Barachiel Shina's page

Three years and no one knows huh? Man this sucks. Can't run it in the Realms at all I guess.

Super-Necro

How does Empower/Maximize work for spells like Threefold Sight and Embrace Destiny?

That "Answered in the FAQ" at the top of the thread suggests that someone at Paizo thought they'd put something in which addressed this. Dunno what though, I couldn't find anything.

VM, it could also be accessed by someone with a 1000 gp scroll, or by a samsaran cleric 7, or one of the other ways of getting off-list spells.

Paizo goofed up and didn't actually answer this in the FAQ, despite it stating it was answered.

I'm wondering if any developer cares enough now to give us what the FAQ response was right here. Anyway to contact them and let them know?

I'm going to do the Ask James Jacobs, cause if they care about their customers, old edition or new, they'd fix this for us. Paid for a book with this spell in it, fix the spell please!

This line from Prismatic Sphere is confusing:

Other creatures that attempt to attack you or pass through suffer the effects of each color, one at a time.

So does that mean if I, say, shoot an arrow at the prismatic sphere, I'll be struck by each color? Or only the color stopping ranged weapons? (Red)

Massive necro but this is literally the only question to this I could find on Google.

What about the part that says Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity).

This heavily implies you for the purpose of this feat only that you can make your AoO even on Total Defense since it’s considered a “situation you normally would be denied” an AoO?

So what's this about no longer publishing 1E content on Pathfinder Infinite?! Is that true?

Jeez. This is why I have come to HATE big TTRPG companies over the many many years.

First things were great with D&D until WotC axed 3rd Edition for that 4E garbage. They turn things around for 5E but not for the sake of the game, only for the sake of profit. The game itself has suffered immensely under its "For-Uber-Proft" model.

A ton of us voted with our money on Pathfinder because of ONE MAIN THING

IT WAS 3.5E COMPATIBLE!

We built you, Paizo, from the ground up to where you're at today. And many of us were hoping you wouldn't pull a "WotC 4E" on us at all.

BUT THEN YOU DID! With PF2e. Which, especially with Remaster, is absolutely light years away from what it originally was. From what we originally invested in. It's an entirely new game, system, lore, the whole thing.

It was depressing but us PF1e fans kept going. We looked towards 3rd parties since you wrongly chose not to continue to support Pathfinder 1e anymore, not even an annual "1st Edition Compendium" where you sell us a PDF with a ton of PF2e's content converted for us! (Sure would be F-ing cool to play an Inventor or a Wood Kineticist in PF1E!!!) You even had the audacity to write the entire Abomination Vaults AP for your RIVALS! For 5E?! That could've been converted to PF1E instead!

And now there's this new on no longer keeping PF1e content on Pathfinder Infinite?

I'm done investing in TTRPGs, hoping they keep the game the same and continue to support and enhance and adjust for decades to come, but instead they cash grab and create new edition after new edition after new edition.

Ton of PF2E monsters I can't use in my PF1e games that I sure wish was converted. Quite a number of spells, feats and classes we can't use. Definitely sucks we can't use a single AP for a PF1e game after Tyrant's Grasp.

Wish I was Elon-Rich so I could buy WotC and Paizo and fixed everything they ever messed up on and bring back what was great about those games again with forever new content.

Disagree.

The restriction of small animal is applied only to the beast shape I portion of the spell.

"At caster level 7, this spell functions as beast shape II." Period. No restrictions.

The spell is not overpowered. Whereas beastshape can normally be applied to familiars or casters, this spell is limited strictly to the familiars.

Shamans do not get access to beast shape; and witches involve their familiars in combat strictly at their peril; to lose their familiar is to lose spell casting.

Except a Designer (Mark) specifically said all versions have the Small size limitation.

Polymorph Familiar.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

...this is a big problem D&D and Pathfinder have ignored...

Nope... see profession skill & herbalism

RAW doesn't allow this so it is a big NO in the Rules forum.
RAW does allow your Home GM to grant +/- crcm(circumstance) modifiers but those are situational and up to your Home GM based on what the PCs do.

You want the Homebrew Forum to create these kind of rules for a Home Game.

I wasn't suggesting homebrew rules at all.

