (DC used, difficulty increase, immunity, hands, actions, effects) the omission left this doubt in the air. Unless you treat the action that the feat provides like treating wounds, which doesn't seem to be the intent, critical effects shouldn't occur with battle medicine.
Remember "Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is." CRB444
Is there a critical success/failure effect in action battle medicine?
Yes, I believe there is.
But I could be wrong. ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP;"
I'd argue "the corresponding amount of HP" includes the amount of HP gained on a critical success/failure. But I can definitely see, given the weird way Battle Medicine is written, how we may need some clarification on it.
"Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP;"
I'd argue "the corresponding amount of HP" includes the amount of HP gained on a critical success/failure. But I can definitely see, given the weird way Battle Medicine is written, how we may need some clarification on it.
"the corresponding amount of HP" could be only a reference of adjust for incresead amount of healing for high DC.
This feat is very strange and they didn't clarify why they did it like that. Someday we discover or not.
Is there a way for a 2E spellcaster to cast two two-action spells in the same round? Haste won't work, as it doesn't apply to spellcasting.
yeah.
|
Is there a way for a 2E spellcaster to cast two two-action spells in the same round? Haste won't work, as it doesn't apply to spellcasting.
Time Stop allows you to cast up to 9 actions in chunks of 3.
But there is a reason it is a level 10 spell and it has restrictions in regard to interact with others
Bestiary 2 question: the Spark Bat has an ability called Arc Lightning which it can use to get around, but there's no action glyph in its description. What is it supposed to be?
It's a move action, so by default would use one action per use.