Zorek

Amaranthine Witch's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 344 posts (448 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 9 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 344 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Dotting. My first instinct is to submit a bard, but I'll see what I put together after work.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I figure the "nine out of ten Maguses spent their childhoods in Minkai perfecting their shocking grasp" problem was not exactly unique to traits. I mean, how many Paladins were Fey Foundlings?

Mostly I think we run the risk of "this unusual character detail is optimal and thus way overrepresented" in this edition with heritages. During the playtest there was a period where being a Svirfneblin or "Cave Elf" was far and away the strongest choice for those ancestries (because darkvision), which hopefully has been addressed.

I was looking as an Oradin to be a support character in a group that I had previously only guested in . But dropped the idea because I could not rationalise a story where I was a fey foundling, cursed by a deity that grants life magic and trained as a paladin in a LG tradition

It all didn’t hang together and was a series of very effective rules combinations

*

Shocking grasp magus with dervish dance was just a problem in an of itself. Too many no brainier options all for one class

I really hope there aren’t too many obvious options in the 2E meta

Non-sequitur but the Oradin situation sounds like it would work for the Green Mother of the Eldest.

The Green Mother is evil, so no paladins for her. Magdh would work though, she is LN and has fate in her purview.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
They're on Myspace. Oh, wait, I almost forgot, you don't do social media. Well, tough luck.
What were you trying to achieve with this post?

Well, lately he's been making posts like this in other threads too. I've taken to ignoring him.

Also, for future reference, what option do we use when reporting overly sarcastic, derailing posts that add nothing to the thread?

Like John's? 'Breaks other guidelines'.

Also, 'lately'? How long have you been around here?

No, like Gorbacz's. He was always a sarcastic person, but lately he seems to have amped it up. Going into a thread that discusses what prestige classes would you like ported and how and making an inane comment about what are those is clearly a baiting post to ignite flaming.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Way to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I don't even like that blindfold and wouldn't even use it (it's only interesting to me because it gives basically a 1/encounter spell and I'd like to see what other items they've got in that design space).

I asked for precise language in rules going forward, because I've had players badger me incessantly before over any ambiguity on the rules (curiously, if the rules said no they didn't mind). I can just hear one of their voices going: "But I'm a brave dwarf", "In the last dungeon there were many fear effects, I shouldn't be fazed by this anymore"... after I'd decided it was 6 days. If it said 6-8 they would say nothing.

Also, for me it's only personal preference (I don't play with those people anymore), as I like my magic to have the mystery on the why, not on the how. If the designers feel it's better this way I'll shrug, keep buying books and move on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
They're on Myspace. Oh, wait, I almost forgot, you don't do social media. Well, tough luck.
What were you trying to achieve with this post?

Well, lately he's been making posts like this in other threads too. I've taken to ignoring him.

Also, for future reference, what option do we use when reporting overly sarcastic, derailing posts that add nothing to the thread?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Aiden2018 wrote:
A week is seven days. A "work week" is five days. I have never heard of an eight day week; I'm almost certain that's not a thing.

If it takes seven days it should say a week, not about a week.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Could we not have vague language in rules text going forward?
The dread blindfold says your allies become immune to it after about a week. How long is that? 5 days? 8 days?

As for Storm Flash I like the absorbing ability, and I hope many more abilities of that style end up on the books. 1/day spell use will more likely than not ending up unused. At my table there's a nearly paranoid need to save 1/day abilities to use at the crucial moment, which is why I was happy to read that PF2 would have less of those abilities.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Love the detailed look over character creation and of the monk stances. Don't love that ki powers have verbal components.

Verbal is the least restrictive component type, and kiais are a thing in martial arts, so it works for me.

Maybe it's because in the movies I base my monks around the fight scenes are basically silent, with the sound of the clothes and the strikes.

Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Sorry, but I still can't get over the fact that you got rid of half-elf and half-orc as ancestries (I'm warming up to goblins in core).
Heritage works fine for this, for me anyway. It makes the difference largely aesthetic in many ways.

You lose an option if you go half-elf/orc. And if you want a true heritage, you lose an ancestry feat. Also aesthetics matter. Why do you have to be human to be half-elf? Why not a half-human heritage you can apply to elves and orcs? (Which would work similarly to how planar heritages are supposed to work). I don't know... It just feels wrong to me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Love the detailed look over character creation and of the monk stances. Don't love that ki powers have verbal components.