I was referencing why both D&D and Pathfinder never explored the cooking aspect of a fantasy game. I've bumped into several players all asking me the same question about how in-depth cooking skill is in these games, all of them inspired by various media and video games where using fantasy ingredients, a skilled culinarian can craft dishes that not only feed your hunger, but provide some sort of short-term benefit due to the supernatural elements of the ingredients used in the dish.

This has been bugging me for a long while, but I'm surprised not many mentioned this nor has Paizo ever mentioned why themselves.

Why can't Alchemist's make elixirs? Such as Elixir of Hiding, Elixir of Tumbling, Elixir of Love, etc.? They require the Craft Wondrous Item feat, but you'd figure Alchemists would have the exception of being able to make those just like they can make potions with Brew Potion.

Yet a few of their Extracts mention elixirs alongside potions (such as Spirit Share and Alchemical Allocation).

Feels like an oversight that's never been mentioned apparently.

The spell targets the caster of the spell and creates an aura that is centered on the caster. The saving throw is listed as will negates (harmless) and does not allow spell resistance. That means the only one who can make a save vs the spell is the caster. A harmless flag in a saving throw means that the spell usually has beneficial effects, but if the target of the spell wishes they can attempt a saving throw to resist it. In some cases, a character may be required to make a saving throw even vs a harmless spell. For Example, a barbarian using the Superstition rage power has to make a saving throw vs all spells.

Except the spell is a Personal spell, meaning there shouldn't even be a saving throw listed which makes it very confusing.

I don't know if the spell meant to give enemies a Will save to avoid the effects of the aura taking away their immunity or if the spell was meant to not be a Personal spell and was meant to be a Touch spell?

These designers never seem to double or triple check their work.

Me and my friends are looking to play in PFS games at our local shop, but we're not sure how it works now with this mess introducing "Remastered" content.

So, because the Kineticist or Inventor class isn't in Remastered, does that mean we can't choose to play one in PFS or can we?

Yeah I just found these maps recently, can someone provide a link to download them elsewhere?

Oh great. Here I enter hoping there was errata for this book and instead we’re left to dry Came here wondering what the Animus Shade damage was since it says d4, but the example monster entry says d6.

Diego Rossi wrote:

With an average of 31 hp of damage for each grapple and constrict and 32 for the bite, we get a total of 156 (without power attack). That is above the average damage of a CR 20 creature.

The other stuff is more or less ok for a CR 15 creature.
That has always been the problem with creatures with multiple grab attacks and constrict. If you limit constrict to 1/turn, it becomes a way more manageable 102 average, the norm for a CR 18 creature with high damage.

Some doubts:

1) When the tentacle grabs the target, it deals damage of tentacle (2D6+6), plus constriction damage (2D6+11). In the second round, would it also does damage of tentacle and constriction, or only the constriction?

2) If you mantain the grapple with the tentacle, can you bite the target or attack it with another tentacle?

Thank you.

I can't figure out why it's doing 2d6+11 damage when it should be doing 2d6+6 constrict damage.

Where's the other +5 coming from? (and it's not x1.5 cause that would have been 2d6+9)

Yeah a threadomancy happening but this is a big problem D&D and Pathfinder have ignored.

Why is it difficult to develop a cooking system similar to how the video games do it? An alternative to Craft (alchemy) but involving only food?

---A dish that grants +5 temporary hp
---A dish that grants +2 alchemical bonus to Constitution
---A drink that grants +2 alchemical bonus to Fortitude
---A meal that doubles your natural healing rate
---A dish that grants the benefits of a Rage spell, the caster level equal to as many ranks in the Profession (cook) skill used to make it?
---A banquet that is equivalent to a Heroes' Feast spell?

You can enhance this further where PCs can acquire various ingredients from animal/monster parts, to herbs, spices, etc. And rules for growing and harvesting your own ingredients.

Anyone seen "Delicious in Dungeon" anime?

Question on monsters with the Grab/Constrict special attacks.

Ok, so say a monster has Tentacle damage + grab.

It hits, makes the grapple check and succeeds.

A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each grapple combat maneuver check it succeeds at during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constrict and grapple damage (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).

So this is pretty clear. If it only has Grab, each successful grapple check to maintain the grapple does automatic damage of the type used for the grab. If it has constrict, it also does constrict damage. Pretty nasty, cool.

