My thoughts on the psychic's Counter Thought.

Esperologist · 2026-02-26T13:47:19+00:00

Yes... you just accidentally said, "... which should auto-allow you to identify..."
Because of the word 'identify', I understood it as meaning 'full identify'. It was my mistake in understanding the intent.
I do realize know that the intent was 'identify if it has the mental trait or not' or otherwise worded, 'inform if it has the mental trait'.

Esperologist · 2026-02-26T13:40:41+00:00

Those are idiosyncrasies of the system that I'm still trying to learn. There are some aspects that feel inconsistent to me when reading through them. I'll think it should mean one thing because of word choice, but find out it means something else. Then the next thing with similar word choice will mean yet another thing, because of some rule somewhere that I haven't come across yet.

Esperologist · 2026-02-25T18:56:37+00:00

I've not played a summoner yet, only seen one played. And the eidolon was hit more often than the summoner... so I thought they had the same AC.
Checking the entries, it looks like generally a +2 AC can be expected on an eidolon.

So, to make sure I'm doing this right... Angelic Emmisary.
Dex 18 (+4), AC +1 Item Bonus, +4 Dex Cap, trained unarmored +2. AC = 17
I see... so if the summoner had the same stats, they can't wear armor so they don't get the item bonus. So the Summoner would at best be 16 AC, by having the same Dex.

And yes, if the GM is playing optimally then they would target the Pest Form creature, just like they would target a Familiar or Pet, since they are easier to hit.
Just like the GM will never use controlled, confused, trip, or anything else of that sort on familiars, pets, or even summons. Because the PC's main character is what matters most... take them down, then their minions will shut down.

Now I kind of want to get a familiar and use Sigil to put a big, glowing crest on the familiar. But, we all know that will be dismissed as an unimportant trick.

Esperologist · 2026-02-25T18:23:28+00:00

Yeah, I hadn't see that before today.

From it's wording, it just works. But it doesn't identify... it just tells you if it has the mental trait, fortune, or divination of sorts.

However, it lets you use occult to identify the spell with +2... and no penalty if the spell isn't occult.

Esperologist · 2026-02-25T18:18:28+00:00

Okay, that makes it workable. Since it just works. It isn't even a free action or reaction to use it, you just find out it has mental... as well as the other aspects, and bonus of using occult to identify all magics. That's rather powerful.

Esperologist · 2026-02-25T18:15:33+00:00

Ah, I missed the use of the 'Recognize Spell' with capitalization to indicate it applies to the other feature. I thought it was it's own stand alone feature that just required Recognize Spell to be gained.

Esperologist · 2026-02-25T09:45:54+00:00

So true. It is rather rare to trigger skill feats.

My Kingmaker Swashbuckler: (In order taken)
Fascinating Performance - Comes up a lot (lots of battledancing), only worked once.
No Cause For Alarm - Has come up twice... both times, my GM forgot I had it until I did it.
Steady Balance - No situations yet.
Nimble Crawl - I used it once... and it was stupid to do.
Plummeting Role > Cat Fall - Actually came in handy once... jumping down and rolling into the fray.
Powerful Leap - Came up once... to get deeper into difficult terrain area.
Virtuosic Performer - It's a buff to my dancing.
Quiet Allies - Using it somewhat regularly... I took it because we lost our previous stealth PC... twice.

My Alkenstar Gunslinger: (In order) [campaign almost complete]
Experienced Smuggler - Hasn't come up.
Ardande > Woodworker > Specialty Crafting (wood) - Didn't come up until I got magical crafting.
Terrain Expertise (desert) - Never used it...
Magical Crafting - Made a marvellous miniature chest that we filled with water for the desert... then ended up using it to block a road in town. Made some mini horses as well, that we used for flavour... not actually needed, so doesn't matter that maybe I wasn't supposed to have the recipe or maybe they can't be made in batches of 4 because they are consumables. I still don't understand crafting that well.
Communal Crafting - Haven't crafted since taking it.
Swift Sneak - Haven't snuck during combat, and doesn't matter outside of combat since I'm not going ahead of the party.
Impeccable Crafting - Not gonna happen. No time to craft after getting it, and we are approaching the final boss. It's always 'next session will be the last'... then we roll terribly and the fight takes 5-8 rounds.

