AceofMoxen's page

AceofMoxen wrote:

I've checked several items, and nothing seems to be reduced in price for the fireside sale?

I did a write up in this thread about the sale which may help you figure out what's going on / how to get the discounts.

Thank you. Adding to cart was not working.

I've checked several items, and nothing seems to be reduced in price for the fireside sale?

The basis pack is missing, but I found an old link by digging around. so solved.

"Cannot be enabled due to issues in required dependencies"

Now other modules with dependencies, I can click on them and get a list of what I need, but season of ghosts doesn't offer that. I have the blood lords modules, and it looks like those are dependent on a 'Basis pack' that doesn't exist for season of ghosts.

So I'm stumped. What should I try now?

If it doesn't bite you and you explode, it's Runic, not venomous.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm trying to find a balance here. My initial comment was harsher than I intended.

In my experience, an animal companion following the full feat chain can take a hit or two far better than a familiar. In combat, it's much closer to a party member. Druida get a special healing spell just for their companion automatically, and rangers can get the same with a feat. (I think?) A familiar uses the party's healing resources and can die to a single hit.

I also think a familiar delivering spells to enemies is far fairer a target than a familiar with an aura of buff or debuff. However, the aura might be more powerful.

So, for table expectations, if my rabbit is wandering around the battlefield, giving +1 or -1 AC, are enemies aware it's doing magic? (See arguments about recognize spell) Is it a fair target? Is it much safer as a bird? Or on the shoulder of a Frontline?

From the GM side, I might want an easy or average encounter to soften up the party for another fight. With out-of-combat healing so easy as to handwaved, I need to force a consumable, spell slot, or maybe a 1/day item to degrade the party at all. Targeting a familiar is something I have more control over than those.

So I see a temptation for GMs to overdo putting the pet in danger, and that's where my harshness comes from. Ive played with good people who would let me rebuild a character into another class in this situation, but would not be able to stop targeting the familiar and let me have my witch fantasy. I see this as different than the old GM-Paladin issues where the GM is acting in bad faith. Here, the GM has a reasonable goal, and the familiar is uniquely vulnerable to it.

I wonder if the fact that the familiar comes back each day actually makes it more vulnerable.

PF2, as it moves through the middle of its lifespan, is having some identity issues for me. In many ways, the PCs enter each fight as if fully rested, unless they're spellcasters.

My personal recommendation is keep it in a familiar satchel or other similar place that keeps them out of combat.

What? You want to use your familiar in combat? Than prepare for it to be knocked/unconscious or die.

As a GM, the second your familiar starts augmenting your combat abilities in an offensive way, it paints a target on its back that will likely see it killed. If you want to keep it conscious a while longer, Lifelink can help you do that.

That feels like punishing the witch player. What other class's key abilities do you target to remove for the day?

As for language barriers, this is why spells like Translate and items like Books of Translation or Choker of Elocution and skill feats like Multilingual exists. A situation where players encounter a character who barely speaks common or doesn't speak it at all, is also a fun challenge for a party. It allows non-pure combat characters to shine!

As mentioned above, Darmok and Jalad is a story that only works once. Stargate SG-1 tried to have translation as a reoccurring issue, and quickly dropped it as boring. Maybe you could build a game where translation is a major, reoccurring challenge, but that's not pathfinder, and I'm skeptical of that game's appeal to a board audience.

Also, starting at level 3, casters have increasing options to completely negate the challenge of translation. This turns these encounters into a simple gear check. If your caster is low-charisma, and the translate only affects them, you can have a little fun, but again, that only works once. It's pretty common that the caster has the best Charisma, too.

One of the better uses for languages, IMO, is during combat. The Hobgoblin commander shouts orders, and the PCs who understand goblin can know what's happening.

2: bone croupier is not a valid summon due to being uncommon. Find a few examples of common creatures that have powerful abilities that still work with a level difference of 5-7

Not only is this an errata, it's an unusual errata to an AP volume that was not compiled into a single book. Bone Croupier was *THE* use for Summon Undead from the time it was printed until the time it was errata'd.

Another typo or inconsistency:

Page 4 (bottom of the left column) says Pallomar is a dromaar, but page 5 (bottom of the right column) says Pallomar is a dwarf. The person in the art on page 13 and 30 has human-dromaar proportions, not dwarven. So I plan to change the reference on page 5 to say "dromaar of human ancestry", not "dwarf".

