Bast L.'s page

Say, I may be missing a module or something, but none of the sounds or music is linked to the scenes in my foundry campaign. Were they not assigned to scenes, or do I need to enable something?

Thanks

Say, are summoning spells going to require 2 actions in the remaster? I saw in a video that the new Augment Summoning (just a rename, Fortify Summoning, I think) is still 1 action. If summons still take 3 actions and sustain, this means augmenters are still taking 2 turns to summon a creature.

Regarding area B51, undead guardians are mentioned. I figured it was an error, calling the Carrion Golem an undead, but it's mentioned again, with plural (guardians). Are there supposed to be other creatures here?

Say, the Calamity Caves map, even with map tags off, shows the location of all the traps. For VTT people, this is an issue.

Yellowpete, I don't have book 2 yet, but I think acrobat reader might work for the interact buttons on the map pdfs. I know Sumatra doesn't, but I don't care, because I use the Foundry import function. I did try dragging the pdf of book 1 to chrome, and it didn't have any tags, though some of them lost the grid too.

I don't think the errata made this any more confusing (though I admit it didn't make it much less), but this is still a good point. If you need two hands for Battle Medicine (which you shouldn't, but check with your GM), then this combo gets a lot worse.

I don't think it's too confusing now, but I disagree with how many hands it now takes, so I guess it's confusing for at least one of us.

"This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287."

Under hands, page 287, it says "This lists how many hands it takes to use the item effectively."

Since Battle medicine now requires you to use healer's tools, and using healer's tools requires 2 hands, battle medicine requires 2 hands, unless I'm missing something (and I very well may be, as the FAQ apparently doesn't include everything that's updated, and it's weirdly mixed together).

Which makes battle medicine very bad, and not worth taking.

This errata...

Exocist wrote:

Errata wrote:

Several classes were accidentally missing an important limitation for 10th level spells. In the following class features, add “You can’t use this spell slot for abilities that let you cast spells without expending spell slots or that give you more spell slots.”

Page 121: Miraculous Spell

Page 133: Primal Hierophant

Page 207: Archwizard's Spellcraft

I was right, wizards weren't supposed to be able to have that many 10ths.

The main awkwardness from this is that Cleric's Divine Font now caps out at 9th level. It's a minor nerf to heal focused Clerics, but more importantly weakens the top end of the damage curve for harm Clerics.

I believe that, by the rules, this actually removes font for clerics who can cast 10th level spells. I would house rule it to allow 9th level font though.

"You gain additional spell slots each day at your highest level of cleric spell slots."

(of course it's intended for 9th, but by the rules...)

Clerics who do spend a feat not only don't need a free hand, but get an added bonus (emblazon armament). That's level 2 though.

It's weird that there's an arcane bond, but it doesn't serve as a focus like a cleric's symbol does. I guess the variability of the item (could be something you'd want to hold, or a ring which wouldn't take a hand) necessitates that limit. Maybe Eschew could be reworked as a bonus, instead. Enhanced materials, or something, with an effect like (though possibly very different from) Dangerous Sorcery.

Well, maybe secrets of magic will have some interesting options. It's just odd to see dead feats. Like, maybe someone should do a pass through, where they ask, "what does this do for my character?" before it's finalized. Of course, some things may slip through.

I think the worst part is the added "you still must have a hand completely free." Like, this was so good without that addition? It would've been the Toughness of class feats, where it's not really a choice of whether you take it or not?

I think some class feats could be combined. Silent and subtle spell, eschew materials + something else (and drop the free hand req). Bake clever counterspell into regular.

Turn undead needs some work too. Has anyone ever turned an undead with it? (has anyone ever taken it?) It's just so anemic, compared to any other edition of PF/D&D.

I hate to try and push my players towards certain things, or away from others, but I think I'd need to step in if one of them took Eschew Materials. There's always retraining though.

Class feat to save 5 sp and L bulk? Pass.

I stopped running it after book 1. I'd say it was more combat heavy than most adventures, or maybe it just seemed that way because of the combat difficulty. I'm not sure if/when players are supposed to rest for the night, but I just let them do it whenever, because it would've been a lot of TPKs otherwise.

