3Doubloons's page

The main problem with Stunt Damage isn't the damage itself, but the difficulty in finding a use for it. Perhaps a better approach would be to incorporate it into maneuvers—and I mean all of them, including Trip and Grapple and the class's extra maneuvers—and deal damage on successful hits, not just critical hits like some press maneuvers do.

I've only played at levels 2 and 4 (with plans to try 7 and 10 ere the playtest ends) and that's the conclusion I'm trending towards. Daring Stunt is usually how I get my adrenaline, and while rationally I know I *should* be grappling or tripping to give my entire party an off-guard target, but on a visceral level, I *want* to shove enemies into walls and get stunt damage off. It doesn't feel great the the fun way of using your special damage isn't usually a great idea

3Doubloons wrote:

...

Or to look at it another way, if you build a character using the 2014 PHB then try to use it as a 5.5E character, you'll find you're missing background ASI, origin feats, weapon masteries, etc. It's a very different beast. But if you build a Pathfinder character following the legacy CRB, while you would need to convert your Ability Scores to Attribute Modifiers, for the most part everything else is working perfectly fine.
And that is why 5.5E deserves to be numbered as a half-edition as 3.5E was back in the day while PF2E remaster is mostly just a minor footnote

No, they aren't missing; these things have simply changed location, but they're still there. The fact that, for example, the attribute bonus has moved from race to background isn't a problem, unless you want to mix the rules instead of simply importing the entire character.

This issue also occurs in the PF2e remaster in several places. For example, you can't simply take the old Legacy Oracle Mysteries and try to use them in the remastered version; it simply doesn't work; it's incompatible in terms of rules. Or try to use many of the old Witch Patron Themes; you'll be missing the entire familiar mechanic. There are simply rules that cannot be merged due to incompatibility. But this doesn't prevent you from using, especially pre-made characters from the previous “version” in the new one. In fact, this is the main compatibility factor that makes it easier for game masters; you don't need to rewrite an NPC or monster from an adventure you already have ready or that doesn't exist in the remaster, just use it following its original rules normally, and it will work.

I'll grant you that the if the ASI was moved from race to background, it's not really missing, yeah. That said, there are still systemic changes to the 5E system in 5.5E: Characters interacting with conditions, grappling, two-weapon fighting, etc. will have different gameplay depending on if they're in a 5E or 5.5E game. For the pf2e examples you mention, those are not global changes, they're just on the class; if you take your legacy Oracle into a remastered game, you'll just use the old Oracle curse rules, because the curse is an Oracle class feature, not something inherent to the game system. It's no different than if you had one class named Oracle that's the old mechanics and another that's Delphite that's the new mechanics; both classes would work perfectly fine in either legacy or remastered pf2e, because the core system didn't change.

Ultimately, it's a question of opinion; there's not really an objectively correct answer to "Should this be a .5 or another label?" Personally, I find that 5.5E has made changes to the underlying engine that while not incompatible with 5E do make it different enough to warrant being 5.5E, while pf2e remaster's changes are more localised and/or cosmetic.

The reason people started calling the OneD&D edition 5.5E is that despite WotC insisting that they weren't making a new edition, they went into their playtest with the goal of completely overhauling everything: class chassis, feats, spells, etc. Only the underlying engine was staying intact (which is why I personally disagreed with calling it 6E). Now, they have foolishly walked a lot of their changes back before release, but the final product of the 2024 D&D is distinct enough from 2014 D&D. Meanwhile, Paizo's goal with the remaster was to take out the OGL legacy and clean up some historical rough edges. While some classes, spells and stuff got heftier changes, at its core, the Remaster stayed much the same as Legacy.

Or to look at it another way, if you build a character using the 2014 PHB then try to use it as a 5.5E character, you'll find you're missing background ASI, origin feats, weapon masteries, etc. It's a very different beast. But if you build a Pathfinder character following the legacy CRB, while you would need to convert your Ability Scores to Attribute Modifiers, for the most part everything else is working perfectly fine.

And that is why 5.5E deserves to be numbered as a half-edition as 3.5E was back in the day while PF2E remaster is mostly just a minor footnote

A level 7-16 adventure where the PCs held some prestigious rank (they were a lieutenant in the army, a merchant lord, the right-hand man in the most important church, or a famous actress) and the antagonists of the AP destroyed their reputations (false accusations of corruption, scandal, etc.). Now, as pariahs of society, they band together to regain their influence (or surpass it).