In the blog article, he says "Dwarf" in quotes, so I think he's adopted? Or he just favors his orc parent?

Who is Sezruth?

Theres something really silly about low level thugs thinking they can steal a Sun Orchard elixer, to the point that they jump a heavily armed group that outnumbers them.

The sport described here is extremely dangerous and the PCs have no chance to participate.

As a player, I was stumpted.

AceofMoxen wrote:

The Kingmaker cooking rules expect PCs to make a non-magical fire in marshland. This implies that low-level adventurers without a Kineicist are expected to carry firewood. If a dagger is light bulk, then a log of firewood is at least light. It takes 4 to 12 logs to make a good campfire. So we have at least one extra bulk per three days PCs intend to spend in wilderness.

Torches are light bulk and better for cooking than plain wood. So, at most 1 bulk per 3 days.

Citation for torches being good for cooking, please. A campfire is quite a bit larger than a torch.

Torches require a good amount of oxygen to burn properly and they give off quite a bit of noxious smoke.

Some people like the smoked flavor.

Maybe this is just me but I really like summoning using actual stat blocks. I find it sells the fantasy of summoning much more than using a template. I really felt this in dnd 5e around 2020 when they starting printing summon spells that used a template. A vital change given how problematic the first summoning spells were, but it creates a very different feeling.

I wonder if we're looking at this backwards. Especially as the game becomes more digital, maybe we should create the monster and assign it a level and rank required for summoning separately.

For example, a unicorn and a zombie owlbear are both level 3 creatures.

As mentioned above, a 4th level slot to get a unicorn is a sweet deal. Two 3rd rank heals are a time-delayed 6th rank heal, and there's a cleanse affliction. Ghost touch is also useful. It's also intelligent and capable of speaking to you, fey, and animals.

on the other hand, the zombie owlbear brings 85 HP, a fear effect locked at DC 19, and some attack power. It'll need a 14 to hit a moderate level 8 creature's AC, and the moderate attack bonus will crit it on a ten. If the level 8 enemy even cares to stay engaged with the permanently slowed summon.

If we create 'Summon brute,' that only gets sacks of hp and attack monsters, could we summon the zombie owlbear at rank 3 without breaking the game?

And yeah, the Unicorn should probably move up a spot (or be uncommon?) two 3rd rank heals with flexibility for a 5th level slot is not outside consideration.

I think the other option is to give each creature a unique summoning spell, so you have to call them in advance. Maybe you learn them in batches of threes? Less flexibility for more power (see the other thread about the wizard debate)

Roll for Combat did a Pokemon-inspired class. Could a version of the summoner with long-term bonds to a limited group of creatures that scale satisfy?

Let's switch from Thread necromancy to Mathfinder

Well, it only eliminates the need for scouting within 36 miles of the map. It's also a 7th level item, which isn't going to be available to everyone all the time.

36 miles is above median for well-trained horse and rider. If you want to know what's happening 36 miles away, you need to wait two days. (Average vs. median in this case is weird, as some extraordinary horses managed to do over 100 miles in a day in crisis. My searches suggest this was unhealthy, to say the last)

Also, remember that the circumference of the circle will be Pi*2*36 miles ~ 226 miles. On Earth, the horizon is about 3 miles away on flat land. If you assume that your scouts spot everything from their position to the horizon, You'd need 38 scouts to spend two days to give you information at least 8 hours out of date. (There's some discussion on the size of Golarion relative to Earth I'm ignoring in favor of pointing out that on Middle-Earth, Elves don't have a horizon, which is why Legolas can see several more miles away.) One use of this item is worth 80 man-days of well-trained scouts and horses.

A Survival guide level 1 costs 4 gp per day
https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2469
A scout is probably paid less, but with the horse and both their food and the people to carry their food (logistics wins wars*) we'll assume it works out. so that's 360 gp, and this item pays for itself in a single use. If this item had the same price and the consumable tag, it would still save you 10 gp over scouting.

*Alternatively, you could hire a level 1 wood kineticist to spend 8 hours a day making food for hundreds** of people, I guess. (See other thread)
**I'm not doing the math on how many people a single kineticist can feed in eight hours. I have video games to play.

