The Aldori Duelist's Dueling Acumen archetype feat should probably be level 4 instead of level 2, as it is only obtainable at that level when using the free archetype rules.
Dueling Acumen is a skill feat so there is no issue with non-free archetype characters as all characters get a skill feat at 2nd.
What happens if you get Stunned on your Turn?
Readied Flurry of Blows and Firearm/Sling Critical can easily give it to you during your 1st action.
RAW you would loose your remaing Actions and the ability to use Reactions until the start of your next turn, when you can "pay it off".
But this seem excessive loss of actions for a simple Stunned 1. Especially as you still have actions to "pay it off" right now.
compressed circumstantial / ect argument that is now redundant thanks to NorrKnekten:
It is incredibly rare for PCs to have mid-foe-turn stuns, and I've played alongside 2 Monks with that build. Both campaigns had the mid turn Stun happen only once, which was defused by realizing the Monk left the Foundry effect toggle on during a normal Reactive Strike, lol. It's just too rare / hard to have:
* Ready Trigger fire
* Flurry Strike 1 or 2 hit
* Foe fails incap Fort Save
So even after the idea of ending a foe turn early came up, neither player thought it was a good idea to pre-commit Ready's 2A (and their MAP) to the tactic.
.
This is only circumstantial support, but there is a Reaction effect inside an alch item that some might see as supporting the "the turn is instantly over" side of the binary.
Galvanic Chew wrote:
Secondary Effect [reaction] (electricity) Trigger You're hit by a melee attack or touched by a creature; Effect You channel electricity into the triggering creature, which must succeed at a DC 24 Fortitude save or be stunned 1 (or stunned 2 on a critical failure). The chew becomes inert. You're then temporarily immune to galvanic chews for 24 hours or until the next time you make your daily preparations.
This is the only offensive alch action where the user gets a "temporarily immune to" repeat uses rider after invoking the reaction, success or fail.
To rephrase, the 24 hr cooldown on the stun indicates a much higher than normal item power. Which lines up with an effect that can potentially end a turn when a few actions are still unspent.
.
It's also notable that the base rules on Reactions, Ready, and disrupting/loosing actions are also surprisingly harsh, and any Athletics PC can Ready a Grab to disrupt and instantly end the Stride of a foe trying to move to attack the backline, while enforcing an Escape before they can move again.
(Changing a Stride + Strike + Strike into a Stride + Escape + Stride, etc.)
If you want to get even more surprisingly potent, any PC can Ready a 1A Leap to jump away from a foe as soon as they commit to a melee swing.
RaW, this actually works to ~dodge. If a foe still has reach upon the PC at the end of the Leap, then the action completes and you make the roll against AC.
But, if the PC has used Leap and escaped their range, on a trigger of "a foe begins to make a Strike against me," the only way to read the RaW is that the foe swing is spent and lost. They'll need more movement to get back into melee.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2342
.
All that is to say, within the context of pf2 enabling that type of gameplay, where being able to make a "hard read" on what a foe is going to do next can be incredibly impactful thanks to Ready, I do think Stun ending turns early is the best fit interpretation.
RAW you would loose your remaing Actions and the ability to use Reactions until the start of your next turn, when you can "pay it off".
But this seem excessive loss of actions for a simple Stunned 1. Especially as you still have actions to "pay it off" right now.
We have clarifying text in Condition Appendix. And a CRB errata that confirms this as correct as previously the text was in conflict about gaining actions while being unable to act. At this point one can only make the assumption that this is intentional despite having been a talking point since the systems initial release.
Dude! Thank you, I've seen this come up multiple times and this is the first that someone has been able to point to RaW that has a rock solid answer.
Quote:
Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can't act. When you can't act, you're unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don't change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately.
The bold bit is as hard an answer as it gets. If that's the case, then the the inverse, that if you gain a condition preventing action use mid-turn, is also true. Sucks for you, but you have to abide by the new restrictions on your actions.