You could make each campaign trait in the player's guide affiliated with an antagonist (if you choose the military trait, the military antagonist is your nemesis). During the campaign, the party sabotages and fights against the antagonist's subordinates until the final chapter, where the final battle is the PC group versus the antagonist group (who would be working together on some plot to take control of the country or something like that). The idea reminds me of Gaedren Lamm at the beginning of Curse, and the players would have that "It's personal" motivation.

It's 1-10 instead of the 7-16 you're hoping for, but from what I know of it, that's pretty much exactly the plot of Outlaws of Alkenstar

In the library page, most products are listed twice. I've eventually realised one is the One File Per Chapter PDF and the other is the Single-file PDF, but there's no way to tell which is which without clicking on it

I've not quite finished Chapter 2 yet, but it seems like it's missing quite a bit of XP award. We're currently at 310/1000, and as written there is only 400 left to earn (with an extra 30 if they imprison the Asura which is less guaranteed than the rest of the encounters).

To make up for the 290/260 still missing, I'm planning on making each Memory Point for Gwem count as a 10 XP story award which will add up to 40 of the missing total. Riding the bees, as adorable as it was, means we missed the cave bear on the Erosthes who is worth 80 XP as a level+2 encounter (for a difference of 50 given the 30 XP awarded for riding the bees to their hive); I'll retroactively bump that to at least 60, maybe even 80 to keep the paths equal in XP (which incidentally would also mean adding more borers to the north isle; that seems fair, the bees get you to the hive after a skill check with a mythic deed as a reward, the north shore after a mook encounter with an infiltration bonus as a reward, and the south after a boss encounter with loot as a reward). For the Honey Heist, I'll retroactively award 80 XP, and climbing the Pinnacle of Winds will be 60 XP. Finally, brewing the ambrosia feels too story-important to not be worth an XP award so that will be 40 XP as will returning the vortex pouch to Avelis, all adding up to the missing 290.

So to sum up, here are my suggestions for the missing experience if you're running Chapter 2:

• Bump up the XP award for riding the bees to 60 XP, to match the XP that would be earned fighting the cave bear in F2. If this feels like too big an XP award for a simple skill check, move this boost to the Ambrosia award instead, since it's more significant to the plot.
  
• Add 1 more Bee Borer (total of 3) to F1, to match the XP that would be earned fighting the cave bear in F2.
  
• Remove the elite adjustment from the cave bear in F2
  
• Award 80 XP for successfully collecting the honey, royal jelly and larva.
  
• Award 40 XP for brewing the Ambrosia, whether it's done by the statue of Untoia or a PC.
  
• Award 60 XP for climbing the Pinnacle of Winds and meeting Avelis.
  
• Award 80 XP for trading the drums of war for the vortex pouch, or otherwise peacefully resolving the Glittering Caverns encounter.
  
• Award 40 XP for returning the vortex pouch to Avelis, or using it to clear the miasma surrounding Vaveilos. (Not both, obviously)
  
• Award 10 XP whenever Gwem regains a Memory Point (total of 40 XP)
  

Or alternately

• Bump up the XP award for riding the bees to 80 XP, to match the XP that would be earned fighting the cave bear in F2.
  
• Add 2 more Bee Borers (total of 4) to F1, to match the XP that would be earned fighting the cave bear in F2.
  
• Award 80 XP for successfully collecting the honey, royal jelly and larva.
  
• Award 40 XP for brewing the Ambrosia, whether it's done by the statue of Untoia or a PC.
  
• Award 60 XP for climbing the Pinnacle of Winds and meeting Avelis.
  
• Award 80 XP for trading the drums of war for the vortex pouch, or otherwise peacefully resolving the Glittering Caverns encounter.
  
• Award 40 XP for returning the vortex pouch to Avelis, or using it to clear the miasma surrounding Vaveilos. (Not both, obviously)
  
• Award 10 XP whenever Gwem regains a Memory Point (total of 40 XP)
  

I should note that the honey heist went extremely well. They barely earned any Awareness Points and did not alert either the entry or the royal guards. The four potential encounters in the hive add up to 360 XP, so if your heist is a bit more of a fiasco, consider either not rewarding the failure with encounter XP, or omitting some of my suggested extra awards as you feel appropriate.