Yeah, but we don't have firewood or kindling cost in rulebooks (thankfully) :)

The Kingmaker cooking rules expect PCs to make a non-magical fire in marshland. This implies that low-level adventurers without a Kineicist are expected to carry firewood. If a dagger is light bulk, then a log of firewood is at least light. It takes 4 to 12 logs to make a good campfire. So we have at least one extra bulk per three days PCs intend to spend in wilderness.

In my Home game, we spend much more time on talking to people or smacking monsters, but if you want to play Oregon Trail, watch out for dysentery.

"Attacking an ally" is the obviously weird part. If you control somebody, and have them spend their actions swapping out their weapon inefficiently, then nobody is going to make the connection without identifying the spell.

I do think it is good roleplaying to have a character using subtle spells work in a cover for what they're doing with their turn so they aren't just standing around obviously. Pretending to be a useless merchant or noble shouting unhelpful advice like, "Just kill them already! What do I pay you lot for?" is a good example. Or, if you need an alternate explanation for why someone starts stabbing their friend, unconvincing shouted offers of "A thousand gold to anyone who sides with me!" might make them suspect their ally of gullibility rather than magic influence. None of that works as well if it's coming from someone obviously casting some spell.

If you actually make a deception check, that's a full round of combat. (it's not just a three-action activity for some reason) If you don't make a deception check, what are you doing?

Again, your "nothing seems to happen" is super metagamy: what about all the other things that happened during this combat round?

I think part of being a game is that we accept that all characters are aware of all actions that could be viewed from their five-foot square. If you want to introduce a new "chaos of battle" element, the first thing would be facing, that characters can't see behind them. I don't want anything to do with those house rules.

But in the Pathfinder 2e rules it's clear: unless a spell has obvious effects (e.g. Fireball) or you identify the spell (e.g. quick recognition), you will simply have no idea what that spellcaster did.

Citation Please. The page I'm looking at says identifying the spell gives you its name and effects. There is no check that would tell you its target. The art suggests that spells without the illusion or subtle trait create some flash.

Also, which trait tell you if a spell has obvious effects? Is Force Barrage visible? Because Mystic Armor is also a force effect, but it's described as shimmering. Is Phase Bolt? Dehydrate deals fire damage, but the text describes no obvious effect.

Nudge the Odds suggests that it can be identified by someone untrained. Is this a unique effect of an uncommon spell? Or do people recognize the use of magic, if not the effects?

And yes, you can pass them drugs and have them drink them

"What a fascinating new war crime you've discovered."

Charm is subtle, however. Book art depicts all non-subtle, non-illusion spells as having a clear effect. Are you suggesting that you could cast daze at someone, and no one would connect it? Or Fear? Charitable Urge doesn't have any such text suggesting the target is unaware of what you've done.

Is it in the rules to speak with the Controlled enemy (whether a free action or even have to spend 1 action to talk) and say something like "This one is the traitor in our ranks!" as it charges its ally to cause further chaos.

Lie
Auditory Concentrate Linguistic Mental Secret
Source Player Core pg. 238 2.0You try to fool someone with an untruth. Doing so takes at least 1 round, or longer if the lie is elaborate. You roll a single Deception check and compare it against the Perception DC of every creature you are trying to fool. The GM might give them a circumstance bonus based on the situation and the nature of the lie you are trying to tell. Elaborate or highly unbelievable lies are much harder to get a creature to believe than simpler and more believable lies, and some lies are so big that it's impossible to get anyone to believe them.

At the GM's discretion, if a creature initially believes your lie, it might attempt a Perception check later to Sense Motive against your Deception DC to realize it's a lie. This usually happens if the creature discovers enough evidence to counter your statements.

Success The target believes your lie.
Failure The target doesn't believe your lie and gains a +4 circumstance bonus against your attempts to Lie for the duration of your conversation. The target is also more likely to be suspicious of you in the future.

You spend the entire round to roll deception with the controlled enemy's modifier against his allies perception DC. If they've spent any time working together, the sudden accusation of a traitor is going to get additional scrutiny. Most enemies at your level can only lie to similar creatures on a natural 20. Some can't even do that!

Yes. Restriction breeds creativity.

You keep that Universes Beyond talk back where it belongs.

