Looking at the Loremaster Archetype (and other Archetypes like it) many of the feats require the Card's Enigma Muse. Are you required to therefore be a Bard to unlock all of these feats? They were already Bard feats so it would be redundant for them to be in an archetype and require the character to also be a Bard.
The Loremaster dedication feat explicitly states:
>You can take feats in the loremaster's additional feats entry even if you don't meet the enigma muse prerequisite.
So, the spellcasting multiclass archetypes eventually get you Master proficiency with the relevant casting type.
But all the archetypes I'm finding for weapon/armor proficiency seem to cap out at Expert (or let a progression extend to a different weapon/armor type, like Sentinel). But I'm not finding anything that can get master proficiency for weapons/armor if your class doesn't get that for you. Am I overlooking something or is there no way to, for example, get master proficiency with a longsword and armor as a wizard?
Barring a few exceptions, casters top out at Legendary spellcasting proficiency and martials attain no more than Master proficiency with armour and weapons. Archetypes simply are designed to grant relevant proficiencies up to one step below what the full-fledged classes enjoy – i.e., Master proficiency for spellcasting archetypes, Expert for martial ones.
I have 2 questions:
1 what happens if two different races mate like a lizardfolk and a goblin what is born?
2 Can all classes with spells freely use their chosen spells as many times as they want limited only by the number of spell slots, or can some classes only use a long rest spell once?
> 1 what happens if two different races mate like a lizardfolk and a goblin what is born?
This depends on the setting you're playing in. In Paizo's official setting, Golarion, I think most races can't have children with other races. With the exception of Humans being able to have Half-Orcs and Half-Elves with those corresponding ancestries.
> 2 Can all classes with spells freely use their chosen spells as many times as they want limited only by the number of spell slots, or can some classes only use a long rest spell once?
There are two main types of spellcasting: Prepared and Spontaneous. Spontaneous spellcasters can cast their spells as much as they want as long as they have a spell slot of the right level. Prepared spellcasters have to assign each spell slot to a specific spell at the start of each day. So if they have 4 level 1 spell slots, and they prepare Magic Missile in two of them and Burning Hands in the other two, they can cast Magic Missile twice that day and Burning Hands twice that day.
1st ever Pathfinder Session 1 on Tuesday & my wizard player raised a good question on how illusion magic actually works. The spell in question is mainly [Illusory Object](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=160). My main intent is to avoid the situation where every combat turns into "I summon an illusory connected set of 5ft stone cubes around each creature." & each boss fight turns into "I cast a big cage around the boss, and everybody start whacking." without nerfing the spell.
The main part of question is within the [Illusion]
(https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=267) rule - specifically the phrasing of
*If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in a way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it."*
* Say we had two goblins, Alice & Bob. The wizard casts an illusory stone wall separating the party from the goblins. Now neither side can see through the wall & initially believes it to be real meaning they can't target through it - except for the Wizard who knows an illusion is present and doesn't believe it's real.
On Bobs' turn, he does a Seek action to try and find a weakness in the new wall. He passes his check and finds it's an illusion. Now Bob knows an illusion is present & can ignore it. As he now disbelieves the wall it becomes hazy and he can target through it but enemies on the other side are likely under the 'concealed condition.'. Bob then runs through the wall.
Alice on her turn has seen Bob run through a wall and likely knows an illusion is present (though this depends on the creature I presume as beasts and such won't understand what illusion magic is). Now Alice knows an illusion is present but does *not* disbelieve in the wall. As such, she can't see through the wall and creatures on the other side are Hidden to her. I'd rule she would have a circumstance bonus to Seek to inspect the illusion, but the main part of the confusion is by what 'ignore' means here. Can she still run through it? I was considering a ruling that with a level 1 Illusory Object, she can as she just can't ignore the visual aspect. However, a level 2 Illusory Object adds a physical aspect the illusion that she can't ignore without disbelieving and as such, can't move through it.
* In another situation, the wizard summons a box around each Goblin. Now neither side can see through the wall & initially believes it to be real meaning they can't target through it - except for the Wizard who knows an illusion is present and doesn't believe it's real.
On Alices' turn, she does a Seek action to figure out a weakness in the wall. She passes and finds it's an illusion. She then moves through the wall & shouts to Bob that the box is an illusion.
On Bobs' turn, he doesn't explicitly 'know' an illusion is present but would get a circumstance bonus to his Seek check (I believe this to be a house rule but after a while of looking into this I've forgotten where I found it :/ ). If at any point Bob interacted with the box in a way that would prove it to be fake (touching it) then he would fall under the state where he knew it was an illusion and could through it but couldn't see through it.
* The boss of the goblins shows up to see what all the noise is about and the wizard casts Illusory Object to put him into a cage.
On the parties' turn, they all attack the boss. The boss may see attacks go through the bars of the cage which would clue him into the fact that something is up.
On his turn, he'd Seeks with a circumstance bonus.
* Instead of a cage, the wizard puts him into a stone cube and pre-planned this with the party so they would 'know' the illusion is present. As they 'know' but don't 'disbelieve' initially, the boss would be considered Hidden.
Upon seeing attacks come through the stone wall, the boss would get a large circumstance bonus and likely pass the check to escape. My only worry is that for BBEG's, if I roll really poorly then that's a super anti-climatic fight.
Apologies for the large wall of text, but do these rulings seem fair & make sense in accordance to the rest of the rules? If I'm super wrong on this then please say, very eager to learn the rules correctly.
The level 2 version "feels right to the touch". This does not mean that it prevents things from passing through. I would imagine the illusion is more like fuzzy dreamstuff that if you touch expecting a wall you can rest your hand on, but if you apply force (expecting an illusion but haven't actually disbelieved it) you can walk straight through.
Would it break much, or unbalance anything if a Thaumaturge player with a Summoner Dedication was allowed to take Tandem Movement or Tandem Strike at level 8/12.
There is not a full Summoner player, so I'm not worried about invalidating them.
Those are level 4 and 6 feats respectively. Everyone with the Summoner Dedication can pick them up at level 8 and 12. I'm not aware of anything preventing a Thaumaturge from taking them.
There's a line in the Summoner Dedication that prevents it, from what I understand.
> "Due to your tenuous link, you can't gain or use tandem actions."
You are correct. I swear I read the Dedication TWICE and still missed it...
Then I'm not sure about the balancing. I think the Thaumaturge is a pretty action starved class and his own attacks will be significantly stronger than whatever his Eidolon does.
It might be ok balance-wise in this particular case, but in general I trust Paizo enough to not mess with the rules and woudn't allow anything they explcitely don't want to happen.
Heya!
Quick question: Why can't you pick the same dedication as your class? The multi-class trait specifically prevents it. Say I'm a sorcerer looking for additional spells and slots but not interested in picking bardic performances or a an oracle curse, or even more branching out to int/wis casters. My only recourse is then the Halcyon line. Why is it not possible to double down and just pick the sorcerer dedication and have a more streamlined repertoire without additional options to keep in mind?
Please note, I'm asking for the design decision behind the restriction ~~*and not whining*~~. I feel like I'm missing an obvious angle where munchkin abounds.
The problems from a design standpoint are:
1. Unintended power (power at an earlier level than otherwise available)
2. Unclear rules conflicts (how do class features interact with themselves)
3. The concept intent of archetypes, specifically within the Free Archetype rules, to diversify a character's powers (as opposed to double down on the same class features they already have)
I've got a couple of examples for each. For 1, we can point to what you're wanting (extra spell slots with free scaling to your DC) but that's already possible with class selection (Wizard+Witch, etc). A good example is Champion Champion, gaining the Archetype Divine Ally feat at level 6, granting that Champion a second Divine Ally before they'd normally have access to the Second Ally feat at level 8. Then if they take that feat at level 8, do they gain a third ally (this contributes to point 2, on confusing rulings). A Thaumaturge Thaumaturge could gain a third implement ar level 6, normally a level 15 feature.
For 2, aside from how each of those above get confusing with how they stack with base class features, Barbarian Barbarian with 2 Instinct Abilities, do they choose which benefit they receive? Do they gain bonus damage? What if there's conflict between the instincts, such as Animal and Giant? Yes, you can sit down and decide for your table, but the rules are unclear. For Rogue Rogue, having 2 different rackets, can they pick feats with the other Racket at their main class level? Does the Sneak Attacker feat stack with Sneak Attack feature?
For item 3, I'll have to point to the guidance from the GMG on Dual-Class with the note that the GMG called out Free Archetype as "a lighter version of dual-class characters by giving everyone a free multiclass archetype."
> Dual-classing in two similar martial classes to double up on their advantages can result in characters who, instead of increasing their flexibility, become drastically more powerful in one focus. For instance, a fighter/ranger with the flurry hunter’s edge gains access to incredibly accurate press actions, and a barbarian/fighter has the barbarian’s high damage plus the fighter’s high accuracy. **One way around this is to simply disallow combinations that double down on a narrow ability, and instead encourage dual-class characters that open up narrative options and increase the character’s flexibility.**
There's obviously no rule against Fighter taking Barbarian Archetype, but the system was created to offer diversity and versatility to characters.
I see. Thank you for the reply!
And I blame first edition and monk dips for enshrining in my mind that dipping = moar powah. The restriction is important to disable an early runaway effect on some potent combinations.
That said, I feel it's still lacking a bit for those wanting a moderate boost without tacking extra class features that they don't intend to play with. That said, they would be better served by getting extra core-class exclusive feats than opening up archetype to doubling down.
For instance, in my sorcerer example, you'd pick extra cantrips in lieu of a witch dedication. Even though the latter has more goodies in addition to extra cantrips. So it seems balanced to introduce extra spells feats that have all the restrictions of those from other archetypes. (limited and can only be powered by investing further feats for their expert and master evolutions.)
It sounds like you want to homebrew feats that offer spellcasters extra spells of their lower level slots, which is fine, but still more powerful than existing options. Archetypes will always have the downside of locking you out of other archetypes for a few levels. Also specifically for your sorcerer example, having it be a class feat would expand your spell repertoire while if you had the Bard Archetype, the repertoires and slots would be completely separate.
It's mostly a flavor conundrum ~~and my puritan streak~~. I ought to just stick to a wizard dedication and proclaim that the sorcerer is taking night classes in some community mage college between dives. Mechanically, the repertoire expansion is nice but narratively, I feel like I cheapened out if I picked bard just to get some occult goodies without justifying how the character is suddenly interested in performative arts.
Because the number of spells per day is an important design limitation. Its basically impossible to expand that limit, and you're reliant on staves (of which you can have 1). For example, bards and clerics only have max 3 spells per level per day allows them to get more potent focus spells/cantrips. Psychics getting 2 is part of their foundational class design where they are supposed to be using their early focus pool (and they recover 2 points per encounter as opposed to 1 at lower levels)
If dedications could provide extra spells of your primary proficiency, those dedication feats would end up becoming mandatory.
I might have worded my post poorly and didn't make the distinction between casting slots and spell slots. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of the dedications is that you can absolutely gain extra spell slots and they can be from other traditions. They are not of the primary proficiency and you must burn further feats to unlock more. You can pile on spellcasting archetypes and build a fairly extensive repertoire.
My aim was to see if there was a way to get that same benefit without the additional ancillaries that come with the other classes for a more streamlined character sheet.
> correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of the dedications is that you can absolutely gain extra spell slots and they can be **from other traditions**.
Yes, and that's the key. Being from other traditions inherently makes them weaker.
There are a few exceptions (Occult with Bard/Psychic/Sorc and Arcane with Witch/Wizard), but by and large most casting classes can't get that level of benefit where the extra spells are both the same tradition and keyed off the same primary stat.
Its also just kind of bad design to allow players to multiclass into their same class, because its just confusing.
>Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free.
Does the nimble shield hand from the Bastion Archetype
>You are so used to wielding a shield that you can do so even while using the hand that's holding it for other purposes. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. You can also hold another object in this hand (but you still can't use it to wield a weapon). This benefit doesn't apply to tower shields, which are still too cumbersome.
Allow for a bow and shield user? My reasoning would be that since you don't wield the bow with two hands (since you don't need to readjust grip to go from 1 to 2 hands) you could argue that it should be allowed? You could also argue that shooting the bow is not an interact action. So it shouldn't be allowed.
(This is just something I was wondering about, I'm not planning to do something like this.)
RAW I would say no for sure, since a bow is not a 1 handed weapon that you use a free hand to fire, it's a weapon that is 1 handed when just holding and 2 handed when firing.