---

On a separate note, I like the map of Iblydos on the back inside cover, but it is a bit disappointing that nearly all of the map labels are used to mark locations that aren't visited in the adventure. I would have liked to have at least Moilios, Thyellados, Koikolos and Vaveilos (but ideally also the uncharted islands from chapter 1) on the map to orient myself

Chapter 1 seems to be well shy of the 1000 XP needed to be level 2 by the time Chapter 2 starts. My party only missed out on the 10 XP for an exceptional 3VP feast at Ataiosiphon's and ended the chapter at 700/1000.

I expect the funeral games should be giving XP. 60 XP per event (retroactively) was enough for my party, but 80 per would give more leeway for missing any more of the optional awards

I feel the intro is a little weak in bringing players together

That is also something we struggled with on my end. The Player's Guide backgrounds do a decent job of getting the characters to Iblydos in general, but it is missing some guidance on getting them to justify their presence in Bailax and especially to Terpsime's dining room. It would have been very useful for the players to have a better idea of where their characters will need to be (under Terpsime's hospitality) so that everyone is on the same page about where their backstories need to end and where the adventure begins.

By way of contrast if the design team is reading this, Season of Ghosts handled this problem expertly: The Player's Guide was very clear to the players that the adventure would start as they woke up on the morning after the Season of Ghost ritual, and that they were expected to have volunteered to take part, whether by the campaign-specific backgrounds or by a reason all their own.

Urwal sees your druid's Goodberries and raises you a Godberry

On a more serious note, I really really like those paragraphs on Lore skills, detailing which will come up a lot, which will come up a handful of times and which once or twice. I hope that stays in the Players' Guides in some form or other for future instalments

Worship of Gorum is not recommended because his focus on est isn't appropriate for this campaign.

Oh, I'm sure that's the only reason. I see what you did there. wink

Good news! There has been an update to the module that extended the mapping to Monster Core creatures. It doesn't add any new art, so creatures that don't have an equivalent in the Bestiaries (or creatures like Archons or the Purple/Cave Worm that have changed significantly) aren't mapped, but it should at least help with switching to Monster Core versions of monsters

My favorite part of this is they say its one of the skymetal dragons. That just makes me wonder what an abysium dragon would be like.

If there are eventually more skymetal dragons, and a noqual dragon has antimagic properties like this here chonky boi has anti-physical properties, I'm rather interested in seeing how a fight against a pair of those would play out. I'd love to see the party have to split their attention with the martials dealing with the noqual dragon while the casters fend off the adamantine boy

Was Yivali's appearance based on a secretary bird? Because if so, I love the pun

It looks more like nondetection. The traditions, casting time, range, targets and duration are all the same and the text only has very minor wording changes

As written, the Elemental instinct ability prevents impulses from being used when not raging. While this could be intentional in the case of a Barbarian multiclassing into Kineticist, but it also means a Kineticist multiclassing into Barbarian and taking the Instinct Ability feat can't use any of their impulses out of rage anymore.

The ability probably should have a "While you are raging" clause like Raging Intimidation does.

(I suspect the issue arises due to the Rage trait pulling double duty as both the "You must be raging to use this" trait and the "You can concentrate on this even while raging" trait)

Wait what is a “Battle Master?”

Nothing noteworthy. NPCs have had more descriptive pseudo-classes since the start of 2E; it doesn't mean they're adding a Battle Master class

Nice. I like that there's going to be more Apex items. In my Age of Ashes game, I had to homebrew something up because none of the existing ones seemed appropriate for the party's sorcerer. More options means a better chance of getting something that feels right

You might be interested in looking up Knights of Everflame. The first few sessions are right after the party joins the Knights of Lastwall; while there are many volunteers, there are also plenty of conscripts with varying level of scruples. In fact, one of the players actually is a Spirit Barbarian Dwarf, so your idea not only fits the lore, there's an example of it happening in a Paizo-affiliated production.