But now when we go to read about Grapple and Maintaining Grapples, we come to this section:

Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple):

DAMAGE: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So does this technically mean I can have a monster:

1) Attack with natural attack and deal damage plus Grab; succeed at Grapple and deal constrict damage
2) Next turn, maintain the Grapple
2A) Deal automatic damage with the natural attack made to grapple
2B) Deal constrict damage
2C) Choose the "Damage" option and inflict natural attack damage again

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Oh this would have been nice to run for my players...

If only we had a PF1e Version of this...

Shame. As usual.

At what point does one stop beating the dead horse?

PF2 launched four years ago, and has been doing quite well for itself. Paizo's been nothing but honest about how unfeasible straddling multiple rulesets is for their team. PF1 got a decade of content, more than any one table can ever hope to see all of - so why do this? Being publicly bitter and spiteful won't change the realities of their staffing or the interests of their writers, it just looks unflattering.

If the AP sounds interesting, buy it. If you don't want to convert it - something people do for both editions of Pathfinder and every other RPGs all the time - then don't. It's really that simple.

Your statement is completely invalid due to Paizo launching a 5th Edition conversion of Abomination Vaults...they promoted their RIVALS as opposed to converting that AP to PF1e to sell to actual Paizo customers and PF fans. Make it make sense.

As a GM I also see a big difference between something like protective luck/cackle/soothsayer and evil eye, slumber, scythe. Assume both combos are "unbalanced" and "trivializing encounters" at the table. In the first case the other players are being allowed to take down the enemy with impunity. In the second case the other players are being allowed to protect the witch and clean up the leftovers. Any guesses which one is more fun for the other players?

That's pretty much the list right there. Makes having BBEGs tough since they can be wiped out quick with a Witch buffing and debuffing like that very quickly. Protective Luck is the worst. I agree there's editing oversight and it's SUPPOSED to be only effective once per 24 hours on a target. The designer is crazy thinking it should be used unlimited. Seeing my PCs blow everything over with Protective Luck on is devastating.

I do think it's deeply funny that OP took a break from their troll posts about 1e being the best game ever made and 2e being a cruel sin to the loyal, massive 1e player base to also post about how 1e is a bad game. Truly covering all bases.

Not troll posts, I just simply don't prefer to reply to actual troll posts like yours.

Are you all forgetting about Handwraps for some reason? You seem to be forgetting about Handwraps....

There's also the fact Monks unarmed strikes count as both manufactured and natural weapons for the purposes of effects.

All these years and how Aid Another works to aid saving throws or not still isn't confirmed?

Also, is it automatic or does the ally need to make a check to aid another on a save, if it's official?

So it’s safe to assume that officially this OP hex should only work on a target once every 24 hours correct? Otherwise it should be banned.

Ok, I'm aware a creature called with a "Summoning" such as SM and SNA spells cannot be summoned again for 24 hours if "killed."

What happens if you do SM2 and summon from the SM1 list? You roll 1d3 and there's 3 of the same creature. If two die, then what?

I'm assuming if 2 of them die, you can never summon more than 1 on a 1d3 until 24 hours have passed. Ok, that part is easy to rule.

The hard part is what if you cast Summon Monster II three times to summon 1d3 Fiendish Dire Rats each, making it 3d3 Dire Rats? Now what?

Is there a rule you cannot cast a summoning more than once to summon the same type, that it has to be a different type every time? Or is it the first 3 dire rats killed locks you from summoning one again for 24 hours (and maybe makes the remaining ones disappear?)

The alignment restrictions on classes in 1e were stupid, and I am so glad it didn’t carry over to 2e

The alignment restrictions were put in place because of what Paizo, or WoTC with old dnd editions, thought a member of a class should be like

Monks had to be lawful because of the thought they were following codes and were either the obedient student type or the wise master type. Except characters like Goku from DBZ or even Wukong from Chinese mythology show that monk types didn’t have to be lawful and can be chaotic. So you can’t play the ambitious free spirited traveling young monk type.

Barbarians having to be chaotic didn’t make sense. I imagine it was because the word “chaotic” was taken literally and not in the alignment sense? Like, the leader of a barbarian tribe would make sense to be chaotic. A barbarian who is an honorable warrior, might be lawful good.