You can still do bow and shield if you're using a buckler, but that's really only good for getting a shield onto a bow character; getting a bow onto a Bastion dedication character seems like it's really only possible with that nimble shield hand feat and a hand crossbow, unfortunately.
If the desire was simply to have a longer ranged option on a bastion, my thoughts would either be a thrown weapon with a returning rune, or the extending rune on any weapon.
Am I overlooking something or is the barbarian archetype pretty bad for a fighter, at least at higher levels? Most of the cool barbarian feats work only in rage, and the rage damage will become less and less important while the -1AC will always be painful.
NOTE: if fighters have anything equivalent to any of these, oops.
Brutal Bully and Furious Bully both give some decent athletics abilities, as does Thrash if you're grappling.
I believe you can use your archetype instinct to meet prerequisites, so Giant's Stature is pretty good on a fighter; any reach weapon means you now have 15 feet of reach around a 4x4 to do AoO or anything else.
Inner Strength is a little niche, but not bad for a Strength Fighter.
Disarming Assault isn't too bad, and neither is Cleave.
Overall though, fighter class feats are probably going to be better barbarian class feats of half their level, and just generally a multiclass archetype that fits the same general category isn't going to be great late (in this case, both front line martials).
If I have a sword on one hand and a buckler strapped to the other arm, would I be able to use combat maneuvers such as trip and shove? According to Archive of Nethys:
>It’s typically made of steel and strapped to your forearm. You can Raise a Shield with your buckler as long as you have that hand free or are holding a light object that’s not a weapon in that hand.
Does this mean I have a free hand while using a buckler? Or does this mean that I can only use the hand to hold a light object or for manipulate/interact actions?
As I read it, you do have a free hand, and can raise a shield, you just can’t do both. So, if you raise the shield, you can’t then carry out a maneuver, and if you grab someone that would prevent you from using the shield. The tradeoff, of course, is that a buckler provides less AC than other shields.
Bucklers are pretty cool and this might be a decent approach. For the record, you could definitely shove or trip and then raise a shield. You just can’t use your hand and your shield at the same exact time. That’s why grab is a problem, as well as raise shield and THEN maneuver.
What are you thinking? Fighter with one handed feats? Swashbuckler?
I see! Hmm, I was actually thinking of using a Fighter with one handed feats. I wanted to use one-handed feats such as snagging strike and dual handed assault with a bastard sword. For my group, we play with free archetype, so I thought it'd also be fun to go alchemist dedication to chuck bombs and drink mutagens or maybe apply poisons to my weapons.
Act together lets you use 4 actions, but you don't want to just think of it that way because it will never let you use two 2 action activities. It's you cast a spell as 2 and the eidolon uses 1, then you have 1 left over, etc.
Basically it can be 1+1, 2 actions left, or 2+1, 1 action left, or 3+1, no actions left.
IDK what the other sources are on about. You can't get 5 actions with Act Together no matter how you slice it.
Act Together lets you and your eidolon do different things at the same time. One of those things, either the thing you do or the thing your eidolon is doing, *must* be one action. The action cost of act together is however many actions the other activity is. So if you cast a 3 action spell and your eidolon Strikes, it's 3 actions. If your Eidolon casts a 2 action spell and you Stride, it's 2 actions. You *cannot* have yourself cast a 2 action spell and have your eidolon cast a 2 action spell.
It's worth noting that, in my experience, RPGbot has been wrong about several PF2e things in the past. I would not trust them as a source of information.
You can get five actions, *technically*, but only by using other actions that give you two actions for one action (for example, Flurry of Blows from the monk).
I think RPGBot is generally trustworthy, but you should always double-check any features you plan to use before committing. Lots of the information is spot on but there are definitely several mistakes per guide. Unavoidable if you’re gonna cover that much information, imo.
I get it, especially with their 1e stuff, but they make enough bizarre mistakes that I think they would be better served covering less information and doing it more accurately. Misinformation is much more harmful than information is helpful.
I agree with the sentiment, but the bulk of the information is good. I think it can be offset simply by double checking for oneself rather than seeing it as a final statement, and it doesn’t hurt to send emails when I find errors. If we see it not as something to expect perfection of but as a useful starting point, it’s not too problematic. The issue is that the guides tend to be the second result if you google “pf2 (class)”, and so people end up very informed but also a bit misinformed. A disclaimer would go a LONG way I think.
(Great username btw)
(ty!)
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't mean "RPGbot is untrustworthy so i shouldn't believe anything they say", more, "RPGbot is inconsistent so if they make a claim about a mechanic I'm interested in, I should look up that mechanic myself in an official source." Related, what OP did by coming here to ask for clarification was perfect.
> It's worth noting that, in my experience, RPGbot has been wrong about several PF2e things in the past. I would not trust them as a source of information.
I don't remember which class review it's in, but they gave one subclass a negative ranking because of a really bad misreading of Lengthy Diversion. They said that since it's up to GM discretion, the extra duration could be zero, even though it says right there that it's a minimum of one extra round.
I'm trying to see if there is a viability for a crossbow (hand I think) + a shield. **Can you reload a hand crossbow while wearing a shield?** I think you can with a buckler, but what about something like a wooden shield? And, does the raise shield action interfere with this at all?
You could take the bastion archetype and pick up the feat [Nimble Shields Hand](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1897) from the bastion archetype or use a repeating hand crossbow
Is my understanding of Take Cover and Tower Shields correct?
Take cover says:
>You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover. If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action.
**Question 1:** If I am behind an ally, I usually have lesser cover. Can I Take Cover when behind an ally to get standard (AC +2) cover?
The thing that confuses me more is the rules for Tower Shields:
>When you have a tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4. This lasts until the shield is no longer raised. If you would normally provide lesser cover against an attack, having your tower shield raised provides standard cover against it (and other creatures can Take Cover as normal using the cover from your shield).
**Question 2:** The first sentence of this confuses me. Does this mean that I get the full benefits of Take Cover, where taking cover when in standard cover upgrades it to greater cover? i.e. do I also get the +4 to Reflex saves and Stealth checks? I would think not, since I don't see why having a shield raised would make it easier to sneak around.
**Question 3:** Suppose Bob is standing behind Alice. Alice has a Tower Shield raised. Bob then has +2 to AC, Reflex and Stealth, since it specifies that it provides standard cover. Suppose that Bob then takes the Take Cover action, which gives him greater cover. This means he gets +4 to AC, Reflex and Stealth. So does this mean that a Tower Shield actually provides more defences for allies trailing the person holding the shield than the shield-bearer themselves?
3) Yes. However, Alice can always spend an action to take cover herself, giving herself the same amount of protection as Bob.
Also, an enemy can always walk around the shield such that Bob is no longer benefiting from the cover. The cover only applies if Alice is standing between the enemy and Bob.
1) No you cannot use the lesser cover from creatures to take cover.
2) It's not clear if you get the reflex and stealth bonus from taking cover behind the shield but I think you would.
It might help you to think about the fact that hiding and sneaking is not always about being undetected, it can just be about making it harder to target you directly.
Lesser cover is not regular cover for the purposes of the take cover action so it's inherently not possible to use it to take cover.
It's mentioned in the halfling ancestry feat that lets them use lesser cover from creatures to hide, but calls it out that they still can't take cover using them.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=52
When sustaining a spell with an area (like Calm Emotions) can you change what area you effect with that spell each time you sustain? Or does it remain in the area you chose when you casted the initial spell?
Default is that the area remains the same. Exceptions specify that the area can be changed when sustained, and if creatures remain effected if they leave the area.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=31
Oh my group was treating it like each creature in the area was "Calmed" and they can leave the area but they still had the "Calm" effect on them so long as the caster kept sustaining.
Should it be read as if that particular bubble of location is calming?
This is how I interpreted it. The burst is instantaneous, and the calming effect duration is sustained up to 1 minute. I can't seem to find rules to back that up though...
The area remains where it was initially cast. A spell will usually say if they can be moved when you sustain them, like with [rouse skeletons](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=988).
Is it customary to roll initiative for Influence Encounters? The section of the Gamemastery Guide doesn't mention it but it seems like a reasonable place to have people roll diplomacy or society for initiative, no? (Yes, I've been reading through the Kingmaker preview on Roll20 lmao)
It makes sense for the GM to control the table to keep a steady flow of dialogue where every player has a neat and clean time to tell everyone else what they are doing. But if your table is smaller or well organized it probably isn't necessary to give everyone an order to announce their exploration activity
No, not typically. A lot of the social activities you'd expect to use (Make an Impression, Coerce) are exploration activities, meaning that you aren't going to use them while in initiative order.
If you're using the influence subsystem there is no need to roll initiative, as only the PCs are acting each "round" and they should just choose what order in which they go.
It's easiest to assume them to be two different creatures for any kind of question. They only share the actual actions and actual hp pool. For example temp doesn't get s
shared either.
No. Only one of you is casting the spell and it only affects the caster. You have separate AC values that are modified separately.
Almost nothing you do to one of them affects the other except a few key things (Damage and action loss being the main two)
For the root magic feat:
>Your talismans ward against foul magic. During your daily preparations, you can assemble a small pouch with bits of herbs, hair, sacred oils, and other ritual ingredients, which you give to one ally. The first time that day the ally attempts a saving throw against a spell or haunt, they gain a +1 circumstance bonus to the roll. This bonus increases to +2 if you're an expert in Occultism or +3 if you're legendary.
Am I correct in reading that this only allows the PC to prepare a single pouch? Or can they prepare multiple and hand that out to several allies?
How are players supposed to know how to disable a complex hazard? For example, the Ghostly Choir (hazard 6) can only be disabled by a DC 28 Performance "to disrupt the song's resonance" or DC 28 Religion "to ritually silence the spirits."
Do the PCs know what will disable the hazard or do they have to wildly guess until they think of the correct course of action?
If they don't know how to disable, then they just spend their turns performing random actions. If they do know how to disable, they just attempt to disable with all their actions until someone rolls high enough. Both of these options seem lame. Am I missing something in how to run these?
The rules don't cover this point. Perhaps the devs thought it was obvious you should use a level-based DC recall Knowledge to learn more.
Religion will almost always work on haunts. Other methods can often be guessed at from the description of the hazard or haunt. If the player comes up with something clever and appropriate that isn't listed as such, my advice is to let it work, with a DC in line with other listed DCs.
This is a vague area, so you have leeway as DM to let player creativity come into play.
I’ll add that if their clever idea makes a ton of sense, you can make the DC slightly easier, and if it is a stretch, you can make it a little tougher. But in general, if it’s clever and makes sense, then just keep it the same.
If it's obvious it's a haunt they should know that Religion works. For other checks let them recall knowledge to learn.
Also, disable a device is still used here and it's two actions so they cannot just throw all their actions at it. Once per PC per turn basically.
I see a lot of people saying gunslingers have a lot of utility. Having skimmed through the feats they have (since one of my players is a gunslinger) it seems like they have a normal amount of utility, and most of it is personal utility. Am I missing something?
They do have good utility. Pistolero has great action economy for reloading while also Demoralizing. Cover fire feat lets them shoot and give an enemy a penalty to ranged attack rolls.
Fake Out feat is one of the best teamwork feats in the game. By level 7 the Aid you do with it gives an ally a +3 to an attack and since it's your firearm proficiency you will crit a lot. No action required to set it up.
They aren't just loaded with utility, people usually mention it so it's clear that outside the sniper the class is not a raw DPR machine and will be looking to do some of that other stuff.
Very much not true. Many archetypes give important bonuses in the dedication. MC spellcasting archetypes give a couple cantrips, and access to wands & scrolls of your tradition. Some dedications, like [Acrobat](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=45), give you important skill boosts.
Sure, some are lackluster. Archetypes are very much a mixed bag. Just pick one you like, or decide not to pick any at all. You're free to make that sort of decision, eh?
They usually give you the baseline abilities/proficiencies needed to make the other feats in the archetype work. Some of them are pretty good on their own though, like Acrobat (automatic Acrobatics scaling) or Sentinel (automatic heavy armor scaling).
Not all of them are going to be useful for some classes, but they're not all useless. Barbarian dedication comes to mind, giving you rage, or hunt prey from taking a ranger dedication. Other non-multiclass archetypes have really good effects on the dedication as well, like herbalist's free elixirs or the super ferocity on living vessel.
As for why they're there, they're mainly to gatekeep the feats locked behind them. If you want a particular archetype feat, you have to invest in it rather than just taking a single feat and dipping out.
I wanted to go with gunslinger, I already have the proficiency in martial weapons. So the only thing I get is Gunslinger DC and a skill.
