Darksol the Painbringer's page

I bet few people have used it, but do you all, or would you, have a player roll damage separately for 2 targets of slashing gust? I had not previously.

Yes, you would. It's two separate checks, meaning two separate attacks, meaning two separate damage rolls.

Force Barrage would technically have each shard be its own instance of damage, but the rules expressly state to combine them all into one instance for resistances/weaknesses and such.

You can, but honestly it's pretty weaksauce, because it's stupidly action intensive and also isn't likely to last very long compared to just investing in a Sturdy Shield.

You spend 1 action for Metal Carapace. You spend another action for Plate in Treasure. Let's also not forget that you need to spend a third action for Raise Shield, otherwise you can't block with it. Oh, and you need the Shield Block general feat as well, since you don't get it inherently. So it basically takes your entire turn, and you need an enemy stupid enough to go after you, so it will work on enemies like animals and...that's it.

Don't get me wrong, Plate in Treasure isn't actually a bad feat, since it lets you activate certain weaknesses/ignore certain resistances on the fly, but in this case, it's basically an action tax to be worse than if you just bought a Sturdy Shield and used it instead. Which is likely to have higher Hardness, way more HP, and doesn't require 2 actions at the start of combat to set up, which can be used for other more valuable buffs, or for certain specialty impulses.

I agree with you that I like to run it that way, but the spell doesn’t say each shard does 1d4+1. It says the shard does 1d4+1, and then a separate sentence talks about the number of shards. Which doesn’t mean that we are wrong necessarily, but it does feel like it leaves open the possible reading that all shards would do the same damage.

I know nothing about 5e, only that my player said it works that way over there.

It says it because the spell is written as a one-action version, with the option to add actions to add shards, as well as heightening simply adding shards. Logic dictates that if 1 Shard = 1D4+1 damage, then 3 Shards = 3D4+3.

After all, damage rolls have concise rules and none of them state that you only roll once and apply it to every damage dice involved. It also makes no sense if you have abilities with differing dice; if I use a D12 weapon that has a D6 weapon rune, do I roll the D12 and apply its result to the D6, even though I could roll above the maximum value allotted for the D6?

This is like saying you only roll 1 dice on a Strike and multiply it based on the number of weapon dice you get from Striking Runes, feats like Power Attack, One-Inch Punch, etc. It's both TGTBT (I only need to roll 1 dice to maximize damage) and TBTBT (I only need to roll 1 dice to minimize damage).

Also, 5E doesn't do this. Nothing in any game ever does this. Really, your player is trying to pull one over on you than the rules actually working that way.

So it seems there is general consensus on the effect of dying values with force barrage but a player just raised another issue with the spell for us.

The GM targeting Sitsi with 2 missiles targeted a second PC with a third missile. Foundry VTT only lets you roll one 1d4+1 at a time with this spell, so we’ve been doing it where we roll once for each missile, but apparently 5e with magic missile does it where you only roll 1 time and then apply this result to all missiles. Apparently foundry does this with PF2 as well because of the simultaneous damage rule, but that feels wrong to me, but maybe my instinct is off. How do other people resolve a rank 1 casting of force barrage with 3 actions? Do you roll each missile separately? Do you roll once for all missiles? Is there a clear rules reason for this or just personal preference?

The reason I dislike rolling only one d4 and applying it to all missiles, even if they were all targeting different enemies is that it makes the spell 25% chance max damage, 25% chance minimum damage for 50% if all results with every casting. That just feels off compared to other spells. Rolling max (or min) damage with 6,9,12 or even more missiles seems very off to me as far as spell intention. What do you all think?

5E isn't ran this way, and sounds more like an issue of VTT glitching/laziness than an actual rules issue, since the written rule is quite clear, each missile does 1D4+1 damage, and each missile's damage total is combined to a singular total before applying it to an enemy.

It's kind of weird how many gods seem to have influence on Golarion, and with the war of immortal coming, it even more important than ever. Unless there is potentially million of gods, which then godhood kind of lose a little bit of meaning. Also does god actually have effect with the natural world? I'm assume not since there was humanity before the god of human.

It really depends on the deity.

A lot of the lesser known ones aren't all that attached to Golarion specifically; they are mostly there because that is the setting in which they dwell/exist in, and don't really have much influence outside of that. Deities like Ragathiel or Dahak are far more grounded in their purpose; Ragathiel basically just wants to annihilate all fiends as they despise they were born from them, and Dahak just wants to destroy everything that opposes their Draconian agenda (basically, if Rovagug was some Dragon god instead).

Compared to the Core 20, whom both have the most worshippers as well as the most influence on the setting, the lesser deities are neither worshipped as much, nor are they really major factors in Golarion except under specific circumstances. Heck, some entities are worshipped as a deity and aren't a deity at all, simply because they are in awe of their power or even perhaps link their heritage to them, and is most common in lower level entities.

Incidentally, Golarion exists as a means to keep Rovagug trapped and caged, because if Rovagug is ever free, it basically spells doom for the entirety of the universe, since we know Rovagug can outright kill deities, and is basically immortal compared to the rest of the Core 20, hence why the remainder of them banded together and fashioned Golarion to imprison Rovagug. Even Rovagug's children/spawn (such as the Tarrasque) are basically god-like entities in mortal flesh, since there is no real way to kill them; at best, they can be incapacitated and, through the most powerful of magicks, sent to some other plane of existence (or perhaps to the same prison that Rovagug is held in currently, so they can't escape, but it's entirely possible that it will weaken the prison that much more).

