Alyran's page

"Fort save or die" (or anything else for that matter) has nothing to do with a death effect unless it has the Death trait. Death effects aren't simply those that might kill you, but those linked to Death itself, i.e. Vampiric Touch which doesn't even have a death consequence, but is tied to stealing life force.

Master Strike (Rogue 19) or Assassinate (Assassin 12) are examples of effects that can insta-kill, but lack the Death trait. I'd put the critical hit deck's ability in that grouping unless there were unusual circumstances, but all the unusual circumstances I can think of for now are effects undead are immune to for other reasons anyway.

I just want to note here that Vampiric Touch does have a death consequence through the Death trait itself. The Death trait makes it so that if Vampiric Touch drops you to 0HP, you are killed immediately. Same for any Death traited effect.

Malk_Content wrote:

Harles wrote:

Foundry has the PDF importer (which I think works great), but I'm hesitant to use it because you need to create your own server (and I'm not techie enough to do that),

Just to note, no you do not need to create your own server. I run my weekly games with Foundry and haven't done any server jiggery pokery. There is an invite button in game, I sent that to my friends and they connect.

That does require a paid service doesn't it? Or a friend to host the server for you?

Nope, you can use your computer as the server. Worst you might have to do is use their short tutorial on port forwarding.

ABP gives you an item bonus to AC if I'm not mistaken (I would check but the archives are ridiculously slow right now). So that would simply not stack with mage armor or the bracers.

The whole point of ABP is not needing to invest recources into items like the bracers. Mage armor can still provide a higher bonus at some levels, like at character level 1-4 when the ABP doesn't yet give you an AC bonus.

ABP gives a potency bonus to AC which is why regular armors still function at all and why I'm confused.

Do the AC bonuses of Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor function while using Automatic Bonus Progression? (I know the save bonus wouldn't)

It seems to me like it might be unbalancing in favor of high DEX casters and the like, since they receive the bonus to AC from ABP. However, Mage Armor and the Bracers also limit DEX-to-AC in the same way base armors do. So I'm unsure if they are supposed to replace the rune effects for AC (in which case they stop functioning) or if they are supposed to apply like baseline armors and explorer's clothing.

I don't want to take these tools away from my players without due diligence.

This is disengenuous. Combats are designed to last 3 to 4 rounds.

I don't have a horse in this race, but citation needed. My players are quite good at this game and our combats are regularly 7+ rounds unless they get real lucky on initiative, crits AND saves. Or if it's a steamroll combat to make them feel powerful, but that's a different thing entirely.

Super campaign dependent and definitely a conversation that should occur in session 0 so that players have an idea of what they should or shouldn't invest in, proficiency-wise.

Fast-paced campaigns just might not have time for crafting all the time or at all. Slower campaigns might use it a lot, with months or years of downtime every so often. Age of Ashes (the only AP I've run so far) leaves a lot of room for long periods of downtime, at least between books.

Edit to elaborate: What I usually do is ask what my players want to do in downtime, figure out the longest activity or combination of activities and just add 3-5 days to that to figure out the cutoff. You don't want to leave it too nebulous or your players will waffle around for 3 sessions.

Absolutely. Property runes are how you keep weapons/armor fun and interesting. And the game runs fine doing it that way.

dirtypool wrote:

I love the revealed covers for SoM and GaG, and Book of the Dead I think creates a great supplement forumla with themed playable options coupled with new monsters to use as antagonists.

I cannot emphasize this enough: it's G&G, not GaG. I made a big deal about that ampersand and played out some of my social capital at the company to make sure the book was G&G and not GaG. Help me help you not be the person asking to play an option from the involuntary pre-vomit reflex book, lol!

Agreed that that particular shortening is a bit...not good. Is GnG acceptable as well however?

Michael Sayre wrote:

There are a total of 62 firearms and supporting weapons in Guns & Gears, including all the magical firearms but not including any of the siege engines or the non-firearm gears weapons. All of the traits used for all of those firearm weapons are-

Michael Sayre wrote:

Thrown

I have to admit, I'm quite curious on the firearm that you have to throw. ;)

Hmmm, maybe....