Sorry, but I still can't get over the fact that you got rid of half-elf and half-orc as ancestries (I'm warming up to goblins in core).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Huh. Level +2 is just the trained bonus from 1E. Nice evolution there.
That's a really interesting insight, and potentially a good argument to explain the system to PF1 players.

Class skills in 1E give +3 though. Or is there some other bonus I'm not aware of?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bellona wrote:

No "Continuing the Campaign" article? This worries me a bit.

On the other hand, if the PCs are already dead (IIRC from Book 1 - it's been a while since I skimmed it) and the plot-line is finished in Book 6, then the PCs can go to their well-earned rest in the Outer Planes. That angry catrina psychopomp can finally pigeon-hole them the way that she wanted to do back in Book 1. :)

And there could be enough world-changing stuff going on by the end of Book 6 that it doesn't make sense to continue the campaign (unless one does that with new/different characters).

Book 5 spoiler:
If you read module five, the canon is that the PCs will attempt to redirect and amplify the Radiant Fire with their obols to destroy Tar-Baphon, dying in the process (while also destroying their souls).

I think that would somewhat obviate the need for a continuing the campaign article.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Am I the only one that dislikes nearly all of this?

It's funny, because when the whole rigmarole with PF2E started I was skeptical of the rules and hopeful for the setting, and as time has gone one it has flipped in that I pretty much like all we see of the rules stuff and find the new Golarion status quo meh.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
willuwontu wrote:


Bonus, cleric domain slots are also given out.

Quote:
A cleric gains one domain spell slot for each level of cleric spell she can cast, from 1st on up.
I'm unsure of whether they'd get the actual spells from their domains, but the NPC Codex seems to indicate that they do.

They do get them, as the cleric text says

Domains wrote:
A cleric gains one domain spell slot for each level of cleric spell she can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a cleric can prepare one of the spells from her two domains in that slot.

And if you look at the domain spells, unlike the witch patron, sorcerer bloodline and oracle mystery spells, they are listed by spell level (not class level). So, as you get the slots, you can prepare the domain spell of that level.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MrCharisma wrote:
I've always seen that interpreted that you don't add the specialisation slots. The additional slots are gained from your Arcane School class feature and that class feature isn't progressed by Mystic Theurge.

It doesn't matter that Arcane School isn't progressed. The ability only cares what level of spells you can cast.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Derklord wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
If they have an arcane school specialization, they also get an additional spell slot for each level, but only for spells of that school.
That's not true. The school spell slots are granted not by the "Spells" class feature, but by the "Arcane School" class feature, which is definitely not advanced by the prestige class. Confer these the FAQs.

They do get the specialization slots. The fact that they gain them from arcane school has no bearing on its function:

Arcane School wrote:

A wizard can choose to specialize in one school of magic, gaining additional spells and powers based on that school. This choice must be made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed. A wizard that does not select a school receives the universalist school instead.

A wizard that chooses to specialize in one school of magic must select two other schools as his opposition schools, representing knowledge sacrificed in one area of arcane lore to gain mastery in another. A wizard who prepares spells from his opposition schools must use two spell slots of that level to prepare the spell. For example, a wizard with evocation as an opposition school must expend two of his available 3rd-level spell slots to prepare a fireball. In addition, a specialist takes a –4 penalty on any skill checks made when crafting a magic item that has a spell from one of his opposition schools as a prerequisite. A universalist wizard can prepare spells from any school without restriction.

Each arcane school gives the wizard a number of school powers. In addition, specialist wizards receive an additional spell slot of each spell level he can cast, from 1st on up. Each day, a wizard can prepare a spell from his specialty school in that slot. This spell must be in the wizard's spellbook. A wizard can select a spell modified by a metamagic feat to prepare in his school slot, but it uses up a higher-level spell slot. Wizards with the universalist school do not receive a school slot.