The trigger counts ("you hit a creature with a melee attack roll") but the text refers to a Strike, which would bar elemental blast.

The clear intent of making elemental blast not a strike seems to be to avoid it interacting or benefiting from martial feats at all for what I consider good reasons, so as a GM I personally would stick with the Strike reference and not allow it. In PFS they'd have to not allow it.

That's grounds for errata then, since if the feat is intended to only work with Strikes (and not all melee attack rolls), having a trigger that doesn't even match up to what the feat description implies seems silly.

Obviously, but saying it should have things like the Death trait isn't exactly conveying the message properly either, since all constructs/undead being immune to Force Barrage is also likely not intended.

There's the procedural element - Force Barrage says to combine damage for missiles aimed at a single target, so that you can't for example get an absolutely massive boost on a single target from bardic music or unleashing psyche. So the damage is already combined for that, you shouldn't split it up again.

But there's also the fuzzier "too extreme to be true" argument - there's no good reason why this spell should be far far deadlier than other spells in the same level band. If it was supposed to be super deadly, it'd have the Death trait. Since the designers didn't put a "this should be extra deadly" signal on it, we should choose the more moderate interpretation.

Nah, there are enemies immune to effecra with the Death trait, so putting it on a spell like Force Barrage when a spell like Disintegrate doesn't have it falls under TBTBT.

So last night, Sitsi, the Shoanti Wizard was hit with 2 shards of a Force Barrage spell while at 3 HP. The total damage on the spell was 8 damage, 5 from the first shard and 3 from the second. Was Sitsi at dying 1 or dying 2? I thought she would be at dying 1 because the last sentence on the spell description talks about combining damage into one instance of damage, but there was not consensus at the table about that call. In my mind that falls under the “so forth,” but I acknowledge “so forth” isn’t tight rules jargon. It ended up mattering greatly because I rolled a 2 on my dying flat check that round, so if she was at dying 2 instead, she’d be dead. It seems a little harsh to me that one higher level casting of force barrage (where you might be hit by 4+ shards with one casting) is instant death for a character with low HP. Is there somewhere in the rules that clarifies that more, or is it pretty much a table to table ruling? Sitsi is level 4 and ate two Rank 3 vampiric feast spells, the 2nd of which dropped her to 6 hp, so that encounter was really out to kill her.

You would be correct, the damage is combined, because if it was each a separate instance of damage, not only would it not have to have a clause that says it's combined, but by RAW each instance would be affected by resistances, weaknesses, etc. if it lacked the "combine the damage" clause, which is clearly not intended. The same could be said for weapons that have multiple damage types; if the base damage from the weapon is enough to drop me, but it also does multiple types of bonus damage, those would likewise work similarly.

That being said, this could still have been done if two separate instances of Force Barrage was cast, each for a singular action, but in this case there is a cost of a limited resource being burned, which is balanced out in that respect. Of course, the odds of either enemies or players specifically working this out is so unlikely that it would have to be purposefully done for this.

I just finished painting Reaper’s Henchmen & Hirelings boxed set, and it has the topic of hirelings on my mind more generally, and I was thinking about a Cleric hiring out of the Henchman’s and Hireling’s Guild.

But since my knowledge of the Golarion deities is a little sketchy, I decided to see who folks thought would fit that bill.

As others have said, Abadar is a solid choice since it's literally a God of money and cities and stuff. Granted, their weapon of choice isn't the greatest (Crossbow), but it is still something.

Asmodeus is up there, though is more about sticking it to them with the fine print than being an actual adventurer. Still, if you dot your eyes and cross your tees, it can be functional.

Cayden Cailean might be interested as well, even if the payment is free room and board and all the booze you can drink.

Heck, even Gorum might work if killing is involved; they aren't ones to shy away from a fight.

Well, if the idea is "Urgathoa dying means all her undeath reaches all the corpses of Golarion," then the concept of "Killing goddess of undeath = unstoppable undead tide forms" makes sense. For those saying that she should just end herself and let this come to pass, it is entirely possible that either A. She cannot kill herself by her own means, and baiting someone who can into doing so is probably not a wise decision, B. She still has instinctual self-preservation (which is why she won't just kill herself), meaning she won't kill herself for her own subjects, or C. Killing herself will release Rovagug, which would end up destroying everything on Golarion anyway, including the undead she loves, making it a pointless "sacrifice" for undead to take control of the world.

Mark Moreland wrote:

Icoret wrote:

So how much of this is canonical then? Does Cayden really believe that he is only a God because he faked passing the test and everybody believed him? Is the drink in his flask real?

What is canon:

1) The nosoi psychopomp, Yivali, uncovered a series of prophecies she (or the original author) refers to as "The Godsrain Prophecies" and has been researching them and annotating them in the process.

2) The prophecies contain the text included in the "The Death of [GODWHODIES]" sections of this webfiction series.

Beyond that, it's all up for debate.

I mean, I can predict that Oppenheimer will win the Best Picture Oscar next month, but until that happens (or doesn't) it's not canon for our real world. Same is true for the contents of these prophecies.

I freely admit that I cannot help but read it as the Godstain Prophecies.

Depending on how bloody the gods die, I would imagine some would actually nickname it to this instead.