My party has finally reached this book. I'm wondering if anyone's party resurrected Deadmouth? The AP says his memories might return. Did anyone cook up a good story for the tale of how he ended up a Darklands ghast? It's supposed to be so tragic that "he's gone to great lengths to forget it."

I'm planning on making him one of Ilgreth's apprentices. Both Droskar's Crag and Saggorak are in Five Kings Mountains, so I picture he might have been on an errand for his master when Mengkare shattered the orb of gold dragonkind. He was spared the brunt of the quaking and erupting, but as a result got lost in the Darklands where he eventually gets ghasted and captured by gugs (the adventure mentions he might be someone whose disappearance baffles historians, so I assume 700-ish years is survivable for a ghast; the gugs can keep him over generations if they don't live that long).

This ties him nicely, if only tangentially, into Mengkare's backstory.

Actually, since a hand cannon is thematically changing damage type by what you load into it, I don't think Modular is appropriate. There's no reason loading ammo for a different damage type for my next shot should take an additional action.

One might make the argument that the action to change damage types represents you switching around your pouches of ammo so that the chosen type is easily available. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a "Modular reload" trait that lets you switch damage types like modular does, but when you reload instead of as a separate action

Grankless wrote:

That epic postal service idea someone had in... one of the various clones of this thread was also genuinely cool. Fighting to get a package to increasingly powerful locations.

We've been kicking around a plot like this for a bit, although it's more a "Establish a trade route through various regions" rather than delivering a single package. I could see it starting as deliveries and escalating from there to trade route creation, though.

Ooh, that sounds quite interesting. ut my vote down for the Golarion Post AP

As a general rule, the person who closes into melee range might get the first hit in, but the one who got charged gets the second, third and fourth. Every action you spend moving to a melee opponent is at least one action they don't need to spend on their turn.

My rule of thumb (that granted I came up with because of this thread and hasn't been battle-tested yet) would be to make sure you have 1.5 to 2 actions' worth of useful things to do once you've finished moving. So Stride-Stride-Flurry would be a good use of a turn because Flurry is 2 actions in one. Or Stride-Stride-Strike in the case of a Fighter who considers threatening an AoO to count for that half-action in my rule of thumb.

So then the question becomes what should you do if you don't have the movement to close into melee and still be useful. In that case, you still have options. Obviously getting into stance is probably your number one priority, but after that, you can still move to a more advantageous (one that might reduce your risk of getting flanked, or that blocks the path to your casters) or enticing (close enough that the enemy will want to close into melee) location. You could get yourself a crossbow, sling or cantrip to punish an enemy that's not getting into range (It doesn't need to kill them, just do enough that they move in to stop you getting free damage). And if you have nothing else to do, readying a Strike on the first enemy that gets into range can be a better use of two actions than Stride-Strike, since you would still get the first hit but also make the enemy spend the movement.

And lastly, as others have pointed out, this only works if you can get the long-legs to cooperate. If they charge in right off the bat, then yeah there's little you can do to make the enemy come to you instead of you to it. However, if you can convince them to force the enemy to make the first move, they can still use their superior speed to outflank the enemy once they're closer in, while getting support from their slower companion

The scene you're referring to where Iomedae "wrecks your face" is an error in our writing, not in her personality. We mistakingly leaned into the idea that PCs would be antagonistic toward her, and should have focused instead on how she can help you. It's the one thing I wish I could go back in time and fix about the storyline of that adventure path, because it's flat out wrong in how it presents Iomedae. I've said this before on these boards, but our lack of a process by getting story errata out means that this clarification and admission of error gets lost soon after each time I point it out or admit to it.

Are you keeping (or have you kept, if that part of the development is already over) an eye on how Owlcat are handling that scene to try and update how this encounter plays out?

That's an interesting suggestion. I hadn't even considered that. I know we don't have existing art of that situation, so it's harder to simply slot into the schedule, but I'll keep it in mind.

What I hear you say is that whichever book you guys are currently preparing art orders for will inexplicably have a picture of Valeros and Kyra fighting at a checkpoint.

I'd be a little curious to try a change in formatting first. Perhaps "Pathfinder Bestiary 304, 6" would at least make it more obvious that the 6 is a secondary page reference and not part of the book title

A lot is being said about the trait's protection for BBEGs, but it's equally as important that it protects the PCs as well

The Rot Grub wrote:

Not seeing any answer to this question.