Dancing Invocation of Liturgist's Practice of Animist is written in a way that allows to sustain multiple times if the player can Leap, Step, or Tumble Through many times per action.
For example, a Liturgist Animist can with Elf Step can Step twice using Elf Step and so can also Sustain twice using this action. This also allows sustaining up to six-times in a round (it's unlikely, but it's possible).
Probably the correct way to avoid external exploit is change the text from "When you Leap, Step, or Tumble Through, you also Sustain an apparition spell or vessel spell" to "When you also Sustain an apparition spell or vessel spell, you also can Leap, Step, or Tumble Through" or just add an limit to prevent to Sustain more than once per round using Leap, Step, or Tumble Through actions.
Also reinforcing that Tumble Through is written in a way that also allows to Stride.
Flat checks could maybe use some extra words regarding temporary immunities?
1. Would failing the flat check still trigger unconditional temporary Immunities?
Like "Regardless of your result, the target is temporarily immune to your attempts to Demoralize it for 10 minutes." or "Whether or not you succeed, creatures you attempt to divert gain a +4 circumstance bonus to their Perception DCs against your attempts to Create a Diversion for 1 minute."
Or does failing the flat check miss so badly, even that is negated?
2. What about results based immunities?
Like a Critical Save success or Critical Roll Fail based "immune for 1 minute"? Does a Flat check trigger the equivalent of a Critical Fail?
Or did you again miss so badly, not even the immunity applies?
RAW I think the answer is "no" to both. You just missed so badly, even temp immunity is canceled. But this is not as clear as I hoped.
We really could use some clarification on "Minions riding PC".
We had this case since CRB, with Familiars riding their master. Which was never defined.
But as of the Captain, now combinations like "Follower riding a Centaur Captain" have to be considered.
You may also want to split the "size difference between mount and rider" to be based more on body plan, then Minion vs PC. Requiring 2 sizes of difference because Wolves/Humans Companions don't have the body shape of a riding animal/the mount trait makes sense.
Some issues around downtime and exploration activities could stand clarifications.
Can Minions do Exploration or Downtime activities?
The Downtime rules imply only PC can do it, but never clearly state it. I would assume only they can, but wording could be clearer.
The Exploration Rules have no indication at all.
The Eidolons Act together says "This lets you each use separate exploration activities like Avoid Notice as you travel.", but neglects to mention Downtime activities at all.
The new Follower rules in Battlecry offer clarifications, but those are not automatically applicable to all Minions.
Exploration and Downtime could also use an explanation how temporary but spamable bonus (Familiar Aid abilities like Ambassador, longer Duration spells or Cantrips, Mutagens and Elixirs for an Alchemist).
Follow the Expert to Avoid Notice implies you are also using Avoid Notice (as otherwise the ability to roll the checks with bonuses is mostly worthless). But it never really says that. Or limits which Exploration Activities can't be followed. It probably doesn't work on Search, because Perception is not a Skill.
Investigate - what does it actually do in game terms?
Are there clues you can only find if you Investigate, like Hazards you need to Search for? Because I don't think any rule or AP ever mentions those.
Does it simply lock out other Exploration Activities, in case you get ambushed during an Investigation? It never says that and I don't think it happens that often.
Do we get something like free Recall Knowledge checks in case Encounter starts while Investigating? I think that is a common house rule to give it some use.
Degree of Success
If you have both a Upgrade and a Downgrade (and neither side is a NAT 1 or NAT 20), what order do you apply them in?
If you have a Critical Success, Upgrading and then downgrading ends you up at normal Success. A similar issue exsists with Critical Failures.
The order can effectively negate one of the changes, if you are already on a Critical degree. And especially the NAT 1/20 cases are likely to be Critical Failures already.
Assurance and degree of success upgrades
There is a group of people that argue "because you don't roll when using Assurance", rules that say stuff like "if you roll Success, get a Critical Success" do not apply.
