But to give you a clear idea of the problems with PF2 have a look at the Animal Companion Crocodile
Is this introducing a new mechanism for something called "latch", is this a modifier for a normal "grab", or is this just descriptive text and a normal "grab"
Justify your decision. Some sections of PF2 are just a rules nightmare.
But to give you a clear idea of the problems with PF2 have a look at the Animal Companion Crocodile
Is this introducing a new mechanism for something called "latch", is this a modifier for a normal "grab", or is this just descriptive text and a normal "grab"
Justify your decision. Some sections of PF2 are just a rules nightmare.
The advanced maneuver is weird too since you can’t technically have anyone grabbed and latched doesn’t even operate like grabbed does. If the advanced maneuver referenced a latched target that might make more sense but even then not sure how you make a strike against a latched target if you can’t use your jaws to strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this introducing a new mechanism for something called "latch", is this a modifier for a normal "grab", or is this just descriptive text and a normal "grab"
It's obviously neither. Latch doesn't mention grab and functions absolutely nothing like grab. There's nothing to even suggest it has anything to do with grabbing a target.
Some sections of PF2 are just a rules nightmare.
While I definitely agree generally, the problem you have here seems to be an invented one because, again, the ability has nothing at all to do with grab.
I assure you that many players will read it as natural English (as the writers say to) and equate "latch" to "grab" and keep going....
Despite what you say it certainly seems the most natural reading. To say a new player picking up the book without any context.
Anyway instant rules argument and there are plenty more of these.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a new player who should know they lack context argue rather than discuss? They should accept that they've learned something new when corrected and move on, possibly with an alteration to their character plans. Hopefully they're smart enough to see that "grabbed" has an entry w/ an explanation and "latched" doesn't reference that.
Any "instant rules argument" sounds like a problem of personality more than in Paizo's phrasing. While there are some wiggly spots in PF2, I'd hardly call areas easily adjudicated by a GM "a rules nightmare".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assure you that many players will read it as natural English (as the writers say to) and equate "latch" to "grab" and keep going....
I disagree with the first part. Anecdotally, you're the only person I've seen think that ability has anything to do with grappling. The idea that the two are equivalent hasn't even been on the table for anyone I've talked to, including new people. There isn't really a "natural language" argument here.
Moreover when you "keep going" and read the rest of the ability it's pretty easy to see that latch has its own mechanics that function nothing at all like grabbing does.
I mean for one, a grabbed creature is immobilized, yet the crocodile support ability makes it explicitly clear that the affected creature absolutely isn't immobilized.
If you're confused about how the ability works fair enough, but a thorough reading makes it pretty clear that it has nothing to do with the grab condition.
If you're confused about how the ability works fair enough, but a thorough reading makes it pretty clear that it has nothing to do with the grab condition.
I not really going to disagree. I could see the differences very clearly before I brought it up here. Its just that the animal has all these abilities around "latch" which is apparently a new condition/action and then it gives them a separate advanced ability that relies on "grab". Which is a very closely related ability. In words explain to me narratively what "latch" means that is different to "grab" - exactly how is the small crocodile doing it any different? He is not.
Can you not see how different people are just going to ignore the differences in those terms? In different ways? Can you not see how some people will see it as entirely illogical?
I do appreciate that it is a skill trying to understand how someone else can read a passage differently.
If Paizo is going to do this sort of thing then they need to make it very clear and explicit.
...
It requires that the Crocodile has a creature grabbed but the poor croc doesn't have any abilities to let it Grab said creature.
...
Any monster can grab another creature:
Grab universal monster abilityThe support benefit of a small crocodile is the free movement. The croc gains size with levels, as any companion.
If the support benefit would also make the creature the croc is latched onto be flat-footed, it would be good, I think. It would also make it more clear that latched is not grabbed.
errr that just explains what the "Grab" ability seen in various different monsters does.Read carefully:
Requirements The monster's last action was a success with a Strike that lists Grab in its damage entry, .
You don't just get the Grab action though, that's only something certain creatures get.
The last line just allows them to continue grabbing something once it is already grabbed.
You still need to have the actual Grab ability listed on the person, it's not a blanket general action.
