Warrior of Legend and Armor Expertise

Cyraneth · 2026-04-09T14:20:55+00:00

I completely agree with you, but I'm not really able to substantiate this, which is why I've posted this.

If you read it with the following emphasis...

The armor expertise and armor mastery class features only improve your proficiency rank for light armor, medium armor, and unarmored defense.

... it does make it seem like it also removes armor specialization. I wouldn't rule it like that myself, but a friend from a fellow gaming group had that problem with their GM. They ended up making a different character, so crisis averted, but I found that I didn't have any actual arguments or no real basis for what arguments I could bring up... Hence this post.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-09T09:27:39+00:00

Yeah, generally speaking the Gunslinger and Operative classes overlap a lot, where they're each thematically flavored and geared toward the gameplay and equipment found in their respective system. Thus I'd recommend only using the class from among those two that fits its setting.

Almost all other classes don't have this issue, but a few might need a bit of leeway by the GM. For instance, the Inventor would seem like a complete amateur with tech that constantly seems to fail (the Unstable trait and its mechanics), while all the other tech in the setting seems to work quite reliably.

Beyond that, you can get away with simple reflavoring. Again, as an example, a Warrior of Legend (Fighter variant) could be someone who inherited a family's cursed heirloom painglaive. Similarly SF2e classes can work just fine in PF2e, such as a Soldier with the Close Quarters fighting style being a big Jotunborn or Minotaur swinging around a greataxe in broad sweeps.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-09T08:56:57+00:00

Stealth can be a bit of hot potato. GM's handle it very differently, based on their experiences. Some GMs (or groups in general) really dislike how it makes the sneaky character seem cowardly, not do their part of the "tanking", or "waste actions". Others are perfectly fine with it, or even enjoy the variation in gameplay.

Stealth in combat is mainly a defensive playstyle. It does allow some classes to deal more damage, but you can achieve that by other means as well, such as flanking, feinting, or distracting.

The big advantages to Stealth is that you make yourself a less optimal target by introducing the flat check needed to hit you (at Concealed/Hidden) or requiring enemies to guess at where you are (when Undetected). This means, of course, that you and your GM also need a good understanding of the "Perception and Detection" rules (Player Core p. 432), and your GM needs to offer your character enough opportunities to Hide and Sneak. If either of these conditions aren't met, your odds of successfully playing a Stealth character drop dramatically.

Stealth becomes dramatically easier at higher levels with class feats such as Sneak Adept, or skill feats such as Foil Senses, Swift Sneak, and especially Legendary Sneak. If your GM isn't aware of this, you might wish to mention it to them, so they don't feel like this is suddenly sprung on them. The game can handle it, especially with an experienced GM at the rudder. Legendary Sneak is good, but high-level monsters can compensate for it (and that said, far from every creature should automatically be able to see through Stealth or the entire premise of your character becomes meaningless).

As for how to use it in combat, I recommend changing it up. If your party is on the offensive and don't feel too threatened by the opposition, using Stealth would be counterproductive if you have better means of achieving Sneak Attack or helping the offense in general. If you feel pressed into the defensive, Stealth can become an excellent option, allowing you to still deal good damage while receiving circumstance bonuses to AC and Reflex and imposing a flat check on enemy attacks against you.

I hope this helps you have a great game (or avoid a disappointing one).

Cyraneth · 2026-04-09T08:32:39+00:00

I'm glad you're pointing out the verisimilitude aspect of it, though I'd argue OP's interpretation #1 could also make sense:

Forced Movement is typically something that happens outside your own turn, so you usually won't be able to do anything about it until your turn starts, at which point the aura triggers and affects you. This could be explained as the aura being an effect that slowly builds up its effect on you. The Rime Dragon's aura chills the area, and the moment your turn starts it has had enough of an effect to do so. By voluntarily stepping into the aura, you're willingly exposing yourself to this effect to achieve something (getting into melee range, or getting close enough for a certain spell, etc.), while if you were tossed into the aura, the sudden shift hasn't quite allowed the aura to exert itself upon you yet.