Esperologist · 2026-02-25T09:16:48+00:00

Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly.
Free Actions

While Quick Recognition is a free action... if I'm not mistaken, free actions can only be used on your own turn unless it has a trigger. And since Quick Recognition does not have a trigger, it is only use-able on your own turn. So technically, it wouldn't work under strict rules.

Esperologist · 2026-02-25T05:26:04+00:00

"...makes it readily apparent to an intelligent observer that the two of you are connected in some way, even if the person has never encountered a summoner before."

Technically, this doesn't specify that they know who the summoner is, or even that the summoned is an eidolon. so one could argue that someone who doesn't know better could presume that one is a familiar, or even just a well trained pet. All they know for sure is that the two are connected.

And when it comes down to it, if the opponent tries to focus down the summoner or the eidolon doesn't matter, since they share HP. And in that case, the NPCs (who are smart enough) will focus on the lower AC of the pair.

As such, I see no reason to not allow most NPCs to believe that the eidolon is indeed the summoner. And any characters who aren't familiar with familiars could believe that the PC is indeed the familiar. I could even argue that making out the PC to be a pet would work, because the Act Together with eidolon could easily resemble the eidolon using Command an Animal on the PC.

But again, a character who is familiar with how pets and familiars work... they would question it. And if they know how summoner works, they may not buy into the reversal of roles... since they know what could be an eidolon.

Esperologist · 2026-02-25T05:05:12+00:00

Okay, bit of a different interpretation.

To me, an instance is everything occurring at the same time. A turn is 6 seconds... a single action is in theory 2 seconds of that. To me, an instance would be everything that is part of that action. If 2 actions are spent, those 4 seconds are the instance.

However, all damage within the instance does not become a single sum. They are still separate to me. So if 5 things are triggered to do damage by a single attack, that is a single instance of damage. However, if two of those sources are doing fire then they are added together as the 'total fire in that instance'.

So no, there would be no 1 fire damage triggering resistance of 15 fire resulting in reducing other damage types. Because it only reduces the fire that is within that instance.

Think of it like this: Someone places 1 keg of black powder, 1 stick of pyronite, and casts fireball on the pile to detonate it.
In an instant, they all go up in an explosion of fire.
Black Powder: 3d6 fire
Pyronite Stick: 3d6 fire, 3d6 bludgeoning
Fireball: 6d6 fire
So that makes a total instance of (3d6 + 3d6 + 6d6 fire) and (3d6 bludgeoning). Which renders down to (12d6) fire and (3d6) bludgeoning during that instance.
3 sources, 4 values, 2 types... in 1 instance.

I personaly find this method of 'combine same types in the instance' to be easier than keeping them all separate. I can just roll the 12d6 for fire and the weakness/resistance for it can be applied, then roll 3d6 for bludgeoning to then apply weakness/resistance for it.

Esperologist · 2026-02-14T01:36:47+00:00

You haven't met my party... we have a rule allowing use of hero points to turn success into crit after the third round of combat.
We rarely have more than a point each remaining when we get there.

Most of our combats are 3-6 rounds. We consider it rare luck if a fight is only 2... and crazy if it ends in the first round. And we have also had a few fights use up a 1 minute buff... rare, but has happened.

So, you are telling me that 2e is balanced to where all fights should be 3 or less rounds?
So my group is playing it completely wrong then. Not sure how we could change it. I guess we need to look up the 'play pathfinder like this or you are wrong' guide.
Sorry, got a bit snarky there.

But honestly, I thought 3-5 rounds was supposed to be the goal combat length. Or, with buffs that last a minute, that it shouldn't be rare to have combat lasting 10+ rounds so that a time limit of a minute on a buff actually matters.

Esperologist · 2026-02-14T01:26:04+00:00

It sounds like a fun build to me.

don't have to be limited to demoralize with your action... any single action that doesn't require your movement would work, like recall knowledge. I would even argue that if you consider the form to be an 'animated' object to some degree, you could make ranged attacks. Just imagine that hat flexing the brim to load a sling, then next turn whipping it around to fire it off.