All of the players were like, "I thought we could try diplomacy, or other methods, and have less combat." Because the player's guide makes it seem that way. I tried to let them do things that weren't exactly by the book, like use mage hand on a melon to lure a creature into a cage, but there was a fight where, if they tried to talk, the book has the encounter difficulty become about 2*extreme (with level being 1, per the advancement track, it was still beyond extreme when I let them level to 2 before then).

Maybe book 2 has more investigation stuff, but book 1, aside from a club scene, is mostly just fighting. One of the players remarked that they were more like soldiers than investigators.

I think it could use some tuning. Also, the loot system throws everyone off.

They did avoid a few fights by talking, or being clever, but it was still pretty combat heavy.

graystone wrote:

If direct interaction is stressful, would it be possible to set up an announcement thread to post updates that's locked to normal forum posters? That way you guys could get info out without direct reactions.

As nice as that would be, someone would likely ruin it for the rest of us by starting a separate thread to "discuss" the announcement.

I was going to say, "they could always just not read that thread," but it's too tempting. You have to know what they're saying. Still, at least it's (kind of?) clear: there's not much intent from Paizo to post on these forums.

Internet hostility is such a difficult issue. One person might see one poster as belligerent, another might see the other as such. And moderators just make people mad when they delete carelessly. Sometimes a comment is made in jest, but it's not clear to every reader. It's easy to say, "grow thicker skin," but mine's pretty thin, so I can't say that.

It's too bad, but it looks like we won't get much back and forth on here with the devs. I'm not into twitch, so I guess that's about it for offering feedback and asking questions.

I can't remember where but Erik Mona commented before it's release that one of the hopes for PF2 was that it would require fewer errata than PF1 did.

My interpretation was that they were going to shift more towards a philosophical approach similar to what you outline here - that the rules are intended to be more fluid and malleable so that "what's the REAL answer?" is not a valid question in many cases.

I kind of figured theyd achieve that by moving back to "ask your GM" and leaning into the rare category for complicated/potentially synergistically overpowered options.

I hope not. Rules specificity is one of the best things PF2 has going for it, imo. Clear rules covering many situations. "Ask your GM" is just lazy. It puts more work on the GM, and makes it unclear what characters you can play, and how they'll work in a game where it's useful to plan your character out many levels in advance.

One example of PF2 being very good about rules specificity is the Prescient Planner feat. Someone wanted to take it in my game, and I was like, "ugh, I hate all those matter creation feats, they're always like, 'ask the GM if the item is okay,'" but then I read it, and PF2's version is not up to me at all. It's very clear what you can make, and no input is needed from the GM.

Of course, an arbiter is needed, as no finite rules set can cover every conceivable situation in an RPG, but clarifying what the ambiguous or confusing rules actually mean can help GMs out a lot, prevent table disagreements, and allow for better cross-group play.

Bast L. wrote:

It's never been my position that they're under any kind of obligation, other than providing us with the products we pay for. Saying that I think they should, and saying they are obliged to, are different things. You mentioned disingenuity?

You didn't say that you think they should, you said that them not having done so was them not meeting expectations. If you feel that you should justifiably criticize them for not meeting an expectation, that means that you feel it is something they should be compelled to do - i.e. an obligation.

No it doesn't. "Something is to be expected" is not the same as saying they are obligated (morally or legally bound) to do that thing. A waiter, for example, is not obligated to provide good service, but neither am I obligated to reciprocate with a good tip. My position, as stated earlier in the thread, is that "It's hard to say they owe us anything other than what we paid for, but a lack of communication, and seemingly no rules clarifications for a year, is not encouraging."

Editing in the "Stop being an entitled child" is disingenuously adding words I didn't say in an effort to paint yourself as superior in a conversation about "hostility" that you brought up.

I didn't mention you in my post, ExOichiThrow said that "some people are being actual children about it, in my opinion."

Edit:

They are under no obligation to update you when their plan changes.

It's never been my position that they're under any kind of obligation, other than providing us with the products we pay for. Saying that I think they should, and saying they are obliged to, are different things. You mentioned disingenuity?