Okay thanks for the info. Will need to clarify in the next session then.

As the title.

We had an encounter with enemies weak to Holy, and the Sanctification rules seem unclear as to whether it only works for Spirit damage effects, effects with the Sanctified trait, or all Strikes.

The question is in regards to a Warpriest that is only 4th level.

At the time, we ruled that because they are Sanctified Holy, their Strikes and Sanctified spells apply the weakness, but since I don't own a PC1, and Nethys won't be updated anytime soon, I have no text to properly read.

My money is on Urgathoa being slain in the opening salvo of an all out divine war, with Arazni on one side and Tar Baphon on the other.

Arazni needs to accomplish something big to earn her promotion to core, so settling the score with Tar Baphon sounds about right. And there are all sorts of ways in which Urgathoa dying might accelerate a conflict between the two (or if not accelerate it, then happen as a result of it).

On the meta side, Urgathoa is not one of the Popular Ones so she's a valid target. Plus, plenty of other gods of undeath exist so she won't leave too big a void behind. And also, if you want the killing of a god to be extra impressive, then killing the goddess whose whole thing is not dying is a good way to do that.

Arazni becoming a deity would be a tantalizing prospect for Tar-Baphon, since his motivation is about killing gods, and this would be seen as him wanting to finish what he started (and to teach Geb a lesson).

Problem is that if Urgathoa dies, Tar-Baphon's phylactery will be discovered and likely destroyed by Arazni, so that narrative would make no sense.

Also, on the topic of Razimir:

He could be an unaware Clone or avatar of Nethys that got 'spun off' during that deity's Ascension and not activated until a given event or something.

Razmir is the 'little engine that tries to become a deity but ultimately never will,' and as a result it's impossible for him to ever become a god, nor is he easily manipulated to the point that he could be the spawn or clone of a god, so him ever becoming a part of the Core 20 (or even as a deity choice for Clerics et. al.) won't happen, and him being the contingency for Nethys also likely won't happen.

Put simply, the memery behind Razmir suggests he won't change, even if we end up in a PF3, or if he somehow makes it into SF2.

We've had talks about that too, yup. The total lack of international relations is pretty funny.

I would imagine that this is largely to keep themed adventures self-contained and not have them spill into every other different region in the world, but the idea that no nation ever has formed an alliance or has declared war or secures trade agreements, etc. seems absurd, especially since there is plenty of lore that suggests these things do happen in-world (even if it's often in regards to whether certain nations are warring or not).

I mean, it's not difficult to ascertain that, say, Riddleport gets shipments in from Magnimar for goods, for example. But because this isn't particularly relevant to the plot, it makes sense that the setting doesn't really spell this out in any fine or even particular detail (unless an AP or something focuses on this as a plot point).

So I was talking with one of my friends who works in international relations recently about fantasy government.

Her comment: "wow, fantasy RPG settings are pretty corrupt."

How true do people think this is for Golarion? A lot of Pathfinder quests do seem to revolve around blatant cronyism and quid pro quo arrangements with authority figures... but on the other hand, it's semi medieval, when EVERYONE was corrupt.

I do believe that some of the general populace in a given area has an opinion on the political circumstances of said area, and the setting does a really good job outlining both what this stance is to the players/GM, as well as the objective reality of a given political circumstance (as the authors are willing to write, anyway). This means that we both know what the setting is trying to portray versus what the setting is actually representing.

However, saying the entire genre of fantasy settings is corrupt feels like it's missing the mark in regards to the discussion, especially when we stop to consider that a fair amount of these fictional works were written with the specific intent to come across as being corrupt, as well as some that are only viewed as corrupt under a certain lens, which may not actually be corrupt at all (but to the inhabitants of the setting, it may appear to be), mostly for the sole purpose of creating plot/conflict for the players (aka the protagonists) to face and defeat.

I will also point out that it doesn't matter what 'time period' a fantasy RPG setting is, since plenty of futuristic/sci-fi fantasy RPG settings also demonstrate equal (if not more) levels of corruption, and is just expressed in different/subtle ways, meaning the idea of 'the future is incorruptible' is both foolish and also a false pretense.

How does the Reinforcement Rune hardness cap interact with bonuses from champion shield ally, Dwarven Reinforcement, Everstand Stance, and Emblazon Armament? I seems like, in the early to mid game, you could have a higher hardness without using magic. A 7th level Dwarven Champion multi-Cleric master Crafter could make a fortress shield with a hardness 12. This is all with standard materials and no magic. Am I missing something?

Dwarven Reinforcement does not work on shields, so you might as well axe that out.

You can use your knowledge of engineering and metalwork to temporarily strengthen thick objects and structures. By spending 1 hour working on an item, you can give it a +1 circumstance bonus to its Hardness for 24 hours. If you're a master in Crafting, the bonus is +2, and if you're legendary, the bonus is +3. You can reinforce a portion of a structure, though 1 hour usually reinforces only a door, a few windows, or another section that fits within a 10-foot cube.

The first part references thick objects and structures (of which a shield is neither), and the second part gives examples of what you can reasonably accomplish within an hour, none of the examples of which referencing shields.

This feels more like an RP option than an actual player option IMO.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

No rules for this language being able to break anathema because you cannot teach this language, either from Multilingual or from some other feature.