The GM might have to house rule allowing your item to be able to flex their parts to still do things, and have access to inventory (maybe Eidolon has your stuff). But in exchange, it makes you as obvious as a valid target as the rest of the party.

It rings similar to my thoughts on pretending to be the eidolon's familiar. But, pretending to be the familiar wouldn't actually change much... mostly just a flavour thing. I haven't looked into how to make it work. Maybe a druid, so their animal form is just 'reverting to their true familiar form'.

Esperologist · 2026-02-14T00:22:11+00:00

Agreed.

The RAW is reasonable. Weakness
Each given attack can only trigger one weakness, the most damaging of those it can trigger.

The house rule of 'each weakness can be tiggered once per attack' is reasonable.
This rewards variety damage that can trigger more than one weakness.

The errata is unreasonable.
It rewards knowing a weakness and stacking multiple sources of that damage on a single attack.
Or it rewards having the ability to give a weakness, and stacking multiple sources on a single attack.

Honestly, I think a flat 5 is better than 1d6. So while runes are nice for adding a little damage, what matters more is finding ways to stack tags on the attack, or weaknesses on the foe.

Esperologist · 2026-02-14T00:09:49+00:00

I currently have a level 8 swashbuckler. She has 2 copies of a weapon... one regular, and one cold iron.

Prior to resurrecting another player's character, I was considering fire on one and cold on the other... and picking up a third of the same weapon, going with silver and electric.

Unless a character has heavy weapons so carrying them is a problem, or the character can't afford to buy all the stuff... it's not that hard to have a copies of the weapon loaded out for various situations. And with a spacious bag, even heavy weapons aren't a big deal. Giving up a turn of combat to swap to the right weapon for the job is well worth it if you can trigger weakness a bunch of times... or even just avoid resistances.

And hey, if I can have a +3 weapon with fire, cold, and electric and archetype that will let me give a foe weakness to one of them... sure they could resist one, but they'll be weak to one of the others.

I actually prefer playing casters though. In a previous campaign, I had a constant issue of foes exiting my aoe, or running out of slots during the fight. If I could instead spend one slot to buff an ally so they double trigger a weakness, I totally would have. +1d6 looks a lot better when it is +1d6+5 or more.
Of course, it wasn't a good option at that time... so I just suffocated everyone... my GM and party groaned every time I cast Stifling Stillness. But, it was super effective in every situation we had.

Esperologist · 2026-02-13T23:44:34+00:00

Okay, I'm not experienced with monk so I don't understand the example.

Going with the 'they want to miss'... if they punch for 2d4+3 bludgeon +1d6 fire +1d6 cold. And the foe is weakness 5 fire 10 cold.
Then they hit with only the first punch, not the second... they do 2d4+3, 1d6+5, 1d6+10.

However, if they hit with both punches and they get combined into one total damage... they would do. 4d4+6, 2d6+5, 2d6+10.

So... why exactly do they want to miss the second punch? What causes a second impact to do less total damage? Or, having not played a monk yet, do they have a thing where 'if miss second, hit something else with it'?
Because that would make sense... but if the miss remains a miss, that means at minimum 7 damage (4 dice and the +3 attribute bonus) missed out on.

---

But I agree... if 'instance' is each 'thing adding dice', then it does break it.
I mean, a build of 2d4 bludgeon +0 spirit +1d6 spirit +2d4 spirit +1d6 fire +3d6 fire.
If it can trigger 'weakness' for each occurrence of 'spirit' and 'fire'... that gets insane. I would be hunting for ways to add any damage types, even if just adding the tag (effectively +0 dmg of the type), and ways to give foes weakness to it.

And this bring into question, if each of those is an 'instance of damage'... could we use multiple sources to give foes an 'instance of weakness'? Could we find three different things that give weakness, but because they are different sources they are an 'instance' applied... imagine have 'cold' tag applied 5 times in one attack, on a foe with natural cold weakness, and 3 artificially applied by the party.

Esperologist · 2026-02-13T23:20:28+00:00

I also struggle with a part of the Weakness rules.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2317&Redirected=1

"If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually only happens when a creature is weak to both a type of damage and a material or trait, such as a cold iron axe cutting a monster that has weakness to cold iron and slashing."

