Quentin Coldwater's page

I think Necromancer should be either Arcane or Divine and find the Necromancer class to be Occult odd. It doesn't scream Undeath to me in any way which is very confusing to me. I then realized I do not understand Occult magic, like why is it a thing? Shouldn't Arcane, Divine and Primal be more then enough and most Occult Casters can be just Arcane?

Like NorrKnekten said, Occult magic is the "creepy" magic. Arcane magic makes sense. You trace a few runes, you say the words, magic happens. Occult magic is when things don't make sense anymore. Partially the nursery rhymes and superstition Bluemagetim mentioned, but also things that break the laws of physics (even more than regular magic does). Aliens, the Dark Tapestry, and so on are occult. We just can't wrap our heads around their existence or motivation.

There is a part of me that wondered if certain spells should have had a lesser membership in certain traditions. What such a lesser membership would mean might require some work, but could range from not being available to you in your highest rank spells. Or taking a proficiency penalty to DC or attack rolls, or as costly as requiring a rank slot higher than you cast it, which was my first idea, but started thinking it too costly.

It could potentially easily affect cantrips by dropping the automatic scaling by one. Could say the same for focus spells, but those are normally only gotten by direct feats that represent a specialty, so doesn’t make sense in this edge knowledge sense.

It has been discussed how the arcane had lots of spells that didn’t really belong. If some had been pulled out of the core arcane and others fell into a more edge arcane scope.

Things like sorcerers and witches pulling spells into their tradition would get to treat them as core arcane (or other traditions).

It might also give wizard schools the ability to consider their curriculum spells as core arcane even if normally edge arcane.

I like the idea, but I don't think it's realistic. Magic the Gathering has a colour pie, where every effect belongs to select colours. One colour can't do everything. But early Magic shows that by making some effects be overcosted in certain colours: Green deals with creatures with its own creatures. To show that it's bad at direct destruction effects, a spell that's normally 3 or 4 mana now costs 6. But now, 30 years later, those cards are still "in the environment" and people point towards it and say "see, green can do this," while it was explicitly an examply of what green can't do. And even if it's bad, people will still use it if it's their only option.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

This might sound harsh, but I think you're adhering too much to the rules and not living in the fiction you created if you throw a fireball in a library will-nilly just because the text doesn't say it catches things on fire. Your actions have consequences, even if they aren't directly spelled out. Indeed, the game becomes shallow if you can use incredibly destructive spells without any consequence, but the rules shouldn't need to spell that out, only give a guideline how much destruction each spell rank is capable of. A rank 1 Breathe Fire might be able to light a torch, while a rank 3 Fireball burns it to a crisp.

If you want it to matter more mechanically, make the setting reflect that. Spell it out as such, make it a stealth mission or where you have to keep damages to a minimum.

PF1 had the infamous damage table, where if you rolled a nat 1 on a Reflex save versus damage, you'd damage a piece of equipment. You'd have to consult the table to see what would get damaged, like a magical hat to your shoes. Most likely it'd be your armour, and then you'd have to...

But then you encounter an issue of table variance: the fireball may or may not set the library on fire. To the GM, that’s fine. But as a player, if you try to use the fireball to burn the books so a villain can’t read them, the GM might rule that you can’t. At that point, you can’t rely on the rules to back you up anymore.

Also, the phrase "grind to a halt" feels so weird. Isn’t this a turn-based strategy game—the type that’s meant to be slow and deliberate? Aren’t critical successes and failures supposed to be the climactic moments where you slow down and focus?

Are turn-based games supposed to be fast and furious, like one of those timed chess matches where you get only 10 seconds to think? I just feel so disconnected and lost—I can’t understand the vision or direction of the game anymore.

Table variance is mainly between tables. One GM might rule one way, another a different way. The most important part is that you should ask your GM beforehand, "hey, if I cast Fireball, will that affect the books," instead of firing the Fireball and seeing afterwards what the GM rules. But I agree, a built-in "level of destruction" would be good to have.

The "grind to a halt" problem is mainly that other players want to see what happens as well. In my experience, Player B and C have an opinion as well and go search on their devices to see if they can help find the ruling. Then everyone is furiously tapping on their devices and play will only continue when all the attention is back to the combat. Indeed, ideally Player A gets affected, but turn order continues while Player A looks up what happens to them, but I've rarely seen that happen.

The suggestions Alex Speidel made are excellent. The Free RPG Day adventures are great fun. If there are lots of players unfamiliar with Second Edition, I might recommend the Pathfinder Trials. It's very newbie-friendly, though you might want to skip one combat if time is tight.

