A TL;DW on the Death & Dying rules since players are very concerned about it right now: I think all the passages onscreen show that Paizo is not of one mind on this. I intend to run things the more lenient way. Meanwhile, because of the contradictions in the language and history I think it behooves Paizo to clarify what they intend here. ADDITIONS/ERRATA: I think I'm at peace with Invisibility making you Undetected. The Undetected condition says a creature can still try to target you by targeting a square: 2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=39 . One commenter makes a good point in that vanishing doesn't necessarily indicate you became invisible; you could have teleported or been an illusion. -Another issue with Tailwind is that it invalidates a lot of effects that give you a momentary or temporary status bonus to Speed -Supporting my reading of Stunned is the fact that the Unconscious condition starts in the exact same way: "You’re sleeping, or you’ve been knocked out. You can’t act." Nothing else under Unconscious says you can't act. Surely, then, is that not mere "flavor text"! (Petrified does the same thing: one sentence of flavor/description then a 2nd sentence saying you "can't act.")

Stun the bard. "You can't act." The bard takes 20 emotional damage.

For Disarm, I assume that it clarifies it falls in their space because they want to highlight that it doesn't end up in your own hand, not because you can't pick up something in the same space as an enemy. I've always assumed you can pick up any unattended items in your reach, even if an enemy is in the same space (you just risk provoking Reactive Strikes like usual).

I think the verbiage of the Disarm Action (where the item is dropped) is made so that you don't automatically knock the weapon wherever. I've ran this as the moment it is dropped, that's an unattended object that can be picked up (Interact/Manipulate - therefore open of Reactive Strikes), mage handed away etc. This had the following effects on my table: - Martials always have a backup weapon, in case theirs get taken away (and they don't want to punch/grapple/disarm). - An absolute dread of Reactive Strikes. - A lot of encounters with humanoids solved by just disarming the hell out of them. - Some usages of Steal to take player's items back (via Mug Rogue feat).

The lack of an NPC gallery is very sad to hear. That is probably the most well loved section of my GM guide. I would love to see a Bestiary filled with NPCs of various types and levels.

On Dying and Wounded: I'm surprised you didn't also mention how Toughness and Diehard basically become autopick feats! Before, they seemed like genuine options you didn't really need but were nice to have, how it should be. But with this remaster version (and how it was allegedly intended) they are *must haves*. This also makes the Human ancestry even more of an optimized ancestry with more access to General feats and the versatile human heritage! These are autopicks that also actively harm your progression as a player, not just a freebie you can acquire at a higher level like with Tailwind.

"my criteria this time is how much anger I feel" is such a quick line but is so incredibly hilarious

Isn't the rationale behind the Undetected condition under Invisibility that most will not know the difference between something turning invisible and teleporting, for example? Visually, one might assume that the effects of Invisibility and Dimension Door would be similarly described ("It vanishes from view.") Also, there are illusions that fade from view. So, one may think that a target that suddenly disappears from view might be invisible, might have been teleported somehow, or might have been illusory in the first place. The difference will be dictated by other senses and actions (a Seek action to determine if "it" is still there or not, for example).

I think it would be extremely helpful and relatively easy for Paizo to change the flavor text portion of rules text to italics. It would require some effort, but it shouldn’t alter the formatting of the book and would help prevent ambiguity in things like the stunned condition.

Psychics Ampd Mage Hand allows you to disarm, and states that if you have an open hand, you get the item

Some previous dev discourse apparently was confused the increased deadliness text wasn't everywhere, but the fact it wasn't added to the Wounded condition in the Remaster in that case is odd. If your Wounded is added to every increase when taking damage while unconscious this makes the gaggle of people using Assurance Medicine on Battle Medicine into serial killers. You use that Assurance Medicine to get an ally up in the wrong situation you've locked yourself to a Success, which is often outpaced by single instances of enemy damage. So if the ally isn't clear of the foe that dropped them just once and you get them conscious with that they will very likely get put right back down on a reaction trying to get up or pick up their weapon, and then the enemy goes next and has motivation to bop them again. You've basically Assured death. Middle ground could be that regular damage doesn't apply it, though the text seems to imply that, but failed recovery checks do. That's still brutal, but you can heal allies without guaranteeing their death. Hopefully they errata this in response to dislike of it, re-orienting the deadlier rules as a variant.

#10. Yes you can pick the item up after disarming it. I haven't seen anything in the rules stating that you can't pick up an item that's in another creature's space, so there's no reason you couldn't do this after disarming the target. The reason they specify that it falls in the target's space is because it has to fall somewhere, and this avoids potential ambiguity about where it falls (including situations like a player trying to use Disarm to fling an enemy's weapon to the other side of the room).