One thought on forum toxicity/hostility: those terms don't refer to people who disagree with the hosting company, who ask about updates, or who think more communication about the product, from the company, would be a good thing. They're more general, and can definitely apply to people who defend the company. It's not a good thing to have hostile people on your side, because then people can point to them as examples of "your side," however unfairly.

The posters in this thread don't want Paizo to fail, and for the most part, we're not saying it's a bad company. I really like that they sell their PDFs. I think PF2 is an almost great system (magic and magic items aside). AoN is so useful, I wonder if it's not detrimental to them (loss leader maybe?). I think AP authors are pretty damned good, for the most part, especially at designing encounters. And most recently, it was said that they would better support VTTs by giving us higher resolution maps.

But they just aren't communicating on here very much. The last response I saw was a response to Rysky saying that swearing makes it hard to respond (it was, ironically, the only response in the AoE book 1 thread :).

Missed deadlines are a thing that happens, all gamers know this, and expect it. Not communicating about it in the months that follow is not to be expected though. And after finally hearing something about it in a Starfinder thread, people asking, "why wasn't this cross-posted to the Pathfinder threads?" is a reasonable question.

Just a reminder, this thread started with a simple, "Any news? ETA?", and the response now from some posters is, "Sit down, wait for the errata, and stop being an entitled child." And you want to talk about hostility?

Yeah, it used to be 2nd level (pf1, all D&D that I recall), but they bumped some spells up. It also doesn't affect unwilling creatures, so it's not like you could use it on a strong melee enemy.

As a second level spell, in various editions of games, it saw a fair bit of use. I haven't seen anyone cast it in PF2 yet though (one long running game, several short games). I don't know what the reasoning was to bump it up, but a spell that's never considered for use seems a waste (this is just my table experience, maybe others are using it all the time).

Raveve wrote:

If that one errata had fixed all the problems then this thread wouldn't even be necessary but there are many more things that have to be addressed by paizo in order for the core game to be error free. There are many, many threads on this very forum that are raging in debate about a number of issues and it is causing problems within the community. Depending on who your gm is a vast number of things can be different in pf2 simply because it is up to the gm to figure out what the intent is for certain rules as paizo left the them ambiguous or the rules don't cover every situation. This is the responsibility of paizo to fix and I cannot in good conscious recommend pf2 until they fix their game.

Your expectations are wonderful, and you mentioned earlier that they are based on the model of other contemporary TTRPG’s. Which games are these?

The obvious example would be the RPG dominating the market atm. One could object by pointing out that numerous conflicts exist in the off-the-cuff Sage Advice answers, but some answers are better than silence, and they did, I think, compile numerous errata pdfs fairly regularly.

As for wonderful expectations, I think the expectations were based on statements by Paizo reps, in twitch streams and the like, on when errata would be published.

As Greystone said, even 1 answer per month would be better than the nothing we've gotten for the past year. How many battle medicine threads is enough to warrant a clarification?

But it's not even just the errata. There seems to be very little interaction at all on the forums. I mentioned Jalmeri Heavenseeker being a broken archetype in one post, and someone responded that someone from Paizo said it was on their to-fix list. But said where? Hunting down comments in a discord or twitch stream is a lot more difficult than having a single place to go (the forums, or blog posts, or FAQ page).

Maybe the errata drops tomorrow, maybe a year from now. We have no idea, because Paizo seems to have gone quiet on the matter. Okay, maybe they're having difficulty with it. Some answers could be given though, no?

I think more communication on the forums generally could be good. I get that wading into sometimes hostile forums is rough, but I've tried to just tune certain people out (skip over their posts, not respond), and interact with the more reasonable posters. I'm sure they could do the same.

Anyways, this thread wasn't meant to be a demand, or an ultimatum to get the errata. I don't think I'm "entitled" to an errata, just to the titles I purchased. But PF2 seems to be very rules-specific, and an errata to fix the problems that exist could greatly benefit the system. Mostly, I was just hoping for an update, or some kind of news regarding the matter. I'll hazard to guess that the same is true of the others here, looking for more communication from Paizo about the system.