The Quests are also great recommendations!

Perses13 wrote:

Also players tend to get upset when the enemy mage melts all their cool magic items.

I understand it I really do. As a game completionist, nobody hates losing rare drops more than me. But again, I have to disagree because the risk of burning down the library or destroying items is precisely what causes players to start considering less destructive spells, such as those that attack the mind, or to use indirect methods like stealth. They begin employing strategy, and that is exactly what you want. That is what creates a world that feels real.

Suddenly, it’s not just about getting healed. If you mindlessly take damage, your gear breaks. The party then has a very good reason to scout ahead with familiars or rogue-like classes and to use strategy instead of brute forcing their way through. With each of these "annoying" mechanics that is lost, the game becomes more cartoonish and more shallow.

This might sound harsh, but I think you're adhering too much to the rules and not living in the fiction you created if you throw a fireball in a library will-nilly just because the text doesn't say it catches things on fire. Your actions have consequences, even if they aren't directly spelled out. Indeed, the game becomes shallow if you can use incredibly destructive spells without any consequence, but the rules shouldn't need to spell that out, only give a guideline how much destruction each spell rank is capable of. A rank 1 Breathe Fire might be able to light a torch, while a rank 3 Fireball burns it to a crisp.

If you want it to matter more mechanically, make the setting reflect that. Spell it out as such, make it a stealth mission or where you have to keep damages to a minimum.

PF1 had the infamous damage table, where if you rolled a nat 1 on a Reflex save versus damage, you'd damage a piece of equipment. You'd have to consult the table to see what would get damaged, like a magical hat to your shoes. Most likely it'd be your armour, and then you'd have to consult another table to see how much hardness and hit points your armour had, only to realise it's only a fraction of its total HP, and play continued. The game ground to a halt to see what would happen, and it's only in 5% of the cases. PF2 did away with that just to streamline things.
I think a game like what you're describing is possible, and I'm sure it exists, it's just an element of realism that Pathfinder doesn't want to bother with. (I'm recalling a different argument where someone said Pathfinder's combat and damage wasn't realistic enough, this could slot in there as well). Paizo made the decision that they didn't want to bother with armour maintenance after every single fight (and in a way, shields are a simplified version of it). Would it add to the enjoyment of the game if it was added? Maybe, for some. Would it be worth the extra rules? Definitely not.

I still remember the discussion from a while back about whether a boomerang returns or not. The "flavor text" seemed to contradict the rules text and people swore you could have your cake and eat it too.

I understand the appeal for reverting Religion and Nature back to INT, but coming from 1E, I like that A) the Wizard doesn't know everything and B) that the Druid and Cleric are actually good at their respective fields.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

I still feel like a +1 skill increase is too little to feel like an actual increase. Unless there's more ranks of proficiency so you could still climb that ladder faster. But at that point, you're back to 1e's skill points.

I do miss skill points, though. Felt much more rewarding than 2e's "which singular skill will I get better at?" every two levels.

That framing feels odd to me. You don't choose a singular skill to get better at every two levels, you get better at ALL your trained skills and choose a skill every two levels to get even better at than those other skills. And at the alternating levels you get to choose a skill to get better at via a skill feat. And that's assuming you don't gain anything else from your general feats, class, or archetype.

Skill ranks were just never going to survive in the tight math of PF2 anymore than feats like weapon focus and greater weapon focus would.

Yes, going from Untrained to Trained means that skill will forever scale with you, but with level-based DCs scaling faster than that (DCs seem to go up by 4 every 3 levels), eventually that Trained proficiency will not swing it anymore (meaning that if you have to roll a 10 at level 1 for a success, you'd need to roll a 12 by level 6, a 14 by level 12, and so on). Boosting that one skill means keeping up with the DC, instead of getting ahead of the curve. Meaning you steadily get worse at the skills you don't invest in. +1 items and stat boosts help catch up, but they feel more mandatory than optional.

My personal bugbear is that a high Charisma score is described as having high willpower, while the actual Will save goes off Wisdom.

(I'm not advocating for changing Will to be Charisma-based, just stating my own dissonance.)

I still feel like a +1 skill increase is too little to feel like an actual increase. Unless there's more ranks of proficiency so you could still climb that ladder faster.

With the caveats of course that there's still caps at certain levels. It's just that it's such a difficult line to walk between the tight math of 2e and the absolute bonkers way you could boost skills in 1e. Like, now I believe the bandwith of a skill check is 2 (so if the standard DC for level 1 is 15, an average check could be between 14-16). If that band increases to 4 (with the expectation that focused PCs will be around average), you could give players more bonuses without that absolute numbers madness 1e had.