SuperParkourio wrote:

I'm not aware of any actual rule that says everyone caught in the same area effect suffers the same damage roll. I think we've just been doing that because it's faster than the alternative.

Are you kidding me? Become aware.

This is actually a good point. The Core Rulebook should come with a dictionary, so that we can all agree on the definitions of all priors. We'll also need a common agreement on the basic rules of math. Is Principia Mathematica's Axioms good enough for you?

So that's 464 pages for the current core rulebook, 939 pages for the The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and 300 pages on proving 1+1=2. Once we put that together, we can start adding pages to get from 1+1=2 into rolling and adding dice together, or comparing results to a DC.

Or, you know, we could just assume common knowledge, and answer serious questions.

AceofMoxen wrote:

The Total Package wrote:

Is it in the rules to speak with the Controlled enemy (whether a free action or even have to spend 1 action to talk) and say something like "This one is the traitor in our ranks!" as it charges its ally to cause further chaos.

Again, your effect is not subtle, and mind control is a known thing. As a DM, that's the start of the iceberg of reasons this wouldn't work.

But let's look at the spell.

Quote:

failure On the target’s next turn, it’s stunned 1 and you partially control it, causing it to take a single action of your choice. If it has actions left, it can act normally

You cause it to take a single action of your choice. Not a unlimited number of free actions and a single action. You can't make your target drop a weapon as a free action, and stride away from combat as an action.

Also, the target takes the action, not you. So it could make a deception check against his allies' preception DC. You're level 13? Let's look at some level 12 monsters.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=2116
A Wight Cultist has a deception of +4 against a Perception DC of 32.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=2322
A pitax Warden has a deception of +4 against a perception DC of 32. He does however, have performance +24, if you want him to convey the message via interpretive dance.
https://2e.aonprd.com/NPCs.aspx?ID=3504
A black Belt has a deception of +0 against a perception DC of 35, and will fail on even a natural 20.

It is Controlled for all three actions at Heightened 7, I am currently level 13.

Ok, that only minorly changes things, then you can make free actions, but a deception check is usually an action. It doesn't change that the target is making the deception check as best they can.

Tridus wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

A PFS mission would most likely not entail executing civilians.

Definitely not. I picked something egregious deliberately. In normal PFS play anathema isn't much of an issue unless the player is leaning into it or someone is doing something wrong.

Conveniently, all the gods whose anathemas would make it hard to play PFS are banned (you know, the ones that want you to execute civilians)

This is a tangent, but there was some concern about skeleton PCs and clerics of Pharasma.

Arazni's Edict can be a problem, too. Genzaeri's anathema would often be unhelpful. The scattered nature of a series of one-shots makes Zjar-Tovan difficult unless you're passionate about doing whatever the society tells you.

That's just the allowed ones out of the 60 most common gods, let alone hundreds of others, or charity boons that allow semi-evil options like Razmiran Priest.

Is it in the rules to speak with the Controlled enemy (whether a free action or even have to spend 1 action to talk) and say something like "This one is the traitor in our ranks!" as it charges its ally to cause further chaos.

Again, your effect is not subtle, and mind control is a known thing. As a DM, that's the start of the iceberg of reasons this wouldn't work.

failure On the target’s next turn, it’s stunned 1 and you partially control it, causing it to take a single action of your choice. If it has actions left, it can act normally

You cause it to take a single action of your choice. Not a unlimited number of free actions and a single action. You can't make your target drop a weapon as a free action, and stride away from combat as an action.

However, what I'm talking about is how restrictions and mandatory behavior may affect players who may, for one reason or another, feel uncomfortable about it.

It's a matter of inclusivity and accessibility. Just as people should not be forced to engage with 18+ themes or other themes that require a trigger warning, people should equally not be forced to interact with the worship of fictional deities, especially in a world where people will sometimes beat and murder each other for worshiping in the wrong way.

Yes, I'm sure there are some atheists who don't mind and some religious people who have no issue with just playing another class. I never said every single atheist and theist had a problem with it.

Maybe someone has significant religious trauma or triggers, but I don't think just removing Edicts and Amathema is enough to help them play a cleric. You should respect that by playing Shadowrun or something.

If someone has this severe trauma or triggers, I don't think they will enjoy the pathfinder universe, where other PCs and NPCS are influenced by the gods. There are many good RPGs, and it's probably easier to pick something else up.