Why can’t you learn Wildsong via Multilingual? The feat allows you to “learn two new languages, chosen from common languages, uncommon languages, and any others you have access to” (emphasis supplied). As a GM I’d consider having a Druid willing to teach you Wildsong to qualify as having access to Wildsong. That’s basically how a PC learns any Uncommon, Rare or Unique option without meeting a specific Access requirement.

Specific rules regarding the Wildsong being only available to Druid characters (that includes NPCs as well as PCs) overwrites that notion. Also, Multilingual's statement of "any others you have access to" is basically future-proofing at-best, in the event they need to print more languages that have some specific/regional/Rare languages not listed in the tables; why that is, who knows. But it's quite clear Wildsong isn't among that list, so acting like it is or can be is absurd.

Generally, the way things which are not prescribed by rules work is whatever way the specific story needs them to work.

Like when you're talking about a former prominent druid who was kicked out of the order for their heretical ideas and now lives in exile, that person probably still knows wildsong if it's important to the story that they do.

If we're talking about somebody who thought they wanted to be a druid who decided the druid life wasn't for them and left amicably, they might or might not still know wildsong depending on what the story needs. The rules do not circumscribe the simulation, they just help us focus on specific parts of it.

Well, given that Wildsong is a feature associated with the Druid class, being an 'ex-Druid' means you are no longer a member of the Druid class, and as such you lose the relevant class feature in place of whatever other class you took. It's really no different than the Druid MCD argument, which fails for the same exact reasons.

This is a really cool dragon concept, one that is extremely flexible in its applications. It can be one that was a double agent for a warring nation. It can be one that wants to bring closure to lost loved ones by transforming into their image. Heck, it could even be a 'fashion' dragon that just wants to be the newest fad of Golarion!

I am appreciating the effort going into making these dragons significantly different both from themselves as well as the original source material. I'm drawing a much better connection to these dragons compared to the originals, and honestly, I might throw this at my GM based on the current homebrew going on at one of my tables, because this would be the perfect subterfuge/espionage.

It feels kind of weird to even talk about a pendulum swinging when we're just talking about one feat being slightly worse than another feat. That's a weird thing to try to extrapolate a trend from.

It's a weird thing because that's not what we're extrapolating from.

The pendulum swing is in regards to the current Psychic Dedication and a hypothetically nerfed Psychic Dedication. Though in my opinion they should nerf the dedication to the ground, followed by Monk dedication.

Squiggit wrote:

Psychic dedication is good and satisfying and gives access to some very neat tools. Wouldn't really call that a problem.

It's a bit overtuned in combination with Starlit Span. The fact that it gives both a focus point and a cantrip is a bit much.

I'm not calling for it to be nerfed or anything... but I can see why Paizo might have decided that they needed to correct back the other way.

The only way to nerf it is to remove the class-specific benefits, which is a bit late to do given that would require outright removing feats.

My complaint for runes is the lack of "lesser" runes for lower level characters, and the ironic part is that Paizo has already laid the groundwork for it all by nature of their Troubles in Otari/Beginner Box magic items. Plenty of these magic items are a basic "+1 Weapon with 1 [element goes here] damage," which is quite exciting, and also adds spice to ABP groups, whom don't get magic items almost ever (at least, not for the first like 5+ levels or so).

We already have a baseline for their overall power, which is 1 [element goes here] damage, and we can easily incorporate the rules for their relevant ancillary effects, price, requirements, etc. from the existing standard runes.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You kind of answered your own question: humanoids and undead are too general/widespread, to the point that even their subtypes are disallowed.

Elf is NOWHERE near as general as those two things, but sure.

Paizo disagrees.

Is a rogue with Disappearance and Blank Slate really as brutal as it seems?

I cast this spell after getting Blank Slate in a dual class rogue/magus game and it was like I was unlocatable. Nothing could challenge this invisibility other than a Seek check just to locate the square you are in and you're still invisible or a non-divination spell like faerie fire hitting you. It works against all senses and blank slate blocks nearly every possible divination locate you.

How do some DMs deal with this combination?

There isn't a whole lot, but there's a few things:

1. Make yourself impossible to hurt/damage. Fly away from them, throw up an Anti-Magic Field, Heightened True Seeing, etc. This will make them either waste time/resources to get to you, or it will make their tactic effectively pointless.

2. AoE Attacks. You might not know the precise square, but you can still guess the area they might be in and snuff them out that way. If you can nuke the entire room (all without hurting yourself), then their invisibility doesn't matter there, either. Bonus points if you affect the other party members too, but I can understand that being tough since tactical players make doing this tactic not very smart.

3. Create consequences for attacking you. Fire Shield et. al. are good examples of this, since these do damage without you needing to target the invisible person. The stronger the better; plenty of enemies in higher levels have such abilities on their person, so make sure to use them.

4. Put more pressure on their allies; just because you can't deal with the invisible character doesn't mean you can't force more punishment on the other PCs (that would have otherwise gone to the invisible PC). Downed PCs hurts the party's action economy bad, and if the invisible PC cares about their party members, they will spend actions getting them back up instead of killing your monsters, which gives your monsters more longevity.

So my player is arguing that using Blazing Bolt, at 3 actions, does 12d6 damage when used against a single target (4d6 for each bolt). I argue that the attack only does 4d6 when used against only a single target.

Who is right?

You are correct.