I'm just going to run the indigo pillar so that the 3-creature limit applies against party members. (So, in effect, a *7-creature* limit) I think that's the intention of the hazard.

Clear oversight by the designers. I’d probably just adjust it to a total of 3 gripplis by dropping 1 archer and giving another an Elite adjustment to bring it to same or similar xp. I think the intent is that if the pillar ends up controlling a PC then one of the gripplis can escape the mind control.

It seems more likely that the omission happened the other way around: Eleanor wrote an encounter with 3 creatures, wrote the blurb that said the pillar could only control 3 creatures, then when the devs chose to add a fourth creature, they didn't think to update the beam effect (very likely since it's in a completely different section of the adventure).

Ellias Aubec wrote:

Hmm, if I were to run this I'd probably say the cost for the service would be double that to do it yourself, so 20% the price of the rune. Mostly because crafting gets down to half price (from what I can remember), so doubling that cost would seem appropriate and the easiest way to handle it.

Crafting anything costs full price, unless you spend lots of extra time, which still isn't a discount, as you could have been Earning Income instead.

Really, Crafting anything is worse than just buying it, because there's a chance you could fail and get nothing.

And if you Earn Income, there's a chance that you fail and get a negligible amount of money. Besides, there are three factors that may make Crafting an item a better choice than Earning the Income to buy it. First, the DC is determined by the item you are crafting, so there is a possibility of an easier check with a greater chance of a critical success. Second, the progress you make is determined by your level, not the item's nor the settlement. Third, you only make one check, so there is no risk of failing further.

Nice to post 2 points of views without the supporting arguments and then just pile on...

Quote:

If you succeed at your check, you can continue treating the

target to grant additional healing. If you treat them for a total
of 1 hour, double the Hit Points they regain from Treat Wounds.

This does 2 things.

1. If I succeed at my check, I can continue treating them to gain additional healing. I have to make rolls to do this, as there is no other mechanic in the ability to grant additional healing.

2. If I continue to succeed on my checks, and I continue to make them for a total of 1 hour, I double the Hit Points they regain. If I only treat them for 20 minutes, they only gain the benefit of those 2 rolls, no doubling.

It does not make the countdown period pointless. If I treat you for 10 minutes, and then we have another fight, and you need more healing, we have to wait for the hour to elapse.

Also, if you fail you have to stop.

If it only used the original roll, it would say something like "You can increase the time this activity takes from 10 minutes to 1 hour to double the amount of HP granted."

Your reading is basically the same as the text not existing, as nobody would ever choose to do it.

I have in my Age of Ashes game a medic with Continual Recovery. I know from experience how much healing 6 straight Treat Wounds checks puts out (especially considering how trivial it is to have Assurance high enough for a guaranteed 2d8 healing per check). You say no one would ever choose to continue treating wounds for an hour and I'll counter by asking why anyone would take Continual Recovery if Treat Wounds already does it baseline (as per your interpretation).

3Doubloons wrote:

Let's see.

Evidence that it's not intended:

• Page 293 saying it's only level 0 items
  

It does not say that. You are adding text that does not exist. The word only does not appear.

The exception proves the rule (In the original sense of the phrase). By only mentioning that 0th-level items are included in the book, that implies that formulae of other levels are not in the book.

3Doubloons wrote:

Bomber only giving you formulae for things in the equipment chapter (The only other bombs are uncommon so need GM permission)

You do not need GM permission for Uncommon things granted directly by a Feature. You don't need GM permission for this any more than you do for Focus Spells or Unconventional Weaponry, and again, the list will continue to grow with new content.

But they're not granted directly by a feature. If that were the case, the Uncommon trait on spells would do literally nothing, since spellcasters are "granted" new spells by a feature.

Unconventional Weaponry explicitly grants access to an uncommon weapon. Feats with focus spells directly tell you you gain the spell in question. "Go pick from that list" is not directly giving you an uncommon feature.

3Doubloons wrote:

Evidence that it is:

[list]

One line of description copied over from the Playtest where the items were not in the equipment chapter

It's more than one line. It's listed twice in two different Chapters. It is not contradicted by any other text in the book.