Right. damn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's true every creature doesn't have the Grab special monster attack, every creature with a physical body is capable of making an Athletics check to perform a Grapple (even if untrained in Athletics).
After reading both the Crocodile monster entry and the Crocodile animal companion entries, I don't believe latch has anything to do with Grab or Grapple. It just sounds like fluff for being able to automatically follow the target around while debuffing it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's true every creature doesn't have the Grab special monster attack, every creature with a physical body is capable of making an Athletics check to perform a Grapple (even if untrained in Athletics).
After reading both the Crocodile monster entry and the Crocodile animal companion entries, I don't believe latch has anything to do with Grab or Grapple. It just sounds like fluff for being able to automatically follow the target around while debuffing it.
Which I think is pretty damning of Battleforms when you consider a Bear is allowed to Grapple something, a person is allowed to grapple something, but when a person uses magic to turn into a bear they are not allowed to grapple something.
Pretty head scratching.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's true every creature doesn't have the Grab special monster attack, every creature with a physical body is capable of making an Athletics check to perform a Grapple (even if untrained in Athletics).
After reading both the Crocodile monster entry and the Crocodile animal companion entries, I don't believe latch has anything to do with Grab or Grapple. It just sounds like fluff for being able to automatically follow the target around while debuffing it.
Yup you have it right. Latch is just descriptive text explaining a bespoke mechanic to the support action.
The crocodile animal companion needs to have made a grapple check to qualify for death roll however, some GMs might say because it doesn't have a free hand this cannot happen. I highly recommend leaving those games though.
...
It requires that the Crocodile has a creature grabbed but the poor croc doesn't have any abilities to let it Grab said creature.
...The support benefit of a small crocodile is the free movement. The croc gains size with levels, as any companion.
This is still true, at least. And maybe I'm missing a dumb rule somewhere (not counting "you need a free hand" because come on, you know in your heart that's silly), but I'm not seeing much that suggests animal companions can't use the actions for that Athletics skill they're all trained in. Base Command An Animal doesn't restrict to the basic actions it lists, and tripping or grappling or escaping don't require intellect, along with animal companion rules suggesting CAA's effects and restrictions are replaced to some extent anyway.
They won't be terribly good at it since they only become an expert in Athletics when they grow to be savage, but I think crocodile companions can just try to grapple normally when you command them, and death roll if they manage it, since the jaws restriction only applies to the support effect. (They are units and have long tails, I assume they just give a big croccy hug.) The support action is just to save the companion movement, debuff the movement of the target, and give you an excuse to make cartoon CHOMP! noises. I can see where the confusion might come from, but reading the support action closely makes it pretty clear that it's not related to the grapple maneuver or being grabbed at all, and the ability to grapple separately helps make sense of the advanced maneuver.
(Again, assuming I'm right. And if I'm not right I should be! Let animals wrestle ! Three other people ninja'd me because my phone died at 13% while writing this post but oh well!)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything in the rules saying animal companions don't have hands. I mean, clearly they don't, but if you're going to go strict RAW to the point that a crocodile needs a free hand to grapple, you'd also need a citation for them not having them, or they do.
I mean, we've already deserted any semblance of actual logic at that point, so I'm gonna need an explicit rules reference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about the Snake or the Shark? Do we need a rule to say they don't have free hands?
Yep we are way past most people's tolerance for rules insanity.
I don't see anything in the rules saying animal companions don't have hands. I mean, clearly they don't, but if you're going to go strict RAW to the point that a crocodile needs a free hand to grapple, you'd also need a citation for them not having them, or they do.
I mean, we've already deserted any semblance of actual logic at that point, so I'm gonna need an explicit rules reference.
Thing is we can't just throw out that words mean nothing in general, which is what requires Crocodiles to have hands.
If the logic of them not having hands doesn't apply, then PCs could just as easily claim they have feet that are hands, because nothing specifically states a PC only has 2 hands or that feet can't be hands.
Even though I'm sure you were being tongue in cheek, saying that a Crocodile doesn't say it doesn't have hands as a reason that they do indeed have hands has far reaching implications than just the crocodile (since PCs could then claim to have infinite "hands" since hands aren't literally defined anywhere).