I also never said clerics, deities, or anathemas should be erased, I only said people who may have a serious issue with religious themes should have an option to have similar mechanics.

For example, some may hear "a god of war" and think of a bloodthirsty berserker, a calm elderly tactician, or even a knight-like god obsessed with strength and honor as opposed to subterfuge. Having gods as people makes them good characters, but from a purely gameplay point of view, it can be quite limiting because you have to search for a god that matches a specific interpretation and study the entire lore to make sure you didn’t misinterpret it.

Of course, one could just play very superficially and look only at the anathemas. But if it’s going to be that shallow, why not just be a priest of Life or a priest of War instead? **Honestly, I never liked the concept of anathemas, they feel like a seed of conflict because people end up arguing about interpretations and minutiae. It’s just an annoyance, in my opinion.**

(Emphasis mine) "Anathemas are just an annoyance" is a hair's breathe from "anathemas should be removed." The original statement makes clear anathemas have no redeeming qualities for you, unless you've changed your mind.

Now that we have Guardians, we can finally say that there is always more then one option to fulfill even the most hard coded old-school quad of tank, mage, healer, skill monkey.

The 'Old-school' Tank was just as much about the cannon as the armor. It was literally the fighter class. MMOs created the idea that a tank is supposed to be seen and 'draw aggro' instead of just standing in front. This is a disruption of the metaphor. The 'Old school' D&D players who invented the term were aware that tanks were vulnerable to the proper weapons and needed to hide or be supported just like any other weapon or party member.

Even in WW2, a tank that is not supported by infantry is dead, And in classic RPGs, a tank is a reliable source of damage, unless you fight a rust monster.

This is tongue-in-cheek.

Some players may be hardcore atheists who strongly dislike the concept of worshiping anything and find it humiliating.

As a hardcore atheist myself, allowing a fictional god the power to humiliate you is in my personal, IRL anathema. Maybe someone has significant religious trauma or triggers, but I don't think just removing Edicts and Amathema is enough to help them play a cleric. You should respect that by playing Shadowrun or something.

Others may be very religious and find the concept too close to idolatry (remember the satanic panic).

If Baldur was close enough for Christians in Norse lands, I'm certain they can find someone among Pathfinder's Gods. If they're not flexible, they probably aren't going to be ok with some of the things other players do. (I'll not comment on Non-Christians)

Some players simply played healers in other games, like MMOs, as a white mage or something similar, and wanted to do the same here.

Copying MMOs should not be the goal of a tabletop game. Also, MMO players seem to exclusively view healer as a burdensome job. That's the worst attitude to take to a tabletop game. Give them the DPS job that everybody wants.

I don’t see the point of forcing a vegan to eat meat,

You can actually harm a vegan by forcing them to eat meat (I've heard), but no one is harmed by loose rules in a pretend game.

I've always liked Wayne Reynolds's goblin guns

https://cards.scryfall.io/art_crop/front/4/f/4f72e9e2-ed47-40ff-bc2e-8446ef 545022.jpg?1562911635

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ8G808Dm0e3lDhltZ_BL1 qUo6fJHwJCNzxpg&s

To Kelseus:

I will highlight the Champion rules to him, throught he is one to read rules in the most black and white fashion possible, so last time I asked failling to comply an edict or anathema is losing my class powers.

I've already tried asking him a letter to the law thing, but he already outruled it, explaining that for the sake of the rules, following the laws equal following the law of the place I'm currently am, always.

For example I asked if there was a law priority, like possibly sticking to a set of laws whathever the place I'm in (like Abadar's for example, or a few of the rules Calistria respect, or laws from which my character originates): No.

I asked if with Law skill I could try to interpret law in a fashion which would favor my POV: No.

I asked if I could in a conflict choose which side I consider as legitimates: No.

It seems like I'm kinda stuck to being a law enforcer of the place where my toes currently are, that's why I came here to see If we missed something.

So currently, my only hope is the highlight to the champion rule.

This may be a spoiler for your GMs plans, but it's on the wiki.

You might be able to salvage this character by saying an aristocrat (winter witch) killed your family unlawfully(probably before 4713), but escaped punishment. You begged Calistria for revenge. As part of her bargain, she granted you the power to get revenge, but only if you can do it lawfully. You'll have to collect evidence and put the winter witch on trail to get revenge.