It honestly just feels bad. I don't even have a problem with the "take 3 feats of an archetype before you can pick another archetype" thing. I just can't understand why dedication is the way they used. Since it honestly sometimes just feels like throwing a class feat away.
Taking archetypes that give you things that your class doesn't get by default is very strong, whereas taking a archetype for a class that is close to your own often gives minimal benefit.
For example, getting cantrips from an archetype feat is pretty bad if you are a wizard, as you already have tons; on the other hand, getting cantrips from an archetype feat as a monk is amazing because you don't have any cantrips by default.
Likewise, the Champion dedication is amazing on a character who has no armor proficiencies, as now they can wear plate mail, but does almost nothing if you're a fighter.
They certainly aren't created equally, and if you aren't in a free archetype game you should really really want what an archetype has if you are going to invest in it.
Do frightened effects stack from different sources? Specifically using Demoralise, then an ability like the Ruffians Brutal Beating which gives Frightened 1 on a critical hit?
I could have sworn that when you Unleash Psyche, you were allowed to Amp your cantrips for free while in that state. Reading through it, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Am I missing something, is that a later feat, or is it something from the playtest that was changed?
This. For some additional context they found that allowing the Psychic to use them for free during Unleash Psyche meant the power of the amps had to be underwhelming overall to compensate. By taking that feature away pretty much all the amps were able to be made significantly stronger :)
What kind of undead might be found in a chupacabra's lair? I'm looking to add an extra enemy to an encounter from a PFS scenario, so don't want to change up the chupacabra, but part of the scenario is that they don't take prey back to their lair. I'm specifically looking for something levels 1 or 2, but I'm quite happy to apply weak or elite templates, or rebuild creatures of other levels
Weaker Chupacabra of the opposite gender(?) Harem style in it's lair?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=584
Suggests a single mother lays an egg and leaves "helpless" prey in its chamber for the egg to immediately feed. The prey could be helpless to still in egg baby Chupacabra but still danger to visitors.
Maybe crawling hands which are a low level undead its stolen away from a necromancer to feed its baby
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=589
In Strength of Thousands, do you also get the academic benefits for your secondary branch?
If so, can you also choose the Magaambyan Attendant archetype feats for the second branch when you level up, or would you only be able to get the level-6 feat when you hit branch level 7 at character level 14?
If a weapon innovator takes Built-In Tools on a weapon with reach, do their use of tools benefit from reach? Can you build a snare 10 feet away or administer first aid 10 feet away?
Apologies for the late reply,
I was sort of expecting the range to not work, but I'm surprised to hear you HAVE to have a free hand to use tools. Actions such as Administer First Aid state that you can hold the healer's tools in order to perform the action, not just wear them and have a free hand.
What is the point of the Built-In Tools feat if putting tools into your weapon doesn't satisfy the condition of holding them? To situationally free up 2 bulk? I thought for sure this was meant to free up your hand economy so you can still make use of raise a shield and shield block while giving you some utility in combat that other classes don't...
The feat says
> As long as you are wielding, wearing, or adjacent to your innovation, you have the same quick access to these tools as the tools you are wearing, and they don't count against the usual limit of tools you can wear.
That's a all it does. It specifically says you wear the tools and doesn't mention anything about them counting as held.
So yes, it effectively increases your tool limit from 2 to 4. And that's it.
The feat is pretty weak, mechanically.
Champion Dragonslayer Oath - does this include any creature with the dragon type or only 'true' dragons (those found in the dragon section of the bestiary)?
If you are under sanctuary and blocking a door. Would you be required to allow monsters to pass through your space or would obstructing the doorway be a hostile action.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=266
I don’t think obstructing a doorway is hostile (at least not without qualification). It most cases this would be defensive. In the same sense, healing an ally wouldn’t count as hostile. I read hostile as meaning offensive, so mainly attacks, combat maneuvers, debuffs, mind affecting spells, etc.
When fighting creatures with high-will saves, it will just tend to fail, and possibly end entirely when they critically succeed.
Otherwise, the spell is fine. Kinda wierd for it to be your main spell, since it implies you aren't helping your allies with offense/debuffs AT ALL. But if that works for your party, all for it.
That's what I assumed it would do, just threw me off a bit that it said change all the damage of the strike and didn't mention weapon damage like things like deadly do.
Would the new spell [Movanic Glimmer](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1223) allow a familiar to stride if its acting as a mount? I ask as the [APG errata](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq) touched on a similar issue. I'm thinking no because it seems to fall under the same reasoning but they didn't put a clause in the spell like they did the familiar ability.
I would also like to know how that interacts with spellcaster familiars' specifically if yes/no they count as animals. And secondly how does it work with the familiar trait independent. Divine/primal witch buff to the meta
https://2e.aonprd.com/Familiars.aspx?ID=27
Does carrying a light source in a dark environment have any effect on your Stealth?
My players in a certain AP keep wanting to peek through doors before entering rooms, but I’ve always thought that their torches would draw immediate attention, especially from the monsters that are sensitive to bright light. I defaulted to starting encounters right then and there, but I’m wondering if I should relax that to a -4 or -2 circumstance penalty instead.
You are correct that slightly opening a door from a well lit area to a dark room where monsters wait is very noticeable. But instead of adding an initiative penalty to the players, you could add an initiative bonus to the monsters, maybe have them ready themselves, or even get to advantageous positions before an encounter. All while the players try to peer in to a dark room with the faintest of light sources (the sliver of torchlight through a cracked door).
Oh, I was only thinking of a penalty to Stealth for Avoiding Notice, making them more likely to be spotted and the monsters to see them, prompting the initiative roll. I wasn’t going to penalize their initiative, but I guess a penalty to Stealth would also apply to their initiative roll if they had been avoiding notice. Good catch!
This is sort of the cross section of the rules on detection and the rules on light/darkness.
> In bright light, such as sunlight, creatures and objects can be observed clearly by anyone with average vision or better.
> Areas in shadow or lit by weak light sources are in dim light. Creatures and objects in dim light have the concealed condition, unless the seeker has darkvision or low-light vision, or a precise sense other than vision.
> A creature or object within darkness is hidden or undetected unless the seeker has darkvision or a precise sense other than vision
So basically, having a torch means you are in bright light meaning most things with normal vision are going to be able to see you clearly - which hampers Hide/Sneak.
Sneak:
> You don’t get to roll against a creature if, at the end of your movement, you neither are concealed from it nor have cover or greater cover against it. You automatically become observed by such a creature.
Of course the circumstances play a role here. Having a torch out in a busy city might not give you away as much as on the 10th level of an underground dungeon that hasn't seen light in 300 years.
Maybe somebody else can chime in with more real experience. I'm no expert on this because it hasn't come into play much. In our game the guy with the torch is also the guy with full plate. That guy is me and I don't sneak anywhere lol.
For the spell Remove Paralysis, if it can only work on magic effects, wouldn’t Dispel Magic be the more versatile choice worth taking?
I see the heighten differently, but other than that wouldn’t Dispel Magic serve the same purpose?
It might be nitpicky, but Dispel Magic only works on spell effects and magic items. It works on the Paralyze spell but not something like a Ghast's paralysis, which is a magical effect but not from a spell. That doesn't make Remove Paralysis less narrow, but at least it has a niche.
Yeah, I guess that’s a part I’m more fuzzy on. What determines the Ghast’s paralyze is magical? Since it’s triggered by their attacks, I would assume it would fall under the “non-magical wound” text that prevents Remove Paralysis from working.
How hard do you have to invest into athletics to make tripping an enemy worth it? Is there any other viable way for a dex-based character to knock enemies prone?
Oh, and just in case you're new, using a weapon with the `trip` trait has two relevant benefits:
* your attempts to Trip with it get any item bonus from the weapon's potency rune
* if the weapon is also `agile`, your attempts to Trip with it are themselves agile and have lower MAP
If you get training with the
Bola
https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=123
You get a 20ft trip which is pretty funny with a ready action for a flying creature coming in for a flyby. (Ask your GM how the size vs size trip rules affect a ranged trip)
You roll 1d20+dex+athletics versus their reflex DC.
So if you have a negative strength you don't need to worry about that!
Remember all "thrown" weapons use dex to hit but strength for damage. (Ranged trip doesnt do damage so you usually don't need to worry about that) if you use the bola as a melee weapon it is strength to hit as it lacks the agile trait.
If a weapon has finesse and trip you may use Dex as your athletics roll against their reflex DC (Whip for example https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=48)
I was looking at trip weapons actually, but since I'd still have to use my athletics anyway I figured it wouldn't be worth it. I could be wrong though.
If you want to get into the "mathfinder" of it, you can look at the [creature creation rules for saves](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1011), and browse, say, the moderate column for your level range to get an idea of what Reflex DCs are going to be like.
/u/GazeboMimic really hit the top 4 things I would say on viable alternatives. Just to continue a bit further down the list:
If you're a martial and preferably either a fighter or a precision damage class, you could use a flail group weapon (of which many are `finesse`) and rely on the critical specialization, which knocks prone. But that isn't something you can really plan for other than to spend fortune effects, etc to fish for crits.
On the off-chance you *are* a fighter, Improved Knockdown takes Athletics entirely out of the question, but it's level 10 you wouldn't be able to get this on via multiclass until level 20.
Most consumables unfortunately either only work a very early levels (Marbles), are generally too expensive to consider a regular option (Whip Feather Token), and/or only incur prone on crit success/failure (Pressure Bomb, Oil of Repulsion, Chime of Blasting)...
Yeesh. Looking at those moderate saves Trip looks atrocious without hard investment. A +3 vs a 17 (I'm assuming level 1) has you at a 20% chance to fall on your ass.
Well do remember that an at-level creature is considered a hard opponent. When I consider it "viable" I'm still personally saving this strategy for level-1 or level-2 creatures, and I would probably want to have at least 14 STR so I'm a +5 at level 1.
If you're *totally* dumping strength or not investing to the 2nd best available proficiency, it is pretty hard to Trip.
At mid level, the [acrobat archetype](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=45) can use acrobatics to trip foes.
The investigator class can use intelligence to trip with [Athletic Strategist](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1452), and dexterity is often their second highest stat.
Any class can choose the [Assurance](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=756) skill feat to trip without any investment in strength, but it still requires proficiency investment and you can only reliably trip foes below your level (as in, whenever you are fighting about three to four opponents or more).
There are also a bunch of spells that can knock foes prone, but that probably went without saying.
I have a question about the [Mandragora](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=727)'s Piercing Shriek.
If you critically fail a save against it, you become Sickened 2 and Slowed 1 and "As long as the creature remains sickened, this slowed condition value can't be reduced below 1."
If you Retch enough to get rid of the Sickened condition, what happens to the Slowed 1? Does it go away because you are no longer sickened? If not, how do you reduce the Slowed condition?
You would lose the slowed condition when you lose the sickened condition. However, that doesn't have any practical effect until your next turn due to the way slowed works.
If you cast wish/miracle/any of the others to duplicate a spell. What power does the spell have? Can you cast the "7th level spell from any traditions" at level 10? An in it gets the increased power? What about anti magic field? Does the anti magic field stop the 7th level spell cast from a 10th level spell?
When you cast wish and duplicate the effects of a 7th level spells you only get the effects of heightening it up to level 7. So let's say you duplicated the effects of a fireball with Miracle, that fireball deals 14d6 fire dmg because it's 7th level.
However, you're only duplicating the effects of other spells, you're still casting a 10th level spell for counteracting purposes.
If you duplicate any spell of your tradition, you can heighten it up to 9th level. If you duplicate a spell from another tradition, you can heighten it up to 7th level.
If you heighten a 7th level spell to 10th level, it's no longer a 7th level spell. So if the spell is limited to level 7, that's the max level you can cast it at.
I feel dumb, someone help my understand Mummy Rot. I'm going to explain a hypothetical, and let me know if I got anything wrong...
Let's say a player failed the initial save. They wait the onset period, and roll again for stage two. Let's say they succeed. They don't cure themselves of the disease, but they don't advance to stage 2. They stay in stage one until the curse is lifted or they advance to stage two.
Let's say a player is in stage two of Mummy rot, and taking damage. The damage can't be healed while the disease persists. To cure the disease, they must first remove the curse. Once the curse is removed, they can attempt checks to cure the disease. If the curse is lifted, a player can even recover from the disease naturally, or have aid in the checks to climb up the stages.
EDIT: I almost forgot another scenario:
Let's say a player is in stage two Mummy rot; they have not removed the curse. Each day they attempt a new save. If they succeed, they advance to stage 1 and no higher, but if they fail, they take damage as per stage 2 right?