Nothing stops you from getting a large shield boss or a large gauntlet.

PF2e is sort of based on letting gamemasters make common sense decisions rather than basing rules on "RAW."

Which I tend to appreciate as it leads to much less of players wielding rules as a cudgel against the GM to allow some frankly absurd nonsense to occur due to a technicality.

About my only con is that people can't just logon to fiddle with characters, but the ease of levelling in Pathfinder and Foundry itself makes that close to moot.

Actually if you follow the tutorial they have available for setting up an Oracle free cloud server, they can do just that. I went through the setup and its been fantastic and is free for as long as Oracle offers free server systems (which shows no signs of changing).

Hey there. A friend of mine and I were talking about the Champion class in 2e, and he wanted to know if it was possible for there to be a variant of Champion for the other alignments, not just on the Good portion of the Good/Evil axis. I'm asking for him here, mainly because I don't know if it's been answered before, so I thought I'd bring it up to you all. :)

Evil champions currently exist as well. You can see them here Link

Neutral champions don't currently exist (and may not ever, depending on if they can find a good path for them.) Some homebrews exist for them I think?

Nefreet wrote:

We know the intent, though, even if it's not explicitly stated in a book anywhere: "the core expectation if no one in the team has Crafting is that you pay the 5 sp to have a skilled hireling perform the task."

i mean that has to do with the crafting skill, the use of which was never in doubt, it has nothing to do with he feat "magical crafting"

It's also specific to PFS play, which has very different base assumptions than most home games.

The question was "Hey @Mark Seifter, if I wanna fire adamantine arrows from a +2 bow, do the adamantine arrows need to be standard-grade?" Here is the link to the post.

I do appreciate the link, thank you.

That discord conversation that was just quoted was fresh in my mind when I replied to this thread originally, but let's please remember that comments made on Arcane Mark aren't official answers and shouldn't be cited as such, and at least include some disclaimer to that effect.

And if used as an argument, perhaps they should include the exact question he is responding to. Context is important, even if the answer might seem to have a clear attached question.

Anything not directly contradicted/progressed by 2e books or progressed forward by Adventure Paths is generally considered still canon as far as I know. So you should be good to use any of your old PF1 material.

There's already an optional rule to add 4 degrees of success to martials: critical hit/fumble decks.

And they do a fun job of it, most of the time.

Anything beyond that is more likely to bog down the game with having to remember more things, which is the opposite of why I tend to pick martials. My numbers and actions do their thing, double their thing, or they just don't do their thing.

Yeah, an interesting quirk I discovered mid-encounter was that if a Death tagged spell deals enough damage to drop a player to 0, they still just die. Phantasmal killer can kill a PC outright even if they manage to hero point the saving throw, because anything less than a critical success on the save deals damage. My player and I were both caught by surprise by his sudden demise.

I think it wouldn't work. Dispel magic doesn't target the target of Spell Immunity. Also, this would functionally disable Dispel Magic against Spell Immunity as well, which doesn't feel correct.

The problem is PF has a lot more classes than the base fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric. Yes I understand things get unlocked with Kickstarter and their "you have to get it to the next level of unlock to know what class gets unlocked next" is not very helpful either :)

The concept is nice though :)

Yeah I was pretty excited by the previous announcements, but maybe I didn't pay enough attention. I had it in my head they'd have them for more classes. Was really looking forward to Druid and Monk books.

shroudb wrote:

technically, the skill feat gets lost.

going by the book, only the actual skills from the background allow to select a replacement.

THAT said, i've never seen a GM not allowing another, thematic for the background, skill feat to be chosen.

Afterall, you can very well go for "custom background" and (with GM allowance ofc) make somethign really similar to the concept you want to play without having clashing mechanical aspects.

Thanks for the response.

