I have a question regarding targeting spell effects (buffs) with Dispel Magic.
Do I have to see, and choose the effect I want to remove or can I indiscriminately target the highest level buff, even if I don't know which one it is, or what it could be?
For example: A wizard casts Gouging Claws (level 1) and Feets to Fins (level 3) on himself. My incompetent ass fails to recognize both spells, I don't know their levels. Both spells seem equally strong for that situation, so I'd like to try and remove the higher level spell, for efficiency's sake. What if the wizard also had cast a 4th level buff on himself way in advance that I can't even know or see, for example Rigid Form? Sure, a bit metagamey, but I know this situation will occur in my party.
Dispel Magic: *"You unravel the magic behind a spell or effect. Attempt a counteract check against the target."*
Dispel Magic targets spell effects or items, not creatures, so you need to choose which effect you're targeting. If your character doesn't know which effect is the highest level then you have no way to automatically target it.
The feats Recognize Spell and Quick Identification (with master proficiency) are two ways that you can find out what magic they're using specifically. Recall Knowledge may be an option as well depending on the circumstances. Often you can make an educated guess just by paying attention to an enemy as well.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind! Yes I took took the simplified route with my example, just for better clarity's sake.
It's still a bit hard to get rid of old and engrained 3.5 habits and thought processes 😅
As a GM, I am trying to understand the following. The twin weapon trait says you get a circumstance bonus to damage if you previously attacked with a weapon of the same type this turn. My fighter is using a shortsword and wants to use a butterfly sword for the parry trait. Do these weapons count as the same type(swords)? Or does it have to be the exact same weapon(two butterfly swords)?
On top of this, if he uses double slice and the first attack is with the shortsword, does the second attack with the butterfly sword still get the circumstance bonus to damage since it is the same turn? Or does it not count since double slice is like two attacks at once?
> Do these weapons count as the same type(swords)?
Not for this purpose.
> Or does it have to be the exact same weapon(two butterfly swords)?
Yes.
As the [Twin](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=717&NoRedirect=1) trait says,
> These weapons are used as a pair.
The intent is that you use two twin weapons that are… *twins*. Two butterfly swords, two tonfa, etc. The one slight exception is [Exquisite Sword Cane](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=132) which is 'twinned' with [Exquisite Sword Cane Sheath](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=133).
So, funnily enough RAW the only weapon type that's ever explicitly called out are Melee, Ranged and Firearm, so one could argue that any weapon in that type counts. Sword/Staff/Bow etc are the weapon groups.
I do feel like RAI it is supposed to be the same weapon, atleast that is how I would rule it.
I might be part of a pf2e game starting up, and the GM is really excited about the "new" core rules. The only other player I know so far is likely an orc barbarian.
I like playing odd things, but I don't want to rock the boat. I'm aiming to be either a bard or an occult witch, and while it is "legacy content," I kinda want to play a poppet. I really like playing low-key things-that-should-not-be that are just excited to adventure.
Is there any reason why this would be unreasonable or out of line for intro to 2e game? If the gm says no to legacy content, any suggestions for getting the same 'uncanny' vibe? (this is the problem with learning the game from archive of nethys, huh?)
And: any suggestions for a poppet (bard or witch) that is helpful to the party as a whole?
It should be noted that poppers have the “rare” tag, which means they always require direct GM approval to pick, regardless of whether it’s legacy content or not.
“Rare” content is unbalanced, it’s just… thematically complicated. If, for example, your GM wants to play a more serious game, a living puppet might not fit into that campaign. “Uncommon” has a similar meaning, and also requires players to specifically ask the GM about picking it up, but is less out there than “rare” content.
As for your character! Bards are always helpful for the entire group. That have great buffs and debuffs and control spells in their spell list, and their class features are also excellent for supporting allies.
Witches are… more complicated, since depending on their patron they can have any spell casting list, not just occult like bards. Though Witches are locked in once they pick their patron and can’t change their mind later. Just have a read through the various spell lists! Arcane has the largest variety of spells in it out of all lists, but no healing. Primal is probably the most well rounded, but not as varied as Arcane. Divine has great healing and great buffs and debuffs, but is a bit lacking in control and damage options. Occult has great debuffs and cobtrol, but is also lacking in more directly offensive and healing options. Though these are all generalisations, all spell lists have tons of fun spells in them.
Paizo really fucked up all the wording around it. There isn't legacy content that is now outdated and shouldn't be used. The remaster was more of an effort to get rid of anything OGL related and tune a few things while doing it.
There is no reason not to use legacy content.
You need to sort out what your GM will and won’t allow. That said, if he says no Legacy content I’m guessing he doesn’t actually understand what that means
What's a good staff for a level 7 Laughing Shadow Magus to get, **other than the Spellstrikers staff**. I know it's the default made-for-magus staff, but our party is sorely in need of more utility spells since we only have 1 full caster in a Druid who's stretched thin between AOE spells and healing spells.
Is it worth it to gear up a ranged weapon as a Laughing Shadow DEX Magus who already pumping INT? Or is it just better to keep my ranged attacks to cantrips whenever I need to use them?
Longbow does have really long range, even allowing you to go past the initial range increment at a penalty, which spells cannot do. If you find yourself in situations where the enemy is at a range of 120+ feet regularly in open fields, a Longbow would be great.
It is expensive to keep up though, so it depends on how generous your GM is.
Could also go Gauntlet Bow and Blazons of Shared Power. Normally, use your weapon in the same hand as the bow, but when you need it, swap the weapon to your other hand.
If you designate the melee weapon as the primary, it's fundamental runes will be copied over.
Firepower? Nah, but its got a range of 60ft. There are only 4 damaging arcane cantrips with equal range, and the gauntlet bow can still hit opponents 65ft away.
We're level 7 and our whole party just found a stockpile of 6 +1 Striking Longswords as loot, so I'm considering swapping the runes from one of those to that. I worry about later levels though, especially since I'm also pursing a staff of utility spells.
You will likely find more weapons with runes that can be transfered later. The main issue with this approach is that it may take time to transfer the runes and the weapon might be a fundamental rune behind in most situations. I think that is still good enough for a backup weapon, and it has very little economical impact.
Because of game store hours, I generally run PFS scenarios with a limit of three hours. My experience is you can fit three moderate-ish fights in that time, or four if you do very little other than the combats.
Severe/extreme are probably closer to two moderate combats. Major encounters--like an Influence encounter, Infiltration or Chase is somewhere between half of a combat or less depending on how many rounds/obstacles there are. An Influence encounter with many rounds and NPCs could be as long as a combat, though.
A long section of RP is probably around that length as well.
All of that can vary based on your players--if you're playing characters they've never played before, things will take longer, etc.
This is sort of what I was looking to emulate, I ran a lot of pf1e pfs years ago, and was hoping to do more singular adventures compared to multi session stories. I just had my first session and I nearly TPKd a party of three level 1 pcs with two kobold scouts in a cave, but there were lighting issues (party only had one light source) which makes me think I need to lower the difficulty. I killed a PC, and another fled while carrying his unconscious friend out. So...not the best introduction for them.
A *lot* of variables in that question.
Some characters are more complicated, an Alchemist or Summoner is probably going to take a longer turn than someone who's planning to stride and swing a sword twice.
Some *monsters* are complicated, with unique action economies, spells, reactions, and resistances or immunities that can mean it takes the party a while to figure out how to deal with them.
Player experience level is a huge factor, someone newer to the game is going to need to look things up or have them explained. Same with GM experience level.
Finally there's the issue of in-person vs a VTT. I mostly play on Foundry these days which automates dang near everything and means I never need to calculate if something is a hit or crit, how much of the map is visible, how much conditions and buffs impact rolls, etc, but every VTT has different features and requires more set-up time before the game to save time during.
So yeah, too many factors to just guess at without knowing the details of your group.
For new players the almost universal advice you're going to get here is to run the Beginner Box, which is designed to be the equivalent of one of those video games where the first mission doubles as a stealth tutorial because it requires you to master all the basics.
If you don't want to do that, I always like to start new players off by having them get attacked by wolves. If they've played 5th edition DnD then it will be a good "familiar but different" fight; both DnD and PF2E wolves have both a tripping mechanic and a "don't get surrounded, they gain bonuses" passive that forces PCs to move around and think tactically. Good lesson because tactics in general are more important in PF.
I'd plan on 3-4 encounters, with the last one being Severe 1, and at least one of them Low 1. Keep in mind players usually heal after every fight in PF2E, so they can start every fight with full HP. And of course some exploration, skill challenges like stealth and locks, and about one trap to fill in the gaps.
I appreciate this advice! One of the players had already played through the box before. This helps a lot for planning, I'm not as used to encounter building in PF2E yet.
No, the Stinging Lash attack has the reach trait, the stance doesn't give you reach. Stinging Lash is a specific unarmed attack, you can either Strike with your Bo Staff or with Stinging Lash.
When looking at monk stances, consider the attacks they give you as a "weapon" of its own.
Think of it this way, if you are in Jellyfish Stance and are wielding a Bo Staff, you have two "weapons":
- Bo Staff, 1d8 damage, parry, reach, trip and monk traits, club group.
- Stinging Slash, 1d6 damage, finesse, nonlethal, reach and unarmed traits, brawling group.
When you make a Strike, you can choose to use one or the other, even if you're holding the staff in two hands (the unarmed trait says you don't have to have a free hand to make these strikes).
Flurry of Blows and One Inch Punch both require you to make unarmed strikes, all Monastic Weaponry does is that it allows you to use a weapon with the Monk trait instead of a "weapon" with the unarmed trait for these features.
Quick question about +1 Weapon Potency and +1 Striking. My understanding is that these are completely separate properties that don't overlap. Striking only adds to damage, not attack rolls. But the language for Potency Crystal and Runic Weapon both imply that +1 Striking also has the properties of +1 Potency. I'm assuming that these descriptions are just unclearly worded and that is just something exclusive to these items and spells specifically, not the general rule. But I would like to know for certain if that's actually the case.
No one has pointed out this example, but just to add to the other (great) comments, you could potentially have a weapon with a Striking Rune but no Potency Rune. In that case, it would just be called a "Striking Weapon":
* Longsword = regular old Longsword
* +1 Longsword = Longsword with a +1 Potency Rune, conferring a +1 to hit
* Striking Longsword = Longsword with a Striking Rune, causing the weapon to roll two dice for damage instead of one
* +1 Striking Longsword = Longsword with a +1 Potency Rune and a Striking Rune, conferring a +1 to hit and causing the weapon to roll two dice for damage instead of one
You will probably never see just a Striking Weapon without a +X as well, but those two discrete parts of the name refer to the two different fundamental runes
The rules around how magic weapons are named is in [Runes](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3162):
> An item with runes is typically referred to by the value of its potency rune, followed by any other fundamental runes, then the names of any property runes, and ends with the name of the base item. For example, you might have a +1 longsword or +2 greater resilient fire-resistant chain mail.
Thinking the +1 describes the level of Striking rune is a common misconception for new players, probably thanks to how things worked in other systems, and the way the [Striking](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2829) rune is worded:
> A striking rune stores destructive magic in the weapon, increasing the weapon damage dice it deals to two instead of one. For instance, a _+1 striking_ dagger would deal 2d4 damage instead of 1d4 damage.
That's technically correct, since a +1 striking weapon has both Potency and Striking, but can mislead you into thinking that _+1_ is part of the effect that deals the additional die of damage. With that said, while I don't believe there's any *rules* obstacle to having a Striking weapon without the Potency rune, it'd be unusual since the Potency is lower level than Striking, and you wouldn't typically see it in play. (If I've missed something, let me know.) Technically speaking, a weapon with just a Striking rune is not [Magical](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=738&NoRedirect=1)/[Runic](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3167&NoRedirect=1) for purposes of monster immunities.
> A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon or armor magic armor
> A potency rune is what makes a weapon a runic weapon (page 240) or armor magic armor (page 229).
All the answers I got were very helpful and cleared up my confusion, but this nails why I was confused in the first place. That particular wording in the GM Core really threw me off.
No both runes is correct. In weapon names you usually leave out the word "potency" as the weapon potency runes are the only ones referred to by number.
"+1 striking" is simply shorthand for the weapon having "weapon potency (+1)" **AND** "striking".
Similarly "+2 greater striking" would refer to having both "weapon potency (+2)" AND "greater striking".
I'd like to run a game where the exploration features a wider range of foes than those that happen to be appropriate for party level. Needless to say, the players need a way to gauge the strength of enemies so they don't charge into something beyond their capabilities. My current plan is to buff Recall Knowledge with the following:
- If a character is Trained with the right skill for a creature type, they can reliably tell the strength (level(s)) of the monster up to CL 10 with a Recall Knowledge check. They are guaranteed success in this (on top of the normal results of the check). With Expert proficiency, this is maintained up to level 16, Master goes right up to 20.
- If they don't meet the requirement, then the GM will do Recall Knowledge as normal. If they fail then they get "Either this creature is outside of your knowledge base or beyond what you've studied. Be careful."
Any ideas?
Other people already gave you answers regarding RK, but if you want to use monsters beyond the traditionaly appropriate level, you might want to look into the Proficiency Without Level variant rule.
Here's an option on RK - if the game rules instruct you to lie, "lie upwards".
Crit fail an RK on a level 10 monster when the party are level 6? Tell them it's a world-ending threat that not only do the party stand no chance against, but the entire garrison of the nearby level 12 settlement also can't stop.
Good idea! Currently I'm thinking that having the RK check auto succeed regardless or proficiency or level might be the best way. Their "adventurer's sense" is iron-clad at telling when something is too powerful to fight, or too weak to grant exp. But they still need to intentionally use it. That way the option to choose to rush in recklessly (aka without doing a check) is preserved.
Don't tie the understanding of a creatures level at all to RK in this type of game.
Imagine running into a level 11 dragon at level 4, and no one raised Arcana to expert at level 3. Someone trained in Arcana rolls and fails. The team tpks. Is that *fun*? Does obfuscating the knowledge of levels behind RK actually do anything for your intended experience?
I think you'll find that just outright telling players will still create the same narrative beats for them without risking a single bad roll or a player not choosing the right skill to increase causing a bad engagement. That kind of bad engagement isn't fun usually because it makes the players feel like they didn't have agency about their decision to fight or not
Here to ask the dumb question: for Reactive Strike, it can stop Move actions, but there are few Monsters with abilities that actually have those tagged.
Do I presume correctly that if there is a capital Stride, Fly, or Swim the specialized action of the monster inherits the Move action tag of the basic action? My GM is being rather particular.
Two specific questions: Inexorable March [one-action] The stone bulwark Strides up to its Speed, pushing back each creature whose space it moves into and damaging them if they try to stop its movement. A creature can attempt to bar the way by succeeding at a DC 34 Fortitude save. On a critical success, the resisting creature takes no damage; otherwise it is damaged as if hit by the construct's fist.
- can a Fighter interrupt this stride using their regular Reactive Strike without the Fort save?
Magma Dragon Wing Deflection [reaction] Trigger The dragon is targeted with an attack. Effect The dragon raises its wing, gaining a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against the triggering attack. If the dragon is Flying, it descends 10 feet after the attack.
- can Reactive Strike be used on the descent?
> Do I presume correctly that if there is a capital Stride, Fly, or Swim the specialized action of the monster inherits the Move action tag of the basic action? My GM is being rather particular.
Not quite. The larger action doesn't inherit the traits, but you're doing what's called a [subordinate action](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2342).
A basic example of this would be something like [Sudden Charge](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4774). Sudden Charge, itself, doesn't have the Move trait, but the subordinate Stride inside Sudden Charge does.
Inexorable March, in this case, doesn't have the move trait. The subordinate Stride inside Inexorable March does. This would trigger on the subordinate march. Note that no disruption would occur, because Reactive Strike doesn't ever disrupt movement actions, only manipulate actions.
> can Reactive Strike be used on the descent?
No. Deflection isn't a move action, and there's no subordinate move occurring as part of the action. So no trigger for reactive strike occurs.
If someone had a reaction that was just generic "someone moves", that would trigger on the deflection though. Reactive Strike specifically cares for movement as part of a move action though, so it wouldn't trigger.
>Do I presume correctly that if there is a capital Stride, Fly, or Swim the specialized action of the monster inherits the Move action tag of the basic action? My GM is being rather particular.
[Subordinate Actions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2342)
>An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 416—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn't gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.
You would be disrupting the subordinate Move action that is part of the specialized action.
[Disrupting Actions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2342)
>Various abilities and conditions, such as a Reactive Strike, can disrupt an action. When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action's effects don't occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began to Cast a Spell requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.
>The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn't transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away.
Which is to say it's up to the GM to interpret the situation. Let's take a look at the situation and timing of the examples:
>can a Fighter interrupt this stride using their regular Reactive Strike without the Fort save?
Reactive strike:
>Trigger A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it's using. You lash out at a foe that leaves an opening. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action.
[Move Actions that Trigger Reactions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=446)
>Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.
So the Reactive Strike is triggered when the Stone Bulwark leaves its square, attempting to enter yours. ~~My interpretation is that if the fighter critically hits, the Stride is disrupted and does not enter the square, so the rest of the Inexorable Stride does not happen.~~ (Edit: whoops, that's just manipulate actions by default.)
>can Reactive Strike be used on the descent?
'Descends' is not a move action, so the Trigger of Reactive Strike is not met.
> So the Reactive Strike is triggered when the Stone Bulwark leaves its square, attempting to enter yours. My interpretation is that if the fighter critically hits, the Stride is disrupted and does not enter the square, so the rest of the Inexorable Stride does not happen.