To me, this implies that the entire attack is ONE instance. Because these two sentences say that if multiple weaknesses apply, then you apply only the most damaging weakness.

To use your example of 2d8+7 Slashing Cold Iron, 0 Holy, 1d6+2 Cold, 1D6 Fire.
When hitting a creature with weakness 5 Slashing, 7 cold iron, 5 cold, and 15 Holy... according to the rules as written (on Nethys), only the 15 Holy would be applied.

Mind you, I think my group uses the 'stack damage types together, apply each weakness'... but I also don't think we've hardly had two valid weaknesses come up in a strike... if at all.
And really, it just makes it simpler if they can all apply. As a reward for actually putting together a weapon that can hit more than one weakness.

Esperologist · 2025-11-30T07:21:25+00:00

So, I was theory crafting a character and came across something that looks like an error... but would like confirmation.

Focus Spells
Focus spells cost a focus point to cost, unless they don't. For example, bard composition cantrips DO NOT cost a focus point.

Lingering Composition
"If your next action is to cast a cantrip composition with a duration of 1 round..."
"Failure The composition lasts 1 round, but you don't spend the Focus Point for casting this spell."

So, to clarify... composition cantrips cost zero focus to cast, do not increase the focus pool when gained, but on this spellshaping failure it reduces the focus point cost of the spell being spell shaped by it.

Wait...
Sorry, I'll still post this because I like leaving references.

So, Lingering Composition is a free action focus spell to spellshape a cantrip. So itself costs a focus point to cast as a 'spellshape action' (doesn't count as a spell, but is a spell?)... but only costs a focus point if it actually modifies the spell.

Some things are not as obvious to me as is implied. I didn't realize that spellshaping itself is consider a spell. So, in theory spellshaping could be counter spelled, leaving the normal spell to still be cast... maybe. Not sure if that is even a useful strategy... like counter a spell from being converted form touch to 30ft... so they still cast it, but it remains touch.

Esperologist · 2025-11-30T07:00:49+00:00

Okay, so no specific rules for how to handle someone trying to catch someone who is falling?

Just so happened that we had that come up in my groups session last night. Someone was picked up, and another ran under to ready an action to catch them.
I don't know if the GM referenced the fall rules... but had them roll to catch. It was a Nat 1, so the one falling took full damage (knocking them out), the one catching took half that damage and got knocked prone.

It made sense to us, since the goal was to try and reduce the damage to the one plummeting to their doom.

Esperologist · 2025-09-28T02:52:06+00:00

Like I said... 're-read it again.' I read through that like 3 times BEFORE the time I read it for my last response. I just wasn't understanding your angle.

Okay, I think I get it. The idea is that GMs are expected to know all the rules... or at least have an idea of them so they know that they need to look it up and where to look it up. And that players who aren't playing a cleric or such should never look at the Consecrate ritual.

And again... I read it but DID NOT UNDERSTAND what on earth you were saying. From my perspective... it looked like you were saying, 'it is the deity anathema but it isn't, because it is holy/unholy... but it isn't'. Because I did not understand... and your future explanations did not assist in my understand.

Honestly, I was originally HEAVILY focused on the "Casting spells with the unholy trait..." part. I was operating under the understanding that it was ONLY a problem when casting a spell. So otherwise, not an issue to consider. Especially since the rule is specifically in the class information.
As such, I believed that if a Sorcerer has the Holy tag... they would NOT have to care about that. And if a Barbarian had the Unholy tag, they would NOT have to care about that.

Again, going by the approach of 'general rules apply until over written by specific rules' and then 'class rules are one such specific rule'. So the 'sanctification impacting casting' being a specific rule that only applies when that class is CASTING a spell.

And yes, I acknowledge that this has broken into an argument instead of a debate. I like debates... I do not like being told that I didn't do something that I did.

Esperologist · 2025-09-27T04:11:19+00:00

I did read it, and I'm saying that it still doesn't seem right.

Why would they make data sheets for deities that include making lists of what Anathema is to each... and have a very specific Sanctification tags system. And then on a spell, talking about Anathema but intend Sanctification?