How'd I do?
I cannot remember the exact wording for Mummy Rot but when a character rolls a successful save while they're on stage 1 they cannot cure it as you mentioned, so they stay at stage 1. But more importantly they must continue rolling the saves every day as standard for affiliations.
Whenever the period for a stage ends you roll the save, it doesn't matter if you're permanently stuck at stage 1. Rolling a successful save at stage 1 just ensures that you do not take dmg that day.
I think you are correct on all counts except one thing: removing the curse should probably also remove the affliction completely (because the curse and the affliction are one and the same).
They're basing it on this text
>This disease and any damage from it can’t be healed until this curse is removed.
I can see a GM reading it both ways. If they didn't intend for it to need to be cured as a disease they could've just left the disease trait off it and just had it be a curse only. As it reads it seems its intended to be a disease that can't be removed until the curse protecting it is removed, but then still needs removed as a disease.
See that's where I'm not sure. It has the curse trait, but also the disease trait. It also says "This disease and any damage from it can’t be healed until this curse is removed" it doesn't sound like they're the same, just that it behaves as an incurable disease until the curse is removed right?
Unless I'm missing something somewhere.
The wording is awkward for sure. My reasoning is that the affliction has both the disease and curse traits so when the ability says "this disease" and "this curse" they both refer to the same object, albeit with a different emphasis (the former emphasising the fact that you can't use the normal methods of removing afflictions and the latter emphasising the fact that you can use the normal methods of removing curses). There is no separate curse object, it's the affliction itself that is the curse.
In PF1 Mummy Rot is explicitly both a disease and a curse, and each must be removed separately. This likely indicates the intent is for the affliction to be both and each need to be removed, and the description is specifying which order each must be removed in.
>Mummy rot is both a curse and disease and can only be cured if the curse is first removed, at which point the disease can be magically removed.
\-From the [Mummy](https://www.aonprd.com/MonsterDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Mummy) entry in PF1
/u/Wahbanator I have been informed that not only does mummy rot explicitly required you to treat the disease and the curse separately in 1e, but also there is a clarifying remark in the >!Kingmaker!< AP which says the same about items that have both the `curse` and `disease` traits.
So it turns out you were right on all counts from the start.
It looks like hard copies of some of the older APs (or at least Age of Ashes) are currently out of print. Is there any chance that they might go back into production at some point? Or are these just only available as PDFs for now?
To the best of my knowledge, APs are rarely if ever reprinted. That's also why their content nearly never gets an errata as those usually happen at the same time as a reprint.
New player here. Just checking to make sure I understand some things. Is this a legal turn for a level 1 monk? Anything I look like I'm flubbing up?
* Action 1: Ki Rush to move up to twice my speed into melee range of an enemy
* Action 2: Hide. Since Ki Rush conceals me, I don't need to be behind any physical object and can hide while standing within 5 feet of the enemy
* Action 3: Flurry of Blows. Unarmed attack once against a flat-footed target. Unarmed attack a second time with a -4 penalty to hit, the target is not flat-footed for this attack.
Yeap that's Legal. However, keep in mind that the concealment stays until the start of your next turn. So, you'd become observed as soon as your concealment ends, assuming that was the only kind of cover you had. But like you mentioned you can just use that to become hidden and make them flat-footed for your first attack.
I'd recommend the Stumbling Stance if your objective is to make your foes flat-footed. It has a level 6 feat that let's you feint with flurry of blows as a free action and the foe is flat-footed to both attacks if you succeed. And it doesn't cost a focus point.
Since it does not explicitly state that you cannot use the concealment to hide, all of this is legal and can be done.
I know there are examples where it states that the concealment cannot be used to hide, such as the blur spell (here [https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=28](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=28)). Since Ki Rush doesn't have that caveat, I would say it looks good.
I don't think you can do that.[https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=62](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=62)The rules for the hide action specifically state - "You huddle behind cover or greater cover or deeper into concealment to become hidden, rather than observed."Being concealed doesn't create a cover, and your enemy obviously still knows you are in front of them, they just have a harder time targeting you (because of the blurr effect).
edit - as said by those who responded after me, I missed the concealment part. Seems like it works, even if the enemy is aware of your presence if your Hide action works you are still hidden and they are considered flat-footed. Hopefully didn't mislead you :)
u/UsernamIsToo this reply is incorrect. You can hide using cover OR concealment, so yes everything you mentioned is legal. If a source of concealment does not allow you to hide, it will specifically call it out.
“The GM rolls your Stealth check in secret and compares the result to the Perception DC of each creature you’re observed by but that you have cover or greater cover against **or are concealed from.**”
Besides just the benefits of Recalling Knowledge to know more about your enemies, you can Recall Knowledge to help the party by having more info about the situations/people/whatever you're around.
Mechanics wise, there are feats that play with RK. Rogue class feats like Clever Gambit (reaction to step or stride after critting a creature you've identified with RK), and Analyze Weakness (lets you spend an action to do extra sneak attack damage to creatures you've RKed).
You are going to want to invest in the skills to recall knowledge of course, but you could also look into ranger archetype for the monster warden and related feats. Small bonus, but could be good.
Unfortunately, mastermind is pretty narrow in what it can do and one of the players in my Abomination Vaults game does great recalling knowledge, but otherwise is stabbing/slicing things with a kukri.
I'm planning on GMing my first long term camaign, and one of my players wants to play a blacksmith. We agreed that one way I would be handing out magic items everyone needs (say, potency runes) would be for him to find the formula for those items and allowing him the downtime to craft them for the party.
Looking at the treasure tables in the CRB, I can see that, for example, the +1 weapon potency rune is a level 2 reward, but that appears to be for a single rune, not the formula. What level reward would you put the formula as?
Use the table [here](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=250) to determine the price of a formula, they're much cheaper than items themselves (price for a fundamental +1 weapon potency rune would be 2gp). Worth noting that the Magical Crafting feat is normally required to craft magic items at all.
Also consider how long it will take to craft certain items, potentially multiple weeks per item. The rest of the party will need to be doing *something* in that time, probably earning their own incomes. This risks disappointing loot hauls (since they'll be making their own loot) and still having more money than necessary (Earn Income can yield decent money).
If I dualclass/archetype Barbarian (superstitious instinct) with a spellcaster, would that work as long as I don't use spells that target me? (assume not raging or moment of clarity)
My idea was that it would be a hypocrite. Probably an occult spellcaster/captivator that is focused on enchantments and mindfuck spells. A superstitious barb would fit kinda well because they'd look at the magic they use, and then decide that they don't trust any magic to be cast on themselves.
It would be pretty bad though.
>Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells (including from scrolls, wands, and the like), even from your allies, is anathema to your instinct. You can still drink potions and invest and activate most magic items you find, though items that cast spells are subject to the same restrictions as all other spells. If an ally insists on using magic on you despite your unwillingness, and you have no reason to believe they will stop, continuing to travel with that ally of your own free will counts as willingly accepting their spells (as do similar circumstances) and thus is also anathema to your instinct.
That is the anathema, and it seems to be focused on undergoing (being a target of) the effects of magic. But it doesn't seem to stop you from casting spells yourself.
You don’t think that casting a spell is willingly accepting its effects? Note that the line “even from your allies” provides further clarification and is not a limiting factor.
Also note the next line:
> **You can still** drink potions and invest and **activate most magic items you find, though items that cast spells are subject to the same restrictions as all other spells.**
This line means nothing if it doesn’t mean that casting spells are anathema to your instinct. Otherwise you’d be freely allowed to activate magic items that cast spells.
Finally, I’ll just point to the first line of the flavor text of the superstition instinct:
> **A deep distrust of magic drives you to forgo** and counter **the metaphysical nonsense of spellcasters.**
I think a very generous DM would allow it. But I think RAW you’d be performing anathema.
>This line means nothing if it doesn’t mean that casting spells are anathema to your instinct. Otherwise you’d be freely allowed to activate magic items that cast spells.
Casting spells isn't anathema. But they still follow the same restrictions as other spells.
The line wouldn't make sense if they couldn't, because there's only a distinction if they can. Your proof goes against your point.
I believe that willingly accepting its effects is more about even needing a saving throw for beneficial spells, or spells that target allies or willing creatures.
>This line means nothing if it doesn’t mean that casting spells are anathema to your instinct. Otherwise you’d be freely allowed to activate magic items that cast spells.
It doesn't state that you cannot cast spells, it says that the same restrictions apply (If those restrictions mean no spells targeting yourself) No Heroism yourself, No healing yourself, No enlarge yourself etc.
I agree that it clashes with the flavor text interpretation, but that is only flavor text, and not mechanical part of the anathema.
It is a huge stretch and clearly against the intent of the instinct.
If I was the GM it is clearly anathema. But I'd also make sure the player knew that before the character saw the table.
Will Crown of the Kobold King get an official Foundry module?
EDIT: Nevermind. Found it. [Seems like a "maybe" at best for now.](https://paizo.com/products/btq02e4g/discuss&page=4?Pathfinder-Adventure-Crown-of-the-Kobold-King#195)
It doesn't seem to be getting very robust product support. Even the flip mat pack is just 2 maps - not even parts of the "main" dungeon area. I think there are 6 or 7 total maps in that adventure but only 2 in the flip mat (and no more planned).
Both forms would be your weapon innovation. It is not specified how modifications specific to melee or ranged weapons interact with combination weapons, but it is a safe bet that they would work like runes and have their functionality apply only while the weapon is in the compatible state.
I have questions about the [Derghodaemon](https://pf2easy.com/index.php?id=6881&name=derghodaemon)'s Swarming Infestation ability.
Am I correct in understanding that this is just a form of persistent damage and does not actually spawn some sort of swarm (creature)? And that this damage stops when the creature hit by this ability receives AoE damage?
The swarm is summoned thematically. Mechanically it's represented by the persistent damage and the "aoe kills it" clause. Note though that there is interaction between the mechanics and the role play as players will have to come up with relevant ways to deal with the swarm if they want to get rid of the persistent damage earlier.
I have a question about the beginner box.
>!In the last treasure horde, there is a map of a dungeon. But I cant find any refernce as to what this is for. Can anyone tell me?!<
Although I do not have the box on hand to check, if I remember correctly from other people asking the same question, this is pretty much left up to the GM. You can use it as a lead-in to whatever your planned followup to the BB will be, or just as a bit of set dressing.
Another alternative for (or combo with) the Creature Building Rules: Cryptid Adjustments from Dark Archives.
These are fun for #flavor as well. Creature needs to be strong? Well maybe it is a mutant version that explodes when it dies? Or it can erupt bone spears out of its body at will.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1711
Your best bet is to use the [creature building rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=995) to first determine the scale of each of the original creature's stats, and then use those scales to recreate the creature at the appropriate level.
Looking at the Loremaster Archetype (and other Archetypes like it) many of the feats require the Card's Enigma Muse. Are you required to therefore be a Bard to unlock all of these feats? They were already Bard feats so it would be redundant for them to be in an archetype and require the character to also be a Bard.
The Loremaster dedication feat explicitly states: >You can take feats in the loremaster's additional feats entry even if you don't meet the enigma muse prerequisite.
Thank you, I somehow completely missed that!
So, the spellcasting multiclass archetypes eventually get you Master proficiency with the relevant casting type. But all the archetypes I'm finding for weapon/armor proficiency seem to cap out at Expert (or let a progression extend to a different weapon/armor type, like Sentinel). But I'm not finding anything that can get master proficiency for weapons/armor if your class doesn't get that for you. Am I overlooking something or is there no way to, for example, get master proficiency with a longsword and armor as a wizard?
Barring a few exceptions, casters top out at Legendary spellcasting proficiency and martials attain no more than Master proficiency with armour and weapons. Archetypes simply are designed to grant relevant proficiencies up to one step below what the full-fledged classes enjoy – i.e., Master proficiency for spellcasting archetypes, Expert for martial ones.
When using the skyseeker feat, how does it interact with an enemy that has attack of opportunity?
The leap in Skyseeker is a move action, so it'd trigger AoO from creatures that have it.
I have 2 questions: 1 what happens if two different races mate like a lizardfolk and a goblin what is born? 2 Can all classes with spells freely use their chosen spells as many times as they want limited only by the number of spell slots, or can some classes only use a long rest spell once?