The ability mentions no specific level they get the extra spell slots, unlike the FAQs you linked, which are for learning spells at specific class levels.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Blood kineticist capstone, heavens mystery final revelation, time mystery final revelation, solar mystery final revelation, whimsy mystery final revelation (if you rule that fey are immortal), enlightened philosopher oracle capstone, heavens spirit manifestation.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The Paizo boards have the nasty habit of adding a space on links, breaking them. The link below should work.

The Bride of Hell


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The feeling I'm getting with this AP (and some recent ones), and I didn't get with for example Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Kingmaker or Reign of Winter is that they're the NPCs stories and the PCs are only incidental to them. And honestly, may have worked better as novels.

To be fair though, I played Rise and DMd Curse, and I haven't reread Kingmaker or Reign in a while so that may skew my perception.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The fact that it says human (half-orc) on the sheet reminds me of one of the things I don't really like about PF2.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Arueshalae, I suppose. Also, isn't there a redeemable shadow librarian in this AP?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Congratulations to the chosen and have fun!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Samnell, are you familiar with Legendary Games version of the shifter, Legendary Shifters? If so, could we use it?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I can't download my pdf directly from the product page, the bottom banner is blocking the tab.

I'm on Chrome version 70.0.3538.67

Screenshot


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

What I'd like to know is since when places past the edge of the Great Beyond (where Dou-Bral went) is the same as the dark places between the stars (the Dark Tapestry).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Delay wrote:
masda_gib wrote:
The only case where that would affect something is when a caster doesn't choose 10th level spells. Or am I missing something?
Based on the rule, I don't believe this even matters. A 19th or 20th level character would still be able to cast cantrips heightened to the 10th spell level regardless of whether or not they can cast a 10th level spell.

I think, based on the rules, that you only get 10th level cantrips if you take the feat to cast 10th level spells or your cantrips scale to half your level rounded up.

What makes this weird though is that pure casters may get 10th level cantrips a level later than multiclass or non casters (19th vs 20th, when you can take the feat) or not at all if they don't take the feat to cast 10th level spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

When you do not have spells, your cantrips scale to half your character level rounded up. Wizard dedication and Cleric dedication grant you cantrips but not spells, so the cantrips follow this rule.

When you have spells, your cantrips scale to the highest level spell you can cast (which is half your character level rounded up for all casters). When you take basic wizard spellcasting or basic cleirc spellcasting the highest level spell you can cast is less than half your level rounded up, so your cantrips would lose power by taking these feats. That's why they made explicit that your cantrips still scale as if you had no spells instead of getting downgraded.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
I like this adventure, although I have a question. In the adventure, Captain Julit Freson is a man, while in the Roderic's Cove article Captain Julit Freson is a woman, which one is correct?
She's a woman. The adventure has a typo.
Considering they use he 3 times and him once and describe her as the son of Caralee Freson I wouldn't say it's a typo, that's why I was so confused.

I can't edit anymore, so sorry for the double post. I forgot to thank you James for the swift response.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
I like this adventure, although I have a question. In the adventure, Captain Julit Freson is a man, while in the Roderic's Cove article Captain Julit Freson is a woman, which one is correct?
She's a woman. The adventure has a typo.

Considering they use he 3 times and him once and describe her as the son of Caralee Freson I wouldn't say it's a typo, that's why I was so confused.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Systems Agnostic wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:


But my preference is for a game where interesting problems are not trivialized as soon as you hit level 9, to the extent that stories have to be rewritten to accommodate it:

Week 1:
GM: "You must fight your way out of the slave-pits of Khazar..."
Wizard: "Teleport."

Week 2:
GM: "You have been hired to carry a valuable cargo across the perilous Sea of Scimitars..."
Wizard: "Teleport."

Week 3:
GM: "You must rescue the priestess from the city prison..."
Wizard: "Teleport."

Week 4:
GM: "It's a race against time! Can you bring the priestess to the temple in time to prevent the ritual? The Bladehawks will be trying to thwart you at every step!"
Wizard: "Teleport."

Week 5:
GM: "You must cross the Plains of Desolation and cast the evil artefact into the Bottomless Pit."
Wizard: "Teleport."

Week 6+:
GM: "There is a dungeon full of monsters. You must kill them all."
Wizard: "Finally, a challenge worthy of my skills!"