I fully disagree, but I can at least see the argument somewhat. So, that sounds like a thing that needs Errata.
Noteworthy use-cases are stuff like Risky Surgery+Assurance Medicine. Which allows you to ignore any risk by "rolling" against a fixed DC and always getting a Critical Success.
Devise a Stratagem and other Fortune effects
The rules for Fortune effects say: "If multiple fortune effects would apply, you have to pick which to use."
Devise a Stratagem locks you into the roll fo the first attack roll:
"If you Strike the chosen creature before the start of your next turn, you must use the result of the d20 roll for your Strike's attack roll instead of rolling. You make this substitution only for the first Strike you make against the creature this round, not any subsequent ones."
But it is also a Fortune effect.
Meaning you can avoid the Devise a Stratagem results, by throwing another Fortune effect on the first attack roll and choosing it. Like Sure Strike. Or even Assurance (Athletics) if you have Athletic Stratagem.
The hex cantrips of both the Mosquito Witch and The Unseen Broker should have their temporary immunity limitation removed.
Buzzing Bites and Pact Broker still leave their targets immune to themselves for 1 minute and, as far as I know, the major QOL change to most of the hex cantrips for the remaster was supposed to be the removal of this immunity. The immunity lines also seem completely unaltered from their pre-master version, so I have a hunch their removal was reasonably missed amongst the other adjustments made to these two spells.
Gust of Winds success effect (The creature can’t move against the wind.) seems more debilitating then the Failure and Critical Failure (Prone), as nothing stops them from using Stand and just moving against the Wind.
Is standing up in the wind supposed to trigger another save from "Large or smaller creatures that later move into the gust must attempt the save on entering."? Because I think it would need to say that.
Protector Tree and Timber Sentinel could use another pass.
Protector Tree does not mention how it interacts with Area of Effect damage at all. So table variation from "unaffected" to "always critical fails the save" exist. Which naturally change the usefulness a lot.
Protector Tree is a slot based spell. Yet for the Kineticist, Timber Sentinel is the equivalent of a Cantrip. Those are wildly disparate power levels.
It seems like either Tree should be a Cantrip or Sentinel should have a cooldown.
Protector Tree also can plant a ludicrous amount of trees on Exploration and Downtime scale. At the Exploration scale of 1 average Action per turn it is 5 trees a minute. And at 8 Exploration scale hours per downtime day, that would be 2400 Trees per day. Unless it is implied that such a large forest popping out of nowhere could not be supported by the soil?
Knockdown, Push and Pull creature abilities do not explicitly remove the Hand requirement like Grab does. They probably should, unless you put that under Athletics.
Guerilla Archetype Hit and Run doesn't work as written, as Sneak would likely do nothing:
"At the end of your movement, the GM rolls your Stealth check in secret and compares the result to the Perception DC of each creature you were hidden from or undetected by at the start of your movement."
After a Stride and a melee Strike, you are no longer hidden by any conventional means. So the Sneak at the end would do nothing.
Unless something like 4th Rank Invisibility is on you or the enemy is Blinded, that part is just a half speed Stride.
This needs a rather explicit override to work as intended.
Superstition Instinct and "Willing creature" has unhandled edge cases:
There are spells that are clearly beneficial, but not limited to willing Targets. For example Translate (Target 1 Creature). How are those resolved*?
Also, what about beneficial spells applied before you Rage? Like being hit with Heroism or a similar buff before Raging?
Also, can you break any spell with a "Willing Creature" by just deciding you are no longer willing at any time, per the "Invalid Target" rules?
*Note there is a bunch of spells that "realy should be willing targets only". Most are because the "Superstition Barbarian should (be able to) reject those". But something like Translate makes you subject to every Linguistic effect, which can be quite detrimental.
Incorporeal reads
"Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects."