Most of this all boils down to "yeah GMs are just going to have to make these calls" which isn't the most satisfying answer but I could see it.
To me, saying a Crocodile can't perform a Disarm seems reasonable. Saying that can't Grapple does not. Shove seems like it would be difficult for a Crocodile to do (though idk maybe) but easy for an Ox/Reindeer to do.
The bigger issue I have with that is the level of table variation that goes into the power of the individual animals then, but maybe it's a non-issue.
To me, saying a Crocodile can't perform a Disarm seems reasonable. Saying that can't Grapple does not. Shove seems like it would be difficult for a Crocodile to do
Probably fair
The bigger issue I have with that is the level of table variation that goes into the power of the individual animals then, but maybe it's a non-issue.
Home games will sort this out fine. But PFS or other public games it is going to have huge variation.
My point is that it is an obvious problem. Right up there with Battle Forms having Athletics scores and not being able to use most Athletics checks as they are attacks. Crocodile was just a good example because the latch/grab confusion is obvious all in the one place in the text.
It needs to be errated or have an official clarification.
For the record my suggested fix for Crocodile would be adding this line to the top
Latched is not the same as grabbed
Modify the condition for the Death Roll.
Death Roll Single Action
Source Advanced Player's Guide pg. 145
Requirements The crocodile has a creature grabbed or is latched on to it.
Add a general rule somewhere
Non humanoid creatures do not need to met the requirement to have a free hand to grapple or make any other Athletics checks. Though the GM is still free to rule a particular maneuver is not practical for certain creatures. For example, maybe Elephants can't Jump or Snakes can't Shove.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even though I'm sure you were being tongue in cheek, saying that a Crocodile doesn't say it doesn't have hands as a reason that they do indeed have hands has far reaching implications than just the crocodile (since PCs could then claim to have infinite "hands" since hands aren't literally defined anywhere).
That was sort of my point in some ways. If RAW results in nonsensical things, then clearly the RAW is wrong.
To me, saying a Crocodile can't perform a Disarm seems reasonable. Saying that can't Grapple does not. Shove seems like it would be difficult for a Crocodile to do (though idk maybe) but easy for an Ox/Reindeer to do.
Facing isn't a thing, so a crocodile using a tail slap to shove makes sense to me. As does animals disarming, frankly. They can bite or hit the hand holding the weapon as easily as anyone, and that's what most disarms amount to.
Really, I see no particular logic to restricting maneuvers based on something as abstracted by the rules as body type.
Even though I'm sure you were being tongue in cheek, saying that a Crocodile doesn't say it doesn't have hands as a reason that they do indeed have hands has far reaching implications than just the crocodile (since PCs could then claim to have infinite "hands" since hands aren't literally defined anywhere).That was sort of my point in some ways. If RAW results in nonsensical things, then clearly the RAW is wrong.
To me, saying a Crocodile can't perform a Disarm seems reasonable. Saying that can't Grapple does not. Shove seems like it would be difficult for a Crocodile to do (though idk maybe) but easy for an Ox/Reindeer to do.Facing isn't a thing, so a crocodile using a tail slap to shove makes sense to me. As does animals disarming, frankly. They can bite or hit the hand holding the weapon as easily as anyone, and that's what most disarms amount to.
Really, I see no particular logic to restricting maneuvers based on something as abstracted by the rules as body type.
On the latter point, I mostly agree, a Crocodile grabbing something in its jaws is actually a pretty iconic move.
I was just stating that I could see how certain GMs might rule a maneuvers is "too complex" to perform on some, but I would certainly prefer blanket allowing it to happen as opposed to restricting it based on hands without any use of Athletics maneuvers at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was just stating that I could see how certain GMs might rule a maneuvers is "too complex" to perform on some, but I would certainly prefer blanket allowing it to happen as opposed to restricting it based on hands without any use of Athletics maneuvers at all.
The main issue is they use hands as an action limiter AND as a manipulation requirement with no real way to differentiate the reason for the need for hands.
On the latter point, I mostly agree, a Crocodile grabbing something in its jaws is actually a pretty iconic move.