I am the GM, I am just learning the game and thought to try the character creation with a few character ideas, just to see how it looks like. In my head, I would usually allow the selection of a different skill if it is preovided by an Ancestry feat, and by a background and then the class.

But to make it a little easier to track things (since all at the table are new to PF2 as well), I was thinking that if this case arised, I would recommend to select a different background, just so it is easier to understand for everyone where the different feats and abilities came from.

That's a great way to go about it for players new to the game. Once you all get a bit of experience under your belts, it might be worth trying out the deep backgrounds method found in the Gamemastery Guide. It allows a much more thorough customization of backgrounds and the bonuses they provide. However, it isn't something to throw at first time players who might find character creation complicated enough as is (depending on if they've ever played other TTRPGs or not).

I know it's silly, but is there anything in the RAW that actually indicates you can't be Hidden from yourself?

"While you’re hidden from a creature, that creature knows the space you’re in but can’t tell precisely where you are."

Unless disoriented somehow, you know precisely where you are.

It's a nice spell, but other than the extra benefit against undead and outsiders, it's not really different from slow.

It does offer a version of Slow on the divine list. That's not nothing, at least. Has a higher range. Targets Will. I think it's different enough. Maybe not enough to be an entire spell level higher, but it's a cool option.

Edit: Oh, and it's necromancy instead of transmutation. Which, while not big mechanically, can be a big deal on a character level.

Wow- Most of the posters responding to Xenocrat label him mentally incompetent.

Actually, with context, Xenocrat opened that can of worms by implying that everyone who disagreed with him/didn't find memorizing clothing easy is mentally incompetent.

Now, that doesn't really excuse the retaliations of everyone - we should be above that whenever possible. But Xenocrat insulted a large swath of posters in one go and this has colored every potentially positive response since as bleeding with sarcasm. That's not a fair way to treat posters that simply disagree.

If I'm wearing my bandolier, I can already retrieve a toolset and use it as a single action. The bandolier rule covering single-action retrieval and use is only applied to such sets.

Sure, but let's say you want to use 2 potions. Valet lets you do that in one turn. 1 action to command, handed a potion 1 action drink, handed a second potion 3rd action drink.

Without it you could only draw two potions (1 action each) and then drink 1.

It's just a fun roleplay thing for a witch, maybe. Don't they always change from crone to maiden, for some deception?

More weird spells please!

Ditto this. I love niche, mostly-for-RP spells.

my question would be what causes you to lose your spell-casting?

rules aside you need a little bit of common sense when ruling on stuff

you don't become unable to cast spells if you shape-shift into a elf or an orc

you don't become unable to cast spells if you maker yourself larger with a spell

you don't become unable to cast spells if you get claws or if you turn your hands into tentacles

spells that change the shape of your mouth don't make you lose spell casting etc...

is there any spell that turns you into a speaking creature but takes away your ability to speak?

so what would cause you to lose spells?

But the spells being talked about explicitly change you into a 'battle form'. Something that those other spells (enlarge, whatever alter self is called now, etc.) do not. And battle forms are what have the no casting restriction. So unfortunately, all of your common sense examples are actually allowed by the rules while casting (most spells) in dragon form is not (at least not as written).

Well they're pretty screwed given the stipulations of the ritual. They can't leave unless an external force destroys the prison. So they'd need to be able to convince a (probably high level) something to go through the act of destroying the prison for them. There is otherwise no escape for the target. What level is the party?

Edit: Also, honestly I'd let them starve. You don't screw with a deck of many things unless you can face the consequences. :P Otherwise, what's the point of having bad stuff in the deck.

It can be used as many times as you have available focus points.

Even if they did interact, you're already targeting all of the creatures in range with Fast Channel. So there would be no gain regardless.

Yeah I don't see one as better or worse than the other. They don't compete for the same space at all, given that one is a passive attaching to the feint action and the other is a reaction. You can use both. And if your ability to Feint is strong enough, it's potentially stronger in many cases than nimble dodge.

thenobledrake wrote:

Blind activation hasn't even been the lore of what is happening when identify spells or mechanics are used. Back in AD&D the identify spell had the caster spend the day in magically induced trance trying to resonate with the magic of an item in order to figure out what it did - that's far more like sleeping snuggled up to it than it is pointing it at a volunteer and pushing a (typically non-existent) button.