And bards being unable to be lawful. Apparently they thought all bards had to be Charlatan types. Because we can’t have a bard who’s about being a supportive ally who encourages others. Or jesters. A jester, arguably a type of bard, serves kings and would make sense for them to be lawful

And assassins having to be evil only. Because being good at taking out certain targets stealthily requires you to be evil? If the game series Assassin’s Creed is anything to go by, it’s possible for an assassin to be good. Multiple examples of assassins fighting for good and taking out evil tyrants or other evil figures. You tell me the assassins during WWII who killed nazis either through poison, stealth kills, disguises or other means are evil?

1e forces your character to act a certain way and that sucks. I’m so glad it didn’t carry over to 2e.

Totally disagree. Alignment restrictions were best at honing in on how a particular class should be, just work within the parameters.

Want a Chaotic Monk? Make a new class. Oh, wait, they did, the Brawler.

Lawful Barbarian? Really? LOL Because primal rages and urges are so methodical and without emotion right? The heck sense does that make? You want a Lawful Barbarian, make a new class molded around that type of Barbarian.

Want a good Assassin? Make it a new prestige class with its own features emulating what good Assassins do compared to the murderous, mercenary evil ones.

First time I'm GMing someone with a Witch and they're just pulling these crazy hex combos that can severely debilitate the enemy team.

After combing through errata and many many Paizo and Reddit discussions on this, I'm floored at Paizo never addressing any of this in all the years the class has been out.

Sure, I have smart/wise enemies target the Witch, but not right away since the enemies don't realize it until it's too late, and then you got the party tactically protecting the Witch.

Why didn't they limit all the hexes to 1 once per day per creature? It's ridiculous and the bookkeeping is insane trying to keep track of the rounds.

It's too late for me to outright ban the class, so now I'm doing this meta-situation where I'm gonna make sure there's just more enemy witches in the game to balance out the battles as I'll have them do the exact same thing.

Can anyone explain why Paizo ignored this issue practically for the entire edition?

doc the grey wrote:

So, quick question: How do you determine the recoil penalties for weapons like muskets, pistols, and handgonnes (from primitive firearms) that don't inherently come with a penalty?

Hello Doc the Grey,

I'm the author of both of these books (this one and the Primitive Firearms book).

I was looking through this book earlier and noticed the Dueling Pistol has a 0 misfire chance. Was this intentional or an error? I feel like it was an error.

Oh this would have been nice to run for my players...

If only we had a PF1e Version of this...

Shame. As usual.

Everyone complaining about PF1e Gunslingers.

You all forget how CLOSE you have to be for the touch attack?

Pepperbox is 20 ft. Easily within range to get mauled.

It costs 1 grit PER INCREMENT. Use distance to deal with them. Anyone should. Why is the canon golem so close? Why is the red dragon not flying high and raining down destruction and then Flyby Attack the Gunslinger?

Also, there's two easy ways to deal with them for anyone.

SUNDER and DISARM

Done. Lose the gun, the gunslinger lost 90% of their features.

You DMs also should make heavy use of ranged attackers as well. Even enemy gunslingers.

A recent thread got me thinking about doing conversions from Pathfinder 2nd edition back to Pathfinder 1st edition, and I decided to take a stab at Hellknight Hill to see how much work it would be to convert. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it wasn't too bad. I may very well convert the rest of the AP.

>> Link the Conversion Guide <<

I haven't had a chance to run this yet (and when I do it will probably be a solitaire mock run because my players are in the middle of another campaign) but I think this is sufficient to run it. I'm interested to hear any feedback people have.

Monsters and magical items were converted to their PF1 equivalents, and where ones didn't exist I statted them up. XP awards were a little harder, but based on the party's expected APL it was able to ballpark it. I've done a more thorough pass the XP totals and it holds pretty close to the APL expectations set forth in the adventure overview (if you fully-explore the dungeon and solve most of the challenges, you will reach the expected levels). I only eye-balled loot; it looks fine, I'll go over it with a fine-toothed comb later.

Skill checks are mostly unchanged, just mapping each skill to its context- appropriate PF1 counterpart. Since PF1 and PF2 skill checks are pretty close at low levels the DC's didn't need to change in most cases. Since we have more obscure skills in PF1, I did lower the DC of more obscure skill checks, and a few checks I changed to better comport with PF1 guidelines. I did consider raising the DC's for things that we can take 20 on with no risk of failure, but in the end I only did that with a couple Disable Device checks. Saving throw DC's, where called for, are reduced since PF1 saves are significantly lower than PF2 saves.