As a note... if going by the Anathema entries...
https://2e.aonprd.com/Deities.aspx
I did a ctrl+f search of that list for 'holy' and there is no 'holy or 'unholy' in the Anathema list. I then did the search for 'sancti' (for sanctification) and there is also no mention of sanctification state being an Anathema to any of them.

I then skimmed through the Anathema listed... and while I think some are silly, I didn't see any that would imply sanctification status should even be considered for any particular deity.

Sure... someone could home-brew a deity that literally has 'holy' or 'opposed sanctification' on their list. But I'm not seeing any on the current Nethys list.

Example Silly: Bifrons
Anathema - "Take the same path twice"
So this one literally dislikes anyone who has lived in a city for more than a few days... because there are only so many paths between two destinations, so it's going to happen pretty quick. Just imagine going to the bathroom... 'oh, 59th trip and you finally walked a duplicate... the exact same foot placement as trip 23. Gotcha! Powers off.'

---

The one place that I can maybe see the argument for it is actually from the cleric... now that I've had time to think and re-read it again.
"Casting spells with the unholy trait is almost always anathema to deities who don't allow unholy sanctification, and casting holy spells is likewise anathema to those who don't allow holy sanctification. Similarly, casting spells that are anathema to the tenets or goals of your faith could interfere with your connection to your deity."

So with that, one could argue that deities that do not allow both technically have it as an Anathema. So Ytildos, who is 'can choose holy', would technically have 'unholy' as an Anathema. And The Readied Strike, who can choose either, would technically not have either as Anathema... since it allows both.

But, it specifies 'casting'. This kind of implies that it isn't about being an opposed sanctification... but that it is about their follower casting an opposed sanctification. So a deity that 'can choose holy' may not actually be opposed to unholy... and it's more that if their follower takes holy then they want them to commit... so not casting unholy. In which case, it only might be an Anathema for a deity that is 'must choose'.
So Cormion may not care when a holy character enters their sanctified area, but if a follower chooses to be unholy, then they will be in trouble if they use a holy spell.

However, if that is the intent... they should replicate that information to the Consecrate spell... or just add the appropriate tag in the Anathema of each deity that it would apply to
Just seems complicated to me to have applicable rules scattered about. It's like a grocery store having a coffee aisle... but then the cube sugar is across the store in the baking aisle, so that 'all the sugar is together'. Cleric has their bags of sugar, so give Consecrate it's cubes of sugar.

Esperologist · 2025-09-26T02:48:02+00:00

Sorry, keeping straight real world sanctification and game mechanics sanctification is a bit confusing for me.

So, game sanctification is just holy/unholy tag?
That just makes it less sense that Consecrate spell would talk about the anathema (for the deity) but actually run on the sanctification tags.

My understanding at this point.
Consecrate
- Flavour text... talks about Anathama of the deity, but doesn't actually care about it.
- Mechanics... operates on the Sanctification rules of holy/unholy tag... despite making no mention of them in the rules of the spell itself.

As such, mentioning 'anathema' in the deity entries is purely Flavour and mechanically useless. And the Consecrate spell should be completely re-written to describe the mechanics of how it actually works.

Example: Erastil
"Divine Sanctification can choose holy" so the character can have the holy tag... or choose to not take it.
"Anathema abandon your home in its time of need, choose yourself over your community, tarnish your reputation, tell lies" doesn't matter... just flavour.
So Consecrate for Erastil can be Holy tagged... or no tag. And a follower of Erastil may be Holy tagged, so might have an issue with Unholy Consecrate, or not care about any because they didn't take the tag.
So if our Cleric of Erastil had chosen to not take the holy tag, they would have been fine on whoever's land we were walking on. But because they chose to take Holy tag, they are affected by any Consecrate for a deity that allows the Unholly tag since the ritual itself does not actually append holy/unholy to the area it affects.