Stunned has always been clear to me: “You’ve become senseless. You can’t act.” You can’t perceive your surrounding and you can’t act. From the perception entry: “The ways a creature can use Perception depend on what senses it has.” Player Core pg 432 I never read it as flavor text but the rules.

That whole Death and Dying bit, I don't like the addition of the parenthesis either. I would only use that portion if the dying condition was higher than 4. I've toyed around with the idea of using something like "You die when your dying value is equal to 4 or equal to 2 + con modifier, whichever is greater." Which would make the Die Hard feat simply increase the total by 1.

I’d like to point out that the invisible condition itself states that if you become invisible while observed, you are just hidden. The first part of the condition where it says you become undetected is not a contradiction because the condition itself says that this changes if you were already observed. The way you are running it, which is the rules on invisibility, is exactly what the invisible condition itself says

Paizo seems to be comfortable with the Gnome Flickmace as is, given that there are 7 other one handed reach weapons, most of which are merely martial. The Asp Coil and Breaching Pike even have the same d6 of damage. The other Advanced 1 handed weapon with reach, the chain sword, also has sweep and trades the gnome trait for finesse.

Yeah I remember getting confused on that death and dying inconsistency on a CRB reread a couple weeks ago. Honestly feels like most of the problems with these books old and remastered is putting parts of a rule in too many different places and then in editing someone either forgets or doesn’t know part of the rule is in another section leading to things like this. Probably isn’t helped by the fact that you have multiple authors working on this causing things to get lost between the lines.

7:09 I imagine they include “in the targets space” to indicate that the target does not have to waste another action to move to pickup the weapon. It would be kind of broken to make it burn 2 actions in one turn.

I just have to say, being newer to Pathfinder, I really enjoy how you approach your analysis and critique. WRT to Death & Dying, I think I'll continue to play how I have been (in the 80% range) but I'm curious to see if Paizo clarifies it. I'm certainly all for some tables using the grittier version, but I think right now as my players are just starting to learn PF2E I'll take the more lenient path.

Something to note is that Tossing an item is a ranged attack but doesn't list a proficiency. I assume Improvised Weapon rules would be in effect in this case, which are simple weapons you take a -2 with. Makes the action hard if you aren't decent with DEX in the early going, but with a few levels under the belt that's easy to land for most characters.

Does anyone believe having the reflex DC for avoiding a creature jumping on you can be houseruled as the Acrobatics DC of the jumping creature?

Using fascinate as a taunt of sorts, where targeting anyone else is concealed or a flat dc to redirect an action, is how I’m working on houseruling the condition as well. I believe there was an enemy in Book of the Dead that essentially did that & fascination both, and after using it in a game a year or so ago I felt that was more how fascination should generally work.

I think the resentment familiar needs a "the target is immune to this effect" -line. I'd like to suggest till the end of your next turn, so you can target the same creature only every other turn, prolonging 1 turn effects by only 1 turn and longer effects by half their original duration at maximum.

On Death and Dying clarifications, I told my groups that I'd rather avoid a meta in which parties accomplish less because they have to run away more often to rest up more frequently. Running is always an option, but it should not be the only option.

Sounds like the whole death and wounded was more a remnant of multiple people and things didn't get clarified.

I think the addition of “all shields must be strapped to your arm” is a clarification, not an addition, since “detach a shield” was already in table 6-2 for changing equipment, it’s not new for the remaster.

Oh, Swap is great. I have a thaumaturge currently in a group that lacks magic (we're kind of pseudo-magic, I can use scrolls and make talismans, and also detect magic. The other characters have some abilities like magic, and one or two will get some actual casting later on, but for the most part we're not magical lol. It's a good challenge for us. We're all around level 5 now). Since thaumaturge needs their two hands filled, pulling out a scroll is an issue. I came up the idea of just dropping my sword and then pulling a scroll, but having a precious weapon on the ground for a round could be detrimental.

In case of #11 - Invisibility Excerpt from the PC 444 about the condition also states the same thing as on detecting creatures. "If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out as hidden to them (instead of undetected) until you succesfully Sneak." So there is no condratiction in those two sources (detecting creatures and Invisible Condition). Though to be fair - spells description could be stated a bit better.

6:35 if you're adjacent an obelisk with an orb, you can interact with that orb even if an enemy's space covers it, it's up to the DM to decide if they obstruct the item. I imagine it's ruled the same way for disarm and the enemy's weapon.