I did not participate in the playtest, so I have no way of verifying whether or not the text was copied over, or what was or was not in a given Chapter. Either way, that's irrelevant. We're not talking about the playtest.

If you choose to ignore what's printed, that's your choice.

Alright, two lines copied over from the playtest. It's relevant because it's evidence that the description is not a deliberate choice in the final rule, just a missed spot in editing.

---

I'll add one more piece of evidence to the fact that it is not intended: the Alchemist Kit includes a Basic Crafter's Kit. If it was intended to include all the Equipment chapter's formulae, the alchemist would not make such a big fuss of counting how many formulae they have in their Formula Book feature (since the equipment chapter contains all level 1 alchemical items in the CRB)

Let's see.
Evidence that it's not intended:

• Page 293 saying it's only level 0 items
• Chirurgeon only giving you formulae for things in the equipment chapter
• Bomber only giving you formulae for things in the equipment chapter (The only other bombs are uncommon so need GM permission)

Evidence that it is:

• One line of description copied over from the Playtest where the items were not in the equipment chapter

At this point, you're at best in Ambiguous Rules territory: if one version of an ambiguous rule seems too good to be true, it probably is

Come to think if it, that IS an aspect of goblin culture Torag would smile on: their knack for taking junk and making it into useful stuff. Sure, it isn't pretty to look at, but they're just starting down that path, so it's kinda like your kindergartner's macaroni art that you put up on the fridge to encourage them to improve. Torag does seem like the kind of god who'd regard entire peoples in a paternalistic kind of way...

Well, now I want to make a goblin cleric of Torag who crafts all kinds of things because he likes the pats on the heads he gets when the other clerics take his macaroni-drawing contraptions and put them to their beautifully crafted suits of armour

Scry and Fry should be a possible tactic. Because, even us mudane IRL use scry and fry techniques via satellites, drones, cameras, missiles, snipers, etc.

I don't think this is as strong a defence of your point as you think it is. The average civilian doesn't have easy access to these (except cameras and some drones). The average specialised civilian (aka an adventurer) might, if they put in the effort. That sounds suspiciously like Uncommon, or even Rare for satellites and missiles, rarity.

The monk in my AoA campaign has spent just 3 skill increases in Medicine and just a few skill feats into Battle Medicine, Continual Recovery and Ward Medic. The only other healing is from the bard with non-signature Soothe and a rapidly obsoleting level 1 Heal wand. With only that, I know from experience he can bring the party from the brink of death to full health in under an hour. Battle Medicine is good enough for emergencies, but in general is best left unused (so that in case of emergencies it's still available); making sure combat ends quickly so Exploration healing can be used

If that's good enough for a primary healer, it can definitely work for a backup

Rysky wrote:

The example from AoA is not, the characters have to go out of there way to get in there and ignore the actual adventure and requests currently going on.

When our party went to deal with the henchman and managed to apprehend them, we decided to beeline it back (because we thought this was a priority at the time), which we learned upon our return that the BBEG fled town, leaving us with the authority to search their quarters for any clues as to where they went and to bring them to justice. And having a PC who was a part of the Breachhill guard was able to persuade them in letting us in to investigate. Which is how we came across the trap so early.

You can infer from a quick mention in Part 4 that said BBEG shouldn't have left yet. Now, the book should probably have been a lot clearer about that and made sure to note that if the PCs visit their home before Part 3, they're present to keep the trap disabled and point the PCs towards the accomplice instead, but it's pretty clear it was never intended for the PCs to encounter this trap at level 1

I think the people on Reddit are indulging in wishful thinking.

PF2 clearly sets out not to have the same weapon die size madness that PF1 ran into.

A +2 circumstance bonus to damage was how the Playtest handled increasing the size of a d12 die. That part of the die size increase rule didn't make it to the release

Goblins love fire.
The Sun is made up of fire.
Sarenrae is the goddess of the Sun.
Sarenrae is the goddess of redemption.
Do the math.