Actually, Reactive Strike doesn't disrupt move actions, so nothing would happen to Inexorable March.
You would be correct if the reaction did disrupt movement, such as with [Stand Still](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=447).
>Do I presume correctly that if there is a capital Stride, Fly, or Swim the specialized action of the monster inherits the Move action tag of the basic action? My GM is being rather particular.
Yes, this is the case, but [Reactive Strike ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2256)**doesn't** disrupt move actions, it only disrupts Manipulate actions. Something like [Stand Still](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=447) from the Monk disrupts move actions.
This might make your particular questions moot. On the first one, the Stride will proc a Reactive Strike, but everything will still happen. ~~For the second one, I would also say so.~~
Yeah, bad phrasing on my part - we also have a Monk in the party so I forget sometimes who's got what interrupt.
But thanks for confirming that the first should provoke a Reactive Strike, even if it doesn't stop it.
This isn't quite correct. Activities don't inherit the traits of their subordinate actions, but the subordinate actions retain their normal traits and would trigger the reaction.
Yea, its actually *really important* activities don't inherit the traits of their subordinate actions.
Otherwise, that would mean an activity with a subordinate Strike action has the Attack trait, and per the rules of MAP, you are now taking an attack action so subsequent attacks suffer MAP.
The subordinate Strike already has the Attack trait though, so MAP is still increased? I mean, it is an important distinction, but for this example, whether the main activity or the subordinate strike is the one with the Attack trait doesn't really matter.
Post remaster I know Paizo changed a lot of fundamentals about Dragons and their types. My understanding of Dragon classifications is still very dnD5e based.
Following the remaster, what "type" of dragon would a Teal colored dragon be? For reasons too long to explain we've established a Teal dragon in our setting with the color being very significant, and I'm trying to reverse engineer what type it should be and it's statistics.
My understanding is that all the old Chromatic and Metallic dragons previously established in the campaign setting aren't being retconned - Paizo just isn't going to really emphasize them so much, and might create new, cooler dragons that do the same stuff and have the same archetypical place in the story (Green -> Horned) and they'll make it a slow rolling conversion. There's also the pseudo-3pp Roll for Combat and they're just throwing buckets of new dragons all over the place. I think the official Golarion lore on dragons is that they are all *intensely magical* adaptive apex predators that can take on any number of potential aspects. In my headcanon, its even possible for hatchlings to be a different subtype than their parents, based on the most prominant magical energies they absorb from their surroundings... a Red that "retires" into a volcano and stops being a marauding asshole might give birth to an elemental Magma dragon, for example.
So essentially, you can keep your Blue dragon no problem.
But if you want a new dragon that has that coloring, the Omen Dragon could fit the aesthetic, and they're fucking *wild* in lore.
That would have to be answered based on what the abilities of the dragon are. Each of the new dragon types are broken into the 4 magical traditions, with abilities that fit that theme.
If the Teal Dragon is meant to be another Chromatic Dragon variant, then [Horned Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=401) are probably the closest to the classic Chromatics, and you could alter the innate spells and breath weapon accordingly. But there's not really a 1:1 analogue for the old Chromatic Dragons
So can each of the dragon types just be any color, with respective elemental traits based on the color?
If it's tied to tradition, whats the Arcane and Occult dragon type?
Color isn't a factor in dragons at all when it comes to Remaster Dragons. Most of the Dragons in Monster Core don't even have elemental abilities, and the few that do are very specific to the type of dragon, and not the color. For example, the Diabolic Dragons breath fire, because they are Dragons from Hell. They breath Hellfire.
The Remaster Dragons are all on AoN as of the most recent update (but no images yet, sadly), so I'll post links to all of them:
**Arcane**
[Fortune Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=400)
[Mirage Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=402)
**Divine**
[Diabolic Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=398)
[Empyreal Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=399)
**Occult**
[Conspirator Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=397)
[Omen Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=403)
**Primal**
[Adamantine Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=396)
[Horned Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=401)
How closely does anyone follow the Bulk rules? The AP I'm running is about to award a Spacious Pouch (Type II), but we don't really pay attention to Bulk. The party has all the equipment and consumables they expect to use on them, and any other items are kept in the "Party Stash" on Foundry. so it's never felt necessary to enforce. If anyone needs to use an item from the Stash in combat, I treat it as two actions to draw the item, as if removing it from a backpack, but otherwise it functions like "magic pockets".
So a Spacious Pouch doesn't really provide much value unless I start suddenly enforcing Bulk rules and distribute the weight in the Party Stash out amongst the party.
Are the Bulk rules worth enforcing, or should I just convert the Spacious Pouch to an item they might actually use (or just replace it with the gold value)?
Foundry made my character Clumsy1 due to encumbrance in our previous sessions so we recently had to start caring. How we'll properly resolve this will remain to be seen on an official capacity I suppose. But for the most part, tracking bulk isn't the most fun thing to do. Players who enjoy item management may respond well to it of course, but like how some tables ignore basic arrow/ammo count, some may choose to ignore bulk entirely. My group didn't really care in previous sessions and campaigns until now for example.
Spacious pouches, bags of holding, sleeves of storage, and whatever other extradimensional storage can still be nice to have purely from a flavor standpoint, like finding something big that your player doesn't want to imagine their character carrying that can go in the bag/pouch. The sleeves of storage I got my character likewise was mostly for the flavor too such as hiding things in her sleeves or keeping precious items secure and difficult to lose or steal.
However your Party Stash seems to already fulfill the general function of the spacious pouch already, and it's shared across all party members if I understand this right? If so then the spacious pouch is redundant. You could discuss with your players as well if they don't mind implementing bulk or if they have ideas for the pouch. Otherwise you may as well find something else of equivalent value to give them in that case.
>Foundry made my character Clumsy1 due to encumbrance in our previous sessions so we recently had to start caring.
Rest of the question/answer aside, there is a setting in Foundry that automatically applies the Bulk rules (like the Encumbered condition at applies Clumsy 1 and lowers your speed), and that setting can be turned off. If your GM wasn't intending to care about Bulk, let them know they can turn it off
If you haven't already been using bulk rules, then it'd probably be more effort than it's worth to start. You could still keep the spacious pouch though and let them use it for shenanigans.
A type 2 spacious pouch can hold ~250-500 lbs. (~115-230 kg.), you get to decide how large the opening is, and living creatures can explicity hide inside the bag. If your players are creative then they'll find a use for it, otherwise they can just sell it for like 150 gold.
Imagine a Twisting Tree Magus with a [Spellstriker Staff](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2258).
The Magus shifts the Staff into a Bastard Sword, then holds it in two hands, does the Bastard Sword get Reach, Parry and Trip?
The rules on Twisting Tree don't seem to to make any distinction between the staff weapon and staves as spellcasting items.
The game has precedence on non staff shaped things still being staves, like the [Bagpipes of Turmoil](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2265) having the staff trait.
The [Student of the Staff](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2859) feat suggests that it would work, since it specifically prevents you from putting the shifting rune on a staff. If this interaction didn't work then the ban on shifting runes would be unnecessary.
Also please stick to RAW when discussing it, I'm not trying to start a debate on whether you'd allow this or if it's too good to be true, I just want to get a pure RAW reading of it first.
Edit: I made a mistake, there's no "staff group", but I think the Student of the Staff and Bagpipes precedent is still enough to indicate it would probably work.
[Twisting Tree](https://2e.aonprd.com/HybridStudies.aspx?ID=5)
> The staff is perhaps one of the simplest of weapons, but this simplicity belies its elegance and versatility. To you, a staff is casting implement and martial weapon alike—the foundation of a fighting style.
Apart from the intro flavor,
> While you wield a staff in one hand, the staff adjusts in shape and weight, gaining the agile trait and increasing its damage die size to 1d6.
makes it unambiguous that 'the staff' is referring to the [Staff Weapon](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=367), not [magical Staves](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=748) with the Staff trait.
The Staves rules are clear that there's a distinction between the two:
> All magical staves have the staff trait.
> Staves are also staff weapons.
With regard to this bit:
> The Student of the Staff feat suggests that it would work, since it specifically prevents you from putting the shifting rune on a staff.
I believe that's there because the feat is Student of the _Staff_, not Student of the Arbitrary Weapon.
> Also please stick to RAW when discussing it
None of what you mentioned is RAW, although I do agree with you that the interaction I described is definitely not RAI and not something I would try to play.
People seem to think I'm suggesting this "build", when I'm just looking to get clarification on the RAW status.
Edit: I'll concede that the portion in the staves rules you quoted is RAW and seem to point that it doesn't work.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, just pointing out that you're making a case that's partially RAI and insisting on RAW responses. I feel that the one-handed clause in Twisted Tree clarifies that it's using 'a/the staff' to refer to the staff weapon, since that's the only way "gaining the agile trait and increasing its damage die size to 1d6" makes sense, and the Staves rules make it clear that magical staves and staff weapons are two different things.
A shifted Spellstriker Staff in bastard sword form is a magical staff, but is not a staff weapon, since it's currently a sword with the Staff trait (assuming we decide that Shifting allows it to keep that trait.)
> just pointing out that you're making a case that's partially RAI and insisting on RAW responses.
Yes, so?
I was asking for RAW precisely because the RAW was unclear to me, so I resorted to RAI and was asking if I missed anything RAW, which I did. I was not making any case, I was trying to understand the rule.
I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
~~Which is precisely why I'm asking this, the Twisting Tree does not specify a "weapon in the staff group", which is the common wording for things that care about specific weapon groups.~~
~~Usually things in PF2 that care about specific weapon groups are very deliberate in saying so (Example: [Tengu Weapon Familiarity](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1314))~~
Edit: I forgot there's no staff group, but I think the other points are still strong.
And as I said, if it didn't work there would be no reason the designers would've felt the need to exclude the shifting rune in Student of the Staff.
Heck, the [staff acrobat archetype](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=37) even sets the precedent of "your staff" meaning things that aren't a staff weapon.
The staff acrobat is the exception, not the rule.
Frankly, when they wrote the Magus, there were no shifting staves. So it wasn't written with such a thing in mind. The most likely did exclude this rune from Student of the Staff specifically because it leads to all kinds of edge cases and headaches. The Spellstriker Staff is what breaks the system and should probably never have been printed as a shifting staff.
When in doubt, apply the too good to be true rule. There is no d12 reach weapon in the game, especially not one that also has trip and parry. So what you are attempting to do is too good to be true, and as such, false.
I'm not "trying to do" anything.
I just hate how everytime somebody asks something in this thread people like you assume the person is trying to cheat the game in some way, I'm not playing a Twisting Tree Magus, it's just am interesting rules interaction that popped in my mind in another thread.
There's also several RAW ways to make d12 reach weapons in this system, btw.
You trying to combining stuff can just mean you want to know how things interact with each other. I wasn't implying you're trying to cheat.
I gave you my opinion and the best explanation for it I can come up with. That's all.
We don't have a striclty RAW answer either way. I do believe it's too good to be true, but ultimately, my guess is as good as your.
>And as I said, if it didn't work there would be no reason the designers would've felt the need to exclude the shifting rune in Student of the Staff.
I find it funny that you're asking people to stick strictly to RAW while you yourself are trying to extrapolate a ruling, not using something that is strictly RAW
The answer, RAW, is that we don't know. As you stated, Twisting Tree doesn't delineate between a weapon that is a Staff weapon group or an item with the Staff trait. So no one can definitively say, RAW, what is meant by "Staff" in Twisting Tree Hybrid Study. People can only infer and make judgement calls
Likewise, the Shifting rune does not specify if the traits of the original weapon carry over to the new form of the weapon. So you can't even state RAW that the Spellstriker Staff would keep the Staff Trait when it shifts into a Bastard Sword
The reason I'm asking is precisely because it was unclear to me, so the reason I asked people to stick to RAW was in case I missed something.
I'm not here advocating for something, I was trying to see if I missed anything.
I'm level 16 with Divine Spellcasting.
Any must have wands and scrolls I'm missing?
this is my current list
Wands:
Heal
Marvelous Mount
Talking Corpse
Vampiric exsanguination (looted)
Life Connection
Detect alignment (Legacy)
Scrolls:
Lock
Restyle
Heal
Cleanse Cuisine
Sanctuary
Create Water
Protection
Augury
Cleanse Affliction
Ring of Truth
Spirit Link
Heroism
Revealing light
Dream message
Sending
Sanctified ground
Restoration
Truespeech
Pinpoint
Overwhelming presence (looted)
Divine Decree (looted)
Planar Seal (looted)
What actually happens if you go over your bulk max limit? I know if you go over the first limit you are Encumbered but the rules just say you can't carry more that your maximum. What does that mean though? Are you effectively Immobilized? Restrained? Paralyzed?
[Bulk Limits](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2154)
> You can carry an amount of Bulk equal to 5 plus your Strength modifier without penalty; if you carry more, you gain the encumbered condition. You can’t hold or carry more Bulk than 10 plus your Strength modifier.
It means it's impossible. You can't fit and/or lift the additional bulk - you'd have to [Drag](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2159) it.
> In some situations, you might drag an object or creature rather than carry it. If you’re dragging something, treat its Bulk as half. Typically, you can drag one thing at a time, you must use both hands to do so, and you drag slowly— roughly 50 feet per minute. Use the total Bulk of what you’re dragging, for instance, if you’re dragging a sack filled with treasure, total the Bulk of everything inside.
Given that dragging is a massive speed penalty, if the character is somehow involuntarily past the Bulk Limit, it'd be reasonable to make them Immobilized, but I don't think it's something the rules specifically cover, and I can't think of a way to impose additional Bulk on them.
Interestingly, [Enfeebled](https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=71) is
> a status penalty equal to the condition value to Strength-based rolls and DCs, including Strength-based melee attack rolls, Strength-based damage rolls, and Athletics checks.
while the Bulk Limit is
> 10 plus your Strength modifier
so I don't believe Enfeebled changes your Bulk Limit.
Edit: If a character is voluntarily holding on to something that's past their bulk limit, they're not Immobilized, they're just choosing not to let go of something they can't move.
["Homer, are you just holding on to the can?" … "Your point being?"](https://frinkiac.com/caption/S05E06/377659)
Lore question about the Herexen, a monster in Monster Core, Bestiary 3 and apparently also with variants in Book of the Dead.
Is there much written about them? Assuming it's for the 'greater heresy', can they hide their nature and function as 'normal' members of a community in a town that doesn't trust or like undead?
I'm considering using one as a significant opponent, but don't want to contradict existing lore.
[The references section](https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Herexen#References) on the Pathfinder Wiki tends to be pretty comprehensive. Pretty much the only other reference you haven't mentioned is a named hexeren that appears in an adventure.
Thanks, just looked up the Crown of the Kobold King one and it's clear from his lore that there's no compulsions on him to act.
Strikes me that herexens are hedonists who are supernaturally rewarded with extreme pleasure upon committing acts of blasphemy against their old faith.
I can work with that.
Pretty new to PF2e, making a character for my group's second, longer game. Thinking about Cloistered Cleric, and we're trying out free archetype this time around. Kind of having a harder time picking one than I'd have thought. I was looking at Beast Master Dedication, though I see that practically all of the companion's support benefits involves your Strike specifically though. Wondering how well Beast Master meshes with a caster focused character despite that?
Support actions are useful and often build-enhancing, but they can also be ignored with relative ease. If you don’t see any that appeal to your character concept, you don’t have to worry about the loss in power budget too much.
Beast Master still offers a LOT and helps give casters a very powerful third action with Command an Animal, as the action economy helps a lot when you’re spending two actions to cast a spell.
Mount companions are by far the best bang for your buck as a caster.
People already mentioned mounting and how to use an AC, but I wanted to mention that there are several ACs that have useful support benefits for a caster.
The one that immediately pops into mind is the Augdunar, as its support benefit can give you scrolls, wands or potions from your inventory.
It's not been mentioned yet, but one of the better things that you can do with a Animal Companion is ride it as a mount. They'll normally have a higher base speed than you, and when you get the [Mature Beastmaster Companion](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1903) feat at level 4, they'll gain an Action on their own that can be used for Striding (or Striking), which can make sure you can get a move in as well as a 2/3 action spell and maybe something else.
It works surprisingly well. Just ignore the support actions and command your companion to move and strike. If you don't need to move, you cast cast a two-action spell and command your companion.
If you do need to move, past 4th level your independent companion will still have one action. It helps fill in spaces on the front line to keep critters off your back for more efficient casting.
Oh believe me, I too dislike the idea of using it to do something like taking "the pet subclass" on everything just to throw more bodies in. In this case the character is a folksy halfling, so I could definitely see him having a way with animals. Appreciate the info.
Regarding Recall Knowledge in combat, is "What is this creature?" a good question to ask? What sort of useful info would you give out or what would you expect to recieve with that question?
That’s covered pretty straight forward in the recall knowledge section of the rulebook.
>A character who successfully identifies a creature learns one of its best-known attributes—such as a hydra's head regrowth (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore's tail spikes. On a critical success, the character also learns something subtler, like a weakness that's not obvious or the trigger for one of the creature's reactions.
edit: so for their example of a hydra, I’d give them a description like this on a success:
This is a Hydra. Hydras are multiheaded, foul-tempered serpentine beasts with voracious appetites, widely feared for their ability to regenerate any wound, including lost heads. They cannot regenerate wounds caused by fire or acid.
**Light Armor**: requires dexterity investment, which implies a Finesse build, which restricts your overall damage unless you are a class built around finesse weapons (Rogue/Swash/Investigator). For classes that don't start at +4 with a key dex attribute, light armor might require some strength investment early on to maximize your AC, and a lot of classes don't want to make that investment at chargen.