Yayyy. I was hoping you were gonna put out a video this morning. This is gonna get me thru my work day 💪😊

8:54 The Invisible Condition, at least, does not contain the ambiguity you're describing here. While the first line does say that "You're undetected to everyone," a few lines down it continues and says that "If you become invisible while someone can already see you, you start out hidden to them (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak." While it isn't front and center, it is in the condition text and failing to read the full text before adjudicating the situation is the fault of the player and not any ambiguity on the part of the rule itself. However, the spells could certainly stand to clarify better, either by simply saying "the target gains the 'Invisible' condition," which directs the player to check the condition's text which does contain the clarification about turning invisible while seen, or they could simply reprint the caveat in the spell as well.

Great video, that was a lot of thought going into the ambiguity of some rules that I agree should have been clarified. Here are some of my thoughts completely unsolicited :D 10. Disarm: Characters can interact with unattended objects within their reach. If you can throw a punch to anything in that square, you can grab anything within that square as well. I do not think there is anything that prevents that and doesn't need to be specified in the Disarm action. (Another example is: You can also feed potions to unconscious members adjacent to you and do not need to be on the same square as them to do so.) 9. I think the difference is mostly narrative but also about the default mystery of what the spell is being cast. If you see a creature and then they disappear within that spot after casting a spell, you actually don't know what spell they cast if you couldn't or didn't identify it. So it could be teleport, it could be planar transportation, it could also be invisibility. Now you can still take your chance, make a guess and target that square. While as with Hidden, you do know for a fact that they are there. (If the spell is identified as invisibility then I think it makes sense to rule them as Hidden against the one who identified the spell and undetected against everyone else) 8. I love your homebrew of Fascination and will probably start using it. I think the breaking clause should also be: If the creature you are fascinated by uses a hostile action against you or an ally... 7. Comparing Flickmace to other reach weapons like scorpion whip, asp coil and chain sword , 1d6 seems fine. 1h-Reach is huge already. 6. Acrobatics Basic Action against falls? Definitely YES 5. Attack rolls and Attack trait is reaaaaaally confusing. I differentiate them as Attack Rolls are against the AC (always) and the rest of the rolls with attack trait are checks. BUT YEAH FIX THE WORDING PAIZO skipping to 2: I believe the intention with Resentment is that the prolong doesn't stack, it extends the duration by 1 round and that is it. You cannot use it again to make the original duration extend 2 rounds. It can only be extended to original duration + 1 round as the upper limit. Or at least that's how I would run it, still so powerful but remains to be seen if game breaking. 1. This is such a crisis ! I cannot believe they went into Remastered with that, especially when people had absolutely no issue about how wounded/dying was working as most people did. You are absolutely in the right with your ruling.

I think the idea behind the Disarm verbiage "It falls to the ground in the target's space is there to avoid players arguing for "movie scene" disarming where the weapon flies into the distance. Equally the weapon cannot be "thrown" or dislocated further away from the target. So I would say it actually makes sense from a rules perspective.

Just started this video (at the dicussion on Invisibility/Undetected discussion) and I wonder how much of this could have been avoided if the devs used keyword tagging in the text. So any use of a key word would be linked back to a glossary. Thus linked uses of the key word could be presumed as purely descriptive, which could reduce confusion over minor word choices. Ideally you have both, but prempting this would at least make the archivists over at Archive of Nethys much happier.

I can't help but feel like that version of the wounded and dying clock WOULD be fun, Just not unless players had a much much higher dying threshold before they're dead. That snowball effect is so intense that it almost seems like you're dying value should be able to go all the way up to eight

The sticking point for me regarding Resentment is that some of the other options still require a dangerous positioning from the familiar for a lower-ceiling payoff. (These all require you to Cast or Sustain a hex). >The Inscribed One (Arcane): Familiar can provide flanking as if it could attack and had a 5ft range (visual effect) >Silence in Snow (Primal): 5 ft burst from corner of familiar's space of difficult terrain until the start of your next turn (yes, this means your familiar is now standing on difficult terrain it made). >Spinner of Threads (Occult): +1 AC (status) to ally or -1 AC to enemy, both within 15 feet. >Starless Shadow (Occult): Enemy adjacent to the familiar is frightened 1, but only if the familiar was concealed, hidden, or undetected to that enemy. The other two, Faith's Flamekeeper (Divine) and Wilding Steward (Primal) have purely support effects (Former gives temp HP to an ally within 15 feet and the latter gives your familiar imprecise scent, tremorsense, or wavesense out to 60 ft until the start of your next turn) and as such can stay out of danger. The Resentment's effect requires other maluses on the target to be useful, but considering the hex and spell you get from that patron, it'll nearly always be do so and has a MUCH higher ceiling. Honestly I think the ones that require such egregious danger from the familiar should be buffed up closer to Resentment's level and Resentment should be nudged down a tiny bit. My suggestions: >Resentment should only be able to prolong **one** status effect on the target, not any and all of them. >Inscribed should do more than just be a flanking dummy. Not sure what; maybe fascinate the target while the target can see them, and can't be "unfascinated" by the usual means? >Silence in Snow should at the very least be an emanation or aura so that they aren't standing in their own difficult terrain. >Spinner of Threads I think is actually fine, perhaps a tiny bit under Resentment but still quite good considering it's flexible >Starless Shadow should just... do something different. It's *really* hard to stay concealed (or better) to targets adjacent to you, and the hex only works on a failure, so frightened 1 (even automatic) is such a low payoff for doing something so dangerous.

the invisibility spell and disappearance spell need an update imo, but if i'm not wrong, the "invisible condition" screenshot you put up also has the rule regarding it happening during combat in it?