It's hard to say they owe us anything other than what we paid for, but a lack of communication, and seemingly no rules clarifications for a year, is not encouraging. 2E can be something great (especially if they un-ruin magic), but I don't think a "publish and forget" process is a good way to go about it.

graystone wrote:

Should we get less communication because it's about a product we've already paid for?

Yep. Or, rather, we should get less communication because it's about a product that's already out.

The new stuff is interesting to a greater number of people, and it's what most directly gets them their money to keep making new things and supporting the old things.

Aye, but PF2 is a very rules-specific system, where things are laid out clearly, and for the most part, consistently. This facilitates multi-group play (PFS), and generally can avoid a lot of confusion. However, there are several glaring issues, where people vehemently disagree because of wording, intent arguments, or order of operations issues. And these issues carry through any future products too, so it affects any upcoming content.

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of communication on the forums. For example, there are currently several battle medicine threads, with hundreds of posts in them, including at least one large thread after the stealth errata (stealth errata itself being an odd thing to do). Not worth commenting on? I actually think battle medicine is clear, rules wise, but it's obviously not so to everyone.

But okay, maybe they don't want to do piecemeal rules answers, and instead give us one large errata. However, it's months past when they said it would be available. I guess I just wanted an update on it.

Any News? ETA?

I think these points have been made already, but I'll chime in with them anyways.

First, "True Strike is the answer," isn't really an answer, since not everyone gets it, and it kind of locks you out of other options by either forcing a specific staff, or using a bunch of low level slots.

Second, NPCs all have cheating spell attack bonuses, suggesting Paizo knows it's a problem, but isn't concerned about that for PC casters (NPCs don't just have attack bonuses higher than level would suggest, but higher than their DC - 10).

That said, there are some options (not counting primals who don't MC, or divines who don't get the right gods or MC). Invisibility, especially heightened, is possibly worth casting on your first round of a boss fight, assuming the boss doesn't have true sight or the like. That will make them flat-footed. Also, maybe a divine caster will put heroism on you (unlikely). Or if the boss doesn't have AoO (and you somehow know this), you can arguably flank, with a spell attack (more about this below).

I think disintegrate could be useful. Especially if you have contingency, "when I say 'abracadabra', heightened invisibility casts on me," and a true strike staff. If you're a divine Wiztch of 16th level, you could cast heroism (lvl 6) on yourself in that first round, contingency invis (lvl 4), and maybe PW: Blind the boss, or send in your beastmaster pet.

Of course, a boss +3 will probably crit on the fort save anyways...

I've also seen disintegrate take down caster walls a couple of times to good effect in AoA. I'm not sure what happens if you cast it on a hazard, "An object you hit is destroyed (no save), regardless of Hardness, unless it’s an artifact or similarly hard to destroy." The "Damaging a Hazard" section on page 521 suggests treating them like objects.

As for flanking, you are flanking if you're in the right position (and an ally is as well), with the ability to melee attack (or unarmed attack) the enemy (and your ally is as well). This makes them flat-footed to you, not with regards to a specific attack you make, but just generally. This seems weird, but I think it's RAW.

Well, fighters can get the archetype at 4. Could use temple sword or bo staff to do decent damage (plus, of course, the level to damage from Heaven's Thunder).

For monks, they get it later, but since it's better than any feat in the game, it definitely works for them.

Hmm, fighter with temple sword (has trip), plus shield. Not a bad idea. Or maybe double slice? Of course, since it's supposedly getting fixed, who knows how it'll end up.

AoN doesn't show it (I did tell them in aon_feedback on Discord a couple of weeks ago), but in the book it has the Verbal trait, which is not a trait at all, but a spellcasting component. I don't know if that means it was supposed to be a focus spell, or if it's supposed to have an auditory trait, or some other mistake. Even as a focus spell, this would be brokenly good. I think some characters would finally take those focus recovery feats (which really should have been baseline).

I've heard it's getting fixed sometime, but who knows? In the meantime, I'm just disallowing it altogether.

Well, it's half your level for both sonic and electricity damage. It outstrips giant instinct barbarian at many levels (11-14, and at 20).

Some responses at the bottom of this post say it's on the to-fix list: post

Supposedly it's getting fixed, because it's beyond broken. Monks might not even be the best class for it, but either way, level to damage for 2 rounds is pretty wild.