Which RAW blocks any melee Strike that isn't made using DEX via Finesse or the Investigators INT swap. Which is probably not intended and leads to no shortage of discussions!
If you meant "Strength-based skill checks", that would exclude Athletics actions. But I think there was a way to swap the attribute to DEX and it doesn't cover stuff like the Fighter Athletics feats (which often don't do checks). So maybe you have to also cover forced movement separately.
Rogue Debilitations:
"When the creature is affected by a new debilitation, any previous one it was affected by ends."
Two Rogues would overwrrite each others Debilitation. It probably should be "A create can only be affected by one for your Debilitations at a time."
Staff Nexus has no information about replacing the Staff with the fused nexus if it is lost or changing out the staff if you find a different one you can't upgrade.
Given that the Runelord is already Staff Nexus on steroids, I think it just following/adding to any staff you prepare during daily preparation would not be broken.
IDK if this was mentioned yet, but in the Lost Omens: Shining Kingdoms book, there is a picture of Stavian III in the Taldor section labeled as Stavian II.
Minor issue, unless Stavian III was a direct clone of his father.
Enlarge (Player Core pg 329) grants a status bonus to melee damage.
Unless I'm missing something, this means it grants that bonus to melee spell attacks and melee elemental blasts as well.
A clarification on whether this is an intended interaction would be handy (Foundry implementation assumes it does not apply).
Recall Knowledge by NPCs vs PCs: PC Rarity Butterfly Blade Warrior (and now the SF2e Witchwarper focus spell Forget) have an NPC creature doing Recall Knowledge vs creatures, most likely the player characters.
Assuming we can follow the standard Creature Identification rules for choosing what skill to roll, what Rarity are player characters?
Butterfly Blade Warrior (and now the SF2e Witchwarper focus spell Forget) have an NPC creature doing Recall Knowledge vs creatures, most likely the player characters.
Assuming we can follow the standard Creature Identification rules for choosing what skill to roll, what Rarity are player characters?
Unique is the closest thing that fits:
Quote:
Unique elements are one of a kind, like a specific magical artifact or a named creature. You have full control over whether PCs can access them. Named NPCs are unique creatures, though that doesn't mean their base creature type is unique. For instance, an orc named Graytusk is unique, but that doesn't mean it would be any harder for a PC encountering her to tell she's an orc—just to discern specific information about her.
Of course, that makes those abilities petty poor because on-level the DC is 41 and they have a +23 Society. So the NPC needs an 18 on the dice for that ability to work. Even at +2 level it still needs a 15 on the dice.
I suspect they intend it to use a standard DC so it should probably say that.
Butterfly Blade Warrior (and now the SF2e Witchwarper focus spell Forget) have an NPC creature doing Recall Knowledge vs creatures, most likely the player characters.
Assuming we can follow the standard Creature Identification rules for choosing what skill to roll, what Rarity are player characters?
Unique is the closest thing that fits:
Quote:
Unique elements are one of a kind, like a specific magical artifact or a named creature. You have full control over whether PCs can access them. Named NPCs are unique creatures, though that doesn't mean their base creature type is unique. For instance, an orc named Graytusk is unique, but that doesn't mean it would be any harder for a PC encountering her to tell she's an orc—just to discern specific information about her.
Of course, that makes those abilities petty poor because on-level the DC is 41 and they have a +23 Society. So the NPC needs an 18 on the dice for that ability to work. Even at +2 level it still needs a 15 on the dice.
I suspect they intend it to use a standard DC so it should probably say that.
General vs. Unique: Some elements, such as creatures or items, might require you to draw a distinction between a general concept and a unique individual, such as “pirates” vs. “Tessa Fairwind, the Hurricane Queen” or “a harrow deck” vs. “the Deck of Harrowed Tales.” When a PC tries to Recall Knowledge, let them choose whether to ask about the general category or the unique person or item, and determine the DC and specifics based on that choice. If the unique character or item is famous enough, the DC might even be easier than for the general topic!