I think adding the wounded to dying increases from dmaage taken is okay as a variant rule, but I believe the standard should be Wounded only adds to Dying and, if any changes, homebrew to make it harder to remove Wounded.

I know that errata says that only Strikes and spell attacks count as attack rolls, but there's so many different places with confusion. As for me and my table, I'm gonna continue ruling it as anything with the Attack trait is going to be considered. I don't play PFS, so I'm ok with houseruling it that way.

I agree with you on the Stunned and Death rules. Do not really see much in what else you list but I will review this before we start a remastered PF2 game.

For disarm I believe they state "in their space" to remove ambiguity so they dm doesn't have to guess where it would go. For all intents and purposes it's becomes an unattended object in your reach you should be able to interact with it.

Player Core "Conditions" for "Invisible" p. 444 says later the same thing you said. It's a little further in the paragraph and therefore need to take another look at it instead of thinking you must rule from p. 434. "If you become invisible while someone can see you, you start out hidden to them (instead of undetected) until you successfully Sneak." That's what it says word for word verbatim on p. 444 and I think the same thing would also apply and remain true from the definition given if something kind of like teleportation were to take place for extra-dimensional travel while being invisible. In other words, the Invisible condition is first assuming that you would be gaining the condition while not first being observed, then after clarifying on the rule if you gained the condition while being observed. I think the default would be to rule it from either p. 434 because it would serve as an example or p. 444 to clear up any misconceptions because it's the definition given. I think the intention of what you explained about how to deal with contradictions means to rule it from where, as per our example, the condition Invisible itself is being described in the Conditions section rather than to assume anything something like a spell would suggest. Which it's common practice to rule something from the definition given as like in a Constitution Article instead of assuming anything something else would say, which also helps to cut down word count and page count because you have already gone through the hassle of explaining everything the subject matter pertains to in a separate section, and doesn't need to be clarified over and over time and again because the definition was given in the definitions of conditions section. Kind of like how a Constitution has an Article that sets out names and titles, and then gives definitions on those things in a separate Article and after that everything follows in separate Articles where you finally start getting down to business, and doesn't need to be explained tirelessly over and over every time the subject matter is being brought up or touched upon in separate areas. So now you have an actual real world legal document to help you grasp what's going on. And therefore when all else fails for Pathfinder 2E disputes you can now know to default reliably to the Conditions section for the definition given on p. 444. If an argument were to arise about how it should be ruled, go to p. 444, which is no different than how legal disputes work in the court of law. It doesn't matter what the Invisibility spells says, nor what Disappearance says and nor what p. 434 says because p. 434 can serve little more than an example to help solidify what's being said on p. 444, the p. 444 definition trumps all other things mentioning Invisibility from cover to cover because that's where the definition for Invisible is given.

I already added a house rule to allow Acrobatics to reduce a fall by 10 feet. This is my group's first time playing 2E after playing 1E since the beta test, and everyone felt like it was a huge gap in the rules to not have any way to safely jump down from 10 feet without burning a skill feat. I just made it DC20 to reduce a fall by 10 feet, 20 feet on a critical success, and allow the benefits to stack with the Cat Fall feat (my player who took the feat was all for this change, as now he can jump off of even higher ledges)

Agreed on attack rolls. I always thought the issue with attack rolls was trying to finesse athletics checks with a trip weapon, for example. However, that would have been simply solved by changing finesse to say "strike" rather than "attack". This is just confusing. Things with the attack trait that involve a roll should be an attack roll, and I don't see a real issue with true strike or bard song applying to trip or grapple, though *maybe* they thought that was the underlying issue?

I guess you could read the rules on the dying condition to be read as "You have a dying value, and dying total. When you lose your HPs, you get a dying value (1), which can increase if you get hit while dying. If you are also Wounded, you add that value to your dying value to give you a dying total. When the total gets to 4, you die". The line which says "Remember to add your wounded value..." is reminding players who are wounded that it is added to the dying value to see when they die, not that it gets added each time dying goes up. It feels fairly deadly either way, and people who are wounded should be avoiding combat.