**Medium Armor**: requires at least a small combination of strength and dexterity, but really meant for Strength characters. A lightly-armored base class can invest in Medium Armor to *deal more damage* as a Strength-build capable of swinging d10/d12 non-finesse weapons.
**Heavy Armor**: the "best" armor in the game allows you to dump dexterity and redistribute your point buy to emphasize other stats. Higher AC is a big deal, and a -5ft speed penalty is not a big deal past low levels. Heavy proficiency is rare and difficult to acquire though (only Champions and Fighters natively get Heavy proficiency as a class feature) - it requires investment from most characters, because it legitimately represents a power bump above the curve. (Tip for GMs / Warning for players: dumping your dexterity and relying on full plate Bulwark leaves you vulnerable to non-damaging Reflex effects like Trip or *Gravity Well*.)
Thanks. That brings up another question:
Is this balancing heavily dependent on the PF2E character creation method which makes those tradeoffs very clear from the start?
I'm an old fogey and a character doesn't quite feel right unless I rolled 3d6 to make it.
Not even 4d6 drop lowest? Man.
The "standard ability score distribution" of PF2 is a bit higher-power than what you might be used to, but if you want to keep the d6s I think there's an "official" hybrid chargen method you can use from the pre-remaster Core Rulebook. Remaster PF2 doesn't even use ability scores - its just straight modifiers now and there's no "18 Strength is a +4 modifer".
According to "official" point buy distribution,
* you start with 10 (+0) across every attribute.
* Your ABCs (Ancestry, Background, Class) will give you Boosts to distribute. Each "Boost" is a +2 to the ability score (so, 10 to 12, or a +1 modifier. The new terminology doesn't pay any attention to scores, but I'll lay it out in those terms to make the second half clearer). If an ability score is already at an 18 or higher, subsequent boosts only increase it by +1 score (so 18 to 19, for example).
* **Ancestry** will give you either two flexible boosts, or it will give you two set boosts, a flexible boost, and set flaw (elf is +2 dex/int/free, and -2 con)
* **Background** will give you two boosts, one of which is set between two choices ("Scholar" might give you a choice between wis/int, and then a second boost that's free)
* your **Class** will have a key attribute, and automatically give you a boost to it. Some classes let you choose your key attribute (Barbarians are always strength, but Fighters can choose to be either strength or dexterity based).
* At level 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, you get to spread 4 additional boosts however you like.
* Around level 17, your PC might find an Apex magic item, which can modify an attribute. You can either use an Apex item to directly set a low attribute to 18 (+4), or you can use it to increase a higher attribute by +1 modifier - usually 21 (+5) up to 23 (+6) at that level.
* Level 20 Apex peak is 24 (+7), for a character that starts with an 18 (+4) and adds a boost to that stat at every possible stage.
* At mid-high levels, it will be very common for characters to have multiple 18 (+4) attributes, which is where the soft-wall of diminishing boost returns starts.
* a "minmaxed" level 1 chargen spread with an Ancestry Flaw looks like 18/16/14/12/10/8... you can use that as a mental shortcut to check your work - your ability mods should total to a net +9, no matter how you shift them around.
If you want to chargen using d6s in PF2, the Core Rulebook says to start with 4d6 drop lowest, then add your Ancestry and Background boosts sans one free boost from each (so humans get one free boost and not two, elves get +dex/+int/-con, and the "soldier" background gives you a choice between +str or +con but no additional boost). You don't get your class key ability score boost, and nothing can let you go above an 18 at chargen, so if you roll a 17 and put it in dexterity as an elf, it would cap at 18 and you would lose a bit of value. Your 5/10/15/20 boosts CAN take a 17 directly to a 19 though, which is where odd-number attributes still have value.
Thanks for the thorough analysis. I've read through the chargen sections, but I must have missed the alternate way. I've done 4d6 drop lowest before. It's also good and prevents people from having a 4 in a stat. I do, however, like the odd variability you get with random but bell curve. One of my favorite characters ever had a 6 int and 8 charisma but a 16 wisdom. Was a blast being rudely practical but unable to read and do more than basic math. But if the system really relies on a more systematic style I don't want to mess with it.
Armor is only "balanced" if you have a high enough DEX score to take advantage of it.
PCs that don't have DEX as their key attribute can't have more than +3 DEX (16) at 1st level. And every point you put into DEX means fewer points elsewhere.
Medium and heavy armor requires greater investment in STR to avoid penalties, and most characters still have a penalty to movement speeds with heavy armor. So therre are built-in trade-offs above and beyond the benefits to AC.
Heavy is the only armor that gives you a penalty in return for a higher AC cap than the others can get, in the form of an unavoidable (without feat investment) speed debuff and traits like noisy.
I want the villain throw a bomb at the PCs 60 feet away. Being new to Pathfinder how do I figure out out the to hit rolls. "Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet. "
Weapon Statistics and Range says "For example, if you are using a shortbow, your attacks take no penalty against a target up to 60 feet away".
I think the bomb would not have penalty because it's within 60 feet, but it would be at -4 if it was being tossed 100 feet?
Is that correct?
The 60 feet example is *specifically related to the shortbow,* which has a range of 60 ft. You substitute the specific weapon's range increment into that formula.
For a bomb:
* within 20ft: 1st increment, no penalty
* 20ft < d ≤ 40ft: 2nd increment, -2 penalty
* 40ft < d ≤ 60ft: 3rd increment, -4 penalty
* 60ft < d ≤ 80ft: 4th increment, -6 penalty
* etc, up to a max of 120ft at a -10 penalty, and beyond which attacks are impossible
That said, if it's a villain that would throw bombs often, you could consider giving them a skill to help them to do so. For example, the level 1 [Dueregar Bombadier](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=169) has the *Far Lobber* ability that gives them a range of 30ft on their bomb throws.
There is also a mundane item called the [Bomb Launcher](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1097) that lets you Strike with bombs at a range of 60ft, but it takes 2 hands and an additional action loading it to accomplish this so it's a big tradeoff.
If you're the GM, its not an obstacle. Monsters (including human NPCs) cheat. They don't have to be (shouldn't be) built using standard PC rules.
A high-level alchemist with Uncanny Lob can increase their bomb range to enormous levels - if this "monster" is an alchemist, go ham. Do what you like. If you really feel guilty, let the PCs loot a special item after they win that lets them magically throw bombs better - *"Oh, that's how it worked!"*
If they're just a rogue trying to use a single bomb at the start of the battle to set an oil field on fire and trigger a hazard, the penalty doesn't matter. I think the maximum distance of any ranged attack is 5 increments, for a total of a -10 penalty... so even a completely ordinary NPC civilian can, Rules As Written, throw a bomb 60ft and reliably hit a designated 5ft square for splash damage.
If bombs are one of the main things of the villain and you are building them from scratch it's reasonable to give them a higher range increment with bombs than usual.
There are a couple of [creatures](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=759) that do that already, typically going to 30ft instead (matching the Alchemist feat [Far Lobber](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=94)) but if this is an important NPC you can go higher as well (The highest I've seen is 60ft on some adventure path/PFS NPCs).
Lore question: do we know who freed the good elemental lords besides Ranginori? Is there any AP or something that I’m missing? I assumed it was the Concordance of Elements and PFS, but RoE says that Artreia was rescued for “reasons unknown to him” and that he’s trying to find his “mysterious liberator,” which says he doesn’t know. And side note: why is is his skill performance? I can’t find anything in his lore that might connect him with the skill.
Looking into Fighter feats to see what I might want to take as a One-Handed fighter focused on Str/Athletics checks, kind of a brawler/controller. I was thinking about using a Bastard sword that I could utilize the Versatile trait as needed, and the Dual-Handed Assault feat seems like it would pair very well with this. My only question is whether the Disarming Twist feat would apply to any attacks made with Dual-Handed Assault. My first instict is to say that these do not work together (As I wouldn't have an open hand), but Dual-Handed Assault has a clause saying "This action doesn’t end any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free." and I'm not sure about how that interacts with Disarming Twist.
> My only question is whether the Disarming Twist feat would apply to any attacks made with Dual-Handed Assault.
[Disarming Twist](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=400) and [Dual-Handed Assault](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4789) are two separate actions. You're doing one or the other, not both at the same time.
> Dual-Handed Assault has a clause saying "This action doesn’t end any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free."
Some example feats this clause applies to: [Dueling Parry](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4781), [Disarming Stance](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4800), [Dueling Dance](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4834)
> Disarming Twist feat would apply to any attacks made with Dual-Handed Assault. My first instict is to say that these do not work together (As I wouldn't have an open hand), but Dual-Handed Assault has a clause saying "This action doesn’t end any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free." and I'm not sure about how that interacts with Disarming Twist.
They don't interact, because Disarming Twist is its own action.
If you're walking around wielding a bastard sword in one hand, and a free hand in another, the two functions don't interact. When you spend an action to do Dual-Handed Assault, you grip your weapon in both hands, Strike, then release.
When you disarming twist, which is a different action altogether, you're not wielding a weapon in two hands, so you meet the requirement (have a free hand) to be able to take the disarming twist action. I
They are two separate actions that you have to take.
[Thunderous Strike](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1044)
>Make a melee [Strike](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2306) with your two-handed weapon.
It includes the basic action Strike, so yes, assuming you succeed.
> Each creature in a 15-foot cone from you must attempt a basic Fortitude save against your spell DC or take 2 sonic damage. On a critical failure, the creature is knocked prone. The target of your Strike must be within the cone or the effect fails.
This effect requires that the target of the Strike is within the cone, it does not matter whether the Strike succeeded or not.
>Each creature in a 15-foot cone from you must attempt a basic Fortitude save against your spell DC **or take 2 sonic damage**.
Does this mean that the enemy chooses whether to attempt the save throw or take damage?
currently in the party I'm playing magus we are assuming that the enemy attemtp the test and also takes sonic damage.
It's a standard [basic save](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2297), with a listed damage. The saving throw determines how much damage the enemy takes, with an additional effect (prone) on a critical failure.
> The target takes no damage on a critical success, half damage on a success, full damage on a failure, or double damage on a critical failure.
How can players improvise in PF? \^\^ In detail: We wanted to put some leather on a wooden table with nails and carry the table with us, in front of us, into the next fight. Bc we ware all new to PF our GM said we need a day to craft this. Makes no sense, so we would love to learn how to improvise such things (we love inventing stuff xD)
I'm a new GM, going through the Beginners Box right now as well actually. If my players wanted to do this, here's how I would rule it off the cuff:
(assuming this is supposed to be a quick rough ad hoc creation) As long as at least one PC has a crafter's toolkit, it will take one PC 40 minutes to make, reducing 10 minutes for every additional PC that decides to help. The activity will be noisy, hearable from up to two rooms away. -1 circumstances penalty to everyone in the room for auditory perception checks, and a -2 circumstance to all perception checks if all PCs are distracted working on it. For every 10 minutes needed, I would roll a secret check to see if creatures come to investigate.
Assuming you plan to use it for cover, I would rule it provides standard cover in the direction it's facing as long as a player is holding it, and it takes both hands to hold it. They can let it go as a free action. If the table is round, it falls over immediately. If it's square or rectangular, it will stand until any attack action makes contact after which it's knocked over. Either way it's now an obstacle for both PCs and Creatures. The table would be treated like a shield with 3 Hardness and 15 Hit points, no breakpoint, no additional AC bonus other than the circumstantial cover bonus. And anytime it takes a melee hit while a player is holding it, they have to make a DC 15 Athletics check. On a failure they hold onto it but are off-guard for 1 round, on a critical failure they drop the table and are knocked prone.
Not an answer to your question but I'm very interested as to what you're trying to do. Are you using the table as cover? What's the point of the leather?
Yeah as cover and as a 'shield' against a small dragon maybe spitting fire in our direction. The leather would be wet. That was the idea of a group member :)
Ah I see. I think your GM got a bit caught up in the crafting rules which are more for making proper items.
If you're just nailing some leather to a table that should probably be much faster (provided you don't need to find the materials).
Your group might want to look into getting a tower or fortress shield.
I mean, that's the GM's ruling; if it doesn't make sense to you you can reason why it shouldn't take so long and maybe get them to shorten the time.
A trained crafter can perfectly craft a sword in like 1 or 2 days, so I should think nailing some leather onto a table should take less than a day. Part of the reason for crafting taking one or two days is to avoid players earning a game-breaking amount of money crafting and selling stuff. I don't know exactly what you're using this table for but especially if you're not going to sell it, I probably wouldn't even ask you to roll to make the table
Do you have any advice for the GM on how to handle player's improvisation? They're struggling with balancing mechanics, player's ideas and how to interprete the few information he has from the beginner's box
How long would it take a person to do that in the real world? That could be a starting point of discussion. Maybe double that time, because you have to find tough leather and harden the straps and nails and table to compensate for the rough treatment it's going to get in combat. You don't want it to split in to IKEA kindling or rip on the first hit. This assumes you have access to Crafting equipment. If you are trying to do this with belts and pots for hammers and I don't know what for nails, then it might take all day.
That's probably something to answer on a case by case basis. If information seems missing from the beginner's box, it may well be covered by the full rules
There are many many cases where the rules have a concrete answer already that you just need to know, but players are creative and there are many other cases where there is no set answer and the GM just has to make a decision. If you get into a debate about something for more than a couple of minutes, it's usually more fun to just go with the GM's ruling in the moment (if it's fair enough) instead of getting bogged down in arguments. Later if the GM changes their mind, or is wrong about something and you can prove it, they can just change their rules and maybe compensate you if they made the players' lives too hard before
I have players that want to "harvest" monster parts. The idea is to create items via monster hunter logic, but I told them unless they meet the requirements the most they can do is offset some standard crafting items.
I e. They kill a giant poison frog, lv 3. They wouldn't be able to make a poison resistant leather outfit but they would be able to use the skin to offset the price of leather armor. If the monster meets the level of the rune they are effectively replacing then I can see some wiggle room. Either way it would be a crafting check vs the lv DC of the creature for 25-50-100% of the encounter lv gold of the creature Table 5-3: Treasure by Encounter.
Is that too harsh or to friendly? The crafting is kinda undervalued imo and I don't imagine it would a huge influx of gold. My party is already hoarding every sword they find so thank God the VTT I use keeps track of their encumbrance
I have a great homebrew for this! The really important issue for you is how ubiquitous you want this to be in your world. For me, I really like the aesthetic, so I make it a major aesthetic of the world and it represents a good chunk of the "treasure budget" I drop for players.
I started with the numbers and concepts in Battlezoo Bestiary's monster parts crafting system - harvesting a monster gets you reagents equal to about the value of a level-appropriate consumable item.
Players might record this as "50gp of poison frog reagents". Battlezoo lists a series of very explicit reagent types and very explicit things that you can build with those reagents, but I prefer the more freeform rule of "if you can justify it, you can build it".
If a crafter character wants to make a potion of swimming... yeah, Frog works for that. If they want to make poison? absolutely. Scrolls of Jump or Gecko Grip? 100% valid. Flaming weapon rune? Hold up, no, I don't think so.
If they can't think of something useful, they can always sell the reagents at half-value back in civilization.
A big change that the Battlezoo crafting system makes that I also think is worth keeping, is to completely throw out the downtime requirement for item crafting. Simply put, some stories just *don't have downtime*... so part of the Reagent system is a whole overhaul of Crafting, which is also a whole overhaul of the Downtime system, which allows me to boot "Earn Income" and all its needless minutia out the airlock, which expands the "treasure budget" the GM can drop mid-adventure. I measure downtime in "Phases", which correspond to whatever campaign-specific minigame the players have access to. A "downtime phase" might be a day, it might be a week, it might be *a few hours* depending on the story you're telling. Crafting doesn't cost downtime phase actions, because its uncool for one PC to be sacrificing narrative agency in order to do grunt work on behalf of the team. The standard rate that my players craft at is 1 consumable item during daily preparations, or 1 permanent item / 4 consumables per downtime phase. If the PC has a crafting feat that specializes them in a grouping of item categories, they double those values.
Aside from Battlezoo, there actually is a kind of (extremely) bare-bones monster crafting built in (notably with Beast Guns and the Beast Gunner archetype), and the way you'd do it I think is fine enough, maybe if you incorporate some of the Battlezoo rules. But it's very bare-bones in that there's not really a direction Paizo takes on it.
It is worth noting something like [Monster Crafting](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5180). If your team is underleveled for it, maybe have them make a Survival check to see how much of the creature is salvageable after the beatdown, to harvest and then use Crafting as usual to craft, and then if someone takes Monster Crafting, then they can skip that step and use Survival to craft directly.
Battlezoo (a 3pp headed by a former Paizo dev, Mark Seifter) has a full-blown monster parts system.
It's excellent and well thought out.
[https://battlezoo.com/products/battlezoo-bestiary-for-d-d-5e](https://battlezoo.com/products/battlezoo-bestiary-for-d-d-5e)
Have you taken a look at Battlezoo Bestiary?
Its a third party book (written by Mark Seifter and Stephen Glicker) with rules about how to do this very thing! It is one of the highly regarded third party books, so I wouldn't worry about it being too unbalanced or anything.
>Do you need to scribe a heightened version
Assuming you're talking about [Scrolls](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3197):
> The spell on the scroll is cast at a particular spell rank, as determined by the scroll. For instance, a scroll of force barrage (1st rank) can be used to cast the 1st-rank version of force barrage, but not a force barrage heightened to 2nd rank. If no rank is listed, the scroll can be used to cast the spell at its lowest rank.