Still, enemies using Recall Knowledge seems incredibly unlikely at best. No idea why that would be on a player option.
The Feed the Masses transcendence is cool. But it has a critical snag - you must use the item on an ally. This is awkward, because it means that if you want to use an item on yourself and be in another ikon you basically lose any benefit from it's immanence effect (you need a net of two actions - one to draw and drink, one to shift immanence). But if you use it on an ally, you get to do it all for one action. This is really awkward and feels bad, and it doesn't seem like a huge buff to allow Transcend on yourself so much as quality of life.
Aldori Duelist issues:
Dueling Accumens second condition won't trigger:
"When you're in a duel or can see exactly one creature."
Bystanders, Minions of either side, random birds in the sky or squirrels in a forest and even allies that don't participate break the "see exactly one creature" part. Which is probably not the intention.
Did you mean "or when there is only one enemy" or "only you and one enemy"?
Aldori Parry seems miswritten.
The Action cost and requirements make it look like the other parry feats from Fighter and Swashbuckler.
Yet the actual text is like a passive rider effect for the Sword, adding the parry trait to the sword (and upgrading the bonus conditionally) without actually using it.
The Aldori Riposte feat makes it sound like it should be a parry action.
Aldori Retort says you can use the reaction for "any Duelist Action". What would be the triggers for the Aldori Parry Reaction?
Or did you mean "any Aldori Duelist Reaction"? In that case you skip listing the previous reactions.
Duelist Form:
- Aldori Riposte Disarm option still uses the free Hand, so it would break the Stance. Probably should have a exclusion or not require a hand
- the Quickened can't be used for basic Strike, which seems odd as it works on several Meta-Strikes from the Archetype
- Fatigued for breaking the Stance seems excessive, as enemy spells on level 16+ can easily force you to break requirements. Maybe just give temporary immunity to the Quickened?
- Aldori Riposte Disarm option still uses the free Hand, so it would break the Stance. Probably should have a exclusion or not require a hand
Disarm only requires you have at least one hand free: nothing says that hand is used up up so it remains a free hand.
Christopher#2411504 wrote:
Aldori Parry seems miswritten.
The Action cost and requirements make it look like the other parry feats from Fighter and Swashbuckler.
Yet the actual text is like a passive rider effect for the Sword, adding the parry trait to the sword (and upgrading the bonus conditionally) without actually using it.
The Aldori Riposte feat makes it sound like it should be a parry action.
I'm assuming it's making the parry into an Aldori Parry so that it qualifies for the Quickened action you get for Duelist Form: if it was all passives, it wouldn't work with it.
- Aldori Riposte Disarm option still uses the free Hand, so it would break the Stance. Probably should have a exclusion or not require a hand
Disarm only requires you have at least one hand free: nothing says that hand is used up up so it remains a free hand.
The "Multiple Attacks with Athletics" Sidebar makes it very clear you are using that empty hand for the disarm.
Grapple never says your hand is occupied by the creature you are Grappling. But we all are smart enough to figure that one out.
(That those Actions need to say it clearer is another Errata I requested).
"Multiple Attacks with Athletics" Sidebar doesn't apply as the feat says "or attempt to Disarm the triggering opponent using your Aldori dueling sword" and "You are using an Aldori dueling sword to parry" and not with your free hand/fist as the sidebar says.
Sickened is removed via a Fortitude save. However a decent amount of effects that apply Sickened use a Will save. Maybe the removal save should match the effect save?
Pathfinder Player Core pg. 346
Starfinder Player Core pg. 318 and 346
Cairn Form's lower duration than Mountain Resilience does not do enough to make it into a side grade, as you'll be unlikely to benefit from Mountain Resilience for longer than Cairn Form due to the duration reduction, making it an objective upgrade.