Alternatively, some kind of diminishing returns, like partial boosts past your first investment. At level 1 you could be Trained for a +2, at level 2 you could be Trained+ for a +3 (one partial boost per proficiency level). And same for Expert, Master, and so on. a character maxing Diplomacy at every opportunity would in the end be +4 better than in the current system, but that'd still feel like a proper investment, as well as a decent sacrifice. That +4 came at the expense of 4 boosts in other skills. Would be hell to track, though.

I still feel like a +1 skill increase is too little to feel like an actual increase. Unless there's more ranks of proficiency so you could still climb that ladder faster. But at that point, you're back to 1e's skill points.

I do miss skill points, though. Felt much more rewarding than 2e's "which singular skill will I get better at?" every two levels.

---

In my homebrew I've tied Charisma to hit points. Your force of personality is your vitality as well. Obviously traditional Charisma-casters wouldn't work, but flavourfully it makes a lot of sense, and fixes both problems of CON being a single-interest stat and CHA being a dump stat. Everyone will naturally want at least some Charisma, and face-characters get a boost out of it as well.
As said though, that would mean you'd have to move Sorcerers and such over to a different casting stat. Not sure if it would break things if they'd get more HP than Wizards, but it feels like an arbitrary buff to give.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

If the character sheets are lost, it's only reasonable that you can rebuild, using the books that were out at the time. I think the rebuild deadline is mostly to prevent a character built in 2022 to be turned into the upcoming Commander, for instance.

I'm 100% sure that you can try to reconstruct and remaster your Champion. I'm less sure, but still pretty confident that you can freely rebuild the character. Ask your local Venture-person to be 100% sure, they'll have the final say.

Thank you, Quentin. I'll track down my Venture-person (who I guess is the online venture-person in this case?). Cheers!

Yeah, the Online person would be a good idea, or the regional one for your area, even though you play mainly online. Either is good.

As for the lost chronicle sheets, I think the assumption is 8 treasure bundles per adventure is the average. With some luck you get all 10, but that's not expected to be the norm. I think 8 treasure bundles per adventure to replace your old chronicle is very fair, maybe even on the conservative side.

I'm not a fan of no attributes. Call of Cthulhu does something weird where you have your main attributes that generate some stats, but don't impact your skills. You could play an athlete with amazing DEX, but your Jump skill would be just as good as anyone else's. That feels weird to me.

While it's very easy to make Strength govern both damage and HP, like others have pointed out, I feel that would make other stats obsolete for martials. If it governs both their damage output and their HP, they don't need anything else. And conversely, any d6 caster investing in HP would suddenly be really good at punching as well.

Ideally, I think I'd go more MMO-like with armour, with not just giving penalties for not having the minimum STR investment, but having a STR requirement. I think it wouldn't work as you'd need a more granular division, and maybe more armour types (or more "tiers" within the same type). But this would give Strength more importance than just the "attack stat," especially over time. You'd need to invest in Strength, otherwise your AC will fall behind.
Right now, all types of armour/DEX combinations give the same AC equivalent, with heavy armour being 1 ahead. With ideal stat distributions, a Rogue in light armour and a Fighter in medium armour have the same AC. With a STR requirement, you'd get that "MMO effect" where people in medium armour get less damage than those in light armour. This obviously won't work with the current crit rules, but I'd like to see more of a difference in AC in the game. It just feels so.. homogenous.

I'm tinkering around with a homebrew where INT is your default magic attack stat and WIS is your default magic defense stat. It does a few interesting things, where magic users aren't by default at least decent at Will saves. I've removed Expert proficiency in Will saves from spellcasters by default, so now you can have a magic user who has a crap Will save. And now you have a "physical tank" and a "magical tank" who can take hits in different situations, depending on the enemies. One targets AC and Fort saves, the other targets Will saves.
Heck, the way I've set this up it's interesting how you don't have the "class familiarity" anymore: before, you could guess that a Rogue-type character would have great Reflex, but poor Will saves. That wouldn't necessarily be the case in my homebrew, where a speedy character can also have a decent Fort or Will save.

Piggybacking off this thread, and it might still be useful for OP, how would you deal with/advertise a "twist" in the adventure?

Also depending on how soon the twist comes of course, but opinions might differ on this. Let's take the Tyrant's Grasp AP for this one. This one is literally in the player's guide, so it shouldn't be a spoiler: at the start of the adventure, you die. You go into character creation knowing that your character (and probably the rest of the town) is dead.

On the one hand, I like informing players of such a game-warping twist. It informs the players on what kind of adventure this is going to be.