An excellent set of examples, Downie. I am grateful for the OP's detailed breakdown, but it really comes off as complaining about a non-issue, or a rich person complaining about estate taxes.

I see you didn't even bother to read the replies to this post before attacking magnuskun for daring to be concerned Paizo is overnerfing a part of the game he and many others enjoy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I like this adventure, although I have a question. In the adventure, Captain Julit Freson is a man, while in the Roderic's Cove article Captain Julit Freson is a woman, which one is correct?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:

I'll put this here because it's not important but kinda want to bring it up.

Aeon Stones? Really? Oh come on, why name change it? Game is ruined, PF dead let's go play something else.

Okay that was hyperbole but really why the swap? Is it because Ioun Stones is for DnD and we want to avoid copyright issues/fights?

Cause it might be due to Pathfinder using it better or more but I always thought of Ioun Stones as a Paizo/PF thing.

Also, are the Ioun Imperative and the Knights of the Ioun Star going to change names too?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Identifying a spell being cast is now a feat.
That seems...unfortunate.

It gets worse though, you have to spend a reaction to do so, and be trained in the skill relevant to the tradition (since spellcraft is gone).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Also, his divine realm is in Elysium?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I agree, the frame is fine, but the painting is really lacking.

Also, I don't like that they cut up things you could do in PF1 and make you buy them back with feats, but they are worse now, like the Recognize Spell reaction. In PF1 you only needed Spellcraft, and identifying a spell was no action at all. In PF2 you have to be trained in 4 skills, take a feat and spend a reaction if you want to know what spell someone is casting. I thought skill feats where supposed to be exiting and exemplify dedication to that skill. (This also makes the counterspelling reaction feat of the wizard really weird, both it and Recognize Spell are reactions, so it seems you magically know someone is casting a spell you have prepared).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Tender Tendrils wrote:
Almarane wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Almarane wrote:
DFAnton wrote:
I'm curious. Is there a canon explanation for humans being the blank slate race that can breed with damn near anything?

<science rant incoming>

I'd say it's a genetic thing. Humans tend to adapt pretty well to their environment : you live in the desert ? Bam, you're tanned to prevent from burning up. You have to do very physical things all the time, like running or climbing ? Bam, you get muscles. Some of those changes are inherited, but in the end, except for a few exception, every human can become tanned or muscled in a matter of weeks or years. Plus, we have a wide variety of "different humans" through the world depending on where they live, reflecting this adaptability even more.
Thanks to this genetic adaptability, humans' DNA can assimilate very varying other DNAs and "make it work", and you get some traits from both your parents. For exemple, in real life, if a Nigerian and a French person have a kid, maybe he will end up with a black complexion and an european face. Transposed to a fantasy world, humans' DNA would assimilate other races' DNA.
Other races would have a tougher time doing the same since they are all described as "not being able to adapt". Every dwarf has the same complexion and anatomy, same for elves,

I would say Elves in D&D have historically also had very adaptable DNA, what with the 9,000 elf types (wood, snow, desert, wild, jungle, subterranean, flying, amphibious, etc).
True. I only played 3.5 years ago and a bit of 5, and in core there weren't that much different elves (well, as I remember it at least). So yeah, maybe for D&D elves, it may be more of a cultural thing. Still, Pathfinder elves are all very similar.
What I don't get it how elves can be as adaptable as humans when it takes them like 90 years to reach maturity, and have such a prolonged lifespan. Humans go through many iterations a lot faster than elves.

"Unlike humans, elven diversity springs not from common ethnic lineages, but is a result of their species' adaptation to the various ecological habitats across the planet. Changes in elven physiology generally occur gradually over centuries, but even a single elf's appearance can change dramatically over the course of his or her lifetime when exposed to a new environment."

This is from the pathfinderwiki, and the Inner Sea World Guide says practically the same.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
gwynfrid wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
You misunderstand. It’s a tenth-level feat to make Wild Shape last for an hour, and that reduces the level by one to do it. Sorry I didn’t say that very clearly.

Welp. If that requires a 10th level feat then I guess I can forget about ever using it. I've never had a game go past 8th level and unless the relative power of spell levels significantly changes in PF2, I kinda doubt that'll change in PF2 for my group.