I would recommend you try to join the game your GM envisions, or convince him to boarden his game, or sit this one out. Playing a game just to be disruptive is an insult to the other players.

I could see it be frustrating for folks approaching from the opposite side of creation—class and mechanics first and personality later, but that's part of why we have SO many deities in the setting to choose from. And of course, you can always chat with your GM to adjust or remove edicts and anathemas if they're that big of a problem.

I am a player who approaches building a character from the mechanics first side, and I love having edicts and anathema. I wanted a redeemer champion with a one-handed agile thrown weapon. That lead me to consider Likha. I had just read some history about Roman emperors staging gladiatorial battles as historical recreations. They often changed events to make previous rulers and enemies look good or bad. So my champion is a gladiator who insists on truth in historical gladiatorial matches. (Nonlethal) His reaction is part of his stage fighting technique.

It’s kind of fascinating for me to speculate on this because of the existence of magic changes the development. Kind of gives me a headache though.

Keith Baker and WotC have done quite a bit of work on this topic for the Eberron setting.

1st-3rd level magic is available on the battlefield most of the time.

4-6th level magic is expensive and rare.

7th+ rank casters were not concerned with the war.

To the point that with ABP you could probably adjust the outcomes some so that you're actually disarming the enemy more often.

Then every statblock would need to give the enemies' fist weapon or backup weapons.

I'm asking because I'm about to start as a justice champion in an evil country and I'm asking if such champions are actually able to act as "justice" champions even in an evil country, or if they should just limit themselves as law enforcers, because strictly by rules, that's what they look likes, which is strange considering Paizo wrote:

You're going to want to talk to your GM about this. Pathfinder Society has a rule that doing a pathfinder mission never directly conflicts with any Anathema.

If you're in the Golarion setting, what God and which country are you worried about?

I'm also thinking of skipping or shortening the rust hag. I'm thinking of changing the city to be abandoned, and the party is ambushed by the hag snipping and running. Or maybe she ambushes them on their way into the city.

I don't want to derail this, but only the worthy is a spammable level 4 feat that's often more disruptive than the spell slow. It's causing problems for me to create interesting encounters around. If I could easily break the weapon withouy risking destroying it, that would help balance some.

Of course, it takes potentially hundreds of years for judgement to occur so it's not generally a problem unless you're trying to get access to someone from a long time ago.

This is in Starfinder, so anything more than 325 years ago is automatically off limits.

(broken armor -7)

https://2e.aonprd.com/Conditions.aspx?ID=60&Redirected=1

Broken armor only ever reduces ac by -3 plus the loss of runes.

I'm Still curious about exampler's 'only the worthy' feat. Is it fair to break/destroy a weapon the PC pins an enemy with?

I'm very happy to have an updated version of this, and I'm really impressed that you reread almost 250 issues with dungeon magazine. I wish I had read this before committing to blood lords.

So if an Exampler uses "Only the Worthy," the weapon becomes unattended? Could the pinned target strike it? Would that be fair to the player?

AceofMoxen wrote:

What happens when someone time-travels from lost omens to before Aroden's death? Do they create a zone of non-prophecy while they're in the past or do they become ruled by prophecy while in the past?

You'd have to ask Shyka or Yog-Sothoth about that.

Do you have their email?

I think expecting GM core to be a guide to homebrew an entire setting is asking too much. I can't imagine any book dedicated to creating an setting to be very useful.

Some GMs just like making worlds, but it's often better for the table if the players have a hand in the creation. So for this game with a small number of gods, I would ask each player to create a god and a hero chosen or representing that God. They would need to work to create non-overlapping gods. Then you create one or more gods to cover everything else.

As the players create their characters, they can take any spell that fits their God's theme if you and the other players agree. Only one God can claim each spell. You don't have to sort spells and the players are more invested. Balance is going to be a minor issue, You might be making some classes 10% or 20% stronger/Weaker, but that's normal. Unless you take away or give a key focus spell, like the bard song or champion lay on hands, it'll work out.

Actually, with this idea, I might make the PCs dual classed, with one full caster and one class without spell slots. Each would embody their God's casting and martial traditions.