At best I would allow all 3 bolts to affect the same enemy for 6D6 damage total (which is no higher than a heightened Briny Bolt, scaling at the rate of 2D6 per bolt).

Why is it against RAW to have... (let's just use the example the book uses) an Elf Bane weapon?

Before someone says anything, I ALREADY understand "Humanoid" and "Undead" are too general for something like this. The "It's your game, you can what you want" is also VERY understood! Neither of these comments has anything to do with what I'm trying to figure out.

You kind of answered your own question: humanoids and undead are too general/widespread, to the point that even their subtypes are disallowed.

And honestly, Bane weapons are just terrible anyway. Oh, I do an additional D6 against this type of enemy, or I can take an elemental property rune and just do an additional D6 of whatever type I want, with an added critical effect to boot, and it works against every enemy, not just certain ones.

Maybe if Bane did more, it might be a fair tradeoff, but as it stands it is at-best a flavor option that is probably not worth having due to the current political climate compared to "Flaming sword."

To prevent swords that feel weirdly racist (This is the same reason favored enemy isn't a key ranger feature and is much more limited)

No, it was removed due to how strong it is in themed campaigns, or how useless it is when you never fight chosen enemies. The idea that it's because of IRL political stances is an afterthought/coincidental circumstance.

What kind of corporation would an Adamantine Dragon run? I can see the new dragons being fun in Starfinder.

Maybe a digging/excavation business? When nations rise, fall, and renovate, the dragon is there to reap all the rewards.

I have just bought the Remastered Core Rules & GM's guide and am severely disappointed!

I was hoping for a couple of changes but of course was disappointed!

Why is Shield Block still a starting Feat for a Fighter, when it is only useful if you are not using two handed weapons, two weapons or single handed weapon and free hand?

Likewise Bastard Sword is still the only straight bladed sword or knife that doesn't have Versatile. Also the cost makes no sense either, four times the cost of a long sword or twice the cost of a Great Sword!

Fighters were already in a very strong spot, so they don't need much more in terms of changes. +2 over everyone at all times is a huge boost, and a lot of their feats are crazy good (even if a bit plentiful). Just because you have features you don't always use doesn't make them bad; Shield Block is a primo feat, and is actually a general feat. Getting a general feat that other people would otherwise need to invest into is a huge boon in and of itself, even if you won't (always) use it.

As for Bastard Sword not having versatile, it already poaches the best of both the Longsword and the Greatsword by nature of it already being a D8 1h with the flexibility of becoming a D12 2h with a single action, so asking it to be even more powerful when it's already probably the most powerful sword type in the game is beyond me. Very few weapons even come close to how potent the Bastard Sword is in this edition.

You could even nerf the Bastard Sword to be Two-Hand D10 and it would still be a pretty potent weapon to choose while not invalidating Greatswords.

Again, the argument "well you can't have breath weapons going off on consecutive rounds" doesn't hold water when dragons have such a high chance of recharging it for every round use anyway.

I am not arguing intent btw, the intent is clear via the comment and the creature builder excerpt.

But people pushing the idea of it being unbelievable that people would gravitate to the duration rules to standardise how round tracking works because there is no other standard... is silly.

Also every GM I have ever played with has run breath weapons as next round on a 1. Including pf1e and 3.5e.

But it is weird to have a standardised round counting system, that always specifies when it is end of round otherwise... and doesn't in this one niche scenario.

Again, happy to run it as intended, just find the insistence that it couldn't sensibly be read any other way is bizarre.

Ability to recharge from ancillary effects (critical strikes, hit with X damage type, etc.) isn't a reason to discount the intent, since those either require separate actions/checks, or for PCs to use bad tactics, to function, and this mechanic isn't something available to all creatures that possess a Breath Weapon ability. The rule doesn't make such an exception for that, not unlike how it doesn't make an exception based on how many actions it takes to activate the listed ability, if any.

Really, the only thing that is bizarre is that it's listed in some random creature building entry instead of, say, as an example in a Breath Weapon ability entry in a Beastiary index.

This is an incredibly silly argument.

By the rules, there is no way to learn to play a game which one cannot make an income off (since lore game does not, raw, work).

By the rules, there is absolutely no way or need to ever go potty. Or to toilet train an infant.

By the rules, one cannot learn to read your own language. Children just automatically learn to read and write.

The rules do NOT remotely come close to describing everything that can be learned or taught and to claim otherwise is incredibly silly

Well, for your first example, there is Gambling Lore, which makes more sense for a game where you reasonably make an income from, as there are both creatures and in-game options that actually trigger from Gambling Lore, so the idea that you cannot play a game where you can't make an income from is debunked there.

For your second example, this is handwaved because this has no mechanical implications. It's not like there are mechanics for what happens if a PC holds it in too long, or needs to use a catheter, etc., so having rules for what is basically basic hygiene is a level of minutiae that I imagine Paizo doesn't really want to bog the game down with, similar to what they implemented with the bulk system, as well as the removal of bandoliers as an item mechanic.

For your third example, this is handwaved for simplicity purposes. I would actually personally argue this to not be the case for a lot of reasons (such as neglectful parents, non-established learning curriculums in which youth citizens must partake, etc.), but often times the need to track whether an NPC can read or write something is more tedious than its worth. And in an NPCs case, a lot of times the statblock does tell you if they are illiterate, or can't speak the language, merely understand it if spoken or written, etc. So it actually does more

There is handwaving, and then there is ignoring previously established mechanics that the game goes out of its way to make known to the players. Learning and teaching languages has established mechanics. Implementing something that goes against established mechanics sounds like a failure in setting inconsistency more than there being a lack of established mechanics, which do more than enough to cover the 99% other languages that exist in setting.