On the other hand, I know some players like to be surprised and know as little of the plot as possible. This goes against the player expectations Ascalaphus mentioned above, but some people like to situate themselves in the narrative as much as possible, and might have come up with ties with the entire village that they'll never ever see again. In this case, it feels like a rug-pull when you say, "everything you care about is dead," but it gives a bigger shock.

And what if there's a big twist halfway through the campaign? Say you're a bunch of knights of Lastwall fighting against the undead, the big boom hits, and you rise as an undead yourself? Knowing you're going to be undead after X levels is a good campaign hook, but again, imagine the surprise when the players realise they're the very undead they're fighting against?

To bring it back to the OP, it might be good to inform your players that this is a Planescape-style adventure, with plane-hopping as its main narrative (I assume). On the other hand, it might be cool for them to discover this for themselves. And only you can answer which of these options is the right one, as only you know your players. If you want a middle road, you might keep it vague, like "don't get too attached to one place" or "you're going to travel a lot."

If the character sheets are lost, it's only reasonable that you can rebuild, using the books that were out at the time. I think the rebuild deadline is mostly to prevent a character built in 2022 to be turned into the upcoming Commander, for instance.

I'm 100% sure that you can try to reconstruct and remaster your Champion. I'm less sure, but still pretty confident that you can freely rebuild the character. Ask your local Venture-person to be 100% sure, they'll have the final say.

I mean... Dwayne Johnson as Nahoa the Exemplar.

Karen Gillan as Adowyn the Hunter.

Chris Hemsworth as Hakon the Skald. Though maybe a bit too Thor-like.

Charlize Theron as Kess the Brawler.

Cate Blanchett as Reiko the Ninja. One word: Hot Fuzz.

Oded Fehr from The Mummy as Zadim the Slayer.

Jason Statham as Sajan the Monk.

Throwing a curve ball here... Ryan Reynolds as Lem.

Interesting to see that map, and its tropic lines. The Inner Sea is a lot higher than I thought it would be. It's still strange to me to see both Spain and Norway be in the same Temperate zone (I live smack dab in the middle between the subtropic and arctic line, so it's weird to see those extremes of hot and cold so close, and then imagine it can get even worse).

Basically, Taldor is Greece-adjacent. I've read wine is a popular drink, which would make Cheliax and Andoran also similar, climate-wise. With the Lands of the Linnorm Kings and Mammoth Lords being (close to) the frigid zone, the Worldwound/Sarkoris Scar would also be pretty cold, which I hadn't imagined.

It's funny, I had always imagined that deserts would be around the equator, since that's where it's hottest, but pretty much all of them are more around the tropics/subtropics. Whixh again pretty much lines up with Golarion's map, where Osirion and Qadira are. Almost as if they've thought about this. :^)

TL;DR: I think most of Avistan lives at a relatively comfortable 10-25 degrees Celsius most of the time, going up or down 10 degrees in summer/winter respectively, as well as around the edges of the continent.

I love the idea of the Outwit Ranger. It's really good at what it does. It's just that whenever I stat one up, I'm drawn more to the other subclasses or a different class that does a similar thing, but better/more efficiently. I'd love for this subclass to get a boost somehow to make it flashier or a bigger reason to pick it. It's just difficult to justify it over the accuracy boost of Flurry or the damage boost of Precision.

This whole discussion started more or less with RPG-Geek saying they want more realism in the game. But what it boils down to, like PossibleCabbage said, Pathfinder isn't a realism simulator, and (I think) never will be.

There's other games that do things like what RPG-Geek wants (13th Age does the weapon distance thing you mentioned, at least for reach only; it doesn't incorporate rules for passing through it, and I've heard of more "realistic" games where injuries are more lethal and give penalties, though I'm blanking on the names right now), but those are an entirely different genre of games that Pathfinder simply is not. With rules like that, your party would be unable to continue adventuring after 3 combats. I get that you want to see features you like in a game, but you're turning Pathfinder into a different game entirely, at which point you might as well just switch systems.

RPG-Geek, do you have examples of games that you do enjoy? I don't wanna sound gatekeepy, but it sounds like Pathfinder simply isn't the type of game for you. I've seen you pop up in a few threads the past few days with a few.... unpopular opinions, and I'm wondering if you're even enjoying the game.

Sorry for playing to the person, just genuine interest, not trying to insult.

exequiel759 wrote:

The only real "upgrade" bravery could have is master proficiency which would be probably too much since you effectively have master benefits against fear effects already, plus the frightened reduction which is IMO the actual benefit of the feature. It really doesn't need an upgrade.