That sounds like 2E. I guess it's my fault for not specifying 1E.

It's true that the spell existed in 1E, but did anyone at low level ever cast it? You had do it within hours of discovering the item, and then rest 1+ days after. Fine if you can teleport in and out of dungeons, but that's unrealistic for low levels. You also had to wear/wield it normally while casting, and bear the consquences of that.

Are you talking about 1e PF or 1e DnD? Because that is definitely not how identify worked in 1e Pathfinder.

This is where Heightening spells comes into play. If you prepare or cast Charm in a 2nd level slot, it now has full effect on creatures up to level 4; at 3rd, up to level 6; etc.

Also, this trait is important because of how powerful the effects of these spells are and this game wants a single higher-level enemy to actually act as a threat. Even a single round of blindness is basically a death for any enemy that doesn't have a reliable, unaimed AoE.

And further, DCs for 1st level spells are the same as your DCs for 9th level spells. So it isn't any easier to make the save against a 1st level Charm spell. This is another reason that trait exists.

Most of the hexes are fine, primarily because they're 1 action. I think only one of the cantrip hexes is actually bad (Wilding Word), the rest are all valid because of the ability to use them and another spell in the same turn.

I know it isn't great overall, but I actually really like Wilding Word. It's really thematic and sickened is incredibly powerful. Also I would imagine that for at least most animals and fungi that Will is a low save for them. Maybe a lot of plants too, but there's more intelligent plants.

I think that's where the second option is really important. For anything where I don't think they would back down for that type of mental stimulus (or literally can't receive mental stimulus), I would make it trigger the secondary effect of resistance and enfeebled.

Though out of your list I would argue that non-mindless undead/constructs would absolutely be affected and animals could probably be subject to visions that would make them flinch. Mindless things I would go only the second effect.

AH got it, Damage is 10, One gets 10, the crit'ed one get 20?

Yup, that's it! :)

Alyran wrote:

Well, per the CRB, critical damage isn't rolled; it is just the normal damage x2. So that solves that problem.

Are you saying they both get the same damage and both of them get it x2?

So if only ONE of them has a critical scored against them they BOTH cop it?

No, I'm saying you only roll the dice once. So say you roll a crit on one and a hit on the other. You would roll your normal damage and apply that to the hit and double that to the crit.

To expand a little bit, if this was just a normal Strike against a single target and you roll a crit, you would roll normal damage and then double it. You don't roll twice the dice.

Key worlds here are: "until its requirements (if any) are violated,"

So if stance requires to use only specified strike, and you pull out crossbow and shoot - you violate a stance and thus exit from it.

This is definitely how I would rule it. However, I don't believe the part about what strikes you can make is actually listed as a requirement in the requirements section and is more of an effect of the feat.

It doesn't feel any stronger than Retributive strike or Liberating Step to me. Those both prevent a ton of damage and one deals damage and the other provides positioning advantages.

Iron Command doesn't prevent damage. And using that level 1 feat, while more damage over time, does delay the damage to the target potentially giving it an extra turn to cause problems.

Of the 6 champion reactions so far, Selfish Shield is the only one I think might be a touch underpowered, but I'm not always sure how to value evil/negative aligned damage.

Something else too,

Quote:

Swipe : You make a wide, arcing swing. Make a single melee Strike and compare the attack roll result to the ACs of up to two foes.

What happens if the two foes have two different ACs One Hit is a crit, the other isnt.

You roll only ONE damage. Which one? The Crit damage or the Normal Damage?

Well, per the CRB, critical damage isn't rolled; it is just the normal damage x2. So that solves that problem.

I mean, even against higher level opponents you can fish for a crit fail which turns into a fail. Then you still have a non-hostile, friendly creature instead of a straight enemy.