What happens when someone time-travels from lost omens to before Aroden's death? Do they create a zone of non-prophecy while they're in the past or do they become ruled by prophecy while in the past?

The guide claims this is the 'Final' Runelords story. Let's check back in five years.

But yeah, Pharasma's approach is a bit like preventing climate change and global warming, Necromancers are effectively burning fossil fuels in a funky cosmic way.

OK, but I would classify this as 'good.' Why is fighting climate change neutral?

I think we've exhausted the topic.

Offsetting your necromancy is easy! Just kill two or three rival necromancers.

Plot Hook: Powerful good necromancer needs to kill more evil necromancers for his offset this year. He's willing to pay for your Credits.

That said, I dont expect we'll find ethical Necromancy very common (if that's what's happenin). It kind of messes with some of the appeal of playing against type with dark powers if theres no "type" to play against--and if you could do all the things with ethical Necromancy as with classic void-soul-slavery, why would people resort to the latter in the first place?

In the USA, any Chocolate product that does not have some kind of "Slavery-free" or "fair trade" label was made by slave children.

All major chocolate companies missed the June 2005 date of the Harkin–Engel Protocol. The deadline was repeatedly rolled back. In 2021, The Economist reported that child slave labor in chocolate manufacturing had actually increased due to Covid19. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/08/23/the-number-of-child-lab ourers-has-increased-for-the-first-time-in-20-years (I'm a subscriber, I've read the article, and can provide quotes if you wish)

When this issue came to attention around 2001-2005, some comopanies tried to get chocolate labeled "Slavery-free" or "fair trade" into stores. The retail locations (Walmart, gas stations) quickly discovered that putting M&Ms next to "Slavery-Free" chocolate just made most customers skip buying anything.

According to wikipedia (I know), A Chocolate product needs only 11% of the cocoa to qualify as "fair trade" to use that label on packaging. Kit Kat in 2010 switched to fair trade, and at some point before 2020, quietly switched back.

AceofMoxen wrote:

Quote:

Many cursed items can’t be discarded. Some use magic to fuse to the wielder, making it impossible to remove the item, while others attune to their owner and return even if discarded. (This section uses the term “fuse” to describe either situation.)

If an Eidolon is cursed and dismissed, what happens to the item?

That was explained above in that they can't USE the item. In your quote is says "fuse to the wielder" and Wielding means "When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it." This means the eidolon never has to worry about that kind of item since they can never use/wield it. there are curses they activate simply by moving into an area or moving an abject, things an eidolon can actually do. They can also only attune to items with the eidolon trait, so no worries there either unless it's a cursed item with the eidolon trait.

The Stone of Weight fuses after being carried for one minute. https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=608

AceofMoxen wrote:

I'm still unclear on cursed items and eidolons.

Cursed depends on how the curse activates. If it's picking it up or opening it they can get the curse but if it's activating it then no.

Many cursed items can’t be discarded. Some use magic to fuse to the wielder, making it impossible to remove the item, while others attune to their owner and return even if discarded. (This section uses the term “fuse” to describe either situation.)

If an Eidolon is cursed and dismissed, what happens to the item?

AceofMoxen wrote:

Given the above, I am confused that a key is an item, and a doorknob is an item, but the eidolon can use one and not the other to preform the same action.

The issue is that the magic doorknob isn't being used as a magic item or an independent item at all: the normal use of the Phantasmal Doorknob is as a spellheart attached to armor/weapons. In your question, you tried to sidestep it but it becomes part of the door instead of its own item you activate/use in your example: you are opening the door, not Activating the knob and that is the difference IMO.

There is a difference between holding and using an item for instance: the same applies here. you can hold a two handed sword in one hand, you just can't swing it. For the knob, you can turn it to open the door, but you can use it as a spellheart. Being unable to use doesn't mean you can't Interact with it.

Alright, how about a ladder? It's equipment, not terrain. https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2729 So eidolon can carry a ladder, but can it set one up? Or use it? Can it unfold a folding ladder? https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1396

I'm sorry. I opened this, took a nap and responded to graystone without seeing your thoughts, Trip.H. Your solution makes a lot of sense, and I think I will apply it going forward.

I'm still unclear on cursed items and eidolons.

Given the above, I am confused that a key is an item, and a doorknob is an item, but the eidolon can use one and not the other to preform the same action.