I mean: I have Fear at rank 1. Can I prepare Fear from my spellbook at Rank 3, or do I need to scribe a separate Fear 3 version to prepare it at Rank 3?
If by scribe, you mean 'have a different level of the spell in the spellbook'? No.
[Heightened Spells](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2221&Redirected=1)
> A prepared spellcaster can heighten a spell *by preparing it in a higher-rank slot than its normal spell rank*, while a spontaneous spellcaster can heighten a spell by casting it using a higher-rank spell slot, so long as they know the spell at that rank (see Heightened Spontaneous Spells below). When you heighten your spell, the spell's rank increases to match the higher rank of the spell slot you've prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell's rank.
Emphasis added.
Ty. I thought someone mentioned needing to scribe spells at higher ranks to prepare them, which I thought was absurd. Makes sense for spontaneous, since they get signature spells, but having to purchase a separate scroll of Fear 3 to scribe before I could prepare it seemed crazy.
Yup. Having spells in your repertoire at a particular level/rank is specific to spontaneous casters.
[Heightened Spontaneous Spells](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2226)
> If you're a spontaneous spellcaster, you must know a spell at the specific rank that you want to cast it in order to heighten it. You can add a spell to your spell repertoire at more than a single rank so that you have more options when casting it. For example, if you added fireball to your repertoire as a 3rd-rank spell and again as a 5th-rank spell, you could cast it as a 3rd-rank or a 5th-rank spell; however, you couldn't cast it as a 4th-rank spell.
> Many spontaneous spellcasting classes provide abilities like the signature spells class feature, which allows you to cast a limited number of spells as heightened versions even if you know the spell at only a single rank.
Prepared spellcasters have the spell in their repository 'generically', and can prepare it in any available slot. If they are [learning the spell](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2366&Redirected=1) from a scroll, the rank of the scroll is irrelevant to the process.
Scroll rank is also irrelevant for spontaneous casters who are learning spells, since it is added to their repository of available spells for the next time they get a chance to change up their repertoire.
> If you have a spell repertoire, such as a bard, it's not automatically added since you can only know a limited number of spells. Instead, you can select it when you add or swap spells.
Hey,
I just purchased Core books (GM, monsters, players).
I'm looking for a good AP to start playing with my players. We're coming from 2-15 years experience in DnD and other systems.
Questions:
1. should I purchase more books? (I know I can get them in pdf, I can read on wiki etc. I like fantasy books and my kids are learning english that way as well :P )
2. IS there an AP that you'd recommend?
I keep a guide to the APs for new groups here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/10bk8p4/which_adventure_path_should_your_new_to/
Remember that Pathfinder 2e is fairly different in terms of party teamwork and character roles so start at level one no matter how experienced you are.
Spoilers for AV
I have a question for AV. My party is coming back from their first foray into the dungeon (they made it to level 2 and hightailed out after the giant skeleton almost killed 2 of them).
Anyway, when Wrong gave them the message she offered a free reading as the reward along with whatever she could scrounge up.
I'm thinking of handing the players a low level random item in lieu of payment. But my players are very "cash motivated" and won't continue exploring the dungeon out of concern for the town. For the record, the lighthouse "woke up" during their trip so they know something is up.
I don't imagine Wrin is bursting at the seams with cash and I imagine the mayor/guard won't care too much about the gauntlight seeing as they can't see it from the village (yet).
My players have always been "lacking" in motivation to move a storyline along for the sake of it. Given how tight the math is on the cost of upgrades, some gold might grease the wheels to get everyone on board. So maybe Wrin starts a GoFundMe from the local shops to fund the expedition
Or if they have no motivation and ask why should they help I might just tell them "you don't, however perhaps a different adventure does" and ask them to reroll.
I mean, first and foremost, any adventure in any TTRPG assumes the characters are motivated to actually do the adventure. Rewards are nice, but there's a sort of social contract in place that the players showed up to play the game the GM put together, so they should be self-motivated to continue progressing the adventure. If the characters aren't motivated to keep going, why make that character in the first place? That's worth a conversation with the players themselves, in my opinion.
>I'm thinking of handing the players a low level random item in lieu of payment. But my players are very "cash motivated" and won't continue exploring the dungeon out of concern for the town. For the record, the lighthouse "woke up" during their trip so they know something is up.
>I don't imagine Wrin is bursting at the seams with cash and I imagine the mayor/guard won't care too much about the gauntlight seeing as they can't see it from the village (yet).
I'm confused by what you mean when you say the lighthouse "woke up", but the mayor and guard don't care too much. Did you run the event >!where undead rise from the graveyard and a monster is teleported to the graveyard? !
Not yet. They got lucky with a perception roll and found a secret door into the 2nd level. All they've done is killed the mitflit king, get fucked up by the kobold haunt and then fight a giant skeleton.
They made to the 2nd level lighthouse base and the book said something along the lines of activated the light house (triggers the necrotic aura for that room). The session ended with them leaving the map (they forgot the bridge was rickity and all ran on it so I triggered the slurk fight when they fell).
I think I might actually be in a good spot. I forgot that the lighthouse activating triggers the graveyard ( I need to read the chapter again).
In regards to motivation, my players and I are of the same stock (inner city people) so we have an ingrained "why should I?" mentality. I've played enough RPGs to understand that creating your character as someone who WANTS to adventure is very important but these guys don't even have much of a backstory.
That part will work itself out, I told them at the start that they should come in with mindsets to facilitate adventuring.
>In regards to motivation, my players and I are of the same stock (inner city people) so we have an ingrained "why should I?" mentality. I've played enough RPGs to understand that creating your character as someone who WANTS to adventure is very important but these guys don't even have much of a backstory.
As just a general statement, this is going to be a problem in just about \*any\* published adventure. Most games assume the PCs want to be there and want to do the right thing.
I mean, why do Superheroes save the world? What's in it for them? Why does Indiana Jones fight Nazis all the time? It would be easier to just keep his cushy professor job. Why do the Crews on Star Trek shows do stuff? Its their job and all but they live in a future without money & don't *need* jobs, they \*want\* to do this stuff.
If the heroes don't help the town, Otari is doomed. If they don't care about that then this whole AP is going to be really painful for all of you.
Beginning of lvl 2 there should be a graveyard encounter that will motivate the town to want the gauntlight taken care of and the mayor should be willing to shell out some money to the PCs to do it.
I need to read though the AP again, see if I can delay the trigger for that a bit for them to do some shopping. I might just have it happen the next night, probably while someone is telling them "it's just a ghost story" and then the lighthouse does it's thing.
As a side point: The timing of the Lighthouse is a big deal the AP doesn't go into enough detail on. It fires off when the PCs are about as far as yours are but it's fine as the DM to time it dramatically.
After that, it's important to set the schedule on the thing in a way that works for your game. >!The Lighthouse is supposed to keep firing off but exactly what that schedule is can be very much up to the GM. Try to schedule it so that they are motivated to keep exploring the Vaults trying to figure out how to shut it down but don't make it so frequent that they never feel like they have time to do Sidequests, Crafting, shopping, etc. !<
I've heard of groups that didn't take it seriously because it took so long between "incidents" that there was no real pressure and I've heard of groups that did nothing but eat, sleep, and delve because they were so terrified it was going to go off again any minute.
Figure out what a good balance would be for your group.
I would like to point out that the Gauntlight artifact, as written, specifically has a "Once per month" frequency on both its ability to raise undead and teleport a creature. And the characters can find notes on the third floor that give them this information.
So a GM would need to have the foresight to know that the frequency should be changed ahead of time if the party needs the time pressure, or otherwise improvise a reason for why the "once per month" limitation is becoming more frequent
I am planning to play a Giant Instinct Dwarf Barbarian and wanted to confirm how Giant/Titan Stature works just to be sure.
From my inderstanding, you increase in both size and reach, so you go from say a 5ft (1x1 tile) Dwarf with 5ft reach (1 tile) to a 10ft (2x2 tile) Dwarf with 10ft (2 tile) reach? And then Titan would mean a 15ft (3x3 tile) Dwarf with a 15ft (3 tile) reach?
Also once you have Titan Stature, can you choose to just go to Giant Stature size instead? Or do you not have both options?
>you increase in both size and reach, so you go from say a 5ft (1x1 tile) Dwarf with 5ft reach (1 tile) to a 10ft (2x2 tile) Dwarf with 10ft (2 tile) reach? And then Titan would mean a 15ft (3x3 tile) Dwarf with a 15ft (3 tile) reach?
Correct.
Also note an easily missed rule is that when you have 10ft reach (so when you are Large with Giant's Statue) can target a square two diagonals away, which is an exception to how diagonals are usually measured.
>Also once you have Titan Stature, can you choose to just go to Giant Stature size instead? Or do you not have both options?
Either! Paizo is usually pretty specific with the word choice when something is optional, picking verbs like "can" / "may" / "choose to", etc:
>When using Giant’s Stature, *you can instead* become Huge \[...\]
Thankyou for confirming!
Good to know the diagonal rule. Does it also apply to 15ft so you can target 3 squares diagonal then? Or does it only appy for 10ft and remain at 2 squares diagonal even at 15ft reach?
No only 10 foot reach has an exception. https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379&Redirected=1
> Unlike with measuring most distances, 10-foot reach can reach 2 squares diagonally. Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally: 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on.
I have a question about the Take Cover action : it mentions that the bonus "lasts until you move from your current space, use an [attack](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=15) action, become [unconscious](https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=38), or end this effect as a free action.". Is it correct to assume that a character could take cover, then keep the bonus for several turns without using another action if they stay still and cast protective spells on their allies for exemple ?
Correct. You listed the exceptions.
Also, if adversaries move to a position where the cover is no longer relevant, you also lose the take cover benefit against those adversaries.
I'm a little bit confused. Apparently a new book for 2e got released these days, but I thought that this versions wouldn't be supported anymore, only the remastered one? I'm asking this because I'm still planning on joining this system.
This is a common misconception.
"Remastered" isn't a new edition. It's a significant but minor set of errata to Pathfinder 2nd Edition, mostly because of the OGL fiasco. Paizo did take the opportunity to change a few things, clarify others and add more than name changes, but it's still PF2.
"Remastered" isn't different from "2e". It's just the term for the 5% of things that were changed starting in late 2023. Remastered and non-remastered stuff can be played at the same table. It's all 2nd edition.
You're misunderstanding something a lot. Pathfinder 2e is itself the remastered version. Any content that comes out for it uses the remastered ruleset.
What are good archetypes to take with Free Archetype as Kineticist? Their useful options seem limited since they don't use weapons or cast spells or make "strikes" of any kind, for the most part. I took Familiar Master as my first one since Elemental Wisp gives a free status bonus to damage and Fearsome Familiar is pretty funny when Kineticist gets that later, but Familiar Master doesn't have enough useful feats to fill out all the Free Archetypes imo. I've considered Blessed One, but it's not really thematic for my character. I've also heard Monk suggested and thought the reasoning was good.
What Free Archetypes are you guys taking as Kineticist? I'm Fire/Water, if that impacts it.
On top of what Wheldrake36 said, I would also consider the Flame Oracle dedication. Incendiary Aura and Thermal Nimbus synergize to make any enemy that gets near you to spontaneously catch fire, which is pretty nifty.
There are currently no archetypes that impact your kinetic abilities.
You could take the rogue archetype for more skills.
You could take an MC spellcaster archetype to have a few spells, in addition to your other abilities, and the use of wands & scrolls of your tradition.
You could take the Blessed One archetype to have the Lay on Hands focus spell.
As this will be your second archetype, it all comes down to what additional abilities you want to add.
The spell does not create a shield, it simply makes your arm function *as* a shield. It does not state to come with any restrictions imposed on you, so your hand remains free and, I'd say, can be used as normal.
It doesn't actually create a shield the way Metal Carapace does, so you're not holding anything. RAW it doesn't seem to, but I think as a GM I'd rule it functions the same way a buckler does, which doesn't take up your hand, but your hand still must be free (or simply holding a simple light object that's not a weapon) to use the Raise a Shield action.
But why would it work like that? The entire arm becomes very hard, so holding something in that hand doesn’t seem like it would affect your ability to impose the arm between you and attacks much? Now, sure, if you used the arm to attack after you raised shield, then I would also say that you drop your raised shield, but beyond that no adjustments seem necessary.
In spite of the flavor text, *non*-amped Forbidden Thought doesn't cause the target to lose any actions. The damage IS the "lock" that they have to evaluate.
So the amped version just comes down to your interpretation of how stunned 1 works when applied in the middle of a turn:
1. They lose ALL of their remaining actions (because they "can't act") *AND* then 1 action on their next turn (because they regain 1 less action).
2. They lose the first action of their next turn (because they regain 1 less action).
3. They lose their next action on this turn.
1 is the closest to a literal reading of RAW but it also seems too good to be true and makes stunning a creature on its own turn wayyy more powerful than stunning them at other times. 3 seems like the simplest rational interpretation but it's the least supported by rules.
I go with #3 because I like the simplicity. I think #2 is fine too. #1 feels like it creates too strange of incentives to be real.
Could a wizard with a druid dedication use a staff of healing? If so, what level can they cast from it? And could they add Heal to their staff with a staff nexus? Why/Why not?
A staff gains charges per day equal to your highest spell-rank, so that's full power.
You can activate any scroll/wand/staff you like so long as the spell is on a list you have access to. A level 1 apprentice wizard can *Meteor Swarm* something if they have a scroll. So fair game there, too.
Staff Nexus states that the spell you add to your makeshift staff must "be from your spellbook", so unfortunately you can't add *Heal* that way... but you could totally make a *Staff of Healing* and then use Staff Nexus to add *Thunderstrike* or whatever.
Assuming you're talking about custom staff rules, Staves/Wands/Scrolls don't actually have a tradition lock - each spell is individually accessible based on the tradition list you can cast. *Usually* a staff will have a clear thematic grouping tied to a single list, but there's no rule saying you can't put an arcane-unique and a divine-unique spell into the same custom staff... it would just be less effective in the hands of anyone that isn't a multiclass caster.
Are Magus (specifically the Sparkling Targe kind) required to have a free hand to cast a spell through their spellstrike?
A friend of mine thinks they have to but the manipulate trait doesn't require a hand free so could this Magus with sword in one hand and a shield in the other still Spellstrike?
I understand that some spells will list 'Requires: one free hand' or something like that, in which case yeah he's right. But in every other case they're just risking the reactive strike right?
Your friend would have been correct back in PF1, but in PF2 spellcasters are allowed to make gestures and do fiddly wizard hand things using a weapon they are holding, like a staff or suchlike - as of Remaster, there isn't even that level of distinction. Everything is fair game.
**Magus Specifically**, however, may prefer to have a free hand while spellstriking in order to utilize *Scrolls*. It is a recent discovery of mine, but as far as my GM brain can detect, there is nothing stopping a Magus from activating a Scroll to channel into their Spellstrike, so long as they are holding it at the beginning of the activity.
I really like that they are allowed to do the gestures. That scroll might be a good idea to bring up to my GM and see if they'd let me do that too.
Thanks for the answer!
Players want to convince someone that they are seriously ill. One lies on the ground motionless, another coughs and acts afflicted. Would you allow performance check for this, or is it a deception check? Is it a "general" deception check, or Impersonate action / something else?
Official answer: Deception
GM style choice, personally, I try to present every "freeform" skill challenge like this as a choice between two skill checks. If my player made a good argument for it, I might even go so far as to allow Medicine.
This would be [lying](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2389), not performing.
Performance is for entertainment, deception is for outright lying to somebody.
How do you handle plane of Wood and Plane if Metal in a traditional 4 element system?
Im adapting an old campaign setting to pf2 and don't want to introduce them into the cosmology. Are there any side effects to just saying they're not 'elements' ?
The re-emergence of the Plane of Wood and the Plane of Metal are actual in-universe events. You could just set the date of the campaign backwards in time to the 4715-4719 "end of PF1" era, where the big geopolitical events in Avistan were the Fifth Crusade up in Mendev, the Taldan War for the Crown, and the vengeance of the Whispering Tyrant as he freed himself from Gallowspire and nuked Vigil before marching on Absolam.
It makes Kineticists a bit weird because they treat Metal and Wood just like the other 4. It also means several elemental monsters don't have a specific place they come from.
Other than that? The effect would be pretty minor.
I have a question regarding targeting spell effects (buffs) with Dispel Magic. Do I have to see, and choose the effect I want to remove or can I indiscriminately target the highest level buff, even if I don't know which one it is, or what it could be? For example: A wizard casts Gouging Claws (level 1) and Feets to Fins (level 3) on himself. My incompetent ass fails to recognize both spells, I don't know their levels. Both spells seem equally strong for that situation, so I'd like to try and remove the higher level spell, for efficiency's sake. What if the wizard also had cast a 4th level buff on himself way in advance that I can't even know or see, for example Rigid Form? Sure, a bit metagamey, but I know this situation will occur in my party. Dispel Magic: *"You unravel the magic behind a spell or effect. Attempt a counteract check against the target."*
Dispel Magic targets spell effects or items, not creatures, so you need to choose which effect you're targeting. If your character doesn't know which effect is the highest level then you have no way to automatically target it. The feats Recognize Spell and Quick Identification (with master proficiency) are two ways that you can find out what magic they're using specifically. Recall Knowledge may be an option as well depending on the circumstances. Often you can make an educated guess just by paying attention to an enemy as well.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind! Yes I took took the simplified route with my example, just for better clarity's sake. It's still a bit hard to get rid of old and engrained 3.5 habits and thought processes 😅
Doing some homebrew - do free actions ever have manipulate traits, or would that be a design faux pas?