So you distinguish a difference between teaching and learning.

I am going to accept your point on that for a moment to make another point.
The anathema is against teaching the wildsong, it actually doesn't mention a requirement that the person you attempt to teach actually learn the wild song.

But that aside the learning aspect is still possible. First thing I mentioned is the First rule which allows a GM to make new mechanics or completely bypass existing ones. This means a GM can allow the learning of things the mechanics do not normally allow for a PC. It can be that you spend downtime attempting to teach the wildsong and another player spends their downtime to learn it. After enough time spent the GM decides you succeed at teaching the wildsong and the other player succeeded at learning it, maybe a roll is involved maybe it isn't.

Lets say were not even considering that point valid. The point about teaching an NPC still holds. NPCs don't need to gain levels to learn something new. They just gain it because the GM decided you attempting to teach them worked and they learned.

And I will finish by saying I dont think your point of view here is invalid. There is a sense to it, it just may be one rooted in PFS play I am guessing? where things are more rigid than they would be at a home table.

Yes, that is true, but then what makes it anathema if it doesn't actually accomplish anything meaningful? Okay, extrapolating an example, let's say Dave the Druid is teaching Nick the NPC about the Wildsong language, but Nick the NPC isn't learning anything from Dave the Druid's teachings; Dave the Druid is essentially wasting their time in doing so, and unless the anathema was created in an attempt to not have druids waste time on pointless endeavors, the idea that it is anathema to their order makes no sense, and since it seems quite obvious that the reason teaching is an anathema is because it's meant to be a language specific to druids (and no one else), it fails to function as anathema when the intended consequences cannot be panned out. (There is also the whole "Tongues/Translation still lets me speak/know the language temporarily" bit, but again, one issue at a time.)

GM FIAT is not something that should be either taken as RAW or even taken as a given exception to a rule when said rule is rooted in well-defined mechanics. It would be different if we didn't have mechanical implications for how X characters learn to speak and understand Y language, but we do, between feats like Multilingual, and spells like Tongues/Translate, which means they should adhere to that mechanic, regardless of whether it is PCs or NPCs.

In short, the issue becomes "This is meant to be a mechanically impactful anathema that players need to be warned to avoid or else they lose their features," and it actually isn't, because it's impossible for a PC (or an NPC) to commit that anathema in the first place, even if they specifically tried to do so. For something to be an anathema, it should, at the very least, be something that the character could actually physically do. Hence why anathemas for other classes (even the existing Druid orders) work, and why this one just...doesn't.

Also, I do not play PFS; we don't have PFS where I live, and I only really play with 2-3 different groups (which has expanded compared to the mere 1 group I still play with, whom I GM for currently). I homebrew a lot more than the rules permit; we run pseudo-free archetype (you get a free 2nd level dedication feat, and that's it), and we run adjusted ABP with "minor" elemental runes (Level 2 item, 35 gp cost, +1 damage of a given element, DC 17 saves for conditions, with nerfed critical effects, able to be upgraded to their normal counterparts with proper investment).

Cool. We gonna get Mithril, Orichalcum, and Cold Iron dragons too?

SuperParkourio wrote:

Hell hound has a one-action breath weapon. It's as strong as a two-action breath weapon, so it might be a very unfortunate typo.

That is fairly interesting.

I'm tempted to say that since the Hell Hound could use the breath weapon again that same round because of its action cost, that the round that it uses it does also count as a round that it can't use it. So then if the 1d4 rolls a 1, that the "can't use" effect has already started and would tick down to 0 at the start of the Hell Hound's next turn.

The table includes values for unlimited‑use abilities (ones that can be used at-will) and limited-use ones (which can be used once or, like a Breath Weapon, once or twice but not on consecutive turns).

Breath Weapons are an example of an ability that cannot be used multiple times in consecutive turns, which debunks this concept. The action consumption shouldn't be a factor in this, given that it makes no such exception for it.

Everyone, really quick, I have a question for you: When you count to ten do you start by saying "Zero, one, two..." or do you start with one?

There is the answer to your question.

You technically start with 0, but you don't say 0 because that's the point at which you start, as you are counting up from that point. Starting by saying "zero" means you are counting up from -1, which doesn't track since that's not the established start point. Put into combat perspective, this means the count started before combat even began, which only makes sense if the ability was used just slightly before combat started, but certainly isn't the standard assumption, either.

Even ignoring that technicality, the issue is that, looking at a number line, you aren't measuring how many counts from the previous, you are measuring how many counts you skip, which is what the rules clearly intended to mean, especially when we take the "no breath weapon on consecutive rounds" clause to its logical conclusion.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Except this proposes that 1D4 = 1D4-1, which makes no sense as a mathematical construct, since you can have results of 1=0. And no sane person would propose 1=0.

2×2=3, by the way. It's an official rule.

I would like a citation for this, since I am not aware of any mechanics where this happens in this edition. I do know that's how it worked in PF1, and at least in that case they actually expressed it as a rule, functioning more as a "Specific Trumps General" than as a "Reminder of Basic Laws of Mathematics" thing, which I can acknowledge.