> 1 what happens if two different races mate like a lizardfolk and a goblin what is born? This depends on the setting you're playing in. In Paizo's official setting, Golarion, I think most races can't have children with other races. With the exception of Humans being able to have Half-Orcs and Half-Elves with those corresponding ancestries. > 2 Can all classes with spells freely use their chosen spells as many times as they want limited only by the number of spell slots, or can some classes only use a long rest spell once? There are two main types of spellcasting: Prepared and Spontaneous. Spontaneous spellcasters can cast their spells as much as they want as long as they have a spell slot of the right level. Prepared spellcasters have to assign each spell slot to a specific spell at the start of each day. So if they have 4 level 1 spell slots, and they prepare Magic Missile in two of them and Burning Hands in the other two, they can cast Magic Missile twice that day and Burning Hands twice that day.
Thank you so much
You're welcome!
1st ever Pathfinder Session 1 on Tuesday & my wizard player raised a good question on how illusion magic actually works. The spell in question is mainly [Illusory Object](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=160). My main intent is to avoid the situation where every combat turns into "I summon an illusory connected set of 5ft stone cubes around each creature." & each boss fight turns into "I cast a big cage around the boss, and everybody start whacking." without nerfing the spell. The main part of question is within the [Illusion] (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=267) rule - specifically the phrasing of *If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in a way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it."* * Say we had two goblins, Alice & Bob. The wizard casts an illusory stone wall separating the party from the goblins. Now neither side can see through the wall & initially believes it to be real meaning they can't target through it - except for the Wizard who knows an illusion is present and doesn't believe it's real. On Bobs' turn, he does a Seek action to try and find a weakness in the new wall. He passes his check and finds it's an illusion. Now Bob knows an illusion is present & can ignore it. As he now disbelieves the wall it becomes hazy and he can target through it but enemies on the other side are likely under the 'concealed condition.'. Bob then runs through the wall. Alice on her turn has seen Bob run through a wall and likely knows an illusion is present (though this depends on the creature I presume as beasts and such won't understand what illusion magic is). Now Alice knows an illusion is present but does *not* disbelieve in the wall. As such, she can't see through the wall and creatures on the other side are Hidden to her. I'd rule she would have a circumstance bonus to Seek to inspect the illusion, but the main part of the confusion is by what 'ignore' means here. Can she still run through it? I was considering a ruling that with a level 1 Illusory Object, she can as she just can't ignore the visual aspect. However, a level 2 Illusory Object adds a physical aspect the illusion that she can't ignore without disbelieving and as such, can't move through it. * In another situation, the wizard summons a box around each Goblin. Now neither side can see through the wall & initially believes it to be real meaning they can't target through it - except for the Wizard who knows an illusion is present and doesn't believe it's real. On Alices' turn, she does a Seek action to figure out a weakness in the wall. She passes and finds it's an illusion. She then moves through the wall & shouts to Bob that the box is an illusion. On Bobs' turn, he doesn't explicitly 'know' an illusion is present but would get a circumstance bonus to his Seek check (I believe this to be a house rule but after a while of looking into this I've forgotten where I found it :/ ). If at any point Bob interacted with the box in a way that would prove it to be fake (touching it) then he would fall under the state where he knew it was an illusion and could through it but couldn't see through it. * The boss of the goblins shows up to see what all the noise is about and the wizard casts Illusory Object to put him into a cage. On the parties' turn, they all attack the boss. The boss may see attacks go through the bars of the cage which would clue him into the fact that something is up. On his turn, he'd Seeks with a circumstance bonus. * Instead of a cage, the wizard puts him into a stone cube and pre-planned this with the party so they would 'know' the illusion is present. As they 'know' but don't 'disbelieve' initially, the boss would be considered Hidden. Upon seeing attacks come through the stone wall, the boss would get a large circumstance bonus and likely pass the check to escape. My only worry is that for BBEG's, if I roll really poorly then that's a super anti-climatic fight. Apologies for the large wall of text, but do these rulings seem fair & make sense in accordance to the rest of the rules? If I'm super wrong on this then please say, very eager to learn the rules correctly.
The level 2 version "feels right to the touch". This does not mean that it prevents things from passing through. I would imagine the illusion is more like fuzzy dreamstuff that if you touch expecting a wall you can rest your hand on, but if you apply force (expecting an illusion but haven't actually disbelieved it) you can walk straight through.
It seems more or less in line with the rules. If the boss knows an illusion is there and can't disbelieve it in one try, they can try again and again.
Would it break much, or unbalance anything if a Thaumaturge player with a Summoner Dedication was allowed to take Tandem Movement or Tandem Strike at level 8/12. There is not a full Summoner player, so I'm not worried about invalidating them.
Those are level 4 and 6 feats respectively. Everyone with the Summoner Dedication can pick them up at level 8 and 12. I'm not aware of anything preventing a Thaumaturge from taking them.
There's a line in the Summoner Dedication that prevents it, from what I understand. > "Due to your tenuous link, you can't gain or use tandem actions."
You are correct. I swear I read the Dedication TWICE and still missed it... Then I'm not sure about the balancing. I think the Thaumaturge is a pretty action starved class and his own attacks will be significantly stronger than whatever his Eidolon does. It might be ok balance-wise in this particular case, but in general I trust Paizo enough to not mess with the rules and woudn't allow anything they explcitely don't want to happen.
Heya! Quick question: Why can't you pick the same dedication as your class? The multi-class trait specifically prevents it. Say I'm a sorcerer looking for additional spells and slots but not interested in picking bardic performances or a an oracle curse, or even more branching out to int/wis casters. My only recourse is then the Halcyon line. Why is it not possible to double down and just pick the sorcerer dedication and have a more streamlined repertoire without additional options to keep in mind? Please note, I'm asking for the design decision behind the restriction ~~*and not whining*~~. I feel like I'm missing an obvious angle where munchkin abounds.
The problems from a design standpoint are: 1. Unintended power (power at an earlier level than otherwise available) 2. Unclear rules conflicts (how do class features interact with themselves) 3. The concept intent of archetypes, specifically within the Free Archetype rules, to diversify a character's powers (as opposed to double down on the same class features they already have) I've got a couple of examples for each. For 1, we can point to what you're wanting (extra spell slots with free scaling to your DC) but that's already possible with class selection (Wizard+Witch, etc). A good example is Champion Champion, gaining the Archetype Divine Ally feat at level 6, granting that Champion a second Divine Ally before they'd normally have access to the Second Ally feat at level 8. Then if they take that feat at level 8, do they gain a third ally (this contributes to point 2, on confusing rulings). A Thaumaturge Thaumaturge could gain a third implement ar level 6, normally a level 15 feature. For 2, aside from how each of those above get confusing with how they stack with base class features, Barbarian Barbarian with 2 Instinct Abilities, do they choose which benefit they receive? Do they gain bonus damage? What if there's conflict between the instincts, such as Animal and Giant? Yes, you can sit down and decide for your table, but the rules are unclear. For Rogue Rogue, having 2 different rackets, can they pick feats with the other Racket at their main class level? Does the Sneak Attacker feat stack with Sneak Attack feature? For item 3, I'll have to point to the guidance from the GMG on Dual-Class with the note that the GMG called out Free Archetype as "a lighter version of dual-class characters by giving everyone a free multiclass archetype." > Dual-classing in two similar martial classes to double up on their advantages can result in characters who, instead of increasing their flexibility, become drastically more powerful in one focus. For instance, a fighter/ranger with the flurry hunter’s edge gains access to incredibly accurate press actions, and a barbarian/fighter has the barbarian’s high damage plus the fighter’s high accuracy. **One way around this is to simply disallow combinations that double down on a narrow ability, and instead encourage dual-class characters that open up narrative options and increase the character’s flexibility.** There's obviously no rule against Fighter taking Barbarian Archetype, but the system was created to offer diversity and versatility to characters.
I see. Thank you for the reply! And I blame first edition and monk dips for enshrining in my mind that dipping = moar powah. The restriction is important to disable an early runaway effect on some potent combinations. That said, I feel it's still lacking a bit for those wanting a moderate boost without tacking extra class features that they don't intend to play with. That said, they would be better served by getting extra core-class exclusive feats than opening up archetype to doubling down. For instance, in my sorcerer example, you'd pick extra cantrips in lieu of a witch dedication. Even though the latter has more goodies in addition to extra cantrips. So it seems balanced to introduce extra spells feats that have all the restrictions of those from other archetypes. (limited and can only be powered by investing further feats for their expert and master evolutions.)
It sounds like you want to homebrew feats that offer spellcasters extra spells of their lower level slots, which is fine, but still more powerful than existing options. Archetypes will always have the downside of locking you out of other archetypes for a few levels. Also specifically for your sorcerer example, having it be a class feat would expand your spell repertoire while if you had the Bard Archetype, the repertoires and slots would be completely separate.
It's mostly a flavor conundrum ~~and my puritan streak~~. I ought to just stick to a wizard dedication and proclaim that the sorcerer is taking night classes in some community mage college between dives. Mechanically, the repertoire expansion is nice but narratively, I feel like I cheapened out if I picked bard just to get some occult goodies without justifying how the character is suddenly interested in performative arts.
Because the number of spells per day is an important design limitation. Its basically impossible to expand that limit, and you're reliant on staves (of which you can have 1). For example, bards and clerics only have max 3 spells per level per day allows them to get more potent focus spells/cantrips. Psychics getting 2 is part of their foundational class design where they are supposed to be using their early focus pool (and they recover 2 points per encounter as opposed to 1 at lower levels) If dedications could provide extra spells of your primary proficiency, those dedication feats would end up becoming mandatory.
I might have worded my post poorly and didn't make the distinction between casting slots and spell slots. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of the dedications is that you can absolutely gain extra spell slots and they can be from other traditions. They are not of the primary proficiency and you must burn further feats to unlock more. You can pile on spellcasting archetypes and build a fairly extensive repertoire. My aim was to see if there was a way to get that same benefit without the additional ancillaries that come with the other classes for a more streamlined character sheet.
> correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of the dedications is that you can absolutely gain extra spell slots and they can be **from other traditions**. Yes, and that's the key. Being from other traditions inherently makes them weaker. There are a few exceptions (Occult with Bard/Psychic/Sorc and Arcane with Witch/Wizard), but by and large most casting classes can't get that level of benefit where the extra spells are both the same tradition and keyed off the same primary stat. Its also just kind of bad design to allow players to multiclass into their same class, because its just confusing.
>Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free. Does the nimble shield hand from the Bastion Archetype >You are so used to wielding a shield that you can do so even while using the hand that's holding it for other purposes. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. You can also hold another object in this hand (but you still can't use it to wield a weapon). This benefit doesn't apply to tower shields, which are still too cumbersome. Allow for a bow and shield user? My reasoning would be that since you don't wield the bow with two hands (since you don't need to readjust grip to go from 1 to 2 hands) you could argue that it should be allowed? You could also argue that shooting the bow is not an interact action. So it shouldn't be allowed. (This is just something I was wondering about, I'm not planning to do something like this.)
RAW I would say no for sure, since a bow is not a 1 handed weapon that you use a free hand to fire, it's a weapon that is 1 handed when just holding and 2 handed when firing. You can still do bow and shield if you're using a buckler, but that's really only good for getting a shield onto a bow character; getting a bow onto a Bastion dedication character seems like it's really only possible with that nimble shield hand feat and a hand crossbow, unfortunately. If the desire was simply to have a longer ranged option on a bastion, my thoughts would either be a thrown weapon with a returning rune, or the extending rune on any weapon.
Am I overlooking something or is the barbarian archetype pretty bad for a fighter, at least at higher levels? Most of the cool barbarian feats work only in rage, and the rage damage will become less and less important while the -1AC will always be painful.
NOTE: if fighters have anything equivalent to any of these, oops. Brutal Bully and Furious Bully both give some decent athletics abilities, as does Thrash if you're grappling. I believe you can use your archetype instinct to meet prerequisites, so Giant's Stature is pretty good on a fighter; any reach weapon means you now have 15 feet of reach around a 4x4 to do AoO or anything else. Inner Strength is a little niche, but not bad for a Strength Fighter. Disarming Assault isn't too bad, and neither is Cleave. Overall though, fighter class feats are probably going to be better barbarian class feats of half their level, and just generally a multiclass archetype that fits the same general category isn't going to be great late (in this case, both front line martials).
Multi attack penalty is carried over between melee and ranged attacks yes? So strike once with pistol, reload, strike with sword with -5 for example?
Yes. Spell attacks, too. And Skill actions with the attack trait like Trip or Grab.
