At the pace we’re going, I’m thinking the APG might actually be out before we get to the lvl 17 adventure.
I had that thought myself.
Also on your internet connectivity, if it comes back after all you did. I would check to see if you have any kinks or bends in the ethernet cords. I’ve run into sporatic disconnections and slowness at work and it turned out it was one of the ethernet cables that was either failing or had been bent or crimped somehow.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the rogue class again.
The thing that bugged me about this class the first time around is that it felt very “jack of all trades and master of none”. But I recently watched a critique of the rogue class on youtube and there was a section on the different roles the rogue can play which changed my perspective.
So… I went and did a thing. Here is my level 20 character sheet for a reimagined Shine: Shine - Level 20.pdf (362.7 KB)
This build doubles down on the scout role. I added all of the stealth and perception related feats I could find. So damage is a little bit lower (but hopefully still okay). I’ve also pretty much abandoned the idea of being a face with this character but still have some skill points in deception.
Aside from that, I’ve enormously scaled back my expectations regarding stealth - i.e. splitting the party only ever occurs < 0.1% of the time.
Well in the Saltmarsh campaign I just started running, the party split up once they reached the first adventure location in the game.
Say I have a rogue with the following feats: Nimble Dodge and Nimble Roll.
Suppose they are adjacent to an enemy which is using a strike action to attack them which then misses and I use my rogue’s Nimble Dodge + Nimble Roll to stride 10 feet away.
As I understand it, this stride will trigger the enemy’s Attack of Opportunity.
However, now suppose that my rogue also has the Mobility feat in addition to Nimble Dodge and Nimble Roll and their speed is 25.
The mobility feat on page 184 of the CRB says:
The Nimble Roll feat on page 187 says:
If I’m reading this correctly, the 10 ft movement provided by Nimble Roll is a stride action that results in a move less than half my rogue’s speed. Therefore it should benefit from the Mobility feat and not trigger the enemy’s Attack of Opportunity.
Pg 461 of the CRB makes it ambiguously clear that a single action (like a single stride action) and a reaction are not the same thing.
There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions.
Nimble Dodge isn’t giving you a Stride action, it’s saying you can Stride up to 10 feet as part of the reaction.
Their verbiage saying that you can “also Stride” and “the reaction gains the move trait” under Nimble Dodge are there to say yes you will provoke attacks of opportunity when you do this.
I can’t see a way to get all three feats to work together.
Strangely (?), Pathfinder 2e doesn’t put a restriction on who’s turn you can use your reaction on. Unlike other editions of the game you can use a reaction on your own turn, if the triggering conditions are met. So you could provoke an AoO via movement (not using Mobility) and then Nimble Dodge/Roll on your own turn for extra movement and AC/Reflex against that AoO you just provoked. But there’s no way to get Mobility to work with it and not provoke in the first place.
Yes, but it only makes it clear that they are different kinds of actions. They are both actions and they are both Stride actions (note the capitalization on page 187.)
The mobility feat says: When you take a Stride action to move half your Speed or less
It doesn’t specify whether said Stride action has to be a single action or reaction.
Pg 471, a “Stride” is a single action.
The TL;DR: It’s ambiguous because Paizo flubbed Technical Writing 101 and uses the same word to mean multiple things. I would give it to the player since I don’t think it hurts anything to say the nimble Rogue rolling out of danger also avoids taking any AoOs in the process.
The Stride as part of Nimble Roll (I assume that’s what you meant to reference) will already provoke AoOs normally. Giving the reaction the Move trait is really just a reminder of that not specifying something new. Otherwise (ie. if we normally ignore the traits of subordinate actions), what is the point of the MAP comment in Attack of Opportunity on p.142? If we ignore the traits of that Strike, it’s not an Attack and thus doesn’t interact with MAP to begin with.
Also, check out the text of Desperate Finisher (a Reaction) on p.152:
You throw everything into one last press. Use a single action that you know with the press trait as part of Desperate Finisher. You forgo the ability to use reactions until the start of your next turn.
The relevant text here is the Subordinate Actions section in the sidebar on p.462, which I’ll reproduce below:
An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.
Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.
And then the bit on p.461 that was noted above:
There are four types of actions: single actions, activities, reactions, and free actions.
So Reactions are actions, and actions can include other actions. Great. That Stride in Nimble Roll is the Stride action described on p.471, but only kinda, and you have to do some inferring about whether something that happens “when you Stride” only happens when you spend an action to Stride or any time Stride is invoked. Hence the ambiguity.
To me, the fact that both Nimble Roll and Mobility include the “You can use this with other movement types” call-outs says they are using the same concept of Stride, and Mobility should thus apply to Nimble Roll.