The difference here is that people are literally saying 1D4 = 1D4-1 tracks as a mathematical construct and that is how they interpreted the mechanic, and the rules don't say that at all. (The only issue then becoming that it's in a poorly located place, but one battle at a time here.)

You can't write off the anathema by claiming that this is not so.

I can when the rules outright do not make it possible to do so in the first place.

Listing all the ways that you can acquire Wildsong as a language:

1. Be a druid. You get this when you acquire the class, or take the MCD later down the road. You would also lose this if you retrain the MCD (or change classes, though this isn't likely to happen), so expecting it to work like an Uncommon feat that requires access doesn't track. This is also the traditional way this language is learned, meaning there is no anathema to break here.

2. Cast spells like Tongues/Translate. This is helpful in a pinch if you really need to know what they are precisely saying, and it also doesn't violate anathema, since nothing is being taught to anyone. However, this is only a temporary benefit (even if you heighten it to 8 hours), and I would also imagine that druids who are aware of you knowing what their language means as a non-druid, would be threatened, and act upon it accordingly, either by not talking and finding another medium to communicate, or acting hostile towards the perpetrators.

So, we have one permanent solution that doesn't go against anathema, and one temporary solution that, while it doesn't technically go against anathema would likely result in combat, a change of pace, and/or the end of an adventure, depending on what happens. And...that's it.

So yes, I will claim that it is not so because the rules mechanically present it as such, not because the setting has poor consistency with what the game does and does not allow.

I think that is where we depart on thought. I say it is absolutely teachable. A druid can violate the anathema by teaching it to others.

The game certainly believes its teachable in the wildsongs description.
Just because you do not get access to it as a player through game mechanics unless you start off as a druid or take the dedication doesn't mean the language cannot be taught or learned through gameplay, especially by NPCs that dont follow PC rules. It also doesn't mean a game cannot involve learning a language that isn't accounted for by the leveling mechanics of the game either that is the first rule in action.
Just so i am not getting your argument wrong or just talking past you, Is that what you are arguing? Or are there other reasons why you believe it cannot be taught?

Just because it can be taught doesn't mean it can be learned. By RAW, only druids can learn the language since they are the only entities which have Wildsong as a language. Which means teaching non-druids is a pointless endeavor because they cannot learn the language, undermining the purpose behind it being anathema in the first place.

As for the whole "taught or learned through gameplay" thing, what existing mechanics besides "taking druid MCD" let you acquire Wildsong as a language that you can know and speak? Multilingual doesn't count, since it's not a common or uncommon language, much less one you have access to. Legendary Linguist doesn't count since you primitively communicate regardless of language, nor does it work as an actual substitute for said language. Tongues/Translate is a spell that only lasts temporarily, nor does it count as you learning or being taught the language permanently. Heck, not even any AP-specific options would give you access, since none exist. Short of using pidgin primitive-speak that doesn't even accomplish being a natural speaker, or having magical help (which doesn't violate anything), you cannot speak Wildsong without being a druid. Ergo, the idea of "you can teach Wildsong to non-druids, and it is anathema to do so" doesn't work as a setting rule when the mechanics do nothing to support this setting rule actually being true in the setting. It would be different if there were in-game options that actually allowed this, and if there were consequences in-game for doing so (such as angering nearby druid circles), but there really isn't. No in-game option allows the anathema to even come to pass, so stating it as an anathema when there is no way for the anathema to even come up in gameplay makes no sense.

I mean i don't disagree with that. It is pointless DnDism that didnt need to stay. It is way cooler for it to be a "Unique language to signify attunement to the Primal elements"

And removing the anathema for it would make perfect sense if its something mystical you only have while "attuned"

But to be fair to my argument the wild song is described as a melodic language with an alphabet, it is a strange one granted but it is more than implied in that description that it can be taught to outsiders and is forbidden to do so. The mechanics of how a PC gains or loses the language doesn't change that. In fact that would no effect on NPCs, they do not use PC rules to determine what they know or don't know.

It does, though. It means it's anathema for no reason other than to be an anathema. There are reasons anathemas exist, mostly because they are antithetical to the purpose of your edicts. "Killing innocents" as an anathema makes sense when your edicts are to protect said innocents because it is antithetical to your sworn purpose, and innocents are usually targeted by nefarious entities. If it is impossible to kill innocents because they are immortal, and as such cannot be killed, it fails as an anathema because there is nothing they need protection from; they are capable beings who need not fear death or bodily pain/dismemberment. They're immortal! They can't be hurt or maimed or slain! So why do they need protection, and why is it a morally bad thing that I try to do something that's physically impossible to do? At best it's a dumb thing to do, but unless you have an anathema of "Don't do stupid stuff," it makes no sense.

Same concept here: "Don't teach Wildsong" as an anathema makes no sense when there is no way for Wildsong to both be taught as well as to be learned. (No, the Multilingual feat doesn't count.) How can teaching an exclusive language be anathema if nobody besides those who are attuned to nature (i.e. are a druid) are the only ones who can learn said language? The mechanics already prevent the anathema from existing in the first place, meaning implementing setting stuff that says it's possible is inconsistent with the mechanics essentially stating it is actually impossible.

It's a countdown. That by definition also makes it a duration.