Or, y'know, reduce the frightened condition's value even more until the Fighter is outright immune to being scared?

Fighter already has two saves where success = crit success. You want to add a third conditional one as well? Pretty much all martials have two, and for some reason only the Rogue gets all three (with Fortitude only capping at Expert), and the casters only getting one.

Granted, Bravery feels more like a leftover thing from 3.5 to me and could be completely omitted (why are specifically Fighters brave, but not Barbarians?), but it's plenty impactful already. Upping that numerical value over time would invalidate fails or crit fails eventually. That can't be the intention of a class feature.

Halfway through the second book as a player, preparing to GM the first book myself.

Horror in TTRPGs is difficult, I find. In movies you have the visuals that can scare you. Books are one abstraction away, and told stories are even more abstract. The best TTRPG horror stories I have experienced lean into the unfamiliar, the creepy, the unsettling. Something isn't right here, that kind of vibe. You can describe all the gore and severed limbs you want, it won't have the same effect as watching a slasher movie.

Also, Season of Ghosts is very much about spirituality. Kami and spirits are a common sight, much more than in the West. Spirits don't necessarily look like stereotypical ghosts, but might take humanoid form, or something even worse.

With that said, my experience so far with this adventure is more the weird mythological stuff from the Asian continent. It's supernatural and occult unfamiliarity that drives up the creepiness factor. Think Penanggalan, Shinigami, or Noppera-Bo.

I'm not super familiar with example media, as horror isn't my jam, but you can watch Spirited Away to get a good impression of what kind of weirdness you can expect. Also, look through this page to see the kind of spirits and monsters you can expect to encounter.

A quick search also gives me this Reddit thread. I haven't read through all the recommendations, but I see some familiar names that I trust they're good recommendations.

Bluemagetim wrote:

I dont understand being attached to the term fluff.

Its a terrible term to describe creative writing usually loosely based on lore implying the writing is superfluous text to playing the game (the assumption that the stat block is the only important text)
Thing is its not so superfluous when it describes a creature in ways that help a GM understand its behavior, where it lives, what it eats, what motivates it, or even give a GM a great line to intro it to their players.
Fluff is just not a good descriptive word for what is written on the page.

It's been the industry standard forever. Flavour and lore are fluff, and rules are crunch.

Just because it's been like this the whole time doesn't mean it should stay like that forever. I understand being attached to/familiar with the term, but especially in this current climate, the changing of names/identity shouldn't be met with resistance.

I'm personally not a fan of the Gunslinger. Not because of guns in fantasy, but because I don't like their playstyle. They tend to fish for crits, and when they happen, they're awesome, but overall I see them as lacklustre damage dealers. They get some cool moves, but their playstyle just doesn't excite me.

Also, I just dislike Thaums. Random damage increases and Esoteric Lore feel like cheating the system. Again, the things the implements do seem really cool, and I'm always looking to see how to use one, but in the end I'm always turned off by their base chassis.

Very basic, but I still love the Cleric. Free Heal spells is so incredibly good for survivability, and the domain focus spells add so much flavour to a character. It's not a flashy class, but I love being the problem-solver, whether it's people on low HP, having status conditions, or needing to blast enemies. I agree that the early levels aren't super exciting, but once you reach level 5 or so, spells start to do really cool things. I'm always happy to take the healer role in a party, mainly to just feel good about letting other people shine.

Late to the party, but the Envoy's Alliance is about making a safe workplace environment. They want to make sure the scholars aren't attacked by a stray ghoul while they're busy researching.

I agree that with a bit of reflavouring this mission could've gone to the Vigilant Seal as well, with making sure everything in the dungeon is dead in general.

I saw this happen with badly-reviewed products at first too, but after some digging, it also happens with well-received (and reviewed) products as well. The thought of censorship did occur, but Paizo staff have said it's a bug, and I'm inclined to believe them. Still sucks that reviews disappear, though.

I did! Especially with the site having eaten all the other reviews, I thought it'd be nice to have a written review.

Ran this yesterday, I have a few comments:

I'd missed that Bloodmoon was tiny, as Monkhound mentioned above. I made him medium/small size, but I don't think it would've mattered much, considering it has reach.