Someone might say to this, “The second paragraph of Subordinate Actions clearly means a subordinate action never triggers things triggered by using that action itself.” Okay, then the Strike as part of AoO cannot critically hit, neither can the Strikes in Twin Slice, Rogues can’t get Sneak Attack on their Opportune Backstab, and a dozen other things. Some things have to be able to trigger on subordinate actions or everything goes wonky. The interpretation of that paragraph I’ve seen used is that anything specifying a sequence (like the example in the paragraph saying “the next action you use”) usually won’t work since the “next action” is the containing action/activity/reaction/free-action, not the one specified. But anything that just applies to the action without regard for when or how the action is performed applies even when it is a subordinate action.
Unfortunately, Paizo uses “action” to mean 2 different things: a sort of currency you spend on your turn to do things, and various things you can do (which includes “Single Actions”, “Activities”, “Reactions”, and “Free Actions” per p.461). These 2 things frequently overlap, and Paizo’s use of “action” often means “an Action [currency] spent performing a specified Action [thing you do]”, but it also often refers to only one or the other of the two meanings. A good example of this confusion is Barbarian’s Mighty Rage, which is a Free Action with the Trigger of “You use the Rage action on your turn” and says:
Use an action that has the rage trait. Alternatively, you can increase the actions of the triggering Rage to 2 to instead use a 2-action activity with the rage trait.
Notice how they use “action” 2 completely different ways there.
They should have better separated the two and avoided using the combined form, in my opinion. “If your next action is a Stride” should have been something like “If the next Action you spend is to Stride”. Better yet, since it’s already pretty game-ified, just replace Action [currency] with “Action Points (AP)” instead. You get 3 AP each turn to spend on actions and activities (another term they are not consistent about using), but those actions can also be taken under special circumstances, such as Nimble Roll, without spending any AP.
Then they could specify that only things saying “spend AP on an action” requires the action to be used on its own, while all other phrasings that don’t mention AP, like “take an action”, apply to all contexts the action is used in, such as it being a subordinate action.
Well, I’ve stopped reading the CRB and GMG hardcovers I bought, 'cause they’re meaningless. I’ll just work on maps and tokens and shit instead.
These are all really good points that both of you make. Hmm… I have to say that being somebody who likes playing a rogue (or at least I like the idea of playing a rogue) my heart is really in favor applying Mobility to the Stride given by Nimble Roll.
That said, I hadn’t considered the stuff on Subordinate Actions. So it seems that this instance of Stride is definitely a subordinate action (Is it subordinate to an activity or subordinate to a reaction? And is a reaction an acitivity?)
I think the question in my mind now is whether Mobility applies to Stride as a basic action or if it also applies to Stride as a subordinate action. What is bothering me is that the wording in Mobility says “When you take a Stride action” and not “When you Stride”. Which, upon further reflection, seems to cast some doubt on the application to a subordinate action (at least to me).
Anyway this is a super ambiguous case and would’ve definitely been helped by a little more clarification in the rules as Cort already pointed out. On a personal level I would really prefer that Mobility did apply, otherwise Nimble Roll is potentially just going from the frying pan to the fire, but then again part of the fun of this game is figuring out what capabilities a monster might have and knowing how to respond. AoO is an uncommon but very powerful capability.
Anywho… at least rogues have come a long way since the days of needing to be at least 7th level to achieve basic competency in thieving: https://youtu.be/JeUjF0fsJ9c
The more I read the rules the more mad I get. I was pretty salty yesterday.
Correct me if I’m wrong (and at this point regarding Pathfinder 2e that’s almost a given), words like “Stride” and “Strike” are never defined anywhere. According to the appendix, a Stride is a single-action as defined on page 471; it’s one of the basic actions.
A number of class features, feats, etc, reference “Stride”. Most of those are already actions, activities, or reactions themselves and mention just the word “Stride” (like the barbarian’s Furious Charge, or the rogue’s Nimble Roll). But then Mobility (which isn’t an action unto itself) specifically says “Stride action” instead of just “Stride”. Do they mean the same thing? Is the presence of that word “action” telling? The fighter’s Shielded Stride is also a feat that mentions “Stride” without being an action unto itself. It doesn’t mention “Stride action”, it just says “Stride” like Nimble Roll or Furious Charge did. What does that mean?
Am I right in assuming that the writers/designers actually know what they are talking about and the presence of the word “action” under the Mobility feat is supposed to mean something?
Since Furious charge is an activity, the “Stride”(s) and “Strike” mentioned as part of the activity are subordinate actions. Similarly Nimble Roll is a reaction (or modification of the parent Nimble Dodge reaction), so the “Stride” mentioned would be a subordinate action. But Shielded Stride and Mobility are not actions themselves; the both modify “Stride” with the extra caveat that Mobility modifies “Stride actions”.
