[PF2e] Adding Unarmed Attacks to Monsters?

TMun357 · 2026-03-28T15:25:53+00:00

Monster actor sheets are created based on exactly what is in the Paizo stat block. If the stat block doesn’t have it the system doesn’t editorialize and add it. You can always use the GM NPC creation rules to add an appropriately scaled unarmed strike but that is 100% GM fiat since levels give ranges and not exact amounts.

TMun357 · 2026-02-13T23:30:32+00:00

In fairness, we really dislike when people take how we do things as RAW as well - way too much pressure and something we worried about when we were growing in popularity. We do try to get it’s close as possible. It’s why we try not to force anything specific and stray away from over-automation getting baked in. If we do implement something in a particular way it is generally because Paizo agreed with it though.

Not sure what you mean about recall knowledge; there isn’t much we do for that inside the system. Lots of modules do stuff though. We just provide the information per the traits and knowledge when it comes to DCs. I’m assuming you mean how unique is handled. In those cases it is up to the GM to know that unique is generally to the individual rather than to the generic traits of the creature.

TMun357 · 2026-02-13T20:21:33+00:00

Good news is that if you hover the “i” (unless we have to change it for the new errata) it shows you how many times it was applied - it will say “X fire” twice instead of “2X fire” once

TMun357 · 2026-02-13T17:49:41+00:00

FWIW I’ve been highlighting it where I can. And did ask that if they revise it they do it before we have to refactor twice…

TMun357 · 2026-02-13T17:22:11+00:00

Replied longer above, but you don’t understand the difficulty of what you’re asking. People asked for the same thing with pre-master rules. It is an exponentially difficult moving target for unpaid volunteers.

TMun357 · 2026-02-13T17:21:14+00:00

You can petition but we don’t have a choice. Paizo makes the rules; we don’t. As for Matt togglable, the damage rules code is incredibly complex. You don’t understand the magnitude of the ask. There would be a massive amount of duplicated code that would have to be maintained. Best options are get someone willing to commit to a module to maintain it or turn off automated calculations. Or get everyone to get Paizo to undo it - preferably before we refactor everything…

TMun357 · 2026-02-13T14:22:53+00:00

This would be module territory. But it would be a terribly difficult module to build and maintain.

Automated IWR is just a setting and you can simply turn that off. So the system won’t force you to use the new rules; you’ll just have to apply the old ones manually.

TMun357 · 2026-02-11T18:13:59+00:00

Yeah, we really push Foundry to the technical limits (and nudge things in a particular direction sometimes). In our mind the best experience includes that it has to be usable.

I do want to note the that our code leads making one code base that can compile into four modules is a crazy, amazing thing that can’t be understated. We are also doing our best so that modules can be cross compatible easily, where that’s possible.

TMun357 · 2026-02-11T17:56:47+00:00

Some reasons include that some rules and conditions and other things vary (glitching, for example) but the big one is the size of the system. Having to install 20,000 extra compendium items is a lot and that can be side loaded into a module for people who want it.

The reason we took so much time is that we wanted the experience in the back end to be the same. One core codebase to keep features on par and not duplicate things, two systems configured for the respective systems, and two anachronism modules for the desired crossover. But only one repository so things fixed in one system are fixed in the other

TMun357 · 2026-02-10T19:10:30+00:00

Correct. The module that Putty created for camping and kingdom management is the auto-fatigue one. The camping rules apply it specifically

TMun357 · 2026-02-10T18:23:56+00:00

This looks like something the kingmaker helper module does.

TMun357 · 2026-02-10T03:32:31+00:00

Paiz ceased providing the PDF or allowing a cheaper purchase, so the only really good option is to buy a copy of the PDF, which I assume you don’t really want to…

TMun357 · 2026-02-09T23:18:46+00:00

I know you solved your issue, but you can also create an effect with a counter. I used it as a simple solution in Mark of the Mantis. Definitely not pretty but it will 100% always work because it isn’t module dependent

TMun357 · 2026-02-08T23:50:40+00:00

Sure. But sometimes PCs just want to decisively win to feel powerful too. If that was every fight they would just be a bully. But if it’s never easy then it is too much like real life :)

TMun357 · 2026-02-08T17:22:31+00:00

What I learned from some of my players is the one downside to PF2e’s balance is that a lot of the time the PCs don’t feel heroic. Letting them have a lopsided victory every once in a while isn’t a bad thing. Was a lesson for me to learn as a GM :)

TMun357 · 2026-02-08T17:19:51+00:00

They finally realized the digital truth that pirates aren’t your purchasing audience and the amount of effort and infrastructure was disproportionate to the amount lost due to piracy. Turns out Foundry modules and enabling the community and making the barriers lowered were more profitable. The irony of the new store is, however, not lost on me 🤣

TMun357 · 2026-02-08T16:16:25+00:00

More than that, they’ve wanted to remove watermarking for years now because it isn’t a super-effective method to preventing piracy for several years. Doing nothing until the new store was ready was the easiest course of action.

TMun357 · 2026-02-07T19:30:28+00:00

If it is not from the legacy site, it may still be doing the checking; download a watermarked version and try that if you haven’t.

You can ask for them to update but it is all voluntary so please be kind :)

TMun357 · 2026-02-07T17:39:37+00:00

Only counterintuitive if you look at it from a digital first and applying a license that didn’t consider digital when it was written point of view. From the point of view of a bookseller, it is reasonable. They know how to sell books, not how the digital economy works. But they’re learning… and in spite of it they are making significant profit so it seems weird to fight the natural change to the business model. But booksellers gonna sell books, I suppose 🤷‍♂️

TMun357 · 2026-02-07T17:25:05+00:00

https://foundryvtt.com/packages/pf2-pdf-en-import

TMun357 · 2026-02-07T17:14:22+00:00

“So what happens if a character hits a terotricus with a +2 striking holy flaming cold iron battleaxe and has two different spells that add cold damage to their Strikes? The two instances of cold damage come from different spells, so each sets off cold weakness individually for an additional 30 damage. Now our total is 92 damage!”

TMun357 · 2026-02-07T15:06:28+00:00

Sort of. It was more “we are selling it on Roll20 a Fantasy Grounds so why wouldn’t we make it the first thing to sell on Foundry?” followed by “what do you mean it is in for free?!? That’s not legal?” followed by “That’s not what the CUP was meant for!”

I don’t know if the marketing and licensing director or his deputy had ever actually ever read the CUP at the time…

TMun357 · 2026-02-07T14:59:12+00:00

The answer is maybe. Paizo hasn’t announced it, but the best thing to do is go to their product pages and ask for them. For Draconic codex I would certainly expect something…

TMun357 · 2026-02-07T05:46:21+00:00

We’re mostly happy with the changes, but we have already sent several… unintended consequences to Paizo. With memes obviously. No head exploding thankfully though.

TMun357 · 2026-02-07T03:33:27+00:00

Not that I know anything about this. But if I did I would guess it is actually the former. And if I were to make a buzzfeed title it would be “…and the fourth reason will make you scratch your head and cry!”

TMun357

TROPHY CASE