Which is kinda sad. "Wildshape at level 1" really doesn't have the same appeal when it just means a a minute or two.

Well, one of the major design goals of PF2 is to make the game more usable at high levels. I have high expectations about that, and the previews so far have shown a lot of steps in that the good direction (spells per day reduced, spell don't auto-scale with caster level, simplified action economy, less bonus types, 4 degrees of success sharply reducing save-or-die situations, etc). We'll have to see at the playtest how this goes.

And that is a noble goal, but sometimes it feels like instead of fixing high level play they are stretching the low levels.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
houser2112 wrote:
edduardco wrote:
houser2112 wrote:
Gyor wrote:
I'm more convinced them ever that Pathfinder should just go with a neovancian system like 5e, but like this system (3 actions, four power source spells lists, and so on), but with neovancian instead of vancian.
Gods, yes! I hate paleovancian with a passion. Paizo came out with the neovancian system before 5E did, I was sure that PF2 would use it for every caster. I guess I should have known better, considering how they implemented "psionics".
To be fair, neo-vancian was kinda off introduced in 3.5, Spell Points variant in Unearthed Arcana uses neo-vancian casting along side spell points.

Paizo (I think it may have been Jason who authored the post) has explicitly said that they don't like 3.5's point-based psionics, so I doubt they have too high an opinion of UA's point-based magic casting rules. In any case, that wasn't what I meant by neovancian.

MusicAddict wrote:
This terminology is so awkward and looks like gibberish to me, I'm not going to lie. But 5es implementation of scaling spells, and how they handled spells known and prepared is a terrible mess for me. And I rather like how wizard and sorcerer are laid out in 2e, and would like to see the return of arcanist style crafting, but not on the wizard as is.

I'm sorry, I thought people were already aware of these terms. Paleovancian = wizard/cleric/druid casting (specific spells in specific slots), neovancian = PF1 Arcanist/5E wizard/cleric/druid casting (prepare a small list for the day from a larger list, spontaneously cast from the small list, spontaneously heighten as needed).

I feel this is a more elegant compromise between paleovancian and full spontaneous. It's one of the few things I like about 5E.

No one remembers the poor Spirit Shaman from the Complete Divine, that retrieved his spells known each morning and casted as spontaneous druid.

EDIT: wow, ninjaed by 4 hours by Brock Landers. That's what I get for opening the thread before lunch and responding after without updating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Sorry DMW to hijack your discussion with magnuskn, but I think something to consider is that although PF2 Sorcerers have overall a little more spells known, PF1 Sorcerers have the advantage of automatic spell progression, and no and I don't think 2 Spontaneous Heightening is good enough compensation for that.
That is not all that PF2 sorcerers have going for them. While their damage may not increase automatically, their spell DCs do, keeping lower level spells relevant in a different yet similar way to caster level scaling.

Except that only (to be fair a very big only) DC scales with level. Not range or area of effect, not duration, not number of targets, not buff modifiers, or any other variable (if there are more).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

People keep saying it's great you can now choose what kind of spell list you want to cast from, and I'm really not seeing that.
What we get is an arbitrary and locked pairing of certain spell lists to certain bloodlines. No more arcane casters descended from demons or angels, all fey-related sorcerers casting primal spells (will there be charms, illusions, curses...?)...
If I wanted to cast arcane spells I played a sorcerer, and I could get whatever bloodline matched my character at the time for the origin of his powers, but now I only get a small selection of the bloodlines.

I really don't like heightening. I was already iffy about it for prepared casters and absolutely loathe it for spontaneous. One of the key points no one has told us (I think) is how often do we get to change our spell load-out. Any less than every new spell level would be the nail in the coffin for sorcerers for me.

Increased resonance pool seems a great boon at first (although with the new ability score raising method and the changes to stat boosting items I suspect it won't be that large of a difference), but you get the same wealth as a wizard, so the only area where I think it could be an advantage is in using non one shot items like staves and wands... that require either spell slots (staves) of which you have the same as the wizard or charges (staves and wands) of which you recharge the same as the wizard with staves or not at all with wands. (EDIT: All this setting aside that sorcerers will likely be worse at crafting spell related items than wizards and availability of exactly the right magic item)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Iomedae's herald is called the Hand of the Inheritor, but in Iomedae's deity stat block his name is given as the Hand of the Inquisitor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This module is full of people casting spells and spell-like abilities (mainly charms) stealthily, without any of the feats that make it possible.
Paizo made the rule that all spells have "manifestations", they really should stop putting that tactic in adventures.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Trichotome wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

It's because of the specific creature involved.