Some combats in low tier feel underwhelming, at least in low tier. The 7 HP Sprite feels more like an inconvenience, and it's very hard to get it to stop fighting with the Call to Reason action. It's very easy to accidentally oneshot it. I used the Dying rules, so the party could stabilize it instead of immediately dying. And the other way around, the Tengu Sneak in event 3 is horribly outclassed. Sure, it can get sneak attack off, but it's still 4 versus 1 and it can't keep up with the damage output of the PCs. The additional halflings also don't add much here, much like the sprite. They're knocked out by a single attack. And Bloodmoon feels weirdly flimsy for a boss encounter weapon (more down below)

My players had several comments about the story:
- Sakura has closed off Silvertree Village, but apparently hasn't told the villagers as to why, or what they can do about it? The villagers think she is mad at them, but have no idea how to fix it. Why hasn't she made clear what's wrong, so they can actually do something about it?
- The mist has been around the village for a month, but Pathfinders show up and Sakura lets them through immediately? Why not other people? I made up that she's tired of all the travelers trying to get through and the villagers flailing around and is seeking outside help, but some other insight is appreciated.
- Bloodmoon feels underpowered for a weapon that slew a deity. Felt a little anticlimactic that the boss of the organisation was tougher than a god-killer. Empowered Bloodmoon already fixes a lot of that.

Also, is the BT of Bloodmoon supposed to do anything? Objects break at half HP, but that would mean that by the broken condition, Bloodmoon stops functioning after 6 damage. I just had it function like a normal enemy, though I can also see it functioning like construct armor, lowering its AC and hardness, but leaving its damage output intact.

On a more positive note, my players loved the narrative touches to the scenario. The Risucho were a big hit and the spirit element was definitely present during the scenario. A player also commented that a lot of skills were useful during challenges and skil checks, so everyone could contribute, without just going "just roll whatever." All the skills asked for made sense and leaned into what the players came up with naturally, so my compliments for that. :)

Yes, those are for items, and indeed a lot of uncommon options. However, this is an animal companion, which you just get from your class, not something you buy. Also, it's not flagged as uncommon.

Note that I couldn't read the full list of shops in the FAQ because for some reason my browser doesn't let me scroll when I have the relevant FAQ question open, so I could be missing something.

Yes. Premaster it was a single action to have a bite attack for a minute. In the remaster it's become a ranged attack.

I agree that the spell overall is better, but a lot of the flavour has been lost. I miss my little ankle biter.

I have a Leshy Champion in PFS with the Finadar Leshy background. A creepy little dude that used to be demonically tainted, but now got redeemed by Sarenrae. The fire and sun themes are so very on point. That all still works fine.

The issue is that I took the Sorcerer dedication for the Demonic bloodline for Glutton's Jaw. I could bite people and get some temporary HP back, which worked well on a Champion build. But with the remaster, that whole flavour got lost.

Normally, pretty much everything of Common rarity is available. The Character Options tells me that no common option in Grand Bazaar is restricted, and Archives of Nethys also shows it as an available option, so I'm 90% sure the pangolin is freely available to you.

There are indeed boons for specific things, but AFAIK, they're all for uncommon options (granted, I haven't looked through them thoroughly). Usually, if an item is common, there's no real reason to lock it behind a boon.
There is no way to search for specific boons (I think), but you can go HERE, click open the three tabs for Pathfinder and use the search function if you're in doubt (use the book it's from for a quick selection).

Have fun with your pangolin! :)

Yet as much as I loathe ID for its underhanded subversion of the Constitution & scientific progress, there's ample evidence for it in the PF-verse, namely the exact same species developing on so many worlds (though teleportation/migration could also account for this).

I only have a VERY base level of understanding of biology, so I'm sure my contribution is practically nil compared to yours, but I think the concept of parallel (or even convergent) evolution is also interesting. Maybe similar/the same species appear on different worlds because it's just the ideal shape for that world. Maybe it's just inherent in any environment with a similar atmosphere to Earth/Golarion that humans will pop up eventually. Are we just a happy coincidence, or if we did this experiment a million times, will humanity come up every single time? (Insert "everything turns to crabs eventually"-meme.)

To continue with the lightning theme, the Charnel Creation (old Flesh Golem) also has a "power-up" when hit by electricity.

Seems like electricity damage is quite bad. Are there examples of creatures who react positively to other element types?

I got it now, a few days later. Don't know why it got delayed, but all's good now.

Yeah, most adventures have a new magic items section, but not all of it gets incorporated into the adventure itself. If they don't show up in the adventure itself, they're just available for people who have played the adventure.

Do I have the duo for you! Shocker Lizards, well, shock anything in their vicinity. Shamblers are immune to electricity and get quickened and temporary hit points when they're hit by it. The lizards are level 2 and the shambler level 6, so you either need to buff one or weaken the other for them to be in the same range, or have a shambler have several lizards as pets.