(someone heard somewhere that someone else said it was on their "to fix" list, for the eventual errata, which may be coming someday)

I've disallowed it in my games so far, because of the supposed incoming fix. Same with mountain stance + drakeheart elixir.

Yeah, his exquisite sword cane is special due to it's

The exquisite sword cane itself is not, and it's not actually uncommon. If you look at the table, on page 78, the simple weapon is uncommon, but the martial weapons are not. More evidence for this can be seen in the text blocks for Monkey's Fist (right above ESC on the table) which says it's a martial melee weapon, and Nightstick, on the table under "Uncommon Simple Weapons", which says that it's an uncommon simple melee weapon.

Since Monkey's Fist isn't uncommon, and it's on the same "Martial Weapons" table, and ESC doesn't say anything about being uncommon, it's not.

The specific version, with the special quality in spoiler text above, is Unique.

Concerning things that are good for casters:what do you guys think of the beastmaster archetype? We often talk in thid thread how druid with animal companion is very good but with beastmaster any caster can get an Animal companion with druid progression.

I have build but not used yet a cosmos oracle with bm archetype.

Yeah, BM is too good, imo. Letting anyone get druid progression animal companion really takes away something from the druid. Any caster who's wondering what to do with a third action can just have his wolf attack and knockdown (or stride + attack, or 2 attacks, if less than level 8).

Witch MC looks decent for Wizard, but are some more low level slots better than a full animal companion? Maybe...

Actually, you could get both, with human (or half-elf) multi-talented. You still get spell penetration, and choice of breadth or level 16 feat (or less). Not a bad option. Loads of spells, full animal companion, use spell blending to turn your extra low level slots into higher level slots while still keeping a normal amount of low level slots (assuming you took breadth).

Losing: most wizard feats, but you get spell penetration, and a level 16 or lower feat, if you don't want breadth (I'd pick scroll savant, for even more spells per day, but maybe quicken, or effortless concentration, if you like to summon).

Maybe go divine witch, to open up some healing possibilities, and you can always sweep unwanted witch slots under the spell blending rug.

Exquisite Sword Cane isn't unique, rare, or by its table, even uncommon (the table is a little unclear, but if exquisite sword cane is uncommon, then so is monkey's fist). A specific exquisite sword cane with other properties that I don't want to spoil, in that adventure, is unique.

The table in the book just has it as a martial weapon (level 4 though), without the special properties of the unique, named ESC from the adventure.

Edit: Is there any way for a rogue to keep up proficiency with it, or other added, non-racial martial weapons that seem rougey? It just looks so good for a rogue, but maybe only works for investigator and swashbuckler, maybe some others (dex fighter, ranger).

Telluric Power reads:

"You channel strength from the earth beneath your feet to pummel your enemies. When making a melee Strike against a target who is standing on the same earth or stone surface as you are, you gain a circumstance bonus to the damage roll equal to the number of weapon damage dice."

Is the "standing" somewhat flavorful? Or does it not work on prone targets? What about targets without legs, like Oozes? Probably works on Oozes (stand isn't really defined, except as the action to end prone).

Barbarian: nice damage, fun abilities (run up wall), healer drain.

Bard: seems pretty good. Haven't seen in action much.

Champion: Neat, reaction is great, LoH is very nice. Haven't seen much main class played (lots of MC though).

Cleric: healing cleric is amazingly useful. Smite? Just bring martial.

Druid: Fun, storm + pet = do different things, be okay at both. Options are nice. I don't like Goodberry now. Only lasts 10 min, so you have to refocus and cast before fight, or in fight. I think I also ruled that unconscious players can't eat them (or might choke if you tried to feed to them).

Fighter: God among men. Glorious. Fun options. 2H is really good, but a bit healer soaky. I want to play sword and board. Flickmace being the best option for that isn't great (flickmace is great, but it's silly).

Monk: seems effective. Should use shield, but conflicts with people's idea of monk. Kinda boring, if going for max effectiveness.

Ranger: Bear support too good to skip maybe (and go BM if possible, not using ranger feats for animal). Looks neat, but I've only seen early play.