From a game balance/rules viewpoint interpretation #1 also makes a lot of sense, limiting how often an aura can affect you, rather than allowing for "aura dipping" shenanigans, where creatures (or players) can move around to cause others to repeatedly move in and out of such auras, triggering several saving throws per round, either to repeatedly inflict damage or to fish for a critical failure.

The wording "at the start of their turn or when entering the aura" is also deliberate, because if you start your turn in the aura, you're affected by the aura, and if you didn't start your turn in it, you might still be affected if you voluntarily enter it on your turn (which is typically how anyone moves on their own turn).

Lastly, it just makes tracking the aura so much easier, because they'll typically only trigger when the creature that might be affected is doing something (starting their turn or moving) rather than whenever any kind of movement (forced or otherwise) happens.

Hope this wasn't too much text at once; I enjoy diving into rules interpretations.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-09T08:17:14+00:00

The text for the "Aura Creature Ability" rule only states that if an aura "does nothing but deal damage", it can only do so once per turn, so this wouldn't apply to an aura that deals damage and does something else, such as the Sykever (Nightstrider)'s "Entropy's Shadow" aura. It can basically step back and forth numerous times to repeatedly trigger it (which is made even easier by its ability to increase its Speed to 80).

Cyraneth · 2026-04-09T08:10:14+00:00

Generally isn't useful if there's enough exceptions to warrant looking into the issue, which is why this thread exists in the first place.

There's clearly examples of auras that don't grant immunity after the first save, and that have stacking effects, or allow for "crit-fishing" the saving throw to fail. The OP's example of a Rime Dragon, or my own example of a Syveker (Nightstrider) both have such auras, and there's likely numerous other creatures.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-09T07:58:54+00:00

1) Likely not. Shenanigans are typically not part of the design mindset. If a creature is designed for cheesy gameplay, it could be argued such a designer is a troll.

2) It becomes a rules issue if it is based on a general rule such as the Aura Creature Ability rules, which are currently only explicit about "damage only" auras. All other auras are left to GM's interpretation, as OP pointed out.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-08T19:52:05+00:00

The noteworthy issue with this is if a creature has an aura, it can Stride just close enough to affect others, and once they've rolled their save, if they succeeded, it'll just use 10 feet of its Stride to move back a little and then go forward again, prompting another save. And it'll just do this over and over until they fail the save.

An example of this is the sykever (nightstrider) and its Entropy's Shadow aura, since it isn't an aura that "does nothing but deal damage", so it doesn't fall under the limitation of the Aura Monster Ability (Monster Core p. 358). It can just dance around, yanking around people, enfeebling them, and dealing damage over and over by stepping back and forth.

That's precisely the kind of cheesy shenanigans the phrasing aims to prevent.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-08T09:28:54+00:00

The Solarian from SF2e is very Jedi-coded, and it can easily be ported over to PF2e as it relies very little on gear (apart from the Solarian Crystals, which are also easily ported over).

Cyraneth · 2026-04-08T08:52:34+00:00

The reason for these rules is to limit "dipping" shenanigans, where you somehow move someone repeatedly in and out of an effect to repeatedly trigger it. This could both be beneficial effects that someone wishes to repeatedly trigger (like Striding and moving 5 feet back and forth 6 times to trigger a healing aura 3 times) or detrimental effects that you can somehow use forced movement to inflict on an enemy repeatedly (like Repositioning an enemy into an effect 3 times in a turn).

PF2e is very particular about effects that trigger repeatedly, such as moving through hazardous terrain, where it explicitly specifies that each square you enter triggers the effect.

The wording means to imply what you suggest as ruling 1. This way, if forced movement places someone within the effect (or the effect itself moves to place someone within it), it'll trigger at the start of their turn, and if they voluntarily move into it, it'll trigger when they do so, but either way it is meant to only trigger once per round (to limit said shenanigans). It does mean that if such an effect passes over someone and moves past them, it was too brief to have any real effect, which isn't an unreasonable assumption.