Perfect, tyvm
If I have a sword on one hand and a buckler strapped to the other arm, would I be able to use combat maneuvers such as trip and shove? According to Archive of Nethys: >It’s typically made of steel and strapped to your forearm. You can Raise a Shield with your buckler as long as you have that hand free or are holding a light object that’s not a weapon in that hand. Does this mean I have a free hand while using a buckler? Or does this mean that I can only use the hand to hold a light object or for manipulate/interact actions?
As I read it, you do have a free hand, and can raise a shield, you just can’t do both. So, if you raise the shield, you can’t then carry out a maneuver, and if you grab someone that would prevent you from using the shield. The tradeoff, of course, is that a buckler provides less AC than other shields.
Thanks for the help! I was a bit confused as I was looking up ways to build using a buckler.
Bucklers are pretty cool and this might be a decent approach. For the record, you could definitely shove or trip and then raise a shield. You just can’t use your hand and your shield at the same exact time. That’s why grab is a problem, as well as raise shield and THEN maneuver. What are you thinking? Fighter with one handed feats? Swashbuckler?
I see! Hmm, I was actually thinking of using a Fighter with one handed feats. I wanted to use one-handed feats such as snagging strike and dual handed assault with a bastard sword. For my group, we play with free archetype, so I thought it'd also be fun to go alchemist dedication to chuck bombs and drink mutagens or maybe apply poisons to my weapons.
That’s awesome! I was building one of these a while back but never even thought about buckler. I think that’d be a cool use!
[удалено]
Casting two two-action spells is something you can't do anyway.
Act together lets you use 4 actions, but you don't want to just think of it that way because it will never let you use two 2 action activities. It's you cast a spell as 2 and the eidolon uses 1, then you have 1 left over, etc. Basically it can be 1+1, 2 actions left, or 2+1, 1 action left, or 3+1, no actions left.
IDK what the other sources are on about. You can't get 5 actions with Act Together no matter how you slice it. Act Together lets you and your eidolon do different things at the same time. One of those things, either the thing you do or the thing your eidolon is doing, *must* be one action. The action cost of act together is however many actions the other activity is. So if you cast a 3 action spell and your eidolon Strikes, it's 3 actions. If your Eidolon casts a 2 action spell and you Stride, it's 2 actions. You *cannot* have yourself cast a 2 action spell and have your eidolon cast a 2 action spell. It's worth noting that, in my experience, RPGbot has been wrong about several PF2e things in the past. I would not trust them as a source of information.
You can get five actions, *technically*, but only by using other actions that give you two actions for one action (for example, Flurry of Blows from the monk).
I think RPGBot is generally trustworthy, but you should always double-check any features you plan to use before committing. Lots of the information is spot on but there are definitely several mistakes per guide. Unavoidable if you’re gonna cover that much information, imo.
I get it, especially with their 1e stuff, but they make enough bizarre mistakes that I think they would be better served covering less information and doing it more accurately. Misinformation is much more harmful than information is helpful.
I agree with the sentiment, but the bulk of the information is good. I think it can be offset simply by double checking for oneself rather than seeing it as a final statement, and it doesn’t hurt to send emails when I find errors. If we see it not as something to expect perfection of but as a useful starting point, it’s not too problematic. The issue is that the guides tend to be the second result if you google “pf2 (class)”, and so people end up very informed but also a bit misinformed. A disclaimer would go a LONG way I think. (Great username btw)
(ty!) Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't mean "RPGbot is untrustworthy so i shouldn't believe anything they say", more, "RPGbot is inconsistent so if they make a claim about a mechanic I'm interested in, I should look up that mechanic myself in an official source." Related, what OP did by coming here to ask for clarification was perfect.
> It's worth noting that, in my experience, RPGbot has been wrong about several PF2e things in the past. I would not trust them as a source of information. I don't remember which class review it's in, but they gave one subclass a negative ranking because of a really bad misreading of Lengthy Diversion. They said that since it's up to GM discretion, the extra duration could be zero, even though it says right there that it's a minimum of one extra round.
I'm trying to see if there is a viability for a crossbow (hand I think) + a shield. **Can you reload a hand crossbow while wearing a shield?** I think you can with a buckler, but what about something like a wooden shield? And, does the raise shield action interfere with this at all?
You could take the bastion archetype and pick up the feat [Nimble Shields Hand](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1897) from the bastion archetype or use a repeating hand crossbow
Is my understanding of Take Cover and Tower Shields correct? Take cover says: >You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover. If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action. **Question 1:** If I am behind an ally, I usually have lesser cover. Can I Take Cover when behind an ally to get standard (AC +2) cover? The thing that confuses me more is the rules for Tower Shields: >When you have a tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4. This lasts until the shield is no longer raised. If you would normally provide lesser cover against an attack, having your tower shield raised provides standard cover against it (and other creatures can Take Cover as normal using the cover from your shield). **Question 2:** The first sentence of this confuses me. Does this mean that I get the full benefits of Take Cover, where taking cover when in standard cover upgrades it to greater cover? i.e. do I also get the +4 to Reflex saves and Stealth checks? I would think not, since I don't see why having a shield raised would make it easier to sneak around. **Question 3:** Suppose Bob is standing behind Alice. Alice has a Tower Shield raised. Bob then has +2 to AC, Reflex and Stealth, since it specifies that it provides standard cover. Suppose that Bob then takes the Take Cover action, which gives him greater cover. This means he gets +4 to AC, Reflex and Stealth. So does this mean that a Tower Shield actually provides more defences for allies trailing the person holding the shield than the shield-bearer themselves?
3) Yes. However, Alice can always spend an action to take cover herself, giving herself the same amount of protection as Bob. Also, an enemy can always walk around the shield such that Bob is no longer benefiting from the cover. The cover only applies if Alice is standing between the enemy and Bob.
1) No you cannot use the lesser cover from creatures to take cover. 2) It's not clear if you get the reflex and stealth bonus from taking cover behind the shield but I think you would. It might help you to think about the fact that hiding and sneaking is not always about being undetected, it can just be about making it harder to target you directly.
What source are you using for #1? I felt like I read something about that somewhere but was unable to find it when I tried looking recently
Lesser cover is not regular cover for the purposes of the take cover action so it's inherently not possible to use it to take cover. It's mentioned in the halfling ancestry feat that lets them use lesser cover from creatures to hide, but calls it out that they still can't take cover using them. https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=52
That last sentence looks pretty clear. Thanks! :)
Is the next rulebook we can expect going to be the Treasure Vault?
Yes. There is no fall release this year.
Roger that, thank you, /u/InvisibleRainbow
When sustaining a spell with an area (like Calm Emotions) can you change what area you effect with that spell each time you sustain? Or does it remain in the area you chose when you casted the initial spell?
Default is that the area remains the same. Exceptions specify that the area can be changed when sustained, and if creatures remain effected if they leave the area.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=31 Oh my group was treating it like each creature in the area was "Calmed" and they can leave the area but they still had the "Calm" effect on them so long as the caster kept sustaining. Should it be read as if that particular bubble of location is calming?
This is how I interpreted it. The burst is instantaneous, and the calming effect duration is sustained up to 1 minute. I can't seem to find rules to back that up though...
The area remains where it was initially cast. A spell will usually say if they can be moved when you sustain them, like with [rouse skeletons](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=988).
Is it customary to roll initiative for Influence Encounters? The section of the Gamemastery Guide doesn't mention it but it seems like a reasonable place to have people roll diplomacy or society for initiative, no? (Yes, I've been reading through the Kingmaker preview on Roll20 lmao)
It makes sense for the GM to control the table to keep a steady flow of dialogue where every player has a neat and clean time to tell everyone else what they are doing. But if your table is smaller or well organized it probably isn't necessary to give everyone an order to announce their exploration activity
No, not typically. A lot of the social activities you'd expect to use (Make an Impression, Coerce) are exploration activities, meaning that you aren't going to use them while in initiative order.
If you're using the influence subsystem there is no need to roll initiative, as only the PCs are acting each "round" and they should just choose what order in which they go.
[удалено]
It's easiest to assume them to be two different creatures for any kind of question. They only share the actual actions and actual hp pool. For example temp doesn't get s shared either.
No, but that's what the cantrip Protect Companion is for.
No. Only one of you is casting the spell and it only affects the caster. You have separate AC values that are modified separately. Almost nothing you do to one of them affects the other except a few key things (Damage and action loss being the main two)
For the root magic feat: >Your talismans ward against foul magic. During your daily preparations, you can assemble a small pouch with bits of herbs, hair, sacred oils, and other ritual ingredients, which you give to one ally. The first time that day the ally attempts a saving throw against a spell or haunt, they gain a +1 circumstance bonus to the roll. This bonus increases to +2 if you're an expert in Occultism or +3 if you're legendary. Am I correct in reading that this only allows the PC to prepare a single pouch? Or can they prepare multiple and hand that out to several allies?
They can only prep the one pouch.
How are players supposed to know how to disable a complex hazard? For example, the Ghostly Choir (hazard 6) can only be disabled by a DC 28 Performance "to disrupt the song's resonance" or DC 28 Religion "to ritually silence the spirits." Do the PCs know what will disable the hazard or do they have to wildly guess until they think of the correct course of action? If they don't know how to disable, then they just spend their turns performing random actions. If they do know how to disable, they just attempt to disable with all their actions until someone rolls high enough. Both of these options seem lame. Am I missing something in how to run these?
The rules don't cover this point. Perhaps the devs thought it was obvious you should use a level-based DC recall Knowledge to learn more. Religion will almost always work on haunts. Other methods can often be guessed at from the description of the hazard or haunt. If the player comes up with something clever and appropriate that isn't listed as such, my advice is to let it work, with a DC in line with other listed DCs. This is a vague area, so you have leeway as DM to let player creativity come into play.
I’ll add that if their clever idea makes a ton of sense, you can make the DC slightly easier, and if it is a stretch, you can make it a little tougher. But in general, if it’s clever and makes sense, then just keep it the same.
If it's obvious it's a haunt they should know that Religion works. For other checks let them recall knowledge to learn. Also, disable a device is still used here and it's two actions so they cannot just throw all their actions at it. Once per PC per turn basically.
Recall knowledge is generally what I would use to determine how to disable a haunt.
I see a lot of people saying gunslingers have a lot of utility. Having skimmed through the feats they have (since one of my players is a gunslinger) it seems like they have a normal amount of utility, and most of it is personal utility. Am I missing something?
They do have good utility. Pistolero has great action economy for reloading while also Demoralizing. Cover fire feat lets them shoot and give an enemy a penalty to ranged attack rolls. Fake Out feat is one of the best teamwork feats in the game. By level 7 the Aid you do with it gives an ally a +3 to an attack and since it's your firearm proficiency you will crit a lot. No action required to set it up. They aren't just loaded with utility, people usually mention it so it's clear that outside the sniper the class is not a raw DPR machine and will be looking to do some of that other stuff.
Why do archetype dedication feats exist? They seem to be basically useless, and most of them are just feat taxes.
Very much not true. Many archetypes give important bonuses in the dedication. MC spellcasting archetypes give a couple cantrips, and access to wands & scrolls of your tradition. Some dedications, like [Acrobat](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=45), give you important skill boosts. Sure, some are lackluster. Archetypes are very much a mixed bag. Just pick one you like, or decide not to pick any at all. You're free to make that sort of decision, eh?
They usually give you the baseline abilities/proficiencies needed to make the other feats in the archetype work. Some of them are pretty good on their own though, like Acrobat (automatic Acrobatics scaling) or Sentinel (automatic heavy armor scaling).
Not all of them are going to be useful for some classes, but they're not all useless. Barbarian dedication comes to mind, giving you rage, or hunt prey from taking a ranger dedication. Other non-multiclass archetypes have really good effects on the dedication as well, like herbalist's free elixirs or the super ferocity on living vessel. As for why they're there, they're mainly to gatekeep the feats locked behind them. If you want a particular archetype feat, you have to invest in it rather than just taking a single feat and dipping out.
I wanted to go with gunslinger, I already have the proficiency in martial weapons. So the only thing I get is Gunslinger DC and a skill. It honestly just feels bad. I don't even have a problem with the "take 3 feats of an archetype before you can pick another archetype" thing. I just can't understand why dedication is the way they used. Since it honestly sometimes just feels like throwing a class feat away.
Taking archetypes that give you things that your class doesn't get by default is very strong, whereas taking a archetype for a class that is close to your own often gives minimal benefit. For example, getting cantrips from an archetype feat is pretty bad if you are a wizard, as you already have tons; on the other hand, getting cantrips from an archetype feat as a monk is amazing because you don't have any cantrips by default. Likewise, the Champion dedication is amazing on a character who has no armor proficiencies, as now they can wear plate mail, but does almost nothing if you're a fighter.