Recommendations are to either increase the penalties for Cairn Form by raising the rank, reducing the resistance, or imposing a duration reduction when hit, or to decrease the penalties of Mountain Resilience by removing the duration reduction when hit. Essentially, either Cairn Form needs to be nerfed or Mountain Resilience needs to be buffed for them to be considered side grades.
Spells are pretty well balanced as a whole for cross-compatibility reasons, and a clear attempt was made to try to make Cairn Form a side grade rather than an upgrade. This is a weird case because one of the spells is a spell from Pathfinder that also appears in Starfinder. Whichever team, Pathfinder or Starfinder, that tackles this first, if ever, I'll be curious to see. Though I suppose it's more the responsibility of Starfinder team. Either way, this will be posted in both the Pathfinder and Starfinder threads. This would only apply to Pathfinder if Mountain Resilience was the spell being changed, after all.
The spells Clear Mind, Sound Body, and Sure Footing have an error in their heightened states.
Heightening rules say that heightened conditions are not cumulative, so a level 8 Clear Mind, for example, cannot be used to attempt to counteract Confused, Controlled, or Slowed.
A clause needs to be added that it functions as the previous heightened state, or provide the full list of options.
What does hitting a walls break threshold do, mechanically speaking?
Does it stop being a line of effect blocker?
Does it still provide cover?
Can people walk through it, only as difficult terrain?
The Wall of Stone Spell (and other wall spells) sidesteps the questions, by not listing a break threshold and only having rules for being destroyed. But normal wood and stone walls exist all over adventure. Should they just not use a break threshold for simplicity?
Battle Oracle Curse RAW removes the "temporary immunity" to Sure Strike and the Shield spell:
"Any immunity or resistance you have to spells is suppressed."
It probably should suppress beneficial immunities only.
Carrying an ally via the Bulk of Creature rule assumes a unconscious character. But there should be nothing stopping them from picking up a conscious ally
This situation needs some penalty that makes even the poor "Riding PC" rules a preferable alternative.
The riding rule impact on actions and initiative + off-guard for both maybe?
The Resistances of the former Golems need another pass:
Noxious Needlers: "physical 10 (except adamantine or bludgeoning), spells 10 (except sonic)"
means that a Telekinetic Projectile (Bludgeoning) or Needle Darts (Adamantine) would still run into the Spell Resistance. Which seems unintended.
"physical and spell 10 (except adamantine, bludgeoning, sonic)" could avoid that.
But then this might be complex enough to make something called "Golem Resistances".
Carrying an ally via the Bulk of Creature rule assumes a unconscious character. But there should be nothing stopping them from picking up a conscious ally
This situation needs some penalty that makes even the poor "Riding PC" rules a preferable alternative.
The riding rule impact on actions and initiative + off-guard for both maybe?
Nothing in that rule says anything about the creature having to be unconscious, or that it doesn't work if someone is conscious. If you're picking them up and carrying them, it still works fine.
Carrying an ally via the Bulk of Creature rule assumes a unconscious character. But there should be nothing stopping them from picking up a conscious ally
This situation needs some penalty that makes even the poor "Riding PC" rules a preferable alternative.
The riding rule impact on actions and initiative + off-guard for both maybe?
Nothing in that rule says anything about the creature having to be unconscious, or that it doesn't work if someone is conscious. If you're picking them up and carrying them, it still works fine.
Which would mean carrying someone is infinitely preferably over them riding you. There isn't a place on the outer planes where that is RAI.
That rule is obviously intended for carrying unconscious bodies, which is why it doesn't give any penalties.
Carrying an ally via the Bulk of Creature rule assumes a unconscious character. But there should be nothing stopping them from picking up a conscious ally
This situation needs some penalty that makes even the poor "Riding PC" rules a preferable alternative.
The riding rule impact on actions and initiative + off-guard for both maybe?
Nothing in that rule says anything about the creature having to be unconscious, or that it doesn't work if someone is conscious. If you're picking them up and carrying them, it still works fine.