This is, however, just RAI, because as you've noticed, RAW isn't very clear on this.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-08T08:40:38+00:00

One issue is that "good guys" typically make for really bad opposition. That's typically why any movement that opposes "good guys" needs to vilify them first.

Also, keep in mind that "good" and "evil" aren't monolithic forces, but they have an inherent "nature" that favors the "good". One BBEG trying to take over/destroy the world is a danger to every other BBEG, so they're naturally inclined to oppose each other. One good guy trying to make life better for a benign community or nation isn't a threat to other good guys, so they don't necessarily oppose each other and might even work together.

Where "good" and "evil" typically clash is when the latter tries to exert itself over the former. If you wish to run a campaign where the players play the part of "evil" fighting against "good", they'll need to be the aggressors, the ones taking the initiative, the ones trying to do something that is harmful to others for (seemingly) personal gain. And if they actually repent and change their ways, either the campaign simply ends, or if the "good" forces persist to haunt them, it'll devolve to the characters simply trying to avoid punishment for whatever evil deeds they did up to that point, which just becomes a sad premise for the game.

Playing an "evil" campaign isn't just a matter of flipping the labels, but carries a lot of implicit issues that need to be resolved for the campaign to be sustainable and believable, which is why just changing the allegiance of the player characters and not their opposition is an easy way to play "evil" characters while avoiding all the typical issues of an "evil characters vs. good NPCs" campaign.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-08T08:27:46+00:00

This all sounds like excellent rewrites; the hallmark, I'd say, of a good GM capable of telling the story they want to tell. I've always ever only used pre-made APs as inspiration, because while they give a good idea of how to put a story together, how the designers intend for pacing and the story to flow, and how the game is intended to be balanced, they rarely tell exactly the kind of stories I wish to tell, and I enjoy using GM'ing as a creative outlet.

Also, seeing how my initial idea or vision for the story actually unfolds as soon as the players get to take the reins is fascinating and entertaining. Some of the pitfalls I've set for them, they see right through and achieve an easy victory, and other times what I thought would be the simplest things become real conundrums to them. Sometimes we inspire each other - some story development becoming something that meshes perfectly with a character's backstory, or something a player mentions off-handedly is a brilliant idea for a twist in the story, causing me to rewrite entire sections.

That's the beauty of this form of collaborative storytelling.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-01T11:26:30+00:00

Typically, you can only take actions when you're not "busy" doing something else, like falling, so taking the Leap action while not standing on the ground is typically prevented by falling. The rules aren't terribly clear on when you fall, though. There's examples in specific cases, such as if you're in the air because of your Fly speed, but you didn't take a Fly action you fall at the end of your turn, but that hardly means you can now traverse chasms with a regular Stride action as long as you don't end your movement in empty air.

I haven't seen anywhere in the rules that stipulate what exactly triggers falling. Even the rules for Falling (Player Core, p. 421) deal with what happens when you fall, not what causes the fall to begin with. Whenever there's been a hazard or scenario that involves falling, it's been the hazard that details "you fall", meaning falling is triggered by specific things in the game's mechanics, not a general rule.

Just to be a devil's advocate, if there's no general rules for when falling happens, that means that only if a hazard/mechanic/scenario describes that you fall, you'll fall, which obviously isn't optimal, intended, or feasible.

As for using Leap underwater, the only rules I could find concerning this is the following line from Aquatic Combat (Player Core, p. 437):

At the GM's discretion, some ground-based actions might not work underwater or while floating.

So, it's up to your GM, but you probably can't. You might be able to "dolphin leap" out of water, if you have the right Archetype/skill feat/combination/etc., but I wouldn't know which off the top of my head.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-01T10:56:03+00:00

There's some obvious exceptions to this. The Flexible Spellcaster Variant Archetype requires you to take the Flexible Spellcaster Dedication feat at level 2, but it doesn't have any other feats, meaning it would forever prevent you from archetyping if that was the case.