5:06 - I won't mention negativ stuff from the previous videos, as I struggle to keep 10 things in a "10 things that are..." video 5sec later: so let us start with number 13 ah perfect, never change with that xD

@10:34 BROOOOO this royally fucked up my yellow musk creeper encounter i made that had an assassin vine as a minor accomplice. Yellow musk creeper shoots a pollen that makes enemies fascinated and disallows them from doing anything that isnt walking closer to the plant so it can bore your brain out and turn you into a husk. The assassin vine hit someone else, and it made my player snap out of fascinated :l

Interesting video. Some remarks: #12 Thinking about it, Disarm is mostly a weaker Trip. Both against Reflex, -2 to Attacks, Action that triggers Reactive Strike to Undo. But Trip adds Flat Footed. The bonus to future Disarm and other checks is rather lackluster in comparison. Unless your team fishes for Crit Disarm. #11 Yeah, that needs work. #10 It is basically a terrible Taunt. Concealed does sound like a better option #9 The Flickmace balance change was only about bringing it in line with the other 1H Reach weapons. #8 Yeah, we need a "Jump down" action. But I guess we do have Grab an Edge/Arrest Fall right now? #7 Maybe rename the "Attack" Trait to "Offense"? This is clearly a thing where a name change is needed to avoid ambiguity. Same as with Spell Levels and Spell Ranks #5 It is wierd that AoN can be easier to navigate _because_ it has Hyperlinks. #4 That first sentence is annoying. It is always that confusing mix of Summary, Flavor Text and actual rules. Definitley need to claraifiy the "Stunned on your turn" thing. #3 It is only really a issue for approaching a enemy. If the fighter tries to outrun the ogre, that ogre will just go for the caster backline. #2 The second I saw that, I knew this was busted. There are way to many things that are _only_ balanced by the 1 Round thing. Sword Crit. Every save success.

9:05 Maybe the section where it describes how if a creature is observing you, you only become hidden is supposed to override the Invisible condition

Something I've been struggling with is "interpreting flavor text" as you mentioned briefly in "Stunned" condition. Does 'Flavor text' matter? What constitutes as "flavor" text? This is something that could and should have been touched on more, whether or not the description of the spell or effect on "how it works" should count (hence the stunned condition debate). One I've had thoughts on adjucating is "Pocket Library." Where the description of the text has you call for a tome from an extradimensional library (sourced by the world's libraries. Which in of itself... What constitutes a library depends on the person.) Mechanically you get a status bonus to recall knowledge. Does everything else "actually" happen (presumably they do due to traits including extradimensional and divination). Can you get a book from pretty much anywhere in the world, including from the BBEGs personal hideout? (I've ruled that if this spell is common, there's no way the BBEG and other top secrets wouldn't have anti-divination to prevent getting sourced). What about fireball? The description of the spell is "a roaring blast of fire erupts from where you designate." If I subtle spelled this, there's no way to find out who actually cast this spell with the current text description, versus, what i believe many of us actually expect fireball to look like, a wizard throwing a ball of fire from where they're standing. Where do "Mechanical benefits" start, and "description of a spell" end. "Roleplay/Description benefits" is never touched on by the game afaik. Please source me otherwise though. I'd like clarification on this too.

I feel like number 2. with the familiar is not as big of a deal as it sounds on paper, because the familiar needs to be within 15 feet of the enemy, and especially in a boss fight that means the enemy just needs to look at the little thing wrong for it to die.

but the attack roll on page 10 by 19:04 give examples that grapple, shove or other strikes with your fist count as attacks and about 28:20 what about warp step? occult cantrip who gives +5 speed until the end of your turn, included in the 2 action casting are 2 strides, who can be on foot, burrow, climbing, flying or even swimming

For disarm I have a take: Some other systems have a different way to disarm where the weapon is tossed away. Pathfinder has never blocked any player to make interact actions on adjacent spaces so, yes, you can disarm and pick the weapon from the floor. Thats why this action only works on crits.

I don't see the contradiction with invisibility? Both under "Detecting Creatures" and "Conditions", it says that an observed creature becoming invisible only becomes hidden until they successfully Sneak. Sure, the spell doesn't say that, but it's fairly common for spells not to include every aspect of the conditions they impose. Regarding hyperlinks, I reckon it's just a budget issue. They didn't want to pay someone to hyperlink the document each time it gets updated. As for Stunned, I always figured the reaction denial was the main difference between "Stunned 1" and "Slowed 1 for one round" - and that's a relevant thing for monks, who have level 2 feats giving them access to either.