That's why the monster has Grab on it's bite. If a crocodile could grab without Grab, it could keep biting with it's jaws since it was holding them in it's 'hand'. I think the issue is that the animal companion doesn't have Grab not that it doesn't hand a Hand.
Facing isn't a thing, so a crocodile using a tail slap to shove makes sense to me.
A trip with a slap makes more sense to me than a shove as it's low stance makes a leg attack[trip] more likely than a chest hit [shove]. It might be easier to give monster attacks Weapon Traits for Athletics maneuvers they can do instead of assuming animals have hands for such attacks. For instance, a moose might have a gore with Shove on it
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't remove the whole point of batch crafting. It saves you having to spend 4 days on each potion. Plus, you'll level up in the middle of those 50 days, maybe even twice, which may increase the amount you save, since the savings are checked during the day you spend, not the day you start.
If you level up twice before you can complete an item or batch of items, then said item(s) are likely no longer relevant.
Crafting is a smoke screen hiding the truth that there is no practical crafting in 2E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still feel crafting can be productive, if you pick the right things to craft -- consumables are often good, since you want multiples so you amortize the formula cost. Antiplagues/antivenoms tend to be cheap for the their bonus for instance. A stockpile of a couple of elemental bombs for weakness, if you have the bulk capacity to wear them. (Or just keep a stockpile in a bag of holding and get a chance to scout ahead of time). A lot of the random skill boosters that you don't need immediately and are willing to wait to get -- and these are paced far enough apart that they aren't obsolete if you get them 1-2 levels late. Backup alternate material weapons, often with runes 1-2 steps behind your primary, etc
Never pick something to craft that you want as soon as you could afford it.
This thread is specifically for pointing out issues that are unclear in the current rules and could use a FAQ entry.
That's fair.
It is unclear to me why there is a 4 day minimum time investment no matter what you're crafting. It is unclear to me why there is no practical benefit to crafting to make up for the resource investment.
There should be a FAQ in which developers make their reasoning behind these decisions more clear to those of us who don't understand.
:P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is specifically for pointing out issues that are unclear in the current rules and could use a FAQ entry.That's fair.
It is unclear to me why there is a 4 day minimum time investment no matter what you're crafting. It is unclear to me why there is no practical benefit to crafting to make up for the resource investment.
There should be a FAQ in which developers make their reasoning behind these decisions more clear to those of us who don't understand.
:P
It may be unclear to you *why* that is, but it should be clear *that* it is. Crafting in PF2 clearly requires 4 days lead time, 50% initial investment, and potentially uses your earn income schedule to reduce further costs. That sort of thing doesn't require errata, because it's already clear. We may not agree with the design approach, but it's not ambiguous as such.
Whether or not potions, wands & scrolls require a specific formula for each level of each spell *is* a question which is ambiguous and not sufficiently defined in the CRB (or any later books, AFAICT).
This thread's purpose is not to question "why" a given rule is the way it is. That should be dealt with in a separate thread.
Whether or not potions, wands & scrolls require a specific formula for each level of each spell *is* a question which is ambiguous and not sufficiently defined in the CRB (or any later books, AFAICT).
Indeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the issues I want to see tackled in errata are:
How do runes – particularly property runes – interact with polymorph abilities.
If Spontaneous casters can use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell, that is NOT a signature spell and that they DO NOT know at the higher level, but without gaining any heightening benefits.
If you need the Magical Crafting feat to transfer runes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Spontaneous casters can use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell, that is NOT a signature spell and that they DO NOT know at the higher level, but without gaining any heightening benefits.
From the Sorcerer class :
"You can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell level."
So, no you cannot use 2nd-level spell slots to cast 1st-level spells.
Another thing I'd like clarified: What happens if a creature is immune to a critical failure effect, but not to the normal failure of something, and they get a critfail. Happened when a Rogue hit a ghast that was immune to paralysis with a Critical Debilitation. Feels awful that a creature rolls a 1 and it ends up being much better than rolling a normal failure.
