| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=353
"Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise refer to an ally. This must be someone on your side, often another PC, but it might be a bystander you are trying to protect. You are not your own ally. If it isn’t clear, the GM decides who counts as an ally or an enemy."
Yeah, big change from PF1, in general and by default you do NOT qualify as your own ally. I think Paizo learned their lesson from shenanigans in PF1 and realized it would be better to not allow you to be your own ally in the first place rather than have to implement all sorts of restrictive language to stop shenanigans.
Yeah but now that you are not your own ally can you hit yourself for 1d4 with the second strike of a flurry to target yourself with a spell storing weapon?
It's not good, but it's certainly shenanigans.
Yeah but now that you are not your own ally can you hit yourself for 1d4 with the second strike of a flurry to target yourself with a spell storing weapon?
It's not good, but it's certainly shenanigans.
Whether you could or not was probably at the discretion of your GM in the first place.
I would have said no in PF1, and continue to say no in PF2.
You could do that anyway, regardless of whether or not you're on own ally. Spell Storing only cares that you hit a creature.
yes but hit is a keyword related to the strike action, the question wasn't can you hurt yourself with a dagger but is that a strike
Anyway it's a lot less exploitable in PF2 because you need to hit yourself and then use an action to activate the spell which breaks even with the two action max for the spell unless you're using a flurry (but then your flurry is a regular attack so you've hit yourself for a very marginal time gain).
The PF1 exploit used a bloodrager archetype to do it as a swift action, that was definitely something.
You could do that anyway, regardless of whether or not you're on own ally. Spell Storing only cares that you hit a creature.yes but hit is a keyword related to the strike action, the question wasn't can you hurt yourself with a dagger but is that a strike
Anyway it's a lot less exploitable in PF2 because you need to hit yourself and then use an action to activate the spell which breaks even with the two action max for the spell unless you're using a flurry (but then your flurry is a regular attack so you've hit yourself for a very marginal time gain).
The PF1 exploit used a bloodrager archetype to do it as a swift action, that was definitely something.
Even if you lessen the damage to its minimum (one's lowest unarmed attack most likely, or a weenie weapon if using Handwraps), there's still the static bonuses if making a Strike. That'll hurt, that is if you even hit being as you're Striking, not just touching.
Really not seeing how defining "ally" either way would make any of that more or less exploitable.The problem was PF1 (and its predecessors) wavered back and forth on what "ally" meant before settling on "this includes you" leading to much confusion with all the baggage. PF2 started fresh, likely finding it simpler to say "allies and you" rather than "allies except you" (in the inverse situation of course). Given how much PF2 rewards abilities which boost allies over oneself, I'd say the change was also prudent.
A strength based fighter, level 18, that didn't select sword as their weapon mastery group, wearing +3 full plate and hitting themselves with a non striking butterfly sword deals 1d4 +5(str mod) +4(weapon spec) -5(plate armor spec +3) for an average of 7dmg. Not that bad...
for the privilege of casting a buff on yourself for 1.5 actions instead of 2.
A strength based fighter, level 18, that didn't select sword as their weapon mastery group, wearing +3 full plate and hitting themselves with a non striking butterfly sword deals 1d4 +5(str mod) +4(weapon spec) -5(plate armor spec +3) for an average of 7dmg. Not that bad...
for the privilege of casting a buff on yourself for 1.5 actions instead of 2.
And a hand. That weapon's occupying a hand, and those are valuable.
Sure, you might drop the sword, but it's an action to refill that hand (unless playing to that free-hand style, which is viable).Of course, one could use a gauntlet instead.
And you might miss yourself, right when you needed it most.
Or maybe even crit yourself, making yourself flat-footed or worse.
A gauntlet would deal double the weapon spec damage because it's not advanced. And you don't have to apply crit specs effects if you don't want to, it says so in the rules for crit specs.
But all in all, yeah we agree it's a terrible idea. The only exploit I could see here is if you have a quicken effect like a haste rune that would let you use one action you could normally only use to strike as part of casting the spell. That's a hefty price tag.