The stunned 1 condition is removed before your turn starts, as per "Step 1: Start Your Turn" So even violent unleash applies it's stunned 1 before your turn starts (as the trigger for unleash psyche is before your turn) You can't act until your turn, but your turn is normal outside of having 2 actions instead of 3

On stunned: pg 415 of Player core Says "The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states you can't act. This means you can't use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you still regain your actions unless another effect (like the stunned condition) prevents it." which proves that stunned is not flavor text. This reads to me that stunned 1 prevents reactions and then removes one action at the start of the creatures turn.

I'd say the flickmace change was an upgrade. Lower dice but better at what it was used for. (works with swipe so more likely to crit...multiple creatures) Also it getting knocked to a d6 means rogues can use it in the remaster Also assume stunned stops reactions to give it a different effect than slow

I've always run stun as the "can't act" starts at the end of your turn if you get stunned during your turn. I feel like this is the fair way to do it, though I'd agree that there's not a reading of the rules that lends itself to this without jumping through linguistics hoops.

For the falling damage point, doesn't Cat Fall help mitigate that?

For the whole attack roll debacle I would have changed the property from "attack" to "attacking". Everything with the "attacking" property increments the multiple attack penalty. Then the only things that get to have the plain word "attack" would be the "strike attack" or the "spell attack", both of which would have the "attacking" property, of course. That way when you talk about "attack rolls" it can be intuitive from naming what it is that it is being talked about. Granted, English is not even my first language, so what sounds ok to me might not sound even remotely fine to other people. Maybe the property could be name to something else other than "attacking". I don't know, but I agree that this was an opportunity to make this clearer. It was definitely a heroic effort to make as many improvements and changes as they did in the timeframe that they did it in. Maybe for the next oportunity.

23:00 Absolutely agree with you here. I've been quite frustrated, where traits are hidden behind other traits. Especially in say, Fantasy Grounds or Foundry, I want to be able to click click click, to expand the relevant notes. Most specifically, Imunities, should not be hidden away behind layers of traits. Similarly, Reaction Triggers like Movement, Manipulate, Concentrate, Should not be hidden behind VS component.

22:05 - The popover sidebar, the table of contents, the index, and that green list should all be hyperlinked for accessibility, if nothing else.

Regarding Attacks: So, do I understand correctly that a Monk that wants to grapple a target has to apply MAP normally? How's the best way to do that then?

It would be great to get someone from Paizo into a stream to clarify those things.

Regarding the flickmace reactions and tripping a foe trying to stand up, are there any rules that govern when the reaction occurs with regard to whether the target has stood up? I recall with PF 1st Edition that when trying to get up from prone, the attack of opportunity occurs before the target has actually stood up, so they can't be tripped again as part of the attack of opportunity.

Why cant i seem to find ignition on aon2e but with pathbuilder2e its running as a cantrip

#12. I think that they specified it falls into their space because other editions had the disarmer taking the weapon automatically if they had a free hand. It also prevents somebody on a cliff edge disarming the weapon over the edge. I don't think that there's a problem taking something from an occupied space. Though it would provoke a Reactive Strike. #11. They could have put the exception into the invisible condition, but I suspect that they didn't want to bloat the conditions with every edge case. Since most people who go invisible are using the spell (for example, many item powers are simply innate spells), this covers enough cases that I think it's okay. #8. If you are deliberately trying to fall on somebody, you should get an acrobatics attack vs the better of their acrobatics or reflex DC. It should definitely have the attack trait. The standard rule can be used for falls where people aren't trying to hit somebody. Continued errors and inconsistencies (like #1). I suspect that in trying to remove all of the OGL text, they missed a few chances to clarify. I don't think we'll get clarification on this until they finish all of the remaster stuff.

It sounds to me like if your dying and you get hit it goes up by one. But if you fail a recovery check it increases by 1+wounded

I think the skill feat Cat Fall would need to go to put the acrobatics check back into falling over 5 feet. I very much sensed from the original CRB that Cat Fall was an example skill feat to justify the existence of skill feats over the 1E implementation where a lot of skills inherently had these powers. Cat Fall does feel bad because it is niche and you almost have to create situations where it’s good. Still a popular skill feat for rogues I GM for and I think I would be okay if it got bundled into the Acrobatics skill as a while but the skill feat would certainly go away if so.

I feel like falling more than 5ft makes sense because if you fall from 5ft or more it can hurt which is why tuck and roll when falling from that range of height is advised by people who do parkour. What I would do is if you fall/jump from 5ft or more you can roll an Acrobatics or Athletics check to see if you recover quick enough to not be Prone. Now falling on a creature is a bit weird because you could say you fall on your mount to then beline after a target or to get away from attackers. In that situation it’s weird and situational.

Will also stick with the lenient death rules, the original rules as understood.

I'm still confused as to the attack action thing. Like I understand that you roll using a skill but does it apply the attack penalty?