Another thing I'd like clarified: What happens if a creature is immune to a critical failure effect, but not to the normal failure of something, and they get a critfail. Happened when a Rogue hit a ghast that was immune to paralysis with a Critical Debilitation. Feels awful that a creature rolls a 1 and it ends up being much better than rolling a normal failure.
You've answered your own question at the end there.
If some mechanic feels that wrong, the GM should step in, and the rules say as much. RAW says that RAW is no longer king. You're sort of obliged to overrule RAW when it leads to such anomalies.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Spontaneous casters can use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell, that is NOT a signature spell and that they DO NOT know at the higher level, but without gaining any heightening benefits.
From the Sorcerer class :
"You can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell level."
So, no you cannot use 2nd-level spell slots to cast 1st-level spells.
I know we've had other "DEV SAID THIS" comments, but I want to point out two things:
- Appropriate does not mean "the same", appropriate simply means "allowed" so the above text doesn't disqualify below level spells so I dont think the quoted text disqualifies it as simply as you make it out
- Jason actually commented on a Reddit thread that Downcasting was legal (and I'd wager most GM's, myself included, would allow Downcasting).
The argument against downcasting is silly anyways, since it's an arbitrary restriction for Spontaneous casters that non-Spontaneous casters don't even have to deal with.
AKA I know Magic Missile as a 1st level spell and it is not my signature spell. I am all out of 1st level spell slots, but I have 2nd level spell slots. I do not want to cast any of my second level spells, but instead want to cast Magic Missile again. I choose to "downcast" my spell slot as a 1st level spell in order to buy the versatility of using Magic Missile when I otherwise couldn't. It is treated, for all purposes, as a 1st level spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Spontaneous casters can use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell, that is NOT a signature spell and that they DO NOT know at the higher level, but without gaining any heightening benefits.
From the Sorcerer class :
"You can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell level."
So, no you cannot use 2nd-level spell slots to cast 1st-level spells.
I know we've had other "DEV SAID THIS" comments, but I want to point out two things:
- Appropriate does not mean "the same", appropriate simply means "allowed" so the above text doesn't disqualify below level spells so I dont think the quoted text disqualifies it as simply as you make it out
- Jason actually commented on a Reddit thread that Downcasting was legal (and I'd wager most GM's, myself included, would allow Downcasting).
The argument against downcasting is silly anyways, since it's an arbitrary restriction for Spontaneous casters that non-Spontaneous casters don't even have to deal with.
** spoiler omitted **
"An appropriate" CAN be read in a way that allows downcasting, but since it also CAN be read in a way that disallows it, it's not definitive and needs an unambiguous determination. Also, I've read Jason's comment on the reddit thread and (besides the fact that it's not on this website or in an errata or FAQ here) IMO, it doesn't qualify as unambiguous, simply due to how abbreviated it is. We can make assumptions (read: engage in wishful thinking) about how Jason interpreted what the question was asking (and that he was giving the okay on downcasting), but as long as it's at all possible that he interpreted it differently, then it's not good enough.
We need a clear and unambiguous answer to this and we've needed it since this edition launched.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I agree it’s not definitive either way. And honestly it’s such a niche thing I’m not sure it even really needs a hard ruling (most of the time people would just want their higher level spell) but it’d be cool to get one.
I will personally allow downcasting in my games, but it’s never come up thus far anyways shrug
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ask every new GM I play under if they interpret downcasting as being possible.
Speaking of downcasting (which I support too BTW), what is the Counteract Level of a Wish copying any one 7th level Divine spell's effect?
Is it 10, or 7?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of downcasting (which I support too BTW), what is the Counteract Level of a Wish copying any one 7th level Divine spell's effect?
Is it 10, or 7?
It remains a Wish, a 10th level spell, even if using the 7th level spell description to determine what that 10th level spell is doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It remains a Wish, a 10th level spell, even if using the 7th level spell description to determine what that 10th level spell is doing.Speaking of downcasting (which I support too BTW), what is the Counteract Level of a Wish copying any one 7th level Divine spell's effect?
Is it 10, or 7?
I agree with Castilliano. It is a 10th-level spell emulating the effects of a 7th-level spell. In the end, it's still a 10th-level [i]wish[/].