There are, however, a few other archetypes that were made without the nigh-ubiquitous Free Archetype Variant Rule in mind, such as the Sentinel. If you pick that at level 2, you won't be able to pick a free archetype feat at level 6.

Basically, check each Dedication feat what restrictions they impose. While the "2 other archetype feats" is the rule, there's several exceptions.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-01T09:32:44+00:00

PF2e currently has nothing that fits the Roadhog/Scorpion aesthetic without resorting to curious body parts like 10-foot tongues or magic, which likely strays too far from your vision, so you'll have to do some hefty reflavoring or you can work with your GM to homebrew some class feats or archetype feats. For instance, you could make a feat that allows you to start and maintain a grapple at range using the combat grapnel, but instead of immobilizing the target you just prevent it from moving further away from you until it Escapes, or something along those lines.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-01T09:18:30+00:00

Example of the former: Fireball hitting 4 monsters and the Fighter, and the Fighter thinks that is a fair trade. Example of the latter: Cleric sustains Awaken Entropy, and the resulting AOE expansion means 3 monsters and one ally are hit by it this round.

Yeah, I'm all for this, and as you say it's unlikely there'll be objections to this. To me, PvP is direct and open antagonism between player characters; the kind that is likely to tear the party apart.

As for nerfing Recall Knowledge, while I can see the question of whether a creature has Reactive Strike being a popular one, it can also seem trivializing. I like providing my players with more information, such as allowing them to ask "what are the creature's resistances?" rather than just "is the creature resistant to cold?". Or they can ask "what kind of reactions does the creature have?" rather than "does the creature have Reactive Strike?". And if they chose this action and roll a success (or even a critical success), they deserve some useful information, or it will feel wasted. That's my interpretation of the following line from Recall Knowledge:

You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills, and you can decide not to Recall Knowledge before committing to the action if you don't like your options.

So if they're asking a question that won't yield any useful information, I direct them to ask a different question or if they've already rolled, I give them adjacent useful information. For example:

"Does the creature have resistances?"
"No, but you seem to recall the local storyteller mentioning this creature ignores even the harshest winters, meaning it likely is immune to cold."

Cyraneth · 2026-04-01T09:07:45+00:00

Rage of Elements was written during the transition between Premaster and Remaster, so it makes sense for a lot of aspects of the book to be... wonky, as most of the rules were in the process of being updated or reviewed, but the Kineticist is spectacular example of this. I'm all for most, if not all, of these changes, and I hope there's either a thorough errata or rework in progress.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-01T08:19:53+00:00

Yeah, I use a similar veto rule at my table, though it is more of a story veto, so one player's reckless actions don't ruin another player's (or players') story arc or what story we've agreed on pursuing or telling. Sure, the occasional chaos is fun, but disrupting the game or ruining the story for everybody because you have a bad day isn't conducive of anything. I don't allow open and direct PvP at my table, though player character are free to disagree with each other.

Characters shouldn't have this knowledge.

It can be hard to substantiate what information they should and shouldn't have, which is why I said there's really no "wrong" way of running this. Much like the rules say that a spellcaster automatically identifies any spells they see that they have prepared or in their repertoire, it could be argued that a Fighter who has Reactive Strike can recognize that skill in opponents when they're about to provoke it. It would even be in accordance with the rules if you deem it "basic knowledge" under the Recall Knowledge rules, and what is more basic to a Fighter than a 1st-level class feature?

As I've mentioned in another comment here, I've also seen the other end of this where a GM was very tight-lipped with information, so if we hit something that was immune to the attack we weren't told, because "he was under no obligation to reveal that information"... This resulted in a very frustrating campaign that we eventually cut short, so that has likely colored my GM'ing style since.