Which would mean carrying someone is infinitely preferably over them riding you. There isn't a place on the outer planes where that is RAI.
That rule is obviously intended for carrying unconscious bodies, which is why it doesn't give any penalties.
Not really: you're going to be encumbered and have your hands full, and they're in a situation where they don't have free movement and are effectively grabbed because you're carrying them. This is not really preferable at all.
More to the point: you're making up a RAI that isn't in the book and then declaring that it needs errata. You making up a scenario is not a justification for errata, and frankly you are cluttering this thread to the point of it being useless with how much stuff you're putting in here that doesn't actually need errata at all.
This is not the first time you've posted something claiming its an errata candidate when you're just wrong on how it works.
Not really: you're going to be encumbered and have your hands full, and they're in a situation where they don't have free movement and are effectively grabbed because you're carrying them. This is not really preferable at all.
Please show me where you found:
"The carried creature is grabbed."
In
"You might need to know the Bulk of a creature, especially if you need to carry someone. This table lists the typical Bulk of a creature, but the GM might adjust this number."
Because I can't find it.
Also please explain how this non existent Grabbed condition is proper replacement for:
- not needing to have the size difference for riding PCs
- not loosing actions as per riding PCs
- not changing initiative as per riding PCs
Bringing your Homebrew Solution to prove there is no problem is inherently flawed. All it shows is:
1. The problem is there.
2. It has been there so long that you forgot you are using a homebrew instead.
In
"You might need to know the Bulk of a creature, especially if you need to carry someone. This table lists the typical Bulk of a creature, but the GM might adjust this number."
Because I can't find it.
You literally have to pick them up and hold them to carry them. aka: you've grabbed them.
This is basic English and common sense, because that's how carrying something works. If you think the book is going to explicitly spell out every minor interaction without expecting people to use common sense, then you're going to be disappointed because that's not how the rules work.
The rules expect the GM to be able to figure stuff out. They're not a technical manual.
Quote:
Also please explain how this non existent Grabbed condition is proper replacement for:
- not needing to have the size difference for riding PCs
- not loosing actions as per riding PCs
- not changing initiative as per riding PCs
Riding is a specific scenario that allows both people to act in tandem. They're not doing that here so you have to infer two things:
1. The restrictions on riding don't apply, which you have to do anyway because the idea that a medium creature can't carry a medium creature is completely ludicrous. Ordinary humans do it in real life on a daily basis.
2. You don't get the benefits of riding either, which makes sense since one person in this interaction is busy carrying the other one and the second one can't really do much with their legs since they're being carried.
So a straightforward ruling is that one of them is busy doing the carrying and the other is grabbed, since they're literally being grabbed and carried.
Quote:
Bringing your Homebrew Solution to prove there is no problem is inherently flawed. All it shows is:
1. The problem is there.
2. It has been there so long that you forgot you are using a homebrew instead.
Making a ruling on something where the rules don't explicitly explain what happens is a core part of the game. It's literally in the rules. GMs have to do it all the time because a rulebook can't cover every scenario in a freeform game.
If you can't tell the difference between doing that and changing a rule (which is what homebrew is), then I don't know what to tell you.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
If you've gotten to the point where somehow, some way, your PC is able to carry another PC without severely impeding yours and the carried PC's movement and are trying to use it to an advantage, you would just use the Riding PCs rules because that's what the riding PCs rule is meant to do.
The carrying rule wouldn't need an errata because it's very much assuming you're likely using most of your carrying ability for carrying a whole person, thinking something like a knight carrying a princess to safety, someone who can't walk for some reason or another and needs to be carried away from something. It's not meant to be used for mechanical advantage and if someone is trying to argue that, it's a simple "no."
The Accursed Staff (Treasure Vault) works with Witches Evil Eye Cantrip, which does not seem intended.
I would wager it should only work with spells that need slots or staff charges, like the ones on the Staff.