Other than that, the lizardfolk ancestry has the Breath Control feat. While standard lizardfolk NPCs don't have this, it's easy to slap it on them. Combine them with anything that has an airborne debuff (Toxic Cloud or Stinking Cloud spells, or xulgath or hezrou monsters, or just an airborne hazard/trap) and you're in for a good time.
Not sure if with the remaster spells still require vocal components, but that makes it extra nasty for spellcasters.

I've just had one big twist in the middle of book 2:

From cultural osmosis, I think I've also been spoiled on the thing you're hinting at:

So I guess I've been mostly spoiled, but I'd like to keep it as spoiler-free as possible.

Hello, I'm playing in a Season of Ghosts campaign (currently level 6), and I'm about to run it as well for a different group. However, someone in that group has a heavy spider phobia (the legs are a big trigger) and prefers not to encounter them. Even saying the word is taboo. Which I totally respect, of course. But upon reading up on the campaign and on Tian Xia in general, I suspect the jorogumo are going to become an important theme in the campaign. Due to spoilers for myself, I don't want to know if they are or not (though I have a suspicion they will). I have a simple question: how important is it that Ugly Cute is a spider as well?

I've already censored the player's guide for that player, and I'm planning to replace any spider creature with centipedes or something similar. Ugly Cute is going to be a stone toad, and I'm thinking that if I encounter any jorogumo, I'll replace them with mantis-hybrids, instead of spider-hybrids, so I should be good. But like I said before, if Ugly Cute is going to become plot relevant, I'd like it to stay consistent. I can retrofit Ugly Cute into a mantis as well, or make the jorogumo toad-people (I'd prefer the former), so either way, I'm fine.

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: Also, are there any other spider-related adjustments I should make, and keep consistent?

Has anything changed with the subscription model? As a venture-agent, I normally get the Quests added to my downloads, and they all have been so far, except this one. Is it just a matter of patience, or should I alert someone?

Good question. Page 31 specifically calls out treasure bundles from items recovered or obtained, so my first guess is, as long as they've been found in the first place, it's fine. But yeah, if they've handed them over, it would stand to reason they're also lost (and crossed off your chronicle sheet), as it's the "easy way out," so to say.

I'm leaning towards "gone is gone," but I can see it going either way.

Is there a place where the season meta plot is summarized each season?

The Organized Play --> Pathfinder Society tab at the top (or linky link) has a "The story so far"-part if you scroll down a little. It summarises the events of each season, though maybe a little more detail would be nice.

Also unfortunate that there's a "During the Pathfinder Society’s first year"-header, where it's clear each year was supposed to get its own header, but everything got dumped under year 1 instead.

No factions is an interesting choice; I wonder why that was made? Maybe to not have to manage a faction rep subsystem.

Not a bad idea; but it will be a break from what Paizo has been doing since the beginning.

Will all the playtest content be approved for Society play?

Looking forward to 2E Society.

From my perspective, factions were just an additional thing you had to learn or teach to new players that added very little. It's just a lot of mental load and a lot of things to track on top of your own character's progression.

I like factions as a narrative thing. They add flavour and depth to the world, and especially Starfinder Society did a lot with their factions. But I won't mourn their removal in second edition.

Yes, same for me! Love the idea of class-specific character sheets, but now that a lot of classes have been rejiggered, their usefulness has been diminished.

Also, Maya, you're doing amazing work. Thank you!

Fabios, I think you're confusing the Champion's mechanical role with its narrative one. From its flavour text:

You are an emissary of a deity, a devoted servant who has taken up a weighty mantle, and you devoutly pursue a cause that holds you apart from those around you. You have powerful defenses that you share freely with your allies and innocent bystanders, as well as divine power you use to end the threats your deity opposes.

The Champion, from its flavour text, is clearly someone who pursues an ideal or a cause, and has defensive powers on top of it. But from a mechanical perspective, you're right: their starting AC isn't higher than anyone else's, and they can't draw attention to themselves.

But compare this to the playtest Guardian:

You are the shield, the steel wall that holds back the tide of deadly force exhibited by enemies great and small. You are clad in armor that you wear like a second skin. You can angle your armor to protect yourself and your allies from damage and keep foes at bay. You also make yourself a more tempting target to take the hits that might have otherwise struck down your companions.

Here it's clear that their narrative and mechanical roles align: you can taunt, have higher AC, and can reduce damage. Their entire deal is clearly tanking.

I'm not saying the Champion can't be a tank, because that's provably false, but I am saying that it isn't its main design goal. The Champion is more about preservation: Lay on Hands gives a quick boost, but isn't as good as a Heal spell. And its reaction is more about damage mitigation than damage prevention. Only later on does it really increase its defensive capabilities beyond those of other martials.