25:42 Reactions while Stunned? That is a valid question at least. The FAQ for the future Errata should probably be something like ... "Does the Stunned condition allow Reactions, or not." IIRC, there are other conditions which are more explicit regarding a condition which prevents the use of Reactions. Stunned, does not SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY deny reactions, so. RAW, it's not there. If we treat the fluffy lines as flavour fluff.

That Resentment familiar honestly sounds super dope buuut I don't know much about PF so I can't fully judge its power, maybe when you activate it you have to choose which effect is prolonged or give some other limitation to how impactful this single action is

I believe the Invisibility descriptions are in agreement here. In all the sections, it describes the invisible target as being undetected as a default. The only difference lies in the description of detecting that target. In the Detecting Creatures segment it discusses if you observe someone going invisible vs the spell/condition describing when someone is seeking an invisible target. In essence, these are the same things as Seek lets you locate the space they are in, and observing someone going invisible effectively grants a successful Seek result.

About Invisibility. You say that the text in the "Invisible" condition contradicts the text in the "Detecting Creatures" rules, but it doesn't. If you read the entire paragraph for the Invisible condition, you'll see that it says the same thing as "Detecting Creatures", i.e. that if you are observed when turning invisible, you start out hidden instead of undetected.

Another great video. Thanks for doing this. After watching this video I realized PF is not for me. I'll stick with Fantasy AGE 2e (which is non-OGL btw).

First of all: Thanks for your work. I run the "dying" the same way as you do. IMO it not only gives better chances but even more, gives a kind of stress, teamwork, choices etc. that most other systems fail to have.

6:50 - Mage Hand* got you covered. It’s the best cantrip for creative play. *Or Tiny Telekinesis, or whatever they rename it.

When it comes to conflicting wording within the rulebooks, I like to go to virtual systems (foundry vtt for pf2e) and reenact the confusing situation to see how the vtt applies the ruling. While its not as great as having a clear cut agreeance in text, I do think it helps identify what the intended ruling is especially in situations like dying where the process is automated so you can directly see how it was coded in.

A weapon like the Gill Hook which has Grapple and Reach could be used to Grapple the dropped weapon from the space of the creature and at least move it away from the creature that once wielded the weapon.

Second Comment: On the topic of Resentment. Do the other familiar effects require they stay within 15 feet? if not, I think that's a pretty clear benefit to compare, as a familiar within 15 feet of the target they're repeat debuff extending is a VERY big target.

21:00 I definitely think, it could be resolved by changing the ATTACK trait... To a simple M.A.P. Trait. It would mean that Leap. Leap Leap, would be 3 Athletics skill checks, with no Map. But Grab, Disarm, Trip, (3 Athletics skill check rolls) would trigger M. A. P. Escape escape escape, would trigger MAP, but not use the word 'attack' And thus not be distracting or confusing.

In regards to the lack of hyperlinks; it isn't a difficult task, it's just tedious if it's added after the document has been published in pdf format. It's likely something that was considered to be low priority relative to the actual content and layout of the document. And is something that I think we can totally expect from Paizo if pressure is maintained on the topic. Their writers should now have a little more breathing room for such a task, and if not, it's something an untrained intern or temporary contractor could do for relatively little cost. Finger's crossed for an updated pdf in the near future, but keep the pressure on them so they know it's something we want.

6:20 For Disarm. A dropped item, is not controlled by a creature. It becomes an uncontrolled item, or rather, An item that is not being worn, or held. The clarity where the item drops, specifies that, where it drops. It isn't 'falling behind my space, or into my allies space. It lands in the enemy' s space. So, if I'm allowed to use an action to pick up an item in an adjacent space, then, no difference with the enemy there. However, if I normally need to be in a space to pick up an item that is unattended, uncontrolled, abandoned, lost, etc ... Clearly that rule would clarify for you. The presence of the enemy, would be preventing me from. Entering the space, to grab the item. Final point? Absolutely, it should affect the party.

I was discussing casters getting a bit more defence, but that is from my experience as a sorcerer who’s VERY good in their saves and AC (for a caster at lvl 10 with AC 27 and all saves at +19) but i found it very sad that the only prof increase ill get in my defences from now on is expert in armor at 13th and mastery in will saves at 17th lvl as our rogue get’s legendary in reflex AND perception at 13th and the same as my final upgrade (master in will) two levels after me

I suspect a lot of the issues here were caused mostly by the OGL debacle pushing Paizo's remaster timeline forward drastically. I feel like they didn't have as much time as they needed to thoroughly playtest everything and sweep every line of text for ambiguous or contradictory language. Hopefully they'll be errata'd and changed in future reprints, but it's definitely frustrating to be stuck with them in the canon for the time being. As for the wounded/dying thing, I have always played with wounded only adding to dying when you first gain the condition, and I definitely won't be changing that practice. Like you said, PF2E is quite deadly enough without making your second drop-to-dying in the same fight put you right on the edge of death if you suffer any damage worse than a mosquito bite. So yeah, count me in your 80%. :)

I think the intent of wounded and the recovery changes is intended to display to characters when to slowdown and recover. Diehard and Hero Points makes those characters more insured and hardy to keep going one more encounter.