The one thing that really bothers me is that Mephit encounter. I absolutely love that encounter, but when converted back to 1st edition it's a CR 5...

I take it you stopped working on this, but I think we need to gather everyone of us that want 2e APs converted to 1e and maybe work together. Paizo won't take us seriously, we'll have to rally ourselves together. There's a Facebook Pathfinder group we can find many others that could help, and some of the devs are in that group, including the CEO.

Only way for us to be heard is to just group up and get loud.

Does anyone know of someone, or some group that converted this AP to 1e?

What I'm seeing needs converting:

---NPCs
---Unique monsters
---Bestiary
---Items
---Spells
---Feats
---Archetypes
---Miscellaneous Rules Mechanics

What if I were to do just a conversion PDF for the AP and put it up on Pathfinder Infinite? Would it be allowed? Not saying a "word for word" conversion, like simply just mechanics only PDF (NPCs, items, spells, monsters, etc.). You would still need to buy the AP, but can get the conversion PDF for 1e to run it in 1e.

I hope so. Sucks Paizo wants to make 5th Edition content but not give us loyal fans the PF1e content we deserve. It's not fair when me and my players are done with PF1e AP that we cannot enjoy the APs in 2e unless we force ourselves to play 2e, which we have no desire to and do not like the system at all, in fact.

They made a 5e version because 5e is still alive and active played, infinitely moreso than P1.

Aka there was money in making the 5e version, not so much the P1 version.

PF1e is played as much as PF2e still, cause lot of us never demanded or wanted PF2e and wanted PF1e to continue, yet we here are abandoned just like WotC abandoned us 3e players to 4e.

Just support all editions, not that hard. Find it funny they'd rather support a rival company than their own brand.

EDIT: Also noticed my post is missing, way to censor the critiques from customers instead of considering them more.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Can a developer please convert the Wheel Archon to PF1e? That'd be great. So many PF2e new monsters I wish they did in 1e, an the Ophanim (wheel archon) I've been waiting years for, it'd be very nice if one of you at Paizo could give us PF1e fans the stats for it? Especially after being loyal customers throughout all of 1e. Thanks.

I can do it for you, Luis. 5 bucks per conversion, I take PayPal.

Random name, strange? but no thanks.

Can someone post what new creatures are in here? Like new as in didn’t previously have PF1 stats before. I need to know if it’s worth buying.

Put another way, some people feel that the spell on a dead creature should end, so they try to invent a justification for that, but the rules don't say they end. Any justification for their ending is made by wishful thinking.

So I'm guessing a wizard with a Permanency spell casted to give themselves permanent Arcane Sight would have a corpse that would show a Divination aura if someone found the corpse and did Detect Magic on it?

I just find it a very weird ruling that's been completely overlooked for decades.

How did 2e D&D handle it? How does 5e D&D handle it now? Or PF2e?

Especially with the fact we have spells that can resurrect you within 1 minute of death.

So if my wizard with Haste, Mage Armor, and Shield dies but is raised like 3 rounds later, the Haste, Mage Armor and Shield spells continue as if nothing happened?

Or does the magic fizzle out with the caster's life since they're no longer a valid target even?

Surprised no game developer ever considered this.

Ok, I can't find this ruling in D&D or Pathfinder.

So got a character, had a bunch of buff spells on. Died. Got resurrected next round of combat.

Did my spells on myself like Haste or Shield of Faith ended since I died? Or do they continue after death until they end?

Not sure, cause I'm assuming once dead, those spells wear off since they no longer can affect the target it was designed for. As in, you're an object now being a corpse.

What's the consensus?

Can a developer please convert the Wheel Archon to PF1e? That'd be great. So many PF2e new monsters I wish they did in 1e, an the Ophanim (wheel archon) I've been waiting years for, it'd be very nice if one of you at Paizo could give us PF1e fans the stats for it? Especially after being loyal customers throughout all of 1e. Thanks.

I only care about the PF1e portions so I just want the Bestiary for it when it comes out for everyone later. Glad Legendary Games cares about PF1e players unlike Paizo, who ditched us and won't make more game material for us. LG seems to be the only ones so far producing PF1e content still.