I think you're trying to fit a round peg (the idea of a tank) in a square hole (the Champion). Instead of trying to make it fit, it might be better to adjust your view and find the proper hole for your peg.

Sure, there are a few things like alignment removal and negative/positive damage name change, but those aren't mechanically changed in the remaster. If it had negative healing pre-master, it has void healing in the remaster. Alignment going away means no more alignment damage, but spirit damage and/or holy/unholy fills that void. I'd say 90% or more is still usable.

Numbers-wise, nothing should have changed, and that's the biggest part of monster making. A level 5 monster will have the exact same stats regardless of edition. The only thing you'll have to be aware of is the aforementioned alignment and renaming of damage types. And honestly, it's still fine if your son uses the old mechanics. The remaster is meant as a cleanup, not an invalidation of the old book.

Yeah, I'd say it's a general rule that generic items can only give AC and speed bonuses (so they wouldn't benefit from a Demon Mask, for instance), and that these items are specifically made for companions, and thus are exceptions. But yeah, I would have expected some wording about Companion items being an exception to this rule.

Very minor one: To Scale the Dragon has a very minor tie-in, but can easily be skipped.

Other than that, Fingerprints of the Fiend is the first in a loose three-parter.

Tide of Morning has a spiritual sequel in Tide of Twilight, but they're not super connected.

And personally, Our Lady of Silver is probably my favourite PFS scenario ever, though opinions may differ.

Late to the party, but I think the "successful throw" means that you have to throw it a certain way. I haven't thrown an actual boomerang before (I mean, I've thrown those plastic toy boomerangs, but I don't know if they actually function), but from what I can tell from the 5 minutes of research I did, you can't just throw it like a regular old stick or a rock or whatever. So basically, there's an art or trick to throwing boomerangs, and that constitutes a "successful throw," not whether you hit someone's AC or not.

The only bit of extrapolation you need to do from here is assume your character is also proficient with that trick as well as using the boomerang as a weapon.

To answer this question immediately:

StarDragonJenn wrote:

I'm left wondering if there's space for a cleric that thinks like an individual at least a little bit. I mean there's the splinter faith feat, but even that doesn't quite seem to contradict the 'unthinking zealot' portrayal in the essay. If there's space for a Nietzschean-lite cleric who deliberately seeks out situations where their faith will be tested and deliberately pushes the limits of their deity's without breaking them, and with intent to refine them. Or just someone who sees their deity as a friend and confidant rather than a stompy master...

There absolutely is room for this; your Cleric very much does not need to be a zealot, and many deities very much go against the "perpetually angry tyrant" archetype and can even be quite friendly with their worshipers. Clerics in particular are meant to be the people other worshipers come to whenever they seek answers or guidance regarding their faith, so it is also often in their interest to be able to articulate the merits of their deity from a place of genuine understanding, rather than blind devotion. Becoming a Cleric or Champion of a deity does require devoting yourself to their faith, but that faith doesn't mean debasing yourself or shutting down your critical thinking, so much as embodying those deities' principles to the fullest. This does usually mean taking on those principles far beyond the extent most other mortals would, but depending on the deity those principles can be in service of personal agency and greater understanding, rather than repression and ignorance.

For specific deities, I would particularly look towards deities that have both freedom and knowledge as their domains, like so:

...

Awesome, thanks! I'll look them over more closely, but Zjar-Tovan and Aakriti sound like what I'm looking for. Aakriti is maybe a weird choice as an "ooze deity," but their anathema sounds great: "reject creatures or information due to bigoted or rigid beliefs." That sounds like an excellent questioner of faith. Similarly, Zjar-Tovan's edict "do not allow your purpose to be overly guided by another’s will," is an excellent example of avoiding blind dogma. Thanks for the information!

I hope I can sort of piggyback off this conversation: would it be possible to play a divine inquisitor? Not in the sense of "our" inquisitors, which sought out heretics, but someone who literally questions the power and scope of the deities? Coud a Cleric (or maybe a Champion) be critical of their own faith, of their own deity, and still be a proper follower of that faith? Or would it be better to drape that flavour over a non-divine class, such as maybe a Wizard who uses their intellect?

Reason is, I got inspired by a fictional character who uses their intellect to solve mysteries, even within his own church. And I'm just wondering if it's possible for a Cleric to be skeptical of, or question the power, scope, and limits of their deity, or if that's grounds for expulsion from the church. I want to believe indeed in critical thinking rather than blind faith, but which deity (if any) would fit best with that?