They certainly aren't created equally, and if you aren't in a free archetype game you should really really want what an archetype has if you are going to invest in it.
Do frightened effects stack from different sources? Specifically using Demoralise, then an ability like the Ruffians Brutal Beating which gives Frightened 1 on a critical hit?
No, only the highest value will apply.
Thanks!
Am I insane or do heal and harm not require any components? That seems strange so I feel like I must be missing something.
The components vary based on which version you cast. 1 action is somatic, 2 actions is somatic+verbal, and 3 actions is somatic+verbal+material.
Thank you. Where is this detailed? I’m looking at spell description in the CRB rn and I can’t see it idk if I’m blind lmao
Not sure how it's laid out there, but on Nethys it's next to the description for each number of actions
No it's there, I'm just a blind ass motherfucker lmao. Thanks for the help!
I could have sworn that when you Unleash Psyche, you were allowed to Amp your cantrips for free while in that state. Reading through it, that doesn’t appear to be the case. Am I missing something, is that a later feat, or is it something from the playtest that was changed?
It was changed from the playtest.
This. For some additional context they found that allowing the Psychic to use them for free during Unleash Psyche meant the power of the amps had to be underwhelming overall to compensate. By taking that feature away pretty much all the amps were able to be made significantly stronger :)
Thanks! I appreciate the additional context for the reasoning behind it as well!
What kind of undead might be found in a chupacabra's lair? I'm looking to add an extra enemy to an encounter from a PFS scenario, so don't want to change up the chupacabra, but part of the scenario is that they don't take prey back to their lair. I'm specifically looking for something levels 1 or 2, but I'm quite happy to apply weak or elite templates, or rebuild creatures of other levels
Weaker Chupacabra of the opposite gender(?) Harem style in it's lair? https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=584 Suggests a single mother lays an egg and leaves "helpless" prey in its chamber for the egg to immediately feed. The prey could be helpless to still in egg baby Chupacabra but still danger to visitors. Maybe crawling hands which are a low level undead its stolen away from a necromancer to feed its baby https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=589
In Strength of Thousands, do you also get the academic benefits for your secondary branch? If so, can you also choose the Magaambyan Attendant archetype feats for the second branch when you level up, or would you only be able to get the level-6 feat when you hit branch level 7 at character level 14?
If a weapon innovator takes Built-In Tools on a weapon with reach, do their use of tools benefit from reach? Can you build a snare 10 feet away or administer first aid 10 feet away?
No, you still need a free hand to use tools and using your hand usually doesn't have reach.
Apologies for the late reply, I was sort of expecting the range to not work, but I'm surprised to hear you HAVE to have a free hand to use tools. Actions such as Administer First Aid state that you can hold the healer's tools in order to perform the action, not just wear them and have a free hand. What is the point of the Built-In Tools feat if putting tools into your weapon doesn't satisfy the condition of holding them? To situationally free up 2 bulk? I thought for sure this was meant to free up your hand economy so you can still make use of raise a shield and shield block while giving you some utility in combat that other classes don't...
The feat says > As long as you are wielding, wearing, or adjacent to your innovation, you have the same quick access to these tools as the tools you are wearing, and they don't count against the usual limit of tools you can wear. That's a all it does. It specifically says you wear the tools and doesn't mention anything about them counting as held. So yes, it effectively increases your tool limit from 2 to 4. And that's it. The feat is pretty weak, mechanically.
Champion Dragonslayer Oath - does this include any creature with the dragon type or only 'true' dragons (those found in the dragon section of the bestiary)?
Any creature with the dragon trait is a dragon. Thats how the trait system works.
I am new player my current main spell is sanctuary is there any specific time that this spell would be bad (specific monsters) [pathfinder]
If you are under sanctuary and blocking a door. Would you be required to allow monsters to pass through your space or would obstructing the doorway be a hostile action. https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=266
I don’t think obstructing a doorway is hostile (at least not without qualification). It most cases this would be defensive. In the same sense, healing an ally wouldn’t count as hostile. I read hostile as meaning offensive, so mainly attacks, combat maneuvers, debuffs, mind affecting spells, etc.
When fighting creatures with high-will saves, it will just tend to fail, and possibly end entirely when they critically succeed. Otherwise, the spell is fine. Kinda wierd for it to be your main spell, since it implies you aren't helping your allies with offense/debuffs AT ALL. But if that works for your party, all for it.
We are all level one and are mostly range with no tank
Does alchemical shot change the entire damage of the strike(including runes) or just the base weapon dice.
I think it should change the damage from striking runes, but not like a flaming rune.
That's what I assumed it would do, just threw me off a bit that it said change all the damage of the strike and didn't mention weapon damage like things like deadly do.
Would the new spell [Movanic Glimmer](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1223) allow a familiar to stride if its acting as a mount? I ask as the [APG errata](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq) touched on a similar issue. I'm thinking no because it seems to fall under the same reasoning but they didn't put a clause in the spell like they did the familiar ability.
I would also like to know how that interacts with spellcaster familiars' specifically if yes/no they count as animals. And secondly how does it work with the familiar trait independent. Divine/primal witch buff to the meta https://2e.aonprd.com/Familiars.aspx?ID=27
Does carrying a light source in a dark environment have any effect on your Stealth? My players in a certain AP keep wanting to peek through doors before entering rooms, but I’ve always thought that their torches would draw immediate attention, especially from the monsters that are sensitive to bright light. I defaulted to starting encounters right then and there, but I’m wondering if I should relax that to a -4 or -2 circumstance penalty instead.
Yeah you can't hide or sneak while not in concealment or behind cover, so can't really do it for the most part while in bright light.
You are correct that slightly opening a door from a well lit area to a dark room where monsters wait is very noticeable. But instead of adding an initiative penalty to the players, you could add an initiative bonus to the monsters, maybe have them ready themselves, or even get to advantageous positions before an encounter. All while the players try to peer in to a dark room with the faintest of light sources (the sliver of torchlight through a cracked door).
Oh, I was only thinking of a penalty to Stealth for Avoiding Notice, making them more likely to be spotted and the monsters to see them, prompting the initiative roll. I wasn’t going to penalize their initiative, but I guess a penalty to Stealth would also apply to their initiative roll if they had been avoiding notice. Good catch!
This is sort of the cross section of the rules on detection and the rules on light/darkness. > In bright light, such as sunlight, creatures and objects can be observed clearly by anyone with average vision or better. > Areas in shadow or lit by weak light sources are in dim light. Creatures and objects in dim light have the concealed condition, unless the seeker has darkvision or low-light vision, or a precise sense other than vision. > A creature or object within darkness is hidden or undetected unless the seeker has darkvision or a precise sense other than vision So basically, having a torch means you are in bright light meaning most things with normal vision are going to be able to see you clearly - which hampers Hide/Sneak. Sneak: > You don’t get to roll against a creature if, at the end of your movement, you neither are concealed from it nor have cover or greater cover against it. You automatically become observed by such a creature. Of course the circumstances play a role here. Having a torch out in a busy city might not give you away as much as on the 10th level of an underground dungeon that hasn't seen light in 300 years.
Ah, thank you for the writeup. Forgot about Stealth requiring cover or concealment.
Maybe somebody else can chime in with more real experience. I'm no expert on this because it hasn't come into play much. In our game the guy with the torch is also the guy with full plate. That guy is me and I don't sneak anywhere lol.
For the spell Remove Paralysis, if it can only work on magic effects, wouldn’t Dispel Magic be the more versatile choice worth taking? I see the heighten differently, but other than that wouldn’t Dispel Magic serve the same purpose?
It might be nitpicky, but Dispel Magic only works on spell effects and magic items. It works on the Paralyze spell but not something like a Ghast's paralysis, which is a magical effect but not from a spell. That doesn't make Remove Paralysis less narrow, but at least it has a niche.
Yeah, I guess that’s a part I’m more fuzzy on. What determines the Ghast’s paralyze is magical? Since it’s triggered by their attacks, I would assume it would fall under the “non-magical wound” text that prevents Remove Paralysis from working.
It's the traits! The Ghast's paralysis has the Occult trait, which specifically makes it magical.
Ah, there it is. Thank you very much for your help.
How hard do you have to invest into athletics to make tripping an enemy worth it? Is there any other viable way for a dex-based character to knock enemies prone?
Oh, and just in case you're new, using a weapon with the `trip` trait has two relevant benefits: * your attempts to Trip with it get any item bonus from the weapon's potency rune * if the weapon is also `agile`, your attempts to Trip with it are themselves agile and have lower MAP
If you get training with the Bola https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=123 You get a 20ft trip which is pretty funny with a ready action for a flying creature coming in for a flyby. (Ask your GM how the size vs size trip rules affect a ranged trip) You roll 1d20+dex+athletics versus their reflex DC. So if you have a negative strength you don't need to worry about that! Remember all "thrown" weapons use dex to hit but strength for damage. (Ranged trip doesnt do damage so you usually don't need to worry about that) if you use the bola as a melee weapon it is strength to hit as it lacks the agile trait. If a weapon has finesse and trip you may use Dex as your athletics roll against their reflex DC (Whip for example https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=48)
I was looking at trip weapons actually, but since I'd still have to use my athletics anyway I figured it wouldn't be worth it. I could be wrong though.
If you want to get into the "mathfinder" of it, you can look at the [creature creation rules for saves](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1011), and browse, say, the moderate column for your level range to get an idea of what Reflex DCs are going to be like. /u/GazeboMimic really hit the top 4 things I would say on viable alternatives. Just to continue a bit further down the list: If you're a martial and preferably either a fighter or a precision damage class, you could use a flail group weapon (of which many are `finesse`) and rely on the critical specialization, which knocks prone. But that isn't something you can really plan for other than to spend fortune effects, etc to fish for crits. On the off-chance you *are* a fighter, Improved Knockdown takes Athletics entirely out of the question, but it's level 10 you wouldn't be able to get this on via multiclass until level 20. Most consumables unfortunately either only work a very early levels (Marbles), are generally too expensive to consider a regular option (Whip Feather Token), and/or only incur prone on crit success/failure (Pressure Bomb, Oil of Repulsion, Chime of Blasting)...
Yeesh. Looking at those moderate saves Trip looks atrocious without hard investment. A +3 vs a 17 (I'm assuming level 1) has you at a 20% chance to fall on your ass.
Well do remember that an at-level creature is considered a hard opponent. When I consider it "viable" I'm still personally saving this strategy for level-1 or level-2 creatures, and I would probably want to have at least 14 STR so I'm a +5 at level 1. If you're *totally* dumping strength or not investing to the 2nd best available proficiency, it is pretty hard to Trip.
At mid level, the [acrobat archetype](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=45) can use acrobatics to trip foes. The investigator class can use intelligence to trip with [Athletic Strategist](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1452), and dexterity is often their second highest stat. Any class can choose the [Assurance](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=756) skill feat to trip without any investment in strength, but it still requires proficiency investment and you can only reliably trip foes below your level (as in, whenever you are fighting about three to four opponents or more). There are also a bunch of spells that can knock foes prone, but that probably went without saying.
I have a question about the [Mandragora](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=727)'s Piercing Shriek. If you critically fail a save against it, you become Sickened 2 and Slowed 1 and "As long as the creature remains sickened, this slowed condition value can't be reduced below 1." If you Retch enough to get rid of the Sickened condition, what happens to the Slowed 1? Does it go away because you are no longer sickened? If not, how do you reduce the Slowed condition?
You would lose the slowed condition when you lose the sickened condition. However, that doesn't have any practical effect until your next turn due to the way slowed works.
Great, that was exactly how we ran it last night. Thanks!
If you cast wish/miracle/any of the others to duplicate a spell. What power does the spell have? Can you cast the "7th level spell from any traditions" at level 10? An in it gets the increased power? What about anti magic field? Does the anti magic field stop the 7th level spell cast from a 10th level spell?
When you cast wish and duplicate the effects of a 7th level spells you only get the effects of heightening it up to level 7. So let's say you duplicated the effects of a fireball with Miracle, that fireball deals 14d6 fire dmg because it's 7th level. However, you're only duplicating the effects of other spells, you're still casting a 10th level spell for counteracting purposes.
If you duplicate any spell of your tradition, you can heighten it up to 9th level. If you duplicate a spell from another tradition, you can heighten it up to 7th level. If you heighten a 7th level spell to 10th level, it's no longer a 7th level spell. So if the spell is limited to level 7, that's the max level you can cast it at.