[AoN Manipulate Trait - filtered for Free Action](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=104&include-actions=Free%20Action&ap-creatures=hide&display=grouped&group-fields=type&link-layout=horizontal)
There are manipulate free actions. The big one is [Release](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2300), and there are a few other niche ones.
Perfect ty
As a GM, I am trying to understand the following. The twin weapon trait says you get a circumstance bonus to damage if you previously attacked with a weapon of the same type this turn. My fighter is using a shortsword and wants to use a butterfly sword for the parry trait. Do these weapons count as the same type(swords)? Or does it have to be the exact same weapon(two butterfly swords)? On top of this, if he uses double slice and the first attack is with the shortsword, does the second attack with the butterfly sword still get the circumstance bonus to damage since it is the same turn? Or does it not count since double slice is like two attacks at once?
> Do these weapons count as the same type(swords)? Not for this purpose. > Or does it have to be the exact same weapon(two butterfly swords)? Yes. As the [Twin](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=717&NoRedirect=1) trait says, > These weapons are used as a pair. The intent is that you use two twin weapons that are… *twins*. Two butterfly swords, two tonfa, etc. The one slight exception is [Exquisite Sword Cane](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=132) which is 'twinned' with [Exquisite Sword Cane Sheath](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=133).
So, funnily enough RAW the only weapon type that's ever explicitly called out are Melee, Ranged and Firearm, so one could argue that any weapon in that type counts. Sword/Staff/Bow etc are the weapon groups. I do feel like RAI it is supposed to be the same weapon, atleast that is how I would rule it.
I might be part of a pf2e game starting up, and the GM is really excited about the "new" core rules. The only other player I know so far is likely an orc barbarian. I like playing odd things, but I don't want to rock the boat. I'm aiming to be either a bard or an occult witch, and while it is "legacy content," I kinda want to play a poppet. I really like playing low-key things-that-should-not-be that are just excited to adventure. Is there any reason why this would be unreasonable or out of line for intro to 2e game? If the gm says no to legacy content, any suggestions for getting the same 'uncanny' vibe? (this is the problem with learning the game from archive of nethys, huh?) And: any suggestions for a poppet (bard or witch) that is helpful to the party as a whole?
It should be noted that poppers have the “rare” tag, which means they always require direct GM approval to pick, regardless of whether it’s legacy content or not. “Rare” content is unbalanced, it’s just… thematically complicated. If, for example, your GM wants to play a more serious game, a living puppet might not fit into that campaign. “Uncommon” has a similar meaning, and also requires players to specifically ask the GM about picking it up, but is less out there than “rare” content. As for your character! Bards are always helpful for the entire group. That have great buffs and debuffs and control spells in their spell list, and their class features are also excellent for supporting allies. Witches are… more complicated, since depending on their patron they can have any spell casting list, not just occult like bards. Though Witches are locked in once they pick their patron and can’t change their mind later. Just have a read through the various spell lists! Arcane has the largest variety of spells in it out of all lists, but no healing. Primal is probably the most well rounded, but not as varied as Arcane. Divine has great healing and great buffs and debuffs, but is a bit lacking in control and damage options. Occult has great debuffs and cobtrol, but is also lacking in more directly offensive and healing options. Though these are all generalisations, all spell lists have tons of fun spells in them.
Paizo really fucked up all the wording around it. There isn't legacy content that is now outdated and shouldn't be used. The remaster was more of an effort to get rid of anything OGL related and tune a few things while doing it. There is no reason not to use legacy content.
Then that’s just my misunderstanding, cool. Thanks!
You need to sort out what your GM will and won’t allow. That said, if he says no Legacy content I’m guessing he doesn’t actually understand what that means
He likely wouldn’t, then. This is obvious but makes sense, thanks!
What's a good staff for a level 7 Laughing Shadow Magus to get, **other than the Spellstrikers staff**. I know it's the default made-for-magus staff, but our party is sorely in need of more utility spells since we only have 1 full caster in a Druid who's stretched thin between AOE spells and healing spells.
Is it worth it to gear up a ranged weapon as a Laughing Shadow DEX Magus who already pumping INT? Or is it just better to keep my ranged attacks to cantrips whenever I need to use them?
Longbow does have really long range, even allowing you to go past the initial range increment at a penalty, which spells cannot do. If you find yourself in situations where the enemy is at a range of 120+ feet regularly in open fields, a Longbow would be great. It is expensive to keep up though, so it depends on how generous your GM is.
Could also go Gauntlet Bow and Blazons of Shared Power. Normally, use your weapon in the same hand as the bow, but when you need it, swap the weapon to your other hand. If you designate the melee weapon as the primary, it's fundamental runes will be copied over.
Not a bad call, although I dont know if a Gaunlet Bow has enough firepower to be worth using over cantrips.
Firepower? Nah, but its got a range of 60ft. There are only 4 damaging arcane cantrips with equal range, and the gauntlet bow can still hit opponents 65ft away.
We're level 7 and our whole party just found a stockpile of 6 +1 Striking Longswords as loot, so I'm considering swapping the runes from one of those to that. I worry about later levels though, especially since I'm also pursing a staff of utility spells.
You will likely find more weapons with runes that can be transfered later. The main issue with this approach is that it may take time to transfer the runes and the weapon might be a fundamental rune behind in most situations. I think that is still good enough for a backup weapon, and it has very little economical impact.
For a three hour one shot, how many encounters should I put in and what's a good spread on like easy vs. moderate encounters.
Because of game store hours, I generally run PFS scenarios with a limit of three hours. My experience is you can fit three moderate-ish fights in that time, or four if you do very little other than the combats. Severe/extreme are probably closer to two moderate combats. Major encounters--like an Influence encounter, Infiltration or Chase is somewhere between half of a combat or less depending on how many rounds/obstacles there are. An Influence encounter with many rounds and NPCs could be as long as a combat, though. A long section of RP is probably around that length as well. All of that can vary based on your players--if you're playing characters they've never played before, things will take longer, etc.
This is sort of what I was looking to emulate, I ran a lot of pf1e pfs years ago, and was hoping to do more singular adventures compared to multi session stories. I just had my first session and I nearly TPKd a party of three level 1 pcs with two kobold scouts in a cave, but there were lighting issues (party only had one light source) which makes me think I need to lower the difficulty. I killed a PC, and another fled while carrying his unconscious friend out. So...not the best introduction for them.
A *lot* of variables in that question. Some characters are more complicated, an Alchemist or Summoner is probably going to take a longer turn than someone who's planning to stride and swing a sword twice. Some *monsters* are complicated, with unique action economies, spells, reactions, and resistances or immunities that can mean it takes the party a while to figure out how to deal with them. Player experience level is a huge factor, someone newer to the game is going to need to look things up or have them explained. Same with GM experience level. Finally there's the issue of in-person vs a VTT. I mostly play on Foundry these days which automates dang near everything and means I never need to calculate if something is a hit or crit, how much of the map is visible, how much conditions and buffs impact rolls, etc, but every VTT has different features and requires more set-up time before the game to save time during. So yeah, too many factors to just guess at without knowing the details of your group.
Four players, experienced in other d20 based systems, but new to PF2E, all level 1, sorcerer, champion, swasbuckler, barbarian, automated in a VTT.
For new players the almost universal advice you're going to get here is to run the Beginner Box, which is designed to be the equivalent of one of those video games where the first mission doubles as a stealth tutorial because it requires you to master all the basics. If you don't want to do that, I always like to start new players off by having them get attacked by wolves. If they've played 5th edition DnD then it will be a good "familiar but different" fight; both DnD and PF2E wolves have both a tripping mechanic and a "don't get surrounded, they gain bonuses" passive that forces PCs to move around and think tactically. Good lesson because tactics in general are more important in PF. I'd plan on 3-4 encounters, with the last one being Severe 1, and at least one of them Low 1. Keep in mind players usually heal after every fight in PF2E, so they can start every fight with full HP. And of course some exploration, skill challenges like stealth and locks, and about one trap to fill in the gaps.
I appreciate this advice! One of the players had already played through the box before. This helps a lot for planning, I'm not as used to encounter building in PF2E yet.
I mean, there isn't a set number and it depends a lot on how much RP you expect to happen.
[удалено]
No, the Stinging Lash attack has the reach trait, the stance doesn't give you reach. Stinging Lash is a specific unarmed attack, you can either Strike with your Bo Staff or with Stinging Lash. When looking at monk stances, consider the attacks they give you as a "weapon" of its own.
[удалено]
Think of it this way, if you are in Jellyfish Stance and are wielding a Bo Staff, you have two "weapons": - Bo Staff, 1d8 damage, parry, reach, trip and monk traits, club group. - Stinging Slash, 1d6 damage, finesse, nonlethal, reach and unarmed traits, brawling group. When you make a Strike, you can choose to use one or the other, even if you're holding the staff in two hands (the unarmed trait says you don't have to have a free hand to make these strikes). Flurry of Blows and One Inch Punch both require you to make unarmed strikes, all Monastic Weaponry does is that it allows you to use a weapon with the Monk trait instead of a "weapon" with the unarmed trait for these features.
Quick question about +1 Weapon Potency and +1 Striking. My understanding is that these are completely separate properties that don't overlap. Striking only adds to damage, not attack rolls. But the language for Potency Crystal and Runic Weapon both imply that +1 Striking also has the properties of +1 Potency. I'm assuming that these descriptions are just unclearly worded and that is just something exclusive to these items and spells specifically, not the general rule. But I would like to know for certain if that's actually the case.
No one has pointed out this example, but just to add to the other (great) comments, you could potentially have a weapon with a Striking Rune but no Potency Rune. In that case, it would just be called a "Striking Weapon": * Longsword = regular old Longsword * +1 Longsword = Longsword with a +1 Potency Rune, conferring a +1 to hit * Striking Longsword = Longsword with a Striking Rune, causing the weapon to roll two dice for damage instead of one * +1 Striking Longsword = Longsword with a +1 Potency Rune and a Striking Rune, conferring a +1 to hit and causing the weapon to roll two dice for damage instead of one You will probably never see just a Striking Weapon without a +X as well, but those two discrete parts of the name refer to the two different fundamental runes
The rules around how magic weapons are named is in [Runes](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3162): > An item with runes is typically referred to by the value of its potency rune, followed by any other fundamental runes, then the names of any property runes, and ends with the name of the base item. For example, you might have a +1 longsword or +2 greater resilient fire-resistant chain mail. Thinking the +1 describes the level of Striking rune is a common misconception for new players, probably thanks to how things worked in other systems, and the way the [Striking](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2829) rune is worded: > A striking rune stores destructive magic in the weapon, increasing the weapon damage dice it deals to two instead of one. For instance, a _+1 striking_ dagger would deal 2d4 damage instead of 1d4 damage. That's technically correct, since a +1 striking weapon has both Potency and Striking, but can mislead you into thinking that _+1_ is part of the effect that deals the additional die of damage. With that said, while I don't believe there's any *rules* obstacle to having a Striking weapon without the Potency rune, it'd be unusual since the Potency is lower level than Striking, and you wouldn't typically see it in play. (If I've missed something, let me know.) Technically speaking, a weapon with just a Striking rune is not [Magical](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=738&NoRedirect=1)/[Runic](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3167&NoRedirect=1) for purposes of monster immunities. > A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon or armor magic armor > A potency rune is what makes a weapon a runic weapon (page 240) or armor magic armor (page 229).
All the answers I got were very helpful and cleared up my confusion, but this nails why I was confused in the first place. That particular wording in the GM Core really threw me off.
> +1 Striking It's Striking/Greater Striking/Major Striking. The +1/2/3 part is the potency.
No both runes is correct. In weapon names you usually leave out the word "potency" as the weapon potency runes are the only ones referred to by number. "+1 striking" is simply shorthand for the weapon having "weapon potency (+1)" **AND** "striking". Similarly "+2 greater striking" would refer to having both "weapon potency (+2)" AND "greater striking".
I'd like to run a game where the exploration features a wider range of foes than those that happen to be appropriate for party level. Needless to say, the players need a way to gauge the strength of enemies so they don't charge into something beyond their capabilities. My current plan is to buff Recall Knowledge with the following: - If a character is Trained with the right skill for a creature type, they can reliably tell the strength (level(s)) of the monster up to CL 10 with a Recall Knowledge check. They are guaranteed success in this (on top of the normal results of the check). With Expert proficiency, this is maintained up to level 16, Master goes right up to 20. - If they don't meet the requirement, then the GM will do Recall Knowledge as normal. If they fail then they get "Either this creature is outside of your knowledge base or beyond what you've studied. Be careful." Any ideas?
Other people already gave you answers regarding RK, but if you want to use monsters beyond the traditionaly appropriate level, you might want to look into the Proficiency Without Level variant rule.
Here's an option on RK - if the game rules instruct you to lie, "lie upwards". Crit fail an RK on a level 10 monster when the party are level 6? Tell them it's a world-ending threat that not only do the party stand no chance against, but the entire garrison of the nearby level 12 settlement also can't stop.
Good idea! Currently I'm thinking that having the RK check auto succeed regardless or proficiency or level might be the best way. Their "adventurer's sense" is iron-clad at telling when something is too powerful to fight, or too weak to grant exp. But they still need to intentionally use it. That way the option to choose to rush in recklessly (aka without doing a check) is preserved.
Don't tie the understanding of a creatures level at all to RK in this type of game. Imagine running into a level 11 dragon at level 4, and no one raised Arcana to expert at level 3. Someone trained in Arcana rolls and fails. The team tpks. Is that *fun*? Does obfuscating the knowledge of levels behind RK actually do anything for your intended experience? I think you'll find that just outright telling players will still create the same narrative beats for them without risking a single bad roll or a player not choosing the right skill to increase causing a bad engagement. That kind of bad engagement isn't fun usually because it makes the players feel like they didn't have agency about their decision to fight or not
Thank you!
Here to ask the dumb question: for Reactive Strike, it can stop Move actions, but there are few Monsters with abilities that actually have those tagged. Do I presume correctly that if there is a capital Stride, Fly, or Swim the specialized action of the monster inherits the Move action tag of the basic action? My GM is being rather particular. Two specific questions: Inexorable March [one-action] The stone bulwark Strides up to its Speed, pushing back each creature whose space it moves into and damaging them if they try to stop its movement. A creature can attempt to bar the way by succeeding at a DC 34 Fortitude save. On a critical success, the resisting creature takes no damage; otherwise it is damaged as if hit by the construct's fist. - can a Fighter interrupt this stride using their regular Reactive Strike without the Fort save? Magma Dragon Wing Deflection [reaction] Trigger The dragon is targeted with an attack. Effect The dragon raises its wing, gaining a +2 circumstance bonus to AC against the triggering attack. If the dragon is Flying, it descends 10 feet after the attack. - can Reactive Strike be used on the descent?
> Do I presume correctly that if there is a capital Stride, Fly, or Swim the specialized action of the monster inherits the Move action tag of the basic action? My GM is being rather particular. Not quite. The larger action doesn't inherit the traits, but you're doing what's called a [subordinate action](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2342). A basic example of this would be something like [Sudden Charge](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4774). Sudden Charge, itself, doesn't have the Move trait, but the subordinate Stride inside Sudden Charge does. Inexorable March, in this case, doesn't have the move trait. The subordinate Stride inside Inexorable March does. This would trigger on the subordinate march. Note that no disruption would occur, because Reactive Strike doesn't ever disrupt movement actions, only manipulate actions. > can Reactive Strike be used on the descent? No. Deflection isn't a move action, and there's no subordinate move occurring as part of the action. So no trigger for reactive strike occurs. If someone had a reaction that was just generic "someone moves", that would trigger on the deflection though. Reactive Strike specifically cares for movement as part of a move action though, so it wouldn't trigger.
>Do I presume correctly that if there is a capital Stride, Fly, or Swim the specialized action of the monster inherits the Move action tag of the basic action? My GM is being rather particular. [Subordinate Actions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2342) >An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 416—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn't gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn't require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in. You would be disrupting the subordinate Move action that is part of the specialized action. [Disrupting Actions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2342) >Various abilities and conditions, such as a Reactive Strike, can disrupt an action. When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action's effects don't occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began to Cast a Spell requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity. >The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn't transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away. Which is to say it's up to the GM to interpret the situation. Let's take a look at the situation and timing of the examples: >can a Fighter interrupt this stride using their regular Reactive Strike without the Fort save? Reactive strike: >Trigger A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it's using. You lash out at a foe that leaves an opening. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action. [Move Actions that Trigger Reactions](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=446) >Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability. So the Reactive Strike is triggered when the Stone Bulwark leaves its square, attempting to enter yours. ~~My interpretation is that if the fighter critically hits, the Stride is disrupted and does not enter the square, so the rest of the Inexorable Stride does not happen.~~ (Edit: whoops, that's just manipulate actions by default.) >can Reactive Strike be used on the descent? 'Descends' is not a move action, so the Trigger of Reactive Strike is not met.
> So the Reactive Strike is triggered when the Stone Bulwark leaves its square, attempting to enter yours. My interpretation is that if the fighter critically hits, the Stride is disrupted and does not enter the square, so the rest of the Inexorable Stride does not happen. Actually, Reactive Strike doesn't disrupt move actions, so nothing would happen to Inexorable March. You would be correct if the reaction did disrupt movement, such as with [Stand Still](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=447).
Yep, that's correct. I should really read what I quote!