Does the new shield rules with the implication that it's strapped to your arm mean that you have a free hand even when wielding sword+board?

'Can't act' isn't a flavour text. There's a sidebar which explains what does that mean: "Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can’t act. When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you regain; they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately." p446 in the remaster. But it's not the remaster's introduction, it was always in the game: CRB, p 622. Of course, this did cause a discussion what happens when you get 'Stunned' on your turn :) Though if you can act immediately when you remove a 'can't act' condition on your turn, this probably means that you can't act immediately if you gain such condition on your turn.

... Follow up. Indeed, Im fairly certain that previous FAQ would include, When I Disarm an enemy, can I keep the weapon in my empty hand (as in other editions?) Can I drop the item in my space? Or launch it across the room? Along with the examples demonstrating a disarm that collects the weapon. Aka, Solid Snake CQC... Thus, between previous editions, and FAQ, the statement that a disarm drops the item, in the creatures square, Is a clarification.

42:08 In a perfect world. Inagree with you in. Be redundant in your clarifications. And triple check and cross check, your explanations for consistency. However. We understand that sacrifices are made in the name of book page space. Unfortunately, this has resulted in reduction, or full, deep, elaborate, Clear and Concise language.we get summaries. I would settle, for at least the consolation of a reference line (perfect for a hyperlink too) Ie. Reading Dying condition. Reading Wounded condition. "See also Dying." "See also Wounded." "See also Damage while Dying"

RE: Hyperlinks In-text hyperlinks would have been useful for sure, but there are bookmarks that pretty closely mirror the sidebar. Not as good, but better than nothing. It'll have to do until it's up on Nethys.

i guess the resentment is the updated form of the curse patron for witches, pretty funny as i was using it to represent Arazni in some way or another in my game

with mage hand or thievery you can take an item that is not been held or secured and a weapon on the ground is not one of those so tecnically a Rogue with the new Sly Disarm could follow up with Steal (since no MAP) to retrive the weapon.... or maybe a Caster in the party could use mage hand (don't know the new name) to retrive it

26:14 OK. At least regarding something like. Ready action : Flurry of Blows The Stunned condition you read abive, only reduces actions, when you next regain actions. So, if the Monk readied to strike an enemy when it approaches them. The enemy starts turn 15 ft away. Strides forward. Triggers the flurry. Becomes stunned 1. And loses one action next turn. I believe Slow spell might be fairly clear on that as well, in its language... IIRC. So at least that is clear. The enemy doesn't 'ened its turn' if the Monk interrupts with a stun.

love the video it was fantastic do anyone know how throwing Shields function with the new Shield rules?

5:57 I typically rule that if you want to grab their weapon off the ground in their space then you become off-guard vs. the enemy in that space you are grabbing the weapon from. Because you are bending down to grab their weapon, you back is now faced upwards and the enemy's face and arms are also above you. Ofc this doesn't matter all that much because they have no weapon, but what if they have a dagger or unarmed attacks?

16:25 so this whole time I read the rule wrong and it was best so I ALWAYS made my players do an acrobatic check to reduce or nullify fall damage. If they willingly jumped over, naturally, the acrobatic check only determines how well they land. I still houseruled it my way: So simple DC for "controlled falls" (i jump into a hole willingly) on a failure: only take half damage success: reduce the damage by half of the damage supposed to be eaten So a 5ft fall, on the 3 damage (we always rounded UP), you take only 2 damage if you fail your save critical: you can stride to half your speed, draw an item, observe/skill check at the same time but if their fall was due to a being imbalanced or pushed over ==> normal rule comes in, because there is an actual risk of falling on your face. falling on a creature: you choose between acrobatic or athletic acrobatic: against perception dc of the creature (take into account you are hidden to them or undetected) athletic: against vigor success: the creature takes the full damage you were supposed to take, you only take half of it failure: both of you take damage critical failure: you miss your target, too bad! critical success: you can do an attack roll, using half of the fall damage into your damage die, you take half fall damage and get a +2 circum bonus to attack

Should the critical hit reaction, triggered by an opponent standing up have knocked them down again? Wouldn't the target be prone at the time of the reaction, so they can't fall prone, while already being prone? Fighters can disrupt certain actions when they crit with Attack of Opportunity, which implies to me that the reactions resolve before whatever triggered them.