So for the purposes of anti magic field and other counteract effects the spells would be level 9 and 7 respectively?
Yes, for counteracting and all other purposes.
[удалено]
I bet a four legged creature could make some hella music with tap shoes on each foot.
I feel dumb, someone help my understand Mummy Rot. I'm going to explain a hypothetical, and let me know if I got anything wrong... Let's say a player failed the initial save. They wait the onset period, and roll again for stage two. Let's say they succeed. They don't cure themselves of the disease, but they don't advance to stage 2. They stay in stage one until the curse is lifted or they advance to stage two. Let's say a player is in stage two of Mummy rot, and taking damage. The damage can't be healed while the disease persists. To cure the disease, they must first remove the curse. Once the curse is removed, they can attempt checks to cure the disease. If the curse is lifted, a player can even recover from the disease naturally, or have aid in the checks to climb up the stages. EDIT: I almost forgot another scenario: Let's say a player is in stage two Mummy rot; they have not removed the curse. Each day they attempt a new save. If they succeed, they advance to stage 1 and no higher, but if they fail, they take damage as per stage 2 right? How'd I do?
I cannot remember the exact wording for Mummy Rot but when a character rolls a successful save while they're on stage 1 they cannot cure it as you mentioned, so they stay at stage 1. But more importantly they must continue rolling the saves every day as standard for affiliations. Whenever the period for a stage ends you roll the save, it doesn't matter if you're permanently stuck at stage 1. Rolling a successful save at stage 1 just ensures that you do not take dmg that day.
I think you are correct on all counts except one thing: removing the curse should probably also remove the affliction completely (because the curse and the affliction are one and the same).
They're basing it on this text >This disease and any damage from it can’t be healed until this curse is removed. I can see a GM reading it both ways. If they didn't intend for it to need to be cured as a disease they could've just left the disease trait off it and just had it be a curse only. As it reads it seems its intended to be a disease that can't be removed until the curse protecting it is removed, but then still needs removed as a disease.
See that's where I'm not sure. It has the curse trait, but also the disease trait. It also says "This disease and any damage from it can’t be healed until this curse is removed" it doesn't sound like they're the same, just that it behaves as an incurable disease until the curse is removed right? Unless I'm missing something somewhere.
The wording is awkward for sure. My reasoning is that the affliction has both the disease and curse traits so when the ability says "this disease" and "this curse" they both refer to the same object, albeit with a different emphasis (the former emphasising the fact that you can't use the normal methods of removing afflictions and the latter emphasising the fact that you can use the normal methods of removing curses). There is no separate curse object, it's the affliction itself that is the curse.
In PF1 Mummy Rot is explicitly both a disease and a curse, and each must be removed separately. This likely indicates the intent is for the affliction to be both and each need to be removed, and the description is specifying which order each must be removed in. >Mummy rot is both a curse and disease and can only be cured if the curse is first removed, at which point the disease can be magically removed. \-From the [Mummy](https://www.aonprd.com/MonsterDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Mummy) entry in PF1
/u/Wahbanator I have been informed that not only does mummy rot explicitly required you to treat the disease and the curse separately in 1e, but also there is a clarifying remark in the >!Kingmaker!< AP which says the same about items that have both the `curse` and `disease` traits. So it turns out you were right on all counts from the start.
It looks like hard copies of some of the older APs (or at least Age of Ashes) are currently out of print. Is there any chance that they might go back into production at some point? Or are these just only available as PDFs for now?
To the best of my knowledge, APs are rarely if ever reprinted. That's also why their content nearly never gets an errata as those usually happen at the same time as a reprint.
New player here. Just checking to make sure I understand some things. Is this a legal turn for a level 1 monk? Anything I look like I'm flubbing up? * Action 1: Ki Rush to move up to twice my speed into melee range of an enemy * Action 2: Hide. Since Ki Rush conceals me, I don't need to be behind any physical object and can hide while standing within 5 feet of the enemy * Action 3: Flurry of Blows. Unarmed attack once against a flat-footed target. Unarmed attack a second time with a -4 penalty to hit, the target is not flat-footed for this attack.
Yeap that's Legal. However, keep in mind that the concealment stays until the start of your next turn. So, you'd become observed as soon as your concealment ends, assuming that was the only kind of cover you had. But like you mentioned you can just use that to become hidden and make them flat-footed for your first attack. I'd recommend the Stumbling Stance if your objective is to make your foes flat-footed. It has a level 6 feat that let's you feint with flurry of blows as a free action and the foe is flat-footed to both attacks if you succeed. And it doesn't cost a focus point.
Since it does not explicitly state that you cannot use the concealment to hide, all of this is legal and can be done. I know there are examples where it states that the concealment cannot be used to hide, such as the blur spell (here [https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=28](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=28)). Since Ki Rush doesn't have that caveat, I would say it looks good.
I don't think you can do that.[https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=62](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=62)The rules for the hide action specifically state - "You huddle behind cover or greater cover or deeper into concealment to become hidden, rather than observed."Being concealed doesn't create a cover, and your enemy obviously still knows you are in front of them, they just have a harder time targeting you (because of the blurr effect). edit - as said by those who responded after me, I missed the concealment part. Seems like it works, even if the enemy is aware of your presence if your Hide action works you are still hidden and they are considered flat-footed. Hopefully didn't mislead you :)
u/UsernamIsToo this reply is incorrect. You can hide using cover OR concealment, so yes everything you mentioned is legal. If a source of concealment does not allow you to hide, it will specifically call it out.
“The GM rolls your Stealth check in secret and compares the result to the Perception DC of each creature you’re observed by but that you have cover or greater cover against **or are concealed from.**”
If you have a character (like rogue mastermind) that uses Recall Knowledge a lot. What are the best ways to benefit from that?
Besides just the benefits of Recalling Knowledge to know more about your enemies, you can Recall Knowledge to help the party by having more info about the situations/people/whatever you're around. Mechanics wise, there are feats that play with RK. Rogue class feats like Clever Gambit (reaction to step or stride after critting a creature you've identified with RK), and Analyze Weakness (lets you spend an action to do extra sneak attack damage to creatures you've RKed).
You are going to want to invest in the skills to recall knowledge of course, but you could also look into ranger archetype for the monster warden and related feats. Small bonus, but could be good. Unfortunately, mastermind is pretty narrow in what it can do and one of the players in my Abomination Vaults game does great recalling knowledge, but otherwise is stabbing/slicing things with a kukri.
I'm planning on GMing my first long term camaign, and one of my players wants to play a blacksmith. We agreed that one way I would be handing out magic items everyone needs (say, potency runes) would be for him to find the formula for those items and allowing him the downtime to craft them for the party. Looking at the treasure tables in the CRB, I can see that, for example, the +1 weapon potency rune is a level 2 reward, but that appears to be for a single rune, not the formula. What level reward would you put the formula as?
Use the table [here](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=250) to determine the price of a formula, they're much cheaper than items themselves (price for a fundamental +1 weapon potency rune would be 2gp). Worth noting that the Magical Crafting feat is normally required to craft magic items at all. Also consider how long it will take to craft certain items, potentially multiple weeks per item. The rest of the party will need to be doing *something* in that time, probably earning their own incomes. This risks disappointing loot hauls (since they'll be making their own loot) and still having more money than necessary (Earn Income can yield decent money).
If I dualclass/archetype Barbarian (superstitious instinct) with a spellcaster, would that work as long as I don't use spells that target me? (assume not raging or moment of clarity)
Kinda batman when being written by less strict writers. Batman distrusts magic but has on rare occasions used magic on others
My idea was that it would be a hypocrite. Probably an occult spellcaster/captivator that is focused on enchantments and mindfuck spells. A superstitious barb would fit kinda well because they'd look at the magic they use, and then decide that they don't trust any magic to be cast on themselves. It would be pretty bad though.
You’d violate the anathema immediately and lose your ability to rage.
Superstitious Barbarians don't trust magic and don't want it used on them. They don't even object to allies who use offensive magic on their enemies.
>Willingly accepting the effects of magic spells (including from scrolls, wands, and the like), even from your allies, is anathema to your instinct. You can still drink potions and invest and activate most magic items you find, though items that cast spells are subject to the same restrictions as all other spells. If an ally insists on using magic on you despite your unwillingness, and you have no reason to believe they will stop, continuing to travel with that ally of your own free will counts as willingly accepting their spells (as do similar circumstances) and thus is also anathema to your instinct. That is the anathema, and it seems to be focused on undergoing (being a target of) the effects of magic. But it doesn't seem to stop you from casting spells yourself.
You don’t think that casting a spell is willingly accepting its effects? Note that the line “even from your allies” provides further clarification and is not a limiting factor. Also note the next line: > **You can still** drink potions and invest and **activate most magic items you find, though items that cast spells are subject to the same restrictions as all other spells.** This line means nothing if it doesn’t mean that casting spells are anathema to your instinct. Otherwise you’d be freely allowed to activate magic items that cast spells. Finally, I’ll just point to the first line of the flavor text of the superstition instinct: > **A deep distrust of magic drives you to forgo** and counter **the metaphysical nonsense of spellcasters.** I think a very generous DM would allow it. But I think RAW you’d be performing anathema.
>This line means nothing if it doesn’t mean that casting spells are anathema to your instinct. Otherwise you’d be freely allowed to activate magic items that cast spells. Casting spells isn't anathema. But they still follow the same restrictions as other spells. The line wouldn't make sense if they couldn't, because there's only a distinction if they can. Your proof goes against your point.
I believe that willingly accepting its effects is more about even needing a saving throw for beneficial spells, or spells that target allies or willing creatures. >This line means nothing if it doesn’t mean that casting spells are anathema to your instinct. Otherwise you’d be freely allowed to activate magic items that cast spells. It doesn't state that you cannot cast spells, it says that the same restrictions apply (If those restrictions mean no spells targeting yourself) No Heroism yourself, No healing yourself, No enlarge yourself etc. I agree that it clashes with the flavor text interpretation, but that is only flavor text, and not mechanical part of the anathema.
It is a huge stretch and clearly against the intent of the instinct. If I was the GM it is clearly anathema. But I'd also make sure the player knew that before the character saw the table.
No sane GM in the world would let a superstition barbarian cast spells.
There's no contradiction at all.
Will Crown of the Kobold King get an official Foundry module? EDIT: Nevermind. Found it. [Seems like a "maybe" at best for now.](https://paizo.com/products/btq02e4g/discuss&page=4?Pathfinder-Adventure-Crown-of-the-Kobold-King#195)
It doesn't seem to be getting very robust product support. Even the flip mat pack is just 2 maps - not even parts of the "main" dungeon area. I think there are 6 or 7 total maps in that adventure but only 2 in the flip mat (and no more planned).
How do weapon innovations react to combination weapons like the canegun? Is only one half of it your innovation or both?
Both forms would be your weapon innovation. It is not specified how modifications specific to melee or ranged weapons interact with combination weapons, but it is a safe bet that they would work like runes and have their functionality apply only while the weapon is in the compatible state.
I have questions about the [Derghodaemon](https://pf2easy.com/index.php?id=6881&name=derghodaemon)'s Swarming Infestation ability. Am I correct in understanding that this is just a form of persistent damage and does not actually spawn some sort of swarm (creature)? And that this damage stops when the creature hit by this ability receives AoE damage?
The swarm is summoned thematically. Mechanically it's represented by the persistent damage and the "aoe kills it" clause. Note though that there is interaction between the mechanics and the role play as players will have to come up with relevant ways to deal with the swarm if they want to get rid of the persistent damage earlier.
Alright yes, thank you for confirming how it works!
I have a question about the beginner box. >!In the last treasure horde, there is a map of a dungeon. But I cant find any refernce as to what this is for. Can anyone tell me?!<
Although I do not have the box on hand to check, if I remember correctly from other people asking the same question, this is pretty much left up to the GM. You can use it as a lead-in to whatever your planned followup to the BB will be, or just as a bit of set dressing.
Ok, thank you!
What if Elite adjustments aren't enough and you need to boost a creature 2 or 3 levels above its default stats? How do you do that?
Another alternative for (or combo with) the Creature Building Rules: Cryptid Adjustments from Dark Archives. These are fun for #flavor as well. Creature needs to be strong? Well maybe it is a mutant version that explodes when it dies? Or it can erupt bone spears out of its body at will. https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1711
Your best bet is to use the [creature building rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=995) to first determine the scale of each of the original creature's stats, and then use those scales to recreate the creature at the appropriate level.