>Do I presume correctly that if there is a capital Stride, Fly, or Swim the specialized action of the monster inherits the Move action tag of the basic action? My GM is being rather particular. Yes, this is the case, but [Reactive Strike ](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2256)**doesn't** disrupt move actions, it only disrupts Manipulate actions. Something like [Stand Still](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=447) from the Monk disrupts move actions. This might make your particular questions moot. On the first one, the Stride will proc a Reactive Strike, but everything will still happen. ~~For the second one, I would also say so.~~
Yeah, bad phrasing on my part - we also have a Monk in the party so I forget sometimes who's got what interrupt. But thanks for confirming that the first should provoke a Reactive Strike, even if it doesn't stop it.
This isn't quite correct. Activities don't inherit the traits of their subordinate actions, but the subordinate actions retain their normal traits and would trigger the reaction.
Ah so the first one I was correct, but the second one I was wrong. Definitely wasn't sure on that one!
Yea, its actually *really important* activities don't inherit the traits of their subordinate actions. Otherwise, that would mean an activity with a subordinate Strike action has the Attack trait, and per the rules of MAP, you are now taking an attack action so subsequent attacks suffer MAP.
The subordinate Strike already has the Attack trait though, so MAP is still increased? I mean, it is an important distinction, but for this example, whether the main activity or the subordinate strike is the one with the Attack trait doesn't really matter.
Post remaster I know Paizo changed a lot of fundamentals about Dragons and their types. My understanding of Dragon classifications is still very dnD5e based. Following the remaster, what "type" of dragon would a Teal colored dragon be? For reasons too long to explain we've established a Teal dragon in our setting with the color being very significant, and I'm trying to reverse engineer what type it should be and it's statistics.
My understanding is that all the old Chromatic and Metallic dragons previously established in the campaign setting aren't being retconned - Paizo just isn't going to really emphasize them so much, and might create new, cooler dragons that do the same stuff and have the same archetypical place in the story (Green -> Horned) and they'll make it a slow rolling conversion. There's also the pseudo-3pp Roll for Combat and they're just throwing buckets of new dragons all over the place. I think the official Golarion lore on dragons is that they are all *intensely magical* adaptive apex predators that can take on any number of potential aspects. In my headcanon, its even possible for hatchlings to be a different subtype than their parents, based on the most prominant magical energies they absorb from their surroundings... a Red that "retires" into a volcano and stops being a marauding asshole might give birth to an elemental Magma dragon, for example. So essentially, you can keep your Blue dragon no problem. But if you want a new dragon that has that coloring, the Omen Dragon could fit the aesthetic, and they're fucking *wild* in lore.
That would have to be answered based on what the abilities of the dragon are. Each of the new dragon types are broken into the 4 magical traditions, with abilities that fit that theme. If the Teal Dragon is meant to be another Chromatic Dragon variant, then [Horned Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=401) are probably the closest to the classic Chromatics, and you could alter the innate spells and breath weapon accordingly. But there's not really a 1:1 analogue for the old Chromatic Dragons
So can each of the dragon types just be any color, with respective elemental traits based on the color? If it's tied to tradition, whats the Arcane and Occult dragon type?
Color isn't a factor in dragons at all when it comes to Remaster Dragons. Most of the Dragons in Monster Core don't even have elemental abilities, and the few that do are very specific to the type of dragon, and not the color. For example, the Diabolic Dragons breath fire, because they are Dragons from Hell. They breath Hellfire. The Remaster Dragons are all on AoN as of the most recent update (but no images yet, sadly), so I'll post links to all of them: **Arcane** [Fortune Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=400) [Mirage Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=402) **Divine** [Diabolic Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=398) [Empyreal Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=399) **Occult** [Conspirator Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=397) [Omen Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=403) **Primal** [Adamantine Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=396) [Horned Dragons](https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterFamilies.aspx?ID=401)
Thank you! Exactly what I needed.
How closely does anyone follow the Bulk rules? The AP I'm running is about to award a Spacious Pouch (Type II), but we don't really pay attention to Bulk. The party has all the equipment and consumables they expect to use on them, and any other items are kept in the "Party Stash" on Foundry. so it's never felt necessary to enforce. If anyone needs to use an item from the Stash in combat, I treat it as two actions to draw the item, as if removing it from a backpack, but otherwise it functions like "magic pockets". So a Spacious Pouch doesn't really provide much value unless I start suddenly enforcing Bulk rules and distribute the weight in the Party Stash out amongst the party. Are the Bulk rules worth enforcing, or should I just convert the Spacious Pouch to an item they might actually use (or just replace it with the gold value)?
Foundry made my character Clumsy1 due to encumbrance in our previous sessions so we recently had to start caring. How we'll properly resolve this will remain to be seen on an official capacity I suppose. But for the most part, tracking bulk isn't the most fun thing to do. Players who enjoy item management may respond well to it of course, but like how some tables ignore basic arrow/ammo count, some may choose to ignore bulk entirely. My group didn't really care in previous sessions and campaigns until now for example. Spacious pouches, bags of holding, sleeves of storage, and whatever other extradimensional storage can still be nice to have purely from a flavor standpoint, like finding something big that your player doesn't want to imagine their character carrying that can go in the bag/pouch. The sleeves of storage I got my character likewise was mostly for the flavor too such as hiding things in her sleeves or keeping precious items secure and difficult to lose or steal. However your Party Stash seems to already fulfill the general function of the spacious pouch already, and it's shared across all party members if I understand this right? If so then the spacious pouch is redundant. You could discuss with your players as well if they don't mind implementing bulk or if they have ideas for the pouch. Otherwise you may as well find something else of equivalent value to give them in that case.
>Foundry made my character Clumsy1 due to encumbrance in our previous sessions so we recently had to start caring. Rest of the question/answer aside, there is a setting in Foundry that automatically applies the Bulk rules (like the Encumbered condition at applies Clumsy 1 and lowers your speed), and that setting can be turned off. If your GM wasn't intending to care about Bulk, let them know they can turn it off
If you haven't already been using bulk rules, then it'd probably be more effort than it's worth to start. You could still keep the spacious pouch though and let them use it for shenanigans. A type 2 spacious pouch can hold ~250-500 lbs. (~115-230 kg.), you get to decide how large the opening is, and living creatures can explicity hide inside the bag. If your players are creative then they'll find a use for it, otherwise they can just sell it for like 150 gold.
Imagine a Twisting Tree Magus with a [Spellstriker Staff](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2258). The Magus shifts the Staff into a Bastard Sword, then holds it in two hands, does the Bastard Sword get Reach, Parry and Trip? The rules on Twisting Tree don't seem to to make any distinction between the staff weapon and staves as spellcasting items. The game has precedence on non staff shaped things still being staves, like the [Bagpipes of Turmoil](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2265) having the staff trait. The [Student of the Staff](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2859) feat suggests that it would work, since it specifically prevents you from putting the shifting rune on a staff. If this interaction didn't work then the ban on shifting runes would be unnecessary. Also please stick to RAW when discussing it, I'm not trying to start a debate on whether you'd allow this or if it's too good to be true, I just want to get a pure RAW reading of it first. Edit: I made a mistake, there's no "staff group", but I think the Student of the Staff and Bagpipes precedent is still enough to indicate it would probably work.
[Twisting Tree](https://2e.aonprd.com/HybridStudies.aspx?ID=5) > The staff is perhaps one of the simplest of weapons, but this simplicity belies its elegance and versatility. To you, a staff is casting implement and martial weapon alike—the foundation of a fighting style. Apart from the intro flavor, > While you wield a staff in one hand, the staff adjusts in shape and weight, gaining the agile trait and increasing its damage die size to 1d6. makes it unambiguous that 'the staff' is referring to the [Staff Weapon](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=367), not [magical Staves](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=748) with the Staff trait. The Staves rules are clear that there's a distinction between the two: > All magical staves have the staff trait. > Staves are also staff weapons. With regard to this bit: > The Student of the Staff feat suggests that it would work, since it specifically prevents you from putting the shifting rune on a staff. I believe that's there because the feat is Student of the _Staff_, not Student of the Arbitrary Weapon.
> Also please stick to RAW when discussing it None of what you mentioned is RAW, although I do agree with you that the interaction I described is definitely not RAI and not something I would try to play. People seem to think I'm suggesting this "build", when I'm just looking to get clarification on the RAW status. Edit: I'll concede that the portion in the staves rules you quoted is RAW and seem to point that it doesn't work.
> The game has precedence on > The Student of the Staff feat suggests If you want to only get RAW responses, start with RAW assertions.
[удалено]
I'm not trying to be a jerk, just pointing out that you're making a case that's partially RAI and insisting on RAW responses. I feel that the one-handed clause in Twisted Tree clarifies that it's using 'a/the staff' to refer to the staff weapon, since that's the only way "gaining the agile trait and increasing its damage die size to 1d6" makes sense, and the Staves rules make it clear that magical staves and staff weapons are two different things. A shifted Spellstriker Staff in bastard sword form is a magical staff, but is not a staff weapon, since it's currently a sword with the Staff trait (assuming we decide that Shifting allows it to keep that trait.)
> just pointing out that you're making a case that's partially RAI and insisting on RAW responses. Yes, so? I was asking for RAW precisely because the RAW was unclear to me, so I resorted to RAI and was asking if I missed anything RAW, which I did. I was not making any case, I was trying to understand the rule. I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
The staff trait does not make an item a "staff" as in the weapon. A Bastard Sword with the staff trait is still a Bastard Sword, not a staff.
~~Which is precisely why I'm asking this, the Twisting Tree does not specify a "weapon in the staff group", which is the common wording for things that care about specific weapon groups.~~ ~~Usually things in PF2 that care about specific weapon groups are very deliberate in saying so (Example: [Tengu Weapon Familiarity](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1314))~~ Edit: I forgot there's no staff group, but I think the other points are still strong. And as I said, if it didn't work there would be no reason the designers would've felt the need to exclude the shifting rune in Student of the Staff. Heck, the [staff acrobat archetype](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=37) even sets the precedent of "your staff" meaning things that aren't a staff weapon.
The staff acrobat is the exception, not the rule. Frankly, when they wrote the Magus, there were no shifting staves. So it wasn't written with such a thing in mind. The most likely did exclude this rune from Student of the Staff specifically because it leads to all kinds of edge cases and headaches. The Spellstriker Staff is what breaks the system and should probably never have been printed as a shifting staff. When in doubt, apply the too good to be true rule. There is no d12 reach weapon in the game, especially not one that also has trip and parry. So what you are attempting to do is too good to be true, and as such, false.
I'm not "trying to do" anything. I just hate how everytime somebody asks something in this thread people like you assume the person is trying to cheat the game in some way, I'm not playing a Twisting Tree Magus, it's just am interesting rules interaction that popped in my mind in another thread. There's also several RAW ways to make d12 reach weapons in this system, btw.
You trying to combining stuff can just mean you want to know how things interact with each other. I wasn't implying you're trying to cheat. I gave you my opinion and the best explanation for it I can come up with. That's all. We don't have a striclty RAW answer either way. I do believe it's too good to be true, but ultimately, my guess is as good as your.
>And as I said, if it didn't work there would be no reason the designers would've felt the need to exclude the shifting rune in Student of the Staff. I find it funny that you're asking people to stick strictly to RAW while you yourself are trying to extrapolate a ruling, not using something that is strictly RAW The answer, RAW, is that we don't know. As you stated, Twisting Tree doesn't delineate between a weapon that is a Staff weapon group or an item with the Staff trait. So no one can definitively say, RAW, what is meant by "Staff" in Twisting Tree Hybrid Study. People can only infer and make judgement calls Likewise, the Shifting rune does not specify if the traits of the original weapon carry over to the new form of the weapon. So you can't even state RAW that the Spellstriker Staff would keep the Staff Trait when it shifts into a Bastard Sword
The reason I'm asking is precisely because it was unclear to me, so the reason I asked people to stick to RAW was in case I missed something. I'm not here advocating for something, I was trying to see if I missed anything.
I'm level 16 with Divine Spellcasting. Any must have wands and scrolls I'm missing? this is my current list Wands: Heal Marvelous Mount Talking Corpse Vampiric exsanguination (looted) Life Connection Detect alignment (Legacy) Scrolls: Lock Restyle Heal Cleanse Cuisine Sanctuary Create Water Protection Augury Cleanse Affliction Ring of Truth Spirit Link Heroism Revealing light Dream message Sending Sanctified ground Restoration Truespeech Pinpoint Overwhelming presence (looted) Divine Decree (looted) Planar Seal (looted)
Depending on how often you're fighting Undead (or Fiends if you're sanctified), a wand of Infuse Vitality would pretty useful
Thank you.
[Water Breathing?](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1755&NoRedirect=1)
Thank you :)
What actually happens if you go over your bulk max limit? I know if you go over the first limit you are Encumbered but the rules just say you can't carry more that your maximum. What does that mean though? Are you effectively Immobilized? Restrained? Paralyzed?
[Bulk Limits](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2154) > You can carry an amount of Bulk equal to 5 plus your Strength modifier without penalty; if you carry more, you gain the encumbered condition. You can’t hold or carry more Bulk than 10 plus your Strength modifier. It means it's impossible. You can't fit and/or lift the additional bulk - you'd have to [Drag](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2159) it. > In some situations, you might drag an object or creature rather than carry it. If you’re dragging something, treat its Bulk as half. Typically, you can drag one thing at a time, you must use both hands to do so, and you drag slowly— roughly 50 feet per minute. Use the total Bulk of what you’re dragging, for instance, if you’re dragging a sack filled with treasure, total the Bulk of everything inside. Given that dragging is a massive speed penalty, if the character is somehow involuntarily past the Bulk Limit, it'd be reasonable to make them Immobilized, but I don't think it's something the rules specifically cover, and I can't think of a way to impose additional Bulk on them. Interestingly, [Enfeebled](https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=71) is > a status penalty equal to the condition value to Strength-based rolls and DCs, including Strength-based melee attack rolls, Strength-based damage rolls, and Athletics checks. while the Bulk Limit is > 10 plus your Strength modifier so I don't believe Enfeebled changes your Bulk Limit. Edit: If a character is voluntarily holding on to something that's past their bulk limit, they're not Immobilized, they're just choosing not to let go of something they can't move. ["Homer, are you just holding on to the can?" … "Your point being?"](https://frinkiac.com/caption/S05E06/377659)
Lore question about the Herexen, a monster in Monster Core, Bestiary 3 and apparently also with variants in Book of the Dead. Is there much written about them? Assuming it's for the 'greater heresy', can they hide their nature and function as 'normal' members of a community in a town that doesn't trust or like undead? I'm considering using one as a significant opponent, but don't want to contradict existing lore.
[The references section](https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Herexen#References) on the Pathfinder Wiki tends to be pretty comprehensive. Pretty much the only other reference you haven't mentioned is a named hexeren that appears in an adventure.
Thanks, just looked up the Crown of the Kobold King one and it's clear from his lore that there's no compulsions on him to act. Strikes me that herexens are hedonists who are supernaturally rewarded with extreme pleasure upon committing acts of blasphemy against their old faith. I can work with that.
Pretty new to PF2e, making a character for my group's second, longer game. Thinking about Cloistered Cleric, and we're trying out free archetype this time around. Kind of having a harder time picking one than I'd have thought. I was looking at Beast Master Dedication, though I see that practically all of the companion's support benefits involves your Strike specifically though. Wondering how well Beast Master meshes with a caster focused character despite that?
Support actions are useful and often build-enhancing, but they can also be ignored with relative ease. If you don’t see any that appeal to your character concept, you don’t have to worry about the loss in power budget too much. Beast Master still offers a LOT and helps give casters a very powerful third action with Command an Animal, as the action economy helps a lot when you’re spending two actions to cast a spell. Mount companions are by far the best bang for your buck as a caster.
People already mentioned mounting and how to use an AC, but I wanted to mention that there are several ACs that have useful support benefits for a caster. The one that immediately pops into mind is the Augdunar, as its support benefit can give you scrolls, wands or potions from your inventory.
It's not been mentioned yet, but one of the better things that you can do with a Animal Companion is ride it as a mount. They'll normally have a higher base speed than you, and when you get the [Mature Beastmaster Companion](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1903) feat at level 4, they'll gain an Action on their own that can be used for Striding (or Striking), which can make sure you can get a move in as well as a 2/3 action spell and maybe something else.
It works surprisingly well. Just ignore the support actions and command your companion to move and strike. If you don't need to move, you cast cast a two-action spell and command your companion. If you do need to move, past 4th level your independent companion will still have one action. It helps fill in spaces on the front line to keep critters off your back for more efficient casting.
I see. Thanks for the input!
[удалено]
Oh believe me, I too dislike the idea of using it to do something like taking "the pet subclass" on everything just to throw more bodies in. In this case the character is a folksy halfling, so I could definitely see him having a way with animals. Appreciate the info.
Regarding Recall Knowledge in combat, is "What is this creature?" a good question to ask? What sort of useful info would you give out or what would you expect to recieve with that question?
That’s covered pretty straight forward in the recall knowledge section of the rulebook. >A character who successfully identifies a creature learns one of its best-known attributes—such as a hydra's head regrowth (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore's tail spikes. On a critical success, the character also learns something subtler, like a weakness that's not obvious or the trigger for one of the creature's reactions. edit: so for their example of a hydra, I’d give them a description like this on a success: This is a Hydra. Hydras are multiheaded, foul-tempered serpentine beasts with voracious appetites, widely feared for their ability to regenerate any wound, including lost heads. They cannot regenerate wounds caused by fire or acid.
Does anyone know the reasoning behind the armor balancing? That is, all the light and medium armor max you at AC 5 while the heavy maxes at AC 6?