Rogue: no idea. No one's played one, except a guy who died to a trap in the first session.

Sorcerer: doesn't seem good, and I'm glad (always hated this class :). J/k, that's not a valid reason for badness.

Wizard: My usual go to. Blasting is okay. Summons are weak. Focus spells aren't very good. The utility hit bugs me the most though. Let us do fun things, that last for more than a minute!

APG:
Investigator: Saw one in early levels. Not impressed, but that devise a strategem seems like it could have some uses. He was doing about 1/30th the ranger's damage.

Oracle: feh. Seems bad. Battle Oracle in my game is doing decent damage early on, but that AC penalty hurts him sometimes. Stupefied 2 later on? Damage bonus doesn't make up for lack of font and all these problems.

Swashbuckler: It's okay.. our guy keeps ruining good positioning though. I keep telling him to tumble into the enemy square, then right back where he was, but he likes moving around.

Witch: Good for wizard MC. Not sure what else. Cantrips and hexes are unimpressive, especially with all the sustains on them, and certainly don't make up for -1 spell slot. This class seems very bad, but I haven't seen one in action.

But it's not a trip. It says "When you use Knockdown, instead of making a Strike followed by a Trip, you can attempt a single Strike. If you do and your Strike hits, you also apply the critical success effect of a Trip."

You're not doing the trip action, so you don't have to meet the requirements of the trip action.

Reasons it's not a trip:

No MAP from doing a trip (unlike the regular knockdown).
It says it's not a trip.

One could argue intent. I truly don't know the intent. If you compare to a monster's knockdown or improved knockdown, those don't have size limitations. Also, a druid's wolf pet doesn't worry about size, just automatically knocks down on a hit (at 8+).

One could also argue that the effect of a critical trip on a too-large opponent is to do nothing, but that's not strictly correct. The effect doesn't have the requirement, the action does. Page 18 details what a requirement means: "Requirements Sometimes you must have a certain item or be in a certain circumstance to use an ability. If so, it’s listed in this section.".

I think, given that a wolf pet can do it automatically on a hit at 8+, and that the rules as written don't forbid it, it's neither broken, nor illegal.

Edit: regarding why they didn't say the target is knocked prone, the critical success effect of a trip also damages the target, which is better than just knocking it down.

Further Edit: Something even more glorious about Improved Knockdown is that you don't have to worry about free hands, or trip traits, or using a 2H weapon (well, 2H affects the damage, but you can apply trip critical with any kind of strike).

This allows for a sword and board, flickmace, fighter champion with many reactions knockdown monstrosity at 15+ (use Improved Flexibility to get Knockdown and Improved Knockdown). Champion reaction from MC, Combat Reflexes for an extra AoO (useful when foe is getting up), Quick Shield block for extra reaction to block, Dwarf adoption for unburdened iron, dwarven reinforcements, mountain's stoutness, and telluric power (though that loses effect when you knock them down?). Also, the flickmace critical effect is to knock them prone too, (no size limit there either), so decent chance to knock them down when they stand up, with your AoO.

I really want to play it.

What's neat is, unlike regular knockdown, you don't actually trip the enemy, you just apply the effect of a critical trip on it. So, maybe you don't even need titan wrestler to use it on big enemies? After all, the trip action has a requirement, but you're just applying a critical success effect from trip... and that effect has no requirements...

Maybe

I dunno, boots sound kinda off. Runes though? Maybe. Rings? Wands? Aoen Stones? Some nice potential options. I'd probably limit it to small, hard items, which could be crafted with a chisel (maybe anything could be, but large items would take so long, that it would negate any time saving, imo).

Targeting is targeting; you can make an argument for casual language but the argument should also be made for *consistent* language.

Yeah, there seems to be some inconsistency in the book. Sometimes they distinguish "targeted by" from area spells, other times not.

Examples:

Ring of counterspells trigger: "You are targeted by or within the area of the spell stored within the ring"

Ring of Spell Turning trigger: "You are targeted by a spell" (so no to areas? yes?)

Spell turning spell itself: "Spell turning can’t affect spells that aren’t targeted (such as area spells)."