Well, that was the justification for the tribe featured in We be Heroes? Their chieftain went blind from staring too much at Sarenrae's magnificent glory

The Raven Black wrote:

Saros Palanthios wrote:

3Doubloons wrote:

coriolis wrote:

Although it IS pronouced kou de gra in English

It's really not supposed to. That C isn't silent. Coup de grace should sound a bit like Coo duh Grahss

Linguists call this "hypercorrection". Most English speakers have a vague sense that final consonants in French words are often silent, so when they see an unfamiliar French word they just apply that rule of thumb and don't pronounce the final consonant. And in many cases, that's correct! But not in this case, since the "real" rule in French is that final consonants are generally silent, unless the word ends in 'e'*.

*or 'n'/'m', sort of

Is it still a final consonant when the word ends in e?

As 'e' is a vowel? Yes.

And therein lies at least part of the misunderstanding. It's not a final consonant, since there's a letter after it. In fact, the purpose of most silent Es is to turn a silent final consonant into a spoken non-final consonant.

Buut, we're drifting further and further away from coups de grâce

Looking at my river analogy; it doesn't matter if buckets are being taken away by people with plots, or if "buckets" are just vanishing on their own without any mind directing them; the inevitable end result is the same.

Considering that, what does Pharasma think of Galt's soul-trapping Final Blades?

Although it IS pronouced kou de gra in English

It's really not supposed to. That C isn't silent. Coup de grace should sound a bit like Coo duh Grahss

ToiletSloth wrote:

Ice Titan wrote:

One thing we noticed was that one of the NPCs in the Court of Regents encounter, I think it was Fortunate Kord, has "Sleight of Hand" listed as a favored skill. Ideas for a good replacement? I used Performance in the moment, but wasn't sure if that was super correct...

I believe that most of the uses of the first edition skill Sleight of Hand have been moved to Thievery in 2E, so that's probably the one to use.

Kord's favored skills are Deception, Sleight of Hand and Thievery. So already accounted for.

Stealth has the Conceal an Object action (which is distinct from Palm an Object). That sounds pretty applicable as a replacement for Sleight of Hand

Speaking of Belkzen, it seems the orcs' entire pantheon as of 1E is strictly Chaotic Evil. Is this something that might change in the future, either as a retcon or to reflect their less antagonistic tendencies following their rejection of Tar-Baphon?

Well, that'll teach me to fall behind. Here is a big update

https://github.com/alexbrault/Pathfinder2EOversights

As for the things I didn't include:

I was surprised that they didn't fix the bulk of manacles. Manacles, which one imagines as heavy clanky chains of iron with thick iron restraints at either end, have no bulk! This means that your ranger/bounty hunter can carry 100 sets of manacles on their belt without any increase to their encumbrance!

This is a power level comment which I don't include in the repo because of their subjectiveness.

Continual Recovery says "When you Treat Wounds, your patient becomes immune for only 10 minutes instead of 1 hour" but Treat Wound's normal 1 hour immunity overlaps the 10 minutes spent Treating Wounds, starting at the time treatment begins. So if the "1 hour" duration is changed to "10 minutes" that means by the time you finish treatment, the immunity already expired. I don't believe that is the intent, because if it were it could be stated more obviously.

...

I'm having trouble finding a phrasing for this that doesn't boil down to "Is Continual Recovery really supposed to allow continual recovery?" If you can find one, I don't mind including this

OK, this is more design issue, but it's so obvious and janky I figured it's worthy:

Chill Touch VS Undead seems out of wack VS how other Cantrips are balanced, AND it's awkward for gameplay:
...

As above, this is more subjective than what I include in the repo.

The Fighter class feat Flinging Shove lets you use Aggressive Block to shove 10 feet on a success, or 20 feet on a critical success. That makes no sense, since Aggressive Block doesn't involve a roll. It just automatically succeeds. Does that mean it just automatically shoves 10 feet?

As was mentioned, Flinging Shove also applies to Brutish Shove

The Fighter feat Aggressive Block is triggered mostly on enemy turns, but lasts until the start of YOUR turn. This means it has no effect if your turn is next. Is this intended, or should it last until the start of the OPPONENT's turn?

This is also subjective (and was the same in the playtest as pointed out by Rysky)

5. The Wizard dedication archetype "Arcane school spell" does not give access to "Hand of the Apprentice" since universal wizard is not a school of magic. Was this intended?

Hand of the Apprentice is gained through a feat.

Staves:

The staff of fire appears under statted compared to all other staffs. Likely should cost 90 gp and be level 4.