** spoiler omitted **

I was specifically looking at the creature's statblock searching for something like that... and still missed it. Sorry.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The Encircling Bower L9:
As far as I know, outsiders in the material plane are permanently killed, as long as they traveled there or are called, not summoned. The Placid One is really on the Material Plane, so he would be truly dead if killed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Well then, I'm thoroughly confused.

Also, I find concerning that this thread has been open longer than two weeks and we have no Paizo response.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I reread the adventure background of Crownfall and it does explicitly state about primogeniture:

"The law states that royal power can pass only to a male heir"


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
UnArcaneElection wrote:

It could be that different sources within Taldor itself would give you conflicting information. (Reportedly, White Wolf used to love to do this with the Old World of Darkness.)

If I'm buying a sourcebook for a country, I want to know how things are in that country, not how they are perceived to be by some sources and then contradicted by the lore in an adventure I also bought.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I said it already in another thread, but it bears repeating. In PF1 Harsk's main weapon is a crossbow. In PF2 he will use two-weapon fighting because it'll highlight better the strengths of the ranger. If crossbows were good, there'd be no need to make him change weapons.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperFaex wrote:
Ignotus Advenium wrote:
Getting esoteric here, but that opens the question of the weapon's enhancement bonus and gp value. If a chain spear is a double weapon (or treated like one), then the +1 chain spear in the NPC's gear entry might be worth ~4,000 gp (2,000 gp sell) — if both 'heads' are +1 (which jibes with the +9 and +9 in attack line). Or, only 1 'head' is enhanced to +1, the weapon is worth ~2,000 gp (1,000 gp sell), and the listed attack bonus(es) for one hand or the other should be 1 lower.
I would argue, that only one head ist magical since the first part does 1d6+3 damage and the second only 1d6+2. Keep in mind, that every magic weapon by default also is a masterwork. That would explain the +9 to hit on both sides.

If the second head was not magical, her offhand attack would deal 1d6+1 damage, as she doesn't have double slice.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TheFinish wrote:
KapaaIan wrote:

Every time I've read a master smith in a fantasy setting, they've had some kind of outside help. Whether that was a prayer that was answered despite them not being a cleric or some special scroll/item (e.g. the crafting of Aegis-Fang). Not saying examples don't exists, but I can't think of any :-)

But you are correct. I guess it would be more "Don't remove the balancing for not having the right things" e.g. don't level out the DCs if someone doesn't know the right spells.

The dwarfs in both the Dragon Age and Warhammer Fantasy Universe are basically the best crafters in their respective lands, be the item mundane or magical, and neither of them can work actual magic in any way, nor did they need to go ask magic users or gods for help.

If you want a human example, the Nibelungen in 7th Sea, the only guys that can work Dracheneisen (which is a magic super metal). Or the smith's in A Song of Ice and Fire that can work Valyrian Steel. Both of these are "magical" items, but the people making them are just mundane (if incredibly skilled) craftsmen.

As to the DCs, sure, though I'm not certain that will remain quite like that. Since Magical Crafter requires Expert in Crafting, I'd imagine you can forge more Magical things as your skill increases, and that's what will balance it more than craft DCs.

The Dragon Age example doesn't actually have any impact here. Items that are magical in nature are made of Lyrium (which is inherently magical), and dwarves are the only race with a resitance to Lyrium's nocive effects (nausea, dementia, memory loss, blistering of the skin...), and raw lyrium is fatal to mages.

Also, all of those examples mirror the use of special materials in Pathfinder (skymetals, elysian bronze, wyrwood, mindglass...).

That said, I'm totally in favor of magic item crafters not having to cast spells. I find it makes sense that there are more types of magic than just spells, and harnessing magical energies into items is cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Wizards can get the ability to counterspell... that sounds like counterspelling is going to be a wizard class feat, which would be pretty meh. What about the other casters?

1 to 50 of 344 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>