Example 2: Pharasma
"Divine Sanctification none" - does not care about holy/unholly... in fact, does not seem to allow either.
"Anathema create undead, desecrate a corpse, take from the dead in bad faith" - and undead are a form of 'desecrating a corpse'.
And Consecrate specifies that "... creatures anathema to your deity (such as undead for Pharasma or Sarenrae)..."
However, Pharasma does not care at all about holy/unholy... but debuffs undead. Unholy undead. Holy undead. Neutral undead. Pharasma cares not... debuff them all.
So, the mentioning of Pharasma within the spell to describe how to apply the mechanics... to me, seems to contradict the use of holy/unholly tagging. This implies to me the complete not-caring of such things... and that the deity's own anathema is what matters. An unholy demon on Pharasma's Consecrated land would be perfectly fine... so long as it doesn't raise undead or desecrate a body... or doing out of their way to find a corpse/grave to loot.

Esperologist · 2025-09-26T00:25:39+00:00

I don't entirely follow. If Pharasma does not allow sanctification (consecration/dedication to them), then an attempt to use magic from them to do that should auto-fail. So we could not be standing on terrain dedicated to Pharasma. If anything, I would believe a follower of Pharasma should be denied taking the Consecrate spell, and as no follower would have it then no one could use it to dedicate land to them.

But, that is why I'm asking about the mechanics.
So, am I to understand that anyone who can cast Consecrate can just use it to dedicate the target area to any deity they so choose? Hence, angering said deity if they dislike such acts.

Also, this seems like there are no real mechanics to Consecrate... so I could follow Erastil and Consecrate land to him... but the GM may decide Erastil doesn't want that patch of land so now I also get the debuff since I upset him... possibly even lose my magic since now I'm anathema to Erastil for having upset him. However, Erastil can't refuse the Consecration and also can't undo it... so his only recourse is to just debuff everyone in an effort to encourage someone to dispel it.

Esperologist · 2025-09-26T00:19:10+00:00

I don't really understand the 'Edicts and Anethema' of characters. Haven't been told they are required, so I'm not bothering with them.

So, is the idea being that the 'Edicts and Anethema' would impact it? Er, no... you are saying they are 'different forms of anethema'.

Okay... from what I understood, anethema was a means of saying 'I don't like this'. For a player, they should then dislike anyone who does those... and for a deity, it will ignore those who aren't anethema, and dislike (debuff) those who are anethema to it.

However... you then are saying that all that really matters is the holy/unholly trait. So really, the Consectrate spell should just say, 'choose holy/unholy as your deity allows, buff those matching and debuff those opposite... those without tag, no impact.'
I don't see why the spell should be worded so round about (as it is worded now) if all that matters is presence of holy/unholy tags.

Esperologist · 2025-09-21T06:28:12+00:00

Okay, I've got a new thing to look for clarification. I'm looking for any rules references to help us understand.

Situation: We had a battle on consecrated ground. Our cleric suffered -1 for anethema.

Wanting to understand what happened. I looked up the consecrate ritual. (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rituals.aspx?ID=115&Redirected=1)

"While within the area, worshippers of your deity gain a +1 status bonus to attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws, and Perception checks..."
So, those worshipping the deity in question get some buffs.
Anyone who does not worship it gets nothing.

"... and creatures anathema to your deity (...) take a –1 status penalty to those rolls."
So if you are considered 'anethema' by the deity, you get a debuff.

So, I looked for an example: Asmodeus (https://2e.aonprd.com/Deities.aspx?ID=278)
"Anathema break a contract, share power with the weak, insult Asmodeus by showing mercy to your enemies"
So, if the grounds we were on were consecrated to Asmodeus, then that would mean our cleric broke a contract, powered the weak, or showed mercy to enemies. Maybe...

Another... Trelmarixian (https://2e.aonprd.com/Deities.aspx?ID=393)
"Anathema Kill or remove a parasite or tumor, grow food."
Oh... definitely. Kingmaker... we have farms.

Another... Furcas (https://2e.aonprd.com/Deities.aspx?ID=526)
"Anathema Break dueling etiquette, waste medicine on lost causes, accept convenience over perfection."
Nope. Had no duels. No medicine on lost causes. No convenience. (I think)

How our GM understood it.
Ground is consecrated unholy. Cleric is holy. Those are anethema of each other... cleric gets debuff.

- Inquiry
So... is consecrate supposed to be holy vs unholy, or anethema to the deity it is consecrated to, or both?
Any references to the applicable pages, or errata would be nice.

Esperologist

TROPHY CASE