**Light Armor**: requires dexterity investment, which implies a Finesse build, which restricts your overall damage unless you are a class built around finesse weapons (Rogue/Swash/Investigator). For classes that don't start at +4 with a key dex attribute, light armor might require some strength investment early on to maximize your AC, and a lot of classes don't want to make that investment at chargen. **Medium Armor**: requires at least a small combination of strength and dexterity, but really meant for Strength characters. A lightly-armored base class can invest in Medium Armor to *deal more damage* as a Strength-build capable of swinging d10/d12 non-finesse weapons. **Heavy Armor**: the "best" armor in the game allows you to dump dexterity and redistribute your point buy to emphasize other stats. Higher AC is a big deal, and a -5ft speed penalty is not a big deal past low levels. Heavy proficiency is rare and difficult to acquire though (only Champions and Fighters natively get Heavy proficiency as a class feature) - it requires investment from most characters, because it legitimately represents a power bump above the curve. (Tip for GMs / Warning for players: dumping your dexterity and relying on full plate Bulwark leaves you vulnerable to non-damaging Reflex effects like Trip or *Gravity Well*.)
Thanks. That brings up another question: Is this balancing heavily dependent on the PF2E character creation method which makes those tradeoffs very clear from the start? I'm an old fogey and a character doesn't quite feel right unless I rolled 3d6 to make it.
Not even 4d6 drop lowest? Man. The "standard ability score distribution" of PF2 is a bit higher-power than what you might be used to, but if you want to keep the d6s I think there's an "official" hybrid chargen method you can use from the pre-remaster Core Rulebook. Remaster PF2 doesn't even use ability scores - its just straight modifiers now and there's no "18 Strength is a +4 modifer". According to "official" point buy distribution, * you start with 10 (+0) across every attribute. * Your ABCs (Ancestry, Background, Class) will give you Boosts to distribute. Each "Boost" is a +2 to the ability score (so, 10 to 12, or a +1 modifier. The new terminology doesn't pay any attention to scores, but I'll lay it out in those terms to make the second half clearer). If an ability score is already at an 18 or higher, subsequent boosts only increase it by +1 score (so 18 to 19, for example). * **Ancestry** will give you either two flexible boosts, or it will give you two set boosts, a flexible boost, and set flaw (elf is +2 dex/int/free, and -2 con) * **Background** will give you two boosts, one of which is set between two choices ("Scholar" might give you a choice between wis/int, and then a second boost that's free) * your **Class** will have a key attribute, and automatically give you a boost to it. Some classes let you choose your key attribute (Barbarians are always strength, but Fighters can choose to be either strength or dexterity based). * At level 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, you get to spread 4 additional boosts however you like. * Around level 17, your PC might find an Apex magic item, which can modify an attribute. You can either use an Apex item to directly set a low attribute to 18 (+4), or you can use it to increase a higher attribute by +1 modifier - usually 21 (+5) up to 23 (+6) at that level. * Level 20 Apex peak is 24 (+7), for a character that starts with an 18 (+4) and adds a boost to that stat at every possible stage. * At mid-high levels, it will be very common for characters to have multiple 18 (+4) attributes, which is where the soft-wall of diminishing boost returns starts. * a "minmaxed" level 1 chargen spread with an Ancestry Flaw looks like 18/16/14/12/10/8... you can use that as a mental shortcut to check your work - your ability mods should total to a net +9, no matter how you shift them around. If you want to chargen using d6s in PF2, the Core Rulebook says to start with 4d6 drop lowest, then add your Ancestry and Background boosts sans one free boost from each (so humans get one free boost and not two, elves get +dex/+int/-con, and the "soldier" background gives you a choice between +str or +con but no additional boost). You don't get your class key ability score boost, and nothing can let you go above an 18 at chargen, so if you roll a 17 and put it in dexterity as an elf, it would cap at 18 and you would lose a bit of value. Your 5/10/15/20 boosts CAN take a 17 directly to a 19 though, which is where odd-number attributes still have value.
Thanks for the thorough analysis. I've read through the chargen sections, but I must have missed the alternate way. I've done 4d6 drop lowest before. It's also good and prevents people from having a 4 in a stat. I do, however, like the odd variability you get with random but bell curve. One of my favorite characters ever had a 6 int and 8 charisma but a 16 wisdom. Was a blast being rudely practical but unable to read and do more than basic math. But if the system really relies on a more systematic style I don't want to mess with it.
Armor is only "balanced" if you have a high enough DEX score to take advantage of it. PCs that don't have DEX as their key attribute can't have more than +3 DEX (16) at 1st level. And every point you put into DEX means fewer points elsewhere. Medium and heavy armor requires greater investment in STR to avoid penalties, and most characters still have a penalty to movement speeds with heavy armor. So therre are built-in trade-offs above and beyond the benefits to AC.
Heavy is the only armor that gives you a penalty in return for a higher AC cap than the others can get, in the form of an unavoidable (without feat investment) speed debuff and traits like noisy.
Heavy armor gives you a speed penalty so it is not without a tradeoff.
I want the villain throw a bomb at the PCs 60 feet away. Being new to Pathfinder how do I figure out out the to hit rolls. "Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet. " Weapon Statistics and Range says "For example, if you are using a shortbow, your attacks take no penalty against a target up to 60 feet away". I think the bomb would not have penalty because it's within 60 feet, but it would be at -4 if it was being tossed 100 feet? Is that correct?
The 60 feet example is *specifically related to the shortbow,* which has a range of 60 ft. You substitute the specific weapon's range increment into that formula. For a bomb: * within 20ft: 1st increment, no penalty * 20ft < d ≤ 40ft: 2nd increment, -2 penalty * 40ft < d ≤ 60ft: 3rd increment, -4 penalty * 60ft < d ≤ 80ft: 4th increment, -6 penalty * etc, up to a max of 120ft at a -10 penalty, and beyond which attacks are impossible That said, if it's a villain that would throw bombs often, you could consider giving them a skill to help them to do so. For example, the level 1 [Dueregar Bombadier](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=169) has the *Far Lobber* ability that gives them a range of 30ft on their bomb throws. There is also a mundane item called the [Bomb Launcher](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1097) that lets you Strike with bombs at a range of 60ft, but it takes 2 hands and an additional action loading it to accomplish this so it's a big tradeoff.
If that Rules as Written, then darn.
If you're the GM, its not an obstacle. Monsters (including human NPCs) cheat. They don't have to be (shouldn't be) built using standard PC rules. A high-level alchemist with Uncanny Lob can increase their bomb range to enormous levels - if this "monster" is an alchemist, go ham. Do what you like. If you really feel guilty, let the PCs loot a special item after they win that lets them magically throw bombs better - *"Oh, that's how it worked!"* If they're just a rogue trying to use a single bomb at the start of the battle to set an oil field on fire and trigger a hazard, the penalty doesn't matter. I think the maximum distance of any ranged attack is 5 increments, for a total of a -10 penalty... so even a completely ordinary NPC civilian can, Rules As Written, throw a bomb 60ft and reliably hit a designated 5ft square for splash damage.
If bombs are one of the main things of the villain and you are building them from scratch it's reasonable to give them a higher range increment with bombs than usual. There are a couple of [creatures](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=759) that do that already, typically going to 30ft instead (matching the Alchemist feat [Far Lobber](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=94)) but if this is an important NPC you can go higher as well (The highest I've seen is 60ft on some adventure path/PFS NPCs).
Lore question: do we know who freed the good elemental lords besides Ranginori? Is there any AP or something that I’m missing? I assumed it was the Concordance of Elements and PFS, but RoE says that Artreia was rescued for “reasons unknown to him” and that he’s trying to find his “mysterious liberator,” which says he doesn’t know. And side note: why is is his skill performance? I can’t find anything in his lore that might connect him with the skill.
Looking into Fighter feats to see what I might want to take as a One-Handed fighter focused on Str/Athletics checks, kind of a brawler/controller. I was thinking about using a Bastard sword that I could utilize the Versatile trait as needed, and the Dual-Handed Assault feat seems like it would pair very well with this. My only question is whether the Disarming Twist feat would apply to any attacks made with Dual-Handed Assault. My first instict is to say that these do not work together (As I wouldn't have an open hand), but Dual-Handed Assault has a clause saying "This action doesn’t end any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free." and I'm not sure about how that interacts with Disarming Twist.
> My only question is whether the Disarming Twist feat would apply to any attacks made with Dual-Handed Assault. [Disarming Twist](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=400) and [Dual-Handed Assault](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4789) are two separate actions. You're doing one or the other, not both at the same time. > Dual-Handed Assault has a clause saying "This action doesn’t end any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free." Some example feats this clause applies to: [Dueling Parry](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4781), [Disarming Stance](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4800), [Dueling Dance](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4834)
> Disarming Twist feat would apply to any attacks made with Dual-Handed Assault. My first instict is to say that these do not work together (As I wouldn't have an open hand), but Dual-Handed Assault has a clause saying "This action doesn’t end any stance or fighter feat effect that requires you to have one hand free." and I'm not sure about how that interacts with Disarming Twist. They don't interact, because Disarming Twist is its own action. If you're walking around wielding a bastard sword in one hand, and a free hand in another, the two functions don't interact. When you spend an action to do Dual-Handed Assault, you grip your weapon in both hands, Strike, then release. When you disarming twist, which is a different action altogether, you're not wielding a weapon in two hands, so you meet the requirement (have a free hand) to be able to take the disarming twist action. I They are two separate actions that you have to take.
Does a Magus' Thunderous Strike deal normal weapon damage as part of the strike?
[Thunderous Strike](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1044) >Make a melee [Strike](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2306) with your two-handed weapon. It includes the basic action Strike, so yes, assuming you succeed. > Each creature in a 15-foot cone from you must attempt a basic Fortitude save against your spell DC or take 2 sonic damage. On a critical failure, the creature is knocked prone. The target of your Strike must be within the cone or the effect fails. This effect requires that the target of the Strike is within the cone, it does not matter whether the Strike succeeded or not.
>Each creature in a 15-foot cone from you must attempt a basic Fortitude save against your spell DC **or take 2 sonic damage**. Does this mean that the enemy chooses whether to attempt the save throw or take damage? currently in the party I'm playing magus we are assuming that the enemy attemtp the test and also takes sonic damage.
It's a standard [basic save](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2297), with a listed damage. The saving throw determines how much damage the enemy takes, with an additional effect (prone) on a critical failure. > The target takes no damage on a critical success, half damage on a success, full damage on a failure, or double damage on a critical failure.
That's how i ruled it, fantastic
How can players improvise in PF? \^\^ In detail: We wanted to put some leather on a wooden table with nails and carry the table with us, in front of us, into the next fight. Bc we ware all new to PF our GM said we need a day to craft this. Makes no sense, so we would love to learn how to improvise such things (we love inventing stuff xD)
I'm a new GM, going through the Beginners Box right now as well actually. If my players wanted to do this, here's how I would rule it off the cuff: (assuming this is supposed to be a quick rough ad hoc creation) As long as at least one PC has a crafter's toolkit, it will take one PC 40 minutes to make, reducing 10 minutes for every additional PC that decides to help. The activity will be noisy, hearable from up to two rooms away. -1 circumstances penalty to everyone in the room for auditory perception checks, and a -2 circumstance to all perception checks if all PCs are distracted working on it. For every 10 minutes needed, I would roll a secret check to see if creatures come to investigate. Assuming you plan to use it for cover, I would rule it provides standard cover in the direction it's facing as long as a player is holding it, and it takes both hands to hold it. They can let it go as a free action. If the table is round, it falls over immediately. If it's square or rectangular, it will stand until any attack action makes contact after which it's knocked over. Either way it's now an obstacle for both PCs and Creatures. The table would be treated like a shield with 3 Hardness and 15 Hit points, no breakpoint, no additional AC bonus other than the circumstantial cover bonus. And anytime it takes a melee hit while a player is holding it, they have to make a DC 15 Athletics check. On a failure they hold onto it but are off-guard for 1 round, on a critical failure they drop the table and are knocked prone.
Not an answer to your question but I'm very interested as to what you're trying to do. Are you using the table as cover? What's the point of the leather?
Yeah as cover and as a 'shield' against a small dragon maybe spitting fire in our direction. The leather would be wet. That was the idea of a group member :)
Ah I see. I think your GM got a bit caught up in the crafting rules which are more for making proper items. If you're just nailing some leather to a table that should probably be much faster (provided you don't need to find the materials). Your group might want to look into getting a tower or fortress shield.
I mean, that's the GM's ruling; if it doesn't make sense to you you can reason why it shouldn't take so long and maybe get them to shorten the time. A trained crafter can perfectly craft a sword in like 1 or 2 days, so I should think nailing some leather onto a table should take less than a day. Part of the reason for crafting taking one or two days is to avoid players earning a game-breaking amount of money crafting and selling stuff. I don't know exactly what you're using this table for but especially if you're not going to sell it, I probably wouldn't even ask you to roll to make the table
Do you have any advice for the GM on how to handle player's improvisation? They're struggling with balancing mechanics, player's ideas and how to interprete the few information he has from the beginner's box
How long would it take a person to do that in the real world? That could be a starting point of discussion. Maybe double that time, because you have to find tough leather and harden the straps and nails and table to compensate for the rough treatment it's going to get in combat. You don't want it to split in to IKEA kindling or rip on the first hit. This assumes you have access to Crafting equipment. If you are trying to do this with belts and pots for hammers and I don't know what for nails, then it might take all day.
We prepared and bought everything we need to do sth good :D
That's probably something to answer on a case by case basis. If information seems missing from the beginner's box, it may well be covered by the full rules
Okay, thank you for your input, we keep talking about it :) communication is key and we are learning hehe
There are many many cases where the rules have a concrete answer already that you just need to know, but players are creative and there are many other cases where there is no set answer and the GM just has to make a decision. If you get into a debate about something for more than a couple of minutes, it's usually more fun to just go with the GM's ruling in the moment (if it's fair enough) instead of getting bogged down in arguments. Later if the GM changes their mind, or is wrong about something and you can prove it, they can just change their rules and maybe compensate you if they made the players' lives too hard before
I have players that want to "harvest" monster parts. The idea is to create items via monster hunter logic, but I told them unless they meet the requirements the most they can do is offset some standard crafting items. I e. They kill a giant poison frog, lv 3. They wouldn't be able to make a poison resistant leather outfit but they would be able to use the skin to offset the price of leather armor. If the monster meets the level of the rune they are effectively replacing then I can see some wiggle room. Either way it would be a crafting check vs the lv DC of the creature for 25-50-100% of the encounter lv gold of the creature Table 5-3: Treasure by Encounter. Is that too harsh or to friendly? The crafting is kinda undervalued imo and I don't imagine it would a huge influx of gold. My party is already hoarding every sword they find so thank God the VTT I use keeps track of their encumbrance
I have a great homebrew for this! The really important issue for you is how ubiquitous you want this to be in your world. For me, I really like the aesthetic, so I make it a major aesthetic of the world and it represents a good chunk of the "treasure budget" I drop for players. I started with the numbers and concepts in Battlezoo Bestiary's monster parts crafting system - harvesting a monster gets you reagents equal to about the value of a level-appropriate consumable item. Players might record this as "50gp of poison frog reagents". Battlezoo lists a series of very explicit reagent types and very explicit things that you can build with those reagents, but I prefer the more freeform rule of "if you can justify it, you can build it". If a crafter character wants to make a potion of swimming... yeah, Frog works for that. If they want to make poison? absolutely. Scrolls of Jump or Gecko Grip? 100% valid. Flaming weapon rune? Hold up, no, I don't think so. If they can't think of something useful, they can always sell the reagents at half-value back in civilization. A big change that the Battlezoo crafting system makes that I also think is worth keeping, is to completely throw out the downtime requirement for item crafting. Simply put, some stories just *don't have downtime*... so part of the Reagent system is a whole overhaul of Crafting, which is also a whole overhaul of the Downtime system, which allows me to boot "Earn Income" and all its needless minutia out the airlock, which expands the "treasure budget" the GM can drop mid-adventure. I measure downtime in "Phases", which correspond to whatever campaign-specific minigame the players have access to. A "downtime phase" might be a day, it might be a week, it might be *a few hours* depending on the story you're telling. Crafting doesn't cost downtime phase actions, because its uncool for one PC to be sacrificing narrative agency in order to do grunt work on behalf of the team. The standard rate that my players craft at is 1 consumable item during daily preparations, or 1 permanent item / 4 consumables per downtime phase. If the PC has a crafting feat that specializes them in a grouping of item categories, they double those values.
Aside from Battlezoo, there actually is a kind of (extremely) bare-bones monster crafting built in (notably with Beast Guns and the Beast Gunner archetype), and the way you'd do it I think is fine enough, maybe if you incorporate some of the Battlezoo rules. But it's very bare-bones in that there's not really a direction Paizo takes on it. It is worth noting something like [Monster Crafting](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5180). If your team is underleveled for it, maybe have them make a Survival check to see how much of the creature is salvageable after the beatdown, to harvest and then use Crafting as usual to craft, and then if someone takes Monster Crafting, then they can skip that step and use Survival to craft directly.
Battlezoo (a 3pp headed by a former Paizo dev, Mark Seifter) has a full-blown monster parts system. It's excellent and well thought out. [https://battlezoo.com/products/battlezoo-bestiary-for-d-d-5e](https://battlezoo.com/products/battlezoo-bestiary-for-d-d-5e)
I'll 3rd this. It's exactly what OP is looking for
Seconded. I ran this for a Quest for the Frozen Flame(for the few sessions we had before the group had to stop :/ ) and it worked really well.