Is it cheaper to apply runes to the nails and not buy handwraps if you plan to only ever use nails?

Well, I tend to be a very permissive GM and let weird things run abound. One of my players next characters is probably going to be a half-elf goblin because he wanted a cute anime goblin and, well...

So I'd let most of this slide if someone really wanted it. I don't find Ancient elf all that strong regardless and I use the Free Archetype rule variant.

However, all of this comes down to whatever your GM envisions for the game. And if you're playing in Society, this'll simply never happen.

I heard you had to be trying to make a bad character in this edition to end up with one. Did I hear wrong?

Could it just have been a series of bad rolls?

Sarcasm does not become you, nor is it endearing.

I would have it cost the price of a scroll for that spell + the base Learn a Spell material price. That's essentially what they would pay otherwise and it saves the teaching caster time instead of needing to actually make a scroll (netting the teacher more money per time).

thenobledrake wrote:

Golem Antimagic says this: "Harmed By Any magic of this type that targets the golem causes it to take the listed amount of damage (this damage has no type) instead of the usual effect."

I've added the italic to emphasize the part which says, functionally "Once you have picked the golem as a target, ignore everything else the spell actually says - it takes damage instead" - it doesn't mention "if it hits" or "if it fails the save" or that there's a basic save if that's what the spell normally would do and an all-or-nothing save if it wouldn't, and the reason why it doesn't cover any of that information is because the details of spell stop mattering at "can you target the golem with it?"

You don't get the "crit fail your attack, but still hit" scenario because you don't roll any attack roll.

And yes, it is absolutely by design that having the right tool(s) will make taking the golem down easy - that's because it's also very hard to take the golem down without said tools. Pick any golem and imagine fighting it with a party that doesn't have any adamantine weapons and also can't trigger the harmed by, slowed by, or vulnerable to portions of that golem's antimagic. It'd be a very rough fight.

Then why does the stat block even mention Persistent Damage? Unless I've missed something you have to crit to apply that with any spell.

Acid Arrow

Brew Bird wrote:

Risk/reward mechanics are always going to be contentious. They're hard to balance as a developer, and every player is going to have a different idea of what a "fair trade" is when it comes to taking a penalty in exchange for a bonus.

This is true, but there's ways to approach it that makes it work.

The TLDR is that the worst possible result has to make the player go "eh, I can work with that" instead of "and now I'm f*cked" as well as keeping the difference between "worst possible" and "best possible" pretty narrow.

These top 2 to 4 videos from Extra Credits cover the topic well. Its in the context of PvP games like Hearthstone, but the idea applies to single player and coop games just as well.

I disagree. In single player and co-op games, options that are kind of all-or-nothing or all-or-dead can be a lot of fun and don't at all need to hit the same balance notes as PvP. Mostly because in a game like this you have choices. Most of the oracle curses aren't that degree of terrible with the possible exception of Life. And even then, that is mostly just going to cause a (rather extreme) change to how you approach fights.

If you don't like those options as a player, don't engage with them. But others *raises hand emphatically* love those kinds of abilities that give bonuses but cause harsh, game-changing restrictions on how you play. If I ever get the chance to play PF2 instead of DM it, Life oracle will be close to the top of my list of must-plays.

ABP isn't something I have experience with but if you do this you will need to keep in mind that you'll have to adjust the Treasure Rewards by nerfing them by something like 50% minimum because they will no longer have the most important Coin-Sink in the game in the form of improving their Weapons and Armor.

On this point specifically, I haven't actually found much need to adjust for the most part. Since ABP removes +x, striking, and resilient from weapons and armor, a huge amount of that extra gold just doesn't exist anymore since they don't have as many expensive magical items to sell off.

Not a fan of the none human rule for this one especially since modules come out so infrequently.

I mean, you can just ignore it. It's not computer code.

So you can retain invisibility if you aren't aware of the harm you're causing? Interesting...

I love that video. I wore the pyro goggles in-game for the rest of the time I played it.