Be it long time home groups, short term pickup groups, convention groups, or random society groups; online or off, for over 30 years, they have all--without exception--ruled that a roll of a 1 meant the creature could use their breath weapon in the following round, potentially allowing for consecutive rounds of breath weapon use.

This notion that it is not a duration and that you must skip a round, right or wrong, is absolutely a foreign concept in my (extensive) experience.

Anyone else notice how Mark Seifter likes to shake things up with his unofficial comments?

Except this proposes that 1D4 = 1D4-1, which makes no sense as a mathematical construct, since you can have results of 1=0. And no sane person would propose 1=0.

It also wouldn't be the first time that things which have been "established" for years turned out to actually be wrongly played the entire time. Errata simply brings these things to light.

That being said, the rules for building creatures makes the intent crystal clear: breath weapons cannot be used in consecutive rounds, meaning the interpretation resulting in breath weapons in consecutive rounds is incorrect as of PF2.

And no, the arguments of "critical hits recharge the breath weapon" doesn't change that.

To be fair, it *would* make perfect sense for Wildsong to be a primal talent derived from druid-level attunement with nature. It would then remove the need for the anathema, and make druids seem less like elitist weirdoes.

Yes. "Unique language to signify attunement to the Primal elements" is both cooler and more in-line with what the Golarion lore represents the druids out to be in their setting.

As it stands, the anathema makes it out to be some super cool secret clubhouse handshaking system that, if taught to non-clubhouse members, results in banishment, which makes no sense since that is not at all what I would think of when the term "Wildsong" is proposed. (Even when it was called "Druidic" it made no sense.)

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Wait are you saying that if you stood there speaking the language (if it is spoken) to some random NPC and translated what you spoke to a language they know that you are not teaching them the wildsong?

The NPC just never gets it?

That makes no sense because then why wouldn't they just say what they intended to say in common (or whatever other language) instead of purposefully translating something that didn't need to be translated. It would be different if somebody else could only speak Wildsong, but needed someone fluent in another language to translate for them, but even that can be handwaved as translating, not teaching, since you aren't directly telling what they said or what each enunciation or word means, and as such wouldn't break anathema.

Just as well, the argument is that it is mechanically impossible to know the Wildsong language (as a whole, or even fragments of it) without being a Druid, MCD or otherwise, therefore the possibility of this anathema even being present for PCs or NPCs is pointless, and also a holdover of a D&Dism that probably shouldn't be present.

I find that to be a strange argument. Anything in this game can happen without a way to mechanically represent it. The first rule makes that possible.

Too bad the thing you are arguing to happen does indeed have a way to mechanically represent it, therefore it falls apart when you say "you don't need mechanics to implement it." This is why anathemas like "Lose your clan dagger" or "commit acts that hurt innocents" are sensible, but anathemas like "teach Wildsong to non-druids" are not.

There is no mechanical way to learn Wildsong without being a druid, therefore implementing an anathema that cannot be done, either by PC or NPC, is bogus, and a waste of page space that could have been used to explain that only druids can know the language and that it is lost when the druid ceases to be a druid.

Did I also mention it is a pointless D&Dism that has no purpose to exist in Golarion as we know it other than for Paizo to risk being sued by Hasbro? This is a good opportunity to axe (or should I say adze?) a completely pointless reference to D&D and replace it with something better.

Wait are you saying that if you stood there speaking the language (if it is spoken) to some random NPC and translated what you spoke to a language they know that you are not teaching them the wildsong?

The NPC just never gets it?

That makes no sense because then why wouldn't they just say what they intended to say in common (or whatever other language) instead of purposefully translating something that didn't need to be translated. It would be different if somebody else could only speak Wildsong, but needed someone fluent in another language to translate for them, but even that can be handwaved as translating, not teaching, since you aren't directly telling what they said or what each enunciation or word means, and as such wouldn't break anathema.

Just as well, the argument is that it is mechanically impossible to know the Wildsong language (as a whole, or even fragments of it) without being a Druid, MCD or otherwise, therefore the possibility of this anathema even being present for PCs or NPCs is pointless, and also a holdover of a D&Dism that probably shouldn't be present.

Except, teaching Wildsong to non-druids is physically impossible and is therefore not something that should be labeled as anathema when there is no way to learn it that isn't already A-OK'd by the druids, which undermines the whole thread subject entirely.

This new change opens up the space for pink koboldd, which were previously mentioned i a very early pathfinder book(might have even been back in the 3.5 days I cant remember 100%). :3

One of the kobolds you encounter in Kingmaker is pink/purple-scaled, so it's not like this wasn't possible in-lore.

At the very least, we know from Building Creatures that performing two Breath Weapons on consecutive turns isn't intended to be possible. Glad to learn that before running Beginner Box.

Indeed, just wish it was a bit more spelled out in either the abilities themselves or in the actual general ability entry, instead of in a little tidbit about custom creature design.

Well, if a dragon at the start of its turn on Round 1 uses its breath weapon, and rolls a 1 for its D4, then it being able to use it on the start of its turn on Round 2 means that it hasn't had a round where it wasn't able to use its breath weapon, which I am pretty sure is what a cooldown is meant to be. In short, we are treating the 1D4 as if it is a 1D4-1, which makes no sense, since that isn't what is printed.

I think if the rule was changed to turns, it would be more concise, but I think people would still end up ignoring the fundamental rule anyway.