The rare staff of power likely should have a rare cost premium applied of at least 50% in line with the staff of the magi.

This is one more subjective power level thing.

So the errata applied a change to the Deer Animal Barbarian to now get a 1d10 Piercing unarmed attack with the Grapple trait instead of the 1d8 with the Charge trait. It's supposed to put it in line with other 1d10 unarmed attacks. But then you look at the Specialization Ability on page 86:

"...The frog’s tongue attack and deer’s antler attack gain reach 10 feet."

So now the Deer by RAW has a 1d10 Piercing attack with Reach 10, something none of the other Animal's unarmed attacks have.

Was this an honest mistake? Or am I missing something here?

Ironically, after so many entries omitted for being power-level opinions, I'm including this one despite this because it seems very likely that they forgot about the Reach when writing the errata. If it had been printed in its post-errata form, It would have been subject to the same subjective clause as the others.

Speaking of which, even though I'm not including the subjective power-level stuff, feel free to keep posting them in here; I'm sure they're very useful for Lyz and the rest of the design team

Finisher: Finishers are spectacular finishing moves that use your panache. You can use a finisher only if you have panache, and you lose your panache immediately after performing a finisher. Once you use a finisher, you can’t use any actions that have the attack trait for the rest of your turn.

You lunge forward and stab two foes with a single thrust.

Make a melee Strike with a piercing weapon or piercing unarmed attack and compare the attack roll result against the AC of up to two foes. One foe must be adjacent to you, and the other foe must be adjacent to and directly behind the first foe, in a straight line from your space. Roll damage once and apply it to each creature you hit. An Impaling Finish counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty

Are there things that don't have the attack trait but use the multiple attack penalty, or is this just some leftover artifact from a time when finisher didn't have to finish your attacks?

I made a quick pass over the errata document to strike out the things that were addressed. There may still be some in the FAQ section, since I wasn't in a great position to look at the thread for what they referred to. We may also want a clearer indication of what's been addressed and what hasn't; I'll experiment with some when I have time.

As usual, the repository is available here: https://github.com/alexbrault/Pathfinder2EOversights/

I built maps for the jungle encounters that don't have a map on page 32 (I'm using the Swamp for A11, the ruined temple for A16, and the two clearings for A5 and A6). The grids are set at 70 pixels so they should fit perfectly in Roll20

Well, I shouldn't procrastinate on updating the repo should I?

https://github.com/alexbrault/Pathfinder2EOversights

Thanks again for all your help on this! We’re working up a formal errata post to come out before the end of the month, so you’ll see final calls on almost everything here soon!

Hurray! Formal Errata post incoming!

Is the github still being updated? The last commit is over a month old now. Obviously people get busy and things happen, but this can be continued elsewhere if OP no longer has the bandwidth to keep up with the flood of attention (and derailing) this thread has received.

I have a fork that I keep updated (currently as of a few posts ago; I don't have time to update it today, but I should catch up some time this weekend).

I don't know if VestOfHolding wants to keep maintaining the repository; I'd be happy to make a huge pull request if he is, or to take over the project if not.

Everything up to Fuzzy-Wuzzy's post has been updated.

https://github.com/alexbrault/Pathfinder2EOversights

Can you change gnome flickmace to be 1d6 with disarm, reach, trip?

Its current iteration seems against guidelines of reach losing one damage die and advanced weapons adding one minor property

I don't really want to get into power-level debates in the list. I'd rather stick to confusing passages and objective or obvious mistakes over more subjective things such as whether a weapon is one die size too large or electric arc's power relative to other cantrips.

Does A Silent Spell, after spending an action, take it's full amount of actions, or one less?

Given that Silent Spell has the "concentrate" trait, I could see the intention being either, seeing as you're spending at least two feats to get it, merely not needing to speak when casting doesn't seem like such a big deal, though who knows what the devs think.

Nothing in Silent spell says it removes an action (contrast with the Sorcerer's Quickened Casting), neither does the Spell Components section of the rules say the actions and components must correlate 1:1. Unless someone else chimes in that the text is unclear, I'll leave that out.

So if you must dispute, please take it to another thread. Unless, of course, you are yourself a dev.

Yes, that. Please.