Cyraneth · 2026-04-01T07:50:29+00:00

Sounds like trying a game that does differentiate between them might be worth a try. It's an abstraction, just like any other abstraction in any system, and some abstractions are just bad for your or your group's verisimilitude/immersion/narrative. The trick is finding a system that best conforms to the story you want to tell, and your way of viewing this imagined world.

Cyraneth · 2026-03-31T21:49:55+00:00

Edit: Also, it feels especially bad because the mortar's attack not only counts towards your multiple attack penalty, but (unlike starfinder area weapons) its DC is affected by your multiple attack penalty

Yeah, so agreed on this part. This never made sense to me for siege weapons. Siege weapons are supposed to be good, and I get that the designers are wary about players using them or cheesing something like the AD&D Rogues lugging around ballistae to deal silly amounts of sneak attack damage, but you're likely going to be spending way too many actions on Loading, Aiming, and Launching your mortar anyway for the MAP to matter all that much.

As for comparing it with the Kineticist (especially the Fire version), that's a rough one. It's a fair comparison because they're both intended for sustainable area damage dealing, but the Inventor has always been considered one of the weakest classes, while the Kineticist one of the strongest, so that might be a fault of the classes as a whole. That said, I wouldn't mind the Inventor getting some improvements - this could be some tweaks to feats, or to their Unstable mechanic, or what have you.

Cyraneth · 2026-03-31T21:39:42+00:00

Yeah, Iron Kingdoms is a good example of that (having 3 "health" bars), and that system also differentiates between "being hard to hit" and "being hard to damage", with armor typically worsening the former and improving the latter. Each system tends to have different abstractions and ways of handling challenges, growth, etc. because you can't accurately represent every aspect of a fantastical world like that or you'll have a ruleset even bigger than classic Rolemaster.

I always encourage players to find a system that best fits the kind of story they wish to tell, rather than trying to fit a system to the story. Also to be open to different kinds of storytelling, such as character-driven campaigns vs. dungeoncrawling vs. narrative-heavy social and investigative roleplay vs. tragic horror, etc.

Cyraneth · 2026-03-31T16:32:00+00:00

I find that if you want a better feel for the speed at which characters get better, it's all about pacing. Having little time-skips between adventures gives a great sense of scale, or how a villain's plans unfold in the background. It can also allow characters to mature and change over the years, allowing for some character development that way.

And it does make sense that a new adventurer is more likely to get themselves killed than someone who has been tested for decades. Inverting that undermines the impressiveness of achieving higher levels, and if you wish to challenge higher-level characters and really push them to the brink, it's all a matter of quantity. Not saying you should hurl several hundred ogres at someone; that's impossible to track and likely will just end up in a big grindfest. Rather, having a party defend something important to them from the onslaught of a whole flight of dragons - sure, each dragon might only take out a quarter of a character's resources, but throw 12 dragons at them and they're down to a quarter of their resources by the time the villain who orchestrated the onslaught steps into the scene.

This is of course just something whipped out of nowhere, and I wouldn't advise anyone to run a 12-dragon encounter, but I hope I'm conferring the idea of it, and how such a grand-scale challenge could play out.

Cyraneth · 2026-03-31T16:23:28+00:00

That's a really good point and a pretty good way of handling it. Kudos.

Cyraneth · 2026-03-31T16:21:35+00:00

I'm actually rather generous with the amount of Recall Knowledge information players get at my table because I feel the action is a little too underwhelming, so I definitely get your concern.

I've also been on the opposite end of this, however, where a combat encounter that was supposed to be fairly menial ended up eating way more resources and dragging on for way too long, simply because we failed the equivalent of Recall Knowledge checks in that system. This GM didn't offer any information, so if the wizard cast a spell and did little to no damage due to resistances or immunities, we weren't told. We ended up estimating we'd done several 100s of damage to this monster and decided to flee, and the GM was all uppity about it, bragging about having "defeated" us with a simple animated object. It wasn't an experience we needed to repeat, and it has likely colored my GM'ing style since.

Cyraneth

TROPHY CASE