So my gut reaction (see what I did there?) is still that the mention of the word “action” under the Mobility feat means that no it does not work with anything other than the basic stride action as defined on pg 471.
That all being said, what if we instead choose to define words like Stride and Strike as keywords at our “table”. Strike and Strike action mean the same thing. And Stride and Stride action also mean the same thing. I don’t know how many other spell, magic item, class feature, and feat option interactions that’s going to open up. (I stopped searching for “Stride” in the .pdf after getting to Shielded Stride under the fighter…)
Still having intermittent internet issues. Waiting for callback from support technician level 2.
Well, I’m honestly fine either way on the question of Mobility and Nimble Dodge/Nimble Roll. I think it would be pretty awesome for a rogue to be able to do that, but on the other hand, I’m still scratching my head on what the authors really intended.
The main reason I brought it up is to just clear up the matter before possibly going with a rogue again and being disappointed down the line at some point in the future after having really invested time in it. (For us that would probably mean sometime late 2021 )
Hope the internet issues get resolved satisfactorily.
To me, having ambiguity in the rules is a way to let the players and GameMaster have more control over the game. If I remember one of the reasons for Pathfinder was that folks felt D&D had too many rules. Ultimately it is up to the GM to make a decision, and the player to realize that the next GM may not agree. My 2 cents -
I’m good with GM rulings on odd cases, but I dislike 1) games that lean heavily on GM rulings to the point that they basically require the GM to finish the system in order to run it (5e is awful about this as soon as you step outside of combat); and 2) requiring GM rulings because of confusing, imprecise language that makes the devs’ intentions impossible to determine. This is definitely a case of the latter because Paizo uses “action” to mean no less (maybe more) than 3 different things that are often interchangeable.
Shifting gears for a moment, I’ve been doing some background research for my “reimagined” character concept for Shine. Perusing the paizo forums, wiki, and reading Nightglass by Lianne Mersiel.
Nidal is a place that is really hard for me to get my head around from a lore perspective - like how does had a thousands year old country ruled by a mad god of pain actaully work? The best one line description I found on the paizo forum is “Clive Barker writes North Korea.” So I’ve also been reading some memoirs of North Korean defectors for good measure.
So what I’ve come up with so far is that Shine was born in a prison camp to parents who were allowed to mate for their good behavior (i.e. self mortification and snitching on other prisoners). In those conditions, a parent is more of a competitor for food than an actual loving parent. So Shine quickly took to stealing food from her parents when they weren’t around. So that explains how Shine became a thief and also her prisoner background. I assume that at some point in her early teens she managed to escape the camp and eventually befriend members of the church of Desna as well as possibly the pathfinder society. And that is how she eventually managed to escape that accursed land.
Shine is basically “good” but the circumstances of her upbringing have left her with confused notions of friendship and family that she’s had to untangle as an adult so her actual alignment in play is a bit closer to neutral. And her distrust for authority puts her firmly in the chaotic spectrum so she’s Chaotic Neutral. However, it should be emphasized that in Shine’s case Chaotic Neutral does not equal “Chaotic Stupid”. Growing up in Nidal, she has seen many examples of what happens to trouble makers and she does not steal or lie carelessly but only to ensure the survival of herself or those she trusts.
Also, side note. “Shine” has always been sort of a place holder name for her. I still can’t make sense of the linguistics of Nidalese names. They are all over the place. Some of them appear to be derived from old Norman, while others are Norse, and some are even Polish. Go figure. But “Shine” also feels like a nice ironic name for somebody from Nidal.
I also a found a new picture by an artist named Mario Teodosio that I like:
I’m going to be half an hour late today. Apologies, last minute thing came up. My bro’s vehicle is broke and he needs a ride to work this afternoon and I need to pick him up when he gets out, but I should be on around 8:30. Go ahead and start without me and if we have to fight something then just blast away with thems third level cantrips and send in the fur missile.
Man I am relieved I did not have to go searching for a new animal companion after tonight’s battle. Definitely getting some barding for Jago thanks for reminding me @Cortillaen!
Level 7 will be decent for me getting level 4 spells, guess I’m filling all my level 4 slots with Restoration to get rid of the drained conditions heh. Level 8 will be real nice getting another upgrade for Jago from mature companion to incredible companion. I have to decide to make him a savage animal or nimble animal and he gets a single action special maneuver called Knockdown which automatically prones his target if he successfully bit it.
Also I noticed while looking over my character between turns in combat that I completely missed something: I never added my skill feat for level 6 to my character, which was going to be Continual Recovery. So Sorry @Mithinar making Rasinar chain Medicine everyone, I’m supposed to have Continual Recovery as well, just forgot to add it to my character sheet.