Reactive Distraction trigger: "You would be hit by an attack or targeted by an effect, or you are within an effect’s area."

Reactive Distraction text: "In the case of an area effect, if your Sneak doesn’t move you out of the area, both you and the decoy are targeted by the effect."

Reflect Spell: "When you successfully use Counterspell to counteract a spell that affects targeted creatures or an area"

They often distinguish the two, and sometimes (at least once) don't. The area descriptions (burst, line, etc) all refer to affecting creatures, not targeting them. Meanwhile Reactive Distraction Text (though not the trigger) specifies being targeted for being in the area. It's true, they could be using inclusive or, and just typing loads of redundant text (if areas targeted creatures, there's no need to specify "or within the area of a spell"). The area section in "targets" also refers to affecting creatures, not to targeting them.

I guess if I was going to argue about casual language, I would say that "affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately," is the opposite of "targeting".

So, are the rules wrong? Not strictly logically, as they could be using inclusive or, with redundant language, but it certainly makes a lot of effort to distinguish "targeted by," from "in the area of," if they intend for the latter to also be the former. Especially since they could have just said in the area section: "targets all creatures in the area indiscriminately."

I think I'll go with the quote until it's clarified that they are using inclusive or with redundant text. Targeting is targeting.

Anyone able to find examples other than the Reactive Distraction text that show creatures in an area being targeted by a non-targeted area spell? I thought Selective Energy was one, but then saw that heal/harm are targeted spells (1, 2, or 3 action).

Hmm, it does look like AoEs don't affect golems, unless they last until the golem's turn (or also target the golem).

"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. If the golem starts its turn in an area of magic of this type or is affected by a persistent effect of the appropriate type, it takes the damage listed in the parenthetical."

So, for example, to do the 5d10 damage to a stone golem, you have to use a spell that targets it, not just one that includes it in the area of effect.

A cone of cold, on the other hand, will do nothing, because "2d8 from areas and persistent", similarly listed in all golems, is referring to the golem starting its turn in the area, or with persistent damage.

Ray of Frost harms stone golems, but cone of cold does not.

As for clarity, I'm just not sure here. "Spells and Magical Abilities", well, spells aren't vague, but what is a magical ability?

Magical, I think there's no difficulty with. We all understand that runes are magic, and so is their damage (well, I shouldn't speak for everyone, but just look at its entry).

Now for ability. If we look in the glossary, we see: "ability This is a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules. An ability could come from a number of sources, so “an ability that gives you a bonus to damage rolls” could be a feat, a spell, and so on."

So an ability could give you a bonus to damage rolls, as an example. The sources are "feat, spell, and so on."

Anyone find a clearer definition of ability?

Does a magical frost rune confer a magical ability to do cold damage to a target on a hit?

Bast L. wrote:

AP authors can make some fun encounters, in either edition, but I wouldn't mind if they turned things up a bit. Not the difficulty, but the horribleness of the enemies. I'm not looking for grimdark, just NPCs that the characters will really loathe.

So you haven't played/read AoE yet?

Also, stance on licorice? Pro or against?

Licorice is disgusting.

I've been running AoE, though I haven't read it fully yet (lazy), so I can't comment. I'm playing EC, so trying to avoid any spoilers.

The thing is, it's not a plot point that makes a villain loathsome, it's the details. Someone said something about a genocide. I mean, all sorts of games may involve world ending events. But details, individual stories of rampaging demons tearing people apart, or a Texas Chainsaw Massacre ogre house, get people more emotionally invested.

That said, I really prefer PF2, since the game doesn't become rocket tag at higher level. We're further along in AoA than we ever got in RotRL, and there have been some really good encounters. Maybe I'll play a conversion of RotRL, since it was such a fun campaign.

Counting AP options, my opinions are:

Broken new stuff (though I've heard they're getting fixed): Monk mountain + drakeheart, Many things + Jalmeri Heavenseeker.

Strictly better: Aasimar/Duskwalker/Tiefling elf instead of cave elf. It's just cave elf, but with more options added on, flavor aside.