Can someone share the ToC of the Bestiary by any chance?

That's strangely odd, it doesn't make sense on any level. Why should the allies fear their own menacing Gunslinger and his shot? We've decided that Paizo wasn't thinking clearly when they wrote this and decided it only affects enemies. I'm just wondering if there was any errata or developer that could weigh in on this slip-up.

Why does Menacing Shot state: "affect all living creatures within a 30-foot-radius burst as if they were subject to the fear spell."

This would affect allies no? That'd be dumb, why would the allies run in fear from their gunslinger party member? Shouldn't the RAI for this affect enemies only?

There's still a huge following of PF1e, I'm surprised I'm not seeing more products for PF1e on Pathfinder Infinite. Are people really buying into the hype of PF2e and not realizing it's not really good for everyone? That some of us still prefer PF1e and would be interested in support for it?

Personally, I'd love to see a series written that converts all the monsters new to Pathfinder in 2E to convert to 1e. I'd pay for that! We could technically have Bestiary 7 and 8 for PF1e if so!

There's still a huge following of PF1e, I'm surprised I'm not seeing more products for PF1e on Pathfinder Infinite. Are people really buying into the hype of PF2e and not realizing it's not really good for everyone? That some of us still prefer PF1e and would be interested in support for it?

Personally, I'd love to see a series written that converts all the monsters new to Pathfinder in 2E to convert to 1e. I'd pay for that! We could technically have Bestiary 7 and 8 for PF1e if so!

*cough*

Wolfgang Baur wrote:

Chris Ballard wrote:

When do we get the pathfinder version?

We already did it! That's the Midgard Bestiary for Pathfinder RPG, the Southlands Bestiary for Pathfinder RPG, the Book of Drakes, and the Monsters of Sin Collection.

Yes but I'm not seeing the Algorith, Nihilith, Chained Angel, Fidele Angel, Vile Barber, and severaly others with Pathfinder 1e stats?

Can someone write this for PF1e? That'd be great, you'll get a profit since there's a ton of us still playing PF1e and want new, cool monsters. Thanks!

W Canepa wrote:

A few questions.

Are dweomer leap and spell link supposed to be swift actions? They sound more like immediate actions, or they would not work most times.

Do conjuration & transmutation have a minimum if +1 or +0?

Thank you for your time.

The abilities should be immediate actions. That's been fixed in the stat block above.

All these years and you guys haven't clarified the Conjuration and Transmutation effects.

So should it be changed to 1 + 1 per 5 CASTER levels or +1 per 5 CASTER levels (not SPELL levels)

W Canepa wrote:

A few questions.

Are dweomer leap and spell link supposed to be swift actions? They sound more like immediate actions, or they would not work most times.

Do conjuration & transmutation have a minimum if +1 or +0?

Thank you for your time.

The abilities should be immediate actions. That's been fixed in the stat block above.

Still never addressed the Conjuration and Transmutation benefits after all this time either, dunno how you designers missed the dozen posts talking about it?

So is that supposed to +1 per 5 caster levels? (Or 1 + 1 per 5 caster levels?) Cause the way it is now makes absolute zero sense.

I'm interested in the PF1e Bestiary for this but two questions.

1) When is this finally due out for release because I feel like it's been forever since this was announced.

2) I know the monsters from the AP itself are in the bestiary, but will there also be brand new monsters in there?

As much as I will always wish Paizo supported both editions (I'll even accept an unequal support of them, such as PF1e just getting mechanic conversions only), there's just that empty void of PF1e fans while PF2e keeps paving roads. (Here's to never seeing a PF1e conversion of the "Inventor" class coming out next month)

But I wish they at least did the monster conversions. Seeing some awesome creatures I wish were PF1e monsters. But at least there's a guy on Tumblr who's been doing PF1e conversions for a long time and has a ton of stuff now.

He's got several PF2e monsters converted on here (along with monsters from mythology and older D&D editions), and he accepts commissions at various times. Check it out here:

The Creature Codex

What's the deal with White Necromancers having Cure and Resurrection magic, yet they lack one of the other fundamental spells to dealing with Undead---

Restoration spells.

What was the design decision behind them lacking Lesser Restoration and Restoration spells?