Have you taken a look at Battlezoo Bestiary? Its a third party book (written by Mark Seifter and Stephen Glicker) with rules about how to do this very thing! It is one of the highly regarded third party books, so I wouldn't worry about it being too unbalanced or anything.
Prepared casters that want to heighten a spell: Do you need to scribe a heightened version, or can you use the original?
>Do you need to scribe a heightened version Assuming you're talking about [Scrolls](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3197): > The spell on the scroll is cast at a particular spell rank, as determined by the scroll. For instance, a scroll of force barrage (1st rank) can be used to cast the 1st-rank version of force barrage, but not a force barrage heightened to 2nd rank. If no rank is listed, the scroll can be used to cast the spell at its lowest rank.
I mean: I have Fear at rank 1. Can I prepare Fear from my spellbook at Rank 3, or do I need to scribe a separate Fear 3 version to prepare it at Rank 3?
If by scribe, you mean 'have a different level of the spell in the spellbook'? No. [Heightened Spells](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2221&Redirected=1) > A prepared spellcaster can heighten a spell *by preparing it in a higher-rank slot than its normal spell rank*, while a spontaneous spellcaster can heighten a spell by casting it using a higher-rank spell slot, so long as they know the spell at that rank (see Heightened Spontaneous Spells below). When you heighten your spell, the spell's rank increases to match the higher rank of the spell slot you've prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell's rank. Emphasis added.
Ty. I thought someone mentioned needing to scribe spells at higher ranks to prepare them, which I thought was absurd. Makes sense for spontaneous, since they get signature spells, but having to purchase a separate scroll of Fear 3 to scribe before I could prepare it seemed crazy.
Yup. Having spells in your repertoire at a particular level/rank is specific to spontaneous casters. [Heightened Spontaneous Spells](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2226) > If you're a spontaneous spellcaster, you must know a spell at the specific rank that you want to cast it in order to heighten it. You can add a spell to your spell repertoire at more than a single rank so that you have more options when casting it. For example, if you added fireball to your repertoire as a 3rd-rank spell and again as a 5th-rank spell, you could cast it as a 3rd-rank or a 5th-rank spell; however, you couldn't cast it as a 4th-rank spell. > Many spontaneous spellcasting classes provide abilities like the signature spells class feature, which allows you to cast a limited number of spells as heightened versions even if you know the spell at only a single rank. Prepared spellcasters have the spell in their repository 'generically', and can prepare it in any available slot. If they are [learning the spell](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2366&Redirected=1) from a scroll, the rank of the scroll is irrelevant to the process. Scroll rank is also irrelevant for spontaneous casters who are learning spells, since it is added to their repository of available spells for the next time they get a chance to change up their repertoire. > If you have a spell repertoire, such as a bard, it's not automatically added since you can only know a limited number of spells. Instead, you can select it when you add or swap spells.
Hey, I just purchased Core books (GM, monsters, players). I'm looking for a good AP to start playing with my players. We're coming from 2-15 years experience in DnD and other systems. Questions: 1. should I purchase more books? (I know I can get them in pdf, I can read on wiki etc. I like fantasy books and my kids are learning english that way as well :P ) 2. IS there an AP that you'd recommend?
I keep a guide to the APs for new groups here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/10bk8p4/which_adventure_path_should_your_new_to/ Remember that Pathfinder 2e is fairly different in terms of party teamwork and character roles so start at level one no matter how experienced you are.
perfect - thank you!
Spoilers for AV I have a question for AV. My party is coming back from their first foray into the dungeon (they made it to level 2 and hightailed out after the giant skeleton almost killed 2 of them). Anyway, when Wrong gave them the message she offered a free reading as the reward along with whatever she could scrounge up. I'm thinking of handing the players a low level random item in lieu of payment. But my players are very "cash motivated" and won't continue exploring the dungeon out of concern for the town. For the record, the lighthouse "woke up" during their trip so they know something is up. I don't imagine Wrin is bursting at the seams with cash and I imagine the mayor/guard won't care too much about the gauntlight seeing as they can't see it from the village (yet). My players have always been "lacking" in motivation to move a storyline along for the sake of it. Given how tight the math is on the cost of upgrades, some gold might grease the wheels to get everyone on board. So maybe Wrin starts a GoFundMe from the local shops to fund the expedition Or if they have no motivation and ask why should they help I might just tell them "you don't, however perhaps a different adventure does" and ask them to reroll.
I mean, first and foremost, any adventure in any TTRPG assumes the characters are motivated to actually do the adventure. Rewards are nice, but there's a sort of social contract in place that the players showed up to play the game the GM put together, so they should be self-motivated to continue progressing the adventure. If the characters aren't motivated to keep going, why make that character in the first place? That's worth a conversation with the players themselves, in my opinion. >I'm thinking of handing the players a low level random item in lieu of payment. But my players are very "cash motivated" and won't continue exploring the dungeon out of concern for the town. For the record, the lighthouse "woke up" during their trip so they know something is up. >I don't imagine Wrin is bursting at the seams with cash and I imagine the mayor/guard won't care too much about the gauntlight seeing as they can't see it from the village (yet). I'm confused by what you mean when you say the lighthouse "woke up", but the mayor and guard don't care too much. Did you run the event >!where undead rise from the graveyard and a monster is teleported to the graveyard? !
Not yet. They got lucky with a perception roll and found a secret door into the 2nd level. All they've done is killed the mitflit king, get fucked up by the kobold haunt and then fight a giant skeleton. They made to the 2nd level lighthouse base and the book said something along the lines of activated the light house (triggers the necrotic aura for that room). The session ended with them leaving the map (they forgot the bridge was rickity and all ran on it so I triggered the slurk fight when they fell). I think I might actually be in a good spot. I forgot that the lighthouse activating triggers the graveyard ( I need to read the chapter again). In regards to motivation, my players and I are of the same stock (inner city people) so we have an ingrained "why should I?" mentality. I've played enough RPGs to understand that creating your character as someone who WANTS to adventure is very important but these guys don't even have much of a backstory. That part will work itself out, I told them at the start that they should come in with mindsets to facilitate adventuring.
>In regards to motivation, my players and I are of the same stock (inner city people) so we have an ingrained "why should I?" mentality. I've played enough RPGs to understand that creating your character as someone who WANTS to adventure is very important but these guys don't even have much of a backstory. As just a general statement, this is going to be a problem in just about \*any\* published adventure. Most games assume the PCs want to be there and want to do the right thing. I mean, why do Superheroes save the world? What's in it for them? Why does Indiana Jones fight Nazis all the time? It would be easier to just keep his cushy professor job. Why do the Crews on Star Trek shows do stuff? Its their job and all but they live in a future without money & don't *need* jobs, they \*want\* to do this stuff. If the heroes don't help the town, Otari is doomed. If they don't care about that then this whole AP is going to be really painful for all of you.
Beginning of lvl 2 there should be a graveyard encounter that will motivate the town to want the gauntlight taken care of and the mayor should be willing to shell out some money to the PCs to do it.
I need to read though the AP again, see if I can delay the trigger for that a bit for them to do some shopping. I might just have it happen the next night, probably while someone is telling them "it's just a ghost story" and then the lighthouse does it's thing.
As a side point: The timing of the Lighthouse is a big deal the AP doesn't go into enough detail on. It fires off when the PCs are about as far as yours are but it's fine as the DM to time it dramatically. After that, it's important to set the schedule on the thing in a way that works for your game. >!The Lighthouse is supposed to keep firing off but exactly what that schedule is can be very much up to the GM. Try to schedule it so that they are motivated to keep exploring the Vaults trying to figure out how to shut it down but don't make it so frequent that they never feel like they have time to do Sidequests, Crafting, shopping, etc. !< I've heard of groups that didn't take it seriously because it took so long between "incidents" that there was no real pressure and I've heard of groups that did nothing but eat, sleep, and delve because they were so terrified it was going to go off again any minute. Figure out what a good balance would be for your group.
I would like to point out that the Gauntlight artifact, as written, specifically has a "Once per month" frequency on both its ability to raise undead and teleport a creature. And the characters can find notes on the third floor that give them this information. So a GM would need to have the foresight to know that the frequency should be changed ahead of time if the party needs the time pressure, or otherwise improvise a reason for why the "once per month" limitation is becoming more frequent
I am planning to play a Giant Instinct Dwarf Barbarian and wanted to confirm how Giant/Titan Stature works just to be sure. From my inderstanding, you increase in both size and reach, so you go from say a 5ft (1x1 tile) Dwarf with 5ft reach (1 tile) to a 10ft (2x2 tile) Dwarf with 10ft (2 tile) reach? And then Titan would mean a 15ft (3x3 tile) Dwarf with a 15ft (3 tile) reach? Also once you have Titan Stature, can you choose to just go to Giant Stature size instead? Or do you not have both options?
>you increase in both size and reach, so you go from say a 5ft (1x1 tile) Dwarf with 5ft reach (1 tile) to a 10ft (2x2 tile) Dwarf with 10ft (2 tile) reach? And then Titan would mean a 15ft (3x3 tile) Dwarf with a 15ft (3 tile) reach? Correct. Also note an easily missed rule is that when you have 10ft reach (so when you are Large with Giant's Statue) can target a square two diagonals away, which is an exception to how diagonals are usually measured. >Also once you have Titan Stature, can you choose to just go to Giant Stature size instead? Or do you not have both options? Either! Paizo is usually pretty specific with the word choice when something is optional, picking verbs like "can" / "may" / "choose to", etc: >When using Giant’s Stature, *you can instead* become Huge \[...\]
Thankyou for confirming! Good to know the diagonal rule. Does it also apply to 15ft so you can target 3 squares diagonal then? Or does it only appy for 10ft and remain at 2 squares diagonal even at 15ft reach?
No only 10 foot reach has an exception. https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2379&Redirected=1 > Unlike with measuring most distances, 10-foot reach can reach 2 squares diagonally. Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally: 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on.
I have a question about the Take Cover action : it mentions that the bonus "lasts until you move from your current space, use an [attack](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=15) action, become [unconscious](https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=38), or end this effect as a free action.". Is it correct to assume that a character could take cover, then keep the bonus for several turns without using another action if they stay still and cast protective spells on their allies for exemple ?
Sure is, you can even chuck around fireballs and still keep the bonus, even greater cover
Correct. You listed the exceptions. Also, if adversaries move to a position where the cover is no longer relevant, you also lose the take cover benefit against those adversaries.
I'm a little bit confused. Apparently a new book for 2e got released these days, but I thought that this versions wouldn't be supported anymore, only the remastered one? I'm asking this because I'm still planning on joining this system.
This is a common misconception. "Remastered" isn't a new edition. It's a significant but minor set of errata to Pathfinder 2nd Edition, mostly because of the OGL fiasco. Paizo did take the opportunity to change a few things, clarify others and add more than name changes, but it's still PF2.
Thanks for clarifying!
"Remastered" isn't different from "2e". It's just the term for the 5% of things that were changed starting in late 2023. Remastered and non-remastered stuff can be played at the same table. It's all 2nd edition.
Got it! Thanks!
You're misunderstanding something a lot. Pathfinder 2e is itself the remastered version. Any content that comes out for it uses the remastered ruleset.
Great! Thanks a lot!
What are good archetypes to take with Free Archetype as Kineticist? Their useful options seem limited since they don't use weapons or cast spells or make "strikes" of any kind, for the most part. I took Familiar Master as my first one since Elemental Wisp gives a free status bonus to damage and Fearsome Familiar is pretty funny when Kineticist gets that later, but Familiar Master doesn't have enough useful feats to fill out all the Free Archetypes imo. I've considered Blessed One, but it's not really thematic for my character. I've also heard Monk suggested and thought the reasoning was good. What Free Archetypes are you guys taking as Kineticist? I'm Fire/Water, if that impacts it.
On top of what Wheldrake36 said, I would also consider the Flame Oracle dedication. Incendiary Aura and Thermal Nimbus synergize to make any enemy that gets near you to spontaneously catch fire, which is pretty nifty.
There are currently no archetypes that impact your kinetic abilities. You could take the rogue archetype for more skills. You could take an MC spellcaster archetype to have a few spells, in addition to your other abilities, and the use of wands & scrolls of your tradition. You could take the Blessed One archetype to have the Lay on Hands focus spell. As this will be your second archetype, it all comes down to what additional abilities you want to add.
Does the Shielded Arm spell prevent you from using your hand for anything else the same way holding a shield normally does?
The spell does not create a shield, it simply makes your arm function *as* a shield. It does not state to come with any restrictions imposed on you, so your hand remains free and, I'd say, can be used as normal.
It doesn't actually create a shield the way Metal Carapace does, so you're not holding anything. RAW it doesn't seem to, but I think as a GM I'd rule it functions the same way a buckler does, which doesn't take up your hand, but your hand still must be free (or simply holding a simple light object that's not a weapon) to use the Raise a Shield action.
But why would it work like that? The entire arm becomes very hard, so holding something in that hand doesn’t seem like it would affect your ability to impose the arm between you and attacks much? Now, sure, if you used the arm to attack after you raised shield, then I would also say that you drop your raised shield, but beyond that no adjustments seem necessary.
How does Amped Forbidden Thought work with the stun? How many actions are lost?
In spite of the flavor text, *non*-amped Forbidden Thought doesn't cause the target to lose any actions. The damage IS the "lock" that they have to evaluate. So the amped version just comes down to your interpretation of how stunned 1 works when applied in the middle of a turn: 1. They lose ALL of their remaining actions (because they "can't act") *AND* then 1 action on their next turn (because they regain 1 less action). 2. They lose the first action of their next turn (because they regain 1 less action). 3. They lose their next action on this turn. 1 is the closest to a literal reading of RAW but it also seems too good to be true and makes stunning a creature on its own turn wayyy more powerful than stunning them at other times. 3 seems like the simplest rational interpretation but it's the least supported by rules. I go with #3 because I like the simplicity. I think #2 is fine too. #1 feels like it creates too strange of incentives to be real.
Could a wizard with a druid dedication use a staff of healing? If so, what level can they cast from it? And could they add Heal to their staff with a staff nexus? Why/Why not?
A staff gains charges per day equal to your highest spell-rank, so that's full power. You can activate any scroll/wand/staff you like so long as the spell is on a list you have access to. A level 1 apprentice wizard can *Meteor Swarm* something if they have a scroll. So fair game there, too. Staff Nexus states that the spell you add to your makeshift staff must "be from your spellbook", so unfortunately you can't add *Heal* that way... but you could totally make a *Staff of Healing* and then use Staff Nexus to add *Thunderstrike* or whatever.
If I crafted a staff, could I craft a staff with Primal and Arcane spells?
Assuming you're talking about custom staff rules, Staves/Wands/Scrolls don't actually have a tradition lock - each spell is individually accessible based on the tradition list you can cast. *Usually* a staff will have a clear thematic grouping tied to a single list, but there's no rule saying you can't put an arcane-unique and a divine-unique spell into the same custom staff... it would just be less effective in the hands of anyone that isn't a multiclass caster.
You would have to be able to provide a copy of all the spells that it needs, but otherwise yeah.
Are Magus (specifically the Sparkling Targe kind) required to have a free hand to cast a spell through their spellstrike? A friend of mine thinks they have to but the manipulate trait doesn't require a hand free so could this Magus with sword in one hand and a shield in the other still Spellstrike? I understand that some spells will list 'Requires: one free hand' or something like that, in which case yeah he's right. But in every other case they're just risking the reactive strike right?
Your friend would have been correct back in PF1, but in PF2 spellcasters are allowed to make gestures and do fiddly wizard hand things using a weapon they are holding, like a staff or suchlike - as of Remaster, there isn't even that level of distinction. Everything is fair game. **Magus Specifically**, however, may prefer to have a free hand while spellstriking in order to utilize *Scrolls*. It is a recent discovery of mine, but as far as my GM brain can detect, there is nothing stopping a Magus from activating a Scroll to channel into their Spellstrike, so long as they are holding it at the beginning of the activity.
I really like that they are allowed to do the gestures. That scroll might be a good idea to bring up to my GM and see if they'd let me do that too. Thanks for the answer!
Your understanding is correct. A spell only needs a free hand if it needs a locus or specifically says it needs a free hand.
Thank you for the confirmation!
Players want to convince someone that they are seriously ill. One lies on the ground motionless, another coughs and acts afflicted. Would you allow performance check for this, or is it a deception check? Is it a "general" deception check, or Impersonate action / something else?
Official answer: Deception GM style choice, personally, I try to present every "freeform" skill challenge like this as a choice between two skill checks. If my player made a good argument for it, I might even go so far as to allow Medicine.
This would be [lying](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2389), not performing. Performance is for entertainment, deception is for outright lying to somebody.
How do you handle plane of Wood and Plane if Metal in a traditional 4 element system? Im adapting an old campaign setting to pf2 and don't want to introduce them into the cosmology. Are there any side effects to just saying they're not 'elements' ?
The re-emergence of the Plane of Wood and the Plane of Metal are actual in-universe events. You could just set the date of the campaign backwards in time to the 4715-4719 "end of PF1" era, where the big geopolitical events in Avistan were the Fifth Crusade up in Mendev, the Taldan War for the Crown, and the vengeance of the Whispering Tyrant as he freed himself from Gallowspire and nuked Vigil before marching on Absolam.
It makes Kineticists a bit weird because they treat Metal and Wood just like the other 4. It also means several elemental monsters don't have a specific place they come from. Other than that? The effect would be pretty minor.