Bothers me how good it is: Beast Master (takes a bit away from the druid class, too, since it matches their animal companion levels, as nothing else does, but is better even for the druid, if the druid doesn't need the archetype freedom).

Really nice options: Witch MC for wizard, medic archetype, sudden bolt, godless healing, Ragathiel worship, some other gods, other archetypes.

As long as you avoid the broken, it's not too bad.

I think they're a bit too PG, compared to Rise of the Runelords. I haven't finished any of them yet (starting book 5 of AoA soon), but I'm just not impressed with the enemies like I was in RotRL.

AP authors can make some fun encounters, in either edition, but I wouldn't mind if they turned things up a bit. Not the difficulty, but the horribleness of the enemies. I'm not looking for grimdark, just NPCs that the characters will really loathe.

I dunno, maybe they're going for family friendly APs.

Frees up a hand, I guess, and prevents you from having to draw the scroll. 2-hander would have to waste 2 actions getting the scroll out and putting hand back on weapon. 1-hander would have to either have it in hand to start, or waste an action drawing it. Also, since his hand isn't free, it's unclear whether you can slidecast as a 1-hander (scroll is destroyed in the casting, but when does the free hand requirement kick in?).

The slide thing is neat. Would prefer it for both melee types, as action economy is so tight.

1 Action focus haste is pretty good. I think there's no need to limit it to striking only though.

School Shroud is interesting, though it interferes with bespell strikes.

We filled now, sorry.

My elf came from a village with a birthing cave. He never lived in one, just born there (the elves of the village believed the cave blessed their children to let them see in the dark).

A buddy of mine pointed out that this is actually the only way we currently have of offsetting the downside of Incapacitation spells.

I doubt that many Magus' are going to really prepare too many incap spells, and even if you DID get the spell off, the opponent has to Critically fail the save still, but there is a slim chance.

And only based on 2 Die Rolls! (Both of which have to be Critically in your favor...) :)

Wait, what's the order of operations? Incap raises, then crit from magus lowers, or the other way?

So, if you don't mind being a jerk who leaves acid burns everywhere, you could repeat a spell (acid splash) and energize strikes to keep up a constant damage buff on your weapon, as an exploration activity.

Acid Splash, particularly, allows targeting of objects. Didn't look carefully enough to see what else does.

It only saves you 1 action, really, but it's something, I guess.

Yeah, this seems unlikely to happen. First, they have to target you with a spell (rare enough that they use targeted spells, but then also picking you as the target), then, you have to have spell parry going, which, with your very tight actions (3 for spellstrike in the same round), is not often going to happen, and finally, they have to miss or you have to save against the spell.

I suppose you might put up spell parry on your non-spellstrike rounds, if you didn't have to move, instead of doing a third attack.

Maybe they'll make them baseline like they should be (no, but one can hope).

Hmm, PM me discord ID maybe? I can't send you a PM (it's an account setting to check).

Bast L. wrote:

I'm thinking of running one on Thursday (6 PM Eastern maybe), but on Foundry, rather than Roll20. Would prefer the players be Magus or Summoner (summoners can be healers, but if needed, I can give an NPC healer cleric).

Sorry, I can't afford to shell out $50 on a vtt right now. I'm currently between jobs due to COVID.

Oh, the reason I said I had vanilla builds I wanted to try was because I figured everyone would want to play a summoner/magus and I wanted make it known I didn't mind letting someone else play with the new shiny toys :)

It's free to all but me. Some system requirements though. And probably a decent internet connection, since I'm going to be using some animated maps.

System Requirements

I'm thinking of running one on Thursday (6 PM Eastern maybe), but on Foundry, rather than Roll20. Would prefer the players be Magus or Summoner (summoners can be healers, but if needed, I can give an NPC healer cleric).

GM OfAnything wrote:

This is literally the same feat as the Wizard's from the Core Rulebook.

Right, and the CRB feat is also terrible.

So less "not an issue" and more "still just as bad as ever"

Aye. It saves you 5 sp and L bulk. When would it even be used? Imprisoned with your book, needing to summon something, but not having your pouch? So few spells require material components.

Should've removed the free hand requirement. Then it could have some use, maybe, though I doubt I'd still take it ever.